In the matter of Hillary's supposed lead in the popular vote, a disingenuous piece of legerdemain if ever there was one. Fortunately Rob Kall at OpEd News looked into this claim, http://www.opednews.com/articles/Hillary-s-Disingenuous-Cla-by-Rob-Kall-2016-Presidential-Primary-Candidates_Hillary-Clinton-160401-967.html This piece is from the beginning of April.
Here's a taste of his analysis:
"Technically, it's accurate, but that's because of the nature of the primary election in many states where there are caucuses. In Caucus states, a lot less people participate in the voting because of the time involved. But those delegates represent millions of people."
"If you do the math on all the caucus states, Bernie's wins could easily represent populations that exceed Hillary's 2.5 million votes, not even including the primary state votes he won. It is insulting to the people of Washington to suggest that they be counted based on the 26,000 who voted in the caucuses.
Because Minnesota is a caucus state, Bernie only gets an advantage of 45,000 when it should be hundreds of thousands. The same is true in Kansas, where he only gets credit for 14,000 advantage, when it should be at least 80,000. Colorado would give him a 23,000 advantage based on caucuses, but he should get at least a 120,000 advantage based on population.
This applies to the following caucus states that Bernie won, Washington, Utah, Kansas, Minnesota, Colorado, Nebraska, Maine, Idaho, Alaska, and Hawaii, representing about 32 million people.
Bernie won many of these by 60, 70, even 80%. Of course some are primarily conservative, which has an effect on the numbers. Let's say that Democratic leaning voters represented 45%, which would be 14.4 million. If Bernie won with an average of 60 to 40% that would be a 20% difference, or 2.9 million. Of course voter turnout has to be figured in.
Let's compare Massachusetts with Minnesota. MA has about 6.7 million people. Minnesota has about 20% less, with 5.5 million. Hillary won MA by a 1.4% margin. Bernie won MN by a 23.4% margin. Hillary gets 17,000 margin for her miniscule margin win. Bernie, with a margin thats gets 44,000. A proportional accounting, for a state that large would give him close to 750,000, or 700,000 more. The same kind of math applies to all the caucus states mentioned above.
The truth is that using popular vote numbers is a deceptive way to talk about comparing campaigns. An honest candidate would not attempt to do so. Clinton embraces it."