First, a couple of flashbacks from Election Day, 2016:

We don’t mean to pick on Nate Silver in particular for getting the 2016 election wrong — all the pollsters got it wrong. But as “Shattered,” the insider account of the Clinton campaign that her former staffers have tried to counter with photos of them and her smiling, makes the rounds, Silver is out with another bold statement:

The release of the letter cost Clinton just 3 points, but did that translate to death by four small cuts?

The link in the tweet won’t take you to a new essay written with the benefit of hindsight; rather, it pulls up Silver’s Nov. 6 feature regarding the effect of FBI Director James Comey’s Oct. 28 letter to Congress revealing that the FBI was reviewing additional emails in her case.

As he suggests in his tweet, perhaps it was the media’s handling of that letter, and not the letter itself, that really cost Clinton the election. “The media seemed eager for one last twist in the news cycle,” he writes, “so Clinton may have been due for a period of greater scrutiny one way or the other.”

That’s not an unpopular opinion here; among journalists in the mainstream media, perhaps.

Nate Silver has read the New York Times before, right? This is the same paper that had, just a few days before the Comey letter, devoted a two-page spread listing every single insulting remark Donald Trump had made during the campaign, including the time he called whoever firebombed the GOP’s headquarters in Orange County, N.C., “animals.”

Another evergreen tweet, to be sure. But does it really have to be said again?

It was only a week ago that Andrew Sullivan published that piece in New York Magazine asking why Democrats seemed so afraid to blame her and her abysmal campaign for her loss. Or, maybe lay some blame at the feet of the pollsters who had everyone convinced Hillary couldn’t lose?

* * *