>Be fair about it.
>Tamar was outraged when Bill Clinton got in with only 43% of the popular vote.
>The press too, they cried and carried on about how a very solid 57% of the popular vote was *against* Bill Clinton.
>Am I not remembering that correctly?
>
>ROFL and LOL!!! They say that the memory is the first things to go. I would tell you what the second one is but I can't rememeber...

Must blame brain..about forgetting..
Homer Simpson: "All right brain, you don't like me, and I don't like you. But let's just get me through this.."


How could I forget?
The hypocrisy about the popular vote is so much more recent.


Recent, like.. immediately recent - screwing Bernie Sanders on the primary popular vote.
I wonder why the dems and news people are not crying about *that* popular vote?

* In Utah, where Sanders won by a 79-20 margin, two of the state’s four superdelegates are backing Clinton.

* 11 of 16 superdelegates in Minnesota are supporting Clinton, even though Sanders won the state’s March 1 caucus by a 62-38 margin.

* While Sanders blew Clinton out of the water by a 73-27 margin in Washington State, Clinton has 10 of 16 superdelegates. Sanders has zero.

* Six of Wisconsin’s ten superdelegates are supporting Clinton, while only one is backing Sanders. The Vermont senator won the Badger State’s primary by 14 points.

* All nine superdelegates in Rhode Island have committed to supporting Hillary Clinton, even though Bernie Sanders defeated the former Secretary of State by a 12-point margin.

* Sanders also has only one superdelegate in Alaska, same as Clinton, even after winning the state by an 82-18 margin.

(Source: http://usuncut.com/politics/superdelegates-robbed-voters-primary/)