This is partly in response to a laughably absurd email rant from a TPM reader that Josh Marshall has posted. And partly in response to the hazy logic expressed by some Clinton-backers when discussing the electability question.
We've had 26 contests and there are a lot of numbers available. On the electability subject, all those numbers can be condensed down into this question:
Which of the following statements is plausible?
One of these statements is potentially true:
Obama's 10 point losses in New Jersey and California suggest that he could lose those states in the general election.
Clinton's 35 point landslide-losses in Colorado and Minnesota suggest that she could lose those states in the general election.
The other one is not potentially true. I hope we can all tell the difference.
This is the long and the short of the Electability Gap. One candidate is accepted by true-blue states and rejected by purple states, the other candidate is accepted by true-blue states and accepted by purple states.
So I give the ball to you, Clinton Support Team. Do you want to make an argument that your candidate should be chosen despite the electability gap, or do you still want to attempt an Electability Parity argument now that half the states have voted and we know exactly who's electable where.
Update:
Obama the fighter came out tonight in his speech. They've clearly made a decision to press 3 "core" differences between him and Clinton: Iraq, Politics-as-usual, and Electability. Here is Barack on the subject from his speech:
It's a choice between having a debate with the other party about who has the most experience in Washington, or having one about who is most likely to change Washington, because that is a debate we can win.