The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States.
Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. More than 2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That's more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans, ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes) are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections.

In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

Among the 11 most populous states in 2004, the highest levels of popular support, hardly overwhelming, were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas (62% Republican),
* New York (59% Democratic),
* Georgia (58% Republican),
* North Carolina (56% Republican),
* Illinois (55% Democratic),
* California (55% Democratic), and
* New Jersey (53% Democratic).

In addition, the margins generated by the nation's largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas -- 1,691,267 Republican
* New York -- 1,192,436 Democratic
* Georgia -- 544,634 Republican
* North Carolina -- 426,778 Republican
* Illinois -- 513,342 Democratic
* California -- 1,023,560 Democratic
* New Jersey -- 211,826 Democratic

To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium, and large states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

I love http://www.270towin.com/ for stuff like this.

landslide loss. he will even lose pennsylvania.

There are 538 total electoral votes. You need 270 electoral votes to win the presidency.

Many of the larger states electorally are blue/democratic. So democrats often need fewer states to win. Many of the states with small electoral votes (especially in the mid-west and Rockies) vote red/republican.

The largest states based on the 2010 census (which will be used for the 2012 elections) are listed below. You could theoretically get 270 votes from the top 11 states which tend to lean blue. However, the chance that the largest two states (California and Texas) would ever vote the same way are about the same as the chance that Donald Trump would ever get elected to the White House. Florida is a real toss up purple state. Pennsylvania is traditionally blue, but polls have shown it to be much closer to even than it ever has been.

California 55 votes blue Texas 38 votes red Florida 29 votes purple New York 29 votes blue Illinois 20 votes blue Pennsylvania 20 votes purple Ohio 18 votes red Georgia 16 votes red Michigan 16 votes blue North Carolina 15 votes red New Jersey 14 votes blue blue = 134 red = 87 purple = 49 Total = 270

As much as I hope Obama will lose, the Electoral College map cuts in his favor this cycle and I think he has, at present, greater than 50% chance of winning. It is striking, however, how significantly his prospects have deteriorated over the past few months, and if that trend continues Obama is in trouble. Even on this map, it is touch and go for Obama. As I posted a few weeks ago, the only states that matter are Ohio and Florida. The rest is a side show barring a significant collapse by one of the candidates.

Also, contra 9:57, as I read this map Michigan and Pennsylvania are already included in Obama's 243. That means he must either (1) win Florida, or (2) win Ohio and either Colorado, Wisconsin, or Virginia. This is shaping up to be a nail-biter.

Michigan and Pennsylvania will put him over the top and he will still lose Va, Fl, and NC.

This doesn't surprise me. Who cares how Nebraska votes when you have California and NY? The electoral college is weighted toward urban areas - can't you win the presidency with just 10 states or something?

Found this interesting given the conversation about whether people have faith Obama will win.

http://gop12.thehill.com/2012/06/messinas-map.html