There are massive flaws in both of these arguments, such as the fact that Sanders has won in very conservative states, too (like Wyoming, Utah and Oklahoma) and that the value to Clinton in winning South Carolina was jumping out to a big lead in pledged delegates. But the doesn't-matter-in-the-general argument is worth exploring more closely.

Earlier this year, we pulled data on who had won the primary in each state in an effort to figure out which state had the best record of picking winners. (It was Wisconsin, but that success will probably be damaged this year.) So it was fairly easy to compare how the eventual nominee did in the primaries with how he did in the general.

Here are the contested contests since 1968 (when there were fewer caucuses and primaries). The letter next to the year indicates the party for which we're comparing primaries. Blue slices are general election wins; yellow, losses. Darker-colored slices are where the results split — a win in the primary and loss in the general or vice versa. Note that these are just the actual states, with no consideration of electoral votes.

What's the pattern? There is no pattern. More states that are won in the general were also won in the primary, and it seems that more states that were lost in the general were also won in the primary. Because we're talking about the person who won the nomination contest.

That's why if we isolate those states where the results split, there are more states won in the primary and lost in the general than vice versa. Because a candidate has to win states in the primary that might not align with the states his party would win in the general. And most of the time, primary contests are much less close than the general. It's not complicated.

There is a correlation between success and how many states are won and lost. People who won the presidency won more states because ... that's how we elect a president. Otherwise, it's just a mix.