How, exactly, has Hillary Clinton gotten away with repeatedly claiming that she's ahead in the popular vote?

There are some campaign untruths that we just sort of wink at. When a candidate is standing on the back of a pick-up truck, knocking back brews, bowling with the locals, etc., we know what's going on. Is this reality? No. Does the decision to wear pink, or not to wear a necktie, actually tell us anything meaningful about a candidate? No, it doesn't. This is deception, stagecraft, the art of misdirection. And that's okay.

Then, there are lies. Bald-faced, straight-up lies. And usually candidates who are caught telling indefensible untruths are called on it and forced to grovel (see: Snipergate).

So what about this popular vote thing?

Reality does not come with disclaimers. If somebody asks you who won the last Superbowl, the answer is not 'the Patriots (assuming you look at total points scored across the entire season and factor in the probable average result if the game were played out a hundred different times)'. The answer is 'the Giants'. Because you don't have to say 'assuming you base your judgment on the events as they transpired in the context of the rules dictated by the National Football League'. You don't have to ask people to assume reality.

Hillary is not winning the popular vote. Hillary is losing the popular vote. Because all the voodoo math in the world (we'll count Florida and Michigan, leave out these caucuses, carry the three...) doesn't change the fact that, in the race for the Democratic nomination, more people have chosen Obama than have chosen Hillary.

When she says otherwise, it's a lie. Not a spin, not an argument, not a strategy. A lie.

So why do we let her get away with it?