Why Obama Will Win States in the General Election Which He "Lost" in the Primaries

A theme frequently repeated, and always annoying, from the Clinton Camp is that Hillary will be the stronger general election candidate because she has "won the big states" or "the states that a Democrat must win." The weakness in this argument is obvious, but I have seen media outlets repeat it ad nauseum without questioning it.

How each Democratic nominee performs within his or her own party does not necessarily -- and in this case almost certainly does not -- tell us how he or she would perform in the general election. The reality is that most of the people voting for Clinton in the primaries are party diehards; many of these people are voting for Clinton out of party loyalty, and/or a combination of nostalgia and familiarity. These voters will vote Democratic in the general anyway (Yes, some current polling indicates that some people may switch sides, but it is far too early to take that seriously; they will come back once the general campaign gets going and candidate differences become more clearly defined).

Obama's huge advantage in the general arises from the excess voter capacity he can generate. Not only is his potential crossover appeal much greater than Clinton's, but he stands to -- especially as compared to Hillary -- expand voter participation in two key groups: young people and black people. The former group's increased participation is broadly beneficial. The latter could potentially rearrange the electoral map. It is no secret that black voters tend to go largely Democratic, but Obama's nomination will increase black voter participation to levels never seen before. This makes it possible for him to carry a number of Southern states, which have large black populations. This will have the direct effect of potentially adding votes to Obama's electoral column, but it will also have the indirect effect of forcing McCain's campaign to spread itself on its already weak budget. This will dilute McCain's efforts in traditionally solidly Democratic -- but now battleground -- states where, if the election ran similarly to 2000 and 2004, he might really have a chance to eke out a win.

This recent NY times article gets at these ideas a bit, the first mention I have seen of these dynamics.