Buchanan listed Texas as a state that HRC won by 10%-40%... no one challenged him. This is rewriting history and diminishing Obama's rightous victory. Does is matter?
It matters. People I know (and like) who don't take an hour a day with alternative media are really confused. Appreciate this if you think it does not matter: they think more democrats wanted Hillary Clinton to be the nominee. These are my friends, when I whip out my Iphone and show them the polls, they are STUNNED. Why don't they know? because media is confusing them. Watch the footage from Saturday... that is why it matters. If my college educated friends are confused enough to think more people wanted HRC, consider how confused "uneducated white voters" might be if someone were trying to confuse them.
The answer to the question Mathews, Russert, Buchanan, Scarborough etc keep asking
("why would so many people vote for Clinton after she had no chance to win?") is simple: they totally and completely did not believe this actual fact. How do I know this? watch the footage from Saturday. They are being taken advantage of for not knowing reality.
Shame on the confusers. It is not nice to confuse hardworking busy people; but media needs to be strong and clear on mistatements in a democracy where peole rule. When educated persons think more dems supported HRC... Houston, we have a problem. There is a danger that the results of Texas begin not to matter. If a month later "people say" that She won by 10-40 percentage points, does reality matter that she didn't? and isn't this the ultimate disenfrachisement?