The Clinton Turnaround

Matt Yglesias goes all ironic about the Clinton ground rules on which states' primaries count and which ones don't. But I wonder just how impressive Hillary Clinton's campaign looks if those rules were applied to her own campaign?

• Right off the bat, Oklahoma and Tennessee don't count--those are dark red states that no Democrat can carry in the general election (like numerous Obama states like Nebraska, Alaska, etc.).
• New Mexico and New Hampshire don't count because they were really, really close (like Missouri, which went for Obama).
• Arizona, Nevada and California don't count because of all the Latino voters in those states that drove Clinton to victory there (parallel to Alabama, Georgia, etc., with respect to Obama and Black voters). Plus, Nevada was a caucus. So it is double discounted.
  
• Arkansas and New York don't count because Hillary Clinton lives (or lived) in those states (like Obama with Illinois and, presumably, Hawaii).

So, going by Hillary Clinton's rules, she's only won two primaries that matter: Massachusetts and New Jersey, plus Florida and Michigan. The last two don't count, legitimately, since nobody campaigned there. They count big time, though, in Hillaryland. They're swing states, after all! Her reasoning seems to be that these four states ought to decide the Democratic nominee, because--well, because that's what suits the realities of her campaign. Bad faith arguments for 1000, Alex!

Let me just say that it's more than a little ironic that Hillary argues at the same time that we should make sure that every vote should count in MI and FL, where nobody campaigned, but dismisses the importance of everywhere aside from where she won, and in fact actively took measures to suppress voter turnout in Nevada.