Rank losing campaigns from Best to Worse Since 1972

[CookieDamage]

Clinton 2016: We all know the story. Her nomination was inevitable and she almost lost it. Her election was inevitable too, until it wasn't.

Serious question: Why do y'all peddle this borderline lie?

[CookieDamage]

Clinton 2016: We all know the story. Her nomination was inevitable and she almost lost it. Her election was inevitable too, until it wasn't.

Serious question: Why do y'all peddle this borderline lie?

Cookiedamage, did you catch my question to your comment under the "Which likely Democratic nominees would do the worst+best against Trump?" thread? (about Harris/Brown vs. Brown/Harris).

Since your question is serious, I will attempt to answer it, even as I address what I believe to be false assumptions in the question. First of all, your question is addressed to "y'all" (plural). I am one person; I make up my own mind based on the facts I have available, to the best of my ability. Second, I am not "peddling" (or selling) anything (though I cannot speak for anyone else who might be included in "y'all"). I see Atlas as nothing if not an intellectual challenge; when I reply to a post, it is not as someone who is all-knowing or infallible, but rather as a reasonably informed citizen seeking to become more informed. My opinions are my opinions; nothing more. And, with the exception of a few core values, they are malleable.

Finally, and most seriously, I do not consider the statement that Clinton's nomination "was inevitable" and she "almost lost it" to be a "borderline lie". A false statement is not necessarily a lie; it could result simply from incomplete information (in which case kindly informing me of where I am wrong is the approach I would appreciate; "lie", to me, implies intent to deceive). Even so, I would push back against the idea that the assertions are false. I heard the phrase "aura of inevitability" more than once applied to Clinton (I don't recall from which sources; perhaps I should have rejected these sources as unreliable). Sanders was considered in 2015 to be a socialist crank who would crash and burn, not someone who would win states as diverse as Vermont, Minnesota, Michigan, and West Virginia. If not for superdelegates, the race would have truly been down-to-the wire, and indeed it nearly was until June 7 when California voted.

I hope this helps.

I didn't read the majority of what you wrote but this line TOOK ME OUT!!!! LMAO

[CookieDamage]

Clinton 2016: We all know the story. Her nomination was inevitable and she almost lost it. Her election was inevitable too, until it wasn't.

Serious question: Why do y'all peddle this borderline lie?

Cookiedamage, did you catch my question to your comment under the "Which likely Democratic nominees would do the worst+best against Trump?" thread? (about Harris/Brown vs. Brown/Harris).

Since your question is serious, I will attempt to answer it, even as I address what I believe to be false assumptions in the question. First of all, your question is addressed to "y'all" (plural). I am one person; I make up my own mind based on the facts I have available, to the best of my ability. Second, I am not "peddling" (or selling) anything (though I cannot speak for anyone else who might be included in "y'all"). I see Atlas as nothing if not an intellectual challenge; when I reply to a post, it is not as someone who is all-knowing or infallible, but rather as a reasonably informed citizen seeking to become more informed. My opinions are my opinions; nothing more. And, with the exception of a few core values, they are malleable.

Finally, and most seriously, I do not consider the statement that Clinton's nomination "was inevitable" and she "almost lost it" to be a "borderline lie". A false statement is not necessarily a lie; it could result simply from incomplete information (in which case kindly informing me of where I am wrong is the approach I would appreciate; "lie", to me, implies intent to deceive). Even so, I would push back against the idea that the assertions are false. I heard the phrase "aura of inevitability" more than once applied to Clinton (I don't recall from which sources; perhaps I should have rejected these sources as unreliable). Sanders was considered in 2015 to be a socialist crank who would crash and burn, not someone who would win states as diverse as Vermont, Minnesota, Michigan, and West Virginia. If not for superdelegates, the race would have truly been down-to-the wire, and indeed it nearly was until June 7 when California voted.

I hope this helps.

I didn't read the majority of what you wrote but this line TOOK ME OUT!!!! LMAO

Also she was most definitely leading in the pledged delegate count without super delegates to such a degree it was not in any world considered down-to-the-wire. You're being disingenuous.