The stage is set for the 2016 general election. Republicans have their nominee: Donald Trump. On the other side of the aisle, Hillary Clinton has won the Democratic Party’s nomination under the current rules.

She has earned 2,784 delegates, of which 2,203 are pledged, to Bernie Sanders’ 1,877 delegates, of which 1,828 are pledged. Pledged delegates are awarded proportionally based on votes, while unpledged delegates (superdelegates) are Party loyalists who can vote for whomever they want.

Sanders says he is still determined to stay in the race through the convention, which takes place in Philadelphia, July 25 to 28; nearly one-fourth of his supporters are unwilling to support Clinton in the general election, choosing instead to abstain or vote Trump.

While it’s important to support a candidate who mirrors one’s ideological and moral beliefs, some Sanders supporters are being shortsighted. By threatening to completely abstain from voting if Clinton is the nominee, these Bernie Bros’ sole impact will be to get Trump elected. We’ve seen this before; remember Ralph Nader?

Clinton Critique 1: She’s just too centrist

Sander supporters criticize how Clinton isn’t far enough left. But, in the two years they overlapped in the Senate, both candidates voted the same way 93 percent of the time, a New York Times analysis found last year.

The 31 disagreements between Sanders and Clinton were mostly on military and foreign policy issues: Sanders is far more isolationist than Clinton. Major points of contention were the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, immigration reform, and bank bailouts during the Great Recession.

These are important divides, and merit ongoing discussion and healthy debate. Unfortunately, the time for that is now gone. Sanders and Clinton have debated nine times already, and addressed substantive policy differences.

Now that Clinton has won a large majority of voters in the primaries, it makes sense for her to stick to her current positions, or even pivot to the middle as most candidates do in the general election when facing a more moderate electorate.

And on the whole, a Clinton administration is much, much likelier to pass policies Sanders supporters approve of compared to a Trump administration.

As NY Times columnist Gail Collins wrote, “On many, many issues, [Clinton’s] platform is what the Sanders platform would look like if it actually got through the congressional wringer.”

If Sanders’ supporters truly agree with his platform, then they should vote for Clinton when she faces Trump in the general election. Otherwise, we’ll be left with a bigot who thrives on making incendiary remarks and alienates huge groups of people based on race, religion and gender on a daily basis.

Clinton Critique 2: Crooked Hillary

Another major problem Bernie or Busters have with Clinton is her perceived untrustworthiness and tie to big money politics. Her contributions from Super Pacs and the ultra-wealthy turn off Sanders’ supporters, along with the fact that she still hasn’t released the transcripts of her paid speeches—which netted huge sums of money.

But as it stands, Sanders principled stance on big money wouldn’t be realistic for the general election. Even Trump has declared that he won’t be self-funding his general election campaign, despite months of rhetoric to the contrary.

In the current era of ridiculously costly campaigns, winning requires a lot of money. In 2012, both Mitt Romney and President Obama spent nearly a billion dollars each.

Wealthy individuals gave millions. Las Vegas casino owner Sheldon Adelson and his wife, for example, donated $39.7 million to GOP-allied super PACs. And now Adelson has promised Trump over $100 million to help win the presidency.

If the Democratic candidate were to raise money exclusively through small donors, without SuperPacs and the like, countering the Republicans’ war chest would prove exceedingly difficult.

To reform the system Clinton must play by the current rules; she can only change them once she has won.

Clinton Critique 3: Current nomination system

Sanders supporters also argue that Clinton was handed the nomination thanks to the “corrupt” current system. However, superdelegates have never decided the nominee (save 1984, when they may have been the deciding factor). Since then, the candidate with the most pledged delegates has won the nomination.

Besides, caucuses are far less democratic than primaries and Sanders doesn’t seem to have a problem with those. When he chose to run as a Democrat, Sanders signed up to follow the Democratic Party’s rules: he could’ve easily ran as an independent if he thought that the rules were biased.

Never Trump

You may disregard every argument put forth in this article.

That’s fine, but it’s important to recognize that none of Clinton’s flaws are enough to justify helping Trump get elected.

He won’t raise the minimum wage, make colleges more accessible or fight for paid maternity leave. In fact, he has a very good shot at ruining several of America’s international relationships, having already voiced disturbing foreign policy positions—from saying he would go after the families of terrorists to endorsing the idea of Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia developing their own nuclear weapons.

He hasn’t even fully released his tax returns (Clinton has made more than 30 years of hers public).

Sanders has repeatedly condemned Trump’s discriminatory and hateful statements; even his staunchest, most disgruntled supporters must realize that they’re being counterproductive by not voting for the Democratic nominee.

The Democrats must unite. Every rational, thinking American adult must put aside their objections to Clinton’s personal affairs and look to the relatively petty differences in policy and ideology between the two Democrats currently running for the Party’s nomination. Do the right thing for the country. #VoteBlueNoMatterWho.