Its speculation either way but Clinton's strategy of going for big states was a strategy that would've worked far better under a winner take all system. The fact that Obama could siphon off delegates from states that Clinton won and stack up delegates from small states greatly diminished a big state strategy since it wasn't enough just to win the state but win it by a huge margin. Both Clinton and Obama were competitve in the big states but Clinton failed to be competitive in the small states and she couldn't build up the cusion that Obama had from those states. OTOH if it was winner take all in the big states the cushion from states like CA, TX and NY can make up for many small states. The problem that I see with Obama's strategy in a winner take all system is that it is a strategy designed to spread the risk since coming in second in a big state will still give you several delegates so you can stack up small states and still afford to lose the big states. In the general though with winner take all he might not have that luxury. The other problem is that many of the states Obama won are still red states where Democrats are the minority. While he might've won the majority of Democrats in those states there still might not be enough Democrats in a state like Kansas to make up for the Republicans there already.
