Perniciously misleading

The NYTimes puts to bed any of the arguments that Obama can't win Democratic group X because he lost it in the primary.

According to surveys of Pennsylvania voters leaving the polls on Tuesday, Mr. Obama would draw majorities of support from lower-income voters and less-educated ones — just as Mrs. Clinton would against Mr. McCain, even though those voters have favored her over Mr. Obama in the primaries.....

But the Pennsylvania exit polls, conducted by Edison/Mitofsky for five television networks and The Associated Press, underscore a point that political analysts made on Wednesday: that state primary results do not necessarily translate into general election victories.

Did you get that? "....state primary results do not necessarily translate into general election victories."

This has been one of the more pernicious false analysis items embraced as legitimate by the talking heads, and it's the core of the Clinton argument right now whether it's individual demographic breakdowns or the "big state" argument.

For instance, you would expect Obama to lose Dem registered white women to Clinton in a Dem primary, but to think that Dem registered white women are all going to defect to McCain is pretty insane.

(TPM has a more subtle argument about this.)