• AdelleChattre
    +3

    To be fair, he said those things on Opposite Day. You would think outspending the Trump campaign by 40:1, the Clinton campaign would be able to counter a Gish gallop like Trump's. I guess you go to the polls with the candidate you have, not the candidate you wish you had.

    • NotWearingPants
      +5

      But it's Hillary's turn to be president.

      It was supposed to be her turn in 2008, but a charismatic black man came along and stole it. The DNC wasn't going to let some old geezer do something like that again to queen Clinton.

      • AdelleChattre
        +3

        To some apparently, it's better to lose with Clinton than to win with Sanders. Trouble is, as so painfully learned by the McCain-Palin campaign staff, there could be worse things than losing.

        • leweb
          +4

          Did Sanders promise not to run as a third party candidate? Because if he did now I think he'd have a pretty good chance.

          • AdelleChattre (edited 7 years ago)
            +5

            He did promise to support the eventual Democratic nominee. Kept that promise, too. Even when the Green Party offered him their presidential nomination, along with their places on the ballot in all fifty states, he declined, having already struck his Faustian bargain. Odds are he never expected his candidacy would be welcomed the way it was. Something tells me hadn't expected the 'election irregularities' to come either.

          • leweb
            +4
            @AdelleChattre -

            Being a honest politician nowadays is a guarantee for failure it seems :(

        • spaceghoti
          +2

          To some apparently, it's better to lose with Clinton than to win with Sanders.

          What?

          Sanders is no longer running. So now what?