The first time I saw that, I didn't give it much thought. It really doesn't deserve it. But now Hillary has repeated it a few times and her supporters are starting to put it out there as if it's actually constitutes an argument for her electability.

Are they serious? Because if this is meant as an argument, it is all kinds of stupid.

We love electoral trivia here, so I'm more interested in the wonky historical reasons why it's stupid, but before we get into those, let's just mention that it's a complete logical non sequitur. There is no reason at all to think that West Virginia voting patterns in 2008 are anything like West Virginia voting patterns in 1916. Or for that matter, even in 1960. The demographics and the alignment of the parties have changed drastically since then.

In spite of this amusing little factoid, West Virginia is no longer a swing state. Al Gore lost West Virginia in 2000, but he still came within a whisker of winning the presidency ... and the missing whisker was not West Virginia. Any electoral strategy in 2008 would start from the states John Kerry won in 2004 and build from there, looking for states Kerry did not win but Obama or Clinton might. Likely candidates would be Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa, Colorado, Montana, and Virginia. West Virginia is a long way down the list.

That really ought to be plenty to put this ridiculous argument to rest, but just in case someone is still convinced, let's dig a little more:

1. Just because no Democrat has ever won the presidency without West Virginia doesn't mean a candidate is likely to win the presidency with it. In 1988, Michael Dukakis won in West Virginia, but he was still soundly defeated nationwide.

2. As happens so often these days, people are confusing the primary with the general election. Just because a candidate wins a state in the primary doesn't mean he or she will win it in the general. Nor does losing a state in the primary mean losing it in the general. If Clinton means to imply that Obama's primary loss in West Virginia means he can't win a general election, she need look no further than 1976. In that year, Jimmy Carter lost the West Virginia primary, but he went on to win West Virginia in the general election as part of a victory nationwide.

3. But here's the crowning stupidity: What's so special about West Virginia, anyway? It is indeed a fact that since 1916 no Democrat has won the White House without winning West Virginia. It is equally factual that since 1916 no Democrat has won the White House without winning Minnesota. So why aren't we all crowing about Obama's crushing victory over Clinton in Minnesota?

In fact there are several states about which the 1916 statement can be factually made. I picked out Minnesota because that's a state where Obama won two-to-one ... just like Clinton picked out West Virginia because that's a state where she won two-to-one.

If length of record is what matters, we ought to be looking at Missouri. No Democrat has won the White House without winning Missouri since 1824. (In that year, John Quincy Adams won the presidency in spite of losing Missouri to Henry Clay.)

12:11:28 AM  [permalink]  comment []