We know what kos thinks. We know what RenaRF thinks. But is there another possible breakdown of the popular vote totals? Jump with me for another perspective...
As I write this, CNN has it listed that 98% of Puerto Rico's precincts have reported. The totals are 118,972 for Obama and 257,331 for Clinton. If we assume that the remaining 2% of the vote that has not yet been tallied is to remain approximately the same, then Obama should finish the night with around 122,874 votes to Clinton's 261,108 votes.
Now go to the popular vote totals from RCP. Those totals haven't been update since the precinct count was at 76%, but if you add the additional votes that I have projected the candidates will each receive, Obama gains another 40,500 votes and Clinton gains another 85,393 votes.
Now this is where I have to ask you to please trust me and not close this diary in disgust. Please add the additional votes to the fourth column from the top. That's the vote total if both Florida and Michigan's votes are included in the final tally, and it includes an estimated number of votes given to Obama from the caucuses in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington. Under this scenario Obama gets zero votes from Michigan. The updated numbers will amount to 17,724,616 for Obama and 17,914,751 for Clinton. The net Clinton gain is 190,135 votes.
But there are the uncommitted votes to contend with. 238,168 votes were cast for 'Uncommitted' in Michigan. If we give all these to Obama, then he has the popular vote total. But not all those voting for 'Uncommitted' were voting for Obama. Indeed, according to the exit polls, only 73% of 'Uncommitted' voters were backing Obama. 73% of 238,168 is 173,863, and with only 173,863 votes, Obama does not erase Clinton's popular vote total. He's 16,272 votes short.
And he could be even more than that short. RCP estimates Obama's additional caucus votes at 110,224, but if you use CNN's numbers, the total is only 96,674, or 13,550 less than what I've already computed. In other words, if he's not 16,272 votes short of catching Clinton, then he might be 29,822 votes short. He might be able to net 16,272 votes from Montana and South Dakota, but I'm not so sure he will be able to net 29,822 votes.
There are caveats, of course. None of these vote totals include the Texas caucus, and it would seem to make sense to tally the votes from all contests in which delegates were awarded. CNN estimates that Obama won 616,000 votes to Clinton's 484,000 votes in the Texas caucus, thereby netting 132,000 votes and making all my math a moot point.
All of this, of course, can be considered pointless. The argument can easily be made that Florida and Michigan shouldn't be counted because they aren't an accurate reflection of voter preferences. I agree. But people will be parsing over all these numbers in the days to come and many will decide that Florida and Michigan's votes are now legitimate post-May 31.
All I'm saying is this: no one can argue that Obama didn't win the popular vote if he can net 30,000 votes on Tuesday. Wouldn't you agree?