It would be nice in that it would objectively prove what political strategy is more successful. Not that it's needed, see my previous post. Your track record speaks for itself.
Sorry you hate facts
every single candidate bernie has endorsed not only lost, but lost by a higher margin than clinton did.
did we really "lose 5 seats" if we lost a race for a seat that we never had in the first place for 5 elections in a row?
We'll get to see how well Justice Democrats (JD) fare against Establishment Democrats (ED) in the midterms. You can posture all you want until then, it won't make a difference.
More excuses, logistics, arguments and vitriol...
are you actually defending this phony stat?
every single candidate bernie has endorsed has lost, and by wider margins than clinton did.
I don't think the vast majority think like buck, he's his own thing.
It takes awhile for a train to get rolling, even downhill.
you could actually try to stand up for the phony talking point you have been blabbering about for weeks now, but you won't. because you know i am right.
The trouble is that political newcomers will see people like him and think that's all politics is about.
66 million clinton votes say otherwise.
you literally just complained about "more excuses", and now you start making excuses?
I have enough respect for those 66 million not to lump them with you. But you can change anytime you choose.
any way you need to move those goal posts and contort like a pretzel to make your faulty argument sound plausible to your fellow retards is fine with me.
Trump won in Montana by 21%, Quist lost by 6%: +15
Yes, they did. The seat was up for election, they lost said election, they lost said seat in said election. Color it any way you want, it doesn't change the facts that you hate.
I'm into finding common interests, turns out you and I have some.
True, it's blood in the water with every new poster here.