March 17, 2008, 3:29 pm
Testing Clinton’s Big-State Theory
(snip)
But there are several problems with the big-state theory. First, several of those wins come with asterisks. Texas’s mixed primary-caucus system leaves that state a toss-up, and the January primaries in Florida and Michigan likely won’t be counted. The upshot: Sen. Clinton holds the delegate lead in only four of the big states.
Also, middle-tier states are crucial, and Sen. Obama has been strong there. And regardless, there is no backing from historical numbers that primary results will translate into November viability.
The big-state argument makes sense if winning big states is a prerequisite to winning the general election. But voters in big states are underrepresented in the Electoral College because each state starts with three electors, regardless of size. The 10 biggest states in the 2000 Census, which is the basis for the elector apportionment in this election, held 54% of U.S. residents but control just 48% of the Electoral College.
President Bush won a second term in 2004 despite winning barely a third of the electors from the nine biggest states (81 of 241); he won only in Texas, Florida and Ohio. But he won 12 of the next 17 biggest electoral-vote prizes, and 71% of those states’ electors, making the biggest 26 states essentially a wash. (The same held in 2000, when Mr. Bush’s results in those 26 states were identical.)
In that next tier of states, Sen. Clinton has been weak.
(snip)
More at link:
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/testing-clintons-big-state-theory-298/?mod=googlenews_wsj