It would get more, yes, if for no other reason than that porting a PS4/X1 game to the Wii U would be much easier. Just being more powerful wouldn't immediately solve all of Nintendo's 3rd party problems, of course, but it would have been a start.

I dont think so, since the wii u launch, there were many games release on ps360 that could very well run un wiiu but didn't. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ig7A-eaZA8

No matter how powerfull the wiiu could be, 3rd party will still find some excuse to not support the console. Some time I wonder if they would still support the ps4 or xone if they were underpowed...

if nintendo used that power to build triple A games about torture and pain. I dont know, probably not.

Yes, it would. This explains it best:

"If the Wii U was immensely popular we would probably put more focus into seeing how we could mitigate this, because it is a technical problem," Bach said. "It is a technical problem at its core because the Frostbite engine is not designed to run on that hardware, and the hardware is quite different from the next-gen consoles and the previous gen consoles."

But the Wii U is at least as powerful as current generation consoles and Frostbite 3 is designed to be scalable - we'll see current-gen versions of Battlefield 4, for example. With Frostbite 2 appearing to work on Wii U fine, does the argument about having technical difficulties really still stand up?

"From our perspective it's not as powerful as it should be to be able to run a Battlefield game," Bach responded. "Straight out of the box, as in Frostbite 3, it doesn't run that well on the Wii U, which means it takes a lot of time and energy from us that would then take from something else."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-06-26-ea-and-nintendo-the-collapse-of-the-unprecedented-relationship

It wouldn't even need to be as powerful as XOne, I think even half of that would be sufficient for much better support (4850/5750 level GPU), no matter the user base (and no, WiiU is not 1/2x XOne, no matter what some silly individuals here are blindly believing).

The reasons IMO that gamecube had less third party success is because it had only 24MB of main memory with mini-DVD and looked like a toy hence for instance no GTA port (in which the quantity of ram was really important for on open world game, 24MB lot less than PS2 32MB).
It had a decent amount of third party (more than Wii U) BECAUSE it was a powerfull console.

you are 

Ok..? I have no idea who that is.

The real reason third party developers don't usually support Nintendo hardware has nothing to do with power. It's because Nintendo's first party IP absolutely dominates their own console's marketplace. The PS3's best-selling third party game was the system's third bestselling title. The 360's was #2.

The Wii? Ubisoft barely managed to squeak one into the top ten.

There's just not enough of a market for third party games on a Nintendo platform to support developing a AAA game. AA is about as good as a third party dev can get, so they have to make games which will attract attention on a reasonably low budget. In other words, focus on gameplay or story, not on graphics.

And again, that's not the hardware's "weakness" making that necessary: it's the competition from Nintendo's first party IP.

Now compare to this to Sony and Microsoft: a powerful third party marketplace, and you market your games with trailers featuring incredible graphics. Nintendo systems go against every instinct a third party developer has.

Phonix WRight

and btw Blasphemy! Go play it on 3DS now!

lol, taking anything EA says at face value.