as for the principle/practice distinction. It results in an ambivilence over Sen. Clinton's candidacy, not some firm dislike for it. The point of the distinction is to highlight that it is one thing (or one main thing) that I believe is detrimental in all of this: Senator Clinton's use of the popular vote metric, which serves no real purpose except to cause division. It doesn't give her a better shot at the nomination, it just results in divisivness.
Were it not for that, I'd be the first to say "on to Denver!"
Well, I'd disagree that it is only the caucus that system that makes it difficult to count. Leaving aside the issue in this election of FL and MI, we still have to contend with the wide and varied ways that govern the different states' primaries. For example, do we count an open primary differently than a closed one?
I would say that there are more issues than simply the caucus states.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, in addition to the problem of tabulating the popular votes, we have to contend with the fact that the popular vote in this case isn't the desired goal. If it were, campaigns would be run differently. Obama would have tried to run up his score in IL; Clinton would have done the same in NY and CA.
But, in response to your question, it isn't a matter of pretending that the popular vote metric does or doesn't exist. I contend that it doesn't--at least not in the clear-cut way it's being used by Sen. Clinton and her supporters. Simply put, there are about a dozen ways--all with logical support--that one could calculate it, and Sen. Clinton only wins in a few of those. So, by denying its existence (in the form referred to by Sen. Clinton), I believe that I am doing something useful: calling a flawed, problematic, and specious metric what it is.