The popular vote

Issac Chotiner makes an astute observation about Hillary's "popular vote" strategy:

The problem with the Clinton strategy--and I don't mean in political terms--is not that it shows her willingness to change positions in the name of political expediency. Rather, it's that if the popular vote had been the metric all along, Obama would have used a different strategy that did not rely so heavily on caucus states and their (generally) small populations.

2008 is not a case of a repeat of 2000. Al Gore lost to George W. Bush because the re-count of the votes in Florida was suspended before it was completed, and the count at that time had Bush ahead. He consequently won the necessary electoral votes to become president.

At no time did Gore try to make the argument that he had won the popular vote and that that should somehow trump the Constitutionally-defined electoral college process.

There is no analogous situation this year in the Democratic nominating race. The delegate count is the the defined path to the nomination. Suggesting that a different metric should be used once the primary season was underway is a disservice to the Democratic Party and to the nation.

And to create the impression that an injustice has occurred when you're losing by the rules? Shameful.