So tired of the "it's the symbolic victories that count" argument. This is how we stay in the minority. NY-21 may or may not be winnable, but we'll never know if we're playing for a close 2nd place.
So tired of the "it's the symbolic victories that count" argument. This is how we stay in the minority. NY-21 may or may not be winnable, but we'll never know if we're playing for a close 2nd place.
Playing to win implies pulling out all the stops, while playing for a close second accepts defeat as a given.
Some of this district was won in a special in 2009 by Bill Owens, who held it until 2014. Special elections are quirky things, so we don't know who will show up and how the tariffs will hit upstate NY.
No one suggested anywhere at anytime about playing for a close second; I am tired of your nonsense; you do it in every post you make; you create a rebuttal argument against something that was never posted by the original poster
So tired of the "it's the symbolic victories that count" argument. This is how we stay in the minority. NY-21 may or may not be winnable, but we'll never know if we're playing for a close 2nd place.
What would be the difference between playing to win and playing for a close second place?
The worst Stefanik ever did was in Trump's midterm, when she only won by about 14 points.
Playing to win implies pulling out all the stops, while playing for a close second accepts defeat as a given.
Some of this district was won in a special in 2009 by Bill Owens, who held it until 2014. Special elections are quirky things, so we don't know who will show up and how the tariffs will hit upstate NY.
No one suggested anywhere at anytime about playing for a close second; I am tired of your nonsense; you do it in every post you make; you create a rebuttal argument against something that was never posted by the original poster
you are once again clueless; and making an argument against something I didn't post; re-read my post or go back to English 101and learn simple English