Via MAL Contends
- On ABC's News's
This Week with George Stephanopoulos, viewers were treated to a graphic comparing the two Democratic candidates' performance thus far in the primary.
Stephanopoulos, following the disingenuous Clinton spin that uses its logic of primary-election-state performance morphing into general-election state performance, displayed the cumulative electoral votes (general election) total of every primary state that the candidates have won.
E-mail George and tell what you think: George.Stephanopoulos@abc.com
Why are electoral votes important now? Does Stephanopoulos really believe performances in Democratic primary states are, even arguably, predictors of performance in general elections? If so, Bill Clinton would never have been president, because Clinton lost most of New England in the 1992 Democratic primary. The reason for displaying the graphic is clear.
Coming off his deplorable performance as a debate moderator, Stephanopoulos can be counted on to continue his preening for the Clinton campaign, buying every Clinton spin possible and framing the election for his old chums.
But gee maybe Stephanopoulos is right. And since John McCain won New York and California in the GOP primary, McCain can be counted on to win these states in the general election. But that really doesn't make any sense, does it?