“Logic” in Campaign-speak

On yet another primary Tuesday, one without drama or intrigue though, I feel the need to point this out. Hillary Clinton has argued (amongst many other dubious things as she skillfully ignores the numbers working against her), that HER victories carry more impact that Barack Obama’s because they are in historically critical General election swing states and her victories in those states PROVES that she would win those states in the GE. Now, every time I hear that argument I think “But it was only Dems voting for a Dem candidate. That does not translate directly to what percentage you will get in the GE when running against McCain!”  Of course, my opinion doesn’t make good dramatic copy for the press and pundits so you aren’t going to hear such things from them 🙂 However, let’s dissect just how ridiculous this particular Clinton claim is using those wonderfully logical of things – the numbers.

On Feb 5th, the Republicans had the first part of their primary election. On the day that McCain essentially wrapped up the nomination, here were the results from West Virginia:

CAUCUS RESULTS – February 5, 2008

Republicans | Polls | County Results
Candidate	Votes	% of votes	Delegates won	Projected winner
Mike Huckabee	567	52%	18
Mitt Romney	521	47%	0
John McCain	12	1%	0
Rudy Giuliani	0	0%	0
Ron Paul	0	0%	0

McCain: 1% !!!!!!!!

So by the Clinton “primaries are good indications of the general” metric, if OBAMA gets 2% today, he’ll beat McCain in West Virginia in the general.

So that’s the goal for Obama tonight, set by the Clintons themselves: 2% in West Virginia. I think he can do it.