Sen. Clinton's 'primary v. general' electability theory makes no sense to me. I don't understand this argument that if a person loses a primary/caucus in a state, it somehow means that they cannot win that state in the general election. Out of curiosity (and if this has been researched and highlighted before, I apologize), I looked up President Bill Clinton's primary/caucus tallies from back in 1992. According to Wikipedia (famous last words) President Clinton won 39 primaries/caucuses. Here are the states he lost:
Arizona
Colorado
South Dakota
Iowa
Maryland
Delaware
Vermont
New Hampshire
Massachusettes
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Of those states, he only lost Arizona and South Dakota in the general election. Now there were certainly mitigating factors (local politicians such as Sen. Tsongas and Sen. Harkin won on their home turf in the primaries, and Ross Perot siphoned off a lot of Rep votes in the general), but since the Clinton campaign likes to deal in absolutes, let's apply the logic absolutely. President Clinton's own performance in 1992 proves that if someone loses a state's primary, it doesn't even come close to guaranteeing that they can't win that same state in the general election.
This is what has become so frustrating to me about Sen. Clinton's campaign. There is no room for logic, thought, and reason. It has been replaced by arrogance, irrationality, and negativity. As a New Yorker, I think Sen. Clinton has done a fine job representing my state. In fact I admire many of her policies, and believe from a policy standpoint that she would make a fine President. Unfortunately, it's her politics that keep tripping her up in my eyes, and therefore render her an unacceptable candidate. And by clinging to illogical arguments that can be so easily refuted with a moment's thought, she only serves to undermine herself in this campaign.