This message was self-deleted by its author

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. It's really not a very good analogy.

A political campaign is mainly marketing: If you don't market your "product" effectively, people won't "buy." Without question there were malign outside influences - Comey, Putin, gerrymandering, voter suppression - but it's impossible to conclude that the Clinton campaign made no mistakes at all because every campaign makes mistakes. The question is whether and to what extent those mistakes, combined with the external forces, affected the outcome. Some have said that it was a mistake not to have paid more (or different) attention to Wisconsin and Michigan. I don't know whether that's true, but wouldn't it be better to examine every single aspect of the campaign, both internal and external, to determine how it all fit together, and to admit at least the possibility that mistakes were made so as to avoid repeating them? There should be no sacred cows. Everything has to be looked at.