One more time: why the SDs won't fall for the bogus "popular vote" argument

[onenote]

Let's imagine a discussion about the popular vote with, let's say, John Conyers, SD from Michigan:

Mr. Conyers, you should support Hillary because she won the "popular" vote during the primary campaign.

Conyers: Really? How were the votes from my state, Michigan, tabulated in this "popular vote" calculation.

Well, we gave HRC the votes she received in your state's primary.

Conyers: And Obama?

You: We gave him nothing.

Conyers: So you think it reflects the will of the people of Michigan, and in the nation as a whole, to assume that there is no popular support of Obama in our state whatsoever?

SILENCE.

Conyers: How about states with caucuses? How did you factor them into the 'popular vote' computation.

Well, that was hard, so we basically didn't count them.

Conyers: So Obama's popularity in caucus states should simply be ignored in figuring out which candidate has more popular support.

SILENCE.

Conyers: So when did Hillary finally take the popular vote lead?

Last night, based on the popular vote from Puerto Rico.

Conyers: So you count votes from Puerto Rico, which doesn't get a say in the GE, but my support, and the support of hundreds of thousands of other Michigan citizens for Obama, and of thousands of voters in caucus states, is discounted or treated as a nullity and you claim that your calculation shows that its the "will of the people" for HRC to get the nomination?

You: Yes

Conyers: Get the fuck out of my office, you moron.

[hfojvt]

1. more of an a$$hole than a moron

They are not stupid enough to believe their own argument, they are just evil enough to make it anyway.