The primary vs. general fallacy

bill — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:09:31 GMT

ahhhhh...PA is a closed primary...so how would one be able to project to November

The primary vs. general fallacy

Rob W — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:11:31 GMT

Popular Vote Fraud committed by Clinton!!!

The narrative which the MSM and the Clintons are force feeding the puplic requires what was it Hillary said to Petraeus "a suspension of belief" or something like that.

As contest (primary, caucus, and primacuacus) after contest rolls forward the media led by Chuck Todd of MSNBC inform us of each states formula for converting votes into delegates. Texas was very instructional as Obama won more delegates as in Nevada but the media puts it in the loss column.

The democratic primary rules involves intricately thought out and negotiated details of delegate allocation based upon past voting patterns, congressional districts, senate districts, etc. The idea is to reward candidates who win districts and or win by large percentages. Bonus delegates are awarded, and each states special recipe turns into a currency which is elected delegates.

A state democratic party can choose to caucus or have a primary. They have X amount of delegates to allocate. For budget, historical, party building reasons a state may choose to caucus.
BUT WAIT - ACCORDING TO HILLARY - THE POPULAR VOTE IS OF MORAL IMPORTANCE - IT HAS CURRENCY -

This is a bankrupt argument. What state would ever Caucus again. If a caucas state like CO which Obama won something like 60 40 and won lots of delegates but may have only provided a 25,000 vote margin of victory for Obama that instead of delegates it is vote which will be determinative in Denver so instead of a primary with a 200,000 vote margin it is a caucus with a 20,000 vote margin - discounted and thrown in the general currency with california and new york.

If this logic prevails it will be the end of the caucus system. This devaluation of caucas states in the narrative is glaring in its relevancy. Does anyone really believe a popular vote argument holds water when only half the states held primaries and as such some type of proportional valuation (see elected delegates) must be used to be determinative. Straight popular vote spread is a bankrupt argument.

If you made a case that the polls and data show one candidate clearly stronger in November - OK then maybe, but to invest millions in thrashing the presumtive nominee to create such a situation if beyond contempt - especially since the Clintons have already had a Presidency and now are worth 40 million.

PS: With a net worth of 40 million - what type of money, promises and payoffs would be needed to garner a reversal from the clear winner.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Go Obama, sc, AZ — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:12:25 GMT

NEWS FLASH --- Obama is the projected winner in TEXAS 108 to 107 delegates. TEXAS is a BIG STATE. TEXAS is BIGGER than PA. In fact TEXAS is bigger than any state Hillary has won.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Judi, Pueblo, CO — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:12:37 GMT

I cannot believe this sort of thing is even covered. The last few memos put out by the Clinton campaign are ridiculous, embarrassing, and serve no purpose other than trying to turn media attention their way.

The primary vs. general fallacy

fortuna, Houston, TX — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:12:50 GMT

[But, as one of us writes, there 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.]

There you go trying to confuse the Clintonistas with facts again. I

The primary vs. general fallacy

Clint-rovian — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:13:07 GMT

Clint-rovian despiration.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Ron Hussein Allen — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:14:21 GMT

Chuck,
It should also be noted that Kerry won big states during the 2004 general election, but Bush comfortably won reelection simply by winning small states and fewer big states. And California and New York are not significant indicators of electability for a Democrat when he or she wins them, because these states tend to favor a Democrat during the general election. With that said, Obama can still win New York and California -- and possibly PA -- if he is pitted against a Republican and not a fellow Democrat.
Essentially, what matters to me right now is winning "Red" states during the primary season, which may demonstrate a candidate's appeal in traditionlly GOP states.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Ian — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:14:45 GMT

I like Obama but I'm not unaware that states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida and Ohio aren't important. They are. So are Virginia and Missouri. However, let's keep this in the context of how the general will be framed: the Dems versus Bush III. The real problem is that right now it's all about the Dems against themselves.

The primary vs. general fallacy

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:15:01 GMT

First Read.....you are "spinning" for Obama.
You fail to note that New York, Texas, and Califonia all went for Hillary.
Now, are you trying to tell us that if Obama loses Pennsylvania TOO, in addition to the three states above, that he is STILL a viable candidate?
You're kidding, right?
I mean, you're pulling our legs...right?
Oh please................................

The primary vs. general fallacy

yessir, OK — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:15:10 GMT

Which is why it's so hurtful for these super delegates to let this drag on. decide and declare a winner already!

The primary vs. general fallacy

SPIN SPIN SPIN — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:16:41 GMT

Well, the TRUTH comes out. The Clintons "I won the BIG states and thats all the matters" garbage falls flat on it's face! Imagine that. This entire argument that that she has been trying to force down everyones throat is just more of the Clinton spin. Everyone, especially the supers know this. It is just Billary and her camp trying at all costs to win. Too bad Billary. This won't work either.

Can't wait to see what their next claim to victory will be!

Obama has already won this thing!

The primary vs. general fallacy

Dave exeter nh — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:16:45 GMT

I would say this is true...but you still need to look at...
Margins, Margins, Margins.

Between the democratic candidates...

the numbers of Repubs vs. Dems...overall turnout

The movement of margin between candidates in the last two or three general elections...

When you look at those and the mitigating factor of the movement from Republican to democratic this year in polls... and/or factors like Lieberman supporting McCain in CT or Katrina and how the candidate is looked at as far as helping..

You get a much better understanding of what the general election may look like in the fall...
and it doesn't look like the same map as 2000 or 2004.

The primary vs. general fallacy

David Kolva, M.D. — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:16:54 GMT

Ooops! Governor Rendell promised Tim Russert on Sunday that he would deliver Pennsylvania for OBAMA if he were the nominee. Check the tape! The more memos the Clinton machine puts out, the goofier they seem.

The primary vs. general fallacy

diogu — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:18:04 GMT

Thank you for debunking the insanity of the Clinton argument.

The primary vs. general fallacy

LMK, Cashmere, WA — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:18:25 GMT

Take a look at this!!

Winners of the Red and Blue States

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/03/12/us/0312-nat-webDEMS.jpg

The primary vs. general fallacy

Enrique, Chicago — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:19:56 GMT

More spin from Hillary and her campaign. We've had over 7 years of spin from Bush for this disasterous war in Iraq. Hillary is demonstrating that she would continue this. We're tired of it. We're smarter than she and Bush give us credit for.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Ralph, Mexico, NY — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:19:58 GMT

So what do we learn from this work of art: That democrats who lose Blue State primaries often win them in the fall and that democrats who win Red State Primaries often lose them in the fall. My goodness somebody alert the Nobel Committee.

How about publishing things we don’t know like how Obama is going to win over blue collar democrats.

The primary vs. general fallacy

doug — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:22:35 GMT

Lets just flip a coin, save all the money, and move on. All that really matters is cleaning up this deeply entreched hackorama that so so many of the politically established want to continue until we all live on the streets as thier slaves.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Jill - de — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:22:45 GMT

Leave it to the Clintons to try and make seems like the only states that matter are the ones they have won.

Do they really think that people are that stupid that they won't research some of the BS that is coming out of Hillary Clinton's mouth.

That woman will do just about anything to become President - As a woman I am embrassed - She has and still is doing nothing but bringing SHAME to my gender.

The primary vs. general fallacy

NvMe, Henderson, NV — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:23:18 GMT

People vote their conscience these days, regardless of party affiliation. I believe we are seeing that trend in these primaries and it will probably follow in the same vein in the general election. The biggest issue among the DEM party is that Clinton is the party candidate and Obama is the candidate of the people. Why? Clinton is old school, corporate money backed - lobby groups in the pocket, vote the party always kind of candidate. Obama is reaching out and asking those who never participated to get involved and make our government for the people, by the people - while holding our legislators accountable - I prefer the latter - Can't wait - Obama 08

The primary vs. general fallacy

john w. — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:23:19 GMT

All trends experience blips or declines, or stoppages altogether. I seem to recall during the last presidential election cycle in 2004 that some pundits were suggesting that a candidate wouldn't be able to be elected president unless they were first a governor of a state. Well, guess what? The very next election cycle, 2008, demonstrated that another trend has now been halted. There will be no former governor delivering the Inaugural Address in January 2009.

The primary vs. general fallacy

A citizen of the United States of America...all 50 of them. — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:24:17 GMT

It is this same mentality that is one of the most likely reasons that Senator Clinton would not with the General Election...only certain states matter.

The Clinton Campaign appears intent on having her elected as the President of Just A Few States Of America...

New York
California
Texas
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Florida
Michigan
New Jersey
Massachusetts

No other states need apply...if you don't like me, oh, well, you don't matter.

I guarantee that that if you're banking on the Clinton reasoning and the strategy that goes along with it...that winning just the "big" states will win this election...you're going to lose.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Weary, Urbana, IL — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:25:29 GMT

If Hillary Clinton can’t win the African-American vote [in the United States], how will she win the general election? She is so short-sighted. She is alienating so many voters.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Mary, Indiana — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:26:13 GMT

Clinton's Big State theory has a BIG HOLE. If she was really the favorite in those states, she'd be able to hold on to her 20-30% point leads. The fact that she can't, and that her narrow wins are consistent, shows that a majority of voters have buyer's remorse regarding HER. When given an educated choice, with TRUTHFUL FACTS, Obama wins her voters over--they reject her in staggering numbers.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Johny DoGood — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:26:25 GMT

A Democrat hasn't won a general election without winning Deleware of Connecticut since...FOREVER!

WOW, Hillary lost them both. She should just drop out now, but only if she uses her own stupid logic!

The primary vs. general fallacy

bill, okla — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:28:22 GMT

Silly Hillie argues that Senator Obama will not be able to carry the states, the big ones that she's carried, (which does not include Texas). That's a crock! John McCain's support by November will be diminished by the common sense of Barack Obama's vision for the country and the good sense of Americans to not want more wars as he's promised.

The primary vs. general fallacy

John Doe, Los Altos — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:29:47 GMT

1 person = 1 vote.
In the age of easy access to information and representation by all (being easier), the notion of primaries, caucus, winning states, electoral college is outdate.

If general election is on the basis of 1 person = 1 vote with no boundaries defined, why should it be for primaries.

This whole process needs to be revamped.

Now, on a separate note, the clintons are playing the race card through Ferraro to divide between whites and black - same politics as Bush. I am surprised Barack is not coming down harder on this than he has so far.

The primary vs. general fallacy

adam/Brooklyn New York City — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:29:51 GMT

Only 6 more weeks to go!!!

Is it baseball season yet?

The primary vs. general fallacy

Two States — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:29:56 GMT

Breaking news: pursuant to Phil Singer's executive order, the United States has been reduced from 50 states to 2 states: Ohio and Pennsylvania. New American flags with 2 stars instead of 50 are being distributed as we speak. [note that while it was previously reported that those 2 states would consist of Ohio and TEXAS, now that Senator Obama has actually won Texas, the 2-state Union will now consist of Ohio and Pennsylvania]. Thank you.

The primary vs. general fallacy

chuck, richmond, tx — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:29:56 GMT

The biggest fallacy about this whole argument, aside from the fact that Obama polls better in most of these states vs. McCain than Hillary does, is that Hillary seems to think she can win the election w/o winning Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, Maryland or even DC. She also fails to acknowledge that winning swing states such as Iowa, Missouri or Colorado might be important. She also fails to acknowledge that Obama puts states like Georgia, S. Carolina, N. Carolina, Virginia and Mississippi in play. Finally, she fails to acknowledge that Obama puts states such as Kansas, Nebraska, Idaho, N. and S. Dakota, Montana, and Alaska in play -- forcing McCain to spend money and/or time to defend these traditional Republican strongholds whereas she gets blown out by 30-40 pts in each.

Everything that leaves her mouth is spin. You can't trust a word she says.

The primary vs. general fallacy

MiddleTN — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:30:04 GMT

Did Hillary MONSTER Clinton ever think that it would not be divided if she was out of the picture, along with RACIST Geraldine Ferraro? Both are racially dividing the country. SHAME ON BOTH OF THEM!

The primary vs. general fallacy

BIGOLDTEXAN — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:30:21 GMT

Let see if this gets posted:

STAND UP PROUD PEOPLE DO NOT VOTE FOR HRC IF SHE WINS THE NOMINATION BY CHEATING.

What HRC fail to understand is that if she wins by cheating that not will she not only lose the white house, it is that she will lose to a republican because no ONE Africa American will vote for her.

That said she needs to clean up her act and her campaign.

She can not win the white house without the votes of the African American Denocrats.

Let her think about that for a moment.

It is obsurd that she would even think that they would vote for her, as she plays dirty and she owes too many people, tryhing to sway them by stating that yiu may get both if you vote for her.LOL!!!

Yes she will dig up dirt on the superdelegates & blackmail them to get her way.

Let this simmer, as we all know the African Americans are tired fo being cheated out of every thing & everything that their forefathers have endored all of their lives for.

Let see what happens if this comes to past.

I say to hell with the Clintons it will be as if GWB had not left.

Go Obama '08

The primary vs. general fallacy

Stephen, Philadelphia, PA — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:30:38 GMT

Why do they keep touting Michigan? They will have an opponent in the fall unlike they did in the primary. How do you say you won if the other side didn't play?

The primary vs. general fallacy

Patrick, Indianapolis — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:30:45 GMT

Another ignorant pathetic lie perpetrated by that miserable vomitous mass hillary monster "George Wallace" clinton. To say that if someone can't win PA in the primary (that is a closed primary) then that person can't win the general election is an outright lie. Since hillary monster "George Wallace" clinton is going to steal the nomination, I can't wait to vote for every Republican on the ballot in November. Thank you hillary monster "George Wallace" clinton for making me realize how utterly worthless you and your miserable husband are.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Diane from Illinois — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:31:59 GMT

Just another bag of wind from the Clinton campaign. She's really taking defeat hard, isn't she?

The primary vs. general fallacy

Debbie G — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:33:20 GMT

And none of this may matter at the end of the day if the Clinton campaign continues this game of russian roulette. They have demonstrated an appalling lack of judgement and mismanagement of their campaign foreshadows a White House that will be out of control and out of touch with reality.

Sen. Obama has demonstrated that he can win both red and blue states. Furthermore, he is not approaching his campaign with a scorched earth policy that is designed to pit democrat against democrat. He seeks to be President of the UNITED States of America and although he will never garner the support of every democrat or independent or republican, he has demonstrated that he has a far better chance of uniting the country than any other candidate.

Based on how both candidates have conducted their campaigns in the primary, I have decided to take my chances with Sen. Obama's approach to change and his committment to governing on behalf of all Americans.

The thought that HRC would govern as she campaigns is pretty scary. And I see no evidence that she knows how to manage otherwise.

The primary vs. general fallacy

John, Irvine Ca — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:34:37 GMT

Obama is running a national campaign, in every state.

Clinton is running a selective state campaign...

Out with the old way of politics...let's leave the kitchen sink in the kitchen, and throw away divisiveness.

The primary vs. general fallacy

REG; East Valley Phx. AZ — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:34:57 GMT

If the Democratic Party and especially the superdelegates are sincerely concerned about their success in November and thereafter, I suggest they now focus on giving the voters the best candidate for America; i.e., the one that represents real change not only from the Bush-Cheney era but also from politics as usual in Washington. I think they need to concentrate on choosing the one, and there is a contrast with only one actually standing out, that offers honesty, integrity, sincere compassion for all Americans and the touch of humility that allows them to get the cooperation needed to get the job done. I suspect that if they don't do it soon, the dirty politics that is going on now in the current Hillary- Barack competition will destroy the Democratic chances in November. I know I for one, will look long and hard at John McCain if Hillary is the Democratic nominee and then if not voting for him, will abstain.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Laura Elwin, Sammamish WA — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:36:24 GMT

The question is how will Democrats do well in the states where Obama won Caucuses? Caucuses do not allow the majority of voters to vote. They do not represent the will of the people. They are like the polls taken, only a few thousand people were able to attend the caucuses. Obama got his momentum by taking causus states because of the former union organizer who ran the ground operations for the caucuses. Look at the trouble with counting the Caucus in Texas. That is in part due to the Clinton Campaign wising up and getting better organized for the causus there. Caucuses disenfranchise too many voters. They will play not part in winning in the fall and Obama will not win in the FALL. Republicans will run back to their party. They have admittedly crossed over to vote for Obama, because they did not want to run against Hillary Clinton.
JUST WAIT AND SEE. DON'T FORGET HOW BUSH WON THE ELECTION, TWICE. KARL ROVE IS IN THE ROOM.

MY VOTE GOES FOR HILLARY CLINTON BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT SHE IS THE BETTER QUALIFIED FOR PRESIDENT AT THIS TIME.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Laura Elwin, Sammamish WA — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:36:39 GMT

The primary vs. general fallacy

marlin — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:37:09 GMT

If Hillary doesn't win the nomination, how is she going to win the general election?

The primary vs. general fallacy

marlin — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:37:25 GMT

If Hillary doesn't win the nomination, how is she going to win the general election?

The primary vs. general fallacy

Goodwin, Az — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:37:33 GMT

Imagine that another false arguement put forth by the Clinton Campaign ...... throw it out there and see if it sticks.

Just like the Clinton Experience arguement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwLaCb07lAs

The primary vs. general fallacy

jeanie o, saint inigoes, md — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:38:22 GMT

Keep it up Hil and you won't be able to win a general election either!

The primary vs. general fallacy

New Wave — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:39:21 GMT

Spin. Spin and just Spin. So the news is that PA is now the sole state to win and be nominated. The other states do not exist.

What do we hear next?

The primary vs. general fallacy

campdog — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:39:30 GMT

Well thank you for your view of the truth...but I think you miss the point of the arguement.

Clinton argues that wins in red states are subject to scrutiny as inthe general election it is "winner take all". The fact that Obama beats Clinton or Clinton beats Obama in a state like Wyoming doesn't at all speak to the possibility of the Democratic candidate winning the electoral votes in the general election. That is no fallacy, it's a hard and cold fact.

Obama claims he has won twice as many states as Clinton. In some way impressive but it has nothing to do with how those states will go in the general.

The point Clinton is trying to make is that she is the winner in electoral vote rich states and Obama is not.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Obie, Burtrum, MN — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:39:55 GMT

Good article.

The thing that the Clinton campaign has done best is to set the agenda throught their spin. After losing thirteen contests in a row, they redefined the definition of victory by suggesting that what really mattered were the delegate rich states of Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania. Despite essentially breaking even in the delegate apportionment on March 4th, they nevertheless declared victory together with the symbolic confetti and balloons. Even though they are now worse off in both pledged delegates and superdelegates than they were two weeks ago, they claim the momentum, and further claim that PA is all important notwithstanding the fact it is impossible for PA to bring them close in either pledged delegates or popular votes.

I give the Obama campaign credit for downplaying PA and emphasizing NC; not because they are equally playing the spin game but because it is accurate. It is quite likely that on May 6 after PA, IND, and NC primaries are completed, Obama's lead remains intact -- except that much more water has passed over the dam. If Obama can essentially maintain his lead in delegates and popular votes through May 6th, it is over -- if it is not already.

Your article essentially quells the argument that one campaign's voters and delegates are more important than the voters and delegates of the other campaign. Voters are voters and delegates are delegates. Whichever campaign ends up with the greatest totals of each will be the victor, and it is pure spin to claim anything to the contrary.

The primary vs. general fallacy

TheNest, VA — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:39:56 GMT

I've been waiting for someone to point this out. I'm a bit frustrated that the Obama camp doesn't have a short sound-byte discounting this (and other) ridiculous assertion(s) in every statement they make. That's not fighting dirty - its just common sense.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Jerome, Parkesburg, PA — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:40:15 GMT

Thank you, you have taken the work out of any of us having to waste our time debunking this train of thought.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Robert, Boulder CO — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:40:34 GMT

The Clinton mis-information machine is hard at work counting on the ignorance of the American voter and even superdelegates.

They are obviously desperate. Even their most loyal superdelegate supporters are weary of their dirty tricks.

The primary vs. general fallacy

WILLIS — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:40:59 GMT

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!

The primary vs. general fallacy

Karen, NYC — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:41:18 GMT

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.

The primary vs. general fallacy

bab — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:41:18 GMT

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.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Douglas Pike, Highland Park, NJ — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:42:29 GMT

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

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

The primary vs. general fallacy

Kevin — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:44:28 GMT

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.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Jesse, Burnsville, MN — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:44:47 GMT

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.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Linida. Boston, MA — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:45:05 GMT

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.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Dawn, Pittsburgh, PA — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:45:13 GMT

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.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Dave, San Francisco, CA — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:45:27 GMT

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.

The primary vs. general fallacy

JJ — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:47:07 GMT

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.”

The primary vs. general fallacy

Scott — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:47:45 GMT

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.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Daniel, NY — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:47:48 GMT

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

The primary vs. general fallacy

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:49:14 GMT

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

The primary vs. general fallacy

jj — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:50:53 GMT

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.”

The primary vs. general fallacy

scott, TX — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:51:42 GMT

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.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Gary Schear, Bozeman Montana — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:53:07 GMT

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

Can you count? Then count and shut up.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Laddie — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:54:33 GMT

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

The primary vs. general fallacy

Todd, Vicksburg, Mich. — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:55:41 GMT

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

The primary vs. general fallacy

PY,CT — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:57:29 GMT

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

The primary vs. general fallacy

rc-Ocala FL — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:00:23 GMT

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.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Bob, Chicago — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:01:31 GMT

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.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Rob, Indianapolis — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:02:03 GMT

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

The primary vs. general fallacy

Nicholas: Minnesota — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:09:52 GMT

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.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Nj — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:11:15 GMT

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????

The primary vs. general fallacy

Adlai, Winchester, CA — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:11:38 GMT

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.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Feisty Redhead IL — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:11:56 GMT

Is it just me... OR does:

Bill = Heckle
Hill = Jeckle

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

Obama 08 YES WE CAN & YES WE WILL!!

The primary vs. general fallacy

I.K., Ann Arbor, MI — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:15:55 GMT

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.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Libby J — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:16:48 GMT

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.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Obie, Burtrum, MN — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:17:55 GMT

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

The primary vs. general fallacy

Dan — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:18:17 GMT

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.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Who's Sane — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:19:31 GMT

"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?

The primary vs. general fallacy

a person — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:20:08 GMT

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!

The primary vs. general fallacy

Farah, New York, NY — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:20:42 GMT

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.

The primary vs. general fallacy

New Wave — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:22:28 GMT

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?

The primary vs. general fallacy

nuanced — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:22:29 GMT

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

The primary vs. general fallacy

Mark, IL — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:23:17 GMT

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.

The primary vs. general fallacy

REG; East Valley Phx. AZ — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:24:31 GMT

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.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Annoyed Reader — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:27:04 GMT

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!"

The primary vs. general fallacy

Nj — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:27:50 GMT

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

The primary vs. general fallacy

New Wave — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:28:48 GMT

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

The primary vs. general fallacy

ClintonCanWinOverMcCain — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:29:05 GMT

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.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Venkat, Sterling, VA — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:31:25 GMT

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.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Larry, IL — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:33:34 GMT

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.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Jeff, Vancouver, WA — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:34:52 GMT

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.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Venkat, Sterling, VA — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:35:45 GMT

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?

The primary vs. general fallacy

Who's Sane — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:36:37 GMT

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

The primary vs. general fallacy

Rory, Missoula, MT — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:37:26 GMT

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.

The primary vs. general fallacy

IOWAN — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:38:07 GMT

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

The primary vs. general fallacy

Rory, Missoula, MT — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:39:24 GMT

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...

The primary vs. general fallacy

John, Morgan Hill, California — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:43:20 GMT

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.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Pete,NY,NY — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:44:52 GMT

Experience over Ambition. Just say Nobama.

Hillary or McCain for President. The Independent Choice!

The primary vs. general fallacy

sotiredofignoranceandClinton — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:45:24 GMT

It is absurd to suggest that CA et al are going to vote for McCain in the general election.

The thing that is an absolute is that Senator Obama brings in more new voters and cross over votes than Clinton.

I ask again: Chuck Todd, when will you do the honest thing and put Texas in the win column for Senator Obama, and take Florida and Michigan out of Clinton's win column?

It is time that the party leaders, super delegates and all remaining voters decide if Clinton has proven herself unworthy of the POTUS based on her refusal to denounce Ferraro's comments. The Democratic leadership needs to step up to the plate. It is time for this campaign to end based on Clinton's behavior.

ENOUGH!

The primary vs. general fallacy

Scott, Seattle WA — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:45:24 GMT

Who wants to ask Hillary about Tata Corporation. They are an India-based company who teaches companies how to export their jobs to India. Hillary rails against NAFTA and free trade in Ohio and PA, but she actually helped Tata to move to Buffalo, stating they would bring jobs to Buffalo. When cornered on the impact, she stated sheepishly the effect was only 10 jobs. Just another politician spewing lies. Tell a friend.

The primary vs. general fallacy

DB Fresno, CA — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:46:18 GMT

I'm a conservative. I am going to vote for Obama in the general election. If Hillary is nominated, I will vote McCain, even though I don't like McCain. In fact, I would vote for anybody who would be running again Hillary. There are a lot of conservatives like me. How will that factor into Hillary's logic? If the Democrates don't nominate Obama, they may lose the general election, because they're are sooo many people out there that just hate Hillary's personality.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Obwan,IN — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:47:17 GMT

Yep! The big state scenario really work well for Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000. OH! Wait! What is that they did not win the presidency.

Where have all the electors gone!
Along time passing.
Where have all the electors gone!
Along time ago.
When will the Dems ever learn.
When will the Dems ever learn.

Apologies to Pete Seeger and Tao Rodriguez-Seeger.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Robert — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:48:02 GMT

Ohhh! Hillary's gonna be mad at you!

The primary vs. general fallacy

Dee Jackson, Columbia, TN — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:51:42 GMT

I don't think anyone should be making predictions about who will win or lose in this election season. This goes for Dems and Republicans. This election is truly unique in a myriad of ways. I think the statements by the Clinton camp both presumptuous and misleading. Given craziness of this election, anything can happen. But, Dems had better stop the in-fighting and get serious about taking back the White House. I have to say that Clinton has done more, thus far, to ruin that opportunity for Dems. I admire her, but she is allowing her ambition to override her better judgment.

The primary vs. general fallacy

tvanel — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:51:56 GMT

All of this is part of a deliberate attempt by the clinton camp to marginalize Sen. Obama.

http://www.thevaneljournal.com/2008/03/marginalization-of-barack-obama.html

The primary vs. general fallacy

Doug Thompson, Newton, Iowa — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:52:06 GMT

Why does Chris Matthews keep talking about importance of popular vote. As indicated above, since so many states were Caucus states the popular vote is skewed to the point where it is irrelevant. In Iowa Obama would have gained tens of thousands of popular votes more than Hillary but because it was a Caucus the number of votes different was only in the thousands. You're comparing apples to oranges.

The primary vs. general fallacy

John, Morgan Hill, California — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:52:26 GMT

Wasn't it once said that being a governor of a small "doesn't matter" state like Arkansas was absolutely no qualification for being President? It turn about that back in 1992 58% of Americans agreed because they voted against Bill Clinton! The wife of the man who NEVER ONCE WON a majority of the popular vote in the USA is now pulling this nonsense.

Enough. Already.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Mark Mora, Albuquerque, NM — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:52:53 GMT

Somehow even discussing this topic as if it were relevant or somehow was based in reality is a tribute to the level of spin and manipulation the Clinton campaign is able to generate using their media and political connections. It's sad and a little frightening that they are able to get any traction at all with this. Common sense tells you that a general election is very different from a primary election. However, if you have enough money, political power, media connections you can make common sense mute.

The primary vs. general fallacy

NanD, Las Vegas, NV — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:55:20 GMT

rc-Ocala,FL...

Do you know what a caucus is? I've been to a few. And I saw old people in wheelchairs, on walkers, etc. Not only that, I saw people of all ages, races, religions, etc. If you don't know what they are, please research before you comment - you make yourself look very foolish by simply spouting off what someone else has told you, rather than doing some actual research yourself. This election is much too important to just sit back and listen to all the propaganda - without doing any thinking for yourself.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Mark Mora, Albuquerque, NM — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:58:54 GMT

Good news is that Geraldine Ferraro has resigned from the Clinton Campaign. Bad news it wasn't until she had "mispoken" and was "misunderstood" about racisim as she shilled for the Clinton Camp in the "Alabama" that is the middle of Pennsylvania. How cyncial to use a groundbreaking politician like her play the "he's only doing well because he is black" after the same criticism was leveled at her 1984 campaign. Desperation makes people do things they would normally never do. However, she did make similiar comments about Jesse Jackson in 1988 so perhaps she is truly a feminist racist. Kind of like the ploy Hillary has been using - vote for me because I'm a woman and its our time buts it not the "black man's" time.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Holli, Oklahoma City, OK — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:00:42 GMT

Here's where I feel the Obama campaign needs to a better job. The idea that some traditionally Democratic candidates are going to suddenly go Republican because Obama wins is silly. And, even more important, some states where Obama did really well are states that could be in play in November. I really think his campaign needs to point out the fallacies in their argument each and every time they are raised. They only argue thia bout Pennsylvania because it fits the demographic of the supporters of Clinton's campaign. If it were an Obama likely state, suddenly it would be "well, Pennsylvania doesn't matter and here's why." Ohio and Texas came alot closer than pundits would have imagined 2 months ago. The fact that Obama actually walked away with more delegates shows that he has been working on the ground, meeting people, and gaining support.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Bob, NY, NY — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:00:53 GMT

On the Ferraro comments...like Tucker Carlson said perhaps we should ask first if what she said has some validity to it. Is it wrong to ask if Obama was a white male if he would be where he is? Look at the exit polls from yesterday just as an example.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Gary, Toronto, Ontario — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:04:09 GMT

Thankyou for this. I have found Clinton's position that she somehow "owns" these states to be particularly galling. The reality is that Obama could count on more support from people backing Clinton in the primaries than she could from his camp were the situation reversed. My guess, given the tone of her campaign of late, is that a lot of Obama supporters would sit on their hands during the November election if Clinon captures the nomination.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Kay — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:05:15 GMT

I was a supporter of Clinton until he insisted oral sex with an intern didn't count.

His wife dutifully stood by him. Cheating husbands relaxed, they could point to the Clintons as no reason to ruin a marriage because of betrayal.

That kind of slippery morality got George Bush elected and that is what got us into the Iraq war (and maybe even 9-11 due to incompetence). Return to those thrilling days of yesteryear? Hell, no.

The Clintons are counting on voter amnesia, self-interest of superdelegates and the media covering the dust-ups for ratings while they use the Karl Rove bully pulpit as a bible.

The last thing they care about is the will of the people.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Kay — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:05:16 GMT

The primary vs. general fallacy

Gary, Toronto, Ontario — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:05:18 GMT

The primary vs. general fallacy

Frank ,Hopewell,NJ — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:10:17 GMT

Finally a discussion of the false argument of the Clinton camp. In dissecting the past elections data comparing primary successes vs the general, it would be interesting to evaluate if the combined vote totals of Clinton and Obama in the primaries will translate to an indicator of how strong whoever the Dem candidate is in the General.Hint would be the % of registered Dems that came out in their combined totals per state to the % of registered Republicans. I guess it starts to fall apart in these latter primaries because the Repub's candidate was essentially set. Hopefully, the Clinton's debunked argument will be picked up by the press.
On the other issue floating out their,Geraldine Ferraro's feeding the press fire to have a news cycle worth of discounting Obama's wide appeal. Seem Wisconsin,Va,Md.DC results.
It is beyond belief--no check that, it is quite believable by the Clinton's playing hard ball against their fellow Dem.It is sickening. Whatever happened to the Unity Party '08 efforts?-I'll need an alternative if Hillary Clinton is the Democrat's candidate.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Jerry S. Oakland, CA — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:14:27 GMT

First Read,
Why don't you report the endorsement Obama received from the Flag Officers of the U.S. military?
A bigot who cries out loud in false disbelief that Obama is against the flag of the U.S. will now be in belief that he is a patriot (it is, in my personal view, nothing but a symbol of patriotism and to require people to saulte it is like a dictator forcing people to to reaffirm their loyalty to the regime, and remember flags are designed by artists and not true patriots).
http://www.barackobama.com/2008/03/12/obama_receives_endorsement_of.php

The primary vs. general fallacy

Mark Mora, Albuquerque, NM — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:15:27 GMT

Just curious. I've tried several times to comment without success, following the rules and making what I believe to be cogent and intelligent comments on the topics posted but I am unable to get anything posted. And yet some of your most vitrolic, stupid, racist, and downright ignorant posters seem to be able to break through and get their comments posted time and time again. Is the intent to use the most stupid and venal of us to keep the controvsery going or are you really trying to create intelligent dialouge. I wonder sometimes what your true motivation and what you goals really are.

The primary vs. general fallacy

DShawn233, LaVergne, Tn — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:16:45 GMT

I would love to see more comments from those (if you did not vote for us Clintons) you don't count states. Every state that Obama won should be offended by the Clinton thought process. They want everyone to toss out the victories that do not have Clinton in the winners seat. It is more than crazy. They are telling everyone that the only states that matter are her "big" states. They are trying to tell everyone that the number of delegates Obama has won does not matter (note: He just happens to have more that Hillary) and the fact that he has won more states (note: He just happens to have won twice as many as Hillary) does not matter either. The Clintons can stop jumping up and down about their victory in Texas (note: He just happens to have taken more delegates out of The Great State than she did) now.
The Clintons want us to create the United States of Hillary, give her the Democratic nomination, and shut up.
The Obama team did not create the system that is being used to select our candidate from the Democratic Party, but, the Clintons seem to desire a new process using 10 or 15 states (of thier choice) due to the fact that they may not be able to win the "big one" this time.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Kathryn in Bham — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:19:16 GMT

Bull the Dog -
I would agree that the horrible crimes committed against our own people of color and their adversaries would be one of the first acts of terror against our citizens. I don't think anyone would argue that fact. I do think that the point many people are making is that this very historic campaign for the White House, is seen by many as the proof that we have overcome those days and now recognize the struggle and the triumph for people of color. The realization of Dr. King's Dream and the possibility that we may be lead for the first time by an african-american is part of what is sweeping the nation and is what gives substance to Obama's talk of hope and change. In that way, the 'race card' works to his advantage and is noted by many as a plus for the Obama camp. Do you not agree that the circumstance of his people, of all opressed people, validates the claim and continual fight for hope and change?

...Now the real question is whether or not this very credible attribute qualifies him to lead our nation as Commander in Chief and President...

The primary vs. general fallacy

jj — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:19:19 GMT

-ALL 3 CANDIDATES VOTED AGAINST DRILLING IN ALASKA-

McCain is closest to average lifespan.

McCAIN OFFERS BEST 'HOPE' OF 3.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Rick,Ky — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:19:49 GMT

Still bouncing off the walls in the Rubber Room there, J. Merle & Dawn.Good one Mr. Bozeman!

Thank you 1st Read for Confusing Clinton supporter's even more with Fact's.

Campdog, read all the thread before posting, not just to the Point where your Imagination takes hold.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Stan, Warsaw, IN — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:20:18 GMT

Another day and more SPIN to take our minds off reality: she's losing and the war is still going on...also it's 7 yrs after 9/11 and Bush doesn't think much about Osama, he has his sights on Iran. One,two, screwups in the mid-East are not enough. But with a history of bankrupting companies, should we be surprised that he's doing the same to America?

The primary vs. general fallacy

Jill, New York — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:22:16 GMT

The problem with predicting how the general elections will turn out based on the results of the primaries is that it ignores one critical factor: in this race for the nomination, Clinton is THE establishment candidate while Obama is the insurgent. Clinton has the backing of the Democratic machinery, especially strong in so-called blue states. Obama has to build his network from the ground up, and despite starting with much less than Clinton, has been able to rally his supporters to a respectable finish. In fact, Obama's ability to win in red states tests the strength of the movement around his campaign.

Now, in the general elections, it is much more conceivable that supporters of Clinton, many of whom are Party leaders and senior members, will fall in line once the Party has chosen its standard bearer. On the other hand, Obama's supporters, many of whom are new in electoral politics, may not necessarily follow the Party's lead. Even if we take away the fall-out because of the divisiveness of the current campaign, it would be safe to assume that given the possibility of 4 more years under Republican rule, the most die-hard Clintonites who are party activists will vote for Obama just as unions supporting Obama now will go for Clinton.

The point we need to ask here: who is bringing something new to the Democratic fold?

The primary vs. general fallacy

Dave, AZ — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:23:56 GMT

History is lies agreed upon.

The primary vs. general fallacy

jj — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:23:58 GMT

BUSH CAN'T DO ANYTHING about domestic oil production-thanks to DAMN LIBERALS. . .

BUSH GOT THE SURGE DONE, HOWEVER.

-over those DAMN LIBERALS-

The primary vs. general fallacy

Mike Hamilton, Fishers, Indiana — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:24:22 GMT

It's the Electorial College baby! No man has ever been elected President of the United States without winning the Electorial College!

The primary vs. general fallacy

Pennsylvania Working Man — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:25:51 GMT

Ok, all you hard working men and women from Penn. take a look at this. This is a record of a hard working man who talks the talk and walks the walk, from helping end poverty to crime fighting to veteran benifits--Obama is the man.

Hillary on the other hand doesn't seem to have done much to anyone--except herself. Don't believe me--look at her senate record then compare it to Obama's!!!

Oh, and to that women who said "Obama is luck to be running for President and it's just because he's black" --remember he's half white too, Ferrarro.

Who's the best? Obama's the best. Take a look you sad Clintonites and you'll see that Obama did more in 8 months then most senators do in a lifetime of service. That's the kind of president I want working for me.

The following information gathered from the Library of Congress on the Legislative experience Junior Senator Hillary Clinton and Junior Senator Barack Obama. Please Feel free to check these records for yourself and draw your own conclusion.

Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term, which is 6 years and another year campaigning, has authored and passed 20 twenty pieces of legislation in her term of six years into law. These bills can be found at (wwwhomas.loc.gov). Senator Clinton has passed.

(1) Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
(2) Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
(3) Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
(4) Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
(5) Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
(6) Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
(7) Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
(8) Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
(9) Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
(10) Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
(11) Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
(12) Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
(13) Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
(14) Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
(15) Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.

Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive.
(16) Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
(17) Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
(18) Assist landmine victims in other countries.
(19) Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
(20) Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

She has a nice list, but note that these are The Fact's straight from the Senate Record; Therefore, it is not made up.

Now, It is time to post Senator Obama's record from the Library of Congress.I have to mention that Senator Obama's list is too substantive, one is coalesced to categorize. Since its alot, remember you can go to the Library of Congress website, and check it out yourself, but I am just summarizing his first 8 months.

During Senator Obama's first 8 eight months of elected service he sponsored over 820 bills.

He introduced 233 bills regarding healthcare reform,
125 bills on poverty and public assistance,
112 bills on crime fighting,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.
In his first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included:
(1)the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 that became LAW,
(2)The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act that became LAW, (3)The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act that passed the Senate,
(4)The 2007 Government Ethics Bill that became LAW,
(5)The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill that is in committee just to name a few.

In all since he entered the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no legislative record. Read the facts and not emotion.

The primary vs. general fallacy

jj — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:26:10 GMT

BASEBALL STEROIDS
GAY MARRIAGE
SEXUAL ESCAPADES

-and American idol-

NO DOMESTIC ENERGY FOR 300 MILLION STRONG.

The primary vs. general fallacy

mel — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:28:47 GMT

You forget that the popular vote is pretty close and Obama would need the core democrats. But with the people on the blogs I highly doubt that will happen, so if it is Obama he will lose thanks to the immaturity on his supporters part.
And please quit crying race everyday.

The primary vs. general fallacy

david hunter Bend — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:34:34 GMT

Howard Dean,

After the last two days its become clear the the race for the nomination is turning into a race war. In each contest Barack Obama’s percentages of the African American vote has gone up to where in Mississippi it topped 90%. I don’t believe like some would suggest that the party will come together once one of the candidates wins. This race baiting is not about the issues, but is a emotional attack toward a group of people that have faithfully supported this party in every election. This will destroy the party.

I would like to know where the leaders of the Democratic Party are when we’re watching the party being destroyed. Where are you, Al Gore and the Super Delegates when it matters? Missing in action?

Here’s a list where the leadership could have made a difference.

1. Bill Clintons playing the race card in Iowa and South Carolina.
2. Geraldine Ferraro’s racially charged comments on black vs white. Why did you and other leaders not condemn those remarks immediately? Why wasn’t she removed from her post in the Clinton campaign immediately? There is no excuse for those remarks.
3. Then there is the ”as far as I know he’s not a muslim” remark from Senator Clinton.
4. The photo of Senator Obama in tribal dress that was leaked to the press.

This leads me to think that there is no leadership in the Democratic Party or they’re missing a moral compass.

I believe the Clinton campaign has decided since they can’t have enough of the African American vote that they will drive a wedge between black and white Americans. I now have come to believe they would destroy the party for their own personal gain. Shame on us for sitting by and watching the politics of self destruction play out before us.

Six more weeks of this.

Why don’t the Super Delegates take charge and back the candidate of their choice. No, it’s way to easy to sit by and see which way the wind is blowing. That wind is going to blow John McCain right into the White House.

Shame on us.

David Hunter
A 64 yr old white guy from Oregon.

The primary vs. general fallacy

S. Wood, Portland, OR — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:35:40 GMT

Mrs. Clinton's campaign isn't going well, not at all. It's an example of a person wanting something very badly, not getting it, and in deep denial about it. The 'not getting' becomes unacceptable, distorts reality, can lead to denial of reality, loosing touch with reality, and those closest to her become enablers. That sounds like what's happening with Mrs. Clinton.

The primary vs. general fallacy

HT — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:40:40 GMT

there is no need to worry about MS---Mccain will win it.Save your clinton name calling breath--you are just wasting it.

The primary vs. general fallacy

S. Wood, Portland, Or — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:44:24 GMT

Another 'spin' from the Clinton machine and another reason AGAINST Mrs. Clinton.

The primary vs. general fallacy

EE — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:53:27 GMT

The Clintons are best qualified to run the USA. Can you imagine what would happen if they let a momentary infatuation with Obama deter them from doing what they know is right?

I want experienced a capabale politicians running the country, so much the btter if they have to use so-called "dirty tricks" to succeed. They are the smartest and most capabale just because voters are too stupid to see trhat doesn't mean they should give up to Obama.

Superdelegates will save this country.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Heather, Los Angeles CA — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:54:00 GMT

What I feel we are watching is a women who is in the public eye who is not consciousely aware of what she is doing....What I feel we are watching is Hillary going through all the emoitional changes that women go through who are not willing to let go....What I see her doing is trying to put a sq. peg in a round hole, which will never fit, and she is frustrated that all that she has tried to do has not worked....She has never lost....NEVER.....and this is hard for her especially when she felt this was "her" time to shine.......She is a sore loser, but more than that, Hillary supporters must be okay with a Ctry that is divided, and okay with Special Interest Grps governing Washington, and okay with having no morals, and ok being a two faced double talker, and that is scary when we are attempting as a Ctry to move on....we are THE UNITED STATES....NOT THE DIVIDED STATES OF AMERICA.....

THINK ABOUT IT!!

The primary vs. general fallacy

Pier , Los Angeles, CA — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:54:39 GMT

Obama is a sensational candidate, but this election reminds me of the Chris Rock movie "Head of State". I don't think for one moment that Obama could win against Senator McCain in a general election....Hopefully Hillary will pull it off, if she doesn't look forward to another 4 years with a republican in the White House.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Heather Luckleary, Minn.Minn — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:58:49 GMT

Desperation is clouding the neocortex of the Clinton campaign. That is why it has been so easy for Obama's to counterreact to all the inventions of the Clinton Machine. Better vote "no drama" Obama than "hysteria" Hillary. She would be a lousy CiC, just like pre-senile "bomb-bomb-bomb Iran and occupy Iraq for 100 years" McCain.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Frank — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:12:17 GMT

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 under the impression that the general election will be between a Republican and a Democratic candidate.

There will be a significant difference on the issues.

Only true idiots fall for that kind of questioning with a nod!

The primary vs. general fallacy

Tom, Tucson, AZ — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:17:26 GMT

I think the fallacy is to assume that just because Hillary wins a state, that her supporters would all of a sudden switch to McCain in the national election should Obama end up ultimately become the democratic candidate. I would imagine that, for the most part, her supporters are not so much anti-Obama as they are pro-Hillary. Wouldn't the logical assumption be that the majority that preferred Hillary in the primary ultimately back Obama if the choice were between him and McCain?

The primary vs. general fallacy

shirley, San Jose, CA — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:27:47 GMT

According to Hillary the only votes and States that count are the ones she wins. Surely no one still believes she cares about America's middle class. Hillary cares about winning and is changing course every other day with a new spin on this election. Her goal is to convience the delegates that she is, at this point, the winner of this contest while she is number 2. No wonder she is beginning to sound insane.

The primary vs. general fallacy

shirley,San Jose, CA — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:30:54 GMT

Hillary is expert in Karl Rove techniques. As she tells it, she has had many years in politics to learn.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Mary C — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:33:35 GMT

I am so sick Of hillary clinton ssying "Every vote should be counted" as if they would go to her! How arrogant and self-deceived she appears to be. She has based all of her hopes on past occurances. Wake up! New Day! We're making history- not repeating it! OBAMA 08

The primary vs. general fallacy

LP, Maryland — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:37:57 GMT

Hi ...imagine this ...media is covering all this...imagine that...

The primary vs. general fallacy

John Deer — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:43:15 GMT

Well, I'll be moved out of United States if Hillary Clinton owned the White House for four years or longer since she become the President of the United States. I also don't want to see her face on the TV talking or pointing to the audiences. Her acting on the camping make me sick. God, please, help Barack Obama to win this presidental campaign.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Beebop, Cleveland — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:43:33 GMT

By the same token, the caucuses in Mississippi and Alabama mean bupkis since they will go Republican in November. PLEASE STOP CHERRY PICKING information in support of Senator Obama's campaign and start to provide a full look at this important campaign.

The primary vs. general fallacy

DShawn233 — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:58:48 GMT

I wonder what the nature of these conversations would be if the Clintons had won twice as many states as Obama, had the pledged delegate lead over Obama, and had a lead in the popular vote over Obama. What would the nature of these conversations be if Obama was telling everyone that the only states that mattered were the "big" states? What would the nature of these conversations be if everyone, that could count, told Obama that he would have to win each of the next 10 states with 65-70% of the vote just to catch up to Hillary only to have him say: "I won the big states and Hillary can't win if she doesn't win those." "We are going to go after Hillaries pledged delegates and get the Superdelegates."
I don't have to wonder how the conversation would go because I am certain that every media outlet and every blog would slam Barack Obama and question his logic and sanity for having the nerve to state the things that the Clinton campaign states each and every day with a straight face.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Alma, Sebastopol, CA — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:13:09 GMT

Hillary and her surrogates lie and cheat all the time. If she wins the nomination, we should not vote for her. We shouldn't vote for McCain either because he is a republican, but certainly we shouldn't give a lier, cheater and power hungry Hillary any power over our nation.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Rusty, OKC, OK — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:16:13 GMT

Could MSNBC just please come out and endorse Obama already? It would make your reporting much more understandable.

The primary vs. general fallacy

El Grande — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:19:12 GMT

I really enjoy Clinton continuing to destroy the Democrat party. The first party to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ... stupid predictable Democrats. Obama had the only shot to defeat McCain, and now the Democrats are going to either destroy Obama or let Clinton steal the nomination. Either way, McCain now can defeat a Clinton mauled Obama or an election stealing, racist, horn dog husband having, permanent victim.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Pittsburgh for Obama 08 — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:20:09 GMT

Dawn in Pittsburgh

You need a "dikshunery" (dictionary)

It is obvious that you don't read much. Maybe you should try it before you post your un-researched opionion. You shouldn't just take whatever HRC says and run with it.

The primary vs. general fallacy

Suzanne, Elkhorn, WI — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:09:04 GMT

What everyone fails to mention, is that it doesn't matter who wins the primary. The assumption is that the democratic party would rally behind the nominee, and thus all would vote for their candidate. However, with Hillary determined to tear the party apart, if she were the nominee, McCain would certainly win.