Yes, one person is exactly the same as a mass movement. The subject got headlines because she was rare.
You were trying to imply that after Obama got the nod there was a mass migration from the Dems to McCain, and that loss was only made up by a massive Left tsunami that had sat out the primaries.
During the campaign, there was significant media discussion of Democratic Hillary Clinton voters backing McCain, in particular members of People United Means Action (also known as PUMA, originally standing for “Party Unity My Ass,” and also known as “Just Stay No Deal”) and those sympathetic to it.[40] After Clinton’s June 8 concession, 40% of women who supported Clinton described themselves as dissatisfied and 7% described themselves as angry; 25% said they would support McCain in November.[41]
Polling data
According to Gallup Polls from June 9 to August 17 McCain’s cross-party support fluctuated between 10% and 13%. In the poll for August 18 to August 24 support for McCain among Democrats peaked at 14%. From October 13 to October 19 polls showed McCain’s support among Democrats to be 7%, which was the lowest thus far.[42] The CNN exit polls placed his Democratic support at 10% with the same percentage for liberal support. These results may not represent the general voters due to early voting.[43]
According to exit polls on Election Day, McCain won the votes of only 10% of Democrats nationwide, the same percentage of Democrats’ votes that George W. Bush won in 2004.[5]
Or the poll it referenced? I linked that too
You were trying to imply that after Obama got the nod there was a mass migration from the Dems to McCain,
Nope, I said:
It happened when Obama managed to beat Hillary in 08. Moderates had a movement to vote Republican over Obama, and they did.
They were just statistically insignificant and Obama had a landslide win that flipped multiple red states and got us the House and Senate.
Like, it seems the issue is your drastically underestimating how disproportionately moderate party leads represent the very very tiny percentage of Dem voters who are “moderate”. The moderates are not the bulk of the party, they never were.
But to be honest, it doesn’t seem like you’re interested in actual talking about this, you keep trying to turn this into an argument…
According to exit polls on Election Day, McCain won the votes of only 10% of Democrats nationwide, the same percentage of Democrats’ votes that George W. Bush won in 2004.[5]
So, literally no mass movemnet by “Moderates” trying to screw over the Left.
I don’t want to talk about it because it’s meaningless.
This made everyone embrace a shitty leader and even questioning them led to social outcasting for years
The facts that 08 matched the first election since 9/11 is too illustrate how fucking huge it was…
But honestly, if I don’t block you now, you’re going to say something else that is so easy to explain I take the two seconds. You haven’t learned anything yet, I doubt you will if I put more time in.
Bush won in 2004 by about 3 million votes, 50.7% of the vote to 48.3.
I was actually around in 2001 and went to numerous marches against the Iraq invasion. New York City, which was the place hit hardest on 9/11 went against Bush. They also hosted a few of those anti Iraq invasion marches.
You’re the one who keeps rewriting/reimagining history.
So, by the stories you posted yourself, there were people who switched from McCain to Obama after Obama beat Hillary.
Kind of like the 2008 election had two good candidates who respected the system and each other.
Nice try.
https://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/26/clinton.backers/index.html
You missed one I guess
Well. At least one.
You’re hilarious.
Yes, one person is exactly the same as a mass movement. The subject got headlines because she was rare.
You were trying to imply that after Obama got the nod there was a mass migration from the Dems to McCain, and that loss was only made up by a massive Left tsunami that had sat out the primaries.
So you didn’t read the Wikipedia link either?
Or the poll it referenced? I linked that too
Nope, I said:
Like, it seems the issue is your drastically underestimating how disproportionately moderate party leads represent the very very tiny percentage of Dem voters who are “moderate”. The moderates are not the bulk of the party, they never were.
But to be honest, it doesn’t seem like you’re interested in actual talking about this, you keep trying to turn this into an argument…
So, literally no mass movemnet by “Moderates” trying to screw over the Left.
I don’t want to talk about it because it’s meaningless.
Recap of “ancient” history:
On 9/11/01 terrorists attacked America…
This made everyone embrace a shitty leader and even questioning them led to social outcasting for years
The facts that 08 matched the first election since 9/11 is too illustrate how fucking huge it was…
But honestly, if I don’t block you now, you’re going to say something else that is so easy to explain I take the two seconds. You haven’t learned anything yet, I doubt you will if I put more time in.
Bush won in 2004 by about 3 million votes, 50.7% of the vote to 48.3.
I was actually around in 2001 and went to numerous marches against the Iraq invasion. New York City, which was the place hit hardest on 9/11 went against Bush. They also hosted a few of those anti Iraq invasion marches.
You’re the one who keeps rewriting/reimagining history.
There it is.
That was a rabbit hole I should have never gone down. Have a nice weekend