Reply #12: "If you believe that delegates are more important..." [View All]

[ExPatLeftist]

"...then Senator Obama will have a lead in delegates. If you think that the popular vote is more important, then Senator Clinton will have a lead in votes*..."

In other words, if you go by the points on the board, then we lose, but if you prefer to adhere to an alternate reality, then what REALLY matters are the passing yards gained (completions by left-handed quarterbacks in the first and third quarters only).


I am sick to fucking death of people talking about Clinton's "case" for the nomination. WTF. There is no "case" for nominating the person that LOST the election. After any other sort of contest, if the loser would begin petitioning the judges to overturn the ACTUAL outcome based on criteria they pull out of their ass, they would be laughed at and told to fuck off. Somehow, though, for our party's nomination for the highest office in the nation, so many accept this behavior and do not call it what it is: Acting like a fucking spoiled 3-year-old. (I was going to say a 4 year old, but I have one of those and he knows already that you are supposed to play by the rules, not throw a tantrum and try to change them in the middle of the game when he sees that he will lose.)






* Excluding caucus states where Hillary fared poorly and assuming that the rules are broken and the delegates from Michigan and Florida are seated according to the Banana Republic fake elections that were run there. In the case that Clinton STILL does not have the lead in the popular vote considering the preceding, the Clinton campaign retains the right to include and exclude votes at will in order to make the claim that they won the popular vote. May cause dizziness and depression. Void where prohibited by the Clintons.