A false syllogism
So, Hillary won Texas after all (along with Ohio and Rhode Island). Onward we trek, toward Pennsylvania, and Mississippi, and — eventually — Denver. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing — and whether Florida and Michigan are allowed do-overs, as now seems possible — I’ve noticed an irksome argument taking shape.
It goes like this: 1. Democrats needs to win “big” states (like Texas, and Ohio, and California) in a general election; and 2. Hillary has won these big states; therefore 3. Hillary stands a better chance of winning a general election.
That’s a false syllogism. (A syllogism is an argument that takes two statements — a major premise and a minor premise, both assumed to be true — to derive a conclusion. An example is 1. The streets get wet when it rains; and 2. it’s raining; therefore 3. the streets are wet.)
I don’t contest the major premise (i.e., that Democrats need to win “big” states in a general election), but the minor premise is misleading. Has Hillary won a series of big states? Yes, certainly — when opposed by another (or multiple others) Democratic candidate.
Those who promote this (false) syllogism are implying that Obama couldn’t win, say, Ohio, if contested by McCain — that all these votes for Hillary would simply disappear. Has it already been such a divisive campaign that we’re prepared to say that? Isn’t it more likely that — to be conservative — 80% of those people who voted for either Hillary or Obama will vote for the other, be he or she the Democratic nominee, in a general election?
I mean, I would.
