I have been following the primaries pretty closely. Right now there is a trend in the campaign reporting that is driving me nuts.
The line of reasoning goes like this,
"Sure Obama has more delegates, more states etc. But he hasn't won "the big states" California, New York etc. Therefore Hilary is the more viable candidate because those "big" states" are the Democrats core states and a crucial win for them."
I have several problems with this.
I haven't seen a single person on any of the talk shows say anything to contradict this bit of "conventional wisdom".
So I will.

1) The primaries are within the party. So, Obama lost to Hilary in those states, which only means Hilary would beat Barak in the general election in those states. It doesn't indicate how he would do against McCain.
Are we to assume that in the general election ALL the people who voted for Hilary in the primaries would not vote for Obama?
No, the opposite is true. Most of those Hilary supporters would vote for Obama over McCain in that case. So the Dems still win California and New York.

2) Why are the votes in states that are classic Dem states (California, New York?) more important than ones that are not? Logically wouldn't you want someone who is strong in states where you are traditionally weak?
If you have a guy that can perform in "the big states" (as I have shown he will) and maybe gain some ground in "the little states" that would be an advantage.

3) If the number of votes/delegates picked up in "the little" states is greater than in the "big states" that's good, right? If you have more votes/delegates then you win, regardless of where the votes came from, right?

This is annoying me.
Barak has more votes (by 500,000 something ).
He has more delegates. (by a couple hundred)
He has won 27 states to her 15.*
In all measurable regards he is winning but because Hilary won a few
"big states" we have to listen to this BS.
If this was the general election at this point Obama would be the winner. More votes, more states, more delegates= winner. We wouldn't be listening to stupid crap about "well McCain won more of the "big states"

* Michigan and Florida don't count. Sorry, but they broke the rules and they knew their delegates wouldn't be counted. Barak didn't campaign in either state and wasn't even on the ballot one state. Hilary can't count as a win a state when hers was the only name on the ballot. That's like saying Kruschev "won" his premiership.