If I am a true conservative or liberal Progressive, I should not feel as though I need to settle for the person that is least likely to lose.

Did we vote for Reagan on a platform of "at least he might not lose"?  Did Progressives vote for FDR based on "happy days might be here again"?

We used to be encouraged to vote for or against somebody because we believed or disagreed with what he stood for.  In this primary, we are being encouraged to vote for or against Republicans or Democrats based solely on their perceived ability to beat a particular Democrat or Republican.

All the chatter on the Republican side is that Rubio, Cruz, and that other guy who won't admit he has no chance should team up to defeat Trump because The Donald has no chance against Hillary.  Yesterday on Detroit Public Radio, I heard an interview with retired Michigan senator Carl Levin where he was advising Democrats to vote for Hillary because Sanders has no chance of being elected.  Levin was quite open that he has nothing against Sanders; he just thinks he's a loser.

As somebody who knows that we should be given the opportunity to vote for somebody because we think he or she represents our beliefs and concerns, I'm having great difficulty understanding the logic behind voting for somebody merely because she might have the best chance of winning and not because he is the best choice to represent me – especially in the primaries.  In the general election, my options might be to settle for what the party with which I align most closely gives me or just not vote.  But at this stage, we shouldn't be settling for the least likely to lose.

For the record, my top two favorites, who would have no problem beating Clinton or Sanders, are long gone, and I have concerns about my third and fourth choices.