So you were convinced she was going to lose. I'm curious what sources you were curating for yourself that led you to believe that. I recall the probability was definitely in her favor, but the most reliable analysis still put it around 2/3 or so, which leaves a pretty big opening for a miss. It sounds like you had access to your own analysis that put the odds against her? Aside from drinking the kool-aid on the other side of the aisle, I'd be interested to know how you made that conclusion.
No, sorry, you're missing my point. I have no inside information, other than Gell-Mann effect. My friend, who told me a zillions times about how Hillary is going to win big, how the Republican party was on it's death-bed, and all the big news organizations are projecting a Hillary win, and my response to hearing of the fire-works cancelling was, "She thinks she's going to lose." Because the media was getting it wrong, like they always seem to.
The Clinton campaign absolutely did not believe they were going to lose days before the election. You could have made a defensible and germane argument by saying you predicted the outcome of the election, but, nope, your rhetorical reach exceeded your grasp, and you "predicted" something that the press got right and you got wrong.
I didn't even try to predict anything. I just responded to the cancellation of the fire-works in relationship to the media's sureness of a Hillary win. I suspected she knew she was going the lose when the press did not.
And, again, you were wrong about that. There are numerous reports from embeds in the campaign detailing how stunned the campaign was at the loss on election night.
