That's a long (and highly statistical) way of stating a fairly obvious conclusion - since Democrats tend to nominate candidates who are more centrist than the party base, insurgents tend to fare best in the most heavily liberal states, and establishment candidates tend to do best in redder states. Of course, only one cycle in the post is worth considering - in 1992, Clinton lost 9 states. (In 2000, Gore won across the board, and in '04, Kerry only lost to favorite sons.) The post to which you link would be more interesting if it examined margins, instead of wins and losses. I suspect it would exhibit something like the pattern detailed above.

None of this, of course, has the slightest relevance for our very unusual contest this year. Obama does well in certain kinds of heavily-Democratic states, and Hillary in others. For the first time in a long time, we've got a pair of contenders who would assemble very different coalitions. It's less a question of who's better positioned to turn out the base and expand it to 270 electoral votes, and more a matter of which coalition is more likely to be sufficient. There are different sets of swing-states in play depending on who wins the nomination. And that makes the debate over who's more electable much more interesting.

The Democrat State Primaries are not winner take all elections. The General election will be. Hillary is trying to apply General Election rules to the State Primaries.

Hillary sure likes to try and change the rules that she agreed, to after the fact.

Ignore her nonsense.