The Left’s fury over the fact that their certifiably awful candidate somehow managed to lose to even more certifiably awful Donald Trump is unabated. Indeed, it seems to be getting worse, as Democrats, progressives and social justice warriors continue to reveal themselves as poor losers and lousy citizens—but spectacular hypocrites—by both trying to undo the election and attempting to undermine the legitimacy of the President Elect before he even moves in to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. At the same time, the Democratic Party is teaching our children, if they read Politico, that denying accountability and blaming others for your own botches is acceptable adult behavior. It wasn’t their fault that they managed to blow an election against an adversary they publicly wished for. It was the Russians! The FBI! The Electoral College! The news media! The voters hate women–even women hate women!
It was Hillary Clinton, of course, but never mind. Yesterday’s headline in The Washington Examiner and a few other news sources are sure to give the Democrats solace: Nate Silver (the acclaimed statistics guru who nonetheless joined other poll-readers to pronounce Hillary an odds on favorite to win on November 12 but with a bit less certainly than the rest, so he remains a genius by being less wrong), it said, had pronounced that “Clinton ‘almost certainly’ would be president if not for Comey.”
This is fake news. Why? I could go into detail about why it’s an irresponsible opinion and based on logical fallacies as well as confirmation bias, which Nate is supposed to understand, but that wouldn’t make the story fake news. It is fake news because Silver never said what the headline claims.
Silver, who actual writes up positions he believes are accurate on his blog, apparently was bored on Sunday so he began musing in a series of tweets.
“Comey had a large, measurable impact on the race. Harder to say with Russia/Wikileaks because it was drip-drip-drip,” he said in the first. This became, in the Examiner story, “Comey had a large, measurable impact on the race,” leaving out the second part of the tweet, the part that meant “I think, but it’s impossible to be sure because other things were happening too.”
I have to say, Nate is really sloppy here. One way Comey had a larger impact than he should have was because of the way the Clinton campaign reacted to his first letter, which he was ethically obligated to write. They sicced other lawyers on him (lawyers who were looking for jobs in the upcoming Clinton Administration); they even accused him of breaking the law, which was ridiculous. They made themselves, that is, Hillary, look guilty by attacking the same guy they had called a great American just a couple of months earlier for not recommending that the candidate be indicted.
If Comey’s first letter about the Weiner e-mails had a “measurable impact,” it’s because Bill Clinton seeming to try to influence the investigation by meeting with Loretta Lynch had a “measurable impact,” because that’s what forced Comey to go into detail when he announced the decision not to indict. That announcement had a a “measurable impact,” because the details prompted Congressional Republicans to call on him to testify, whereupon he made the promise to alert them if there were “new developments.” But the real “measurable impact” sprung from the fact that Clinton endangered U.S. security to advance her own agenda, and when she was found out, lied about it, vocally, for more than a year. Clinton has yet to acknowledge that.
In his next tweet, Nate revealed that the impact wasn’t all that “measurable” after all:
There’s more evidence, too: Late-deciding voters broke strongly against Clinton in swing states, enough to cost her MI/WI/PA. pic.twitter.com/8r801ahDQO
Now he’s not just talking about changes after the Comey letters, except in the sense of post hoc ergo propter hoc (“after this, and thus because of it”), a classic logical fallacy. He’s talking about what happened on November 12, which was after a lot of things: the revelation that journalists were colluding with the Democrats, the fact that the DNC chair used her position to help Clinton cheat during a debate, the fact that the reaction of the DNC chair, Donna Brazile was, in essence, “I’m not sorry, and I would do it again,” more revelations about Clinton Foundation influence peddling, and the Comey letters, as well as the Clinton campaign’s disgusting attack on Comey for doing his job. These factors, as well as others, like Clinton calling half the country “deplorables,” all came before those undecideds flipped to Trump. How can Silver credibly say Comey was the reason? He can’t.
Furthermore, the fact that late deciding voters went for Trump was to be expected, and can’t be attributed just to Comey, the Russians, Wikileaks or any of the factors that popped up in the last two weeks, after Trump’s “pussy” talk with Billy Bush had everyone predicting a Clinton landslide. Any voter paying attention already knew that Trump was unfit to be President, and either didn’t care, deciding that they wanted to make a statement of protest–the statement being, “ARRGHHH!”—against the “elites” or Obama or Obamacare or Stonehenge or something, or believing that an ignorant, narcissist bully was just what the country needed, or they did care and had decided to vote for Hillary, lies and all.
How could anyone be undecided that late? If someone was genuinely undecided, it had to be because they hadn’t yet concluded and were incapable of concluding that it would be insane to vote for Trump. I had been reading experts for weeks saying that undecided voters were likely to split for Trump. “More evidence” of what? That undecided voters went for Trump after Comey’s letters…and also after the Cubs won the World Series? Nate’s smarter than that.
Nate may have also been pondering the flaws in his reasoning—remember that Twitter chains tend to be stream of consciousness, and not thought out like, say, a blog post—because his final tweet was this:
“I’ll put it like this: Clinton would almost certainly be President-elect if the election had been held on Oct. 27.”
Well that’s a safe assumption, and not news at all. After muddling around in a couple of tweets, all Silver was willing to say with confidence—this is his last tweet on the topic, remember; the conclusion— is that what happened in the last two weeks, combined with other factors already in play, resulted in a Trump victory.
What Silver didn’t say, never said, and cannot he interpreted as saying, was that “Clinton ‘almost certainly’ would be president if not for Comey.”
Now watch this story be quoted incessantly by Democrats saying, “See? See?”