Be careful when using logic to support a position, any failure to project that logic to all variables can destroy the very argument you are making. The latest case in point is the argument by the Clinton supporters that Senator Obama can't win because she took such overwhelming numbers of particularly classes of voters in Pennsylvania. The most glaring statistic which they point out is that she defeated Senator Obama 70-30 amongst White catholic voters. The argument is that this number is so lopsided that it demonstrates that this group does not want him as President and therefore will not unify with the Party to support him in the general election. The obvious extension of this argument is that any Democratic candidate who loses a large bloc of voters who traditionally support their Party is unelectable.
As has been the case throughout this election, the Clinton supporters have ignored the Black voting bloc in their arguments. If this argument is applied using Black voters as the variable unit it creates the logical conclusion, only to a significantly greater degree, that Senator Clinton in unelectable. Outside of Pennsylvania, Senator Obama has bested the Clintons amongst White male voters and nearly tied them in the overall White voting bloc on a number of ocassions. However, Senator Clinton has been consistently beaten by historic proportions for a Democratic primary contest (typically 90-10) in the Black voting bloc. If the argument is that a 70-30 victory is so lopsided as to indicate a fatal divison between a Primary Candidate and a voting bloc, then how much more so does the string of 90-10 losses that the Clintons have sufffered with Black voters indicate the same. Are we to believe that the Clintons can overcome a string of losses by 90% or higher to a voting bloc and ultimately make amends with that group, yet Senator Obama can't overcome a fewer number of losses by much smaller numbers?
No reasonable person would argue that any Democrat could be elected President without both a huge turnout of Black voters and an overhwhelming advantage in that voting bloc.
The Clinton's argument makes the point that Senator Obama has a far greater chance of reconciliation with their core supporters than they with his. This logical conclusion is obvious, unless of course those constructing the argument discount the value, and possibly even existence, of Black voters.