Everywhere you look, people confuse cause and effect. Here's an example from the illustrious Guardian (UK newspaper also known as the Grauniad for it's predilection towards typos) in Nov 2011:
"There is plenty of evidence that the thing that really turns off voters is a divided party. Since the war, no sitting US president who has faced an internal primary challenge has gone on to re-election; every one who faced no primary challenger has been re-elected. So unless Hillary stirs, write off Obama at your peril."
No, no, NO. The party wants to stay in power - if there's a primary challenge, it means the party thinks the sitting president is doing such a terrible job that s/he is un-electable. It's not the presence of the primary challenger that effects the outcome, it's the reason for there being a primary challenger. Get it?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete