That may also mean that Clinton didn’t lose the election because she was uniquely unpopular in key swing states. (She likely didn’t lose Wisconsin, for example, because she didn’t campaign there, as some have argued.)
OK, I need someone to walk me through this reasoning because I'm very confused. if you don't campaign somewhere, that means you didn't lose the election there? So, if I don't take the final exam, it means I didn't fail the class? I didn't really have high expectations for average human intelligence, but this makes me think I was greatly overestimating it. It seems President Trump was not just a probable outcome, it was a logical necessity.
Is the Democratic Party made entirely of brain-dead morons? At least the Republicans are reasonably smart in achieving their evil goals.
Not arguing your conclusion is wrong, only that you got there by force of habit. Clinton didn’t lose Wisconsin simply because she didn’t campaign there. Sanders campaigned for her there. I think you’ll agree, if you’ll bear with me, that she lost Wisconsin for many, many reasons, not simply because she never deigned to set one claw down in the state.
Well, that was my point. She didn't lose because she didn't go there. That's what the article claimed. What bothers me, or should I say, would bother me if I had some faith in human intelligence left, is that the Democratic Party and many of their followers seem completely blind to the absurdity of their own position. At least the Republicans stand for something.
OK, I need someone to walk me through this reasoning because I'm very confused. if you don't campaign somewhere, that means you didn't lose the election there? So, if I don't take the final exam, it means I didn't fail the class? I didn't really have high expectations for average human intelligence, but this makes me think I was greatly overestimating it. It seems President Trump was not just a probable outcome, it was a logical necessity.
Is the Democratic Party made entirely of brain-dead morons? At least the Republicans are reasonably smart in achieving their evil goals.
Not arguing your conclusion is wrong, only that you got there by force of habit. Clinton didn’t lose Wisconsin simply because she didn’t campaign there. Sanders campaigned for her there. I think you’ll agree, if you’ll bear with me, that she lost Wisconsin for many, many reasons, not simply because she never deigned to set one claw down in the state.
Well, that was my point. She didn't lose because she didn't go there. That's what the article claimed. What bothers me, or should I say, would bother me if I had some faith in human intelligence left, is that the Democratic Party and many of their followers seem completely blind to the absurdity of their own position. At least the Republicans stand for something.