Logic

[rfunk]

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

Comments

[the_shampoo]

The Clinton campaign has had a lot of....strange things coming out of it. The phrase seems to be "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks".

[anivair]

Agreed, That is not to say that it gives no indication at all, but really (as i said on the ferrett's lj and was widely lambasted for) the vast majority of registered democrats (especially those who vote in the democratic primary) are going to vote for the democratic candidate even if she dances with the devil at the halftime show of the superbowl naked.

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.

[nontacitare]

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