Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
Pretty decisive election for a “struggling campaign”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
I said struggling before South Carolina. Am I wrong? Let's go by the actual facts, rather than going by your pathetic partisan re-writing of history, shall we?
Iowa was the first state. The results, in order of votes:
1. Sanders
2. Buttogieg
3. Warren
4. Biden (13.7% of the vote)
Then New Hampshire, with results as follows:
1. Sanders
2. Buttigieg
3. Klobuchar
4. Warren
5. Biden (8.3% of the vote!!), one position ahead of Tom Steyer
Then Nevada, results as follows...
1. Sanders (40.5% of vote)
2. Biden (18.9% of vote)
Those were the states before South Carolina, Pete.
I say Biden was struggling at the time.
You deny that.
This might be the most pulverizing yet, of the thousand times you have humiliated yourself here and just been mercilessly bitch slapped.
What are you afraid would have happened, if you just said, "yes Biden was doing poorly before SC"? That's what happened. I'm sorry if you don't like it,
but that's what happened.
Do you ever, ever get tired of being so wrong?
Here's the data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Result...s#Early_states
Biden desperately needed a win in SC. He needed that black congressman to endorse him, and he got that endorsement immediately after promising to nominate a black woman.