Trying to derive different weighting schemes in order to come up with an analytically defensible popular vote theoretical outcome is simply false precision that is, or should be anyway, meaningless to the superdelegates.\
The popular vote from blue states that will remain blue states regardless of the nominee doesn't matter.
The popular vote from red states that will remain red states regardless of the nominee doesn't matter.
Both sides realize they have different paths to achieving 270 EVs. Clinton's path goes through Florida. Obama's doesn't.
The popular vote totals do not demonstrate electability. A far better measure of electability would be to consider where each candidate is in the swing states they need to carry, and where each candidate is likely to be in those states come November.
Barack is 40 million in the black.
Clinton is 20 million in the red.
This 60 million differential says a lot about which candidate can mount a campaign to carry his or her swing states.
being rubbish.
I'm not certain that I agree with you that the lone purpose of the primary is to determine electability though.
I voted for the candidate I thought would make the best president.
And I'm also not sure about your method for showing the most electable candidate.
ANd I would argue that Obama does well in states that he campaigns in to counter his relative lack of familiarity. He hasn't campaigned in Florida yet. Isn't that a little unfair?
Both Florida and Michigan were beauty contests, buzz polls, name recognition contests, whatever your label. J Ro a few weeks back posted an article showing how Obama closed the gap in every state he campaigned in, often substantially. The Clinton supporters who advocate the popular vote metric conveniently ignore this when they assert that Florida and Michigan could be counted (and that Obama should receive no votes from Michigan because he took his name off the ballot!).
Ridiculous.
ANd I see that I misread part of your comment.
Sheesh. Time-O for bed-O.
