@Drdind ...and as with chess, it is very important to pay attention to the victory conditions and think a few moves ahead.

I agree with the sentiment but feel like 95% of the people I see saying this sort of thing are using it to justify voting for the "lesser of two evils" regardless of circumstance. Which is like playing chess while believing that you win by having the most pieces left on the board at the end of the game. That's just not how the rules work. Popular vote is irrelevant at a national level, it only matters locally. And locally elections are often not nearly as close as they are at a national level -- we have far more "red states" and "blue states" that "swing states". If you know who is going to win locally beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no point in voting for them. Vote for the candidate you actually *want*, because next election people will be looking at those results to help decide if they should run and what their campaign should focus on -- and even before that election the people who won might be looking at those results to get a sense of what their constituents want -- and aligning with a mediocre candidate when there is no strong reason to do so only ensures more mediocre candidates in the future.