Posted on 05/08/2017 6:58:49 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Did FBI Director James Comey’s letter to Congress announcing an ongoing investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email scandal cost her the election? That’s the argument that FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver has made and which Hillary Clinton herself has seemingly endorsed. But what if it’s not true? Today, Nate Cohn of the NY Times makes the case that it’s possible Clinton’s lead had largely evaporated before Comey sent the letter.
Cohn bases this, in part, on a poll of Florida which was completed the day before the letter was released (meaning no one polled knew about it) but not published until after the letter became news. This poll, which seemed an outlier at the time, showed Trump up 4 points, 46 to 42. And though there aren’t a lot of polls like this from the days immediately before the letter, there are a few which suggest Clinton was hitting bottom pre-letter:
The ABC/Washington Post tracking poll conducted over the same period as the Upshot/Siena poll of Florida, for instance, showed Mrs. Clinton’s lead at just two points, down from a double-digit lead after the third debate. That poll was also released after Mr. Comey’s letter.
Most important, the polls taken before the letter were as bad for Mrs. Clinton as those conducted after it. Again, there aren’t many of these polls, but taken at face value there’s a case that Mrs. Clinton had nearly or even completely bottomed out by the time the Comey letter was released. Even if she had not, the trend line heading into the Comey letter was bad enough that there’s no need to assume that the Comey letter was necessary for any additional erosion in her lead.
These polls are consistent with an alternative election narrative in which the Comey letter had no discernible effect on the outcome.....
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
The error is in thinking that at some point prior to the election, Clinton would have won.
In all the states that counted, both CO and PA, NV and MI, AZ and WI, Clinton plateaued early at a certain number and could not attract more undecideds after that plateau.
The swing voters were choosing the lesser of two evils. They were not going to make the final decision until they had to. But if they had had to make that decision Sep 8 or Oct 8 or Nov 8, when it came time to make the decision, they chose Trump.
The Clinton (and Sanders) voters who were not going to vote for Trump, lacked enthusiasm. They lacked enthusiasm Sep 8, and Oct 8, and Nov 8. There was nothing Clinton was saying or doing to generate enthusiasm.
The Trump voters who often skip elections were enthused this time. Trump gave them things to be enthusiastic about for a vote on Sep 8, and on Oct 8, and on Nov 8.
Swing voters and enthusiasm were the most important factors. Hillary is solely responsible for her role with those factors. Nothing anyone else did impacted those factors like Hillary herself did.
Had Comey done his job, Bernie would have won the nomination. It was over for Hillary very early.
I'd like to think that Deplorable Alt Media such as FreeRepublic were helpful in stopping Hillary voters from being enthusiastic.
Maybe this proves something. You don't have to change a voter's mind. You just have to unenthusiastic.
Russia's really, really bad at manipulating elections! They wanted Le Pen to win in France! :0)
When you start faking polls to get a desired result, it is then impossible to glean truth from those bogus polls after the fact.
In reality(that perception that won’t go away) it was over for Hillary in 2008 when she couldn’t beat a first term senator who never held a job.
Nice!
Bernie Sanders held a rally in Louisville in mid-winter, on a cold (Temp in the high 30’s) RAINY day... OUTSIDE... near the Ohio River Bridges.... an enthusiastic crowd estimated at more than 10,000 showed up to hear him.
A few weeks later? Hillary held a rally, indoors, with several local elected officials by her side.... less than 500 showed up.
With some late night, electioneering shenanigans by Kentucky’s Secretary of State (a LOYAL Clintonista), Hillary somehow supposedly “won” Kentucky. It was 100% BS.
That is funny...I was thinking about that song when I wrote that statement...Thank you buddy for picking up on that!!!
FR, Breitbart, etc had zero impact on the enthusiasm, or lack of it, for potential Clinton voters. Clinton gets all the credit for no enthusiasm. FR, Breitbart, etal do deserve credit for the enthusiasm for Trump.
Conventional wisdom is that negative ads suppress the turnout of the opponent’s potential voters. Currently, the Handel-Ossoff negative strategy in GA is conventional. Both sides intend to discourage turnout in this off year election.
The question is which ad campaign is more effective. Handel has let Ossoff define her while she hides/runs away from the press.
Jack Ryan’s add campaign says “He is not one of us”. Who is “us”? Can a beltway ad campaign get away with this kind of twisted image?
2/3 in the district are carpet baggers, refugees from Rust Belt cities with no jobs. Are these 2/3 of the district “one of us” ? We will see June 21 if this is an effective or ineffective campaign theme.
Note that so far, Trump, Trump policies, Freedom Caucus policies and Dem policies are not issues in the campaign. Ossoff says he is “against waste” but does not mention any examples. The media does not push him to be more specific.
Filling Tom Price’s seat is based solely on campaign strategy and tactics; not on anything FReepers or Bernie Sanders supporters consider issues.
I suppose it’s best for Ossoff if he continues to stay hidden and not discuss the issues.
The “D” next to his name is the biggest “issue” going for him. I am not in the 6th district, so I watch from afar (in Athens).
Ossoff is not hiding. He is highly visible everywhere.
It is Handel that is hiding. And, of course, real issues are hiding.
The Handel campaign is looking only for Republicans in its ads.
Ossoff is clearly looking for independents with the assumption that Democrats in the district are eager to wear the independent label.
I agree with your analysis that “He’s not one of us” is absolutely crazy. About as silly as “Stronger Together” and the other nonsense Hillary slogans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.