The latest Clinton argument is 'Map Not the Math.' They have won the important swing states. They have won the most electoral votes. And according to them, that makes them the strongest candidate going into the general.

Now that is interesting argument, but history just doesn't back it up.

In 2004, John Kerry won every state but 4 giving him 505 E.Vs to 33. And don't think those 4 states were vital swing states, they were VT, NC, SC, and OK. How did that work out for us?

In 2000, Al Gore won every single state. All the swing states included. Even if you think Al should have taken the oath in 2001, if our argument is winning more E.V.s in the primary makes you a stronger general election candidate, why did the 2000 election come down to just 534 votes in FL anyway?

And perhaps the Clintons would care to explain if winning a state in the primary is so important to the general why Bill won the FL and TX primaries in 92, yet lost those states in the general? He also won MD, MA, and NH in the 92 general yet lost those states in the primary. What happened there?

There are many arguments that can be made as to why Hillary might be a stronger candidate in the general than Barack, but please, please don't disrespect the voters intelligence by saying it is the 'Map Not the Math,' when very clearly, it isn't.