The “but the popular vote” comeback has been popular among Democrats unwilling to admit why Hillary Clinton lost the election and Donald Trump won, and David Axelrod’s even playing that game in regards to the Supreme Court now:
If @realDonaldTrump and @senatemajldr ram thru a replacement now, the SCOTUS will have a majority of justices appointed by presidents who finished 2d in the popular vote, confirmed by senate majorities who represented less than half of the country.
A tyranny of the minority.— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) September 19, 2020
#FACEPALM
Both are irrelevant. And you know it. https://t.co/KbMjuTxcWL
— Matt Mackowiak (@MattMackowiak) September 19, 2020
Nothing to see here, just a prominent Democrat actively attacking legitimacy of Supreme Court. https://t.co/Y3TWSQR7TU
— Tom Bevan (@TomBevanRCP) September 19, 2020
It’s all he’s got. If only Hillary Clinton would have gone to Wisconsin…
All you had to do was:
1) Not nominate the most unliked candidate in history, or
2) Not ignore polls and pull staff out of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. https://t.co/PGrHpUFgT3— Donny Ferguson 🗽 (@DonnyFerguson) September 19, 2020
Promising to put coal workers in Pennsylvania out of jobs was also a nice touch from Hillary, but “tyranny of the minority” or something.
They just keep going back to that popular vote as if that was the race we were running.
— JCrow (@jlc225) September 19, 2020
“He shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint… judges of the Supreme Court” is tyranny now. https://t.co/ZrfAcKS1LY
— Eddie Zipperer (@EddieZipperer) September 19, 2020
This is as unique take.
Playing by the Constitutional rules, by which we are obliged, is somehow nefarious, when it is to the Dem’s disadvantage.
Well, not really unique, they are usually full of it. https://t.co/TCu4NFFKPl
— BayAreaFrau (@bayareahausfrau) September 19, 2020
The Democrat definition of “tyranny” has become “whenever Democrats don’t get their way.”
Please refer to Article II and how the electoral system works. Then delete this tweet. Embarrassing for you. https://t.co/lp4SDyD8aT
— Jenna Ellis (@JennaEllisEsq) September 19, 2020
They oppose the Constitution. It’s really that simple. https://t.co/QQKZ0VpoJG
— David Harsanyi (@davidharsanyi) September 19, 2020
the constitution, what is it? pic.twitter.com/acDUfvUzcf
— Dani the girl (@NewYearsDani) September 19, 2020
Following the Constitutional process of appointing Supreme Court justices is not tyranny.
Also, John Roberts and Samuel Alito were both nominated in 2005 after Bush was re-elected with a majority of the popular vote. https://t.co/YH6D9NzwWK
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) September 19, 2020
Aside from being irrelevant, this is also untrue. (both Roberts and Alito were nominated in 2005) https://t.co/NaHFRK3PE5 pic.twitter.com/9w81pOcWqh
— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) September 19, 2020
For some reason Democrats seem to forget that great reminder from Axelrod’s former boss:
“Elections have consequences.”
—Barack Obama— Eddie Zipperer (@EddieZipperer) September 19, 2020
