All states should be. But isn't the problem that these four states haven't released actual vote totals? I guess the best thing we can do is estimate the popular vote totals in those caucus states that haven't released or didn't even keep raw vote totals.

Ok, Let me tell you how this goes.

1) There will 10+ folks telling you that you that you are correct and you are asking the right questions.

2. There will be another 7+ folks telling you that this question does not encourage unity.
   
3. There will be 20+ comments that Hillary is really winning the popular vote, its fair to count this way, some backed with explanations on MI/FL and some with just strong assertions.  
   
4. After an initial flare up this diary will die a natural death.
   
5. In a couple of days a new diary will crop up claiming that Hillary is ahead in popular vote.
   
6. A new response will crop up accusing the poster of being unethical/mathematically challenged.

Go back to step 1

Occasionally folks like me who like to watch the game will chime in with a holier than thou attitude :-)

Now back to the regularly scheduled programming ....
 

Spin.

What I do for a living is build and manage a huge budget for a state agency in one of the largest states in the United States.  In working with numbers every single day, and in answering politically charged questions every week, I can tell you that you can make your numbers mean almost anything you want them to mean.

You know that saying, "The Devil is in the details,"  well, the devil is in the assumptions.  Assumptions are your basis for including and excluding and making projections.  If you eff with the assumptions enough you can say anything you want with the numbers.  This is what I see here.

That's the best you'll get from this crowd.

It's the electoral votes! Strategy that the most Democrats obviously lacks after Bill Clinton.

Remember what happened to Gore; you can win the popular votes and not win the general Election.

Michigan and Florida = 44 electoral votes
Nevada, Iowa, Washington and Maine = 27 electoral votes

The Democrats obviously lacks the strategy to win the states with more electoral votes...no. 1
the reason why Florida (27 electoral votes) cannot be taking for granted.

The main reason why Hillary has a better chance than Obama on the General Election.

"Vote your conscience not your wallet"

No one will give a precise and defining answer because there isn't one.

Even though my state (Alaska) has a small population and only 13 pledged delegates, we had a huge turnout at the caucuses in February. The middle school in Anchorage was jammed, wall to wall, in every hallway and classroom. The parking lot was jammed and all the stores' parking lots were full in a mile radius of the school. There's no way an accurate count of voters could have been calculated. It must have been at least 4-5000 in Anchorage alone. The same thing happened in other cities and towns.
Obama won the caucuses (75%).
Obama won 9 of the elected delegates.

Yes, we're a small state. But we have a good chance of going from a red state for the past 40 years to a blue state this year.

We played by the Party rules. To trump our caucus results by some phony, discounted popular number for Alaska would really piss off thousands of Alaskan Democrats that froze their butts off in February to participate in our caucus.

If popular vote were going to be a metric by which to decide a winner, then caucus states would have taken a count of the voters.

This was a delegate battle at the beginning of the primary and it remains that.

...wouldn't Obama have a different campaign strategy if he knew that the so-called popular vote was the deciding factor??

People who argue this kind of remind me of when I play Candyland with my four year old, after I almost reach the top he makes a rule up in moves ahead of me...huh...maybe my boy should run for the Democrat nomination when he's old enough...He knows the "rules"...

I'm not getting an answer on this one.

Either the loudest among you are trolls or you simply aren't willing to concede that there is a real world around us where real things happen, and not all of them help your candidate.

I mean, seriously, it is beyond excuse when your candidate demands that we count two flawed contests that violated the party rules but convneniently ignores four that followed them.

It is not intellectuall honest and most of you won't even try to explain it.

Because you can't.  The only answer to that charges it that you want to win and you'll use whatever crazy-ass tally of states and votes to give yourselves a talking point.

I'm sorry, I really am sorry that you didn't get the candidate you wanted, but why is it acceptable to lie?  I'm not saying that most of you are doing it, but you are buying into a lie when you refuse to think critically for yourselves.

Real Clear Politics tracks popular vote with and without Michigan and Florida as well as with and without the four caucus states.  And every combination in between.  

They also track delegates which I beleive is the critical metric.

Beauty Pagent where Hillary was almost dead even the popular vote difference in minor. What states that broke the same rules as Florida and Michigan? They got away with it.