tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3901123.post1450014553853587088..comments2024-03-15T03:20:38.106-05:00Comments on Brains and Eggs: Your Russia updatePDiddiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05851660342241127485noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3901123.post-8152990240125615292017-09-22T06:48:11.134-05:002017-09-22T06:48:11.134-05:00M. Machi:
Thanks for commenting. New contributor...M. Machi:<br /><br />Thanks for commenting. New contributors are always welcome.<br /><br />Comey indeed takes the leading blame for externally influencing the 2016 election, <a href="http://brainsandeggs.blogspot.com/2016/12/2016-brainiacs-democrats.html" rel="nofollow">as I have blogged and Nate Silver has quantified</a>, back in December of 2016. This does not lead to the definitive "Clinton would have won" conclusion, however.<br /><br />Your absolutism runs off the rails following that, after you reveal your Sanders (both of them!?!) Derangement Syndrome and your fold-in, almost like a few caramel chips into your cone at Marble Slab, of Jill Stein and some tenuous connection to Russia.<br /><br />I believe that among the many reasons Hillary Clinton lost an election she should have easily won -- and in fact polling showed her to be winning even the day before the election -- because she was perceived as an insincere, moderate insider, who used her insider connections to cheat in the primary. This caused thousands of longtime Democrats to abandon her candidacy AND the party in the general. She also declined to campaign in the three Midwestern swing states she ultimately lost to Trump, a grievous and unforced error. I could go on in this fashion but this conversation helps Democrats in no discernible way, which happens to be the most definitive conclusion that can be made on this topic.<br /><br />Your comment is simply not well-reasoned or, for that matter, well-written. I'd invite you to give it another go if you like, but we will NOT be re-litigating the 2016 primary any further here. It's possible you might have the last word, if you can contribute something more articulate and coherent than your last. For example, if you wish to open again with "Clinton wins the election if ...", it needs to finish with "Clinton screwed up in many ways" or something similar, in order to be honest.PDiddiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05851660342241127485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3901123.post-13179839116338084752017-09-21T10:26:16.966-05:002017-09-21T10:26:16.966-05:00My own take, somewhat overlapping, on Facebook iss...My own take, somewhat overlapping, on Facebook issues and how they relate to it vis-a-vis conventional media: https://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2017/09/newspapers-barn-doors-facebook-and.htmlGadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3901123.post-49012058148138870702017-09-21T09:36:19.479-05:002017-09-21T09:36:19.479-05:00The FBI publicizing that Hillary Clinton was under...The FBI publicizing that Hillary Clinton was under investigation, twice, while failing to mention that any other Presidential candidate was under investigation, was a game changer as to who would win the 2016 election.<br />I would add FBI collusion, or FBI favoritism to your list. Trump does not win if at the time of the second notice Hillary Clinton's email to Congress in late October, the FBI had also stated that Trump was under Investigation, Clinton wins.<br />Plus, Sanders was probably under investigation because of some questionable investments made by his wife, and his own claim that he was poor when he was not.<br />Stein has connections to Russia, maybe she was being investigated by the FBI as well. If this had all come out in late October, rather than only Hillary Clinton Investigation, she wins the election.Alessandro Machihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06316327488702524564noreply@blogger.com