Sanders campaign: Clinton won only states where we didn't compete

[Ban my account ffs!]

I strongly support Sanders but I wont support him if he snags the nomination with superdelegates or coopting the democratic process.

[IceSpear]

This is an imperfect science since there's no objective definition of "compete" (ex: Did Bernie compete in Texas because he had rallies and spent a bit of money there? Did Hillary compete in Washington because she tried to get people to vote absentee?) but I'll give it a shot.

States where they both seriously competed:
Iowa
New Hampshire
Nevada
South Carolina
Massachusetts
Oklahoma
Minnesota
Colorado
Michigan
North Carolina
Ohio
Illinois
Missouri
Arizona

Overall: Clinton +4

States where there wasn't serious competition:
Alabama
Arkansas
Georgia
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
Vermont
Kansas
Nebraska
Louisiana
Maine
Mississippi
Florida
Utah
Idaho
Washington
Alaska
Hawaii

Overall: Even

[Shadows]

I would not support someone who voted for the Iraq War & then took the learning from it & led the push to massacre Libya and now wants to do the same in Syria. I am not worried about safety with Trump - I am worried about Trump's economic policies, attack on minorities, authoritarian tendency, horrible words & many other things.

But when it comes to Foreign Policy, Clinton is a proven monster compared to a potential monster in Trump. Atleast Trump is not dumb & if he is surrounded be good legally sound intelligent people, I think he will show better judgement that Clinton.

I'm not going to derail this thread with a discussion about any perceived policy weaknesses of Clinton, so let me just say that if you're disgusted with Hillary's FP, then you should be very afraid of Trump in terms of foreign policy. He can suggest what his goals will be, but not only does Trump flip-flop almost on a daily basis, but he has to work with foreign leaders. He knows nothing about foreign policy and he could get this country into some serious sh**t with foreign powers. It's dangerous to put a thin-skinned, vindictive moron like Trump in charge of our armed forces and diplomatic relations. Anyone who has paid attention to this race so far shouldn't have to be told that.

Your logic on that doesn't make any sense.

Trump is a monster I guess but I have a deep aversion to wars for family reasons & find it tough to support a hawk like Clinton. But I get your point - I probably over-reacted & that was not correct about Clinton & Trump - I am unhappy with Clinton but that doesn't mean I should turn to a real monster in Trump.

It's just that she is a democrat & you have high expectations because the GOP is bat-shi* crazy  - She will be the nominee & I try hard to convince myself that Trump has to be defeated even if it is Hillary & she makes these condescending statements & is so prone to war  - It is difficult to support then! - Anyways Cheers!

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, it is. I am just arguing that it is not the most important issue.
I do think that some people are making much more important than it is and
are not aware of how different Sanders and Clinton are on many issues.

Again, no one thinks it's the most important issue. Their Senate voting records are identical 93 percent of the time-- and that includes votes where her position is further to the left than his, such as on gun control and immigration.

[Shadows]

This is an imperfect science since there's no objective definition of "compete" (ex: Did Bernie compete in Texas because he had rallies and spent a bit of money there? Did Hillary compete in Washington because she tried to get people to vote absentee?) but I'll give it a shot.

States where they both seriously competed:
Iowa
New Hampshire
Nevada
South Carolina
Massachusetts
Oklahoma
Minnesota
Colorado
Michigan
North Carolina
Ohio
Illinois
Missouri
Arizona

Overall: Clinton +4

States where there wasn't serious competition:
Alabama
Arkansas
Georgia
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
Vermont
Kansas
Nebraska
Louisiana
Maine
Mississippi
Florida
Utah
Idaho
Washington
Alaska
Hawaii

Overall: Even

I agree with your point - If he had fought harder in texas or say virginia, he might have got a better result but then he could have got a worse result in Colorado or Oklahoma.

Your list is accurate apart from Washington where Clinton campaigned quite a lot - Bill campaigned heavily - And ofcourse she bought a lot of ad's n stuff as well!

I think these Super Tuesday's n stuff severely damage small candidates & help the more established  - But this is not the right logic - I didn't compete - Duh! That's your fault - You are actually supposed to compete!

[This account no longer in use.]

I still see no reason why he didn't compete in TN. If he had done that, and worked harder in the March 15 states, he wouldn't be so far behind.

[Virginiá]

Well...

Ahaha. I get this now. I didn't mean to say all foreign posters, just ones who say things like he did.

Trump is a monster I guess but I have a deep aversion to wars for family reasons & find it tough to support a hawk like Clinton. But I get your point - I probably over-reacted & that was not correct about Clinton & Trump - I am unhappy with Clinton but that doesn't mean I should turn to a real monster in Trump.

Fair enough. If you are indeed eligible to vote here, then I would implore you not to go down that path. Cast a protest vote by writing in Bernie's name or something, but a vote specifically for Trump is borderline dangerous (never thought I'd end up saying this one day about a presidential candidate and actually mean it)

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I will take Monster Trump who can be controlled in a Dem Senate & house to this pure evil of a woman although I would never vote for Trump. But I hope she loses in the GE - whether it is to Trump or Cruz or whoever it is! [/b]

Good riddance then. If you would help endanger this country's future prosperity and safety by supporting a terrible person like Trump just because you didn't get the candidate you wanted, then you really shouldn't even be in the party anyway.

The way things are going, you might as well start packing your bags now.

I would not support someone who voted for the Iraq War & then took the learning from it & led the push to massacre Libya and now wants to do the same in Syria. I am not worried about safety with Trump - I am worried about Trump's economic policies, attack on minorities, authoritarian tendency, horrible words & many other things.

But when it comes to Foreign Policy, Clinton is a proven monster compared to a potential monster in Trump. Atleast Trump is not dumb & if he is surrounded be good legally sound intelligent people, I think he will show better judgement that Clinton.

I dislike Clinton for many things but mainly her foreign policy -  I would never support a warmonger. I would never support Trump either whom I dislike substantially more & I don't want to see him as President!

Mfw when Clinton is a proven monster for being (essentially) a generic world leader in terms of her views.

Mfw when Trump is not a 'proven monstet' despite endorsing mass deportations that would destabaise Central America; has openly supported assasinating foreign leaders; supports right-wing autocrat Putin, wants economic war with China, has no qualms about using nuclear weapons unilaterally, would trigger huge conflict with even moderate Muslims etc

Mfw when I realise you are from India, where a real ing monster is PM.