Reply #119: If the Nomination process was predicated on "popular vote" the you would be correct.

[DWilliamsamh]

IT ISN'T. This is just one more way in which Hillary shows her sense of entitlement. "If none of the actual criteria set out BEFORE the process started favor me - I want you to look at this new thing that I MIGHT 'win,' regardless of the fact that a large price is paid by the states that used caucuses, and the FACT that my opponents name wasn't even on the ballot on one state." But it's "fair" because I say it's fair.

And BTW, speaking for my self in 2000 I wasn't mad because Al Gore won more votes than Bush nation wide yet Bush ended up with in the Oval office. I was angry because Florida's electoral votes were awarded based on an incomplete count. Had there been a legitimate count and Bush won Florida fair and square, those electoral college votes would have rightly been his as well as the Oval office despite the fact that Al Gore would still have won more votes nation wide. Know why I would have been able to accept defeat? Because it would have be legitimate according to the rules that were laid out going in!

It's called being an adult and having some integrity and grace. You and Hillary should look up those words.