In his letter to the editor (“Beware parallels between McGovern, Sanders,” Feb. 3), William Ronalds empathized but did not agree with another reader’s sentiment encouraging people “to vote their consciences, ideals and principles rather than compromise on an ‘electable’ (but not ideal) candidate.” It is suggested here that Hillary Clinton is “electable” but Bernie Sanders is not.

Mr. Ronalds proposes that his own experience of working “along with legions of idealistic young people on behalf of George McGovern” in 1972 prompts him now to believe that “the parallels to the current Clinton-versus-Sanders debate are inescapable.” He points out that “McGovern lost 49 of the 50 states, squeaking by only in über-liberal Massachusetts.”

But this is not 1972. Today we face problems that are many times more serious. Thanks to the Internet, there is also much more awareness of the issues, and there are many more people (voters) of all ages distressed because of them.

Families all over the country are suffering because of income inequality and the erosion of a living wage. Unaffordable higher education and health care, economic chaos caused by an out-of-control Wall Street and Big Bank bailouts, and the many foreign wars we are involved in are tearing the country apart.

Bernie Sanders has spent his entire political career fighting these issues for the good of Americans and America, and as president he would continue to do so. To brand him as not electable in light of the tremendous support he is receiving on social media is misguided.

Also, suggesting that McGovern’s overwhelming loss to Nixon should discourage voters from voting for Bernie Sanders is foolish. History should have taught us by now that McGovern would have been better.

Robert J. Seeber

Westbrook


Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.