POLITICAL DIARY II
Two of the fallacies (non sequiturs) I’ve been hearing are the ‘big state’ and ‘red state’ fallacies, which are based some poor reasoning. In this case, both the Clinton and Obama campaigns are at fault.
Firstly, the logic that wins in big state Democratic primaries/caucuses equates to a win in the general election is invalid. There is no big state demographic, only a categorical grouping. This curious bit of dis-logic seems to be based on the electoral winner-take-all system (except for NE & ME) which mathematically favors the campaign that wins these states in the fall election. Large blue states, of which there are many, would almost certainly to go to either Democratic candidate in the fall. A Big red state such as Texas is not likely to go to either Democrat.
Secondly, red state appeal is not much better, logically speaking. A win in a closed primary indicates only that the candidate has greater appeal to a minority of the voters in a red state. A win in a open primary/caucus may indicate some potential for crossover appeal, but this is not enough to presume success in the general election without other supporting evidence.
The lazy reporting is getting tiresome. They lump us into easy categories like ethnic group, gender, or compass point. They could at least come up with a few new groups. How about people who have seen [movie], cat or dog owners, coke or pepsi drinkers, people who can name all seven dwarfs?
Thanks, HT, I appreciate your response.
There is an argument that could be made for Obama’s crossover appeal, but it relies on polling data which specifically shows this. Obama’s wins in open primaries suggest he might do well in the general election, but closed primaries are a different story since the Democrats in a red state may be highly atypical of the state as a whole. On the other hand, the Democrats in many red states are more conservative, just as the rest of the electorate in that state.
My point was simply that are too many exceptions to make the ‘red state victor’ generalization useful. A case-by-case examination would be much more convincing, but it wouldn’t fit into a sound bite.
The ‘big state victor’ trope doesn’t have much logic behind it, although an alternative argument could be made for the Democratic winner in specific states having a better chance versus the Republican. “Bigness” is merely a category.
Another problem is the differential effect. The Democratic winner should be somewhat more likely to win that state in the general election, but there are too many caveats that make this generalization useless. For instance, wins in blue states aren’t going to add to the Democratic nominee’s total, since they would be extremely likely to go to any Democrat in the general election.
Yet another part of the problem is that winning the big states may merely be a result of the campaign’s emphasis on those states. Whether it was a wise or foolish strategy is mostly moot. Curiously, it was the Clinton campaign’s neglect of the caucus states that has been criticized by political observors, since their mis-allocation of resources appears to have yielded fewer total delegates. However, we can give them ‘spin points’ for selling the idea that their poor management makes them a better choice for the general election.
There are many valid arguments that could be made for a political candidate’s electability. Poor ones insult our intelligence.
Many of these arguments are a form of dissonance reduction. People find arguments that support decisions they’ve already made. But when arguments stretch credulity past the breaking point they tend to alienate fellow Democrats, thus harming the party’s chances in the general election.
Clinton’s and Obama’s strategies on Super Tuesday
The following WaPo piece explains the big state strategy by the Clinton campaign, as well as the opposite strategy employed by the Obama campaign.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/22/AR2008012203517.html?hpid=topnews
Part of the success that each campaign has enjoyed so far is merely due to emphasis.