Why the big state theory doesn't add up

Good article from TPM.

The dynamics are simply different between general elections and primaries. You have on the one hand patterns and preferences that Democratic voters show for different candidates in Democratic primaries. Then you have the separate question of whether these same voters will vote for the Democratic or the Republican nominee in the general. One is simply not predictive of the other. It could be -- if one candidate's voters simply refuse to vote for the other candidate. But who wins a primary doesn't tell you that.

And it's really not a big mystery that the argument doesn't hold up because it wasn't devised or conceived as an electoral argument. It's a political argument -- one that only really came into operation at the point at which the Clinton campaign realized that it was far enough behind that it's path to the nomination required making the argument to superdelegates that she's elected and Obama is not.

In a whole arc of territory stretching from the Great Lakes through the upper Midwest down into the inter-mountain West Obama consistently runs stronger than Hillary. Some of these states are ones Democrats really must win in order to win a general election -- states like Iowa, Wisconsin and Michigan.

Others are states red states that have been trending blue but which Obama appears able to put in play while Hillary can't. Colorado is a good example. The last four polls of the state show Obama tied or ahead of McCain while McCain beats Hillary handily. The most recent poll -- April 21st -- has Obama beating McCain by 3 points while McCain is beating Hillary by 14 points.

As Josh Marshall mentions, making this argument is purely political. And Hillary knows that. But hey, anything goes when you're competing against the truly inevitable nominee.