Most Nominees don't pick a former primary opponent as VP

[H2O Man]

149. Respectfully disagree.

It is fine to say that you were focusing exclusively on the winning tickets, and that your wording was incorrect. It's not a big deal to say that you should have been clearer by including the word "winning." We all make such minor errors.

It is a larger error to say that the losing ticket doesn't count. First, you deny yourself the option of noting that picking a former primary candidate as VP may be a move that lessens the chances of victory, which would be consistent with the overall message of your OP. Second, being stubborn isn't a good quality when one makes a minor error -- life in an extended Irish-American family has provided me with solid evidence of that! (grin) Not to suggest that I am not, from time to time, prone to that same unattractive behavior. And third, projecting negative attributes to those who have correctly pointed out that the OP lacks one important word is a poor tactic to use when one is attempting to communicate a point you believe is important. They are not using a "just silly gotcha point." It's an important point that, if you simply noted you were focused exclusively on winning, would add to your position. And that would be so much more positive an approach.

I hope that you do not take this the wrong way. I'm not attacking you. I am suggesting that you have the option of expanding your original point.