General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDo you know orr have you ever met someone who said "I was going to votee for
Hillary until Comey sad they found more emails." I know Comey's words couldn't have helped, but of all the people I've met, NO ONE has ever said that, yet almost all the talking heads blame her loss on Comey's words less than two weeks before thee election.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)The very last week and ask them how they felt about their reluctant vote for her? No, I did not. I'm not sure they bothered voting. My state was safe so...
Beakybird
(3,333 posts)Do you know anyone who says they voted for someone because they saw a commercial or their neighbor had a sign on their Lawn? I bet not, but people are swayed by these things.
tblue37
(65,377 posts)over the edge.
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)spanone
(135,838 posts)Jonny Appleseed
(960 posts)Nor are they introspective enough to be able to break their vote down to that level. One of the largest detractors in the eyes of undecideds was the idea that she somehow wasn't trustworthy; an ongoing narrative peddled by Trump and wikileaks, eventually (in their minds) cemented by the Comey letter.
I remember seeing cartoonish ads with the Clintons, Huma, and Weiner moving into the Whitehouse together with a truck full of "baggage". This is the kind of portrait that the Comey letter helped paint.
lame54
(35,290 posts)don't talk about it
VOX
(22,976 posts)I'm in CA, where we (almost) all voted for Clinton. So, no.
But both the WaPo and NYT ran stories about individuals who were influenced by Comey's INAPPROPRIATE announcements. His public editorializing on Clinton's use of a private server preceded the "Hey there's more email" moment.
still_one
(92,195 posts)it is a fact
Sam Wang's polls showed that Clinton's margin over trump fell dramatically after the Comey letter, and never recovered. Nate Silver noted that the Comey letter coincided with a 3 point swing against her, and these public polls were supported by the internal polling from both campaigns showing that it was a massive blow to Clinton at a pivotal moment in the election.
"The Evidence is Overwhelming: James Comey Decided Who Our Next President Would Be--Mother Jones
Over at Vox today, a trio of researchers takes a broad look at the evidence that FBI Director James Comey affected the election. Their conclusion:
The evidence is clear, and consistent, regarding the Comey effect. The timing of the shift both at the state and national levels lines up very neatly with the publication of the letter, as does the predominance of the story in the media coverage from the final week of the campaign. With an unusually large number of undecided voters late in the campaign, the letter hugely increased the salience of what was the defining critique of Clinton during the campaign at its most critical moment.
The appeal of big-picture narratives about demographics, along with anecdotal evidence of big mistakes by the Clinton campaign in certain key states, makes it easy to point fingers. But looking specifically at the three Rustbelt blue states mentioned at the beginning of the article, no unifying picture emerges. Most stories mention Michigan, where Clinton didnt campaign, rather than Pennsylvania, where she campaigned intensely. Indeed, these three Midwestern states (Wisconsin being the third) provide essentially an A/B/C test of different campaign strategies and in each state she came up just short.
If it weren't for Comey, Hillary Clinton would have won the popular vote by about 6 points and the Electoral College by 70 or more. And that might have turned into control of the Senate as well, though that's a little more speculative."
http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/01/james-comey-decided-who-our-next-president-would-be
The premise of the OP is anecdotal which is meaningless