Meaningless Historical References

Again, the mainstream media is pushing the story that a close primary battle is bad for the Democrats.

Jim Acosta tries to put this in historical context, saying that the last three times the Democrats had divisions at the convention they lost. Those years--1968, 1972, and 1980.

This is the problem with campaign history. The sample size is so small and the individual circumstances so unique that such comparisons are meaningless.

This year, the Democrats are strong. Normally, any one candidate this strong would win going away. The other years saw a very weak party with a very weak candidate. 1968 had an unpopular war started by a Democratic president, a leading candidate assassinated, and chaos in the streets. 1972 saw a party still divided by the events of four years earlier. And in 1980, the Democrats had a very unpopular president, foreign policy disaster in Iran, and a terrible economy.

1968 and 1980 have a lot more in common with the Republicans in 2008 than the Democrats. 1972 is totally irrelevant to the situation.

I'm not saying that the nomination going to the convention is a good thing. But these previous campaigns offer no useful comparisons and I wish journalists would learn something about the history they are citing as evidence.