twenty-two seconds to live

This has been a quiet question recently, but today after the Pennsylvania primary, all of the major news organizations are running with it – MSNBC, CNN, etc.

This is not only shoddy analysis, but completely intentionally misleading.

The notion that Obama’s losses to Clinton in California, New York, and Pennsylvania indicate his inability to win the general election in those states is both maddening and laughable. I’m not going to address Florida for obvious reasons, or Texas (Obama won Texas, despite what Clinton continues to say.)

Yes, there are some demographics that find Clinton more appealing than Obama. These are a subset of registered Democrats who vote in primaries. When choosing between Democratic candidates for the Democratic Party presidential nominee, they choose Clinton.

There is no twist of logic, no connection, no direct step from there to the concept that these same voters – registered Democrats – would choose the Republican candidate over the Democratic candidate in November. This is purely Non Sequitur.

California – 2004′s Democratic Primary. Turnout was about 2.7 million. John Kerry won the most votes, with 1.8 million. In the 2004 General Election, Californa turned out 12.4 million total voters, and John Kerry won the state with 6.7 million of those votes. George Bush received 5.5 million.

This year in California turnout for the primary was over 4 million, thanks to the massive surge in new voters both of these candidates bring in. Clinton received 2.1 million of those, and Obama got 1.7 million – about what John Kerry got in the 2004 primary. If we apply the same scale disparity from 2004 to this round, California could turn out 9.9 million votes for the Democratic candidate in November. Even if a full half of the die-hard Clinton supporters who voted in the primary decide to stay home or vote for McCain instead, that would be a drop of around 1 million votes.

Has the Republican Party, after 8 years of Bush’s presidency, really gained so much ground in California that they would turn out more than 8 million votes for McCain? California has gone Democrat in every general election since 1992. If there’s a “most unlikely” time for that to change, it’s right now – with a Republican nominee who is essentially a third Bush term.

Likewise let’s look at New York in 2004. Democratic primary turnout was only about 650 thousand, with John Kerry winning with about 400 thousand. In the general election, New York turnout was 7.4 million, and Kerry won with 4.3 million – compared to Bush’s 2.9 million.

This year in New York, Democratic primary turnout was 1.7 million and Clinton took 1 million, Obama a tad under 700 thousand – again far more than John Kerry won in the 2004 primary.

Let me put it another way. In 2004, California had 4 million voters – a full third of all general election voters – show up in November to vote for John Kerry who didn’t even vote at all in the primary. New York had 3.6 million of these voters – they made up almost half of general election voters in New York.

Primary elections are a small core sample of the most enthusiastic party members, and don’t represent general election voters in any meaningful way. To say one Democrat losing to another in a Primary election is indicative that they will lose to the Republican candidate in the general election is dishonest, disingenuous, and disgusting.