In my never-ending struggle to see a glass less than half-full as almost overflowing, I undertook a little experiment. General elections are won by electoral votes, not by total popular votes or anything else. So when Hillary Clinton has big wins during the Primaries in states that no Democrat is going to carry in the Fall, then we ought to discount those wins as having no relevance for the General Election, right? [You can see where this is going]. I started with the list of states Obama won in 2012, and then put in Bernie’s column the states where he has already won a primary or caucus and put in Hillary’s column the states where she has done the same. Then I looked up the electoral votes each state will have in 2016, and added them up. Here are the results:
Not Yet Decided: New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, California, New Jersey, DC, New Mexico, Oregon,
Bernie has won: Wisconsin , Vermont , Colorado , Iowa , Hawaii , Michigan , Washington , Maine , Minnesota , New Hampshire  = 75 electoral votes
Hillary has won: Florida , Iowa , Nevada , Massachusetts , Ohio , Illinois , Virginia  = 100 electoral votes
The next Obama state to hold its primary is New York, which has 29 electoral votes.
Which means that if Bernie can pull out a win in New York, he will be leading in the RELEVANT electoral vote count.