Some thoughts I've had while considering the question of endorsing/not endorsing:
Beyond the merits of the candidates, there's the question of what happens after the primary. If we endorse candidate A, but candidate B wins, it could limit our ability to influence Senator B once they're in office. Hopefully neither candidate would hold a grudge, but you never know!
So --- when does the value of endorsing outweigh the risk of endorsing the losing candidate?
A Wide Gap in Candidate Quality Justifies Endorsement
If one candidate has some clearly disqualifying qualities --- pick your least favorite of Trump's many flaws, for example, and imagine a candidate had that flaw --- then I believe there is a moral imperative to endorse the other candidate, consequences be damned. Likewise, if one candidate is clearly head and shoulders above the other (what those in the world of sports call 'a generational talent'), there is a similar imperative to endorse that candidate.
However, I do not believe we find ourselves in that situation.
Conversely, if there are no meaningful differences between the candidates, then there is no point in endorsing and taking the risk of backing the loser.
The question then becomes: If you find one candidate preferable to the other, is the gap wide enough to justify endorsement?
Another Consideration: The Fait Accompli
Finally, what if the gap between the candidates isn't large enough to justify an endorsement, but one candidate appears to be a sure bet to win the primary? Do we want to endorse a candidate we believe to be a sure thing, just to be on the winning side --- and perhaps gain the gratitude of a Senator who feels that we helped them out?
I think my position on Sunday will be determined by the answers to those two questions: Is one of the candidates sufficiently preferable to the other to justify endorsement? And if not, does one of the candidates seem certain to win?
