Originally Posted by FresnoBob

Not really. The primary system is probably unique to the US, as well as somewhat bastardized by having so many states employing different methods of conducting the operation. The alleged purpose is to permit each party to decide which candidate to put forward in the general election, yet in some states there is no true "popular vote," while in some others, people not affiliated with the party are allowed to vote in the primary (often with the intent of supporting the least electible of the choices in an effort to assist the opposing party). Couple this with such set-ups as Texas where a portion of the delegates were chosen at local caucases while others were selected in the state-wide "popular vote," and you need to decide whether any given candidate spent more time and effort going after the voters, or the votes that count in the convention.
This b.s. about "the popular vote" is another rhetorical device that, in truth, should mean little or nothing. The numbers aren't really relevent when all the other factors are thrown in.

A quote from the election process some years ago: "Who cares which candidate got 25% of the 6% of the voters who bothered to show up in a state that the party won't carry in the general election anyway?"