I wanted to see what, if any, reaction Hillary Clinton's campaign had up on their website to her loss in Maine, but it seems they're ignoring it. Also Louisiana. And Washington. And Nebraska. And of course the US Virgin Islands. Instead, the latest results-related thing I saw was a post-Super Tuesday memo from Mark Penn that featured the illogic we've come to expect from the man since long before he started working for HRC's presidential bid:

As super-delegates consider which candidate to support, they will be looking at which one candidate has a base and can win the big states, including the crucial swing constituencies. We believe the impressive wins in NY, CA, MA, MI, FL, NJ, AZ suggest that Hillary is the one who can motivate a strong turnout in November.




But of course Democrats couldn't possibly lose NY, CA, MA, or NJ there was no campaign in FL or MI and it'll be a cold day in hell before John McCain loses an election in Arizona. I think the reverse inference that Obama won swing states like Colorado, Iowa, and Missouri and will therefore carry those states in the general election doesn't stand up to scrutiny, but at least I understand what the argument is supposed to be. What about Clinton winning Massachusetts is supposed to convince me that Clinton can motivate a strong turnout?

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.