>>No, I believe you are incorrect. I read an article that showed the popular vote and Hillary has more votes than Obama by far. That was my point. Obama has more delegates because Hillary did not campaign in the smaller caucuses as he did (and it paid off). What's up with you today? Why so angry?
>
>I decided to go find out the truth. Can't find totals anywhere, so I'm using the state-by-state results on CNN.
>
>Totals for primaries (not including FL and MI)
>
>Clinton: 13,319,108
>Obama: 13,574,246
>
>
>Totals for FL and MI
>
>Clinton: 1,185,359 (FL: 857,208; MI: 328,151)
>Obama: 569,041 (FL only)
>
>
>Totals for caucuses
>
>Clinton: 188,054
>Obama: 390,238
>
>Grand totals:
>
>Clinton: 14,692,521
>Obama: 14,533,525
>
>So, as I thought (and assuming I typed the right numbers into the calculator <s>), Clinton is leading only by including Florida and Michigan, and in fact, if you omit only Michigan, which to me makes clear sense, Obama is still leading.
>
>Tamar

That is what I have seen as well. Only by Hillary's funky arithmetic (it depends what the meaning of is is .... follow me down the rabbithole, folks) is she leading.