Not uncomfortable.

What's your point?

There is no accurate popular vote count in the party primary/caucus system.

and Florida.

Even if you counted each vote as only half a vote, like the half a delegate for each delegate they ended up sending, she till won the reported popular vote.

Of course this is all moot as no way Sanders gets anywhere close to winning the nomination, let alone a reported popular vote.

If Obama won the nomination basically thanks to weird little undemocratic rules that award more delegates to the person who gets fewer votes (As he apparently did in Nevada in 2008), I can certainly see why they would have felt cheated back then, and even why they kind of feel that she's 'owed' it now. Owed in recognition of the fact that she did essentially win back then, but got screwed over by bizarre local rules.

won NV by using Obama's strategy of field offices, etc. Good for her. If Bernie does better than expected in SC, and he will,
because it's a primary, and because Hillary voters might feel "safe" because of NV outcome. After SC, Bernie will be down on the count, but the game is far from over and he will regain the lead eventually, and win.

I'm actually glad he didn't win more delegates while still losing the vote count. To me that just doesn't seem democratic. Hill won the votes, she SHOULD get more delegates in NV. I'm hoping further caucus states (and there seem to be more than I thought there were...) are pretty straightforward, and delegate wins are tied to vote count wins.

Apparently, in 2008, Obama lost Nevada's popular vote to Hillary by an even larger margin. But, somehow, he actually managed to be awarded even more of the delegates than Hillary, outmanoeuvring her somehow in the Byzantine ways in which delegates are awarded. Some guy on Twitter named Al Giordano was saying Bernie should have followed Obama's training of his campaign for Nevada, and because I didn't recall that despite losing the popular vote even worse (And the county level delegate totals), Obama managed to be awarded more delegates, I made a wise ass comment in reply, and got schooled in return.

Now I'm kind of a 'democracy should be tied to the will of the people' kind of guy, so I tend to think you get more votes, you should get more delegates. I don't know what setup Nevada has that allowed Obama to get more delegates with fewer votes back then, but it sounds blatantly undemocratic. So, TBH, I'd rather Sanders did NOT 'play the game' if the game is trying to win with fewer voters than your opponent. I want him to get MORE votes.

we'll have a much better idea after super tuesday.