Okay, it sounds like you’re saying the same thing - that Hillary tried to convince left wing voters she is on their side, and they protested because it “wasn’t enough.” Your original statement made it sound like she lost because she tried to move slightly left.
No, they protested in spite of her trying to move left, not because she tried to move left.
Although I’ll admit it’s a distinction without a difference. Democrats are going to continue to refuse to move farther left if we don’t vote because we think they’re not left enough.
You’re making no sense. Protest no vote in spite of her moving a little bit left is an oxymoron. Unless you meant protest no vote to spite her. In which case it doesn’t matter because of exactly what I’m saying, left voters don’t show up. You’d be an absolute fool to court voters that never show up, (again when you walk before you run). So candidates go to the center to find voters that do show up.
No I’m not. I think you don’t know what “in spite of” means. The correct usage of that expression would be: “The far left wing wanted Hillary to move far left. But they voted for her anyway in spite of her only moving a little bit left.”
This entire conversation has been you (intentionally or otherwise) misreading and/or misinterpreting and/or twisting words, so I’m leaving this conversation. I think I’ve explained things well enough.
I still think this has been a useful conversion, because it has helped me understand what you actually meant to say.
What I think you’re trying to say is that moving left failed to prevent voters from protesting, which I’m completely in agreement here.
If courting left wing voters fails to get them out to vote, then politicians are just going to pander to center/right voters.
Your phrasing was just really weird, because you keep arguing that moving left is what triggered the voters to protest, but they would have protested either way.
Okay, it sounds like you’re saying the same thing - that Hillary tried to convince left wing voters she is on their side, and they protested because it “wasn’t enough.” Your original statement made it sound like she lost because she tried to move slightly left.
She did lose because she moved a little bit left and the voters did not show up.
No, they protested in spite of her trying to move left, not because she tried to move left.
Although I’ll admit it’s a distinction without a difference. Democrats are going to continue to refuse to move farther left if we don’t vote because we think they’re not left enough.
You’re making no sense. Protest no vote in spite of her moving a little bit left is an oxymoron. Unless you meant protest no vote to spite her. In which case it doesn’t matter because of exactly what I’m saying, left voters don’t show up. You’d be an absolute fool to court voters that never show up, (again when you walk before you run). So candidates go to the center to find voters that do show up.
Are you saying that if Hillary had rejected the map room proposal, then left wing voters would have turned out to vote for her?
That’s ridiculous to think that moving further right would have got more left voters to turn out to vote.
Meaning the map room proposal had no effect on left wing voters, because it wasn’t enough. It did not cause them to protest.
No I’m not. I think you don’t know what “in spite of” means. The correct usage of that expression would be: “The far left wing wanted Hillary to move far left. But they voted for her anyway in spite of her only moving a little bit left.”
This entire conversation has been you (intentionally or otherwise) misreading and/or misinterpreting and/or twisting words, so I’m leaving this conversation. I think I’ve explained things well enough.
I still think this has been a useful conversion, because it has helped me understand what you actually meant to say.
What I think you’re trying to say is that moving left failed to prevent voters from protesting, which I’m completely in agreement here.
If courting left wing voters fails to get them out to vote, then politicians are just going to pander to center/right voters.
Your phrasing was just really weird, because you keep arguing that moving left is what triggered the voters to protest, but they would have protested either way.
JFC I don’t know how you misread things so badly. Go read from the very start
We’re saying you don’t understand cause and effect.You are saying A (moving left) caused B (losing).If A didn’t happen, then B also would not have happened. Therefore, “if she had stayed to the right, she would have won.”Edit: I think I figured out what I’ve got wrong. If I rephrase what you said, then it makes more sense:
“She did lose because the voters did not show up, even though she moved a little left.”
deleted by creator
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/despite-in-spite-of/
I feel you are misinterpreting what I’m trying to say, this example would be more accurate: