The primary vs. general fallacy

Posted: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 3:55 PM by Domenico Montanaro

From NBC’s Mark Murray and Domenico Montanaro
The Clinton campaign put out a memo today asserting that “if Barack Obama can’t win [in Pennsylvania], how will he win the general election?”

The memo continues, ”Pennsylvania is of particular importance, along with Ohio, Florida and Michigan, because it is dominated by the swing voters who are critical to a Democratic victory in November. No Democrat has won the presidency without winning Pennsylvania since 1948. And no candidate has won the Democratic nomination without winning Pennsylvania since 1972.”

But, as one of us writes, there is a fallacy to this kind of argument that hasn’t received much attention: “Recent history shows that winning a state in the primary season -- no matter its importance on the map -- doesn’t guarantee success in the general election.

“In 2004, for example, John Kerry won early Democratic contests in Iowa, Arizona, and Missouri, but he fell short in all three states when pitted against George W. Bush. In 1992, Bill Clinton captured primaries in Florida and Texas, but lost those states in the general election.

"And in 1984 -- in a primary that has drawn parallels to the current Democratic race -- Walter Mondale secured the Democratic nomination over Gary Hart in part by winning large industrial states like Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania. But in the end, he wound up winning just one state against Ronald Reagan: his home state of Minnesota.

“The opposite also is true. There are numerous examples of candidates losing states during the primaries but then going on to win them in the general election. Bill Clinton, for instance, captured Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire in his 1992 contest against George H.W. Bush. But he lost all three in the primaries.”

CONTINUED >>

EMAIL THIS

Comments

MORE SPIN BY THE CLINTONS!!

LIARS! AND LOSERS!

BILL IS SO HAPPY HE HAS NOT BEEN CAUGHT UP IN ANY SEX CRIMES, YET!

JUST A MATTER OF TIME -- BOTH HE AND HILLARY KNOW IT!

WILLIS (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:40 PM)

The Clinton camps are such liars I hope they realize the American people are rejecting and denouncing her campaign. Their thuggish divisive politics are intolerable that it sets our nation back 100 years. I really think Hillary is bi-polar and is a very sick woman. She is so damaged that she really can’t see the reality of her behavior. I feel sorry for this woman and I do NOT want her in charge of our government. She needs professional help.

Karen, NYC (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:41 PM)

It suddenly occurred to y'all in the media that maybe campaigns spin things? You really need to start doing your jobs like professionals.

Campaigns (and administrations) will always put out exaggerated and misleading information that puts their candidate (policy) in the best light--it is UNCONSCIONABLE that the media repeats these statements regardless of how illogical or unfounded they may be. That is NOT NEWS; it's not even commentary. It's legitimating falacies, creating static, and you should be ashamed and we should be outraged.

bab (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:41 PM)

--------------------------
--------------------------
Chuck

check this article out about the Republicans gaming the Mississippi Democratic Primary

These numbers should be out there!
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/12/81339/4516/40/474909

-----------------------
-----------------------

Douglas Pike, Highland Park, NJ (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:42 PM)

Hillary's experience is a total FRAUD voters! She never even held a security clearance so it’s impossible to say she was a foreign policy player. She DID NOT have a seat at the table and probably never has even seen the "red phone"!! Take it from someone who holds a clearance...SHE'S A JOKE!!!

Yesterday, her "experience” was debunked by the people who actually did play a key role in the Northern Ireland situation and who won a Nobel Peace Prize for it. She was never at that table either folks.

It also came out that her so-called Somalia peace experience was actually a troop entertainment trip with Sheryl Crow and Sinbad! No role played at all except celebrity status.

NYT reported that the little girl in Hillary's 3 am commercial is almost 18 now and is actually a huge Obama supporter and may be a delegate for him too!

Hillary is a LIAR. We can't respect her candidacy when she’s a completely fake politician wht completely fake supporters like Spitzer out there.

At least Obama stands for better politics, honesty, and unity instead of division. Obama 08.

Kevin (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:44 PM)

Domenico,

Don't even try to put some common sense into the equation. Hillary supporters will have none of it. The Clintons have spewed out boatloads of bunk information and every day I have read Hillary supporters regurgitating it on this blog.

Common sense people. Obama WILL WIN California, Massachusettes, and New York in the fall.

Jesse, Burnsville, MN (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:44 PM)

Against McCain, right now polls show that they BOTH beat him in Ohio, they both lose to him in FL. And in PA, McCain only has a 1 point advantage over Obama (Hillary only has a 0.8 point advantage over McCain), and Obama hasn't even campaigned there yet! So the argument that he won't be able to carry PA is an argument without merit.

Linida. Boston, MA (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:45 PM)

If Hilliary wins PA and the nomination she will carry PA in November.

Not true for obama. He needs ti accomplish sometine, anything before America will support a canidat with a resume built only on speeches.

Dawn, Pittsburgh, PA (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:45 PM)

It's about time the media starts exposing the ridiculous nature of this arguement for a Clinton nomination. Clinton winning the California primary doesn't mean Obama will lose it in November. In fact, according to current polls, in a general election matchup versus McCain Obama wins in California by a greater margin than Clinton.

Dave, San Francisco, CA (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:45 PM)

Very well said..........

Ny Times:General McPeak said the steady temperament that Mr. Obama has demonstrated during the campaign would serve him well as commander in chief.

“Senator Obama was up in Iowa, maybe not so up in New Hampshire, but he was the same Barack Obama,” General McPeak said. “Steady, reliable, ‘No shock, Barack. No drama Obama.”

JJ (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:47 PM)

Domenico, Chuck, et al,
At the heart of the Clinton argument is a specious assumption that a candidate who receives hundreds of thousands to millions of votes in a state in the primary would not win that state in the general simply because one other candidate received a few thousand votes more. This seems laughable on its face. Particularly when the first candidate probably received MORE votes than any other Democrat in primary HISTORY in that state (due to the massive turnouts this year).

In other words, the Clinton campaign is essentially trying to say, New York, Mass, CA, etc voters severely dislike Obama when the precise OPPOSITE is true. If you look at the number of votes he received in each of the so-called "big" states, I betcha all the money in the Clinton donut fund that he received MORE votes this year than ANY Democratic primary candidate has in history.

Scott (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:47 PM)

A few very interesting general election polls were released today, with McCain leading Clinton and Obama in BOTH Pennsylvania and Michigan. Link :http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2008/03/wednesday-polls-clinton-way-ahead-in-pa.html

Daniel, NY (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:47 PM)

This is the biggest myth ever launched by the Clinton campaign. We all know that the winner of the primary has no bearing on how the state will go in the general election. But do we expect any better from the Clinton campaign? As per usual, they will say whatever it takes to sway public opinion without the slightest regard for the truth.

This Geraldine Ferraro thing is just disgraceful. Once again, Hillary surrogates practice divisive politics and will wedge their way to the defeat of the Democrats in November (no matter who wins the nomination).

The Clintons have provided me with the best reason to vote for a third party that I have ever seen. They will destroy the Democratic Party and you women out there who are supporting her because she is a woman (and believe me she is the wrong woman) should be held equally responsible for this destructiveness. You encourage Hillary and her husband in their bad behavior. Not only will you set the women's movement back a generation but you will destroy the party that has always offered this country some hope for progress. Thanks a whole lot!
Obama '08

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:49 PM)

NYTIMES: General McPeak said the steady temperament that Mr. Obama has demonstrated during the campaign would serve him well as commander in chief.

“Senator Obama was up in Iowa, maybe not so up in New Hampshire, but he was the same Barack Obama,” General McPeak said. “Steady, reliable, ‘No shock, Barack. No drama Obama.”

jj (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:50 PM)

She is losing. This is just another way she is trying to marginalize his wins in order of having some argument capable of convincing the superdelegets to give her the nomination. I'm sure the current racial dust-up by her supporter is the same thing. She wants to somehow argue that the only way he is winning is because of the AA vote, which is ridiculous.

scott, TX (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:51 PM)

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:15 PM)

Can you count? Then count and shut up.

Gary Schear, Bozeman Montana (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:53 PM)

J Merle Stanley, Please tell me the connect between winning a PRIMARY in a state and winning the GENERAL ELECTION in that same state.

Laddie (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:54 PM)

It figures MSNBC wouldn't let me post anything positive about Bill Clinton in that last blog. SCREW YOU MSNBC!!

Todd, Vicksburg, Mich. (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:55 PM)

Is MSNBC a news organization or Bararck News channel.. Now I am confused. They put out something and argue it on BO's behalf.. Why don't allof you at MSNBC join him... Specially Chris , Keith , Chuck and ofcourse our sweeet ladies Mika , Norah

PY,CT (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:57 PM)

I agree with Laura ELwin. Obama was made largely by caucus wins which is an undemocratic process. That and the african american vote. I bet those caucus attendees were very intimidating and a large segment of the population did not attend the caucus such as older people. They really vote. Youngins do not always vote.

Don't be fooled. Vote Hillary.

rc-Ocala FL (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:00 PM)

The big state small state thing is obviously a falacy that the Clinton campaign hopes that if they repeat often enough, people will think it true.

What is real and should be the deciding factor is which candidate gets the swing voters or can bring in the new ones. That appears to be Obama. That can make some currenly red districts go to blue and help the democrats win a much larger majority in congress.

Bob, Chicago (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:01 PM)

You're ruining the Clintonista's last ploy...

Rob, Indianapolis (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:02 PM)

I, for one, cannot figure out why people's beliefs are so politicized. There is right and wrong, whether it is one's candidate's position or not. Come on people! Have a little integrity. If the roles were reversed, would people believe the same? If Obama won the big states and Hillary won the rest, would these posters’ (or posers’) arguments be the same? I sure hope so. What would people really think about FL and MI? That is the funniest/quirkiest thing about this race to me--for both sides.

And F-R gets reported for bias if they bring these salient points. If the Obama campaign pushes B.S. (which they do to a much, much lesser extent than the Clinton campaign), they deserve to be caught, and I am happy to call them on it.

JMerle, among many others, is a wonderful case-and-point.

Nicholas: Minnesota (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:09 PM)

She is so full of it I cant stand it. And the media buys into her garbage. So when does MSNBC make a formal announcement about Texas??? I bet Keith does it this eve.
Will she want him FIRED???
When do the big supers put an end to this????

Nj (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:11 PM)

Obama has never insulted women or anyone else, so there's a chance he could carry a very few red states. However, Clinton seems to be okay insulting portions of the party. How could she win in close contest, if a portion of the party will now not vote for her.

Adlai, Winchester, CA (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:11 PM)

Is it just me... OR does:

Bill = Heckle
Hill = Jeckle

????????????????

Obama 08 YES WE CAN & YES WE WILL!!

Feisty Redhead IL (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:11 PM)

Geez, why we do we even bother to hold primaries in anyother states?

New Rule: The most important states are the ones that Clinton is heavily favored in or has already won.

I.K., Ann Arbor, MI (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:15 PM)

Does anyone actually believe that New York or California is in danger of going Red in the fall, no matter whose names are on the ballot? Silly Hilly's arguments, like her credentials, are BOGUS! Obama will take those states hands down! The point is that we may actually have a chance to draw a NEW map if he is the nominee--Kansas, Missouri, states that went red last time--we have a chance to paint them blue when Obama is the nominee!! CONCEDE, CLINTONS!! Go with the sliver of dignity you have left--soon you will have none.

Libby J (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:16 PM)

According to exit polling, nearly a third of Hillary's voters in MS were Republicans with strong evidence that their motivation was sabotage of Obama and not genuine support for Clinton.

According to an excellent blog with credible supporting data, this may have cost Obama as many as ten pledged delegates as well as the perception of significantly greater racial animosity toward him than is real.

See http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/12/81339/4516/40/474909

Obie, Burtrum, MN (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:17 PM)

Can you smell the fear in the Clinton campaign?
Desperation is setting in.

Based on CNN's delegate count, Hillary has fallen further behind Obama this month.
+9 Ohio
+5 Rhode Island
+4 Texas primary
-3 Vermont
-9 Texas caucus
-5 Mississippi
-2 Wyoming
-8 correction to California pledged delegate results
Total = Hillary has fallen 7 more pledged delegates behind Obama this month.

Losing so many states by large margins has put the Clinton campaign in big trouble. It's funny how someone can lose nearly two thirds of the contests and claim they are the winner. That's good old Washington politics.

Dan (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:18 PM)

"The Clinton campaign put out a memo today asserting that “if Barack Obama can’t win [in Pennsylvania], how will he win the general election?”"

I am incredulous! Are they brain dead? Don't they know that Barack will be running against a Republican in the general election not a Democrat? Are they seriously implying that Clinton is equivalent to a Republican in the voters she gets?

Who's Sane (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:19 PM)

I am from Virginia, a state where Barack won the white vote. But then again, white voters who voted for Barack aren't really white according to Clinton and Ferraro. To be white, you must be white and have voted for Hillary in Pennsylvania, Ohio, or Florida.
Darn! I thought there was supposed to be a racial divide in every state!

a person (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:20 PM)

I am so glad that you guys called out the Clintons on this. This whole big state theory made no sense.
Thanks for saying it like it is.

Farah, New York, NY (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:20 PM)

Please remember that Bill Clinton won caucuses in 1992 and those wins helped him to win the nomination then.

So now caucuses are bad, right ! What are they drinking?

New Wave (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:22 PM)

We have to consider the possibility that Hillary Clinton has become seriously unhinged.

nuanced (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:22 PM)

Hillary continues to do all she can to insure a McCain victory in November.

If the Democrats don't resolve this soon, it'll be over before it starts.

Mark, IL (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:23 PM)

The one thing that should be of the utmost importance, as we have had emphasized over the last several years, is the integrity of our representatives. Now I am not impressed with McCain when he strongly advocates continuing Bush-Cheney policies but on the subject of integrity, he beats Hillary hands down. Hopefully the choice in November won't be between those two.

REG; East Valley Phx. AZ (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:24 PM)

Hey, we haven't heard much out of Patty today.

I guess she's too busy trying to come up with the next catch phrase with which she will annoy us by blogging it over and over again!

I wonder what it will be next time?

"And that's the bottom line 'cause Patty said so!"

"Whatcha gonna do when Patty runs wild on you?"

"If you smell-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l...what Patty is cookin'!"

"Woooooooooooo!"

"Oh, yeah!"

Annoyed Reader (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:27 PM)

Ferraro gone
Will Keith still do special comment???
OF COURSE

Nj (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:27 PM)

I'm begining to believe that McCain has outsourced his campaign to Clinton. McCain cannot do more damage to the Democratic party.

New Wave (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:28 PM)

If we assume, Clinton can carry states she won over Obama in General Election. Here is the results: Total 538 Electoral Colleges, 270 needed to win Presidency

Arizona 10
Arkansas 6
California 55
Florida 27
Massachusetts 12
Michigan 17
Nevada 5
New Hampshire 4
New Jersey 15
New Mexico 5
New York 31
Ohio 20
Oklahoma 7
Pennsylvania 21
Rhode Island 4
Tennessee 11
Texas 34
284
So if she wins Pennsylvania, she WILL win presidency over McCain.

ClintonCanWinOverMcCain (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:29 PM)

What is winning in a democratic Primary got to do what will happen in the General Election? Are you telling me you have sweep all states in a Primary and only then will you be a viable GE candidate?

If that is the case then Hillary Rove Clinton should close shop and get out of this race. She has lost 29 states already.

Venkat, Sterling, VA (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:31 PM)

Superdelegates, what a piece of work!
As for the joint ticket, Nancy Pelosi should just shut up! It is shameful that the congress has such low approval ratings! Straighten the house first, then talk about other things.
This country has way too many problems, so try to "at least act" like you care...don't interject yourself into matters beyond your control.

Larry, IL (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:33 PM)

Ummm didn't Obama win Washington state, Wisconsin, Minnesota,.....

If we are going to make a 1:1 comparison that since Obama didn't win these states in the primary, he can't win them in the general, lets apply the same standard to Clinton. She can't win the general without Washington, Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc.

And if the states she won are the only ones that matter, then why did we even have a contest here in Washington state? Why not just let Ohio and Pennsylvania determine the democratic candidate? This argument is ridiculous.

On can't say "Don't disenfranchise the voters in Michigan and Florida" and then say "Well only the states we won matter and those other states voters should just stay home and shut up"

She is very desperate.

Jeff, Vancouver, WA (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:34 PM)

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY - Looks like you are one of those "i want the first woman president" people. You would probably sell your country if you got to elect the First Woman President. Is that it?

Venkat, Sterling, VA (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:35 PM)

Barack is a breath of fresh air, the others are just a passing wind.

Who's Sane (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:36 PM)

It's about time this point was made - I've been trying to tell people the same thing that the article says for weeks now! Well done Mark and Domenico, thanks for pointing this out.

Rory, Missoula, MT (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:37 PM)

Hey First REad, how come no coverage of Obama getting endorsed by military biggies? Seems like when Billary was flanked by a bunch of 100 year old ex generals it was BIG news! Why not talk about Obamas press conference and the endorsement?

Also why no coverage of the memo sent out by Govs. disputing Billary's claim to "being the only one able to win the general because she won the BIG states". This should get coverage. It totally debunks Billary's little plan to cheat and steal the election.

Believe me, this is almost over. AFter Billary's latest charade, the supers are on high alert and will be coming out in full force behind OBama!

Can't wait to see Billary's face then!!

Obama 08

IOWAN (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:38 PM)

Caucus vs. Primaries: Some states use caucuses so the candidates should prepare for them. It's not as if going into the process they didn't know there were caucuses! I think caucuses are a really good indicator of campaign organization...

Rory, Missoula, MT (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:39 PM)

It is becoming clear that once again the Clintons care only about themselves and their personal high wire drama. They are completely ok with the notion that Obama might win the nomination but be so damaged by their shenanigans as to loose the general election. They they get to say "I told you so" and try again. They didn't want Al Gore to win and they certainly didn't want Kerry to win.

Clinton's arguments are absurd and embarrassing on their face. Winning or not winning primaries says very little about the prospect for the general election. Does Hillary really think McCain would beat Obama in "big" traditionally democratic states like California and New York? I don't think so and neither does any other level headed person.

John, Morgan Hill, California (Sent Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:43 PM)

<< Previous

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=761664