Sanders lead in all of his caucus wins combined equals only 284,471 votes.

[ContinentalOp]

These are the vote counts of all of the caucus states Bernie won. I show his total number of votes, followed by Clinton’s total number of votes, and then the difference between them.

This is based on the best numbers I could find, but please let me know if I made any mistakes.

Washington
167,201 - 62,330 = 104,871

Minnesota
118,135 - 73,510 = 44,625

Idaho
18,640 - 5065 = 13,575

Utah
61,333 - 15,666 = 45,667

Hawaii
23,530 - 10,125 = 13,405

Maine
30,092 - 16,614 = 13,478

Wyoming
3920 - 3080 = 840

Colorado
72,115 - 49,314 = 22,801

Kansas
26,450 - 12,593 = 13,857

Nebraska
19,120 - 14,340 = 4780

Alaska
8586 - 2014 = 6572

His total lead in all of these states combined equals 284,471 votes.

And that's only the caucuses that he won. That's not including any of Clinton's caucus wins, which would be a much fairer comparison.

[msongs]

1. since caucuses are undemocratic sanders should give back all those delegates nt

[ContinentalOp]

2. Too late

He already spent them all

[SFnomad]

3. Oh no ... BS Cheerleaders LOVE caucus delegates, in fact, those delegates should count double n/t

[Armstead]

4. And your point would be?....

[ContinentalOp]

6. I've seen repeated claims that popular vote totals are inaccurate.

My point is that even if a particular media outlet is somehow not accurately counting all of the caucus votes, it would hardly make a dent in Clinton's 3 million vote lead.

[Agschmid]

8. That she is quite far ahead in the "popular" vote.

[Armstead]

16. Too many apples and oranges involved

Say the caucuses were primaries and had the same results on a larger scale. Both candidates would add significant number of votes to their total proportionately, if you assume the same results....

And the same unknowns play into both hypotheticals, because the outcome might have been the same, somewhat different or flipped if they had been primaries.

We'll never know, so have to go with the proportional apples with apples as they are.

[Agschmid]

17. I mostly agree with you.

[ContinentalOp]

19. Wow, where to begin.

First of all, this seems to be an admission that caucuses suppress voter turnout. Which is interesting, because I thought Sanders supporters argued that caucuses are perfectly democratic and accessible to all.

So you seem to be saying that we would have to extrapolate based on population? I thought I saw somebody else making this argument on another thread, but it seemed so crazy that I assumed I misunderstood. But basically the argument is that since only 200k people participated in the WA caucus, and 1.7 million people in WA voted for Obama in the last presidential election, we should extrapolate that out and multiply Sander's votes by 8.5? That's crazy. And it ignores the fact that Clinton has consistently done better in primaries and done better when turnout is higher.

All we can do is add up the actual votes that were cast. If the race were somewhat close you might have a point, but she's winning by such a large margin that it just sounds like sour grapes.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. Here is a bit of info. BS won the NE Caucus 57-42 but lost the NE primary 59-41%

[ContinentalOp]

7. no do overs!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. It seems the more people vote the worse BS does. Caucuses inflated his votes

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-continues-to-dominate-caucuses-but-hes-about-to-run-out-of-them/

[ContinentalOp]

13. Yep. Shows just how ridiculous the voter suppression conspiracy theories are.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Exactly...

Outside of his home state of Vermont can anybody point to primaries where he has won in such large numbers?

The data indicates club, errrrrrrr, caucus voting inflates his votes.

[Agschmid]

9. Can you please remind us which election had an effect on downticket races?

[morningfog]

12. The primary result is meaningless.

[morningfog]

11. Those are not popular vote totals.

Those are delegates at the state and district level. Your op is not accurate.

[ContinentalOp]

15. If you can find a place where I made an error please let me know and I'll correct it.

But to the best of my knowledge these are in fact actual or estimated vote totals.

For example, in WA, the total turnout was 230,000 participants. Sanders won by 72.7%, giving him 167,201 votes to Clinton's 62,330 votes, for a 104,871 vote lead.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/06/is-hillary-clinton-really-ahead-of-bernie-sanders-by-2-5-million-votes/

[morningfog]

18. Thanks for the link.

Looks correct.