Here's why...
- The primaries/caucuses are about winning delegates to go to the convention to vote there. That's the whole purpose.
- Many states (like mine - Washington) went heavily for Obama in caucuses. Lumping popular vote in primaries and caucuses together is like combining apples and oranges. If we had a way to accuratly reflect likely primary turnout if it was a primary instead of a caucus (because primaries draw more people), then we could compare the two. Oh wait, WE DO. It's the FUCKING DELEGATE SYSTEM that awards # of delegates based on previous election turnout.
So can we please all agree that popular vote doesn't mean a damn thing, and that delegates more accurately reflect a balanced view of the populace?
One more thing. While we're working on popular support issue, why don't we interpolate results for people who didn't vote at all to get at what the true will of the people is? The answer, of course, is because we have a system. That system is about winning delegates that are apportioned better to reflect the will of the people than the popular vote or anything else. Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to change the rules or justify overturning the will of the people.