![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Warning: Politics again.
Sorry, I'm trying to stay positive, but this has been really bugging me. Of all the dumb things coming out of the Clinton campaign and some of its supporters, one stands out to me as the most maddenly, stupidly illogical.
That is the idea that a candidate's performance in the primary (or caucus) indicates how they'll do in the general election. That if a candidate loses a state's primary they can't do well in that state in the general election, and if a candidate wins a state's primary they can do well in that state in the general election.
This is stupid.
What group makes up the vast majority of voters in the Democratic primaries? Democrats.
What group makes up the vast majority of voters in the Republican primaries? Republicans.
Yes, depending on the rules in individual states and the current state of the race, independents and Republicans might make up some of the voters in the Democratic primaries. Some of those honestly vote for the candidate they like, others vote strategically in an attempt to make things worse for Democrats (either to extend the nomination campaign or to get the weaker candidate to win). Same goes for non-Republicans in the Republican primaries.
But by the very nature of the primary system, the overwhelming majority of the people voting in a party's primary, no matter which candidate they vote for, will vote for that party's candidate in the general election. And by design, the primary excludes most of the voters who will not vote for the party's nominee (as well as many who will).
As an extra bonus this time around, polls in this campaign have shown that generally Democrats are happy with their candidates, while Republicans generally haven't been happy with theirs.
Yet Clinton and her campaign persist in saying that the winner and loser of a primary is some indicator of how that candidate will do in that state when all the rest of the voters get to vote. They can only be either ignorant or intentionally deceptive. I don't believe they're ignorant, and this sort of deception demonstrates a remarkably low opinion of their audience.
Sorry, I'm trying to stay positive, but this has been really bugging me. Of all the dumb things coming out of the Clinton campaign and some of its supporters, one stands out to me as the most maddenly, stupidly illogical.
That is the idea that a candidate's performance in the primary (or caucus) indicates how they'll do in the general election. That if a candidate loses a state's primary they can't do well in that state in the general election, and if a candidate wins a state's primary they can do well in that state in the general election.
This is stupid.
What group makes up the vast majority of voters in the Democratic primaries? Democrats.
What group makes up the vast majority of voters in the Republican primaries? Republicans.
Yes, depending on the rules in individual states and the current state of the race, independents and Republicans might make up some of the voters in the Democratic primaries. Some of those honestly vote for the candidate they like, others vote strategically in an attempt to make things worse for Democrats (either to extend the nomination campaign or to get the weaker candidate to win). Same goes for non-Republicans in the Republican primaries.
But by the very nature of the primary system, the overwhelming majority of the people voting in a party's primary, no matter which candidate they vote for, will vote for that party's candidate in the general election. And by design, the primary excludes most of the voters who will not vote for the party's nominee (as well as many who will).
As an extra bonus this time around, polls in this campaign have shown that generally Democrats are happy with their candidates, while Republicans generally haven't been happy with theirs.
Yet Clinton and her campaign persist in saying that the winner and loser of a primary is some indicator of how that candidate will do in that state when all the rest of the voters get to vote. They can only be either ignorant or intentionally deceptive. I don't believe they're ignorant, and this sort of deception demonstrates a remarkably low opinion of their audience.
angry
(no subject)
(no subject)
That said, the republicans are more or less the same way. You don't campaign for your party or the other party, you campaign for independents and swing voters. And if they didn't vote, you're right, it means nada.
The Cynic in Me...
Fiercely independent just because of this. We need more parties in this system. ;-)
Peace!
GB!
(no subject)
I disagree with this statement: They can only be either ignorant or intentionally deceptive. I don't believe they're ignorant, and this sort of deception demonstrates a remarkably low opinion of their audience.
Either/or statements make me leery. If Clinton were saying, "My entire platform consists of my electability, which you can see from my wins in X states," I also would have problems with that. And if she said, "Look at the history of how Democrats have performed in primaries, and then the general election. Candidates who win the states I've won win, and candidates who don't, lose," then I'd agree that she was either being ignorant or deceptive.
However, Clinton is responding to reporters who ask, "Since Obama has won more states than you, why are you still running?" In that context, it's perfectly legitimate for her to respond that she's won the bigger states. And she has a point, as far as it goes. She's not arguing that it's the only reason to vote for her, or against Obama.
It's not ignorance nor deception; it's politics.