Typical
liberal magic thinking: For nearly 230 years, presidential elections
have been determined by Article II, Section 1 of the United States
Constitution. No effort was made to amend this section of the
Constitution, even after 2000, the last time
the Democrats "won" the popular vote but lost the election. Sixteen
years transpired; nothing.
Elections were held in 2004, 2008, and 2012,
all under the same rules that governed presidential elections since the
ratification of the Constitution. Campaign strategies were formulated,
candidates' travel and appearances were scheduled, and campaign funds
were allocated, all with the express goal of winning a majority of
electoral votes.
The election of 2016 was no exception. But because
the Democrat candidate failed to win a majority of the electoral votes,
and because her supporters really, really don't like the winner (even
more than they disliked George W. Bush in 2000), well, then, all they
have to do is change the rules (retroactively and without the benefit
of a constitutional amendment) and voila! Problem solved: SHE WON!
Too bad Chris Wallace didn't ask Hillary if SHE would abide by the
results of the election! But that wouldn't matter to her loyal
supporters. After all, that was then; this is now. Heads we win; tails
you lose. Like I said, typical liberal magic thinking. (From a friend's FB post)
