How come its always the candidate that didn't run or didn't get the nomination

onenote

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-28-07 11:02 PM
Original message

How come its always the candidate that didn't run or didn't get the nomination

that was the one that would have won?

At least that seems to be a widely held view around here. If Clark had run, he'd have won. If Gore would run he would win. And so on and so forth.

While I think Gore has a shot a winning if he runs, I think the same is true about most of the Democrats in the race now.

But in the end, if someone can't get or doesn't want the nomination, it seems pretty silly (and awfully easy) to say "if only he/she was the nominee, then we'd have won".

You gotta play if you want to win. And you have to win the nomination before you can win the general.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

BleedingHeartPatriot

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-28-07 11:05 PM
Response to Original message

1. Well Gore ran and would have won (cept for SOTUS). Just pointing out the exception to your rule.

MKJ

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Thu May 16th 2024, 04:40 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.