Please point out where I made this statement. At no point did I refer to Hillary Clinton's election. Biden won by a small margin in key states and so the green party can easily play spoiler in the upcoming election.
Do you not see the irony that you say this and then reaffirm your Barry Goldwater example as if it's more than one data point from 60 years ago? How many failed shake ups and redirections have happened since then for both parties? What is it that makes you confident in this "burn the bridges" approach exactly beyond it working once decades ago?
I think there's a difference between what Biden's administration tried to pass vs what Biden's adminstration had the votes to pass. If you think Cornel West has the capacity to get something better through the House + Senate then by all means, vote for him. If you think Cornel West has the votes for a super-majority that doesn't require moderates to pass the legislation, by all means vote for him.
He has shown his desire to save the environment but he has no governmental experience. But forget even being a politician for a second, if he was a random guy that I knew who didn't pay his child support and had outstanding tax liens, I wouldn't vote for him in a water reclamation race yet because he has reitereated positive climate ideas, he should be taken seriously as candidate for some people.
If you believe that he is a outsider/black savior that will shake up politics and deliver on climate change, it sounds eerily familiar to the promises Trump made to working class whites.
It's possible that I'm underestimating him though and there are things about him that you know that I'm not privy. That is why I'd like to see you weight the things that are important to you and see how you reach your conclusion that West is more than a wasted vote.
TLDR; To recap, I have suggested an example of ways that perception matters and you have provided examples of ways that that Dems screwed the pooch a few decades ago. That still is dancing around just providing your probabilities in a meaningful way that removes all the emotions.
How about you provide your level of compatibility with the candidates + odds of winning + climate change and we can go from there? You can add as many variables as you'd like, I don't care. I just want to grasp how you are reaching your conclusions without all of the emotional undertones