Obama's recent problems have caused some Democrats to worry about his chances of winning the general election. His performance in Ohio, they argue, where he won only a handful of counties and lost some by huge margins, will make his prospects there difficult, they say.A candidate's performance in a primary does not imply anything about how that candidate will do in a general election. Just because Obama lost to Clinton amongst Ohio Democrats does not mean that Obama will lose to McCain amongst all Ohio registered voters. I wish the Washington Post and other media outlets would stop uncritically echoing this fallacious Clinton argument.
EDIT: The quote is actually taken from Dan Balz' campaign blog, and not from a regular Post article--so it seems in this instance that my issue is with one writer in particular, not the whole editorial board of the Washington Post.
1 comment:
I totally agree, and in fact Obama himself made the same point near the end of an interview with NPR's Melissa Block yesterday. Namely, there are currently forces at work against Obama that would be solidly on his side during the general:
"That's why it's hard to extrapolate from what happens during a primary. I don't think there is any doubt that Ed Rendell, the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, will be pushing hard on my behalf come the general election. The same is true in Ohio with Gov. Ted Strickland."
Post a Comment