Someone needs to explain to me why the fact that Hillary Clinton has won several big states in the Democratic primaries/caucuses, while Obama has won mostly smaller states, means anything. I’ve seen Clinton supporters make this argument several times and I don’t understand what it’s supposed to mean. It’s mentioned here as well.

First of all, it doesn’t matter which states you win; it matters how many delegates you win. If you can win X number of delegates by winning a few big states or lots of smaller states, it’s the same thing.

Are the Clinton people trying to say that her wins in big states will make her a more viable candidate than Obama in the general election? That’s as silly as saying that Obama’s wins in traditionally red states will make him more likely to win those red states in November.

Um, these are all contests among Democrats (and some independents). There are no Republicans voting in them.

I guess Clinton could argue that her California win makes her more viable in that state in November. California had an open Democratic primary but a closed Republican primary, so independents could vote only in the Democratic primary. Most independents who voted in the Democratic primary chose Obama, but Clinton still beat him. This could mean that not enough California independents were enthusiastic enough about Obama to vote for him, and that they’d be more likely to vote for McCain instead of Obama in November. But it really means nothing, because I don’t see how Clinton could argue that she’d be better than Obama at attracting independents from McCain.

So winning a few big states as opposed to several small states means nothing. Right?

Am I missing something?