A word from HRC about attacks from the left...

[JCanete]

397. How would those be completely irrelevant to the discussion? They are entirely relevant. How

come when I say you can't draw conclusions as to whether or not voters who voted for Sanders but did not vote for Clinton would have voted for Clinton, that is speculation,

but when somebody uses the numbers of Sanders supporters voting for Trump to suggest that oh yes, Sanders primary run cost Clinton the race, that is "factual" even though you literally just conceded that my questions that go right to the heart of whether or not voters choices were changed by Sanders run were impossible to answer. If its impossible to answer then how are you accepting the narrative that Sanders cost Clinton the race? If you can't answer and don't even think its relevant whether or not Sanders getting involved changed GE votes, then why would you let declarative speculation to that end, presented as a certainty, stand? and how is it divorced from the situation exactly?

l'm not the one claiming I can tell from these numbers what effect was had, but others certainly are. I'm claiming that they are rushing to a judgement based upon nowhere near conclusive evidence to the fact, and that's still me being generous. I'm saying the evidence in itself is not sufficient to actually make any kind of claim whatsoever. Too many factors are not being weighed.

Also, your anecdotal evidence that you can find people on record saying something is precious.

Regarding context, I"m not talking about this particular thread. I assure you you have not read every exchange between me and Gothmog, and not even on this subject, but feel free to search for them.

As to your own refutation of my numbers, I appreciate you taking the effort and I appreciate you actually attempting to address my issues with the conclusions being drawn, to boot. I'll do some follow up research to see if I got something wrong here, because its always possible. I'll respond once I've done so.