There has been some talk about how electability will play into the race. The Clinton campaign has said that Obama does not win any of the 'big states' (NY, CA and so on). The Obama campaign has said that as he wins traditionally Republican states, he can create many new swing states in the general election. I, from a completely non-partisan viewpoint, have a different spin from either of them, though my spin helps Obama more than Clinton.
First of all, electability does not play a huge role in how voters choose who their voting for. In exit polls, it usually gets around 10-15% of people who say it was the biggest factor in their decision, coming in behind the ability to bring change and experience, usually. But still, 15% of the populace is a lot of people, and they can't just be ignored.
The Clinton campaign has, in recent months, put this spin on Obama's wins; "He hasn't won any big, solidly Democratic states, so he can't win in the general election." Their looking at this from the wrong perspective. If Hillary wins Democratic states, well, great. But if Obama is the nominee, then as those states are solidly Democratic, they will vote for him anyway and he'll still win CA and NY and IL.
Now Obama puts this spin on things: "I've won in red states like Wyoming and Georgia. This means I will create swing states all over the country." But I'm sorry; no. Virginia and Texas maybe, and while that is impressive, I really can't see any other new states voting democratic, Ohio maybe.
Right now, the ability to bring about change is my most important factor; what's yours?