So, based on 54-46, if we apply that to Michigan and Florida, giving Clinton a generous benefit of the doubt, can we say that Obama would still win on all metrics? That's my a.m. question, anyway.
Meanwhile, the Kossacks are wise to the meddling ways of the right-wing Commentariat, and are now giving sane marching orders. What's interesting is that a reliance on the popular totals amounts to a perceived disenfranchisement of the "little guys" (pts. 1 & 2), which is a good way to counter the Clinton message that she is the champion of uncounted voters everywhere. What's clever is the realization that the popular vote is an apples-and-oranges combination (pt. 3).
Point Number 2: If the popular vote determined the nominee, no state in its right mind would ever hold a caucus, instantly disenfranchising itself. Concrete example: Minnesota-Missouri. Minnesota gets credit for 214K votes, and Missouri gets 822K votes, but they each get 72 delegates. Is Missouri's voice 4 times more important than Minnesota's?
Point Number 3: The arbitrary distinction between who gets to vote in these primaries is nothing like the general election, where everyone registered gets to vote. In the primaries, sometimes it's just Dems, sometimes Dems and Indies, sometimes anyone. Concrete example: Texas gets a million more votes than similar overall population New York (2.8M to 1.8M), even though New York is far more Democratic, simply due to this arbitrary restriction on who can vote (NY = closed, Texas = open).
