Sufficient condition

Based anecdotally on my readin's of the internets over the last month or two, it seems that there is widespread agreement that winning the most states, pledged delegates, and popular votes is a de facto sufficient condition for winning the Democratic Primary. Says one superdelegate from Washington (who originally endorsed Hillary Clinton):

The Democratic party should come together around the candidate with the most delegates, the most states and the largest popular vote, Cantwell said. The pledged delegate count will be the most important factor, she said, because that is the basis of the nominating process.

More evidence of the widespread consensus about the sufficiency of the states/delegates/votes trifecta comes from Clinton supporter Senator Evan Bayh (of Indiana), in the form of an attempt to tack on a fourth meaningful category: the number of electoral college votes from the states won in the primary (surprise surprise--this is a category in which Clinton is leading). Bayh wouldn't have been compelled to make this silly argument if he didn't recognize that the trifecta is indeed a sure path to the nomination.

And the argument is silly--it makes no sense whatsoever. The main mistake isn't in weighting primary states' importance according to their share of electoral votes--the main mistake is in thinking that primary victories correlate with general election victories. Winning a primary in a state does not mean that a general election victory is necessarily likely to follow. There could be a small number of Democrats in the state, for example, or it could be that the Democrats who voted for the primary loser would rather sit out the general election or even switch to the Republican side. So Obama winning lots of primaries in red states such as Idaho does not necessarily mean that he will do well in those states in the general election, since they are overwhelmingly Republican. And, conversely, Obama losing big primaries in California and New York does not mean that he will lose those states in the general election, since they are overwhelmingly Democratic. So, the argument that this electoral votes criterion is some kind of measure of electability in the general is absurd.

In any case, the states/delegates/votes trifecta makes sense as a sufficient condition to win the primary not because it demonstrates the candidate's viability in the general election, per se, but because it is an unambiguous expression of the will of Democrats.