The popular vote is an inexact measure of the state of the race because, quite simply, there was no tally of popular votes in caucus states.
So when you see the Obama leads the popular vote by 600,000, note that it precludes many caucus states -- Iowa, Washington, Nevada, Maine, and the Texas caucuses. Yes -- the Texas caucuses were a separate contest than the primary, hence should logically be counted.
But if we're suddenly going to use the popular vote as a meaningful measure in this campaign, then we should strive to actually count that popular vote best we can. So what I'll do for caucus states is divide the state delegate percentages (as opposed to pledged delegates) by the total turnout. It's an inexact science, but it should keep things within an acceptable margin of error.
So for all the other contests:
Obama: 13,025,003
Clinton: 12,421,316
That's a 603,687-vote advantage for Obama. Now for NV, WA and ME:
Turnout Obama % Clinton % Popular vote advantage
IA: 220,588 38 30 Obama +17,646
NV: 117,599 45 51 Clinton +7,055
WA: 250,000 53 25 Obama +55,000
ME: 45,000 59 40 Obama +8,550
That's about 56,500 votes, putting Obama's lead at around 660,000 votes.
That still leaves the Texas caucuses, which haven't finished reporting out. Turnout for the first 40 percent of precincts reporting is about 500,000. Now that includes some of the more populous precincts, so we can't just project out. Rather, the estimate I hear bandied around is about 1 million participants. So let's say the numbers ended up were stuck today -- 56-44 Obama -- that would mean a gain for Obama of 120,000 in the popular vote.
Suddenly, Obama's lead is about 780,000.
Unless Obama suffers an epic collapse, he should end this contest with a lead in the popular vote, a lead in the pledged delegates, and a lead in the number of states won.
Clinton will apparently attempt her coup by super delegates, but that path lies civil war. I doubt the supers are that stupid.
http://www.dailykos.com