Hillary Clinton has been claiming that she (and only she) can win the "big states."  And, further, the way she views it, only "big states" really should count.  Other states--the small ones, rural ones, those that use caucuses, those with large black populations--they "don't count" in her view (or her husband's)

But I have seen little careful attention to just how well she and Obama really have done in the nation's largest states, so I've looked it up myself, relying on data from real clear politics, which I hope is accurate and up-to-date.

I judged (arbitrarily) that any state with more than 100 delegates is a "big" state.  By this standard, the biggest state is California, with 370 delegates.  The smallest "big state" is New Jersey, with 107.  (And the "smallest" small state, with 12, is Wyoming).

Rummaging through the data, what I learned follows.  The number in parentheses is the "margin of victory," the additional delegates won.

New York (+46)

Ohio (+9)

TOTAL   +104

Illinois (+55)

Texas   (+2)

TOTAL  +57

Assuming my calculations are all correct, here is what strikes me.  Yes, it is true that Clinton has won more of the largest states, besting Obama by 4 to 2 (even though he has bested her in states overall and in total delegates).  Moreover, she has earned almost twice as many delegates in the largest states, 104 to 57.

But, at the same time, it also appears to me that the margin isn't "massive."

First, I would suggest that it is unsurprising that Clinton won her home state of New York, and that Obama won his home state of Illinois.  (Although Obama did better in his state than Hillary did in her own)!  So, anyhow, let's scratch the home states; that only leaves four other "big states."

Of these, Clinton won three to Obama's one.  Certainly that is "more!"  But again the margin is fairly small.  Clinton had significant gains in the "big" states mostly because of California:  really just California plus New Jersey (a neighbor of her home state).  She does deserve some recognition for that.  (For a description of her winning coalition in California, see this article).

But the margin she gained wasn't all that substantial, except in California.  While she did pick up 11 delegates in Jersey, Obama won by ten in Wisconsin, 14 in Maryland, 15 in Colorado, 11 in Iowa--to list just a few.  So hers was not really a "big" victory.  That is, she did not capture a "big" amount of delegates in any "big" state--except California.

You don't know that by reading the papers, though.  What the press has touted as Hillary's "big wins" in Texas and Ohio actually were pretty slim.  First, Clinton lost Texas; she didn't win it.  Second, she picked up a margin of only nine delegates in Ohio.  That is a heck of a lot less than the Obama margin in South Carolina, where he gained 13 delegates, and less than some of the other states listed above.  While she had a victory, it was not a "big" one.

I am not totally sure what to make of this, except it does appear to me that there has been a lot of effort in the press to make the Democratic race seem "closer" than it is, and to give the Clinton camp major credit for relatively minor accomplishments.  Just why this is true is not something I can guess, sitting here in Chicago, staring at a computer screen in the middle of the night prior to Easter.  Maybe they just like having something to talk about?  Or are they being extra-polite to the female candidate?  Do they fear the power of the "Clinton machine?"

I'm not sure.  But I do hope the full story does come out some day.

PS--If you find errors in my calculations or methods, I would be glad to be corrected.  It certainly is possible!  Also, some of the delegate counts may still change as state conventions are held.