All due respect big homie, but this narrative always has been disingenuous, even back to the Ralph Nader years. It's true purpose isn't as a critique of voter apathy or voter myopia, it's to bludgeon any challenge to the status quo of Democratic hegemony. And it's clearly been effective, which is precisely why you can even have an argument debating the electibility of a "far left" candidate when the opposition is Donald fukking Trump. HILLARY CLINTON could be viewed in some aspects as being far left if the barometer is Donald Trump, yet where were all the debates about her electibility akin to the ones we having now?
Clinton won 21 states against Trump, 15 of which she won by double digit margins. You seriously see no differentiation between say a Trump voter in Michigan (Trump won by barely 10,000 votes), a Stein voter in Cali (Hillary got 62% of the vote), a Johnson voter in West Virginia (Trump got 68%) of the vote, or somebody who stayed home in D.C.?