FiveThirtyEight.com’s Nate Silver is still (more than a month later) trying to explain away how Hillary Clinton was upended by Donald Trump in a presidential election result that shocked the beltway media and rendered political punditry obsolete. His latest effort is to fantasize about the election being held on October 27th.
I'll put it like this: Clinton would almost certainly be President-elect if the election had been held on Oct. 27 (day before Comey letter).
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) December 11, 2016
As with most so-called experts, Silver is less concerned about justice or what the Comey letter was actually about than he is with the outcome it might have produced.
On any date, late deciders were always going to break against the corrupt, hated functional incumbent. https://t.co/1jKuHLQDYe
— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) December 11, 2016
Shh! That goes against their narrative.
That's a joke, Nate.
The breakers were Sanders' supporters deciding if they could accept the idea of Hillary.
Same outcome anytime. https://t.co/pswwDaUE3y
— Craig R. Brittain (@CraigRBrittain) December 11, 2016
Asshat translation: "If they had ended the game in the 3rd quarter, my team would've won!" https://t.co/XCwZcaFUOa
— Delaney Gilbert (@Delaney_Gee) December 11, 2016
Even Ron Fournier was not amused.
— Ron Fournier (@ron_fournier) December 11, 2016
Besides, why should we take the word of a guy who published a piece on Election Day saying that Hillary Clinton had a greater than 70 percent chance of winning regarding any hypothetical outcome?