2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Evidently needs reposting: Hillary is NOT winning the popular vote. That's not how primaries work. [View all]samson212
(83 posts)The actual point is that the 3 million number is misleading and not a useful metric. It doesn't matter if you try to adjust the number to compensate for the fact that some states are caucuses. The fact is, you can't make an apples-to-apples comparison. I don't know why this is so complicated; use a number that makes sense, is relevant, and supports your point -- the pledged delegate gap!
Also, since we're on the topic, it's pretty shady to say "ok, let's do the math, since you've pointed out that caucuses are not counted in the total -- 230,000 people, times 0.72, gives Bernie 104,420 more votes, net." You're just further illustrating why an apples-to-apples comparison is impossible. 230,000 people is about 3% of Washington state, so it's not fair to make a comparison, when in states with primaries, turnout is higher by several orders of magnitude.
If turnout had been comparable to, say, Georgia or Vermont (roughly average states for turnout this year), which was 30%, you get a much higher number -- 7,200,000 * 0.3 = 2,300,000; 2,300,000 * 0.72 = almost 1.7 million. That's over half the gap you're so proud of. If turnout had been comparable to NH (52.4%, the highest turnout in this primary), the net vote gain would be 2.7 million, which almost accounts for the entire gap by including just one state. So let's not talk about math, if you're not willing to actually look at the numbers.