Look, I respect your intent, but three questions:

1) I have as many issues with Harris as you do, but how does helping a man who has literally said he wants to use the U.S. military to kill people for disagreeing with him lead to change in the future? This strategy failed in Germany in 1933, and in the U.S. in 1980, 2000, 2004 and 2016. Why should we think it will ever NOT fail?

2) Why focus on defeating the Democratic presidential ticket, rather than on building an alternative from below by working for electoral reform centering winnable races that don't involve the Electoral College, and don't alienate the largest group of voters that could ever potentially swing from the Democrats to any Left alternative in the future- groups in historically oppressed communities who are now in imminent danger of a massively escalated violent backlash, or progressives who at present vote for the Democratic ticket through gritted teeth, simply to hold fascism at bay, who are in imminent danger from unconstrained right-wing rule, and who need a way to support an alternative that doesn't involve essentially throwing themselves in front of a moving train in the name of "the greater long term good" or however else it might be defined?

3) What would the Greens lose by running a "safe states" campaign in which they were only on the presidential ballot in states where they couldn't throw the contest to the greater evil?

4) How committed ARE you to the "there's no difference at all" narrative, and is there any point at which you could ever admit that the cost of that might be too much?

I seek an alternative too- it's just that I don't want to throw people who are already in danger into greater danger.