,
4 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
Everything. Literally everything in this tweet is wrong.
First, Sanders "endorsement" was qualified and backhanded. He literally implied that among the two devils one was much worse (Trump).
And I'm tired of the "Hillary didn't campaign in --- so that's why we lost" bs.
1/
First, Sanders "endorsement" was qualified and backhanded. He literally implied that among the two devils one was much worse (Trump).
And I'm tired of the "Hillary didn't campaign in --- so that's why we lost" bs.
1/
First, major surrogates campaigned in all of the states in question.
Second, there is no evidence that backs up the suggestion that a candidate stopping for a couple rallies in Milwaukee and Green Bay has any damn effect on how that state ends up voting.
2/
Second, there is no evidence that backs up the suggestion that a candidate stopping for a couple rallies in Milwaukee and Green Bay has any damn effect on how that state ends up voting.
2/
Third, for there to be any impact on voter turnout requires a sustained & frequent stopover schedule. There was no way of knowing that the polling numbers in these states would be so off from the final vote. Dems had won all of these states in every election since Reagan.
3/
3/
The campaign had limited time / resources and it's easy to see given the data available to them & actual electoral history why these decisions were made.
Post-game quarterbacking might make you feel superior but 2016 was an election like no other.
She did her best. And won.
/
Post-game quarterbacking might make you feel superior but 2016 was an election like no other.
She did her best. And won.
/
