Obama's advantage hinges on a system that, whatever the actual intentions behind it, seems custom-made to hobble Democratic chances in the fall. It depends on ignoring one of the central principles of American electoral politics, one that will be operative on a state-by-state basis this November, which is that the winner takes all. If the Democrats ran their nominating process the way we run our general elections, Sen. Hillary Clinton would have a commanding lead in the delegate count, one that will only grow more commanding after the next round of primaries, and all questions about which of the two Democratic contenders is more electable would be moot.
How do you infer from `Clinton would beat Obama in a winner-take-all electoral system' to `Clinton would beat McCain in a winner-take-all electoral system'? Or from `Obama would not beat Clinton in a winner-take-all electoral system' to `Obama would not beat McCain in a winner-take-all electoral system'? Obama is not McCain. Clinton is not McCain. And a majority of Democratic voters is not a majority of registered or likely or expected or actual voters.