The "big states" aren't the "important states"

Hillary has made much of the fact that she's won the big states. Of course the fact that she beat him in NY and CA in no way implies that Obama would lose those states to McCain, and of course, polls show that those states easily go for either Democratic candidate over McCain. There is no logic to her argument. Most of the biggest states that she is crowing about aren't even seriously in play.

(Recent poll results here: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=agAU3m9j8dOY&refer=us)

However, there is possibly a relevant point to make about who is stronger in which states. It's just not the one that Hillary is making.

There are indeed some differences in which states they are likely to carry, and how easily.

Here's an interesting chart of who would likely win each state in McCain vs. Clinton and McCain vs. Obama. (Admittedly about two months old, so there presumably has been some shift since then.)

http://www.cogitamusblog.com/2008/03/all-victories-a.html

According to that chart, eiither ends up with enough electoral votes to beat McCain (Clinton gets 276, Obama gets 280), though of course, a lot can happen between now and November.

But the writer pointed out something interesting that I have not seen get play elsewhere and I think is worthy of note:

Obama does better than Clinton in most of the states that have Senate seats in play, so his victory might lead to a larger Senate majority. In which case he'd have an easier time of getting things passed than Clinton would. The fact that Obama is stronger in states with competitive Senate races is more important than the fact that Clinton won a state that Obama would win in the general election anyway.