After further review, the call on Election Night stands

A group of computer scientists and election lawyers, perhaps encouraged by the Trump-like whining by certain Democrats that Hillary couldn't have lost the Electoral College given the size of her victory in the popular vote, have approached the Clinton campaign with what they claim is evidence that computer hacking was utilized to steal Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania from Hillary. It seems that she did far better in paper ballot precincts than in those using voting machines.

But it turns out to be a coincidence. Nate Silver- a Democrat- has analyzed their report and concluded that there is another explanation: demographics. When one looks at the composition of the precincts where machines were used and that of precincts where paper ballots were employed, there is nothing particularly fishy about the results. Maybe the time has come for the Democrats to accept defeat and wait for the American people. like the Brexit-voting Brits before them, to be smacked over the head by the inevitable case of buyer's remorse that follows an emotionally-driven and badly thought-through election result.

Silver  also documents something everybody already knew: the less educated you are, the more likely ou were to vote for Donald Trump. Whether Trump voters were simply bamboozled by a professional con man or intended all along, as Michael Moore contends, to "blow up the system," Silver's conclusion supports the impression that has persisted throughout the campaign that along with authoritarian leanings the absence of a college education was the surest predictor of support for The Donald.