Sanders has “taken” Michigan, I hear.
It’s funny how our language still reflects the ancient days. The Crusaders “took” Jerusalem, for instance.
My advice to Sanders is to execute the leaders in the city square so that their subjects may see, but to spare the defeated and take no women as chattel in deference to International Women’s Day – this will be seen as the gesture of a beneficent conqueror. Teach peace to the humbled and tame the proud, taker of Michigan.
Salt not their fields but allow their crops to grow, taking only a portion of their harvest. Accept graciously their praise, but remind them of their duties to the gods. Speak to the crowd with speech both measured and fair; despise the methods of the sophists. Be fair to all, but punish treason with the sword. In this way, you shall keep Michigan.
But seriously, go Bernie.
Post-script: If it’s not warfare metaphors in political journalism, it is always, always boxing (Sanders is on the ropes, Clinton is rolling with the punches; they are going toe-to-toe, squaring up, delivering jabs, looking for the knock-out; Bernie’s down for the count, the first round went to Hilary, who has Wall Street in her corner; et cetera ad infinitum). Just the other day I saw that Clinton was doing some good “counter-punching.” Counter-punching is when you craftily exploit the opening in your opponent’s guard that occurs when he throws a punch in order to throw a punch of your own – but in political journalism, it seems to simply mean “to offer a retort.”
Personally I think a boxing match is, on average, a lot more honest, authentic, and human than a political contest, but I guess this linguistic borrowing makes what is essentially a heated conversation sound like something a lot more exciting, as well as (historically) making buttoned-down elites sound more tough and relatable to the lumpen proletariat.