COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY SAMUEL OSBORNE IN THE INDEPENDENT
"Renowned pollster Nate Silver said Ms Clinton would "almost certainly" be President-elect of the US if the election had been held on 27 October, the day before Mr Comey's announcement."
First, we all know that the polls were wrong many, many times. So how can you go back and compare polls with any meaning?
And I believe the polls were wrong because they were often done or commissioned to give engineered results, not true insight. It's an easy thing to do by playing with the sample used, and in at least one well-known case, there was a penetrating analysis done on a “fake news” site showing the flawed method in detail.
And the commissioning and publication of bent polls are just what we would expect, given the performance of the entire mainstream and corporate press during the election.
I never saw such a lack of all journalistic principles as newspapers and broadcasters exhibited during the entire election. The Independent, for example, was consistently and bizarrely biased in every sentence and photo and cartoon that it published.
And, in the case, cited above, of an analytically-demonstrated, truly bent poll, I recall The Independent featuring the very poll as though it were an important new insight, a revelation.
Second, any decent writer never, never starts a sentence with something like, "Renowned pollster Nate Silver." It is question-begging right from the start.
It attempts to give an unproved sense of authority to all that follows. It is, quite simply, a technique used by propagandists, tabloid stories, and fakes.
Third, FBI Director Comey simply did what he had to do. To ignore such discoveries would invite immediate attacks of special treatment. As it is, she did get special treatment. That airplane meeting between husband Bill and Comey's boss, the Attorney General, should have led to the Attorney General's impeachment. It was scandalous behavior beyond telling.
It is a pathetic tactic of Hillary's to blame him. She has no capacity for looking into the mirror and seeing why it is that she really lost.
Fourth, of course, this all ties in, too, with her babyish, whining, 1950s-style complaints about Russian hacking.
The fact is that the Russians, and likely a dozen intelligence services, got into her State Department servers, and they left not a trace because real professional hackers can do that, not leave a trace. A real tribute to her professional incompetence.
Yet somehow, in the mental landscape of Hillaryland, when it came to the DNC computers, it is now proved that the Russians did it. Utter nonsense. There would not be a trace if they had.
There is considerable informed speculation that the DNC hacks were the work of a Party insider. Lots of folks do not like this ugly-tempered, mean-spirited woman. It has even been speculated that Obama himself secretly might have commissioned such an effort, and I think that could have some substance to it.
Despite all the phony camera-op hugging between Obama and Clinton, they very much dislike each other. Bill and Hillary have made scathing comments about Obama to third parties, and if I’m aware of them, you can be sure Obama is. Who knows, but it sure would be a nice form of revenge to play as though you were supporting her while setting secret leg-traps.
No matter what the case, we can be glad this ugly political hack did not gain power. She is without redeeming qualities, has contempt for ordinary people and blacks, has a record of corruption without parallel in a candidate, a record of lying and incompetence, and she helped kill tens of thousands without so much as suffering a moist eye.