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.
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.