Funk Babblings

I agree that primaries are not a good indicator for results in a general election. Most voters who participate in primaries are generally aware of this. I also agree that how a candidate did in a previous state in a primary should not be a major reason for voting for that candidate.

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.