What I find most fascinating about all these discussions on Hillary losing is the amount of arguments used: Comey, Russians, Roby Mook, bad campaigning, polls, 3rd party candidates, deplorability and stupidity of the voters, etc.
Never is considered, not even remotely, the possibility that people may actually agree with (and voted on) Trump's points, regardless all the media spin and scandals through the entire campaign.
Truly, how impossible seems in the mind of liberals the idea that people may actually WANT a better control of immigration, more scrutiny of prospect terrorists coming in, better reinforcement of our laws and order in the inner cities where crime is rampant, an end to mind control and bully, which is what PC is these days, better and fairer trade deals, a return if only partially of our production and local labor, and more American centered policies?
Is that really so hard to comprehend? Sometimes Occam's Razor is all there is to it.
Never is considered, not even remotely, the possibility that people may actually agree with (and voted on) Trump's points, regardless all the media spin and scandals through the entire campaign.
Truly, how impossible seems in the mind of liberals the idea that people may actually WANT a better control of immigration, more scrutiny of prospect terrorists coming in, better reinforcement of our laws and order in the inner cities where crime is rampant, an end to mind control and bully, which is what PC is these days, better and fairer trade deals, a return if only partially of our production and local labor, and more American centered policies?
Is that really so hard to comprehend? Sometimes Occam's Razor is all there is to it.
20
The Comey letter and mysterious Russian sabotage are ridiculous scapegoats. With the investigation on Hillary, pretty much everyone had already made up their minds about her. People already forget the other important announcement at the time, that had far more political impact, that Obamacare premiums were soaring 22% on average for the coming year.
17
Does it matter if there was a BIG Comey effect? The question is: Was there a sufficient Comey effect? Because the margin of victory was small, a SUFFICIENT Comey effect, enough to turn the election, is very possible.
10
Everyone who supported Clinton blames Comey and the Russians. In effect, they're asserting that people on the left and right were swayed by Comey's statements and Russian propaganda. They believe that they were the only people able to think for themselves and base their vote on "facts". The arrogance in this position is stunning. It's time they look inward at their own biases and stop blaming everyone else for Clinton's failure.
27
Hillary lost Hillary the election by her email sloppiness, and her morphing into a second-class Republican. She cost herself and the country at large a level vote on Trump when she squelched Bernie with the Party control she and her husband cornered with their behind the scenes manipulations. As usual she and her backers blame others for Hillary's misdeeds, even though her trail of errors and misjudgments is a long line of disasters from Iraq to Libya and Syria.
12
You still ramble on about stupid e-mails when today hearings prove Flynn, Trump administration were hiding Flynn' s Russian dealings, pathetic ppl like you simply don't care about Russian collusion. Your ilk doesn't deserve to live in a democracy!
3
The GOP appeals to people's base emotions - their fear, their hate, their need to feel superior, their need for control.
Dems counter with an "Eat your vegetables and be nice to strangers. Signed, Your Mother" strategy which is NEVER going to work.
Fight fire with fire.
Dems counter with an "Eat your vegetables and be nice to strangers. Signed, Your Mother" strategy which is NEVER going to work.
Fight fire with fire.
4
Of course Comey had a big effect on the election results. Even more effective was the under investigation but not disclosed by Comey future National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Trump's every rally he could he led chants of "LOCK HER UP!" that the media covered live and constantly especially in the last days of the election. That was free negative advertising for Trump.
The media never questioned Flynn's background and ignored the Russian connection. This article going over polls trying to say they really got it "right" after all, is like what the NYT does when it makes a mistake. It buries it in the back pages. Just like Trump is trying to do with Flynn. And thats why we think you're fake news.
The media never questioned Flynn's background and ignored the Russian connection. This article going over polls trying to say they really got it "right" after all, is like what the NYT does when it makes a mistake. It buries it in the back pages. Just like Trump is trying to do with Flynn. And thats why we think you're fake news.
5
Bernie would've beaten Trump.
10
maybe this... and her collusion with the DNC to throw Bernie Sanders under a bus left a bad taste at the voting booth
16
For goodness sake! Mrs. Clinton raised over $1 BILLION, far more than Mr. Trump (had it been the other way around, all progressives would argue that he "bought" the election). She was such an unbelievably terrible candidate, that she couldn't even buy the election! And somehow this is Mr. Comey's fault?
26
Dear Mr. Cohn:
You speak like an economist.
The real issue is: Should this have happened during a USA Presidential Election? There is no other real issue.
I know economists cant deal with "should" questions. Regardless, all else is worthless intellectual banter that will enable and embolden the next such reckless act.
Of which like I am positive will be legion.
And I will double down on the bet of another outflowing of worthless debate; and so it goes--on and on...
Democracy with an Soon To Come End, Amen.
Michael Bain
Glorieta, New Mexico
You speak like an economist.
The real issue is: Should this have happened during a USA Presidential Election? There is no other real issue.
I know economists cant deal with "should" questions. Regardless, all else is worthless intellectual banter that will enable and embolden the next such reckless act.
Of which like I am positive will be legion.
And I will double down on the bet of another outflowing of worthless debate; and so it goes--on and on...
Democracy with an Soon To Come End, Amen.
Michael Bain
Glorieta, New Mexico
4
These "cause and effect" scenarios tied to polling are getting old and tiresome even for a Clinton supporter such as myself that believe Comey's action at least played a contributing part in her defeat. Notice I stated, "contributing"
People criticize the Secretary for not having beaten the drum more forcefully in distinguishing herself from Trump on economic issues. They argue that if Hillary has gone all "Bernie," she would have energized those beer drinking, blue collar, uneducated, white men in Western Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin that use to make $ 30 per hour to vote Democrat. Most seem to conveniently forget, however, that every time Clinton attempted to speak for any period of time to these issues, Trump would suck all the oxygen out of the room with his outrageous statement or actions that the press would cover for multiple press cycles. It’s very easy to blast a candidate for not talking substance when their opponent is being covered 24/7 for expounding on how easy it is to get laid when you’re a TV star.
Like Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it" view on pornography, most intelligent people know that Comey's outrageous actions drove the nails in the coffin of the Clinton presidential effort and elected the first TV reality personality as President. Comey’s statements/actions may not have guaranteed a Trump victory but it sure as heck put a thumb on the scale.
People criticize the Secretary for not having beaten the drum more forcefully in distinguishing herself from Trump on economic issues. They argue that if Hillary has gone all "Bernie," she would have energized those beer drinking, blue collar, uneducated, white men in Western Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin that use to make $ 30 per hour to vote Democrat. Most seem to conveniently forget, however, that every time Clinton attempted to speak for any period of time to these issues, Trump would suck all the oxygen out of the room with his outrageous statement or actions that the press would cover for multiple press cycles. It’s very easy to blast a candidate for not talking substance when their opponent is being covered 24/7 for expounding on how easy it is to get laid when you’re a TV star.
Like Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it" view on pornography, most intelligent people know that Comey's outrageous actions drove the nails in the coffin of the Clinton presidential effort and elected the first TV reality personality as President. Comey’s statements/actions may not have guaranteed a Trump victory but it sure as heck put a thumb on the scale.
9
6 points.....3 points.....before Comey's letter or after...what does it matter?
Running against a crude, hate filled hollow Trump, a great candidate would have been 15 or 20 points ahead of him and left him in the dust to be forgotten. Unfortunately, for most of us she didn't have that greatness.
Running against a crude, hate filled hollow Trump, a great candidate would have been 15 or 20 points ahead of him and left him in the dust to be forgotten. Unfortunately, for most of us she didn't have that greatness.
19
Says you.
8
Statistics are nothing without probability. He left out Russian meddling while publicly admonishing Clinton. That's y and z the poor use of statistical modeling in those charts. You ought to factor in he didn't step down yet. Any federal worker would be asked to step down had they made a less costly mistake by now. He up'd the odds of her losing in the same way weighted dice tip to lucky numbers. I guess the only people forced to resign anymore are in the low ranks but I like old tradition and if he were honorable, he'd quit and start gardening before Flynn gets locked up.
7
Clinton should be grateful to Comey that he didn't explain that having a private printer for printing out classified emails at the home of some person without a security clearance, done by that person - is pretty sure not a reasonable decision for a Secretary of State.
19
Comey may not have swayed the polls, but this election was not decided by poles, it was decided by turnout. If you want to determine the effect of the letter, you have to figure out how motivated each side was. Comey's comments could have easily galvanized more Republicans to vote, or could have sapped the enthusiasm of Democratic voters.
7
You may well be right, Mr. Silver; but the reality is, the Comey letter was the silver bullet that cemented her loss.
5
They are both Nate, but the NYT one is Cohn. Silver is at 538, but used to be a NYTer at one point. No big deal just clarifying.
3
To blame Clinton's loss on one factor is naive and more than a little biased. She has never been a good "retail politician." She has admitted that. There was a strong feeling among Americans that Establishment politics had seriously ignored the needs of a wide swath of people, especially the Working Class and the Lower Middle Class. Clinton exemplified the Establishment. Her connections to Corporations and Wall Street were undeniable. So was the strong backing given her by the DNC and it's Neoliberal dogma. Much has been made about misogyny and Republican vilification and this certainly played a part in her loss. That said, how many people voted for Clinton out of a nauseating revulsion for Trump?
Finally, as David Axelrod said this week, James Comey wasn't the reason Clinton didn't go to Wisconsin after the Convention. He didn't prevent Clinton's campaign organization from waiting until the last week to spend more money in Michigan, and he didn't prevent Robby Mook from being able to count electoral votes accurately. I voted for Clinton and I'm not at all happy with the way things turned out.
Someone said that victory has many fathers but defeat is an orphan. As far as I'm concerned Clinton's campaign organization deserves a paternity suit.
Finally, as David Axelrod said this week, James Comey wasn't the reason Clinton didn't go to Wisconsin after the Convention. He didn't prevent Clinton's campaign organization from waiting until the last week to spend more money in Michigan, and he didn't prevent Robby Mook from being able to count electoral votes accurately. I voted for Clinton and I'm not at all happy with the way things turned out.
Someone said that victory has many fathers but defeat is an orphan. As far as I'm concerned Clinton's campaign organization deserves a paternity suit.
24
The Comey effect, if any, is water under the bridge. I don't think most people are so much worried about that. After all, most elections are at least partly won with propaganda. Maybe he muffed it, but he's an honorable man, and I believe he will get to the bottom of this Russian business.
10
The election is long over. Let us stop analyzing Sec. Clinton's loss, for which there are many reasons, including Mr. Comey's letter, Russian interference, disunity among Democratic voters, and a lousy campaign. Rehashing the arguments is a waste of column space when we have a Trump presidency undermining the Constitution and turning back every Obama administration remotely progressive policy. We have a national, if not global emergency. May we turn our full attention to that,please?
13
Zula,
You're right. The analysis of Clinton's loss is old news and not worth pursuing. So, tell that to Hillary, who just about a week ago said that if it hadn't been for Comey, she'd be president. Also she's writing a book which, no doubt, will examine the unjustified blockage to her life goal of being president. (Maybe if she had made clear why she wanted to be president, she might have won.) When Hillary stops playing the victim of others' wrong doings, maybe the analyzing will stop.
You're right. The analysis of Clinton's loss is old news and not worth pursuing. So, tell that to Hillary, who just about a week ago said that if it hadn't been for Comey, she'd be president. Also she's writing a book which, no doubt, will examine the unjustified blockage to her life goal of being president. (Maybe if she had made clear why she wanted to be president, she might have won.) When Hillary stops playing the victim of others' wrong doings, maybe the analyzing will stop.
15
Why are we saying "Trump," "Comey," but "Hillary"? Shouldn't we be consistent, as in "Donald," "James," and "Hillary"?
Or shouldn't it be Mr Trump, Mr Comey, Mrs Clinton?
Or shouldn't it be Mr Trump, Mr Comey, Mrs Clinton?
13
I have always found this telling
2
To say "Trump" or "Comey" is unambiguous. "Clinton" isn't because the referent could be either Bill or Hillary. But "Hillary" is unambiguous. No need to look for evil where there isn't any.
3
Bill wasn't running for president in 2016.......he was not a focus of the news, then.
1
I, for one, certainly hope that Dems continue to think that Comey and the Russians "stole" the election from Hillary and move farther and farther left. IN fact, they should call for "free" socialized health care, "free" college, a $30,000 guaranteed income from the government, reparations for slavery, government funded abortions for "women" as young as 13, 2 year maternity leave, government run day cares and a free IPhone 7 for everyone who "qualifies".
6
Or maybe we should just cut all health care to everyone who makes under $250,000 a year and give everyone over that amount a huge tax cut!
8
Hillary Clinton lost the election for Hillary Clinton (against the worst opponent ever). Plain and simple. It's called the Hillary Clinton effect.
18
Comey a Republican and director of the FBI meddled in a presidential election and should have been fired for this meddling.
He broke several laws ,as well as the fact that no civil servant should be allowed to meddle in a presidential election.
Whether he influenced the voters is unanswearble,and a minor quibble,but that his meddling was illegal is proven.
Also be helping a Republican become president,he saved his job. Clinton would have gotten rid of him soon enough.
He broke several laws ,as well as the fact that no civil servant should be allowed to meddle in a presidential election.
Whether he influenced the voters is unanswearble,and a minor quibble,but that his meddling was illegal is proven.
Also be helping a Republican become president,he saved his job. Clinton would have gotten rid of him soon enough.
3
I will rely on my own research and review of polls released in the week before Comey's announcement.
If memory serves, the week before Comey's announcement show Clinton's lead expanding, not narrowing.
I never for a moment thought Hillary ran a very good campaign. I place a lot of the blame for that on Robby Mook. I also think Hillary showed horrible judgment both in her actions and her choice of assistants. Huma Abedin should have been dismissed a long time ago. And then Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch put the final touches on stupidity with their tarmac rendezvous.
Yet despite all of that and the Wikileaks/Russian/hackers delight, Hillary was still winning.
And then along came Comey.
Is my memory right? I will do my own research and determine if my memory fails me.
If memory serves, the week before Comey's announcement show Clinton's lead expanding, not narrowing.
I never for a moment thought Hillary ran a very good campaign. I place a lot of the blame for that on Robby Mook. I also think Hillary showed horrible judgment both in her actions and her choice of assistants. Huma Abedin should have been dismissed a long time ago. And then Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch put the final touches on stupidity with their tarmac rendezvous.
Yet despite all of that and the Wikileaks/Russian/hackers delight, Hillary was still winning.
And then along came Comey.
Is my memory right? I will do my own research and determine if my memory fails me.
9
The notion that Comey had a meaningful impact is absurd, especially in light of the massive misleading efforts of the MSM on Hillary's behalf.
12
Shame on the editors of The New York Times for allowing such dreck. First, they gave Trump and his family and businesses free publicity and participated head on with the Hillary bashing. Does Maureen Dowd ring any bells? Not nearly enough coverage about Russiagate when it first started, even though it's much bigger and more serious than Watergate. Remember WaPo?
The Electoral College is antiquated and unfair and has ties to the days of keeping slavery legal. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3,000,000 votes. That says something.
The Electoral College is antiquated and unfair and has ties to the days of keeping slavery legal. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3,000,000 votes. That says something.
8
MetroJournalist: The New York Times is the most pro-Clinton mainstream media outlet of them all. But, you know, they're still a newspaper with an obligation to present different views and report the news even when it casts a bad light on her.
The NYT at least presented the news with an eye toward impartiality. You have nothing to complain about.
And by the way I voted for her. It's possible in a democracy to vote for someone and still think that it's a good thing when the media criticizes that person when it's warranted.
The NYT at least presented the news with an eye toward impartiality. You have nothing to complain about.
And by the way I voted for her. It's possible in a democracy to vote for someone and still think that it's a good thing when the media criticizes that person when it's warranted.
8
I disagree with your article until its last sentence which you could have lead with. May I quote your last sentence so others know exactly what I am referring to "BUT IN SUCH A CLOSE ELECTION, ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING COULD HAVE PLAUSIBLY BEEN DECISIVE." That statement was accurate and contradicts the rest of the article. It sure does matter what misinformation goes out in the last days of any election.
7
Like the polls that excluded entire swaths of the population based on age, or the old polls published by CNN when newer polls were available - a deliberate decision caught on audio tape - both of these things in order to make Hillary appear as if she was doing better so they would feel she was inevitable? Pretty sure with the mega MSM spin she would have done much worse.
3
The effect of the letter compared to what? The effect of that Comey letter is nothing compared to the effect of a Comey recommendation to bring criminal charges.
3
What really happened to Hillary Clinton's support? No one seems to place any blame on the DNC and its chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, for favoring the Clinton candidacy over that of Sanders in the primary campaign. When evidence of this leaked, enough Democrats (even Clinton supporters) became disillusioned at the entire mess and lost interest. A lot likely just stayed home on election day in November and that alone would have been enough to swing Michigan and Pennsylvania to Trump.
Blame Comey? Sure, maybe in part. But where is the outrage for the DNC's role in eroding crucial support for their candidate as a result of their dirty tricks against Sanders?
Disclaimer: I voted Sanders in the primary (knowing he would not win the nomination) hoping to push Clinton further to the left. I voted Clinton in November.
Blame Comey? Sure, maybe in part. But where is the outrage for the DNC's role in eroding crucial support for their candidate as a result of their dirty tricks against Sanders?
Disclaimer: I voted Sanders in the primary (knowing he would not win the nomination) hoping to push Clinton further to the left. I voted Clinton in November.
13
But for Debbie Wasserman Schultz and 4 million votes, Bernie could have been the n0ominee.
4
While there are one or two pieces of truth in this article, it largely ignores reality and certainly qualifies as "fake news or commentary." I would acknowledge that Clinton did several things wrong that cost her votes, but it is patently absurd to suggest Comey's continuous revelations (the author conveniently focuses on one period) did not cost her the election.
She won the common vote by nearly 3 million and lost 3 big states by a total of ~100,000 votes. The right wing media with some complicity by mainstream media like the NYT sowed doubts on a topic that did not actually exist. Also, his revelations were not even-handed as he did not divulge that Trump was under investigation due to ties with Russia, which is far more damaging and relevant. If we survive this fiasco perpetrated by the far right with an assist from Russia and a nitwit from Wikileaks, Comey will be universally reviled by historians.
His meddling was certainly illegal, but it is unclear whether we will ever have an opportunity to restitution as a country. The founding fathers did not foresee such avarice.
She won the common vote by nearly 3 million and lost 3 big states by a total of ~100,000 votes. The right wing media with some complicity by mainstream media like the NYT sowed doubts on a topic that did not actually exist. Also, his revelations were not even-handed as he did not divulge that Trump was under investigation due to ties with Russia, which is far more damaging and relevant. If we survive this fiasco perpetrated by the far right with an assist from Russia and a nitwit from Wikileaks, Comey will be universally reviled by historians.
His meddling was certainly illegal, but it is unclear whether we will ever have an opportunity to restitution as a country. The founding fathers did not foresee such avarice.
6
Why is it illegal to make an announcement on an investigation that has national repercussions about a politician's behavior WHILE servicing in a public office but is ok to splash a personal video of two guys having a private conversation, vulgar as it may be, taken 11 years ago in the eve of an election?
Opportunism for thee but not for me? Besides Comey's decision was his. Trump grabbing video was purposely shown at that time, even though it was there for more than 11 years... so why didn't they show it when Trump first announced?
You cant fool people all the time. Your double standards and now your standards.
Opportunism for thee but not for me? Besides Comey's decision was his. Trump grabbing video was purposely shown at that time, even though it was there for more than 11 years... so why didn't they show it when Trump first announced?
You cant fool people all the time. Your double standards and now your standards.
3
Stunned by the number of people who forget that 6 million voted for a libertarian candidate and republicans won the two houses. More voters voted republican than dem. Hillary may have gotten more votes but if we had a runoff system like France she would not have won (2 way race in exit polls are dead even). It's an electoral college system and campaigns should have been pitched to that, knowing that to be the case.
3
Pretty sure the FBI didn't leak the access Hollywood tape in which trump says that he can grab women "by the pussy" and get away with it because he is famous.
1
This is what Hillary can't do: own the defeat. Apologize for being too myopic and not having a coherent vision and accept herself as the main reason she lost. This is the same trait that cost her many votes among fence-sitters who listened to the constant drip, drip of the email thing. The ones who could have been swayed by a better campaign because, ultimately, most people don't care about that level of poor judgement if they have a leader they can believe in.
12
Clinton is nothing more than a woman scorned- a disgraceful Secretary of State and s liar. Good riddance to another crooked politician.
12
I appreciate Mr Cohn taking the time to write his honest views on this issue, but seriously how long will the liberal MSM drag this thing? Trump won and Clinton lost. The utimate decider is not Comey, or Russians, or whatever. It's a voter with a ballot in his hand and a X marked on that ballot.
In 2008, days before the election the financial system crashed, and we all know that was a turning point. Obama won, and whether that favored him or not, is beyond the point; the voters decided he was the one and that was it.
Neither Gore/2000, McCain/2008 or Romney/2012 went on a rampant whiny brohahua. They lost, took it as grown men and members of a democratic country and moved on. We didn't have this endless parade of blame searching. Same goes to retiring presidents...the Buses, even Bill Clinton (unless asked) went on opining and or driticizing the new president; they only showed respect for the people's decision and moved on with their lives, but now it feels that both H Clinton and obama, and the entire liberal world can't go one day without showing a tantrum because they lost.
Ultimately, let say for the sake of argument that Comey letter influenced the outcome. So what? Voters own their vote and can use it however they wants. It's not for the rest of us to judge them because we disagree with their criteria for using their vote. Drop it.
In 2008, days before the election the financial system crashed, and we all know that was a turning point. Obama won, and whether that favored him or not, is beyond the point; the voters decided he was the one and that was it.
Neither Gore/2000, McCain/2008 or Romney/2012 went on a rampant whiny brohahua. They lost, took it as grown men and members of a democratic country and moved on. We didn't have this endless parade of blame searching. Same goes to retiring presidents...the Buses, even Bill Clinton (unless asked) went on opining and or driticizing the new president; they only showed respect for the people's decision and moved on with their lives, but now it feels that both H Clinton and obama, and the entire liberal world can't go one day without showing a tantrum because they lost.
Ultimately, let say for the sake of argument that Comey letter influenced the outcome. So what? Voters own their vote and can use it however they wants. It's not for the rest of us to judge them because we disagree with their criteria for using their vote. Drop it.
10
And Mr. Trump cannot go a day without reviewing his "big win" in the Electoral College. It's unbearable.
5
Politicians customarily accept "responsibility" for events that happen on their watch, but always deny that events were caused by their own bad policies and decisions. They are most artful in conjuring scenarios that shift the blame from themselves to others. Hillary is the epitome of that artful politician. She accepts authority and responsibility for everything, but blame for nothing. That's who she is.
As uncomfortable as it may be, this article should also have referred to the LAT and IBD polls, which did not show the volatility of more common polls during the last weeks of the campaign, and forecast the results more accurately.
As uncomfortable as it may be, this article should also have referred to the LAT and IBD polls, which did not show the volatility of more common polls during the last weeks of the campaign, and forecast the results more accurately.
4
The reason for Clinton losing isn’t surprising if you compare 2016 with 2012. Trump flipped six states, Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio and Michigan. Votes for Democrats were down in all except for Florida where they increased by 267k, but the GOP vote increased by 454k. Votes for the GOP increased in all except in Wisconsin where they were down by 2.6k, but the Democrats were down by 238k. The difference overall for Democrats was a decrease of 933k compared to an increase by the GOP of 1.2M. The net result is that there was an overall difference of 2.1M votes in the flipped states in favor of the GOP.
People say that less than 80k votes determined the election, but the bigger picture makes it clear that the GOP successfully targeted a weakness that the Democrats overlooked, and they made good on it. This obviously happened over a longer time frame than the possible impact of Comey less than two weeks before the election.
It also makes it clear that as should have happened long ago, we can drop the claims of 'ignorant racists' putting Trump in office. Depressed turnout alone by Democrats was about an order of magnitude larger than the 80k bandied about.
People say that less than 80k votes determined the election, but the bigger picture makes it clear that the GOP successfully targeted a weakness that the Democrats overlooked, and they made good on it. This obviously happened over a longer time frame than the possible impact of Comey less than two weeks before the election.
It also makes it clear that as should have happened long ago, we can drop the claims of 'ignorant racists' putting Trump in office. Depressed turnout alone by Democrats was about an order of magnitude larger than the 80k bandied about.
11
The poles are rasist! In 2020 Trump will loose and Clinton will win by a lanslide. There all biggets!
2
These numbers are significant, but they don't make the "80K" go away. That's still the determining number of the election, however it was reached. And it's not clear how they make the ignorance and racism go away: some Trump voters were probably cynical plutocrats who wanted him in office to carry out their programs - but a good number must have fallen for his hoo-hah. That suggests a good deal of ignorance. The racism? Well, some of it was pretty overt.
1
Of course it had a HUGE negative impact. I was working the phones throughout that period, talking to prospective Hillary voters and encouraging them to vote. You could feel a sea change after that letter went out. Likening the campaign to a ship, I can tell you, the wind went right out of the sails that week.
16
Siena College??? I think I'll stick with analyses by Princeton and the other Nate.
2
President Macron of France, a nobody last year, saw that people were rejecting "politics as usual" and started his own new movement. The comfortable, snoozing American political establishment, which hadn't been out of the beltway for decades, had no clue. Some nutcase hijacked the pathetic Republicians and the Dems ran with the old "tried and true." Most people still do not understand the scale of this massive failure and how much damage it is doing to the country.
6
We're talking about 100,000 votes. I don't see how Comey wasn't the deciding factor.
7
It comes down to "Believe what you want," but at this point what does it matter?!? (Gee, the rings familiar.)
3
The very last day of the election ALL the interactive scientist polls collected by the New York Times said Ms. Clinton had 81% of winning, Even Donald Trump himself could not believe the results..his body language betray him, he rather looked preoccupied when he visited the white House for the first time. Unless all the scientific polls were lying, this does not make any sense.
5
We should all know by now: if there is an 80% chance against something happening, that means that it will happen once out of five times. It's like rolling snake eyes: on the one hand, it's unlikely, but on the other hand, it's bound to happen at some point. If we had had five elections, Clinton would probably have won four of them, but we only had the one - and it happened to be the one that Trump won. It might show that God doesn't like us any more, but it makes perfect sense, according to the statistics.
4
We got fooled by "odds" replacing the traditional "Percentage favoring...."
The media confused both the Trumpet camp and the other voters. That 81% was an 8 to 10 odds, not an 81% to 19% expected outcome. You might stay home, too, if you knew that your favorite candidate would likely run away with 81% of the vote. That's not the message the public should have been told.
The media confused both the Trumpet camp and the other voters. That 81% was an 8 to 10 odds, not an 81% to 19% expected outcome. You might stay home, too, if you knew that your favorite candidate would likely run away with 81% of the vote. That's not the message the public should have been told.
1
Major news media (legitimate ones) really underestimated the effect of pizza-gate, lies about the Clinton foundation, uranium sale fake facts, all the crazy conspiracy theories that swirled around and were endlessly examined as if they had a shred of credibility. An overly qualified candidate with a life-time of advocacy for ordinary people was tarred as the shill of Wall Street. And voters chose a grotesque who'd been hoisted out of debt by laundered rubles and a team of advisors collaborating with Russia. Electoral college was supposed to protect us. What a joke. Almost as absurd as lyin' Ted Cruz et al grilling Sally Yates and James Clapper.
10
"An overly qualified candidate with a life-time of advocacy for ordinary people"
1. She was substantially less qualified than Bernie Sanders, John Kerry, Al Gore, and many other past Democratic nominees. Her total political resume was 8 years in the senate with no major policy achievements, and 4 years as Secretary of State with no major policy victories.
2. How exactly has her "life-time of advocacy for ordinary people" translated into policy improvements for those ordinary people? Because the closest thing I've seen to that impact were laws that were championed by other people and pushed through Congress by other people (e.g. S-CHIP was pushed through by Ted Kennedy, and the Lilly Ledbetter Act by Barbara Milkulski).
1. She was substantially less qualified than Bernie Sanders, John Kerry, Al Gore, and many other past Democratic nominees. Her total political resume was 8 years in the senate with no major policy achievements, and 4 years as Secretary of State with no major policy victories.
2. How exactly has her "life-time of advocacy for ordinary people" translated into policy improvements for those ordinary people? Because the closest thing I've seen to that impact were laws that were championed by other people and pushed through Congress by other people (e.g. S-CHIP was pushed through by Ted Kennedy, and the Lilly Ledbetter Act by Barbara Milkulski).
4
Bernie was more qualified how exactly? Running in a party he didn't belong to and leaning on his 30 years of rants? Give me a break.
3
Clinton and her supporters still cannot admit the truth.
Many Americans simply hate Hillary (and Bill). During the DNC primary, a voter questioned her at a question/answer forum on why he should vote for her in spite of her many past lies - all she would respond with is that she hoped he would "overlook" the lies. Add in the server issue, the Clinton Foundation, and the rigging of the DNC primary by Wasserman-Schultz just added to her image as being dishonest and corrupt. An image she never would directly address. Many people hate Trump but it came down to that many in middle America hated Hillary more.
Many Americans simply hate Hillary (and Bill). During the DNC primary, a voter questioned her at a question/answer forum on why he should vote for her in spite of her many past lies - all she would respond with is that she hoped he would "overlook" the lies. Add in the server issue, the Clinton Foundation, and the rigging of the DNC primary by Wasserman-Schultz just added to her image as being dishonest and corrupt. An image she never would directly address. Many people hate Trump but it came down to that many in middle America hated Hillary more.
14
True that many many Americans HATE HATE HATE Hillary. That's why they continue to tell lies about the "Clinton Foundation," "the rigging of the DNC primary," etc.
Any man would be better than any woman in their eyes. Even trump.
Any man would be better than any woman in their eyes. Even trump.
3
And yet, she won the vote. And, most of the notorious "lies" were fantasies conjured up by her opponents - a long-term, well funded vilification plan ranging from the "Vincent Foster murder" to "Benghazi" to the "corrupt" foundation - all of them fantasies, all of them still with many hate-filled devotees.
2
Especially Mr. Macron. No complaints as he crushed a woman, Mme. Le Pen.
This whole discussion seems rather silly.
If Clinton had not made the decision to use a private server when she was Secretary-of-State, which was against policy, none of the things that dogged her throughout the campaign, including Comey's letter, would have happened, let alone mattered.
If Clinton had not made the decision to use a private server when she was Secretary-of-State, which was against policy, none of the things that dogged her throughout the campaign, including Comey's letter, would have happened, let alone mattered.
9
The haters would have used other issues. Benghazi? Vince Foster? Paula Jones? Baking cookies? Etc., etc., etc., etc.
3
that and wearing white before Labor Day, I am certain would have been serious issues for the "working class"
let's face it, Hillary Hatred always ran deep. Sadly, these folks have elected, a deranged, unqualified, unbalanced lunatic who appears to be in the early stages of dementia. Seriously.
let's face it, Hillary Hatred always ran deep. Sadly, these folks have elected, a deranged, unqualified, unbalanced lunatic who appears to be in the early stages of dementia. Seriously.
1
The headline and lead are very misleading to what this article says.
The question is not whether ALL of Hillary's Clinton's decline in any state is due to Comey. It is whether Comey's letter that was written to imply that he had discovered new incriminating information about Hillary was enough to make Trump our President. It did. Without a doubt. Thanks to misleading NY Times headlines just like this one.
Big leads have ALWAYS faded. But those states almost always still went to the person who was winning. It took last minute interference by Comey to change the outcome in more states than have ever before changed. Bush/Cheney still defeated both Kerry and Gore but the race tightened. That's what would have happened without Comey's interference and this absurd attempt to cherry pick an outlier poll that put Trump's victory at 4 points when Trump only had a 1 point victory is absurd.
Without Comey's interference, we would have seen exactly what we did with Kerry and Gore -- a tightening race that they both lost.
Why Nate Silver would cherry pick an outlier poll that was as far off the eventual results as any other poll to pretend that Comey's letter has no effect is beyond my understanding. Comey's unprecedented violation of the Hatch Act did exactly what the FBI agents who had been leaking all along intended it to do.
And where is Comey's investigation of the Giuliani links out of the FBI? When it comes to smearing, Comey's hated of the Clintons knows no bounds.
The question is not whether ALL of Hillary's Clinton's decline in any state is due to Comey. It is whether Comey's letter that was written to imply that he had discovered new incriminating information about Hillary was enough to make Trump our President. It did. Without a doubt. Thanks to misleading NY Times headlines just like this one.
Big leads have ALWAYS faded. But those states almost always still went to the person who was winning. It took last minute interference by Comey to change the outcome in more states than have ever before changed. Bush/Cheney still defeated both Kerry and Gore but the race tightened. That's what would have happened without Comey's interference and this absurd attempt to cherry pick an outlier poll that put Trump's victory at 4 points when Trump only had a 1 point victory is absurd.
Without Comey's interference, we would have seen exactly what we did with Kerry and Gore -- a tightening race that they both lost.
Why Nate Silver would cherry pick an outlier poll that was as far off the eventual results as any other poll to pretend that Comey's letter has no effect is beyond my understanding. Comey's unprecedented violation of the Hatch Act did exactly what the FBI agents who had been leaking all along intended it to do.
And where is Comey's investigation of the Giuliani links out of the FBI? When it comes to smearing, Comey's hated of the Clintons knows no bounds.
6
Let's remember how the Upshot had Clinton as a 91% favourite on election day as we weigh Nate Cohn's broadside against the Nate who pretty much got it right. Go read Silver's 538 piece for a better assessment of the Comey effect. His post-mortem series of articles has been particularly illuminating on the trail of errors the Times and other media committed during the campaign--lessons yet to be learned it seems.
10
On the bright side, at least we have a President who is talking about:
1. Investing $1 trillion in our nation's infrastructure.
2. Reinstating the Glass Steagall Act (a week ago today mentioned by D. Trump).
3. Opposed the TPP.
I support these measures and so should you. Well, 'should' may be a strong word. It would do good for the commonwealth of this nation to support such initiatives.
1. Investing $1 trillion in our nation's infrastructure.
2. Reinstating the Glass Steagall Act (a week ago today mentioned by D. Trump).
3. Opposed the TPP.
I support these measures and so should you. Well, 'should' may be a strong word. It would do good for the commonwealth of this nation to support such initiatives.
5
Hey friend, he was lying to you to get your vote. He knew that the .1% would not allow themselves to be taxed for infrastructure "for the rabble." He knew they would not want Glass-Steagall, etc. etc. etc. "Talking about" term limits too? Keep dreaming.
10
The operative part of your statement is "Talking about."
He also talked about Mexicans paying for his Wall...replacing Obamacare with a health plan that would provide full coverage to everyone at lower costs...draining the swamp...brining manufacturing jobs back to the US.
How's that working for you?
He also talked about Mexicans paying for his Wall...replacing Obamacare with a health plan that would provide full coverage to everyone at lower costs...draining the swamp...brining manufacturing jobs back to the US.
How's that working for you?
7
Trump's found out that running his mouth is a lot easier than governing. And you are going to find out that Trump lies for a living.
Investing in our infrastructure, if it happens, is going to be a giveaway to the boys of big business and will cause a large increase in national debt. Meanwhile, whatever he says about Glass-Steagall, he's out to dismantle Dodd-Frank, whereas opposing TPP is a way to make China more powerful at US expense - the opposite of what Trump claims he wants to do. Nothing Trump says is internally logically consistent. These are just off-the-cuff soundbites from a man who lies for a living and knows next to nothing about world affairs.
Investing in our infrastructure, if it happens, is going to be a giveaway to the boys of big business and will cause a large increase in national debt. Meanwhile, whatever he says about Glass-Steagall, he's out to dismantle Dodd-Frank, whereas opposing TPP is a way to make China more powerful at US expense - the opposite of what Trump claims he wants to do. Nothing Trump says is internally logically consistent. These are just off-the-cuff soundbites from a man who lies for a living and knows next to nothing about world affairs.
Can we at least agree that it wasn't a boon to her campaign? As an aside, the timing is everything.
4
No we can't agree. Look at the graph. Clinton's lead over Trump is closing (the line is going down.) Then Comey on the 28th and the line goes up again immediately--Clinton's lead over Trump is increasing.
The graph overturns completely the argument that Comey harmed Clinton.
This fact makes me very scared if what else we believe that's obviously untrue.
The graph overturns completely the argument that Comey harmed Clinton.
This fact makes me very scared if what else we believe that's obviously untrue.
5
Most of what you read in a politicized press. ;-)
You need to read more than one analysis. Have you ever heard of Siena College? Read analyses by Nate Silver and the one by Princeton.
1
This is long past ridiculous.
Clinton lost because the electoral college doesn't follow the popular vote, because she lost the rust-belt and Florida and because it's rare for any party to hold the White House more than 2 terms.
Can we move on already???
Clinton lost because the electoral college doesn't follow the popular vote, because she lost the rust-belt and Florida and because it's rare for any party to hold the White House more than 2 terms.
Can we move on already???
19
No we can't "move on already" because Trump has taken the country back -- to pre-Civil Rights Movement era. The outcome of the elections matters forever and ever @Steven Roth.
5
A claim that Comey lost the election really means that HRC lost her own election because Comey was simply investigating her use of *home email server* serving in her capacity of Secretary of State.
This is not very difficult to understand, and yet journalists at NYT and many commenters do not seem to understand causality.
If Clinton has used the government email there would be no investigation and no Comey.
The NYT first reported her use of a home email server on March 3, 2015.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-p...
Would Mr. Cohn or some other NYT journalist please explain why people are blaming Comey when it was Clinton who chose to use the email server in her home?
This is not very difficult to understand, and yet journalists at NYT and many commenters do not seem to understand causality.
If Clinton has used the government email there would be no investigation and no Comey.
The NYT first reported her use of a home email server on March 3, 2015.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-p...
Would Mr. Cohn or some other NYT journalist please explain why people are blaming Comey when it was Clinton who chose to use the email server in her home?
16
David, you are ignoring quite a bit of what happened. Yes, there was the server, and the investigation. The investigation found nothing to take to court, but Comey decided to issue his own finding of "carelessness", as if part of the FBI's role was to criticize political candidates. (It's not supposed to be.) Then he chose to issue his letter, against policy and advice. If in fact it didn't have any effect, we have to admit that that's very strange: at the time it seemed like people were taking it pretty seriously. If we were talking about some sort of "ultimate blame game", your argument might make some sense - although even then it would be dubious - but if we are talking about politics, and why things happened, then you are kind of missing the point.
I'm pretty sure.
2
I see the NYT is still trying to avoid any self examination or admission of responsibility for the way you trumpeted Comey's announcements about "new" (not really) emails in some way connected to Clinton, while dismissing out of hand the idea that there was anything to the Trump-Russia connection. Or for treating Clinton's Foundation as a scandal while ignoring Trump's real misconduct.
Well, this is the same Paper of Record that helped the Bush administration lie us into Iraq. Truth dies, alright. Subscribing to the Times has not prevented that from happening.
Well, this is the same Paper of Record that helped the Bush administration lie us into Iraq. Truth dies, alright. Subscribing to the Times has not prevented that from happening.
14
Hilary Clinton snatched defeat from the jaws of victory... Her poor campaign; her low likability and trustworthiness ratings contributed decisively against her. She failed to resuscitate the Obama coalition; could not inspire black and hispanic voters to come out in record numbers and could not hold on to Sanders' supporters. She too believed the erroneous polls that had her ahead in states she thought would lean towards her; and in the end it was her undoing. In an election year that welcomed the outsider; Hillary's strengths were her weakness; her 30 year of political service was a cancerous blot on her campaign; her ties to wall street was viewed with suspicion... In the end, her campaign focusing on diversity and inclusion, excluded the white-working class; college educated white women and traditional democratic strong holds in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan and Florida. She believed the faulty data; Trump did not; she attempted to coast to victory; Trump ran toward it. Director Comey had nothing to do with the election and Hillary's lost. Her and her supporters sensed entitlement and believed history was on their side; thinking for a second presidential election, history would be made, a first woman President. History would have been made if the DNP nominated a first Jewish candidate...Bernie Sanders!!!!
13
Why does this topic need to be beaten to death?
A few factors go into the reason why; however, timing is everything and the people in politics (and the media) know it.
A few factors go into the reason why; however, timing is everything and the people in politics (and the media) know it.
2
Hillary's explanation the other day about why she isn't president today really goes a long way to explaining why she isn't president today, if not in the way she thinks.
20
In talking with more than one of my normally sensible, mostly centrist GOP friends, the central reason they were able to comfortably vote for Trump -- regardless of his flip-flops, sexual indiscretions and questionable qualifications -- came down to one issue: They wanted a "conservative" judge filling Antonin Scalia's SCOTUS seat. I believe if Scalia had not passed away in 2016, the NRA and right-wing evangelical leaders would have had a more difficult time ginning up Trump enthusiasm in their respective bases. Considering Trump really won by less than 80,000 votes this could easily have made the difference.
6
Very important point. And if the Republicans hadn't held the seat open, it wouldn't have mattered - keeping that seat open may have seemed like it was just to spite Obama, but it may well have been brilliant long-range politicking.
1
For over half-a-century, the working class was the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party was the working class.
The Democrats are no longer the working class, but have evolved into the hysterical Party of PC, offending the sensibilities of its former historical base.
The Midwestern working class bailed and took Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin with them.
Good luck in 2018 and 2020 without the working class.
The Democrats are no longer the working class, but have evolved into the hysterical Party of PC, offending the sensibilities of its former historical base.
The Midwestern working class bailed and took Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin with them.
Good luck in 2018 and 2020 without the working class.
12
What the working class did not realize is that they lost the power of the Unions (thanks to Republicans); that the minimum wage has stagnated for a generation (thanks to Republicans); that the wealthy not the working class get the tax breaks (thanks to the Republicans); that for health care insurance to be viable it must include everybody, but efforts to exclude those that can pay have been successful (thanks to Republicans); that efforts to advance progress on birth control and unwanted pregnancies as an economic issue not a moral issue are being blocked at every turn (thanks to Republicans); and that women should be paid the same as men for equal work has not gone anywhere (thanks to Republicans). Maybe after the Trump Presidency, the working class will understand who has been fighting for them and who has not.
7
Good luck to the working class, as it continues to allow itself to be manipulated by dark money grifters and operatives into voting against its own interests, including voting to dismantle the safety net, unions, the right to equal justice before the law, the right to keep its pensions intact rather than allowing predatory capitalists to transfer the life savings of working men and women into offshore accounts, etc.
That'll sure show those elitist liberals.
That'll sure show those elitist liberals.
6
And maybe the Democrats will nominate someone who is credible, doesn't lie about coming under sniper fire, and doesn't appear to be beholden to every Wall St. bank. That might go a long way toward appealing to the working class, too.
3
What cost Hillary the election was her obvious, and openly STATED dislike of working class whites over the age of about 45 as well as her clear dislike of police. I think the Dems' apparent compulsion to try and deny that the negative trends voters are personally experiencing, in their own lives, also doesn't help. For example constantly telling unemployed and desperate working class people in the Rust Belt that the economy is doing just great, everyone has a terrific job, future is wonderful etc, is tactless to the point of being insulting. I agree that Trump doesn't seem to have answers, but at least he was in touch enough to know there's a problem, he empathizes with the globalism's victims, and he also at least appears to LIKE working and middle class Americans, to enjoy interacting with them. The same can't be said for many Dems.
16
Yep. And constantly calling the working-class, the hard-working people of this nation who actually BUILD the things that we all need and take for granted, calling these people "uneducated" because they do not hold a BA in sociology, is so insulting.
The Left has a problem. They seem to think they are the smart ones, and anyone who doesn't see issues as they do, or support candidates as they do, must simply be "uneducated", which is dog whistle for "stupid/ignorant".
I did not vote for Trump, or Clinton. I am "educated" by the Left's definition, and knowledgeable somewhat in the trades (having built houses, etc.), and in the working class (having commercial fished in Alaska for six years).
The Left has a problem. They seem to think they are the smart ones, and anyone who doesn't see issues as they do, or support candidates as they do, must simply be "uneducated", which is dog whistle for "stupid/ignorant".
I did not vote for Trump, or Clinton. I am "educated" by the Left's definition, and knowledgeable somewhat in the trades (having built houses, etc.), and in the working class (having commercial fished in Alaska for six years).
6
The lack of an educated USA population, cost Hillary the election. France's population is clearly more educated, as demonstrated in yesterday's election.
18
Kim,
Your comment reflects exactly why HRC lost the election.
You define "educated" by a college degree I assume.
Therefore, if someone works in the trades, keeps the toilets flushing and the electricity flowing, and your car running, you regard such people as "uneducated"? That is how they are counted, and it is one of the biggest insults you could sling at someone.
And BTW: My wife is French, and she will tell you that France is no mecca for open-minded people, college-degreed or otherwise.
Your comment reflects exactly why HRC lost the election.
You define "educated" by a college degree I assume.
Therefore, if someone works in the trades, keeps the toilets flushing and the electricity flowing, and your car running, you regard such people as "uneducated"? That is how they are counted, and it is one of the biggest insults you could sling at someone.
And BTW: My wife is French, and she will tell you that France is no mecca for open-minded people, college-degreed or otherwise.
8
Just wondering: Did the population suddenly get dumber? Reason I ask is that the same US population elected Obama twice. Don't suppose that having a lousy Dem candidate might have had something to do with it?
9
GMooG-- Actually, the population demographics have changed for this Hillary/Trump election. So, it is not the same USA population, unfortunately for the Economy.
2
"There’s Reason to Be Skeptical of a Comey Effect"
===================
Not really - you need only to open your eyes.
===================
Not really - you need only to open your eyes.
12
Thirty years of strategically-planned hatred of Hilary Clinton is well documented. Dismantling of the New Deal is well documented. Since St. Ronald Reagan's Decade of Greed in the 1980s, greed has been more rampant. Now, with a con-man in the white house, the concentration of Wealth and Power has never been more revolting and immoral. This will not stand.
19
"hatred" is not the right word. HRC was a compromised candidate, what with the bribes from Goldman Sachs (yes, those $125,000 "speaking fees" checks were in fact bribes).
Q. Why did HRC accept such large checks from Too Big to Fail Banks that sank this economy, profited heavily from the move, and will likely do again if left unregulated?
A. "Because that is what they were paying"-Hillary Clinton
Q. Why did HRC accept such large checks from Too Big to Fail Banks that sank this economy, profited heavily from the move, and will likely do again if left unregulated?
A. "Because that is what they were paying"-Hillary Clinton
5
So it had nothing to do with HRC then? Everyone/everything else's fault again?
5
It has somehow escaped your notice that the concentration of wealth and power accelerated under the prior eight years ?
3
It is of course difficult to quantify any individual factor in the election.
How about a simpler question: did Mr. Comey's actions while investigating Mrs. Clinton (including vs. his investigations into Mr. Trump) represent an unprecedented and inappropriate interference in the election?
Whatever the effect, that answer is YES.
How about a simpler question: did Mr. Comey's actions while investigating Mrs. Clinton (including vs. his investigations into Mr. Trump) represent an unprecedented and inappropriate interference in the election?
Whatever the effect, that answer is YES.
10
Nate Silver is not always right. No one is always right. But his track record was the best.
I was watching his 538 polls in the last weeks. There was no particular reaction on the day OF Comey's "new emails!" announcement... It seemed like it took the weekend for news to filter out, and then on Monday, as new polls were taken: The plunge.
An astute friend of mine has noticed that Trump releases information on Thursdays or Fridays: to maximize weekend news dispersion.
On balance, I respect Comey, so my thinking has been that he was set up by his own guys in New York. But we may never know.
I was watching his 538 polls in the last weeks. There was no particular reaction on the day OF Comey's "new emails!" announcement... It seemed like it took the weekend for news to filter out, and then on Monday, as new polls were taken: The plunge.
An astute friend of mine has noticed that Trump releases information on Thursdays or Fridays: to maximize weekend news dispersion.
On balance, I respect Comey, so my thinking has been that he was set up by his own guys in New York. But we may never know.
10
"An astute friend of mine has noticed that Trump releases information on Thursdays or Fridays: to maximize weekend news dispersion."
Um, yeah. Everyone's been doing that for about 70 years.
Um, yeah. Everyone's been doing that for about 70 years.
1
This article misses completely the point. We will never know what could have happened if Comey had not done what he did, for we cannot erase that event and start from scratch. But that is not the issue. What Comey did was to interfere directly in the election and to explode a bomb-shell after months of the non-issue of emails ad nauseam. This was an attack on democracy and as such should not have been accepted - and should not be accepted today - as a matter of principle. The problem is that the leading newspapers, including the NYT did not do their duty of salvaging the interference-free election and to this day they try, as here in print, to obscure the issue. Comey's indecent act was a terrible precedent and it should be the sacred duty of the media to make sure it never gets repeated. Which means asking for Comey's responsibility; as a minimum he ought to resign, but in a true democracy he would be investigated.
It is ironic that the NYT has often printed articles asking from Ms. Clinton to accept her errors - but does not do anything to accept its own errors. This in spite beautiful and eloquent articles by Paul Krugman who wrote continuously about the Goring of Clinton and has been consistently accusing Comey of meddling into the election. I wish the NYT editors and writers would acknowledge Krugman - assuming they read his articles - or argue against him.
It is ironic that the NYT has often printed articles asking from Ms. Clinton to accept her errors - but does not do anything to accept its own errors. This in spite beautiful and eloquent articles by Paul Krugman who wrote continuously about the Goring of Clinton and has been consistently accusing Comey of meddling into the election. I wish the NYT editors and writers would acknowledge Krugman - assuming they read his articles - or argue against him.
11
Paul Krugman is a writer for the NY Times. I'm pretty sure that they (at least the editors) read his articles. They certainly acknowledge him.
1. Clinton's "email troubles" were well known early in the primary season
2. The purpose of primaries and caucuses is to weed out candidates with vulnerabilities
3. The DNC was a Clinton-owned machine as leaked emails indicate. The DNC and its allies worked to stiff Bernie Sanders, thus proffering the weaker of two candidates at convention time
4. That weaker candidate lost to what should have been an even weaker candidate
5. Clinton and Co. have been behaving like a petulant 6-year -old when they don't get their way: a) make excuses (misogyny!, Russians!) and b) blame others (Jim Comey!)
6. In order to be successful in the future (2018), Democrats must purge the Party of Clintonistas, neoliberalism and identity politics and focus more narrowly on the economy, stupid!
2. The purpose of primaries and caucuses is to weed out candidates with vulnerabilities
3. The DNC was a Clinton-owned machine as leaked emails indicate. The DNC and its allies worked to stiff Bernie Sanders, thus proffering the weaker of two candidates at convention time
4. That weaker candidate lost to what should have been an even weaker candidate
5. Clinton and Co. have been behaving like a petulant 6-year -old when they don't get their way: a) make excuses (misogyny!, Russians!) and b) blame others (Jim Comey!)
6. In order to be successful in the future (2018), Democrats must purge the Party of Clintonistas, neoliberalism and identity politics and focus more narrowly on the economy, stupid!
27
Hillary needed to be more forthcoming and admit she had made the mistake of setting up the home server for official work.
Hillary should have kicked Bill out a long time ago. They could still be friends but she send a wrong message to girls to put up with wandering spouses just because they were good for politics. Our girls have seen so many political spouses behave this way that its very disheartening to them.
Hillary should have kicked Bill out a long time ago. They could still be friends but she send a wrong message to girls to put up with wandering spouses just because they were good for politics. Our girls have seen so many political spouses behave this way that its very disheartening to them.
2
Total distraction. Investigate and report on what the current administration is doing to damage core democratic values (truth, doing the right thing rather than the thing that you personally profit from), and our planet (denying climate change and science in general), and our fellow human beings. Do a better job than you did before the election.
5
You're ready to let the election go, then?
when oh when will HRC and all of her devotees stop with the conspiracy theories about who lost the election for her... i'll save you the suspense... it was her! and her alone. this is another shocker, but let's see if you can survive this tid bit - HRC (and HRC alone) decided to use a personal server, located on her private property and inserting a lawyer between those emails and the public/govt, while on official government business. this was the reason the FBI (or anyone else) was ever "investigating" any improper use of that server. had she not decided to use a private email server, no FBI investigation... but then she'd provably find something else to blame.. for someone so adept at manipulating the primary process... and she lost to DJT... i mean how much worse of an individual could there be out there for anyone to lose to? if the dems are upset about their loss (and they should be) they should have done a better job nominating someone who actually connected with the people and got them engaged... someone like Bernie... not HRC who seemed to think it was "her turn"
14
There are two key points and you make one of them:
"One could imagine how Mr. Comey’s letter might have swayed voters who remained undecided heading into Election Day." If the race was as tight as you suggest, then that suggests a potentially negative impact.
More importantly, with election day so near, you have to question Comey's motives especially since none of the new emails disclosed had yet been analyzed by the FBI. That troubles me.
"One could imagine how Mr. Comey’s letter might have swayed voters who remained undecided heading into Election Day." If the race was as tight as you suggest, then that suggests a potentially negative impact.
More importantly, with election day so near, you have to question Comey's motives especially since none of the new emails disclosed had yet been analyzed by the FBI. That troubles me.
8
'It could be...but maybe not.' That clears things up.
Comey's October surprise just nicely rounded-off a drumbeat of false alarm about Clinton's email server that cast enough doubt on the candidate to allow otherwise sensible Republicans to vote for Trump with the illusion of a clear conscience.
Comey's October surprise just nicely rounded-off a drumbeat of false alarm about Clinton's email server that cast enough doubt on the candidate to allow otherwise sensible Republicans to vote for Trump with the illusion of a clear conscience.
5
When are we going to stop this nonsense.? Comey is not responsible for Hillary's defeat. Neither is Putin (though he did try). She got 3 million more votes than Trump. Why then,isn't she president? There's only one answer; It's that peculiar institution called the Electoral College. That plus lots of voter suppression in Republican controlled states.
The EC is a relic of slavery. Let's get rid of fit before it does more mischief.
The EC is a relic of slavery. Let's get rid of fit before it does more mischief.
2
agree with your comments, save the last sentence. it may be a "relic" of a past time, but i believe they gave such a system some very good thought, unlike what we have today... so one musn't rush to change something just because the outcome didn't go your way, lest the next time it is changed because it didnt go someone elses' way...
2
"The EC is a relic of slavery."
Always a shame when folks use soundbites to make their case.
Always a shame when folks use soundbites to make their case.
3
The only thing that Trump knew is how to game the electoral college, the institution what was designed to prevent people like Trump from hijacking the Presidency.
Comey had little to no real effect on the outcome---this has been understood for awhile now, but thanks for the additional supporting evidence!
7
What you are saying that nothing influenced an electorate to think that Trump was the better choice. The American electorate alone made a stupid choice. And I thought they were just naïve and uninformed.
Nate Silver does not agree with you (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clin...
"At a maximum, [the Comey letter] might have shifted the race by 3 or 4 percentage points toward Donald Trump, swinging Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida to him, perhaps along with North Carolina and Arizona. At a minimum, its impact might have been only a percentage point or so. Still, because Clinton lost Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by less than 1 point, the letter was probably enough to change the outcome of the Electoral College."
Momentum has a clear and sometimes profound effect in elections. The "Access Hollywood" tape did in 2016. Comey's needless, bungling misjudgment to prematurely announce a "development" in a trumped-up investigation, which turned out to be a nothing-burger, cancelled the tidal wave of deservedly scathing news reports that followed "Access Hollywood" tape. Comey's mischief amplified the effects of Russian hacking on the 2016 Election, and dropped an unfit, unqualified disaster of a president* into our laps.
Undeniable and Inexcusable.
"At a maximum, [the Comey letter] might have shifted the race by 3 or 4 percentage points toward Donald Trump, swinging Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida to him, perhaps along with North Carolina and Arizona. At a minimum, its impact might have been only a percentage point or so. Still, because Clinton lost Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by less than 1 point, the letter was probably enough to change the outcome of the Electoral College."
Momentum has a clear and sometimes profound effect in elections. The "Access Hollywood" tape did in 2016. Comey's needless, bungling misjudgment to prematurely announce a "development" in a trumped-up investigation, which turned out to be a nothing-burger, cancelled the tidal wave of deservedly scathing news reports that followed "Access Hollywood" tape. Comey's mischief amplified the effects of Russian hacking on the 2016 Election, and dropped an unfit, unqualified disaster of a president* into our laps.
Undeniable and Inexcusable.
4
Oh please. These pieces are written with the unstated assumption that someone thinks a particular reason alone was causal. These are ALL reasons that contributed to the loss, but two are particularly relevant as to the handful of votes in 3 key states, that, well, lost her the election. The Wiki dump, and "revelations" in his second communication with congress. Those few votes were teetering on the fence, and the vibrations of those two bombshells vibrated them off on trump*s side. Granted, she would not have been in that position if she or her supporters had (fill in the blank) but it was the end of the campaign, and there she was...Absent Comey and Wiki, she'd have won. (It is gratifying that Marcon figured out the latter, and his campaign used Rope-a-Dope when the Russian hack hit. Vive la France!)
4
America was bitterly divided before the election. Trump always had a core of about 40% of likely American voters supporting him, about the same proportion as chose to believe the Birther slur against Obama. There was a violent reaction among right-leaning Americans to a colored progressive president who was effective in office, e.g. in getting the ACA legislation passed and winning a second term. Billionaires like the Koch brothers and Mercer funded intense efforts to roll back their taxes including the new ones under the ACA. Right-wing campaigners, starting with the Tea Party, including Fox News, Breitbart, and a host of Twitter and Facebook posters broadcast vicious accusations against Hillary Clinton and her family. According to them there was no crime of which she was not guilty. Trump amplified the message, helped by Putin, Wikileaks, and Russian bots. Trump whipped up his rallies with hatred of Hillary as the most corrupt politician of all time, to be locked up when he took office. Beyond the issue of using a private Email server, there was widespread belief - which Comey strengthened by implication - that Hillary was probably guilty of serious crimes. By violating standard practice regarding public announcements about ongoing investigations, Comey tilted the scales. At the margin, 77,000 votes in three swing states out of over 135 million in all, gave Trump the Electoral College.
7
It hardly matters if the Comey letter had an effect or not. Since the Comey letter was Hillary's fault, it rebounds back to her either way. It's her responsibility that classified information end up on Anthony Weiner's laptop. She should be happy that Comey keeps covering for her and Huma, rather than complaining. Any rank and filer who did this would be in jail.
12
Please stop slicing and dicing the election. Let's move on. Perhaps we can learn the lesson that a full FBI investigation into emails is a waste of money for a country that cannot afford healthcare.
3
Read the most insulting comments here -- about Trump, about Trump voters, about Southerners, about Comey -- and then attribute them to Hillary. It's likely she shared all these negative views of Americans, and they all knew it.
Why would millions of Americans vote for someone who dislikes them?
Why would millions of Americans vote for someone who dislikes them?
13
Why do Trump supporters think they have a lock on being an American. As far as I can tell, they hardly grasp that and many other things.
3
jamie baldwin:
"The insults, stupid." (hat tip: James Carville)
"The insults, stupid." (hat tip: James Carville)
3
If there were any real proof that Russia truly collaborated with Trump, it would have Been discovered by this point, and this paper would've gone bonkers with the coverage. For now, it's just going bonkers with speculation. Hillary lost because she was a lousy candidate. Too bad, too.. She would've made a capable president.
6
You had me until the last sentence. If you read the book about her campaign, I think you will come to a different conclusion.
1
Well, any polls foreboding Clinton's decline - whether pre- or post-Comey, were under the radar of the New York Times, who kept reporting daily that she had over 70% probabilities of winning.
11
Well, maybe she had. That means 30% probability of loosing.
1
I believe it was up to 85% chance of Clinton winning up until about 8 or 9PM the evening of the election. Then, in the space of an hour or two, it changed to 85% for Trump.
2
Actually the day of I believe it was 98 %. Easy to check. Kept going down as the night wore on. I remember watching Morning Joe election morning, and they had the illustrious Former Governor Jennifer Granholm on bragging that it was all over. Interestingly enough, no one refuted her such were the beliefs in the polls. Of course, if you have ever had a stats class and bothered to look at the bottom of the polls and to see how they were weighted, you could see that Hillary would not automatically get get the same turnout as Pres. Obama. The dems don't automatically get 52% of the vote and Republicans get 19% and the rest are either undecided or independents. Same for the polls now.
FBI Director James Comey told senators Wednesday that the agency is looking into whether employees leaked information about the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails to members of Donald Trump’s team, including Rudy Giuliani…Giuliani went on Fox News and bragged that he knew in advance about the new emails. [HP]
Jean-Francois Revel wrote “Unlike the Western leadership, which is tormented by remorse and a sense of guilt,”, “Soviet leaders’ consciences are perfectly clear, which allows them to use brute force with utter serenity both to preserve their power at home and to extend it abroad.”
This is what sparked a love-fest for Putin’s tactics from Republicans immediately following his invasion of Ukraine. “That’s what you call a leader” said Rudy Giuliani. Rep. Hal Rogers (R-MI), who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, said that Putin was playing chess while President Obama played marbles.
[Torture, Russia, and Conservative Dictator-Envy by Jonathan Chait]
Jean-Francois Revel wrote “Unlike the Western leadership, which is tormented by remorse and a sense of guilt,”, “Soviet leaders’ consciences are perfectly clear, which allows them to use brute force with utter serenity both to preserve their power at home and to extend it abroad.”
This is what sparked a love-fest for Putin’s tactics from Republicans immediately following his invasion of Ukraine. “That’s what you call a leader” said Rudy Giuliani. Rep. Hal Rogers (R-MI), who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, said that Putin was playing chess while President Obama played marbles.
[Torture, Russia, and Conservative Dictator-Envy by Jonathan Chait]
1
Let's not forget the role that this paper and other media outlets played in that loss. The breathless, overwrought reporting on the email non-scandal was at least as damaging. The media's depiction of Clinton as unlikable (echoed in many of the comments below) and the unquestioned assumption that she was a poor candidate (if only other politicians were held to such a standard!) that failed to articulate exactly how she was a poor candidate, accomplished what Comey failed to do on his own.
9
Do you know anyone who thinks Clinton is likable or a good candidate?
4
Clinton perpetuated that coverage by denying, changing her story, refusing to turn over evidence, and then actually destroying it. She looked more guilty every week.
Watching Hillary Clinton under investigation is not pretty.
Watching Hillary Clinton under investigation is not pretty.
The New York Times editorial staff formally endorsed Hillary Clinton six months prior to the election, and long before the primary was finished.
The New York Times had her % likelihood of winning over Trump hovering in the mid to upper 90s for months. It slipped to the high 80s just before she lost.
Why was Hillary Clinton so unlikable? Speaking for myself and many I know, it was simply her ties to Goldman Sachs and the other "Too Big To Fail" banks, and the $125,000 checks, and the tens of millions that poured into her foundation from these banks.
It was her silence on the Standing Rock pipeline (because one of her biggest donors is financing that multi-billion dollar project.
Nobody cared about her emails. Nobody cared about any potential Russian involvement. To think so simply disregards the REAL issues we had with her, and the reasons we could not bring ourselves to support her.
The New York Times had her % likelihood of winning over Trump hovering in the mid to upper 90s for months. It slipped to the high 80s just before she lost.
Why was Hillary Clinton so unlikable? Speaking for myself and many I know, it was simply her ties to Goldman Sachs and the other "Too Big To Fail" banks, and the $125,000 checks, and the tens of millions that poured into her foundation from these banks.
It was her silence on the Standing Rock pipeline (because one of her biggest donors is financing that multi-billion dollar project.
Nobody cared about her emails. Nobody cared about any potential Russian involvement. To think so simply disregards the REAL issues we had with her, and the reasons we could not bring ourselves to support her.
2
Whatever the impact of James Comey, Wikileaks, Russia or misogyny on the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, it is beyond question that Hillary Clinton herself had a lot to do with it. No question that she was highly qualified for the office - that's why I reluctantly voted for her - but her past and present are a really unpleasant story of entitlement, of well, the rules don't apply to me so I'll just go on and use my private email for government business, of well, it's my turn so let's just throw Bernie Sanders to the wolves, of hiring unfortunate syncophants like Huma Abedin. The worst part is that she apparently isn't done; her recent appearances and comments seem focused on the 2020 nomination. What will it take to stop her?
11
amen!
2
I think this is as reasonable a take on the election as any. Hard to draw any deep conclusions about the body politic on the basis of what is essentially a statistical fluke. Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania were coin flips. Trump won them all.
6
More self-serving nonsense from Mr. Cohn, who appeared to be more often wrong than right about Trump.
I can't believe you folks continue to give him a platform despite his dismal performance in the 2016 election.
I can't believe you folks continue to give him a platform despite his dismal performance in the 2016 election.
4
Thank you for, once again, opening the door to every misogynist and Clinton hater on the internet. Yes, Comey did influence the election, yes, Putin did interfere with election, and yes, the press and the rest of the media did one lousy, lazy, salacious job of reporting the campaign.
So, to cya, the press continues to come up with excuses for Hillary's losing. But she didn't lose - 3 million people preferred her over 45 - and I bet there are a lot more than that now.
So stop with the weak kneed excuses for you and the rest of the media not doing your job and giving 45 more free press and sycophantic interviews than could ever be imagined.
So, to cya, the press continues to come up with excuses for Hillary's losing. But she didn't lose - 3 million people preferred her over 45 - and I bet there are a lot more than that now.
So stop with the weak kneed excuses for you and the rest of the media not doing your job and giving 45 more free press and sycophantic interviews than could ever be imagined.
9
Succinctly and well put. Amazing how simple math fails so many people when discounting 3 MILLION votes.
Bet they wouldn't, if those were dollars in their pockets -- but it certainly is dollars out of their pockets everytime Trump jets off to Mar-a-Lago.
Bet they wouldn't, if those were dollars in their pockets -- but it certainly is dollars out of their pockets everytime Trump jets off to Mar-a-Lago.
1
If elections were based on simple math, then Clinton would be president, same with Gore back in 2000. However, we have that electoral college thing, and this time, it went shimmy the dems. Sad, that dems have not learned their lesson. They undermined the Sanders campaign, which I'm sure had a great deal to do with her loss, yet the dems still don't get it.
2
If Hillary had won the EC, but lost the popular vote, worshipping the EC would be a sacrament for the left.
2
It was not a single variable case. If you are going to analyze this, do it correctly and thoroughly. You should track all the variables, including Wikileaks and Comey's disclosures at two different times. Clinton's poll margins were always going up and down but rising in October.
And you foist this upon us as authoritative?
And you foist this upon us as authoritative?
5
Thank you, NYT. This is a bit of news reporting I would have expected you might sweep under the carpet.
4
Mrs. Clinton lost to the worst possible rival because she failed to connect with people, was part of a dynasty, appeared in the pocket of corporate interests, suffered idiotic self-inflicted political wounds due to secrecy and entitlement, and most important of all, her implied campaign mantra was:
"I'm a woman, I paid my dues and it's my turn, and I'm not him."
Just enough people stayed home to help us avoid a continuation of gridlock in DC that would have been blamed on her and cost the Democrats the congress for the next decade or more starting in 2018.
Instead, we have to suffer Trump, but watch the Republicans destroy themselves. I'll take the latter.
"I'm a woman, I paid my dues and it's my turn, and I'm not him."
Just enough people stayed home to help us avoid a continuation of gridlock in DC that would have been blamed on her and cost the Democrats the congress for the next decade or more starting in 2018.
Instead, we have to suffer Trump, but watch the Republicans destroy themselves. I'll take the latter.
5
The speculation is useless. There is no definitive method to quantify Comey's contribution to Clinton's loss. Clinton blaming Comey for her loss is sour grapes and unbecoming.
4
She didn't need Comey to do her in. She had Sanders, Warren and Obama. They pulled the party so far to the left they lost they center. And the center, the blue collar Dems went Trump. And they're still ignoring the center.
5
Hilary ran a lousy campaign and was an unappealing candidate across wide swaths of the electorate. Other factors are interesting and provide opportunities for talking heads on TV and countless barroom conversations. But she stunk and the DNC torpedoed Sanders. That's the basic story.
16
"unappealing" is to misogynism what "well spoken" is to racism.
Misogynism is not a word, at least in standard English usage. And they ridiculed W for "misunderestimated".
3
Only if you make it that way. Her policy stands had no appeal for lots of people. Nothing to do with gender. Her emphasis on what was wrong with her opponent rather than what her administration was going to affirmatively do had little appeal for many people. Again...not a gender based statement. Not looking for victims here. Looking for good candidates.
Shhh! Don't tell Hillary and her supporters about this report. They'll have to face up to the fact that Hillary lost because she was a terrible candidate and not because of what someone else did. Do you really want to take away from HIllary and supporters the only thought that soothes them, that she was unjustifiably robbed of her destiny?
12
Fortunately, in the real real world there is real evidence of just how complicit Mr. Trump and his Russian hacker friends were in skewering the election.
What? You hadn't heard about that?...
What? You hadn't heard about that?...
We haven't seen any evidence. Dianne Feinstein said just this weekend that she hadn't seen any yet. Do you have sources that she doesn't?
1
The anti-Hillary Left caused the Trump regime.
Comey had nothing to do with it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/anti-hillary-left-easily-hands-elect...
Comey had nothing to do with it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/anti-hillary-left-easily-hands-elect...
3
No, it was Hillary Clinton's tone deafness to the working class of this nation. To the sector of this economy that has seen job losses each and every month over the past decade, despite overall job gains. It is the manufacturing sector of this economy that is hurting. Hillary Clinton called the TPP "The Gold Standard". The Gold Standard for whom exactly?
Her tone deafness was her single biggest flaw. Seems she has not yet been able to see this, still blaming other factors for her loss.
I think her eight years in the White House kind of made her think she was entitled to that position.
Her tone deafness was her single biggest flaw. Seems she has not yet been able to see this, still blaming other factors for her loss.
I think her eight years in the White House kind of made her think she was entitled to that position.
3
Why not do something really useful, Nate/NY Times, follow up on this Guardian article:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-bre...
Maybe then we can start moving along much, much faster. We are facing a very determined enemy. France escaped today. We are still within the grasp.
Please, please, please, for GOD's sake pick it up. Move faster. Dig deeper.
Take a look at this website, folks, will make you puke:
https://ca-political.com
Scroll down.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-bre...
Maybe then we can start moving along much, much faster. We are facing a very determined enemy. France escaped today. We are still within the grasp.
Please, please, please, for GOD's sake pick it up. Move faster. Dig deeper.
Take a look at this website, folks, will make you puke:
https://ca-political.com
Scroll down.
3
Is this site real?
Comey found that Huma sent Classified Government Documents to Weiner's Computer. I guess Comey was supposed to ignore that like he did a few months before.
7
They found THOUSANDS of emails, some containing classified material, on Weiner's computer. Abedin claimed she had no idea how they got there. That is not a minor event in a case where emails were erased rather than handed over to the FBI.
7
"Abedin claimed she had no idea how they got there."
This is not true. depressionbaby's comment is referring to the most recent disclosures from Comey last week. There he stated that Abedin acknowledged that she deliberately forwarded numerous email to Weiner, including ones with classified info, so that he could print them out for Hillary, because she preferred to read things on paper, instead of a screen
This is not true. depressionbaby's comment is referring to the most recent disclosures from Comey last week. There he stated that Abedin acknowledged that she deliberately forwarded numerous email to Weiner, including ones with classified info, so that he could print them out for Hillary, because she preferred to read things on paper, instead of a screen
Princeton Election Consortium: The Comey Effect
After the Affordable Care Act premium hike announcement, opinion did not move for days, arguing against this as a main driver of the late swing in opinion. It could still be a factor, as is the case for many events. But such an effect would have to be gradual.
However, the big change does coincide well with the release of the Comey letter. Opinion swung toward Trump by 4 percentage points, and about half of this was a lasting change. This was larger than the victory margin in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Wisconsin. Many factors went into this year’s Presidental race, but on the home stretch, Comey’s letter appears to have been a critical factor in the home stretch.
After the Affordable Care Act premium hike announcement, opinion did not move for days, arguing against this as a main driver of the late swing in opinion. It could still be a factor, as is the case for many events. But such an effect would have to be gradual.
However, the big change does coincide well with the release of the Comey letter. Opinion swung toward Trump by 4 percentage points, and about half of this was a lasting change. This was larger than the victory margin in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Wisconsin. Many factors went into this year’s Presidental race, but on the home stretch, Comey’s letter appears to have been a critical factor in the home stretch.
6
It's a welcomed sight that statistical data is at last being released that shows that Hillary Clinton lost the election. For months now all we knew was that the election was stolen by the Russians or jimmied by FBI Director Comey, so it actually wasn't a real loss.
A suggestion for the next polls/surveys: let's begin now to correlate the varieties of hate speech used against President Trump and which of those he'll mostly easily ride to re-election.
A suggestion for the next polls/surveys: let's begin now to correlate the varieties of hate speech used against President Trump and which of those he'll mostly easily ride to re-election.
4
Dr. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross defined the five stages of grief as denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Right now, the vast majority of the Democrats - and that includes Hillary, the media and most of the leadership in the House and Senate - are still stuck on denial and anger. Pretty soon they'll move on to bargaining ("Oh, please, if we can just take back the House and the Senate we'll be OK), then on to depression ("No matter what we do it looks like we're going to be stuck with President Trump though 2020") and finally acceptance.
Until they move past the "What difference does it make now" of how and why Hillary lost and start to deal with the fact that under President Obama the Democrats massively shed political power at the national, state and local levels, they will not be able to start putting together some practical, actual solutions that will bring them back from the wilderness. Otherwise, they will continue their slide into an irrelevance nearing that of the Whigs in 1856.
Until they move past the "What difference does it make now" of how and why Hillary lost and start to deal with the fact that under President Obama the Democrats massively shed political power at the national, state and local levels, they will not be able to start putting together some practical, actual solutions that will bring them back from the wilderness. Otherwise, they will continue their slide into an irrelevance nearing that of the Whigs in 1856.
9
Piffle.
The reality of president Trump is unquestioned. To say otherwise is dishonest.
The reality of president Trump is unquestioned. To say otherwise is dishonest.
2
Hillary is old news now. And there was a backlash against having a Black family in the White House so no surprise about the tea party and Dems losing political power. Notwithstanding this loss, I am personally glad the US was able to elect a Black man as President of the United States - twice. Something I never expected to see.
I think Dems may have a resurgence as a backlash to an incompetent greedy corrupt person as President. If not, then I hope all of the Trump and Republican supporters (some are members of my extended family) will be happy: when Medicare is a voucher program that only scratches the surface of elderly health care costs; when many are again without health insurance and using the ER's for what should be primary care; when the next Ebola outbreak hits our shores but there are no facilities anymore to isolate such diseases from spreading; when their children with ADHD have a"pre-existing condition" and must pay exorbitant rates for health insurance; and when the next major hurricane or weather related event causes massive destruction, but the Federal government has been stripped down and cannot respond. I don't even want to speculate about another major terrorist attack on our homeland and the fallout from it and how we will be ready to deal with it.
Climate scientists have been invited to move to France now, where are the other scientists and researchers going to go? We all cannot move to Canada.
I think Dems may have a resurgence as a backlash to an incompetent greedy corrupt person as President. If not, then I hope all of the Trump and Republican supporters (some are members of my extended family) will be happy: when Medicare is a voucher program that only scratches the surface of elderly health care costs; when many are again without health insurance and using the ER's for what should be primary care; when the next Ebola outbreak hits our shores but there are no facilities anymore to isolate such diseases from spreading; when their children with ADHD have a"pre-existing condition" and must pay exorbitant rates for health insurance; and when the next major hurricane or weather related event causes massive destruction, but the Federal government has been stripped down and cannot respond. I don't even want to speculate about another major terrorist attack on our homeland and the fallout from it and how we will be ready to deal with it.
Climate scientists have been invited to move to France now, where are the other scientists and researchers going to go? We all cannot move to Canada.
But if you look at the accounts Trump voters have given of themselves, and then again, you look at the great disparity in core beliefs (and give Hillary credit for running such a successful bad campaign, as to win the popular vote), it seems to me voters were mostly cynical. They wanted a swing back to old times, and they saw Trump as the nation's doorman, holding it open for conservatives and industrial execs who would really run things.
1
Facts:
• Hillary Clinton lost.
• Trump defeated her.
• Clinton is not the president.
• Trump is the president.
Question:
• Did Comey play a role?
Answer:
• Maybe
Conclusion:
• If Comey played a role, then good for him; he did the nation a great service by preventing Clinton from being elected president of the United States of America.
• If Comey facilitated the election of Donald J. Trump, then good for him, he did the nation a great service by preventing Clinton from being elected president of the United States of America.
Next Step:
• Get over it!
• Hillary Clinton lost.
• Trump defeated her.
• Clinton is not the president.
• Trump is the president.
Question:
• Did Comey play a role?
Answer:
• Maybe
Conclusion:
• If Comey played a role, then good for him; he did the nation a great service by preventing Clinton from being elected president of the United States of America.
• If Comey facilitated the election of Donald J. Trump, then good for him, he did the nation a great service by preventing Clinton from being elected president of the United States of America.
Next Step:
• Get over it!
21
Get over it? The Confederate flag still flies in many places in the volunteer state, and by my count, it has been almost 152 years of definitely not getting over it.
8
He certainly DIDN'T do anyone any favors, especially TRUMP!!! This presidency is already turning out to be his downfall, and......unfortunately.....our country's, too!!!
2
Fact:
- Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes.
Question:
-What is wrong with this picture?
Answer:
- Our Electoral System of voting, no matter who won.
Fact:
- Voting districts are heavily gerrymandered
Question:
- Did this affect Donald Trump's win?
Answer:
- Yes
Question:
- Is this legal?
Answer:
- Yes. And so is the unlimited funding of candidates by corporations considered "people" by our Supreme Court.
Question:
- What is wrong with this picture?
Answer:
- Think about it. Better yet - JUST THINK! Its patriotic!
- Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes.
Question:
-What is wrong with this picture?
Answer:
- Our Electoral System of voting, no matter who won.
Fact:
- Voting districts are heavily gerrymandered
Question:
- Did this affect Donald Trump's win?
Answer:
- Yes
Question:
- Is this legal?
Answer:
- Yes. And so is the unlimited funding of candidates by corporations considered "people" by our Supreme Court.
Question:
- What is wrong with this picture?
Answer:
- Think about it. Better yet - JUST THINK! Its patriotic!
4
Some day, Democrats are going to admit that Hillary Clinton was simply a terrible candidate. She lost because a huge number of people just don't like her. She was not a good campaigner. She made the fatal mistake of calling those whose votes she needed "deplorable." Bad salesmanship.
That day is not today. Democrats are still wasting time on finding excuses. No one wasted this much time on finding excuses when McCain and Romney lost, but no matter. They were not sore losers.
If Democrats don't wake up to the truth soon, it looks like they will be running Hillary again in 2020. She set up her PAC, she has decided to go for it.
That day is not today. Democrats are still wasting time on finding excuses. No one wasted this much time on finding excuses when McCain and Romney lost, but no matter. They were not sore losers.
If Democrats don't wake up to the truth soon, it looks like they will be running Hillary again in 2020. She set up her PAC, she has decided to go for it.
25
.....and someday Trump supporters are going to have to deal with the consequences of who they voted for and what it is doing to our country. It's time people learn how to fact check and stop believing the lies Trump and the GOP throw at them! Hillary ran a much more informed campaign when it came to policy than Trump did. He just yelled, bullied and told people how great he is and how he had the BEST ideas without any substance. It was pretty clear Trump lacked the intelligence, knowledge and demeanor to serve as Commander in Chief!
2
The Dems I know consider Hillary "old news" and don't revisit the election. Anything about her is really not newsworthy when there is so much else going on, such as Trump being warned about Flynn immediately after the election but he hired him anyway -- and as National Security Advisor - even though he was subject to being blackmailed by Russia!!!!!
1
Bj:
Obama's warning might have been taken lightly because of Obama's animus towards Flynn. Flynn had been openly critical of Obama's handling of ISIS. Flynn claimed Obama had all the intelligence he needed, but he chose not to discuss and even downplayed the ISIS threat.
Obama's warning might have been taken lightly because of Obama's animus towards Flynn. Flynn had been openly critical of Obama's handling of ISIS. Flynn claimed Obama had all the intelligence he needed, but he chose not to discuss and even downplayed the ISIS threat.
There’s Reason to Be Skeptical of Anything that Nate Cohn writes. He's a shill for trump. cohn's articles are editorials and should be presented as such, not a newspaper article. He worked for real clear politics (a repugniklan shill) and Politico.
13
So are you saying we should be skeptical of the articles written by the other 99% of NYT writers that are very liberal?
At least be consistent please.
At least be consistent please.
2
I believe that Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party cost Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party the 2016 presidential election. I believe Al Gore cost Al Gore the 2000 presidential election. I believe that, when analyzing why a party and a candidate lose, the right approach is to begin by examining that candidate and that party, and not the external factors. Even though she had more or less been running for president since graduating from college in 1969, Hillary Clinton simply could not tell the American people why she wanted to be president, or why they should vote for her. I do not like much of anything about Donald J. Trump, and I am sorry that he won the election. Still, I fail to understand why all my liberal friends blame Trump, Comey, the Russians, WikiLeaks, sexism, the Electoral College, fake news, Fox News, white rage, et al., etc., for Clinton's loss, but don't focus on the obvious culprit: Hillary Rodham Clinton.
34
Really? When Hillary Clinton called Trump supporters a group of deplorables, people were outraged, especially his supporters (and I am not defending her saying this). When they saw Trump brag about sexually abusing women, it was excused as "boy talk". When he verbally egged on his supporters to physically attack people at his rallies, non of his supporters questioned his temperament to be able to lead this country. When more and more evidence is coming out about how the Trump administration ignored information about top advisers and staff having concerning ties with foreign governments and lying about it, his supporters just shake their heads and say "the election is over, he is our president, get over it". When Hillary Clinton is investigated for possibly putting sensitive information at risk by using a personal email server and then found there was no wrong doing, more than once, she is a liar and horrible. I could go on and on giving examples of the incompetency of our current president, but it doesn't matter WHAT he does, people look the other way and continue to pummel Hillary Clinton. It is crazy! Trump needs to be held accountable for all of the things HE is doing! Ignorance is no excuse! He needs to be held to the same standard Clinton and Obama were held to. No more excuses. He is INCOMPETENT and DANGEROUS!
3
"then found there was no wrong doing, more than once, " That isn't what Comey said. He spelled out the crimes she committed, but said he wouldn't indict. Read the statute. "Gross negligence" is reason to indict. She was held to no standard, or she would be in jail.
Ante Cohen m as keys a pretty good case;but as I recall the Nat Silver's articulation of the case Nate critiques was more thoroughly reasonedd from right off,albeit silent on a couple, of Nate's points. Though Silver this morning tweeted aversion to engaging in a Nat vs. Nate debate, I'm sure Nat and Nate are fully up to a back and forth of exemplary rationality and civility.
Let the debate begin!
Let the debate begin!
Can someone please translate this?
3
Some things just don't translate into English. Or any other tongue known to homo sapiens.
2
Comey should resign, but still, would Hillary have lost were there no email issue or had it been better handled?
Would she have lost had there been no grossly overpriced Goldman Sachs talks or had she at least released the transcripts?
Would she have lost if she and her campaign managers had focused more effectively on Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio?
The election was Hillary’s to lose and she did. I believe she would have been a fine president, but she was a poor candidate.
Now the question is will the Democrats do better next time.
Would she have lost had there been no grossly overpriced Goldman Sachs talks or had she at least released the transcripts?
Would she have lost if she and her campaign managers had focused more effectively on Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio?
The election was Hillary’s to lose and she did. I believe she would have been a fine president, but she was a poor candidate.
Now the question is will the Democrats do better next time.
14
Would Trump have won had he not collaborated with Russia?
6
yes
"Would Trump have won had he not collaborated with Russia"?
In a word. NO.
And he wouldn't have won without the Electoral College, either.
There. Problem solved.
In a word. NO.
And he wouldn't have won without the Electoral College, either.
There. Problem solved.
1
Can we please hold the Forecasters responsible? And aren't they close cousins of the pollsters? For those who were not thrilled to vote for Clinton, hearing that she was predicted to win with a 60% to 90% confidence level greatly influenced the election. If a voter thinks she is going to win any ways, they could think they didn't have to to cast a vote for her. In Michigan, where she lost by 12,000 votes, weren't there 90,000 ballots that left the president choice blank, but voted for every other Democrat on the ticket? If those voters had not been told she was going to win easily, if they thought it might be close, they would have voted for her. Being told on the front page of the NYT that she was 80% (or more) likely to win, caused some to tell themselves, "Don't worry she'll win anyway, I can skip voting for her." That prediction dial on the front page of the NYT site had a bigger mental effect on voters than Comey's letter.
12
Can't you also assume the reverse is true? Namely that pollsters and the media insisting that Hillary was a shoe-in dissuaded at least some republican voters?
I think the Times still has her at 60%.
5
Actually, I think it might have also spurred some who like the balance of a split government to have gotten out to vote Republican for any House or Senate spot, because they assumed the Democrats were a shoe in for the White House.
There have been October surprises for a long time. They seem to have some influence in the elections. It seems strange to me, My decision was made to vote for Hilary 20 years ago. Everything she done since that makes me just think she is a wonderful leader. Smart, but with the humility to listen. Focused on results. But, Ivy League educated with a graduate degree and an informed FDR Democrat, I am probably her target market. But, I can't understand why they are so concerned about her being careless with emails so that the Russians could get some minor bits of information. Instead, they elected a group that probably has given the Russians a lot of important confidential information.
7
Not " minor bits of information". Top secret information,and information in a special classification above top secret, including information about assets in the field. She may have gotten one particular Iranian nuclear scientist killed. A disgrace.
Hillary lost because she could not achieve the majority support from the electorate that would have overcome the negative influence of Comey's goofy letter. Comey should have followed the principle of innocence until proven guilty but he did not. He acted like a silly low level bureaucrat covering himself from possible criticism. His letter pushed just enough against Hillary that she lost by a very thin number of the voters in some key states.
How was it that a former First Lady, productive Senator, and very active Secretary of State could achieve a near fifty-fifty polling rating with a clearly uninformed and unqualified man who made endless claims without even bothering to be consistent and truthful, who used hateful language without any consideration, and had no experience in public office nor in private business leading any kind of huge and complicated enterprise? How come Hillary's actions which ended in poor outcomes were perceived as deceitful while Trump's outright lies were perceived as a lack of political experience? It was really bizarre to anyone who was using their minds during that period of time. For a couple of decades the right was circulating hyperbole and outright lies about Clinton to create an image of a dishonest and selfish person, and the image had firmly stuck in the minds of so many voters that that bizarre outcome was realized.
How was it that a former First Lady, productive Senator, and very active Secretary of State could achieve a near fifty-fifty polling rating with a clearly uninformed and unqualified man who made endless claims without even bothering to be consistent and truthful, who used hateful language without any consideration, and had no experience in public office nor in private business leading any kind of huge and complicated enterprise? How come Hillary's actions which ended in poor outcomes were perceived as deceitful while Trump's outright lies were perceived as a lack of political experience? It was really bizarre to anyone who was using their minds during that period of time. For a couple of decades the right was circulating hyperbole and outright lies about Clinton to create an image of a dishonest and selfish person, and the image had firmly stuck in the minds of so many voters that that bizarre outcome was realized.
15
Clinton did get "majority support from the electorate." She didn't get majority support from the Electoral College. Even the Age of Trump, such distinctions matter, perhaps more than ever.
8
Hillary was "guilty" months before but Comey let it slide. I wish I could use the excuse that I didn't "intend" to do anything wrong. Amazing!
3
How do they matter Bill?
It is possible Comey made the critical difference, but only because Clinton and the Democratic Party leaders did such a miserable job. First the ran an establishment candidate and a "same ole stuff" campaign when the country was begging for change. Second, they let Trump out play them in the Electoral College.
They alienated thousands with their handling of the nomination and debates, ran a bland and uninspiring campaign, then topped it off by failing to defend key Electoral College states.
They alienated thousands with their handling of the nomination and debates, ran a bland and uninspiring campaign, then topped it off by failing to defend key Electoral College states.
19
I was undecided and leaning to Gary Johnson, but ended up voting for Trump. With her "home brew server", shady excuses about where her e-mails went and general sense of entitlement, I just couldn't feel comfortable with her as President. Trump was destined to win - if you didn't understand that by November 1, you weren't paying attention.
10
I voted for HRC and I wanted her to beat Trump, solely because he was and remains totally unfit by temperament and experience, to be president.
That being said, I don't believe that Ms. Clinton lost because of Russian interference or because of Director Comey's "October surprise". She lost because she incorrectly assumed that she was the preferred alternative to Trump in large portions of the country that had traditionally voted Democratic. Her arrogance in this regard, led her to ignore requests by her staff to campaign in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Yes, she won the popular vote, which follows when you win NY and CA but by ignoring or minimizing campaigning in the flyover states, she sealed her fate.
That being said, I don't believe that Ms. Clinton lost because of Russian interference or because of Director Comey's "October surprise". She lost because she incorrectly assumed that she was the preferred alternative to Trump in large portions of the country that had traditionally voted Democratic. Her arrogance in this regard, led her to ignore requests by her staff to campaign in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Yes, she won the popular vote, which follows when you win NY and CA but by ignoring or minimizing campaigning in the flyover states, she sealed her fate.
29
The fallacy of this entire logic is that the polls were wrong to begin with. The media and the left tried to shame anyone who dared support Trump. In return support for Trump was underground and people were not honest when asked by pollsters who they supported. Hillary was never winning. She simply never knew, until it was too late, that she was losing.
16
The Comey decision may have been the straw that broke the camel's back. But keep in mind the camel was unecessarily loaded with hacked e-mails that confirmed the primaries were essentially set up to heavily favor Clinton, the revelations of Wall St speaking fees, lack of recommended campaigning in the critical states Clinto lost, and the private e-mail server Clinton denied having until it was so obvious the blind could see it.
These were all self-inflicted wounds. Comey was the salt.
These were all self-inflicted wounds. Comey was the salt.
12
How's that "alternative election narrative" (your own words) working for you?
4
The only fact based narrative is that she lost. Move on Democrats.
5
"One could imagine how Mr. Comey’s letter might have swayed voters who remained undecided heading into Election Day."
How could a sentient mammal be undecided in that election? Oh, wait: we're talking about American voters.
How could a sentient mammal be undecided in that election? Oh, wait: we're talking about American voters.
3
Right? If someone does not agree personally with you they must be complete idiots?
5
Seriously. And the Dems still can't understand why she lost.
3
The post title says it all, but I'd argue 2016 is the year we learned to be more skeptical of election analytics as a whole and especially in something as unique as the electoral college system of choosing a president. It's understandable to miss a state or two but three or four means the model needs some serious work. Just as there's a reason to be skeptical of the Comey effect on Clinton can't we be equally skeptical of his choice to announce her investigation while keeping quiet about Trump's investigation? I don't think we need a raft of polls to answer that question.
Good job, Nate.
Now can you figure out why the NYT (among others) had Clinton with and 80 to 85 percent chance of winning the presidency up to the morning of November 6th
That should be a bit more of a challenge.
Now can you figure out why the NYT (among others) had Clinton with and 80 to 85 percent chance of winning the presidency up to the morning of November 6th
That should be a bit more of a challenge.
14
Why do some people not understand that 80% does not mean 100%? If your chances of being the victim of a crime are 2% and then you are the victim of a crime are you shocked that it was possible at all?
Hillary held about a 4-6% lead in almost all the polls and that was the probability they calculated from that. Of course no one expected Comey to do what he did.
Hillary held about a 4-6% lead in almost all the polls and that was the probability they calculated from that. Of course no one expected Comey to do what he did.
4
Comey couldn't have 'done what he did' if Hillary hadn't 'done what she did'.
2
Most of the polls had a 1 to 3% margin of error. That means each candidate's totals might be +/- 1 to 3%. If it was a 3% margin of error, it seems that it should be a statistical dead heat. How could the NYT say there was an 80% chance of one candidate winning? Such a statement repeated over weeks and months in a national newspaper could very well affect the way people vote. The NYT needs to run an explanation addressing how these numbers were calculated (because the NYT is going to do it again at the next major election).
Cohn completely misses the point. Florida was always supporting Trump. But more important, regardless of whether one holds the effect of what Comey did to be minimally, moderately or maximally effective in influencing the outcome of an election, nevertheless, he engaged in action that DID influence an election, and that was illegal. (And Comey new better but did it anyway.) All Cohn's article does is whitewash and diminish the truth of that. (And Southern Boy's comment gives support to the fact that many don't care if elections are won illegally, but only so long as the winner is the one they support.)
6
The last minute shift toward Trump came from Republican leaning voters, some "undecided", others were flirting with supporting G. Johnson, Evan McMullen or D. Castle and decided to come home. Arguably, these voters were Trump's to lose, but never Mrs. Clinton's to win. The Comey letter can't be entirely dismissed as a factor, but it did not appear in a vacuum. Even many of Mrs. Clinton's supporters did not consider her trustworthy or honest, so it was easier for many to believe the worst. Let's not forget that Comey's prior report deciding not to indict was attacked by Republicans. For Comey to be the whipping boy for Mrs Clinton's loss is ironic and wrongheaded.
10
While nobody can say exactly for sure, the strong circumstantial evidence points to Mich, Pa, Wisc. These were the only three states at the end that Hillary was supposed to win and lost to Trump.
What do these three states have in common?? loss of blue collar jobs to slave labor countries.
Trump demagogued the issue, Hillary never really cared about it, too busy running her extreme I am a woman identity politics campaign that bolstered her up with her base but drew nobody else in.
It so alienated people that she actually lost 53% of the white women vote to a bigoted, rabble rousing, admitted sexual predator, ego maniac demagogue.
That is how bad of a campaign she ran.
She didn't learn from Obama who ran an an American and not as a black.
What do these three states have in common?? loss of blue collar jobs to slave labor countries.
Trump demagogued the issue, Hillary never really cared about it, too busy running her extreme I am a woman identity politics campaign that bolstered her up with her base but drew nobody else in.
It so alienated people that she actually lost 53% of the white women vote to a bigoted, rabble rousing, admitted sexual predator, ego maniac demagogue.
That is how bad of a campaign she ran.
She didn't learn from Obama who ran an an American and not as a black.
26
For myself, Mr. Comey's announcement did have some effect. However, my feeling was that Mrs. Clinton and the Democratic Party's sense of entitlement of Mrs. Clinton for the nomination had "the worst" effect on her having lost. Then there was Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and donations to the DNC and Mrs. Clinton's running for president, the leaking of Mrs. Clinton's e-mails, and of course her private server. I also didbn;y like her "smugness" at times. I'm sure I've left out a few more reasons, but this will suffice.
10
So you're saying you don't like politicians who a.) act with a sense of entitlement b.) lie about and/or cover up their mistakes c.) behave in a smug superior manner and d.) engage in shady business dealings for their own personal enrichment? And that's why you prefer Trump to Clinton? Really?
1
You sound as if Trump is not the corrupt individual we all know him to be, that he is using his office to enrich himself and his family and maybe some Goldman Sachs "friends" that he hopes will accept him socially into their elite class. So much was made of Hillary's Goldman speech and large payment for it, but Trump got $400,000 from an educational institution in 2005 and no one cared that he took money that could have gone to education (read about his libel lawsuit).
2
@Majortrout
Wait. "The Democratic Party's sense of entitlement"???
Tell me. Is the REAL news actually getting up there???
Or, have you lost count of how much entitlement Trump and his ever-growing brood are getting away with?
Or, perhaps you simply missed the part about the so-called "Trump Foundation" being shut down by the New York State Attorney General's office for investigation?
And let's not even start about his "smugness".
I'm sure I've left out a few (dozen) more examples, but this will suffice.
Wait. "The Democratic Party's sense of entitlement"???
Tell me. Is the REAL news actually getting up there???
Or, have you lost count of how much entitlement Trump and his ever-growing brood are getting away with?
Or, perhaps you simply missed the part about the so-called "Trump Foundation" being shut down by the New York State Attorney General's office for investigation?
And let's not even start about his "smugness".
I'm sure I've left out a few (dozen) more examples, but this will suffice.
1
This article doesn't have conclusive proof, and as they point out, the Comey news dominated the headlines the final week of the campaign. I also don't entirely blame Comey for this; it seems to me he was between a rock and hard place on this decision.
5
Here's a thought for Hillary. Release the emails when subpeonaed, as she was legally bound to do. If she had released the emails six months before the Comey fiasco, this would never had been an issue. Instead she stalled and then chose which email to submit, and destroy the rest (like with a cloth?).
Somehow I would have the thought "the most qualified candiate that ever ran" would know how to comply with a subpeona.
Somehow I would have the thought "the most qualified candiate that ever ran" would know how to comply with a subpeona.
25
Right more qualified than TJ, JQA?
Elliot,
I agree that she should have released the emails before she did, but she should have released all of her State Department related emails at the point when she realized that the Freedom of Information Act and State Department regulations required making available all of those emails. She should have turned over all those emails no later than upon leaving the State Department. When she didn't, she was simply ignoring, willfully or not, the requirements of her job.
I agree that she should have released the emails before she did, but she should have released all of her State Department related emails at the point when she realized that the Freedom of Information Act and State Department regulations required making available all of those emails. She should have turned over all those emails no later than upon leaving the State Department. When she didn't, she was simply ignoring, willfully or not, the requirements of her job.
3
You can argue both sides of the Comey effect on the election. Many believe he did her a favor for not pushing a prosecution and stating that although she did violate laws, they did not rise to a level that should be prosecuted.
You can imagine the effect of an indictment vs the investigation of Weiner emails. HRC got lucky after they caught her covert server.
You can imagine the effect of an indictment vs the investigation of Weiner emails. HRC got lucky after they caught her covert server.
11
Umm...this seems to match the 538 polls sorted by date: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/national-polls/
For instance, ABC is showing a tie Oct 26-29, Clinton +2 Oct 30-Nov 2, and Clinton +4 Nov 3-6. It would look like Clinton gained after the Comey letter.
For instance, ABC is showing a tie Oct 26-29, Clinton +2 Oct 30-Nov 2, and Clinton +4 Nov 3-6. It would look like Clinton gained after the Comey letter.
2
How is one man responsible for the moral bankruptcy of 63,000,000 Americans who voted for a convicted "racist for profit"?
PLEASE STOP!
This country is lost. And it's not because of Comey. It's not even because of Trump. It's because 63,000,000 Americans have no moral compass. That is why this country is lost - Small minds and even smaller hearts in a very large minority of people in this country.
It's a tragedy worthy of Shakespeare.
PLEASE STOP!
This country is lost. And it's not because of Comey. It's not even because of Trump. It's because 63,000,000 Americans have no moral compass. That is why this country is lost - Small minds and even smaller hearts in a very large minority of people in this country.
It's a tragedy worthy of Shakespeare.
24
Yes, we needed someone with the clintons' moral compass. Couldnt agree more
3
Hillary was better? Sanders would have won if he was the democratic nominee. Lesser of two evils and trump was elected.
4
What does "convicted 'racist for profit'" mean?
1
The evidence here is pretty limited, but it is pretty clear that Hillary was totally responsible for losing the election. Please read Jocko Willink's Extreme Ownership book.
8
And why not get back to us when you have more exacting evidence and proof of your deduction.
Just for the record. No one is ever 100% of anything.
Just for the record. No one is ever 100% of anything.
2
If Comey had an effect on the election, I believe that it was minimal.
The real reason Hillary Clinton lost was that Donald Trump was campaigning on the basis of creating jobs and revitalizing the American economy. However, Trump was advocating a repeat of the economic policies of George W. Bush as a means of accomplishing both. YET, the Clinton campaign (except once during the debates) made no mention of it. If I was running her campaign, I would have beat that drum loud and often!
Instead, Hillary Clinton's campaign was based on political correctness: what Trump said about women, Latinos, Blacks, etc. When people are desperate, they do not care about political correctness. They want relief! So, they voted for Trump.
The Democratic party needs to realize this and return to the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt. Otherwise, we will end up with eight years of a Trump presidency.
The real reason Hillary Clinton lost was that Donald Trump was campaigning on the basis of creating jobs and revitalizing the American economy. However, Trump was advocating a repeat of the economic policies of George W. Bush as a means of accomplishing both. YET, the Clinton campaign (except once during the debates) made no mention of it. If I was running her campaign, I would have beat that drum loud and often!
Instead, Hillary Clinton's campaign was based on political correctness: what Trump said about women, Latinos, Blacks, etc. When people are desperate, they do not care about political correctness. They want relief! So, they voted for Trump.
The Democratic party needs to realize this and return to the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt. Otherwise, we will end up with eight years of a Trump presidency.
11
Believe what you want. It's easier than facts and thinking.
And how many jobs have you seen Trump materialize since then? -- Or, are you counting on construction jobs when he builds that wall against Mexico???
2
Why don't you quit beating a dead horse and get on with important stuff!
7
She self destructed from her own hubris. End of story.
17
Do you even know what hubris means? Look it up and you'll find a photo of Donald Trump. End of story.
3
Yes, keep insulting people's intelligence. That's how you won in 2016. Oh, wait...
I am still miffed that the Democrats did not spend more time in the traditionally Republican enclaves. I kept waiting for the opportunity to attend a Clinton rally, but she completely ignored Louisiana. This city voted 86% for Clinton, even though we are part of the red state, Louisiana, which now has a Democrat in the Governor's office. Only the rural areas of this state vote Repugnant-cant.
Same with the Mississippi Gulf Coast---it should have voted for Clinton, but no one there ever had a chance to shake her hand at any pass-through visit. I was in shock to see Hancock and Harrison counties vote Repugnant-cant.
Same with the Mississippi Gulf Coast---it should have voted for Clinton, but no one there ever had a chance to shake her hand at any pass-through visit. I was in shock to see Hancock and Harrison counties vote Repugnant-cant.
3
" I kept waiting for the opportunity to attend a Clinton rally, but she completely ignored Louisiana."
She was correct in writing off the south still stuck in the 1850's. Wrong in ignoring Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pa.
She was correct in writing off the south still stuck in the 1850's. Wrong in ignoring Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pa.
1
"The South" is not stuck in the 1850s. Many rural southerners might be, but you apparently have not visited here in the past 30 years or so. Check the old political maps from the elections of 2016 and earlier.
1
No offense. But it's the 1850's -- and as long as "Colonel" Jeff Sessions is in charge, and those Confederate statues keep standing, it's going to stay that way.
1
Though I think the Comey letter sealed HRC's political fate, the real reason Trump won is that the US media has forgotten how to do journalism.
When Angela Merkel visited the US recently, US journalists were gushing over the courage of German journalists for asking questions of Trump like: "Why do you keep saying things you know are not true?" When is the last time you heard a US journalist asking such questions of their political leaders?
The US media has become so used to schmoozing up to politicians in return for access, so dedicated to chasing ratings at all costs, that they essentially handed a pathological liar and fraud a megaphone with which to hoodwink a nation without ever seriously challenging his bona fides. A candidate like Trump would have been eviscerated by the media in any other Western democracy. Marine Le Pen is a much more experienced politican than Trump and look at the way she was trounced in the recent poll. Trump's numbers in last year's election should have been comparable.
When Angela Merkel visited the US recently, US journalists were gushing over the courage of German journalists for asking questions of Trump like: "Why do you keep saying things you know are not true?" When is the last time you heard a US journalist asking such questions of their political leaders?
The US media has become so used to schmoozing up to politicians in return for access, so dedicated to chasing ratings at all costs, that they essentially handed a pathological liar and fraud a megaphone with which to hoodwink a nation without ever seriously challenging his bona fides. A candidate like Trump would have been eviscerated by the media in any other Western democracy. Marine Le Pen is a much more experienced politican than Trump and look at the way she was trounced in the recent poll. Trump's numbers in last year's election should have been comparable.
16
The U.S. mass media is controlled by conglomerates whose interests often require very happy relations with elected officials, so journalists are not free to anger people like Trump too often. Those Germans faced no backlash to their employers but the Americans present would have if they said those things to Trump.
2
"When is the last time you heard a US journalist asking such questions of their political leaders?"
During debates! As you know, journalists from time to time get the questions in advance, feed questions to politicians for approval and preparation of pat answers.
During debates! As you know, journalists from time to time get the questions in advance, feed questions to politicians for approval and preparation of pat answers.
2
Comey was the straw that broke the camel's back. Like anyone who had been in politics for a long time, Hillary had some baggage. Can you imagine the baggage that Trump will have at the end of his term? The one good thing about this election is that it woke people up. I look forward to the next election. It will not be clean but nowhere as dirty as this one. Unfortunately we got what we deserved this time.
2
I thought Clinton was a fantastic candidate. I thought the email server thing was a nothing issue that got blown up and translated into a huge security problem (witness Pence using his private email for government business, and the fact that security slips are not uncommon in the fairly new digital world).
I found her intelligent, extremely well versed in every issue, honest and caring. Sure, she was a political person and part of her husband's past, but so what? The criticism and disgust and "lock her up" heaped on her from the beginning wreaked of people not willing to accept a woman as president. If she was too much of one thing, she was not enough of another. Stories of her abounded on the internet - her involvement in a child porn ring, etc. etc. The Witch of America - we can't have HER! But a lying, stupid, crude, ignorant, narcissistic and yes, cruel man WON. Duhhh. What does this tell you?
I found her intelligent, extremely well versed in every issue, honest and caring. Sure, she was a political person and part of her husband's past, but so what? The criticism and disgust and "lock her up" heaped on her from the beginning wreaked of people not willing to accept a woman as president. If she was too much of one thing, she was not enough of another. Stories of her abounded on the internet - her involvement in a child porn ring, etc. etc. The Witch of America - we can't have HER! But a lying, stupid, crude, ignorant, narcissistic and yes, cruel man WON. Duhhh. What does this tell you?
10
I am pretty sure the governor of Indiana doesn't deal with highly classified information, so your comparison is inapt.
She blew it all on her own. To lose to a fraud, traitor, sexual predator like Trump she lowered the bar for the next potential female candidate. Yes he colluded with the Russians. Yes, he is a traitor. Yes, he is a sexual predator. How bad does one have to be to lose to a cretin like that? The only good thing about a Trump presidency, is that it showed the Clintons the back door.
6
First of all. Clinton didn't lose to a fraud, traitor, and sexual predator like Trump.
She lost to the Electoral College.
REAL Facts, next time.
She lost to the Electoral College.
REAL Facts, next time.
1
the polls were hacked to cover their tracks, just wait for it
Comey may or may not have had an effect...but whether he did or did not, so what? The careless handling of top-secret material, and the sense of entitlement and impunity inherent in keeping an email server in your basement and conducting government business through it, are legitimate political issues. Saying Clinton lost votes because of Comey is the same as saying that Clinton lost votes because her professional improprieties attracted the attention of law enforcement is the same as saying Trump lost female votes because a private conversation was taped and released. The bed was entirely of the candidate's own making.
...and there continues to be greater evidence of Clinton mishandling of government documents than of any "collusion" between the Trump Campaign and Russia; though only the latter has attracted a congressional investigation, which itself has turned up evidence of exactly one Trump appointee failing to disclose payments he received a decade ago, for work that was otherwise carried out fully in public view. How many Senate hours have gone into chasing a procedural blunder?
...and there continues to be greater evidence of Clinton mishandling of government documents than of any "collusion" between the Trump Campaign and Russia; though only the latter has attracted a congressional investigation, which itself has turned up evidence of exactly one Trump appointee failing to disclose payments he received a decade ago, for work that was otherwise carried out fully in public view. How many Senate hours have gone into chasing a procedural blunder?
5
The day before Comey's statement she was surging at the polls and thinking of campaigning in Alaska, etc.
Most importantly, Trump was totally on the defensive as women kept coming out of the woodwork with statements regarding his man handling them.
The day after Comey's statement that issue totally disappeared.
Most importantly, Trump was totally on the defensive as women kept coming out of the woodwork with statements regarding his man handling them.
The day after Comey's statement that issue totally disappeared.
4
Now we're using the polls that were so obviously incorrect (Trump WON!) to prove that Comey did not influence the election outcome? The polls are too inherently tainted and erroneous to be used as evidence of anything.
This argument, based solely on polls that have been debunked, is worthless.
This argument, based solely on polls that have been debunked, is worthless.
4
Polls a predicted snapshot of votes, and they did a quite good job at that. There have been no polls that have been "debunked." Your argument, such as it is, indicates you either didn't understandd this article or that you simply wish away its evidence and conclusions.
As the article states, the polls that were conducted, i.e. concluded, right before news of Comey's letter but released after the news showed that Clinton's numbers had already fallen significantly ahead of the letter.
As the article states, the polls that were conducted, i.e. concluded, right before news of Comey's letter but released after the news showed that Clinton's numbers had already fallen significantly ahead of the letter.
Is this new analysis supposed to deflect from the fact this pollster and many others interpreted the data so very wrong?
4
Did Comey cost HRC the election? I sure hope he did because I did not want HRC to be the president of the US under any circumstances whatsoever! Thank you.
7
The MAJORITY of us out here feel the exact same about Donald Trump -- that's why we didn't vote for him, and why he didn't get the popular vote.
40-42% approval rating? -- Worst president ever!
No. Thank you.
40-42% approval rating? -- Worst president ever!
No. Thank you.
3
The "deplorables" statement did it for me. I closely read Mr. Comey's letter to Congress near the end of the campaign, and it seemed to me to be a procedural letter. It didn't have any new information about Mrs. Clinton's email travails, nor did it give reason to think that new information would be forthcoming.
But it seems to me that when a candidate calls a significant portion of the voting public "deplorable," she has written off those who disagree with her. I was not a fan of Mr. Trump, but I decided that the lesser of the two evils was the person who at least seemed to treat the voting public respectfully in his campaign comments.
But it seems to me that when a candidate calls a significant portion of the voting public "deplorable," she has written off those who disagree with her. I was not a fan of Mr. Trump, but I decided that the lesser of the two evils was the person who at least seemed to treat the voting public respectfully in his campaign comments.
16
Steve that was the moment for me.
The contempt in that womans voice and eyes was the deciding moment to give her the finger by casting my vote for Trump.
The contempt in that womans voice and eyes was the deciding moment to give her the finger by casting my vote for Trump.
1
Really? You think Donald Trump treated voters respectfully? He may have done so with his own supporters, although even that is questionable given his derogatory comments about women, but he certainly didn't exhibit respect for anyone else.
2
What selective memory you have. Trump only treated the voting public who were said they would vote for him with respect. Do any of these quotes from Donald ring a bell? "Get him the hell otta here?" "Knock the crap out of him!" etc. etc. etc. "Deplorables" seems rather tame in comparison I think.
8
J K Galbraith writes, in advice to a young bureaucrat, remember that experts, no matter how convincing or convinced they are, can be wrong
or, this is another example of how "data" is not hard numbers; as any engineer or scientist knows, "data" needs to be evaluated oh so carefully, esp if the data support your pet theory
or, this is another example of how "data" is not hard numbers; as any engineer or scientist knows, "data" needs to be evaluated oh so carefully, esp if the data support your pet theory
3
The closeness was obvious. The impact immediately on anyone with a mind was obvious. The paper thin win remains obvious. So why an inflated claim in your headline followed by a plethora of admissions that there is no way to know the answer. What we can assume is Comey's likely awareness of what he was doing or might be doing. We can assume Trump used the Comey intervention to the max. And we know that Hillary was mortally wounded by Comey and would have remained so had she won. Spilled milk? No, a travesty which will be accentuated by stories like this? Most assuredly.
4
Ok, then let's do this exercise. Invert the order of events: release Trump's horrible Billy Bush video on Oct 28, and have Comey send the letter to Congress back in September. Think about it. Who would be president now?
3
Clinton was ‘weaker than was understood at the time’. Oh, I see. But what was blocking that understanding, please? An illusory bubble that our political media lives in?
The whole campaign was distorted. Clinton was the entitled one, the next Clinton to assume the role of president. The Dem party saw to that.
And crucially, she was the anti Trump, thus could do no wrong. Her role as the martyr to the rw Gop crazy extremists was played out. And is still playing out. But many see thru the script.
The standards of US politics keep getting lower.
We saw that a truly progressive candidate who wants to explicitly reverse the Gop destruction of the New Deal and Great Society is first ignored.
Then, when he wins millions of votes in primaries and gets millions in small donations, he’s dissed and disrespected, even by liberals in the NYT.
The prominent economists who endorsed his plan to regulate big Wall St banks, were hardly even reported on, much less properly discussed.
What could be more warped than that? The Comey letter is so convenient.
Will the 2016 campaign scare off the future progressives that we so badly need to run for office?
And, why are the French polls more accurate than US polls?
The whole campaign was distorted. Clinton was the entitled one, the next Clinton to assume the role of president. The Dem party saw to that.
And crucially, she was the anti Trump, thus could do no wrong. Her role as the martyr to the rw Gop crazy extremists was played out. And is still playing out. But many see thru the script.
The standards of US politics keep getting lower.
We saw that a truly progressive candidate who wants to explicitly reverse the Gop destruction of the New Deal and Great Society is first ignored.
Then, when he wins millions of votes in primaries and gets millions in small donations, he’s dissed and disrespected, even by liberals in the NYT.
The prominent economists who endorsed his plan to regulate big Wall St banks, were hardly even reported on, much less properly discussed.
What could be more warped than that? The Comey letter is so convenient.
Will the 2016 campaign scare off the future progressives that we so badly need to run for office?
And, why are the French polls more accurate than US polls?
14
Why isn't Comey investigating & prosecuting Sessions for lying to Congress during his confirmation hearings?
4
He didnt lie. Plain and simple.
4
@jason
No? Well, you must have selective memory problems, because Sessions LIED about meeting with the Russians during Trump's campaign.
cnn.com/2017/03/01/politics/jeff-sessions-russian...
No? Well, you must have selective memory problems, because Sessions LIED about meeting with the Russians during Trump's campaign.
cnn.com/2017/03/01/politics/jeff-sessions-russian...
2
It is time to admit we have been played at the highest level of an elected official in the US government by the combination of a full court press by conservative media, one or more of our international enemies, and at least one former friend. The object was not Clinton, the object was dissolution of the federal system by placing a fool in the White House. Nate Cohn was trying to study the trees when the forest was moving. Think bigger, Nate. Think like Murdock or the Koch brothers. They have accomplished a 30 year mission.
3
It was Hillary Clinton's job to sell herself to the voters. The reason she lost: HRC did not convince enough voters. [I voted for her while holding my nose.]
It was either her actions & behaviors or a vast years' long effort to cast her as an unethical person that made the sales job more difficult, probably both.
All other explanations are nonsense. She had a job to do, and she failed.
Blaming others accomplishes nothing beyond the entertainment value of reports such as these.
It was either her actions & behaviors or a vast years' long effort to cast her as an unethical person that made the sales job more difficult, probably both.
All other explanations are nonsense. She had a job to do, and she failed.
Blaming others accomplishes nothing beyond the entertainment value of reports such as these.
16
What is clear is that Mrs. Clinton is getting in the way of the Resistance. Here she is trying to relive the election and making herself the focus of discussion (what else is new?) while the Resistance is aiming squarely at Trump. She lost (not for the first time), she is a distraction and Democrats want to keep their eyes on the prize: the mid-terms and an opportunity to take back the House and/or Senate in a wave election. Mrs. Clinton can help by exiting stage left or stage right but exiting.
10
Comey, the Russians, misogyny, racism, sexism, the vast right wing conspiracy: so many excuses, so little proof. It would be great if the Times would run a couple of articles by historians and psychologists exploring the eternal human need for scapegoats explaining why otherwise reasonable, rational people start wearing tin foil hats and looking for excuses when the world does not turn out the way they had hoped.
7
"Her Turn", "Weak Canidate", "She is a crook". Do people never get tired of saying the same thing over and over again like sheep? Hillary Clinton would have won the election except for Comey, Russia and the press. It was Trump, Trump, Trump 24/7. Cutting away from news to show Trump getting off an airplane, cutting away from news to show Trump lamblasting some poor Republican canidate. Cutting away from everything to tell us about Trump's latest tweet!! I got so sick of hearing about her email server I thought I was going to expire. The NYT and other news media saw surefire ratings with Trump, so they covered him. The American public, who also love Big Macs and Whoppers much more than they love food good for them, voted for the Big Mac instead of a meal that might have let them live a few more years.
So here we are, a crook and liar in the White House surrounding himself with more crooks and liars running the country and it's people into the ground for his own monetary gain. And all these people scream about how it was all her fault. How in God's name did she have a chance?
So here we are, a crook and liar in the White House surrounding himself with more crooks and liars running the country and it's people into the ground for his own monetary gain. And all these people scream about how it was all her fault. How in God's name did she have a chance?
10
I wasnt tired of the emails or Bengazhi.
She should be in prision. Comey basically layed out the reason why she should be locked up but decided "there wasnt intent". LOL
Let me say that when I break a law (she broke numerous) and my self defense is "judge I swear it wasnt my intent".
Have fun having your head stuck in the sand.
She should be in prision. Comey basically layed out the reason why she should be locked up but decided "there wasnt intent". LOL
Let me say that when I break a law (she broke numerous) and my self defense is "judge I swear it wasnt my intent".
Have fun having your head stuck in the sand.
4
@jason
If she should be in prison, so should Donald Trump (Tax evasion, Emoluents Clause), Mike Flynn (Perjury, Treason), and House Republicans (Crimes against humanity).
If she should be in prison, so should Donald Trump (Tax evasion, Emoluents Clause), Mike Flynn (Perjury, Treason), and House Republicans (Crimes against humanity).
2
Do you have any evidence for any of those claims? Share it with us.
People....we do not live in Athens. We are not a direct democracy where all votes have equal weight.
We are a Republic, and the founding fathers did not just design the electoral college because of slavery. Its like people today just believe that the founding fathers were white racist slave owning morons who didnt have a clue about the reasons why they designed this nation the way they did.
The founding fathers knew about Athens, and also knew about the downfall of Athens. They knew about the tyranny of the majority. They knew that cities would overwhelmingly have power and rural areas would have no real voice if they created a direct democracy. They knew that direct democracys almost always lead to dictatorship and facism through years of intellectual argument and analysis of the past.
While the electoral college definitely needs to be updated to take into account the changes in population, it is still a great invention that allows rural areas to have a voice in choosing the President.
As we slowly destroy the protections in the congress and allow the tyranny of the majority to begin (the big nuclear option, legislative filibuster, is already walking to the guillotine), we should try to analyze all the reasons why the founding fathers designed this nation the way they did. Not every decision they made was directly related to being racist mysogynist greedy pigs.
We are a Republic, and the founding fathers did not just design the electoral college because of slavery. Its like people today just believe that the founding fathers were white racist slave owning morons who didnt have a clue about the reasons why they designed this nation the way they did.
The founding fathers knew about Athens, and also knew about the downfall of Athens. They knew about the tyranny of the majority. They knew that cities would overwhelmingly have power and rural areas would have no real voice if they created a direct democracy. They knew that direct democracys almost always lead to dictatorship and facism through years of intellectual argument and analysis of the past.
While the electoral college definitely needs to be updated to take into account the changes in population, it is still a great invention that allows rural areas to have a voice in choosing the President.
As we slowly destroy the protections in the congress and allow the tyranny of the majority to begin (the big nuclear option, legislative filibuster, is already walking to the guillotine), we should try to analyze all the reasons why the founding fathers designed this nation the way they did. Not every decision they made was directly related to being racist mysogynist greedy pigs.
8
You're only half-right -- the electoral college was about preventing the rise of a dictator, but not because it makes some votes count for more than others. The safeguard mechanism was the fact that the electors were not legally obligated to vote the way their districts did, such that even if the majority of the populace rallied behind someone destructive to democracy, the electors could essentially override it to prevent that person from actually taking office. Since that bulwark against destructive populism actually failed us, and actually backfired to allow the destructive populist to take office without even having a majority, I feel like it's time to re-examine the wisdom of this system.
3
Interesting thought, however:
(1) the US and the world were mostly agricultural and the industrial revolution has not really started when the Constitution was written.
(2) The Senate did not until at least 100+ years later set up the rules that enabled the nuclear option. The nuclear option was put into place by Harry Reid, a Democrat, though it was known at the time that there would be serious consequences (by either party) if he proceeded. Since the late 1970's following the Nixon era, we, the American public, have paid a heavy price for the absence of our two parties failing to work together. BOTH are at fault and failing us when we need them the most to work together.
(1) the US and the world were mostly agricultural and the industrial revolution has not really started when the Constitution was written.
(2) The Senate did not until at least 100+ years later set up the rules that enabled the nuclear option. The nuclear option was put into place by Harry Reid, a Democrat, though it was known at the time that there would be serious consequences (by either party) if he proceeded. Since the late 1970's following the Nixon era, we, the American public, have paid a heavy price for the absence of our two parties failing to work together. BOTH are at fault and failing us when we need them the most to work together.
3
I agree with David Axelrod. Clinton really had to work at losing this. She ran a rambling campaign with way too many staff writing reports, too few boots on the ground sans clipboards, and an amazing lack of concern regarding internet security. She ignored Wisconsin and Michigan while pouring huge resources into Florida and North Carolina. Her secretiveness about her pneumonia just fueled speculation about her health/stamina in general and her deserving trust. Her insults to certain groups of voters was truly deplorable and demeaning. She showed that she loves bureaucracy, as witnessed by her campaign organization, and is not a natural leader. She came across as a valuable staff person but not a CEO.
20
Her problem was also the people she surrounded herself with. All kinds of celebrities. They pumped her up into thinking they the celebrities had her back. The voters did not care one bit that Meryl Streep voted for Hillary. So?
4
The evidence here is pretty limited, but it seems to support the theory that Russia/Wikileaks cost Clinton the election.
6
James Comey rescued Hillary Clinton by recommending she not be indicted for mishandling classified information on grounds she did so without criminal intent. However, the law makes carelessly handling classified information a felony offense whether or not criminal intent is involved. People who worked outside the federal government don't realize the seriousness of the offense. Federal workers are not allowed to have classified information on their workspace computers, except for a few computers authorized to process classified information. The notion that any federal worker would route official agency email, including classified information, to a home computer is almost beyond belief.
8
People who work *inside* the federal government don't seem to realize the seriousness of the offense either -- both Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell had private email accounts to which government material was forwarded while they were Secretary of State. We don't know whether any of it was classified, because nobody launched a big public-spectacle investigation into either of them. Surveys have actually shown that a majority of government officials have forwarded work emails to their private accounts.
Comey decided to investigate Clinton for something everyone else in Washington was doing. Then, he decided to go against FBI policy and publicly confirm the existence of this investigation. Then, upon finding nothing incriminating, he decided to preface his exoneration of her with this twenty minute monologue about how terrible and irresponsible she is. And then, when potential new evidence came in, rather than actually look at it first to see if there's anything of substance in it, his first reaction is to make a big public announcement about the *possibility* that there's something new in what he found, again violating FBI protocols, a week away from election day. And all the while, the other guy's campaign team was and still is under investigation for potential treason, and suddenly he's all, "no, we can't make that public, it might affect the election!"
Explain to me where in all of that ridiculousness Comey did any favors to Clinton.
Comey decided to investigate Clinton for something everyone else in Washington was doing. Then, he decided to go against FBI policy and publicly confirm the existence of this investigation. Then, upon finding nothing incriminating, he decided to preface his exoneration of her with this twenty minute monologue about how terrible and irresponsible she is. And then, when potential new evidence came in, rather than actually look at it first to see if there's anything of substance in it, his first reaction is to make a big public announcement about the *possibility* that there's something new in what he found, again violating FBI protocols, a week away from election day. And all the while, the other guy's campaign team was and still is under investigation for potential treason, and suddenly he's all, "no, we can't make that public, it might affect the election!"
Explain to me where in all of that ridiculousness Comey did any favors to Clinton.
3
Yes, she should be thanking Comey, not blaming him. His finding that she lacked intent seemed like an excuse to not prosecute. People didn't like that he opined, but that was in lieu of prosecuting.
2
What is interesting to me is that every time voters were able to compare Mrs. Clinton with Mr. Trump--the debates and the conventions--, her numbers jumped tremendously. Then in the periods where the two were not immediately comparable situations, her numbers dropped.
That seems to indicate to me that voters stopped trusting their own eyes and ears and reverted to pre-conceptions.
That seems to indicate to me that voters stopped trusting their own eyes and ears and reverted to pre-conceptions.
11
Although Mrs. Clinton chooses to blame her loss on Mr. Comey's disclosure and while there is no doubt that it hurt her campaign, the truth is often more nuanced. According to a mid October CBS poll, long before Director Comey's second disclosure, Mrs. Clinton was a candidate whom 64% of the voters believed was untrustworthy. It is difficult, if not impossible, to be elected dogcatcher with such poll numbers. Whether fairly or not, Mrs. Clinton had incredible difficulties in communicating with the American people and earning their trust. That situation never was ameliorated and as the campaign went into its final stretch, there was an astonishing number of voters who were undecided, probably because both candidates presented many flaws. More undecideds broke for Mr. Trump, which was his narrow difference in the states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that tipped the balance and elected him President.
10
This is very unconvincing. The election was razor-thin close and the Comey letter was a thunderbolt, which clearly rallied Trump and his supporters. It was also astoundingly misguided for an FBI director to weigh in as he did -- especially given what he knew and concealed about Trump's conduct that was being investigated.
16
Hillary Clinton WON this election based on those who voted, even while hackers and Comey worked hard to defeat her (despite his mild nausea).
Sad to think many who voted for her were afforded only a partial vote, while sparsely populated area votes were given more weight. Is that fair? I don't think so. So, no export tax from blue states to these red zones anymore!! Taxation without representation sound familiar?
Sad to think many who voted for her were afforded only a partial vote, while sparsely populated area votes were given more weight. Is that fair? I don't think so. So, no export tax from blue states to these red zones anymore!! Taxation without representation sound familiar?
7
Do you understand why the electoral college was created? Please study. Btw people w top secret security clearances would have lost that clearance if they had done a fraction of what she did.
4
comey did what he was supposed to do. let it rest. her campaign proved she didn't have a grip on what the US [and us] need and want, not that trump has the vaguest idea of what is right, either.
2
I am a Democrat, and Mr. Comey is not responsible for her defeat.
Two issues caused her defeat. HC was not right the candidate for this particular election (not her fault). She had no change message and she was not a change candidate. And, we see this article showing HC's weakness as we moved closer to the election date.
HC sabotaged herself with her email server. We want to remember Mr. Comey would not have had anything to investigate if HC had not created the investigable issue to start with way before Mr. Comey and the FBI entered the scene.
Two issues caused her defeat. HC was not right the candidate for this particular election (not her fault). She had no change message and she was not a change candidate. And, we see this article showing HC's weakness as we moved closer to the election date.
HC sabotaged herself with her email server. We want to remember Mr. Comey would not have had anything to investigate if HC had not created the investigable issue to start with way before Mr. Comey and the FBI entered the scene.
7
Wrong! Previous Secretaries of State (I.e., Colin Powell) had used private email servers, it was the emphasis from the anti-Hillary forces that her use of it was deemed unusual and bad.
7
@jace.black. Your points reflect views often mentioned about this last election, but I think there's an alternative view depending on the premises.
It was a change election if you believed Obama and the Democrats were the wrong people for the economy (despite the US doing the best among countries in a difficult worldwide recovery) and foreign policy ('we're all gonna die cause of Muslims/ISIS') the last 8 years, which was basically the tired refrain from Fox News. HRC had to buck that impression while basically offering to extend the good of the Obama years.
The email 'controversy' was a contrived issue way out of proportion to it's actual consequences. Former SOS's Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice had private email accounts even less secure that Hillary's. And the RNC deleted tens of millions of emails from the Bush junior's administration as did Jeb and Mitt from their times as governors. All these were widely reported but no one seems to have made much of an issue of their email faux pas.
So, one's views about HRC's suitability as a candidate depends significantly on the scale applied to various issues and how fair you're being to her candidacy. But that's just my opinion.
It was a change election if you believed Obama and the Democrats were the wrong people for the economy (despite the US doing the best among countries in a difficult worldwide recovery) and foreign policy ('we're all gonna die cause of Muslims/ISIS') the last 8 years, which was basically the tired refrain from Fox News. HRC had to buck that impression while basically offering to extend the good of the Obama years.
The email 'controversy' was a contrived issue way out of proportion to it's actual consequences. Former SOS's Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice had private email accounts even less secure that Hillary's. And the RNC deleted tens of millions of emails from the Bush junior's administration as did Jeb and Mitt from their times as governors. All these were widely reported but no one seems to have made much of an issue of their email faux pas.
So, one's views about HRC's suitability as a candidate depends significantly on the scale applied to various issues and how fair you're being to her candidacy. But that's just my opinion.
2
You and others who make this argument seem to forget that the internet, and email, developed rapidly in the last decade. Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice (often mentioned along with him) lived in a very different cyberworld. HRC had a techno-savvy staff that they did not -- could not, as the techno didn't then exist. If she didn't know better, her "aides" who did should have told her.
2
Comey, Russian hacking, Bernie Bros--all smoke and mirrors. Clinton lost because she and her campaign couldn't connect with voters. They completely dismissed the fact that she had been in the public eye for decades and even those who hardly pay attention either disliked her or had Clinton fatigue. Even in the the latest book (Shattered), the campaign couldn't come up with a worthy tag line. They almost went with, "Because it's her turn." Tells you all you need to know.
Time to stop the navel gazing and get some of the deadwood out of the Democratic Party. Pelosi, Schumer and Feinstein would be a good place to start. And unless and until the Dems shake off Wall Street and their other corporate contributors, we are going to go through this election debacle over and over.
One more time for those who continue with these excuses for HRC: Bernie could have won. He captured the Rust Belt and had significant gains with working class voters and the so-called millemials. Those crowds he got weren't there just because they had nothing else to do. But the DNC and the corporatists were having none of it. Also, it might be good to remember that the Clinton campaign was most afraid of running against Marco Rubio and preferred Trump, looking at it as an easy win. Talk about poor planning.
Time to stop the navel gazing and get some of the deadwood out of the Democratic Party. Pelosi, Schumer and Feinstein would be a good place to start. And unless and until the Dems shake off Wall Street and their other corporate contributors, we are going to go through this election debacle over and over.
One more time for those who continue with these excuses for HRC: Bernie could have won. He captured the Rust Belt and had significant gains with working class voters and the so-called millemials. Those crowds he got weren't there just because they had nothing else to do. But the DNC and the corporatists were having none of it. Also, it might be good to remember that the Clinton campaign was most afraid of running against Marco Rubio and preferred Trump, looking at it as an easy win. Talk about poor planning.
11
Clinton lost because she was Clinton. Thats it. Not taking responsibility for her selfishness and her loss to the most unpopular candidate of all time pretty much proves what a weasel her and all the Clintons are.
The Clinton Democrats are just Republicans dressed up in Liberal social values. Im a transgender woman, and Id rather get a $15/hr minimum wage then be able to use the womens bathroom in a public building. I mean, Im going to us the womens bathroom no matter what any law says, but I cant just get $15/hr. The Democrats need to become the party of the working class again.
I just pray to the almighty spaghetti monster that Chelsea doesnt start asking us if we are with her. Thats when Id give up on liberalism and join the Montana militia.
The Clinton Democrats are just Republicans dressed up in Liberal social values. Im a transgender woman, and Id rather get a $15/hr minimum wage then be able to use the womens bathroom in a public building. I mean, Im going to us the womens bathroom no matter what any law says, but I cant just get $15/hr. The Democrats need to become the party of the working class again.
I just pray to the almighty spaghetti monster that Chelsea doesnt start asking us if we are with her. Thats when Id give up on liberalism and join the Montana militia.
20
"The Democrats need to become the party of the working class again."
Sounds good. Except there's really not much of a working class anymore, years of busting up Unions has pretty much seen to that -- and with Trump, we've already seen what focusing solely on one specific group means.
If anything, Democrats have to broaden their base to appeal to the entire electorate that has been left out, and left behind...and that's quite a few.
Sounds good. Except there's really not much of a working class anymore, years of busting up Unions has pretty much seen to that -- and with Trump, we've already seen what focusing solely on one specific group means.
If anything, Democrats have to broaden their base to appeal to the entire electorate that has been left out, and left behind...and that's quite a few.
4
No and no!!
There is a systemic flaw in the analysis
It looks only at relative ups and downs of H v T.
It neglects issue of voters ready to vote for H, however reluctantly, who then decided to not vote at all when her reputation was "tarnished" yet further.
The total population of voters is not a given to be distributed among H and T.
It is itself an issue if voters are deterred by the "Comey letter" if they were planning to vote for H before the letter.
Or if they were planning on not voting, and were enticed to do so by the "Comey letter" which reminded them how "nefarious" her candidacy was.
There is a systemic flaw in the analysis
It looks only at relative ups and downs of H v T.
It neglects issue of voters ready to vote for H, however reluctantly, who then decided to not vote at all when her reputation was "tarnished" yet further.
The total population of voters is not a given to be distributed among H and T.
It is itself an issue if voters are deterred by the "Comey letter" if they were planning to vote for H before the letter.
Or if they were planning on not voting, and were enticed to do so by the "Comey letter" which reminded them how "nefarious" her candidacy was.
4
This issue has to be decided before the next election. If Comey did influence the election then the electorate will all vote democratic no matter who the candidates are or what the issues are in 2 years to send a message. Or maybe the electorate has moved on from the Clintons and Hillary will just distract attention from the Democratic Candidates.
How will we ever know the critical reason that Hillary lost? It was a dynamic situation, with many influences coming together at once. But Comey's letter was a contributing factor to Clinton's loss, and I'm not letting him off the hook. He acted in a prejudicial way against Clinton as compared to Trump (Russian ties, anyone?), and I believe his actions were improper. Comey no doubt swayed some voters, and set off a wave of negative opinion against Clinton. His timing was so close to the election that Clinton could not recover from the innuendo.
To say yes or no to the Comey factor disguises what should be the focus of our attention: the interference of the FBI Director in the week before a national election. Comey was counseled against doing this action, which violated custom for federal officials.
To say yes or no to the Comey factor disguises what should be the focus of our attention: the interference of the FBI Director in the week before a national election. Comey was counseled against doing this action, which violated custom for federal officials.
6
Everything and everyone is to blame for Clinton's loss, except the candidate. Unless and until the Party does some serious soul searching, it is at serious risk of repeating its failure in 2020.
The only hope is that Trump will self destruct. A trajectory he is certainly on. But basing a strategy on the mistakes of the opposition is foolish.
The only hope is that Trump will self destruct. A trajectory he is certainly on. But basing a strategy on the mistakes of the opposition is foolish.
6
The reinvestigation initiated on 10/28( as announced by the Comey letter) vindicated HRC again a few days before election. So, doesn't the extent of early voting need to be part of the analysis? Unless somebody had already committed to Trump via early voting, there was still an opportunity to switch back to supporting HRC if indeed the Comey letter had had an impact....
Comey, et. al. hounded Clinton with the email stories for months. She never faced it head on and honestly answered those criticisms. I have intelligent, Progressive friends who were riled up over how she handled those emails. Clinton was no help. When the final blow came, the reopening of the investigation so late in the campaign, the electorate had been weakened by months of email bombardment and it didn't take much to topple voters into the Trump camp. This was not her only mistake by far - her constant attacks against Trump, who is quite immune from attack, and she should have known that, and her inability to broaden her base were probably greater problems. She didn't listen to advice - just like Trump doesn't - but she couldn't attack like him. Neither one has leadership mettle, but she isn't stupid or mentally imbalanced.
3
Hillary cost Hillary the election. Her haughtiness, her shrillness, her sneakiness, her email scandal, her pay-to-play foundation, her secretive Goldman Sachs speeches, all of which adds up to off-putting obnoxiousness.
12
You're talking about "secrets" when everyday more news emerges about how many of Trump's associates had ties to Russia before & during the campaign, and then lied about it?
And do you have any idea just how many in his cabinet have ties to Wall Street??
No. Didn't think so.
And do you have any idea just how many in his cabinet have ties to Wall Street??
No. Didn't think so.
PLEASE Mr. Cohn and every other media person ---
STOP harping on everything Hillary.
She lost twice. We real Democrats don't want or need her to get congress back. In fact she is a liability that no one but you folks trying to fill up word space need.
STOP harping on everything Hillary.
She lost twice. We real Democrats don't want or need her to get congress back. In fact she is a liability that no one but you folks trying to fill up word space need.
9
Ever hear of the 1st Amendment? -- it's the one that guarantees Freedom of Speech.
Remember that, and don't try to put words in "real" Democrat's mouths.
We can speak for ourselves.
Remember that, and don't try to put words in "real" Democrat's mouths.
We can speak for ourselves.
1
Maybe when the voters watch Republicans turn their propaganda slime machine on against a new generation of Democrat presidential candidates, they will finally understand how the Republicans poisoned public opinion against Hillary. You would have thought the swiftboating against Kerry would have taught us something, but apparently not.
12
I thought we all weren't supposed to really pay attention to the polls. I think you are better than this article Nate -- the people who decided not to vote for Mrs. Clinton were hardly being polled # 1 and # 2, the people on the fence were just waiting for something like that to come out and it certainly wasn't a poll.
3
Actually, I blame the media for confusing the people. Traditionally, polls have been expressed as "percentage in favor." In 2016, the polls were expressed as "odds of winning" which is a whole new set of rules and numbers. In any ten polls, if Clinton was ahead by one "percentage" point, her odds would have been 9/10, or,as mentioned in the media, a "90%" chance of winning. Ummm....not so, if the collection of polls were at 51--49, nine times, and 47--53 once.
The media confused the Clinton supporters who felt she had the election sewed up (Oh, wow...she's 90% ahead in the polls! He's got only 10% popularity!), so they watched TV instead of walking to their polling places. Her margin could have been 10 million votes, had the poll percentages been published at 47-53% The Democrats would have run to the polls to widen that gap, "bigly, fantastically." There could have been a "tremendous" win for the Democrats.
The media confused the Clinton supporters who felt she had the election sewed up (Oh, wow...she's 90% ahead in the polls! He's got only 10% popularity!), so they watched TV instead of walking to their polling places. Her margin could have been 10 million votes, had the poll percentages been published at 47-53% The Democrats would have run to the polls to widen that gap, "bigly, fantastically." There could have been a "tremendous" win for the Democrats.
1
Hillary's campaign was weaker than many thought--including Hillary. But Comey's failure to be evenhanded in disclosing what and who his agency was investigating turned out to be the "thumb on the scale" that mattered enough to discourage those with a weak commitment to a Democratic presidency. Now we know what one party rule really looks like. Democrats are that "herd of cats" that can seldom be called to task; Republicans are "dogs in the manger," mean-spirited deniers of any kind of commonwealth. Public education? Fugettabout it. Who cares about student death or economic growth?
Healthcare is a privilege that only those rich enough to afford it can rely on. Time to get rid of the oligarchs and their fools. 2018 can't come soon enough!
Healthcare is a privilege that only those rich enough to afford it can rely on. Time to get rid of the oligarchs and their fools. 2018 can't come soon enough!
2
I like Hillary Clinton. I voted for her proudly. And I admit that she was a terrible candidate. She is the one Democrat someone as unqualified as Donald Trump could actually beat. Democrats and Hillary supporters were blind to just how deeply hated she is by vast swaths of the American electorate. And many of them still refuse to see the truth: Hillary lost because she was a terrible campaigner for anyone other than those who already supported her. She had no idea how to close the sell to undecideds.
9
I agree that Hillary is a horrible candidate, but I won't say she's unqualified. If anything, she's morally bankrupt and does not know about the public's concern. Beside a lot of oblivious controversy, she does not or can not relate to the public. Her slogan is "I'm with her." That's not relatable or memorable compare to Trump's slogan, "Make America Great Again." Hillary's platform is "I'm not Trump." Nothing speaks out beside her bad controversy.
4
Mr. Hwang:
How is Hillary Clinton "morally bankrupt"? What exactly has she done that shows lack of morality? This is like one of those age old insults to her that has no basis in reality, but lives on like every other insult that sticks.
How is Hillary Clinton "morally bankrupt"? What exactly has she done that shows lack of morality? This is like one of those age old insults to her that has no basis in reality, but lives on like every other insult that sticks.
What about how Trump and the GOP leveraged the release of the Comey letter in the final week of the campaign?
Can you tell us how much of an effect that had, Nate?
Can you tell us how much of an effect that had, Nate?
2
The Clinton dip was likely significantly impacted by the fact that before the election many people were sent letters from their health care providers saying that their rates were going up -- by a lot! We got a letter saying our costs were going up by $800 a month! At the point it became very difficult to support someone who essentially wanted to continue the "success" of Obamacare. The healthcare factor was severely under-covered by the press.
14
Progressives are in greater denial about Obamacare than they are about Hillary's loss.
2
In conclusion: anything and everything could explain the 2016 elections, and why the result didn't turn out to be the 99% likelihood of success we projected for Clinton.
(Note to self: I still can't believe I'm paid for that analysis).
(Note to self: I still can't believe I'm paid for that analysis).
2
As convenient as Comey's Letter may be for HR Clinton supporters, the fact remains that HR Clinton needed to run a perfect campaign, and, just like in her primary loss to Obama, she ran a far less than perfect campaign.
Tone-deaf messaging, failing to be convincing around areas of great importance to Americans, and the entitlement issue of "I'm With Her" (instead of "She's With Me") didn't do her any favors. Even with all of that, she still almost won.
Had her messaging persuaded even some of the 90 million eligible voters who sat out 2016's election, she'd have won handily. Rather than blaming a Quisling like Comey, the Democrats need to understand the need to free themselves from their fealty to Wall Street neoliberalism and pursue something more authentic, progressive, and populist. The alternative is losing to Republican snake oil peddlers, charlatans and demagogues.
Tone-deaf messaging, failing to be convincing around areas of great importance to Americans, and the entitlement issue of "I'm With Her" (instead of "She's With Me") didn't do her any favors. Even with all of that, she still almost won.
Had her messaging persuaded even some of the 90 million eligible voters who sat out 2016's election, she'd have won handily. Rather than blaming a Quisling like Comey, the Democrats need to understand the need to free themselves from their fealty to Wall Street neoliberalism and pursue something more authentic, progressive, and populist. The alternative is losing to Republican snake oil peddlers, charlatans and demagogues.
9
Even if Clinton was already down BEFORE Comey spoke, he prevented her from bouncing back up. Your argument doesn't hold water.
4
The graph depicted is confusing. Yhe incidents when polls are taken need to be highlighted, perhaps as bullets or another color, otherwise the graph appears to completely contradict your assertion. The data point directly after the Comey letter is very far down, but without a corresponding data point beginning your alleged downward trend on the other side, it just looks like a crash right after the letter.
I am still stinging from the 99% chance of winning you gave Her going into the election, and I am unlikely to trust you in poll analysis until you redeem yourself.
I am still stinging from the 99% chance of winning you gave Her going into the election, and I am unlikely to trust you in poll analysis until you redeem yourself.
3
Let's not forget that Clinton won the national popular vote in what turned out to be a relatively close election. The pre-election, dynamic predictive voting data from the FiveThirtyEight.com site of Nate Silver, reflecting national, not particular state data, clearly demonstrated the significantly detrimental impact of the October Comey letter.
Nate Silver’s Daily Pools Only Forecast of Clinton’s Percentage Probability of Winning the 2016 Election
Date Predicted Winning Percentage Percentage Change from the Percentage of October 28
Oct. 19 87.3
Oct. 20 86.9
Oct. 21 86.5
Oct. 22 85.9
Oct. 23 86.2
Oct. 24 86.3
Oct. 25 85.0
Oct. 26 85.4
Oct. 27 82.2
Oct. 28 81.5 0.0 (Comey corrupts our election process with his false innuendo)
Oct. 29 81.1 -0.4
Oct. 30 78.8 -2.7
Oct. 31 75.2 -6.3
Nov. 1 71.2 -10.3
Nov. 2 67.7 -13.8
Nov. 3 66.2 -15.3
Nov. 4 64.5 -17.0
Nov. 5 64.7 -16.8
Nov. 6 64.9 -16.6 (Comey retracts his false innuendo. Lock him up!)
Nov. 7 70.9 -10.6
Nov. 8 71.4 -10.1
The above results are definitive as to how and why Clinton lost (i.e., only, but crucially, in terms of Electoral Votes) the 2016 election. The Comey letter maneuver was unquestionably the coup de grace. Importantly, the reported two week delay in bringing the Wiener laptop matter to the attention of Comey was a tactical delay that insured the maximum timely damage.
Nate Silver’s Daily Pools Only Forecast of Clinton’s Percentage Probability of Winning the 2016 Election
Date Predicted Winning Percentage Percentage Change from the Percentage of October 28
Oct. 19 87.3
Oct. 20 86.9
Oct. 21 86.5
Oct. 22 85.9
Oct. 23 86.2
Oct. 24 86.3
Oct. 25 85.0
Oct. 26 85.4
Oct. 27 82.2
Oct. 28 81.5 0.0 (Comey corrupts our election process with his false innuendo)
Oct. 29 81.1 -0.4
Oct. 30 78.8 -2.7
Oct. 31 75.2 -6.3
Nov. 1 71.2 -10.3
Nov. 2 67.7 -13.8
Nov. 3 66.2 -15.3
Nov. 4 64.5 -17.0
Nov. 5 64.7 -16.8
Nov. 6 64.9 -16.6 (Comey retracts his false innuendo. Lock him up!)
Nov. 7 70.9 -10.6
Nov. 8 71.4 -10.1
The above results are definitive as to how and why Clinton lost (i.e., only, but crucially, in terms of Electoral Votes) the 2016 election. The Comey letter maneuver was unquestionably the coup de grace. Importantly, the reported two week delay in bringing the Wiener laptop matter to the attention of Comey was a tactical delay that insured the maximum timely damage.
6
Man, TP.
How many copies of this thing do you have?
You put it in the comments over and over, every time somebody wonders out loud how Clinton lost the election.
Yes we know the polls were wrong. They sometimes are, just like any prediction. Although more often they're not wrong.
It seems like you have an important point to make with all this. I'm left wondering what it is. And why its eating up so much of your life.
How many copies of this thing do you have?
You put it in the comments over and over, every time somebody wonders out loud how Clinton lost the election.
Yes we know the polls were wrong. They sometimes are, just like any prediction. Although more often they're not wrong.
It seems like you have an important point to make with all this. I'm left wondering what it is. And why its eating up so much of your life.
3
It is ridiculous to claim that Clinton was not hurt by news of the FBI investigating her but somehow the author tries to make the claim that it was possible. Everything is possible if you are willing to buy that standard.
"Mr. Trump won Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania by less than a percentage point. Even if there were no evidence to support a shift after Mr. Comey’s letter, there would still be reason to wonder whether his actions were decisive."
Reason to wonder??? I get the argument that Clinton didn't have a big lead going into the final week, but you can't tell me that FBI investigation was not enough to swing less than 1% of voters, and that is all it too in MI, WI and PA.
"Mr. Trump won Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania by less than a percentage point. Even if there were no evidence to support a shift after Mr. Comey’s letter, there would still be reason to wonder whether his actions were decisive."
Reason to wonder??? I get the argument that Clinton didn't have a big lead going into the final week, but you can't tell me that FBI investigation was not enough to swing less than 1% of voters, and that is all it too in MI, WI and PA.
14
Succinctly stated Clinton hurt herself when she willfully set up a server in contravention of the rules! PERIOD.
3
So Trump's android phone is kosher? You think that a Samsung Galaxy S3 that was released in 2012 and is no longer supported by Samsung is secure?
Do I think that HRC did something stupid by setting up an email server? Yes, but that is minor compared to the totality of Trump's body of work.
Do I think that HRC did something stupid by setting up an email server? Yes, but that is minor compared to the totality of Trump's body of work.
Mr. Cohn, polls have lost their value. Information is too easily manipulated from every side. People simply need to start talking directly to each other - that is how the truth comes out.
Angry white men didn't "win" the election for The Con Don. Media manipulation - fake news - did. Engineered by financial elite, socially unconscious, mad white men who want to take over the world. It's that simple.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-bre...
Angry white men didn't "win" the election for The Con Don. Media manipulation - fake news - did. Engineered by financial elite, socially unconscious, mad white men who want to take over the world. It's that simple.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-bre...
10
@njglea: "financial elite mad white men" did not make me work for Trump, vote for Trump (twice, once in the primary) or put Trump signs on my lawn, or wear a MAGA hat, or go to Trump rallies, or write literally thousands of posts online about Trump.
I did it for you. Or maybe "to you".
I did it to destroy lefty liberalism. I don't think Trump is perfect; he has many flaws.
But his one great strength is he will destroy lefty liberalism and bring you to your knees, as your collective lefty heads explode.
So far, it is working out BRILLIANTLY.
I did it for you. Or maybe "to you".
I did it to destroy lefty liberalism. I don't think Trump is perfect; he has many flaws.
But his one great strength is he will destroy lefty liberalism and bring you to your knees, as your collective lefty heads explode.
So far, it is working out BRILLIANTLY.
2
I feel Comey made a dirty call. It was already pass the absentee ballot cut off date and I feel people made up their minds long before this. Unless Senator Clinton came up with a mega plan I wasn't about to drive voters to the polls. I'm looking at something on the scale of rebuilding our infra structures so as to immediately reverse the intent of the Trickle Down Theory, I wasn't about to drive voters to the polls. Although the working class got four decades of steady wage reductions they never got insulted until now.
Mr. Comey had no other option but to report on the latest develoments in the Ms. Clinton email saga. This would never had been an issue if Ms. Clinton had not disobeyed all State Department regulations re securing information and established a separate server for herself...no one ever envisioned that a Government employee, especially one charged with obeying and enforcing the rules on handling communications, would establish her own private network. Bizarre. This time with serious consequences for the Ms. Clinton and the country, the Clinton's seeing themselves as above the laws and practices that govern the rest of us, came home to roost.
13
Why was he silent on the Trump investigation? The idea that a presidential candidate may be a turned Kremlin asset has far more national security implications than a SecState using an email system far more secure than the one the government wanted her to use.
5
Apparently FOX News did not report that this was and still is commonly practiced by government officials at all levels, or you would not have made that idiotic comment. I'n not defending it, I'm stating a fact. Government cyber infrastructure is so poor and inadequate that it forces people to seek getarounds in order to accomplish work .
Why was Obama silent on the Trump investigation?
2
The election was stolen because millions of minority voters (Democrats) were "caged": purged from the voter rolls due to "Interstate Crosscheck" instituted by Kris Kobach. No one in the media will discuss caging. The rest is noise.
http://www.gregpalast.com/election-stolen-heres/
http://www.gregpalast.com/election-stolen-heres/
5
Unfortunately, that's only part of the story. The G.O.P. efforts to disenfranchise Black voters is already legend -- But thanks for bringing this part of it to light.
4
That is entirely false.
If you were "caught" by Interstate Crosscheck, you were trying to vote in two states. I've seen this among my "snowbird" relatives. They have residences in both Ohio and Florida!
Crosscheck is a GOOD THING.
If you were "caught" by Interstate Crosscheck, you were trying to vote in two states. I've seen this among my "snowbird" relatives. They have residences in both Ohio and Florida!
Crosscheck is a GOOD THING.
3
she lost because she didn't connect with the white working class voters in critical rust belt states and likewise couldn't overcome this with sufficient minority votes in these same states; she's also unlikeable as a politician.
8
"She lost because she didn't connect with the white working class....."
Oh. You mean by outright LYING to them in order to get their votes, like Trump has???
And don't even bring up the race card when the present administration has practically NO faces of color in it.
Oh. You mean by outright LYING to them in order to get their votes, like Trump has???
And don't even bring up the race card when the present administration has practically NO faces of color in it.
1
The fact is negative and largely unverified information about both candidates was not reported with equal alacrity or fervor be Comey. Only Clinton's email issues were tossed on the public election bonfire by Comey. Trump's more serious information (the dossier information and the information of Russian hacking into DNC email and reporting fake news about Clinton) at least in terms of potential blackmail and election influencingy, especially by a known hostile entity, was withheld from the public by Comey. Americans should wonder about Comey's decision to reveal one candidate's information while withholding the other's and whether that decision affected the election. Which is worse:
1. A Secretary of state's failure to follow email protocol or
2. A presidential candidate's allowing and/or abetting a known hostile government to influence our voters by putting out "fake news," hacking opponents' email, and possibly influencing the election outcome?
Comey failed to be impartial during the run-up to the election. Let's hope he makes better decisions now that he doesn't have to choose between Clinton and Trump. His only object of investigation is Trump and his "team," including his daughter, her husband, and any other family members working for Team Trump. The security of our country and its election processes is at stake.
1. A Secretary of state's failure to follow email protocol or
2. A presidential candidate's allowing and/or abetting a known hostile government to influence our voters by putting out "fake news," hacking opponents' email, and possibly influencing the election outcome?
Comey failed to be impartial during the run-up to the election. Let's hope he makes better decisions now that he doesn't have to choose between Clinton and Trump. His only object of investigation is Trump and his "team," including his daughter, her husband, and any other family members working for Team Trump. The security of our country and its election processes is at stake.
4
There is evidence for item 1, none for item 2.
2
I read in Clinton's tweet the same inability to take responsibility. Given the current POTUS, I never thought I'd say I'm glad she didn't win. Yes, Comey did what he did. But he didn't (1) prevent Clinton from retail politicking in WI, MI and PA the days leading up to the election; (2) prevent her from running even after she was already a primary loser (in 2008); (3) allow the undemocratic machinations of the DNC during the primary process. In fact, had Clinton been a better, more energetic, and less compromised candidate, she would have won handily - even with the Comey letter. The thing that I notice in the new Clinton (i.e. post-election) that's no different than the old Clinton is her inability to take responsibility.
10
Yes, to all your points, but there is one thing that Comey did not do that belongs as number 4 on your list.
He did not forward emails to Anthony Wiener for them to printed out and given to Clinton.
He did not forward emails to Anthony Wiener for them to printed out and given to Clinton.
2
I live in PA. Hillary was here, I don't know where the false narrative that she wasn't comes from She campaigned here repeatedly, right up until the end. She never took PA for granted.
4
The Democrats - not Clinton - lost. They lost because of a poor candidate, a fixed primary that turned off many of their key voters, and the perception of a dishonest standard bearer. Comey's letter may have aggravated the last - but Clinton herself is mainly responsible for the fact most people consider her dishonest and untrustworthy.
12
Clinton lose was simple. She thought that her message was the only message people were listening to and she was dead wrong. Towards the end of her campaign she look tired and her staff ignore many key states she thought she had in the bag. To blame Comey is just spilled milk. She lost because she didn't come across to the voters. She was the first women candidate but that doesn't guarantee her a win! Don't blame other people for her failure to win.
IT WAS HER LOSS!! Own up to it. People respect honesty not excuses!!
IT WAS HER LOSS!! Own up to it. People respect honesty not excuses!!
13
Democrats lost the election when they decided they were more afraid of Bernie Sanders and his supporters than they were of any of the Republicans. Hillary claimed during the primaries she was just as progressive as Bernie, and then she immediately turned right after the convention just like everyone knew she would. She campaigned MUCH harder to win Republican votes than she did to win the votes of Sanders supporters.
Democrats lost the election when they abandoned their base. Again. And when they hippy-punched progressives. Again. The only reason I'm still willing to vote for Democrats is because the alternatives are so terrible and because Bernie says it's our best option. But I'm finding it more and more difficult to defend the Democratic leaders who keep kicking us in the gut.
Democrats lost the election when they abandoned their base. Again. And when they hippy-punched progressives. Again. The only reason I'm still willing to vote for Democrats is because the alternatives are so terrible and because Bernie says it's our best option. But I'm finding it more and more difficult to defend the Democratic leaders who keep kicking us in the gut.
8
Navel gazing click bait. Polls weren't precise, and these polls exclude others. This is an attempt to attribute analysis to weak number. Opinions and intention aren't the same.
1
From Trump's collusion to Hillary's loss, it's striking to see just how many of the allegations made by democrats are unsubstantiated. And, yet, The Times only finds it necessary to precede allegations made by Trump with the word, "unproven." Emotional interjections like that have no place in media coverage. The Times should be consistent.
4
Lots of us Moderates who didn't vote for Trump or Hillary knew that whatever happened with the "email scandal", it wasn't likely an indictable offense. The Comey Letter meant much less than people want to give it credit for. What did mean alot was Hillary's demeaning of people not like her, her constant sense of elitism ie "What difference does it make?" attitude and her still currently being investigated Pay for Play scheme at the Clinton Foundation.
Next time put up a decent candidate and you will have us. I would have voted for a 3rd Obama term over Clinton or Trump happily.
Next time put up a decent candidate and you will have us. I would have voted for a 3rd Obama term over Clinton or Trump happily.
3
I refuse to believe that Sec'y Clinton would not take blame for losing if the data said she should. Her integrity and passion for the common citizen run too deep for such self serving comments to cross her mind.
6
Nice sarcasm- I almost missed it
3
Putin's involvement in our election didn't HELP Clinton-Kaine. Comey's handling of the e-mail investigation didn't HELP Clinton-Kaine. That much is certain.
7
Hilary may have been declining in the polls regardless of Comey. But imagine what would have happened to Trump's number if Comey had disclosed that he was being investigated for possible treason.
14
Obama didn't disclose it either, why? Because he had no proof and unmasking would be revealed?
3
What about the effect of Crosscheck, the fraudulent Republican tool for removing massive numbers of minority voters from voter roles? That "system" masquerades as computerized checking of voter names across states. The election officials who knowingly misuse it don't compare the middle name or designations like Jr. or III that follows the last name. They de-list voters who don't respond to a certified letter to their home address. This works uncommonly well with common minority names of African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans. State electoral officials often try to keep the Crosscheck records secret with the excuse they are investigating crimes, when opening them to public view would actually show their fraud. This effort is funded by the Koch brothers. We need to fight back. One person, one vote!
8
Sad to relate, but many of us knew the reason when the opinions of Black voters were gauged shortly before the election and revealed not only a lack of enthusiasm, as articles in the Times clearly showed (barbershop opinion polls -- which tell the take better than the professional posters in the Black community), but downright antagonism to the Clintons. Read todays article in the Washington Post which analyzes the Black vote and the truth becomes all too apparent. If the Black vote had come out she would be president. In some states it dropped as much as 12 percent and in the three critical midwestern states it dropped just enough to give Trump the victory. Sad but true.
9
A previous Upshot column debunked the notion that Hillary's loss was attributable to blacks not voting for her. Actually, the break of the white working class (who had voted for Obama) towards Trump and the large numbers of white women, 53 percent in fact, who voted for Trump were the primary factors in Hillary's loss.
2
So are black people automatically racist now? Just like how all white people who did not like Obama were automatically racist, with no argument allowed that they simply disagreed with his policies?
2
Its worthwhile to consider whether the Comey letter did or did not affect the outcome of the presidential election. While further down in the article Nate is acknowledging that he is not able to conclude anything from his data, the headline, and statements made within the article, imply the opposite.
Where is the argument here? It reads as: "Comey likely didn't affect the outcome, no, surely not, but maybe, yes, yes he very well could have." As a result, Nate is engaging in slippery journalism here in the guise of statistical analysis, more a politics/opinion sort of journalism than fact. Statements like, "she didn't have a six-point lead in any of the 16 (sometimes low-quality)..." reveal Nate's cherry-picking of facts here. He is presenting an argument, but not enough information for the reader to quantify his argument. It reads as if he hasn't done his homework.
Surely statistics is complicated, based on probabilities instead of certainties. Nate's readers are sophisticated enough to know this but Nate is only highlighting that we can't be certain...sorry, but, duh, that's with all statistics. How certain, then? How uncertain? If the argument here is truly based on statistics, a number then, a probability, should be able to be generated. Otherwise we're left with opinion journalism and it should be in the OpEd pages.
Where is the argument here? It reads as: "Comey likely didn't affect the outcome, no, surely not, but maybe, yes, yes he very well could have." As a result, Nate is engaging in slippery journalism here in the guise of statistical analysis, more a politics/opinion sort of journalism than fact. Statements like, "she didn't have a six-point lead in any of the 16 (sometimes low-quality)..." reveal Nate's cherry-picking of facts here. He is presenting an argument, but not enough information for the reader to quantify his argument. It reads as if he hasn't done his homework.
Surely statistics is complicated, based on probabilities instead of certainties. Nate's readers are sophisticated enough to know this but Nate is only highlighting that we can't be certain...sorry, but, duh, that's with all statistics. How certain, then? How uncertain? If the argument here is truly based on statistics, a number then, a probability, should be able to be generated. Otherwise we're left with opinion journalism and it should be in the OpEd pages.
4
Tavis Smiley (on PBS) had Lori Wallach the director of Global Trade Watch on his show. Wallach is from WIsconsin and noticed a change when she went home for a visit.
She talked about how Obama sent senior cabinet members to the states that gave Trump those winning electoral college votes. These enclaves voted for Obama in both elections. He was pushing TPP hard after the conventions and these voters had lost a lot after NAFTA. He wanted TPP to be part of his legacy even if it passed after he was out of office. Wallach offers her opinion about how this in part cost Clinton the election. Watch the entire 24 minute interview. It's an eye opener.
She talked about how Obama sent senior cabinet members to the states that gave Trump those winning electoral college votes. These enclaves voted for Obama in both elections. He was pushing TPP hard after the conventions and these voters had lost a lot after NAFTA. He wanted TPP to be part of his legacy even if it passed after he was out of office. Wallach offers her opinion about how this in part cost Clinton the election. Watch the entire 24 minute interview. It's an eye opener.
16
Obama's legacy is a decimated Democratic Party. Clinton should blame him and probably does in private.
4
The Democratic Party isnn't nearly as decimated as the G.O.P. will be after pushing through this horrendus healthcare bill upon the American people.
2
You cannot used a flawed polling system to make the claim that his reports had no impact. We keep coming back to the polling, which was obviously way off. The reason? The average Trump voter is not sitting by the phone waiting to give their opinion to the media or pollsters. Stop using the polls to make arguments or claims about the outcome of the election. The media has still not learned.
4
You have apparently still not learned the meaning of "margin of error" in polling, which takes into account what the pollsters don't now (undecided voters, sampling errors, etc). The polls reflect what can be measured, and nothing more. It's probability theory, like picking stocks, or every other investment on the planet, insurance, etc. Nothing is CERTAIN, and a poll that claims Trump has a 33% chance to win isn't technically wrong, or right. Why is this so hard to understand??
If there was one factor among many others and a more important one, it was the Comey letter. From here I'll let the two Nate's battle it out.
6
I think there is a factor MUCH bigger. And it took a lot longer to have the effect it did on this election. It's called Hillary Clinton.
She was a primary loser in 2008. And Comey was barely a twinkle in Republican eyes back then. (Actually, he was despised by most because of the Ashcroft Affair.)
There is one reason why the Dems lost in 2016: Hillary Clinton. De Nile is not only a river in Africa.
She was a primary loser in 2008. And Comey was barely a twinkle in Republican eyes back then. (Actually, he was despised by most because of the Ashcroft Affair.)
There is one reason why the Dems lost in 2016: Hillary Clinton. De Nile is not only a river in Africa.
3
The Comey letter may have been enough to tip 3 rust-belt states to Trump (Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania). We may never know. But we do know he should not have sent the letter, that it was probably illegal, and that he injected himself into the campaign at a crucial moment to placate Republicans.
12
I'm sure the fact that she did NO politicking in those states the weeks leading up to the election had no effect on the outcome.
2
It may or may not have had an effect. Gosh, what cunning insight (basically, this is after the fact pattern recognition, also known as data-mining. The Achilles heel of all atheoretical big-data analysis).
2
Some commentators apparently missed the punch line: "But in such a close election, anything and everything could have plausibly been decisive."
1
This election should not have been close. Period. The Dems, under Clinton, moved the party so far to the right that it is virtually indistinguishable from the Republican party of old. And the Repub party went right and went straight off the cliff. So base voters not only believed they had been left behind, but the Dem party overtly stepped in to stunt the momentum of Sanders (the REAL Democrat in the race, even though he was running as an independent). Bottom line? The Dem party did everything in their power to lose this race. And they succeeded.
5
Sanders is the REAL Socialist...he's no Democrat, even though he expected -- and expects -- the Democractic Party to embrace him as its savior. And Sanders smirked and winked as too many of his supporters -- like Killer Mike, the Bernie Bros -- were astonishingly and viciously misogynist. Finally, Sanders himself went negative early and stayed there throughout the campaign. Sanders, on the other hand, got the velvet glove treatment from the press, from Republicans, and from Hillary too. If he had been vilified for even a week as she has been throughout her career, where do you think he would be?
Hillary worked her heart out for Barack Obama in 2008, and brought her supporters with her into the Obama team. Sanders remained petulant and too many of his supporters remained vicious and are so to this day. She was not going to be elected BECAUSE she was a woman: she would have been elected in SPITE of it. She was the best qualified person ever to run...and yet people voted, instead, for the least qualified, least suited, and least prepared person ever to run.
And don't tell me it was because she was the "wrong woman." Wait to see what happens to Elizabeth Warren when she runs. Too many people in this country have shown themselves unable to accept the idea of a woman President...and too few are willing to reflect on what that means not just for women candidates but for every woman and man in this country.
Hillary worked her heart out for Barack Obama in 2008, and brought her supporters with her into the Obama team. Sanders remained petulant and too many of his supporters remained vicious and are so to this day. She was not going to be elected BECAUSE she was a woman: she would have been elected in SPITE of it. She was the best qualified person ever to run...and yet people voted, instead, for the least qualified, least suited, and least prepared person ever to run.
And don't tell me it was because she was the "wrong woman." Wait to see what happens to Elizabeth Warren when she runs. Too many people in this country have shown themselves unable to accept the idea of a woman President...and too few are willing to reflect on what that means not just for women candidates but for every woman and man in this country.
1
Yep. Her sense of urgency in the final days leading up to the election was palpable. I mean, she was in her Chappaqua house keeping constant vigil over what the media says while constantly summoning Beyoncé, Jay-Z, and other stars to keep fundraising on her behalf. Nobody showed more urgency than her!
3
Clinton lost because she had no other message than "it's my turn." She did not engage the public. Whatever one thinks of Trump, he engaged with, and turned out, enthusiastic supporters.
43
You weren't listening, she did have a positive message and I never heard her say that it was her turn, and neither did you. If you could not see the stark contrast between her and Trump, that says something about you.
10
Calling Trump supporters "deplorables" is hardly a positive message (I seem to recall liberal indignation at a similar comment from Romney in 2012, but that is beside the point). Her campaign was tone deaf and she expected to be elected, because 1) she wasn't Trump and 2) she is a woman. Arrogance at its highest. I will refrain from responding to the personal attack.
3
Her other predominant message was "Trump is bad".
In either case, she never sold her merits for being president.
In either case, she never sold her merits for being president.
4
Another "bending over backward article" trying to prove that Director Comey's letter had nothing to do with Hillary Clinton's loss. I know that many people think that the general populace are all fools, but we are not.
While it will never be proven one way or another, Director Comey pulled the ultimate "October surprise" on the Clinton campaign while sitting silent on the Trump campaign's Russian connections. Even today, the FBI continues to drag their feet on the Trump-Russia connection and seems to be pushing it's conclusions out into the future where they hope people will have forgotten and no longer care.
While it will never be proven one way or another, Director Comey pulled the ultimate "October surprise" on the Clinton campaign while sitting silent on the Trump campaign's Russian connections. Even today, the FBI continues to drag their feet on the Trump-Russia connection and seems to be pushing it's conclusions out into the future where they hope people will have forgotten and no longer care.
17
There have been so many October surprises in all types of political races that people are no longer surprised or swayed by them. If voters support a particular candidate, they will cast a ballot for him or her regardless of what is leaked to or stolen by the media. The NY tax return, Billy Bush video, and numerous groping accusations did not deter people from voting for Trump because they had already decided to vote for him. Similarly, people voting for Hillary were not put off by servers, Emailgate, "sometimes I get the questions ahead of time," DWS hatchet job on Bernie, the Clinton Foundation, etc, but there just weren't enough of these voters to tilt the EC in her direction.
1
Because the Times would be the outlet to bend over backwards to favor Trump, right? I thought liberals are all about numbers and data, just like for climate change. Why ignore the numbers here?
2
The cold hard facts: Secretary Clinton and her senior campaign staff wanted not only to win but to emerge with an electoral college landslide. Hence the "expanding the map" plan in Arizona and Utah - states which she never had a legitimate chance of winning. While engaging in this foolishness, she largely ignored her key base voters in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
If Secretary Clinton were not as narcissistic as her opponent, she could have found the (approximately) 75,000 votes in those three states and would have won both the popular vote and the electoral college.
Her current rant about October 23 is nothing more than sour grapes. As a result, she and her campaign have visited the disastrous Trump administration upon our country and the world.
Secretary Clinton's actions demonstrate that she deserved to lose.
If Secretary Clinton were not as narcissistic as her opponent, she could have found the (approximately) 75,000 votes in those three states and would have won both the popular vote and the electoral college.
Her current rant about October 23 is nothing more than sour grapes. As a result, she and her campaign have visited the disastrous Trump administration upon our country and the world.
Secretary Clinton's actions demonstrate that she deserved to lose.
25
This is crazy. In a close election anything and everything could have made the difference, therefore Dir. Comey's actions didn't make the difference???
The batter grounds to short with two out in the bottom of the ninth and runners on second and third. A fan tackles the first baseman, the throw rolls out into foul ground, the runners score, and the home team wins by one. Yeah, it could have been anything. How about that failure to get a hit back in the third inning?
The batter grounds to short with two out in the bottom of the ninth and runners on second and third. A fan tackles the first baseman, the throw rolls out into foul ground, the runners score, and the home team wins by one. Yeah, it could have been anything. How about that failure to get a hit back in the third inning?
2
For the last time, HILLARY cost HILLARY the election. Her approval ratings were dismal, her message was even worse and her campaign a complete failure.
57
Agreed, but the DNC shoulda seen that trainwreck comeying.
Obama was with her. That bad decision was the final nail into a big GOP coffin around his legacy. He pointed out to David Remnick, on the heels of the election debacle, that she'd had approval ratings as SOS north of 60% and ain't that puzzling that she could go down so deep from there?
No, Mr. Obama, that was before the emails and Benghazi, and back then the GOP was just fixated on sinking you, and let her sail for a brief moment. It was undiluted self-destruction to go with the one person you can offer who is so buried in baggage from the past, that she don't even trust herself into a press conference for fear it will show in the question crossfire and overwhelm her messaging. That's the worst possible place to operate a campaign from. And the DNC and the NYT chose to fully promote that on a sort of repulsive indignancy automatic versus the right wing hate propaganda she'd always had to endure without even blinking once, refusing to think it through in an objective risk assessment analysis.
Then the 85 to 90% chance of her winning that they kept advertising for weeks put her checknate.
That was way more damning and damaging than the Comey letter.
Obama was with her. That bad decision was the final nail into a big GOP coffin around his legacy. He pointed out to David Remnick, on the heels of the election debacle, that she'd had approval ratings as SOS north of 60% and ain't that puzzling that she could go down so deep from there?
No, Mr. Obama, that was before the emails and Benghazi, and back then the GOP was just fixated on sinking you, and let her sail for a brief moment. It was undiluted self-destruction to go with the one person you can offer who is so buried in baggage from the past, that she don't even trust herself into a press conference for fear it will show in the question crossfire and overwhelm her messaging. That's the worst possible place to operate a campaign from. And the DNC and the NYT chose to fully promote that on a sort of repulsive indignancy automatic versus the right wing hate propaganda she'd always had to endure without even blinking once, refusing to think it through in an objective risk assessment analysis.
Then the 85 to 90% chance of her winning that they kept advertising for weeks put her checknate.
That was way more damning and damaging than the Comey letter.
3
People blaming Hillary for not campaigning in formerly blue midwest states does not seem to get the timing of the Comey intervention. It was only 11 days before the election, did not leave much time to reorient a mostly effective (till then) campaign strategy. Her campaign clearly made mistakes, but Trump's campaign was more prolific with those (bragging about committing sexual assault on video will not get you an 'A' in Politics 101). She campaigned heavily in PA and FL, and also lost those states in the last few days because of Comey.
Bottomline, the most qualified female candidate was thwarted by unprecedented propaganda, foreign intervention, and FBI meddling to yield the most important job in the world to the most unqualified braggart male candidate. I somehow suspect women understand what happened much better than men do.
Bottomline, the most qualified female candidate was thwarted by unprecedented propaganda, foreign intervention, and FBI meddling to yield the most important job in the world to the most unqualified braggart male candidate. I somehow suspect women understand what happened much better than men do.
15
Skeptical? Not really. It was merely that "last straw' that broke Hillary's back.
5
The night before the election in her get out the vote speech she made a catastrophic mistake by letting a Muslim be the center of her message instead of many other better alternatives such as aMidwestern auto worker or a farmer from Iowa or a biologist from the West etc. the Kahn family was great at the convention but the night before the election. No way!
6
Hillary used the Khans to attack Trump, which pretty much summed up her losing strategy.
4
You got it backwards. It was Trump's losing strategy to devaluate and humiliate the grieving family of a lost soldier.
Not a proud moment for America,
Not a proud moment for America,
2
So the polls that were wrong are the ones we're using to say the Comey letter didn't have the effect we thought? And when has the "Comey letter" been divorced from his earlier jumping into the fray in the election? His effect was not limited to this letter, but amplified by it.
I don't think anyone is foolish enough to believe in some smoking gun for this election. A variety of factors led to Clinton's loss. Comey's letter must be in the frame if only because it echoed concerns voters already had about Clinton -- even people who voted for her.
I don't think anyone is foolish enough to believe in some smoking gun for this election. A variety of factors led to Clinton's loss. Comey's letter must be in the frame if only because it echoed concerns voters already had about Clinton -- even people who voted for her.
4
An investigation in progress should never be released in any kind of form.
Issue, reasoning, analysis then conclusion are the steps of a legal analysis.
Anything before conclusion is speculation and speculation is a guess.
Guesses released as fact are disruptive and not helpful.
Issue, reasoning, analysis then conclusion are the steps of a legal analysis.
Anything before conclusion is speculation and speculation is a guess.
Guesses released as fact are disruptive and not helpful.
8
Apparently we are condemned to litigate Hillary Clinton's contributions to the 2016 electoral loss until the Democratic convention of 2020, at which time the party will nominate the likely loser of that November's election. Instead of moving into a potentially-productive role of doing something like recruiting female candidates for office or promoting civic engagement Clinton continues to tout the disastrous DLC line that has dominated, and undermined, Democratic politics for more than two decades. The Democratic Party has an enormous task ahead; not only must it articulate an alternative to Republican policies but it must keep public attention focused on the corruption and national security liabilities of the Trump administration AND bring new faces to the shallow pool of Democratic possibilities for national office. These are three tremendous challenges so wasting time focusing on Clinton Deflection Syndrome serves no-one but Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. To the extent Democrats embrace the notion that defeat was attributable to James Comey, Bernie Sanders, Russian hackers, or anything excuse beyond the core strategy of the 2016 campaign they sow the seeds of an even worse defeat in 2020. Already we are losing sight of Trump vulnerability to Russian blackmail as a major concern and merchandising of the Presidency by the Kushners as a corrupt practice. How many Chinese and Russian agents buy their way into the US via purchase of "investor" visas? Democrats want to know.
13
Agreed. The results of the election clearly proved that the Democrat Party is viewed as elitist by a large section of America, and has to change significantly to address that failing. Trotting out the same candidates and the same policies would be the very definition of insanity and tone-deafness. We already have the latter with the Republican party.
10
USA999, I agree. The DNC and Hillary supporters in general are still unwilling to accept that HRC lost for reasons other than some nefarious activity. She lost because her message (if she had one) was not heard. (And if anybody says once again that "she won by popular vote," I'll kick them. We don't play the game of popular vote.)
12
I agree with you usa999. The Country-Club Democratic Party CCDP, created by the Clinton's will continue to make us lose. We must go back to our roots- Please do not let Chelsea run- Please go away Clintons.
8
I guess people were anticipating the Comey Letter when Hillary almost lost the Democratic primary to a 75-year-old socialist from Vermont who most people had never head of, who looked and sounded like Larry David and who wasn't even a Democrat.
Face it. Hillary lost because she is Hillary - bereft of vision, inspiration, charisma, ethics, honesty and political instincts, among other useful qualities.
Face it. Hillary lost because she is Hillary - bereft of vision, inspiration, charisma, ethics, honesty and political instincts, among other useful qualities.
61
Ths graph is certainly an eye opener.
The most basic of graph reading skills show that Clinton's lead was going steadily downhill starting around the 20th.
And that the lead started to increase again after the 28th.
You might conceivably argue that Comey helped Clinton by reversing her downhill trend.
Nothing on this graph indicates anything harmful in relation to Comey and Clinton.
The most basic of graph reading skills show that Clinton's lead was going steadily downhill starting around the 20th.
And that the lead started to increase again after the 28th.
You might conceivably argue that Comey helped Clinton by reversing her downhill trend.
Nothing on this graph indicates anything harmful in relation to Comey and Clinton.
9
Whatever his numbers show, Nate Cohen's conclusion flies in the face of any logic. The Comey announcement was a nuclear attack, surgically applied to one presidential campaign, when there were two investigations into two campaigns. To accept Cohen's explanation, is to deny that the sun rises each and every day.
7
The fact is that Hillary was an extremely weak candidate. She should never have even been so close to him in the polls that such an incident would loose her the election. Sadly the DNC shot Bernie in the foot, otherwise this country and the world would be on the way to much better things. Bernie out-polled Trump by double digits time after time. Hopefully Debbie Waserman-Shultz will go to prison, and Trump will join her there shortly after the 2018 elections.
50
Intrinsic to Mrs. Clinton'a ethos is blaming others. It was James Comey's fault. Or Vladimir Putin's. Or Bernie Sanders's. Or her staff's. Or (fill in the blank). What's never considered, evidently, whether it be the failed campaign in 2008 or the failed campaign in 2016, is looking in the mirror.
38
Of course, she said the exact opposite in her last public appearance. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good narrative.
2
Katie, Clinton sends the worst message to girls and women. She needs to go away. And stay away. Unless you want the Democrats to lose once again.
1
She would have earned some self respect from my daughter if she had kicked Bill out. These young girls got mixed messages from Hillary.
2
Comey would have had nothing to do with this election, one way or the other, if Clinton had simply followed the rules and not used a private server to conduct State Department business. How in the heck does an investigator get blamed for reporting on the progress of his investigation? Some advice to the Democrats: in future don't nominate someone who's under FBI investigation. And if you do, don't try to blame those tasked with the investigation.
A parallel consideration: if you are hiring press hacks to collude with you in rigging debates, don't blame hackers for revealing that fact to the world. Even if they were Boris and Natasha.
What we see in both cases is that Clinton presumed the right to do anything she wanted. Those looking into her misdeeds are held to the highest standards.
Staggering hypocrisy, but an old story with the Clintons. Bill's sexual harassment and perjury are not a problem. Kenneth Starr and the "vast right wing conspiracy" are to blame.
Go away, Clintons.
A parallel consideration: if you are hiring press hacks to collude with you in rigging debates, don't blame hackers for revealing that fact to the world. Even if they were Boris and Natasha.
What we see in both cases is that Clinton presumed the right to do anything she wanted. Those looking into her misdeeds are held to the highest standards.
Staggering hypocrisy, but an old story with the Clintons. Bill's sexual harassment and perjury are not a problem. Kenneth Starr and the "vast right wing conspiracy" are to blame.
Go away, Clintons.
39
And Comey worked on Whitewater, which like Starr found nothing. Go away phony Republican abusers of law. Now you've forced a traitor on America who is attempting to bribe the very rich not to impeach him by pushing for an exemption from all estate taxes in return for killing all those with preexisting stage four cancers and other 'inconvenient facts.' How much more of a disgusting display of soul selling would you like?
4
Why the debate and bickering? Who cares. What matters most is who is the next candidate and what is his/her plan to regain the lost ground.
5
Hmm...so after all is said and done, this was a total waste of time. Perhaps Comey did or did not have an effect on the election. The point that is missed somehow is that Comey ELECTED to reintroduce the, as it turns out, innocuous emails when the polls were open to voters. How stupid do government officials think the American public is? Of course Comey's decision affected the outcome of the elections. How could it not?
4
Comey did his job and it did it appropriately. If Mrs. Clinton's nose was clean, then Comey wouldn't have anything to report.
6
If "Comey did his job and did it appropriately" we would have heard about the Trump's campaign Russian connections at the same time. That would have been an interesting equalizer.
5
Reading the article carefully--no matter how it undermines your present conviction--will help answer your question.
2
If James Comey's letter changed a single vote, let alone hundreds of thousands of votes, then people are even dumber than I'd imagined. How anyone with half a brain can vote to make Donald Trump the most powerful man in the world is unfathomable. I understand what Comey was thinking. I've never been too angry about this, even if I don't agree with the action he took. If people are that ignorant, this country deserves Trump.
If Black voters had been anywhere close to as enthusiastic about Clinton as they'd been about Barack Obama, she'd be president. And this makes all the more absurd those claims by some Bernie Sanders supporters that had he won the primary he'd be president. Clinton decimated Sanders among Blacks in the primaries and won the Hispanic vote as well. Enthusiasm among those groups would have been lower, not higher, had Sanders been facing Trump. And how many Trump voters would have voted for Sanders? Probably very few.
Isn't it more likely that Sanders was more responsible for Clinton's loss than Comey? How many Susan Sarandon's were out there? Of course, in the end, neither Comey nor Sanders is responsible for her loss, and ultimately she (and we) are responsible, but are we too afraid of offending Sanders's (really young) supporters to explore that possibility closer? This was a tight race, and there was a lot of bitterness among Sanders supporters over what happened to him. I hardly think it's impossible that, absent Sanders, Clinton would've won.
If Black voters had been anywhere close to as enthusiastic about Clinton as they'd been about Barack Obama, she'd be president. And this makes all the more absurd those claims by some Bernie Sanders supporters that had he won the primary he'd be president. Clinton decimated Sanders among Blacks in the primaries and won the Hispanic vote as well. Enthusiasm among those groups would have been lower, not higher, had Sanders been facing Trump. And how many Trump voters would have voted for Sanders? Probably very few.
Isn't it more likely that Sanders was more responsible for Clinton's loss than Comey? How many Susan Sarandon's were out there? Of course, in the end, neither Comey nor Sanders is responsible for her loss, and ultimately she (and we) are responsible, but are we too afraid of offending Sanders's (really young) supporters to explore that possibility closer? This was a tight race, and there was a lot of bitterness among Sanders supporters over what happened to him. I hardly think it's impossible that, absent Sanders, Clinton would've won.
5
Many find it convenient to blame blacks for Hillary's loss but this lazy reasoning is not supported by subsequent analyses of the vote. The white working class ( who had voted for Obama ) broke away from the Democrats in 2016 and voted for Trump instead. A lot of them lived in states that Obama managed to visit or run robust campaigns in while Hillary did neither. A group thought to be Hillary 's primary supporters ( white women ), voted overwhelmingly (53 percent) for Trump . The truth is that Hillary was a poor candidate who failed to make a compelling case for herself and also failed to campaign intelligently. I will remind the " popular vote" fans that the sole goal of a presidential campaign is 270 EC votes.
1
The truth is there's no one simple truth,
1
No matter the facts, the two-time loser will continue to blame her loss on every living creature--including her pet cat.
12
Yep. In fact when I saw her tweet yesterday, my first thought was that she didn't learn a thing since the election.
2
The New York Times along with other news organizations need to take a poll to determine if there are actually any people that would have voted for HRC but did not because of the Comey effect.
4
I don't think it's that simple. It might have given her lukewarm supporters an excuse to stay home. Or it might have energized fence sitting voters to vote Trump. Or further energize his base.
2
Insights lay beyond the numbers (the height of the tide doesn't tell you the power of the current!): both the media meme, that older, jobless workers without benefits or prospects were fed up, and the Republican meme, that voters endorsed conservative principles (to which Republicans themselves don't adhere!) are monumentally wrong! Ludicrous and absurd, they fly in the face of the numbers--and the facts.
The facts (easily measured, often ignored) is Trump inherited the "hate Obama" base and expanded it beyond Romney by direct appeals that promised actions that were racist, illegal, and xenophobic--and his rallies were a mirror of those promises, a blend of theatre and reality, allegories of hate and blame.
But Trump caught the perfect storm. He added to the "hate Obama" base the only hate base that dovetailed perfectly with his indecency and lies, the "hate Hillary" base. Hate, not despair, won.
Add up the unfavorables for both Hillary and Barack, and you can see why the deplorables won.
Hate has been a factor in American politics since before the 1861 war, but the media still pretends it is absent or marginal or lacks significant influence. That hate, seen in Donald Trump's actions, still targets women and race. It was personified in Barack and Hillary and vilified by Trump.
Measure race. Measure hate. That's the deplorables snapchat. The image of their reality. (The rest is navel-gazing that drives truth further underground.)
The facts (easily measured, often ignored) is Trump inherited the "hate Obama" base and expanded it beyond Romney by direct appeals that promised actions that were racist, illegal, and xenophobic--and his rallies were a mirror of those promises, a blend of theatre and reality, allegories of hate and blame.
But Trump caught the perfect storm. He added to the "hate Obama" base the only hate base that dovetailed perfectly with his indecency and lies, the "hate Hillary" base. Hate, not despair, won.
Add up the unfavorables for both Hillary and Barack, and you can see why the deplorables won.
Hate has been a factor in American politics since before the 1861 war, but the media still pretends it is absent or marginal or lacks significant influence. That hate, seen in Donald Trump's actions, still targets women and race. It was personified in Barack and Hillary and vilified by Trump.
Measure race. Measure hate. That's the deplorables snapchat. The image of their reality. (The rest is navel-gazing that drives truth further underground.)
6
All of this is interesting but beside the point. The FBI was investigating the Russian connection to the Trump team since July. It began investigating Clinton in October. Comey had two possibilities: say nothing about both or tell the public about both. Instead he kept silent about the Russian-Trump investigation and told the world about the Clinton investigation. It was a shameful decision.
But how could he behave differently? Comey is a Republican, and no different from GOP supreme court justices, Gingerich, McConnell and Grassley, and hundreds of GOP members of Congress and state houses across the land.
But how could he behave differently? Comey is a Republican, and no different from GOP supreme court justices, Gingerich, McConnell and Grassley, and hundreds of GOP members of Congress and state houses across the land.
14
Dear Historian - You just don't read or listen to the facts. Such willful ignorance is now commonplace among many in the Democrat Party. The FBI didn't begin investigating Clinton in October, but many months long before then. As was pointed out by Director Comey, and other's knowledgeable about the difference between a criminal investigation (Clinton) and a classified national security investigation (Russia) they couldn't and, by law, cannot be managed publicly the same. Some of you just stick to the spin of Hillary Clinton while willfully ignoring the facts of both.
As for Supreme Court Justices...do you mean to say that Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Souter are not litmus tested liberals who read into the U.S. Constitution whatever they want to fit their own, and the Party's, interpretation of the public good? What role then has the Legislature in our system?
As for Supreme Court Justices...do you mean to say that Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Souter are not litmus tested liberals who read into the U.S. Constitution whatever they want to fit their own, and the Party's, interpretation of the public good? What role then has the Legislature in our system?
8
Obama sat on the Russian-Trump investigation, so why wouldn't Comey?
2
I may not remember the details, but I do not recall that Souter had known political preferences before nomination. I doubt that he was a "litmus tested liberal." And I suspect that his decisions as a justice surprised GHW Bush who, you remember, certainly chose a tested GOP conservative with his other nomination. As for reading into the constitution, the problem is that Scalia and company added to the constitution their views whose purpose was to help Republicans win public offices.
The argument concerning differences in the public management of a criminal investigation and a national security investigation carries the whiff of an after-the-fact justification for a political (underscore political) decision of great consequence.
The argument concerning differences in the public management of a criminal investigation and a national security investigation carries the whiff of an after-the-fact justification for a political (underscore political) decision of great consequence.
the Comey story couple weeks ago...now this...why is the NYT suddenly so interested in giving comfort to Comey? something smells...
4
The assumption that Nate Cohn and others rely upon is that eveyone gets the same information equally, at the same time. We know from efficient market theory (EMT) and stock prices that is not true. Insider trading is a reality. Mr. Comey at the hearing alluded to leaks in government as troubling. It was clear that Rudi Juliani had close ties with the NY FBI office and had made a comment that they had information that will surprise just before Comey sent his letter. I infer from Juliani's comment that he was given information about the Anthony Weiner laptop emails that required a 180 degree turn on the case and that Comey would need to disclose same. Is that a conspiracy theory or, similarly to the retrospective that Nate Cohn has offered, a reasonable and plausible argument that Republicans in leadership positions across the USA were trading inside information on the reopening of the Clinton email case before the market knew. There are no more secrets when it comes to elections. There is no more "truth" when it comes to news. Need further evidence? Check this bigtime investigative journalist story published today by The Guardian: https://goo.gl/VwcC8e
1
Top secret e-mails found on a sexual perverts computer. That says it all about the consequenses of Hillary's judgement. Man I'm grateful everyday she is not the president
8
Commonly available software revealed that the emails Comey announced as 'possibly new' where duplicates and old inside of a few hours. There was absolutely no need for Comey to make any public announcement until after issuing a search warrant except for the fact that it enables false statements like "Jim" from Marshfield, acting according to Kellyanne type fake facts.
3
Abedin may be in hot water for those emails. She claimed she had no knowledge of the thousands of emails on her husband's computer and didn't know how they got there. Something is not quite right there, but, of course, when it's the Clintons, is it ever?
4
You missed the point Cynic, there was classified information on Weiners computer and Weiner sexting a minor. I consider any adult sexting a monor is a pervert. Those are the facts
What did I say is not true.
What did I say is not true.
3
What none of the reporters writing their reviews from inside sealed offices seem to know is what effect the letter had on campaign offices around the country. In our county office, foot traffic, new volunteers, even people reporting in to work already-scheduled hours dropped to nearly zero. Many did not answer when I phone-banked. The whole campaign seemed to hunker down, probably trying to weather the storm, never realizing that Trump's campaign and Wikileaks would keep cranking-out more phony scandals & lies in conjunction with each other.
I saw Rudy Giuliani hopping around on a chair on FOX News Channel like a monkey on meth, saying he was in contact with the FBI and "the indictment (fantasy Clinton Foundation crimes) was imminent." Brett Baird pretended he made it up, but it was out there. Volunteers & voters alike crumbled under the onslaught of lies.
People who answered the phone said they were "probably not voting for Hillary because she'd be too busy defending herself from Comey & Jason Chaffetz's constant investigations." Voters feared she'd never have the time to govern, saying we needed a full-time President. They were throwing up their hands in the face of Republican obstructionism--tho I'd bet they've changed their minds today, seeing what Republicans have offered to replace real govt that puts all people first.
I saw Rudy Giuliani hopping around on a chair on FOX News Channel like a monkey on meth, saying he was in contact with the FBI and "the indictment (fantasy Clinton Foundation crimes) was imminent." Brett Baird pretended he made it up, but it was out there. Volunteers & voters alike crumbled under the onslaught of lies.
People who answered the phone said they were "probably not voting for Hillary because she'd be too busy defending herself from Comey & Jason Chaffetz's constant investigations." Voters feared she'd never have the time to govern, saying we needed a full-time President. They were throwing up their hands in the face of Republican obstructionism--tho I'd bet they've changed their minds today, seeing what Republicans have offered to replace real govt that puts all people first.
9
Always easier to blame someone else for their downfall instead of looking to the mirror to see who really is at fault. I voted for her but she was very flawed and she catered to a certain electorate and it cost her big time. Those who were not going to vote for her already made up their minds not to do so nothing that Comey did was going to change that.
9
Comey took it upon himself to editorialize when he released his statement clearing her of wrong-doing in his first announcement about the e-mail investigation saying she had been extremely careless. This began to sow the seeds of doubt again early on during the campaign. He should have been reprimanded then by the AG. I listened to that announcement in disbelief that the head of the FBI would do such a thing. In fact Comey's ties to the Republican congress are strong, and he felt secure in knowing he would be vociferously supported by them which proved the case. Hind sight is 20/20 but with his two comments during this election he helped support the Republican agenda in a very public manner. Not the way the FBI head should act.
3
You are wrong Phyllis. Comey's comments were made, as he testified, because the leadership of the DoJ was clearly compromised. Had the AG attempted to reprimand him she would have been forced to testify why her office was compromised and then why she attempted to influence the outcome of an FBI investigation. AG's have lost their jobs for less. Contrary to some public comments, he was within the DoJ guidelines when he communicated both the public and Congress. He couched his comments to reflect the truth of the matter, that Hillary COULD have been indicted based upon her actions and of those around her but that "no reasonable prosecutor would pursue such charges". Thus the comments about her faulty handling, sloppy handling, of clearly classified material. He didn't say she was exonerated, because she wasn't, and that is what angered the Republican's who thought she should be indicted. There are many people who believe she should have been indicted and to let the public make up it's own mind through a public trial. We STILL don't know the connections to the Foundation because this same DoJ would not authorize an FBI request to pursue the relationship between the Foundation and Hillary's service as Sec. of State. Comfort you say? What were you reading because that was not the reaction of the Republican Congress? They wanted Comey's head on a platter. Some still do.
3
I never believed Comey cost Clinton the election. She, unfortunately, lost the election herself. (Perhaps with a little help from the Russians.) As I recall, she never campaigned in Wisconsin. Very little in Pennsylvania. All of the people who lost their jobs and their way of life, due to Nafta or China, were easily seduced by Trump's lies. Clinton calling Trump's supporters "deplorables" didn't help. Now we all must suffer.
21
That's correct Campaigning in those swing states would have won her the election, instead arrogance cost her the election.
5
There's no reason to be skeptical of an American electorate effect. First, yes, HRC did win by over 3 million votes. But I have not yet shaken off the malaise from the fact that over 90 million eligible voters just simply stayed home. Or that the 60 million who voted for Trump voted for a man who is an empty marketeer grabbing and groping whatever he can, and that his own words, broadcast into every corner of the country, proved him to be unsafe in any room alone with women and teenage girls. Yet over half of white straight women--those who bothered to vote--voted for him anyway. People say HRC was an awful campaigner? We're an awful electorate.
13
Let me point out some other pieces that you have left out of your commentary:
- HRC won 3 million more votes, but not where it counts. If you are gong to be president you have to win across the country, not just in select places. HRC only won 16% of the counties. You can't expect to be elected, let alone govern if you aren't representing America.
- 90 million people stayed home, yet more people voted in this election than ever. And had those people voted, there is no reason to think the results would have been different.
- If Trump is "unsafe" to be in a room with women or teenage girls alone, he only joins the company of Billy Boy Clinton.
- White women, straight women, gays (which includes me), hispanics, men, etc. preferred Trump over HRC? Why? Many reasons. But if you are going to condemn the electorate then how do you ever expect them to want to vote for your side? I would have thought the liberals would have learned by now that calling people names (i.e., deplorable) is not a recipe for success.
Look, neither candidate was perfect, that is for sure. But at the end of the day I think we are better off with Trump than HRC. Call me names if you wish. But if you want me to vote democratic next time, don't focus on identify politics and don't call me names.
- HRC won 3 million more votes, but not where it counts. If you are gong to be president you have to win across the country, not just in select places. HRC only won 16% of the counties. You can't expect to be elected, let alone govern if you aren't representing America.
- 90 million people stayed home, yet more people voted in this election than ever. And had those people voted, there is no reason to think the results would have been different.
- If Trump is "unsafe" to be in a room with women or teenage girls alone, he only joins the company of Billy Boy Clinton.
- White women, straight women, gays (which includes me), hispanics, men, etc. preferred Trump over HRC? Why? Many reasons. But if you are going to condemn the electorate then how do you ever expect them to want to vote for your side? I would have thought the liberals would have learned by now that calling people names (i.e., deplorable) is not a recipe for success.
Look, neither candidate was perfect, that is for sure. But at the end of the day I think we are better off with Trump than HRC. Call me names if you wish. But if you want me to vote democratic next time, don't focus on identify politics and don't call me names.
2
First, she didn't win. Now who is complaining about not accepting the results of the election? This is an electoral college system and Hillary knew that, but she and her campaign ran such a lousy and incompetent race that she actually lost to a novice TV show personality. Second, she lost the vast majority of districts in the country, even more than the spread in the electoral college. By that measure she was shellacked. Third, Califorina has to be discounted to some degree because of three things: (1) illegal immigrants can obtain a CA Driver's License (good thing I guess); (2) because of motor-voter, these same illegal immigrants are registered to vote;, and, (3) there is no system of voter identification required at the polls and not internal controls to prevent illegal immigrants from voting. Thus, the results in California have to be discounted until their electoral system has proven integrity. Which won't happen anytime soon. I would postulate that as many people voted against Hillary, because of Hillary, as voted for Trump because of Trump. You cannot blame this loss on anything other than a corrupted Democratic Party system, which prevented better candidates from having a true path to the nomination, and an equally corrupted and incompetent candidate. Simple as that.
3
It's not an awful electorate, but a more than usual anti-establishment electorate. Obama, Bush and the Clintons are establishment. Only Trump and Bernie could have won.
2
Comey may not be directly responsible but his work certainly contributed to a tainted election result. The Russians used him just as effectively as they used Trump's staff.
6
Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate. She was a crook, a liar, and very, very greedy. Whenever I saw her on TV, she was screaming and never articulated a policy for the country to follow. I have been following her since her husband became Governor of Arkansas. She was able to succeed on her husband's coattails. She decided to surround herself with the elite of this country and called the rest of us "deplorables". Her campaign was poorly run. The country wanted change and she did not offer any. It is unfortunate that self-examination is not one of her qualities.
17
"Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate. She was a crook, a liar, and very, very greedy. Whenever I saw her on TV, she was screaming and never articulated a policy for the country to follow."
I say the exact same thing about Donald Trump.
I say the exact same thing about Donald Trump.
1
I will shout from the highest roof top and spread it across social media that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million and more than likely won the electoral vote, if not for voting shenanigans and rigging in MI, WI, Penn, and Fla. The election was stolen and history will one day prove it. As for the New York Times normalizing Traitor Trump Treason and making false equivalencies concerning Ms. Clinton's claims about the election and Mr. Trumps very misleading statements, their journalistic integrity continues to slide into the abyss. Just like another presidential candidate from the 1800s stated after his loss "I was robbed"; Hillary should state no less each and every day!
4
The highest rooftop is in Dubai. Please go and shout your lungs out.
3
For the life of me, I cannot understand why people believe that merely putting Hillary in front of people would have swayed the election in her favor. She was an uninspiring candidate except to her diehard fans. She had a lousy message and by the accounts of her own staff lacked the insight to change it.
In all those states where identity and bathroom policies were the last things on people's minds, she could just have easily been unconvincing. Winning California and New York were no-brainers and do not indicate anything about her potential success among swing voters and independents across the country.
In all those states where identity and bathroom policies were the last things on people's minds, she could just have easily been unconvincing. Winning California and New York were no-brainers and do not indicate anything about her potential success among swing voters and independents across the country.
2
Since November, I have thought and thought about this most troubling election result. Did Secretary Clinton run a good campaign? I would give her a C. For all her experience, expertise, and intelligence, one can not deny that she overlooked a major part of the Democratic base, blue collar workers, most especially those in the Mid-West. She should have never taken those states for granted. She should have been spending time in both Blue and Red districts rather than going to fund raisers. But...even with that damaging oversight on her part, I do believe that the tipping forces involved both Comey and the relentless barrage from Putin and company. Yes, in no minor way, she has herself to blame. However, the degree of both outside and inside influences was beyond unjust. It has instead produced threats to our democracy to which my years of being a voting American has never before witnessed.
2
Clinton ran the worst campaign in recent presidential history. Couple with her innate dislikability, she lost a race should have run away with. As bad as Trump might be, I'm thrilled she's not our President. While her husband had charm and charisma, she had contempt and arrogance. That twit Robbie Mook should never get near another political campaign. The failure to listen to Bill, after all the battles he's been through, shows the ignorance and stupidity of Mooks generation. They got what they deserved.
8
Amen!
She was a terrible, terrible candidate. She set up the server. In secret. She took big money from Wall Street. She defended her husband by attacking other women. She, She, She.
It's her turn just wasn't good enough.
Its hard to accept, but true, she was such an awful candidate, and hanging it on Comey is just cowardice from the left.
Attn Blow and Krugman, the election was blown, by her, with your help. If she was president, and he hadn't said anything, then thats all we would be hearing about. She spent a lifetime making political choices and making a nice living while she was at it, I don't feel bad for her, I feel bad for us.
No more dinosaurs.
Warren, Sanders, Cuomo, et al.
She was a terrible, terrible candidate. She set up the server. In secret. She took big money from Wall Street. She defended her husband by attacking other women. She, She, She.
It's her turn just wasn't good enough.
Its hard to accept, but true, she was such an awful candidate, and hanging it on Comey is just cowardice from the left.
Attn Blow and Krugman, the election was blown, by her, with your help. If she was president, and he hadn't said anything, then thats all we would be hearing about. She spent a lifetime making political choices and making a nice living while she was at it, I don't feel bad for her, I feel bad for us.
No more dinosaurs.
Warren, Sanders, Cuomo, et al.
11
Comey, like the other men of the FBI, hates women.
Republicans lied about Hillary for decades and were prepared to continue doing so if she were elected.
She won the popular vote in spite of the lies, the Russians, the misogyny, etc. The deplorables wanted someone to lead them in destroying her and our country.
The NYT did not help with its unrelenting equivalency articles.
Republicans lied about Hillary for decades and were prepared to continue doing so if she were elected.
She won the popular vote in spite of the lies, the Russians, the misogyny, etc. The deplorables wanted someone to lead them in destroying her and our country.
The NYT did not help with its unrelenting equivalency articles.
7
It would be more helpful were NYT to review their own role in the election.
13
I'd say The Times' bringing on more diverse (read: right-leaning) voices is its acknowledgment that it cannot afford to be so out-of-touch and wrong again. That does not mean that it won't shamelessly campaign for the more progressive candidate. I don't think it's gained that much insight.
1
Leading Obama people note that Comey had nothing to do with Ms Clinton not even going to Wisconsin and not campaigning in the 70 electoral college rich rust bowl. She lost those states and the election for that reason and only that reason. I voted for her and she blew the election. Now she is saying she would be our president if the election had been days before the Comey letter. The article suggests that simply is not true. This country needs to get over the election. Trump was elected and people may not like all that he, in fact, is doing, but he is learning and he did get some things rights. The situation is not perfect, but it is not has bad as we thought a Trump presidency would be. We will have some type of national health legislation.. The internecine fighting that continues is only hurting this country. Democrats please just run a good mid term election and in four years run a candidate without the highest negatives in democrat history.
17
You wrote "we will have some kind of health legislation," as if that is good news. In case you hadn't noticed, the health legislation that just passed the House of Reps is likely to cause 24 million Americans to lose health insurance coverage. I see no cause for optimism. As for Hillary's perceived "negatives," you seem to have forgotten they were driven by propaganda with a little help from Donald's good friend Vladimir.
3
Charles Glass:
"...the health legislation that just passed the House of Reps is likely to cause 24 million Americans to lose health insurance coverage"
Perhaps you've failed to notice that this estimate pertains to another version of the proposal. Considering there are few details, I'd say your accusation is about as accurate as the claim that we would all keep our doctors.
When there aren't enough facts on which to make an estimate, best not to act as though the estimate is a "fact."
"...the health legislation that just passed the House of Reps is likely to cause 24 million Americans to lose health insurance coverage"
Perhaps you've failed to notice that this estimate pertains to another version of the proposal. Considering there are few details, I'd say your accusation is about as accurate as the claim that we would all keep our doctors.
When there aren't enough facts on which to make an estimate, best not to act as though the estimate is a "fact."
1
The Comey effect still destroyed momentum and wasted the highly critical media cycles during the final days of the election. It effectively put a lid on Hillary's ability to rally weak supporters to the polls and indecisive people to her side. Those factors could easily have accounted for the razor thin impact that Trump needed to barely squeak by in four states. Your analysis is incomplete.
30
She's not an agile or adaptive strategic thinker. She was outfoxed by Obama who in '08 won by gathering a majority of delegates from red states that "don't matter" to democrats. She was beaten in '16 by thinking she had a "fire wall" in states like PA and MI. Her organization had laughably inadequate protocols for Internet security, even though things like the hack at SONY--those had already happened. She has vast mastery of the principles of governance but she has no strategic depth, which means, an ability to get ahead of one's adversaries, think about what they might do as well as what they are doing. So even though I voted for her in both elections, I think she was out of her depth. The collapse of health care in 93-94 is consistent with this interpretation.
Obama on the other hand was a master of getting himself elected but
presided over the evisceration of his own party. He was tone deaf to the rise of the tea party and did nothing to defend Obamacare after it was passed. If the fate of the Democratic party rests on a candidate's ability to pull 60 or 70000 votes from swing states we are totally screwed. The party needs organizational depth and needs to understand that domestic electoral politics is as tough, if not tougher, than international power politics.
Obama on the other hand was a master of getting himself elected but
presided over the evisceration of his own party. He was tone deaf to the rise of the tea party and did nothing to defend Obamacare after it was passed. If the fate of the Democratic party rests on a candidate's ability to pull 60 or 70000 votes from swing states we are totally screwed. The party needs organizational depth and needs to understand that domestic electoral politics is as tough, if not tougher, than international power politics.
31
Obama focused on caucus states, which can be easily gamed and are not as democratic as voting. For example, one can give a concert with a speech in Seattle as Sanders did and encourage attendees to caucus and "win" those, but the later one-person, one-vote ballot went overwhelmingly to Hillary. Caucuses save states money, but are limited to those who can take hours off work, or don't work, and can stand for hours. When targeted for political gaming, locals often have no idea who is steaming in. A candidate whose claimed state is nearer to Iowa has a decided advantage in that caucus. Women with children not in school need to arrange childcare.
Hillary's 2007 delegates from voting states represented 17 voters per each Obama equivalent in caucus win in mostly small, Republican states. There wasn't much difference in delegates going into the Convention, and a Bernie Sanders, who became a Dem briefly for the "free publicity" (his words said on TV) demanded a roll-call vote. Obama was a novice, but the Koch tax-deductible charities deemed him enough of a threat to get out the big tax-shielded money to ensure he didn't have a majority Democratic Congress for long. And as well, any R not on board with their libertarian agency would be primaried by one of their bought politicians. Citizens United, indeed. A shorter campaign season, no caucuses, one-person, one vote in place of the Electoral College or Supreme Court choosing the President.
Hillary's 2007 delegates from voting states represented 17 voters per each Obama equivalent in caucus win in mostly small, Republican states. There wasn't much difference in delegates going into the Convention, and a Bernie Sanders, who became a Dem briefly for the "free publicity" (his words said on TV) demanded a roll-call vote. Obama was a novice, but the Koch tax-deductible charities deemed him enough of a threat to get out the big tax-shielded money to ensure he didn't have a majority Democratic Congress for long. And as well, any R not on board with their libertarian agency would be primaried by one of their bought politicians. Citizens United, indeed. A shorter campaign season, no caucuses, one-person, one vote in place of the Electoral College or Supreme Court choosing the President.
1
Apparently, all those concerts that HRC gave didn't work. I guess people didn't like the dirty words used by Jason Z and his wife. The songs that were reported to have been sung at those places were just plain nasty. If you are going to have a concert to get people to vote for you, don't have filth. It was also reported that after all the singing was done, most people left and didn't even bother to hear HRC speak.
2
SPOT ON analysis G. Nowell.
3
The ironies are simply scrumptious. Because Mr Obama exonerated Mrs. Clinton in public, and Loretta Lynch met with Mr. Clinton at the Phoenix airport, Mr. Comey was forced to do the July press conference. Then, when classified emails were found on "Carlos Danger" Anthony Weiner's laptop, he was forced into the Oct 28th letter.
All because Mrs. Clinton created an illegal server to evade scrutiny of her Foundation activities---so the blame falls squarely on her, and nobody else.
Who could make this up ?
All because Mrs. Clinton created an illegal server to evade scrutiny of her Foundation activities---so the blame falls squarely on her, and nobody else.
Who could make this up ?
29
But wait I thought Comey was responsible? Anyone but Clinton right?
5
You, evidently, are pretty good at making things up. Hillary's use of her private server was not illegal, as Comey as affirmed.
2
Whether it is illegal or not, it was wrong. You know and I know it.
4
There are two aspects of the Comey Effect. One is whether the director's letter directly caused voters to not vote for Clinton. The other is the lost opportunity for her to effectively campaign in the closing two weeks of the campaign, when the media was suddenly fully committed to talking about anything but the real issues, and the tired old character assassination lines were trotted out again with the media's assistance and without an opportunity to respond.
It is probably true that the first did not decide the result, and careful statistical analysis might prove as much. But the second is something that we all know is important but it is impossible to put a solid number on.
For argument's sake, if in any other close race a candidate decided to stop campaigning for two weeks and they lost, we would absolutely say that not campaigning decided the result. Well, Comey decided to invent an entirely novel theory of professional ethics in order to protect his own reputation, and the result is he squashed Clinton's ability to effectively campaign for two weeks. The obvious conclusion is probably correct, and a more careful examination is unlikely to tell us anything more than that.
It is probably true that the first did not decide the result, and careful statistical analysis might prove as much. But the second is something that we all know is important but it is impossible to put a solid number on.
For argument's sake, if in any other close race a candidate decided to stop campaigning for two weeks and they lost, we would absolutely say that not campaigning decided the result. Well, Comey decided to invent an entirely novel theory of professional ethics in order to protect his own reputation, and the result is he squashed Clinton's ability to effectively campaign for two weeks. The obvious conclusion is probably correct, and a more careful examination is unlikely to tell us anything more than that.
5
Cohn writes "and Republican-leaning voters belatedly and finally decided to back their traditional party’s nontraditional candidate." in discussing voters who decided late, and then dismisses the likelihood that the letter had much influence.
55% of Republicans voted against him in the primaries. Some, like Christie, flipped quickly to him while others took much longer or, like Kasich, did not flip. That group was Trump's 'soft underbelly'. The bus hot mike tape of Oct 8 hurt him, but as Hillary slid in your graph many Republican traditional voters I know struggled with their distaste for him as the tried to find more reasons to go with their gut and vote against her.
Enter Comey, Anthony Weiner, and Huma Abedin, a Republican Tri-Fecta. Suspicion Red Alert!!! There really must be something wrong with her if Carlos Danger reads her emails. Was that enough for 0.2% MI + 07% PA + 0.8% WI? Cohn's argument is that the polls don't prove it, but they sure don't disprove it either.
And in Harrisburg on Day 100 they were still chanting "Lock Her Up!"
55% of Republicans voted against him in the primaries. Some, like Christie, flipped quickly to him while others took much longer or, like Kasich, did not flip. That group was Trump's 'soft underbelly'. The bus hot mike tape of Oct 8 hurt him, but as Hillary slid in your graph many Republican traditional voters I know struggled with their distaste for him as the tried to find more reasons to go with their gut and vote against her.
Enter Comey, Anthony Weiner, and Huma Abedin, a Republican Tri-Fecta. Suspicion Red Alert!!! There really must be something wrong with her if Carlos Danger reads her emails. Was that enough for 0.2% MI + 07% PA + 0.8% WI? Cohn's argument is that the polls don't prove it, but they sure don't disprove it either.
And in Harrisburg on Day 100 they were still chanting "Lock Her Up!"
8
Nate! Florida ≠ Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan! Most believe those 3 states decided the election. You left out
1. The Wikileaks email disclosure impact!
2. A table of major polls, dates, and changes.
3. State polls in those 3 states before and after Comey's unwarranted interference.
4. Trends in the polls that showed Clinton with a commanding lead after the 3rd debate. (48-49%, while Trump had dropped to 37-38%)
There may have been a regression to the mean, or fadeout effect, after the 3rd debate, but the double whammy of the Wikileaks email release and Comey's telling Congress the FBI was reopening the investigation--raised the specter of scandal and mishandling of classified information. It finished off her candidacy!
It made it far easier for Republicans to come "home", and for independents or disaffected Democrats who were leaning her way--or on the fence--to sit out the election, leave the top of the ballot blank, or vote 3rd party.
A mere shift of 37,500 votes in those 3 states is all it took. Comey was a major factor.
To conclude, as Nate did that "in such a close election, anything and everything could have plausibly been decisive" is silly!
Did our deciding to watch Gilmore Girls re-runs have an influence?! :-)
Did vigorous posts against Trump get him elected?!
Was Trump's sexual assault or racism decisive? Was his foundation self-dealing? Was Clinton's brilliant debate performance decisive?
They weren't. Comey was!
1. The Wikileaks email disclosure impact!
2. A table of major polls, dates, and changes.
3. State polls in those 3 states before and after Comey's unwarranted interference.
4. Trends in the polls that showed Clinton with a commanding lead after the 3rd debate. (48-49%, while Trump had dropped to 37-38%)
There may have been a regression to the mean, or fadeout effect, after the 3rd debate, but the double whammy of the Wikileaks email release and Comey's telling Congress the FBI was reopening the investigation--raised the specter of scandal and mishandling of classified information. It finished off her candidacy!
It made it far easier for Republicans to come "home", and for independents or disaffected Democrats who were leaning her way--or on the fence--to sit out the election, leave the top of the ballot blank, or vote 3rd party.
A mere shift of 37,500 votes in those 3 states is all it took. Comey was a major factor.
To conclude, as Nate did that "in such a close election, anything and everything could have plausibly been decisive" is silly!
Did our deciding to watch Gilmore Girls re-runs have an influence?! :-)
Did vigorous posts against Trump get him elected?!
Was Trump's sexual assault or racism decisive? Was his foundation self-dealing? Was Clinton's brilliant debate performance decisive?
They weren't. Comey was!
9
What evidence do you have for all of this.
The only thing that I could say is that had HRC actually bothered to campaign in those states, maybe a mere 37,500 votes would have shifted her way.
And in actuality she only needed slightly more than half to go her way, subtracting from him and adding to her.
The only thing that I could say is that had HRC actually bothered to campaign in those states, maybe a mere 37,500 votes would have shifted her way.
And in actuality she only needed slightly more than half to go her way, subtracting from him and adding to her.
1
Poor quality political polling around the time of the Comey letter probably doesn't provide a fine enough lens to say whether his unprecedented and biased intervention tipped the final election results. But I do think political scientists will go into the key swing states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania to ask former Obama voters exactly why and when they switched to Trump, and the same for those who voted third party and those who stayed home. Hopefully, we'll eventually have an unbiased and definitive answer.
I do know that Rudy Giuliani was cackling about an upcoming surprise (and I doubt it was a new ad), the FBI office in Manhattan was Trumpland, the Anthony Wiener laptop emails weren't disclosed to Comey for up to a month, Trump immediately went out after the Comey letter and said every day Hillary was about to be indicted, and the same message was repeated ad nauseam on Fox.
So, you're right. Who can say whether one more arrow finally brought Hillary and the nation down. But if it were a murder, everyone involved would be equally eligible for the death penalty.
I do know that Rudy Giuliani was cackling about an upcoming surprise (and I doubt it was a new ad), the FBI office in Manhattan was Trumpland, the Anthony Wiener laptop emails weren't disclosed to Comey for up to a month, Trump immediately went out after the Comey letter and said every day Hillary was about to be indicted, and the same message was repeated ad nauseam on Fox.
So, you're right. Who can say whether one more arrow finally brought Hillary and the nation down. But if it were a murder, everyone involved would be equally eligible for the death penalty.
4
She was being pilloried from ALL directions. Sanders supporters, Benghazi, Bill, Yuma, Comey, Wikileaks, Trump, and Russian fake media commenters. Never has a candidate been accused of so much when there was nothing. And the candidate who actually WAS GUILTY of it all got elected and continues to do it.
21
Maybe a mirror would help her understand the reason why she lost the election
8
Lord, she was as a guilty as the day is long, and we still haven't heard everything from the Clinton "foundation."
6
NYT, this ad nauseam rehashing of a poorly contested election and the disturbing results we all have to now live with has long since become banal. The only people at this point who apparently haven't come to grips with this event are the pollsters and various members of the "American Association of Public Opinion Research", an organization that I'm quite certain is as boring as their title implies. For the sake of the rest of your readership, can you please get Nate some professional help in moving on with his life and stop dwelling on this?
2
I guess it's just beyond comprehension for some that Trump beat Clinton.
7
There is no doubt that Comey’s announcement about the Wiener , Clinton emails did not help Clinton in her quest for the White House, but it was not the reason she lost.If she want’s to cast blame for her loss she must go back to her Husbands administration that sullied the white house with his infidelity & his total disregard for Unions & the white non college union worker that was a card carrying union worker., that were betrayed by Clinton & the elitist Democratic Party that pushed through NAFTA that was the final nail in the Union movement, & led the way to outsourcing.Even so, there were still some minorities like the Jews & African Americans & social , secular Liberals.that remained loyal to the Party,but their hold on the rust belt was gone, which cost her the White House.As we now know, the Blue Collar White Worker is the largest voting block in America, which will be lost forever if the next Democratic nominee is not at least a moderate Biden type of candidate that can relate to the white working class.
6
Hate to tell you but Republicans nailed your coffin shut, not Dems, not Clintons, not even NAFTA which had unexpected consequences. But Repubs were back in office by the time those hit, and did nothing. Fully 6 of 10 jobs lost have been lost to automation. (Hillary was slammed for wanting to retrain workers to maintain robots!)
Reagan started nailing your coffin shut with his attacks on collective bargaining--remember the air traffic controllers strike? He fired all the strikers. Republicans, local, state and nationally, have been on a crusade to end unions, workers comp, OSHA, maximum hours, minimum wages, child labor laws and the rest for 40 yrs. "Right to work" states are NOT a Democratic invention. It was not Dems who lowered taxes on the richest billionaires, switching the burden of supporting the govt to the working class by taxing wages instead of income.
You have been behind the 8-ball since before 1980, but it was not Dems targeting you. I can't tell you the number of times I tried to explain to a union worker how the policies of a Republican candidate were going to hurt them. Yet, I heard back that they "liked his movies," or "would rather have him over for a beer (or barbecue)," or their "pastor told them to vote for___." We Dems cannot be blamed for others' choices. Now, it seems many voters want to be lied to, like spouses who won't admit their husbands or wives are cheating on them--we get insulted, hung up on, doors slammed in our faces try to explain.
Reagan started nailing your coffin shut with his attacks on collective bargaining--remember the air traffic controllers strike? He fired all the strikers. Republicans, local, state and nationally, have been on a crusade to end unions, workers comp, OSHA, maximum hours, minimum wages, child labor laws and the rest for 40 yrs. "Right to work" states are NOT a Democratic invention. It was not Dems who lowered taxes on the richest billionaires, switching the burden of supporting the govt to the working class by taxing wages instead of income.
You have been behind the 8-ball since before 1980, but it was not Dems targeting you. I can't tell you the number of times I tried to explain to a union worker how the policies of a Republican candidate were going to hurt them. Yet, I heard back that they "liked his movies," or "would rather have him over for a beer (or barbecue)," or their "pastor told them to vote for___." We Dems cannot be blamed for others' choices. Now, it seems many voters want to be lied to, like spouses who won't admit their husbands or wives are cheating on them--we get insulted, hung up on, doors slammed in our faces try to explain.
1
cyinbend,
My comment is not meant to excuse Republicans for their greed & callousness towards the disenfranchised., rather it is to save my party, I have been a Democrat all of my 83 years. The Democrats owned labor, & took it for granted.It was Nixon & Kissinger that opened our markets to China, & Russia, which was the beginning of the Cold war meltdown.
However, NAFTA began the wholesale movement to out source our production. I sold to Industry & witnessed it first hand, it was a great American Tragedy, & the Democrats did nothing to stop it. Organized Labor lost the control of their rank & file as their jobs disappeared. Labor Unions became a Paper Tiger without teeth. While this was happening, the Democrats pushed through programs like Affirmative Action to help the Black & Hispanic get into the Universities, while the White X Union Workers stood in unemployment lines.These Rust Belt And Appalachian workers were the first to volunteer for service & the first to come back in coffins.They deserved much more then they received. The first person that spoke up for them was Trump & the rest is History.The Democrats had only themselves to blame.
My comment is not meant to excuse Republicans for their greed & callousness towards the disenfranchised., rather it is to save my party, I have been a Democrat all of my 83 years. The Democrats owned labor, & took it for granted.It was Nixon & Kissinger that opened our markets to China, & Russia, which was the beginning of the Cold war meltdown.
However, NAFTA began the wholesale movement to out source our production. I sold to Industry & witnessed it first hand, it was a great American Tragedy, & the Democrats did nothing to stop it. Organized Labor lost the control of their rank & file as their jobs disappeared. Labor Unions became a Paper Tiger without teeth. While this was happening, the Democrats pushed through programs like Affirmative Action to help the Black & Hispanic get into the Universities, while the White X Union Workers stood in unemployment lines.These Rust Belt And Appalachian workers were the first to volunteer for service & the first to come back in coffins.They deserved much more then they received. The first person that spoke up for them was Trump & the rest is History.The Democrats had only themselves to blame.
2
You you realize that there was early voting going on in many states. I was in North Carolina at the time and Comey's blunder shoved me toward voting for Trump which I have regretted since before Inauguration Day. I am a Democrat; I really didn't like Hillary if only her personality and "it's my turn attitude". I was a Bernie supporter. I was tired of the Centralist Democrats taking so much money from the Corporations while still acting as if a Democrat. The DNC didn't help. But it was Comey that swung my vote! God how Trump is such an pathetic lazy idiot, a tool of the Alt-Right, Evangelicals, Big-Business, and Money.
I will never again vote anything but Democrat even if that person is unfit (they will have to be better than what I helped elect). I feel so much guilt and shame for putting this potential Traitor in office.
I will never again vote anything but Democrat even if that person is unfit (they will have to be better than what I helped elect). I feel so much guilt and shame for putting this potential Traitor in office.
2
I don't believe your comment for one second. I too was a rabid Sanders supporter but never and I mean NEVER would I vote for a fraudster and huckster like Trump. I'd sooner stay home and not vote. No Sanders supporter I know voted for this hack in chief. And you should feel massive amounts of guilt and shame.
1
Instead of constant rehashing of the past maybe the NYT needs a poll of how receptive the American public is to a woman President or a woman in any position of power in this country. If you look at the Obama administration chock full of women all you ever see is the same ole prejudices against women no matter how good the job they are doing. There was no high praise by the press for any woman. Loretta Lynch was criticized for a meeting with Bill but not praised for other policies. What I see today is a sea of ole white male faces representing me in our government. We don't even have a REAL first lady. We need Mrs. Clinton to speak for us as she has all her adult life.
5
Honestly, Hillary Clinton should look in the mirror to see the person who was responsible for losing the election.
Last year, when the e-mail question first came to light, I distinctly remember her press conference where she was cavalier in dismissing the issue (when a reporter asked her if she wiped her server clean she shot back sarcastically, "with what, a dust rag?").
Her closest aides implored her to put the issue out and move past it, but she stubbornly refused to give an inch. The issue would continue to haunt her throughout her campaign and eventually, dealt her a political death blow. That was always her greatest flaw, the need to hunker down and not listen to the people closest to her. Didn't Bill Clinton urge her to go to PA during the campaign? Did she listen?
Nah, it wasn't James Comey who took the election away from her. She did that all by herself.
Last year, when the e-mail question first came to light, I distinctly remember her press conference where she was cavalier in dismissing the issue (when a reporter asked her if she wiped her server clean she shot back sarcastically, "with what, a dust rag?").
Her closest aides implored her to put the issue out and move past it, but she stubbornly refused to give an inch. The issue would continue to haunt her throughout her campaign and eventually, dealt her a political death blow. That was always her greatest flaw, the need to hunker down and not listen to the people closest to her. Didn't Bill Clinton urge her to go to PA during the campaign? Did she listen?
Nah, it wasn't James Comey who took the election away from her. She did that all by herself.
15
A reminder that KellyAnne Conway said in an interview on the day the Comey letter became known (and remember, it was a private letter to Jason Chaffetz, who then tweeted about it): "This changes everything." Trump's aides tried to keep him off Twitter and tried to make him look more Presidential." And let's NOT Rudy Guiliani's bragging about it a few days before.
The number of voters that made the difference was 77,000. That number would fill a moderately sized college football stadium. One does not need to "hack" the voting machines if one can hack the actual voters.
The number of voters that made the difference was 77,000. That number would fill a moderately sized college football stadium. One does not need to "hack" the voting machines if one can hack the actual voters.
6
I don't know why Clinton's supporters keep trumpeting her 3 million vote majority over Trump. That she, "the most qualified candidate in history", ONLY eked out such a middling edge, over a complete ignoramus, is a complete embarrassment, speaking volumes about her and the DNC.
11
The reason why they keep "trumpeting" about the 3 MILLION votes is because it's what you call a MAJORITY.
12
Which is relevant how, exactly, other than to water the sour grapes?
3
It means Trump's claims that voters voted to dismantle the ACA, environmental protections, or LGBT rights, or to lower taxes on billionaires are bull.
1
The analysis in the article is too narrow. Of the numerous influential factors, there likely was a strong Comey effect, but as related to other forces such as hacking, fake news stories, a poor Clinton campaign strategy, the undisclosed FBI investigation into the Trump campaign' relation with Russia at the time, etc...
But regarding the polls and public opinion, the Comey letter most strongly influenced a tremendous pendulum effect whereby the severely damaging October 7th video release of Trump on the bus was countered with a distraction that opponents of Hillary could rally around because her terrible deed could be framed as institutional and deceitful to America, but Trump's terrible deed was merely "locker room banter" and if thought about just the right way, comparable to the inconsequential Monica-gate and therefore something America already had proven to have the stomach for.
Trump's ratings were dropping before the letter, not rising, and the Comey letter created a hard surface for that failing public opinion to bounce back against.
But regarding the polls and public opinion, the Comey letter most strongly influenced a tremendous pendulum effect whereby the severely damaging October 7th video release of Trump on the bus was countered with a distraction that opponents of Hillary could rally around because her terrible deed could be framed as institutional and deceitful to America, but Trump's terrible deed was merely "locker room banter" and if thought about just the right way, comparable to the inconsequential Monica-gate and therefore something America already had proven to have the stomach for.
Trump's ratings were dropping before the letter, not rising, and the Comey letter created a hard surface for that failing public opinion to bounce back against.
3
Why doesn't someone ask them? Do a survey: Did you vote for Donald Trump?
If so, did you change your vote because of the Comey letter?
Just speaking personally, I find it hard to accept that there was a single voter who would have been affected by such a silly thing, given that the news also reported that the FBI said that nothing new was found in the new emails - also before the election. Why would anyone have changed their vote because of this?
If so, did you change your vote because of the Comey letter?
Just speaking personally, I find it hard to accept that there was a single voter who would have been affected by such a silly thing, given that the news also reported that the FBI said that nothing new was found in the new emails - also before the election. Why would anyone have changed their vote because of this?
3
For me, a liberal ex-Dem, Hillary has demonstrated throughout her political life that she will shift her stance to whatever position will get her more votes, power or money (but I repeat myself). Consequently, I was skeptical of Comey's first decision that Hillary showed bad judgement but was not to be prosecuted. Comey's second comment that investigations of her emails were re-opened seemed more unbiased.
As for the hacking, we now have a comparison case in France. Today's NYT article on the hacking of Macron's emails landing with a thud included a very illuminating contrast with our reaction to the hacking of 2016. Why did we give such weight to this news? We have a strong alternative media e.g. Breitbart, Fox, whereas the French press doesn't even print fake news. More fool we for saturating print, television and the net with lies. (Would we even have a Pres Trump without his making money for mass media?)
The article ends with a Hillary quote, injecting herself into the French hacking...ending with a bitter statement about her not being allowed to say that. Enough already. Don't we have enough to worry about without re-hashing her loss?
As for the hacking, we now have a comparison case in France. Today's NYT article on the hacking of Macron's emails landing with a thud included a very illuminating contrast with our reaction to the hacking of 2016. Why did we give such weight to this news? We have a strong alternative media e.g. Breitbart, Fox, whereas the French press doesn't even print fake news. More fool we for saturating print, television and the net with lies. (Would we even have a Pres Trump without his making money for mass media?)
The article ends with a Hillary quote, injecting herself into the French hacking...ending with a bitter statement about her not being allowed to say that. Enough already. Don't we have enough to worry about without re-hashing her loss?
3
INSPIRATION :
Hillary could not, did not, not once, inspire us.
Her weak message was that Trump was bad and that she represented goodness, yet every revelation just caused us to view her campaign as empty of purpose, which it was, breaking the glass ceiling is not enogh if in your personal history you have belitteled women and everyone knows it.
Championing the little person is great, unless you are not really a champion at all except for yourself and your disfunctional family.
Lying to me will not convince me you are better than another, you must be better, and she was not.
There were too many Clinton shenanigans for me to view her as reasonable, Comey's letter was the kind of drama we no longer needed. With the Clinton's everyone knew they were enriching themselves at the expense of others and selling their influence.
I realize others will feel equally strongly about our President, yet Hillary represented what is wrong with Washington and our current political system, we needed change, only time will tell if our experiment in nontraditional leadership will pan out.
Hillary could not, did not, not once, inspire us.
Her weak message was that Trump was bad and that she represented goodness, yet every revelation just caused us to view her campaign as empty of purpose, which it was, breaking the glass ceiling is not enogh if in your personal history you have belitteled women and everyone knows it.
Championing the little person is great, unless you are not really a champion at all except for yourself and your disfunctional family.
Lying to me will not convince me you are better than another, you must be better, and she was not.
There were too many Clinton shenanigans for me to view her as reasonable, Comey's letter was the kind of drama we no longer needed. With the Clinton's everyone knew they were enriching themselves at the expense of others and selling their influence.
I realize others will feel equally strongly about our President, yet Hillary represented what is wrong with Washington and our current political system, we needed change, only time will tell if our experiment in nontraditional leadership will pan out.
9
Only time will tell if fascism will work out as fascists promise.
Ok. But don't claim to be an American patriot. Americans answer to a higher standard. Fascists on the other hand repeat a senseless fascist talking point that refuses to address every real issue.
If you actually believed your fascist provided talking point you would have voted for the communist candidate. But you don't and you didn't.
Ok. But don't claim to be an American patriot. Americans answer to a higher standard. Fascists on the other hand repeat a senseless fascist talking point that refuses to address every real issue.
If you actually believed your fascist provided talking point you would have voted for the communist candidate. But you don't and you didn't.
We will never know exactly how many votes Comey cost Hillary. What already know is that with such a close election everything counted. The Russian hacking, the Russian misinformation campaign, the media's focus on her emails, the last minute Comey announcement... All of them counted just enough to change swing the election. Therefore I see Comey as interfering with the election.
3
Both parties offered the public an impossible choice.....two candidates with questionable ethics, minimal respect for the law as it applies to the candidate and their inner circle, and overt self-centeredness and entitlement verging on the pathological. This awful election was a commentary on the absence of choice, on corporate ownership of both parties, in face of great existing economic disadvantages not seen since FDR established our frayed and dying social safety net.
The Democratic Party continues its run against the terrible Trump, but fails to address its internal flaw.....the increasing absence of the core economic policies that made the large chunk of the US great for many people.
The systems disadvantages third parties....but in the absence of party reform....and the Republicans seem beyond hopeless in their barbarian sweep......it may be time to build functionality into new alternatives.
The Democratic Party continues its run against the terrible Trump, but fails to address its internal flaw.....the increasing absence of the core economic policies that made the large chunk of the US great for many people.
The systems disadvantages third parties....but in the absence of party reform....and the Republicans seem beyond hopeless in their barbarian sweep......it may be time to build functionality into new alternatives.
6
It will never be proven either way, but Comrade Comey's intentions and actions when comparing the Clinton investigation to Trump one are clear. The worse Trump's presidency becomes the more history will paint Comey as the villain.
5
Watch any close sporting event for the metaphor. Small things make big differences. A pitch that goes a millimeter in the wrong direction and turns a ground ball into a different angle and into the seats, or a ball that is an inch out of reach - the same holds in tight elections. This election had plenty of small things that contributed to the final big result. I personally could not bring myself to vote for either candidate. What I don't understand, though, is the following: Comey had already broken precedent with the July communication, and the Oct. 28 letter and the Sunday pre-election followup were consistent with the fact that he made the July communication, no? The normal pattern of precedents was already altered by the Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton meeting, so arguments about "unprecedented" actions are meaningless - it was already completely new ground and unprecedented by definition. And nobody seems to be focusing on the weasel in all this, Anthony Wiener. No underage sex email investigation, no Oct. 28 letter. So, if the Comey letter was determinative, thank Huma's spouse - and, incidentally, thank Huma, who, despite Comey's cover, was well aware that emailing thousands of government emails including classified information to anyone's personal account was both inexcusably careless and feloniously illegal. I am in the minority who think Comey's actions were justified and consistent throughout.
4
On the morning of the elections, the front page of the NYT had a banner stating that the odds of HRC winning the election stood at 82%. It is likely that many people did not vote, thinking her election was in the bag.
A little humility, Nate, would serve you well.
And now you're throwing numbers around again.
A little humility, Nate, would serve you well.
And now you're throwing numbers around again.
2
Hillary was a terrible candidate with 30 years of baggage to go along with her. Maybe if she would have made any kind of attempt to campaign in the rust belt states like mine, the outcome would have been different. She is an elitist and a snob. That's what came through to the voters.
7
It looks like her "basket of deplorables" comment on 9/9 has a pretty good correlation with the timing of the decline. While I supported her all along, I've always wondered if she didn't shoot herself in the foot with that comments. Full disclosure--I agreed with her comment, but that doesn't make the statement on her part defendable, and certainly it remains a politically stupid thing to say.
4
Oh lord, can we please stop with the "did 'X' cost Clinton the election" nonsense.
Imagine it takes 10 quarts of water to overflow a container. Upon pouring in that 10th quart, the container overflows. Was it the 2nd quart pour that causes the overflow? Or the 8th? Surely it wasn't the 10th, because it wouldn't have caused the overflow if the 2nd or 8th had not occurred.
NONE of them singly cause the overflow. They each, in their small way, push the water level up to the point of eventual overflow.
Comey's interference was one of those pours, so let's stop this ridiculous lending of *importance* to this one pour. They ALL contributed (including her missteps as a candidate).
And for all of you trump supporters, ask yourselves if given the chance, would you have casually accepted any of the "pours" that were beyond Clinton's control to have affected trump's vote count? Of course not.
Imagine it takes 10 quarts of water to overflow a container. Upon pouring in that 10th quart, the container overflows. Was it the 2nd quart pour that causes the overflow? Or the 8th? Surely it wasn't the 10th, because it wouldn't have caused the overflow if the 2nd or 8th had not occurred.
NONE of them singly cause the overflow. They each, in their small way, push the water level up to the point of eventual overflow.
Comey's interference was one of those pours, so let's stop this ridiculous lending of *importance* to this one pour. They ALL contributed (including her missteps as a candidate).
And for all of you trump supporters, ask yourselves if given the chance, would you have casually accepted any of the "pours" that were beyond Clinton's control to have affected trump's vote count? Of course not.
2
Here is yet another desperate effort by the news media to wipe their collective fingerprints off of Hillary's body (it was good to see HIllary push back against the media this morning in her tweet on the French election, saying how the attempted foreign influence had failed, but "the media says I can't talk about that").
Conveniently omitted from all of the media's self-serving accounts on the impact of Comey's letter is the near-hysteria with which they covered the release of the letter. They covered it that weekend as if it were the second bombing of Pearl Harbor.
The Media Matters website ran a mosaic of front pages from the day following the letter's release and they all were above-the-fold stories with screaming large-point headlines. And of course the entertainment-themed cable "news" networks provided wall-to-wall coverage of the letter, including a false narrative, later retracted, that Hillary was about to be indicted.
And then we have the Wikileaks media scandal, when the news media, without any justification, collectively collaborated in the publication of stolen and unauthenticated emails "fenced" through Wikileaks, a Russian intelligence cutout.
As the NYT points today, when confronted with the same scenario of stolen documents, the French press, unlike the sensationalist American media, responsibly refrained from publishing the contraband.
And now in the final disgrace, we are seeing the media pile on Hillary with the "sore loser" narrative. Sad!
Conveniently omitted from all of the media's self-serving accounts on the impact of Comey's letter is the near-hysteria with which they covered the release of the letter. They covered it that weekend as if it were the second bombing of Pearl Harbor.
The Media Matters website ran a mosaic of front pages from the day following the letter's release and they all were above-the-fold stories with screaming large-point headlines. And of course the entertainment-themed cable "news" networks provided wall-to-wall coverage of the letter, including a false narrative, later retracted, that Hillary was about to be indicted.
And then we have the Wikileaks media scandal, when the news media, without any justification, collectively collaborated in the publication of stolen and unauthenticated emails "fenced" through Wikileaks, a Russian intelligence cutout.
As the NYT points today, when confronted with the same scenario of stolen documents, the French press, unlike the sensationalist American media, responsibly refrained from publishing the contraband.
And now in the final disgrace, we are seeing the media pile on Hillary with the "sore loser" narrative. Sad!
2
Why not just take a poll to find out if Comey's announcement had any measurable effect ob voters?
4
But, what if Comey makes an announcement just prior?
Comey was the straw that broke the camel's back. She was already badly threatened by Russian fake news hackers who penetrated US media hugely. We should really study how the hackers were defeated in France yesterday because I absolutely believe those hackers are going to be back big time for our next elections.
1
I will opine the way I answered a Democratic phone survey last week. She shouldn't have been nominated in 2016; had Debby Waserman-Schultz not dirtied Bernie, he would be President based on a millennial increased turnout. Its not about misogyny; its about failure to connect with voters and essentially having no message; never defined why anyone should vote for her. Hopefully my party won't three-peat and be nearsighted in 2020. (pun intended)
4
Dems are too educated to fill the centrist vacuum.
At the time the NY Times reported that Comey's letter "reinvigorated" the Trump campaign. That observation points to momentum on the hustings. Clinton had to appear twice before cameras to rebut the Comey letter. She did a lawyerly job of it, but as usual competence was not enough. Optics were terrible for her.
Comey testified last week "Oh, Lordy" "Concealment would have been catastrophic." Given the outcome of the renewed FBI investigation, that is an insupportable assertion. Concealment would not have been catastrophic.
Comey testified last week "Oh, Lordy" "Concealment would have been catastrophic." Given the outcome of the renewed FBI investigation, that is an insupportable assertion. Concealment would not have been catastrophic.
I don't know why we are still debating about the reasons for Hillary Clinton loosing the election. She lost blue states! That is because of her support for NAFTA and TPP. Democrats better pay attention to Blue Collar workers. She is wrong choice at the wrong time.
4
The Washington Post ran a tracking poll, the same panel of votes repeatedly queried, that showed a substantive decline on the day after Comey's letter. When the danger of Clinton's losing was pointed out by a member of Dailykos, an avid Democratic website, the writer was mobbed for not having faith in HRC. As that article said, the only one who could reverse this was the President, who could have demanded a clarification that the new emails represents no evidence of indictable action by Clinton, and the exaggerated representations by her opposition are false.
President Obama's statement on Monday were words to the effect, "I won't say whether the release of the letter was right or wrong" leaving HRC foundering. In a network interview the previous Wednesday, Rudolf Giuliani with his close ties to the FBI stated, "In two days something will happen that will be a game changer" and then he couldn't contain the broadest smile I've ever seen by a political spokesman.
He was right.
AlRodbell.com
President Obama's statement on Monday were words to the effect, "I won't say whether the release of the letter was right or wrong" leaving HRC foundering. In a network interview the previous Wednesday, Rudolf Giuliani with his close ties to the FBI stated, "In two days something will happen that will be a game changer" and then he couldn't contain the broadest smile I've ever seen by a political spokesman.
He was right.
AlRodbell.com
3
Campaigning as The Obama Sequel was hardly a winning strategy. I kept waiting for Hillary to propose a single original policy of any consequence, and came up dry. She should stop casting about for scapegoats. The Democratic Party needs to rebuild based on their grassroots, and develop actual policy proposals that matter to average voters. The Old Guard needs to make way for fresh ideas.
4
HRC's strongest opponent was HRC. Still is.
12
Yep! America was sick and tired of looking at her face. The Republicans could have run the Mayor of Pettie Coat Junction and he/she would have won.
Heh, heh, heh...HRC beat your draft dodging daughter dating president by three million votes.
And she'll remind your emotionally unbalanced president every chance she gets because it really bothers him.
And she'll remind your emotionally unbalanced president every chance she gets because it really bothers him.
3
Hey, it was 70,000 votes in three states. Where/how does margin of error fit in here? It wouldn't have taken much for some unenthusiastic Hilary voters to just give up on her and not vote.
2
My God! Who cares? HRC lost because she was an awful candidate! She lost in 2008 to a little-known politician, named Barack Hussein Obama. She lost in 2016 to a buffoon named Trump! She and the Clinton Clan are responsible for the demise of the Democratic Party and for the Trump win! Holy mother of God, why doesn't she just disappear into the woods! I am so tired of all this meaningless analysis...it doesn't matter anymore...we have Trump now, thanks to the hubris of the Clintons.
15
Baloney.
Sure, one more time with the excuse mongering. Thanks, Comey. And REALLY thanks, " Media". Have you tried the new fragrance, Complicit???
3
Can't believe Cohn is citing polling data, when their data incorrectly projected a Clinton win! Why would the data be any more correct now than prior to the election? The pre-election polls were wrong for a number of reasons, and trying to use that same data now to prove a conjecture about the race is equally wrong.
7
Look at the dip right before Comey released his statement and then right after. Does the NY Times see what I see, or is this fake vision? Because I see a slight dip right before (which could be attributed to any number of things) Comey's statement and a huge dip right after his statement. I don't think it takes a genius to figure out that Comey's statement had a huge effect.
5
Indeed! Cohn is telling me red is green - He is also ignoring the gross accumulation of false statements that Clinton was facing an indictment that came from Giuliani and similar mouthpieces for Trump, which turned out to be completely lies. Meanwhile Trump is still under FBI investigation. This is a truly tragic scandal and we should be looking at a special prosecutor not "polls."
1
The primary focus of political reporting should be public policy issues and the policy positions of the parties. But instead we get horse race coverage of individuals that present governance as a chess game between narcissists.
Whatever democracy-debasing effects Russia and Comey had, they pale in comparison to the effect the media had.
Whatever democracy-debasing effects Russia and Comey had, they pale in comparison to the effect the media had.
2
Voters pretty much agreed with Newt's mother as she asserted on "60 Minutes"
1
Nate, why this? Your own paper did an investigation that largely acknowledged that the "complicated Mr. Comey" was the villain in this drama. And this week's Times editorial chided the two candidates of re-living the 2016 election
I can agree that Donald Trump has been trying for the last 100 days or so to legitimize his win - ad nauseum. But to complain that Mrs. Clinton belonged in that category - in one of her few public statements since her loss - was uncharitable and overkill.
But the vociferous Clinton haters prevail - and your piece continues the saga.
I can agree that Donald Trump has been trying for the last 100 days or so to legitimize his win - ad nauseum. But to complain that Mrs. Clinton belonged in that category - in one of her few public statements since her loss - was uncharitable and overkill.
But the vociferous Clinton haters prevail - and your piece continues the saga.
8
You say "it's hard to rule out the possibility that Mr. Comey was decisive in such a close election." On the contrary, it's really impossible to say, in such a close election, that any one consideration could possibly have been decisive. The idea that a body of voters, intending to vote for Clinton, changed their minds based on the Comey letter and voted for Trump instead, is an optical illusion. Some small subset of voters may fall into this category. Others may have changed their minds for a wide range and combination of other reasons. Still others probably drifted away from Trump and into the Clinton camp at the same time. I suggest that for almost no voters was the content of Anthony Weiner's laptop of pressing concern. Ideological affiliation, economic interests, and general liking for this candidate or that mattered much, much more.
3
Speaking as an attorney, I think Comey's actions are indicative of a man who unintentionally found himself having to make a series of some of the most important decisions in human history, and whose top priority was to protect himself from the unprecedented legal minefield in which he was treading. His behavior was so strikingly similar to what many attorneys would have done in such a situation in order to protect themselves that it led me to wonder weather Comey himself has a law degree--and it turns out he has a JD from University of Chicago. I think the short, terse letter to Congress about the continuing investigation was more about Comey's legal protection in the event that the investigation continued after Hillary was elected president, both of which were probable outcomes at the time.
Before we go assigning a nefarious political motive to Comey, lets also consider the possibility that he was simply an individual who found himself in a sticky situation and was just trying avoid doing anything illegal. For a person in Comey's position, that is a much more nuanced and difficult task than people realize.
Before we go assigning a nefarious political motive to Comey, lets also consider the possibility that he was simply an individual who found himself in a sticky situation and was just trying avoid doing anything illegal. For a person in Comey's position, that is a much more nuanced and difficult task than people realize.
9
The MSM can keep going back to polls, to Candidate Clinton's mis steps, etc., the facts remain that, the press, including the NYT was never kind to her, but they were to Trump. In giving trump the benefit of the doubt, they continually normalized him; not so with Mrs. Clinton. trump has massive free media, where he could hammer Mrs. Clinton on email. However, his feet were never held to the fire on his many, many, can't say it enough, many flaming issues, from the birther campaign, against Mr. Obama, to his taxes, to his family businesses, he got away without the pressure of the press and MSM.
Say all you want about polls, Mrs. Clinton's decline was proportional to trumps gains. It would be good for the majority of voters, who voted for Mrs. Clinton, to begin seeing her treated respectfully like the First Lady she was, the Secretary of State and the patriot she is. The American people deserve better then the rehashing of the 2016 election. We have already lost a precious opportunity must we also continue to lose that one invaluable person to our democracy?
Say all you want about polls, Mrs. Clinton's decline was proportional to trumps gains. It would be good for the majority of voters, who voted for Mrs. Clinton, to begin seeing her treated respectfully like the First Lady she was, the Secretary of State and the patriot she is. The American people deserve better then the rehashing of the 2016 election. We have already lost a precious opportunity must we also continue to lose that one invaluable person to our democracy?
6
It was not the task of the FBI to ensure a Hillary Clinton or a Donald Trump victory in their campaign. One can imagine that either candidate would have been furious with a campaign worker for raising the issue of an FBI investigation of one or the other in the final days of their campaigns. But they didn't control the FBI. Mrs. Clinton apparently believes that her election was so assured that the FBI's director Comey ought to have assumed that he was going to report to her. Why, then, she seems to wonder, wouldn't he behave as one of her subordinates? Thanks be to glory, Comey won't have to report to her!
5
A candidate that claimed it was "her turn"to be President lost to a narcissistic sociopath with a criminal past. Americans wanted change; by golly they got it. If either party had promoted a serious candidate without such onerous baggage, the election would have been much simpler. However, that seemed too challenging a task for the wise men and women of the Democratic and GOP parties-----Both parties have become tools of the corporatists, war profiteers, and kleptocrats, while giving nothing but lip service to working men and women. Nothing will change until we collectively begin to vote as if our nation's future actually depends upon it----rather than voting some emotional reaction to broken parties and a completely dysfunctional Washington.
17
Ah Mr. Cohn! With all we know about polls, and all we know about Russia's attempted [successful] interference in our election, why must you do the autopsy over again? The reality is....with Trump as president our country is in the hands of the rich getting richer, the unrepresented terrified and the sick getting ready to die. Whats wrong with this picture? You would do well to aid in the illumination of the now, instead of still looking backward, where there are lessons to be learned. Lead or get out of the way.
3
The email controversy like Benghazi was a deliberate GOP strategy to take unrelenting issue with a non-issue. It was a political tactic that worked to undermine Clinton in the eyes of a gullible ill-informed public.
The consequence now is that the most powerful person in the world is clearly unprepared, uneducated, and undisciplined. America and the world are in for four or more years of exceptionally dangerous unpredictability, instability, agony and remorse. Eligible voters who voted for this guy and the more than half that didn’t bother to vote at all will come to regret the election of 2016—regret it swiftly and deeply.
The consequence now is that the most powerful person in the world is clearly unprepared, uneducated, and undisciplined. America and the world are in for four or more years of exceptionally dangerous unpredictability, instability, agony and remorse. Eligible voters who voted for this guy and the more than half that didn’t bother to vote at all will come to regret the election of 2016—regret it swiftly and deeply.
7
Please, everyone, don't forget the phrase "Crooked Hillary," coming out of Trump's mouth in all of his talks all the time. The echo of that phrase flew into the middle of the country, settled down into those voters and is still to be heard.
You hear that many thought Hillary was a terrible candidate. Wrong! She came off as a knowledgeable, competent leader. What you don't hear is that she is a woman and a Clinton. Underlying all of the excuses why she lost, very few speak of the fact that the US has difficulty with granting women equal opportunity in a world that has always been controlled by men. Look at the Senate team to review repeal and replace Obamacare. As a Clinton, she was an experienced politician which I am sure infuriated her political enemy's. She therefore was a target for years and as a women, preferred to demonstrate her intelligence, which may have been her downfall when you depend on an uninformed electorate for votes.
25
Surely, you jest
4
@Snobote
The only thing to "jest" about, is what's now sitting in the Whte House...except it's not at all funny.
The only thing to "jest" about, is what's now sitting in the Whte House...except it's not at all funny.
I have to disagree with you. If Margaret Thatcher (or her clone) ran for President, I would vote vote for her in a heartbeat.
I will never vote for another Clinton or another Bush for national office. Nor another Kennedy. I don't believe in royalism.
I will never vote for another Clinton or another Bush for national office. Nor another Kennedy. I don't believe in royalism.
The media pundits want to blame Clinton and explore the all of the campaign flaws into infinity. All campaigns have flaws because it is a human endeavor. The Comey letter gave Trump and his supporters a lift and depressed the Clinton side which tells me all I want to know the why of the final results. Of course this simple explanation would not allow the media to drone on in endless drivel.
4
It's really simpler than most are making it out to be. No one could compete with Trump's promises: your lost job is going to be restored; your taxes are going down; your health care insurance will be cheaper and your plan will be better; ISIS will be gone, and quickly; hedge fund managers are getting away with murder and I'll make them pay; our trade deals will now always be to the advantage of the US; immigrants will all be deported; etc.
No politician could make these promises, because they are all lies, and no experienced politician would be able to get away with it. Not Hillary, not any of the other 15 GOPers. If that's your competition, you are lost. Forget about "Hillary didn't campaign enough in the rust belt states". There is nothing she could have said with a straight face that could beat what Trump was saying. The gullible right wing will have to learn this for themselves...and hopefully very soon.
No politician could make these promises, because they are all lies, and no experienced politician would be able to get away with it. Not Hillary, not any of the other 15 GOPers. If that's your competition, you are lost. Forget about "Hillary didn't campaign enough in the rust belt states". There is nothing she could have said with a straight face that could beat what Trump was saying. The gullible right wing will have to learn this for themselves...and hopefully very soon.
23
Clinton's undoing was her own.
She chose to monetize her government office, she chose to keep official communications out of reach of FOIA and documentation requirements, and records vanished under her "care".
Unforced errors all.
She chose to monetize her government office, she chose to keep official communications out of reach of FOIA and documentation requirements, and records vanished under her "care".
Unforced errors all.
12
Nate,
When you can point to exactly when Comey disclosed the RUSSIA/TRUMP investigation before the election, you may have some ground to stand on.
Comey KNEW of the RUSSIA/TRUMP investigation, and did *nothing*.
Comey *gave* trump the push he needed to get the office, much like the Supreme Court gave W the office.
Partisans on the right really can't dispute facts, they just hope folks don't have long memories.
When you can point to exactly when Comey disclosed the RUSSIA/TRUMP investigation before the election, you may have some ground to stand on.
Comey KNEW of the RUSSIA/TRUMP investigation, and did *nothing*.
Comey *gave* trump the push he needed to get the office, much like the Supreme Court gave W the office.
Partisans on the right really can't dispute facts, they just hope folks don't have long memories.
4
Bottom line-Clinton lost. A flawed candidate, poor campaign, etc. Like the 1948 in which Dewey was a shoo-in Clinton had the same result. Trump is flawed in several ways but he ran a campaign that Democrats continued to state was in disarray but managed to win. I survived eight years of Obama--time for Democrats to accept reality!!!
4
Don't worry. Your "reality" will hit you soon enough if you aren't rich, and get sick.
Oh. And enjoy losing Medicare and Social Security too.
The ultra-wealthy 1%ers thank you
Oh. And enjoy losing Medicare and Social Security too.
The ultra-wealthy 1%ers thank you
1
Its not whether or not there was a "Comey effect." Its about the fact that Comey violated Justice Department rules and protocols, and whether that was a despicable act in and of itself. Saint Comey wants it all ways that will excuse his bad act. It doesn't wash. If he wants to be an honorable man then he should resign.
3
Surprise! Surprise! People didn't want to admit they were going to vote for Trump.
8
There is a lot of truth to this, San Ta. I know of a wealthy couple who admitted that they said, quick, let's hold our noses and vote for Trump before he does something worse than he's already done.
1
Despite your conclusions, this was intended to affect the election, no matter what Comey says. The timing, and his withheld information about Russia/trump, provide the evidence. Thanks to these travesties, we will never know. We DO know that we are stuck with the criminal, trump, and his deplorable minions, who are busy destroying the country and its average citizens, as quickly as they can, so the cashing in can begin, if it hasn't already.
8
As usual, Hillary Clinton blames everyone but herself for her latest election debacle. For those of us in New York who have witnessed her willingness to use and discard the electorate in her rise to national power,, it is gratifying that her loss was to a reality television star with no previous political experience. Apparently the rest of America understands that Hillary is what she is; a hypocrite, a liar, and a typical Democrat.
11
Thank you for providing such an excellent example of the malice and venality that perfectly exemplifies the current administration.
2
Hillary is now just whining.
It was about candidate quality. She is person of dual and conflicting narratives. A committed public servant? Yes. Exemplifying excessive greed and everything we hate about the political class? Yes.
A criminal? No. Inexcusably sloppy with classified information? Yes
Could a better run campaign have overcome her flaws? Maybe.
But for heavens sake Democrats, own the mistake and learn from it. Excuses only lead to more failure.
It was about candidate quality. She is person of dual and conflicting narratives. A committed public servant? Yes. Exemplifying excessive greed and everything we hate about the political class? Yes.
A criminal? No. Inexcusably sloppy with classified information? Yes
Could a better run campaign have overcome her flaws? Maybe.
But for heavens sake Democrats, own the mistake and learn from it. Excuses only lead to more failure.
8
What everyone missed in this election - the main stream media, the pollsters, the party plutocrats - was the fact that for the overwhelming majority of the American people this was a matter of which "lesser of two evils" do you choose. And ultimately the backbone of this country, the hard working middle class that pays its taxes and gets the shaft, chose to send a message by voting for the political pariah, Trump.
Hilary is the poster child for what is wrong with our system and, more specifically, the democratic party. Her arrogance, hubris and sense of entitlement were and are shocking. Only Hilary could come out to be feted by the media as she "accepts her responsibility for the loss" while in the same breath proceeding to tell the world that it was due to misogyny, Comey and a host of other evils. Surrounded by sycophants in Martha's Vineyard and the Hamptons discussing her virtues she is so self absorbed that she is clueless.
Hilary is the poster child for what is wrong with our system and, more specifically, the democratic party. Her arrogance, hubris and sense of entitlement were and are shocking. Only Hilary could come out to be feted by the media as she "accepts her responsibility for the loss" while in the same breath proceeding to tell the world that it was due to misogyny, Comey and a host of other evils. Surrounded by sycophants in Martha's Vineyard and the Hamptons discussing her virtues she is so self absorbed that she is clueless.
17
Never forget that Hillary was such a bad candidate see made the possibility of Trump winning even possible
4
We'll never know if innocuous-He should have shut up. Stigma is with him forever.
2
The media got played by Comey and is too embarrassed to admit it. You cannot get elected dog catcher in this country if the people think you are under FBI investigation for a criminal act. Comey is the problem the media does not want to have so it invents another explanation. Comey is a far more sophisticated actor than his "Lordy" testimony would have you believe. This is stuff done on the focus group level. Hundreds of focus groups were being run to figure out how to flip the election. It took the Director of the FBI to say Hillary's a crook. Comey took down an American President and flipped the Senate. I have no idea why he is still running the FBI, has not been arrested and still has a license to practice law.
2
The NYTimes had a ticker on the front page for weeks before the election, showing that HRC had an upward of 90-95%, sometimes more than a 99%, chance of winning. Given that so many Dems had to hold their nose to consider voting for her, I have no doubt that many people on the fence or just to the left of it stayed home, led by this newspaper to believe that the election was in the bag.
5
The River of Denial continues to divide the Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton lost the election as Democrat's realized their party was drowning in corruption and banked on Bernie to save them. Sander's threw a life preserver into the muddy waters. Non believers including the NY Times chose to reject his leadership.
So now cry me a river called Trump.
So now cry me a river called Trump.
11
You know what would have nullified the Comey letter? If Hillary Clinton's campaign had been about something more inspirational than 'It's My Turn!'
You know what would have mitigated the Comey letter? If Hillary Clinton hadn't cynically given six-figure speeches to Wall Street fat cats while also getting neck deep in the muck of a morally-compromised Clinton foundation that emails from her advisers made clear was a pay-for-play scam.
You know what would have obliterated the Comey letter? If Hillary and Bill Clinton had lived careers in which their ethics and rectitude were beyond challenge, and her honesty was a matter of long public record, instead of the reality of endless scandals and serial dishonesty.
Blame Comey, Hillary. It has to be easier than looking in the mirror.
You know what would have mitigated the Comey letter? If Hillary Clinton hadn't cynically given six-figure speeches to Wall Street fat cats while also getting neck deep in the muck of a morally-compromised Clinton foundation that emails from her advisers made clear was a pay-for-play scam.
You know what would have obliterated the Comey letter? If Hillary and Bill Clinton had lived careers in which their ethics and rectitude were beyond challenge, and her honesty was a matter of long public record, instead of the reality of endless scandals and serial dishonesty.
Blame Comey, Hillary. It has to be easier than looking in the mirror.
13
So according to this outlier poll from one end of the distribution, Clinton started gaining back her lead right after the Comey letter? So the Comey letter in fact helped her rather than hurt her?
Why don't you take an outlier poll from the other end of the distribution, and after a few weeks, make the opposite case, to get some more clicks. Provocative analysis, even if empty of substance or thought, works every time.
Why don't you take an outlier poll from the other end of the distribution, and after a few weeks, make the opposite case, to get some more clicks. Provocative analysis, even if empty of substance or thought, works every time.
2
People vote on their own pocketbook, not on inside baseball Washington media stories.
3
Oh forget about the polls. Number spin. Let's focus on the fact that Director Comey acted against Justice Department policy and maybe in violation of the Hatch Act. Why doe no one want to talk about these facts.
Mr. Comey relied upon his personal bias against Bill and Hillary Clinton and then abused his position to try to effect the election. He knew what he was doing and did it to harm the Clintons as best as he could.
He further absued his position knowing that he could lie and claim FBI procedure to not reveal any information about anything that he does not want to.
Thus we now have a clearly partisan FBI Director who hides behind law when it suits him and only him. He has taken the FBI back to the Hoover days in his own way. He can not be trusted.
Hillary lost. Everybody knows that. Why keep beating the dead horse NYT?
Move on. Corey's compromised position. Russian meddling and Trump collusion.
Jared selling Visas in China. Focus. Focus. Focus. Trump blaming Obama for Flynn. Focus.
Mr. Comey relied upon his personal bias against Bill and Hillary Clinton and then abused his position to try to effect the election. He knew what he was doing and did it to harm the Clintons as best as he could.
He further absued his position knowing that he could lie and claim FBI procedure to not reveal any information about anything that he does not want to.
Thus we now have a clearly partisan FBI Director who hides behind law when it suits him and only him. He has taken the FBI back to the Hoover days in his own way. He can not be trusted.
Hillary lost. Everybody knows that. Why keep beating the dead horse NYT?
Move on. Corey's compromised position. Russian meddling and Trump collusion.
Jared selling Visas in China. Focus. Focus. Focus. Trump blaming Obama for Flynn. Focus.
The last paragraph says it all. Also if we democratically elected a President NONE of this would have mattered and Clinton would be President. I like the French system where the person who gets more votes is the winner. What a novel idea.
1
What! You like direct democracy, as opposed to "indirect", a political system that puts money (and property interests) ahead of all other considerations?
The Founding Founders distrusted direct democracy because they feared the "passions of the mob" could be harnessed by unscrupulous, corrupt politicians who pandered to "populism" -- racism, sexism, misogyny, sectional hatreds -- to seize power. Politicians who yelled "crooked Hillary" and "lock her up!", that sort of thing.
A passionate mob, being stupid, is easily misled. It might elect politicians who promised to cut taxes, paying for it by borrowing, a tax on future generations that would repay the loans with interest. Those politicians would deny that it was any such thing, of course, bleating "deficits don't matter", and the mob, not liking taxes and being stupid, would chant the same mantra, failing to notice that their average tax cut was $100 while a rich man's was $100,000. So, The Founders created an Electoral College to stand in the way of that sort of foolishness, the College a wonderful Rube Goldberg contraption. Men of Substance would always be in control. Always.
It obviously worked very well in 2000 and 2016, delivered us from a legion of rank incompetents and rich, arrogant fools who gave themselves enormous emoluments while impoverishing The Nation before running our ship of state onto the rocks. But ours is the best, most exceptional political system in the entire world, to hear Republicans tell it.
The Founding Founders distrusted direct democracy because they feared the "passions of the mob" could be harnessed by unscrupulous, corrupt politicians who pandered to "populism" -- racism, sexism, misogyny, sectional hatreds -- to seize power. Politicians who yelled "crooked Hillary" and "lock her up!", that sort of thing.
A passionate mob, being stupid, is easily misled. It might elect politicians who promised to cut taxes, paying for it by borrowing, a tax on future generations that would repay the loans with interest. Those politicians would deny that it was any such thing, of course, bleating "deficits don't matter", and the mob, not liking taxes and being stupid, would chant the same mantra, failing to notice that their average tax cut was $100 while a rich man's was $100,000. So, The Founders created an Electoral College to stand in the way of that sort of foolishness, the College a wonderful Rube Goldberg contraption. Men of Substance would always be in control. Always.
It obviously worked very well in 2000 and 2016, delivered us from a legion of rank incompetents and rich, arrogant fools who gave themselves enormous emoluments while impoverishing The Nation before running our ship of state onto the rocks. But ours is the best, most exceptional political system in the entire world, to hear Republicans tell it.
1
It seems like this essay presents arguments for a very strong likelihood that the Comey letter was very important, and possibly decisive in a close electoral race. It shifted the dominant news topic for almost a week right before the election to Clinton, her emails and the FBI investigation. Throughout the preceding weeks and months, the polls tended to follow the news coverage. When Trump and his many negatives were the main topic, the polls shifted toward Clinton. When Clinton's emails and investigations dominated, the polls shifted the other way. This was well documented and recognized long before the election.
2
Hilary's disadvantage was that she was not willing to lie to people to tell them their jobs were going to come back. She made the assumption that the electorate is more intelligent than it really is. We will never know if Comey tipped the balance but we know that he did not tell the American people that the Trump campaign was under investigation. How could that not have been a factor?
12
Wow. All she had to do was lie? It is no wonder that she lost: That woman is simply incorruptible.
4
I believe Trump's term will end early due to something unforeseen.
Even if it does not i can hardly wait for Ms. Clinton's triumphant return to the campaign trail where she will finally win the presidency; an office that she has ably and deftly demonstrated she richly deserves.
Even if it does not i can hardly wait for Ms. Clinton's triumphant return to the campaign trail where she will finally win the presidency; an office that she has ably and deftly demonstrated she richly deserves.
3
@Snobote.
I gave you a recomend on the assumption that this was meant as sarcasm.
I gave you a recomend on the assumption that this was meant as sarcasm.
2
It certainly did not help, and considering she lost three key states (Wis., Mich., Pa.) by about 75000 votes, it's certainly possible this bottom-ninth surprise was enough. But it's also irrelevant at this point. The election is over, Trump 'won' despite losing the popular vote by 3 million, and here we are.
I'm more interested in the impacts of Bernie Sanders staying in the race until July and continuing to hurl bombs at Clinton when he had no chance of winning the nomination. More Democrats peeled away to vote for Trump than GOPers for Clinton, and Sanders presence and the ugly early days of the convention suggest that was a bigger drag on Clinton than anything Comey did.
I'm more interested in the impacts of Bernie Sanders staying in the race until July and continuing to hurl bombs at Clinton when he had no chance of winning the nomination. More Democrats peeled away to vote for Trump than GOPers for Clinton, and Sanders presence and the ugly early days of the convention suggest that was a bigger drag on Clinton than anything Comey did.
3
I supported Mr. Sanders but i do believe it was a bit inappropriate for him to literally crash the party.
He's the one who chose to not be a Democrat, after all.
He's the one who chose to not be a Democrat, after all.
I supported Sanders, and think that he chose not to be a Democrat is to his immense credit. I'm not a Democrat either. I have said that i would have been delighted if he ran as an Independent. I highly doubt that the Dem party would have been.
3
Eventually, even the most besotted of clintonistas - excluding the insiders who certainly know the true score - will come to the proper conclusion regarding that woman's complete unsuitability both as a candidate and as a public person worthy of emulation. Apparently angling to become the Alf Landon of these times, her devotion to her presumed destiny is laughable, and quite possibly clinical. As with these sorts, recognition of what most everyone knows is an introspective bridge too far and reflective retirement an adult activity far too humble an aspiration.
6
Let us not forget that Clinton won the popular vote by more than a million votes, it was the electoral college not the people that put Trump in office.
4
Incorrect. She won by almost 3 MILLION votes. That's why some of us call her "The People's President."
3
While she won the popular vote by over 3 million votes, it was only about 75,000 votes in three battleground states that tipped the election to Trump. Her fatal political mistake was not to pay any viable attention to these three states, assuming she had them in her electoral bag.
Her advisers and her husband urged her to shift attention to these states, but she refused to listen, instead concentrating on red states because she wanted a blowout victory.
Her advisers and her husband urged her to shift attention to these states, but she refused to listen, instead concentrating on red states because she wanted a blowout victory.
5
I think that's an accurate assessment. This was indeed a mistake of hers.
1
Just think, an establishment candidate, an historic well qualified woman about to make history loses to a new comer with no political experience and who imakes exaggerated statements that should have been self destructive. He is the most politically incorrect (to put it mildly) candidate to ever gain the nomination of his party! Add to this that she would go on to win the popular vote and lose the election because traditionally Democrats strongholds like Michigan shift right and by a 1% margin hand over all their electoral votes to Trump. What should have been a landslide victory of Clinton turned into a shocking, unbelievable victory for Trump. Something cataclysmic shifted the bedrock of politics and the Democrats were completely blindsided by it. So were most of the Republicans for that matter, but they just happen to benefit from it. The same phenomenon occurred in Britain when the vote was taken to leave the EU and it almost happened again in France last Sunday. The underlying frustration and anger of these populist movements are directed at what they think is an unresponsive political system that favors wealthy political donors and elite social causes at the expense and economic well being working people. This should be the starting point for the reality check that the Democrats so desperately need before their passive aggressive response to Trump consumes all their energies and they wake up to find out how irrelevant they have become.
7
Raul,
A game, rigged at the end is still rigged. Your boy trump is the one who is 'irrelevant' here. The only question many of us have is will he burn down the Nation before leaving office.....
A game, rigged at the end is still rigged. Your boy trump is the one who is 'irrelevant' here. The only question many of us have is will he burn down the Nation before leaving office.....
Her whining and the acceptance of the Democrats of it paves the path to more failure.
2
"an unresponsive political system that favors wealthy political donors and elite social causes at the expense and economic well being working people." sounds like the GOP to me. Dismal Donnie and reverse Robin Hood rules the day!
I need to start by saying months before either candidate had nailed down their nominations I was predicting a Trump win. The second thing I need to say is I voted for Hillary. But the third thing I need to say (and I think the thing that these kinds of analyses keep missing) is the real margin was 77,000 votes in select states. Therefore, I think the final tally was so close it could have been decided by (and effected by) either candidate having a “bad hair day.” In short, there is no real way to analyze the actual outcome. So stop trying to convince me you can.
12
It is evident that this was a perfect storm and that Comey likely tipped the balance. True or not, Hillary already had a reputation that she was untrustworthy. She was not able to convincingly sway those that were on the fence that that was not true. So you had a large number undecided's for Trump and for Hillary who used this as a reason for voting the way they did. Comey's letter indicated that a third party, Anthony Weiner, already despised for his unsavory behaviour, was involved and may have had access to classified information through his wife. I think that alone was enough to sway undecided's for Trump to vote Trump, and undecided's for Hillary to either vote Trump or stay home. As for the polls, in this case they were changing right up to election day. There may have been some that felt Hillary would win anyway so they felt safe in staying home, but I am sure the narrowing gap energized the pro Trump voters who felt change was in the wind.
7
I think you are spot on in your analysis.
1
Very dubious logic in Mr Cohn's argument. The margin of victory (in electoral votes) for Trump was so slim that you cannot derive his conclusions on the basis of changes in support. You also have to factor in abstentions, votes for third party candidates and low turnout. Certainly these factors may have been influenced by the Comey letter more in some states and not others and this effect could have been sufficient to deliver the electoral college to Trump.
6
There were many reasons Clinton lost, some within her control (her choice of Vice President, her campaign), some not.
But it was clear that every action of hers was scrutinized through the lens of mistrust and paranoia. The right wing media and politicians did their part to portray Clinton as untruthful, and the MSM played along, acting as though giving Clinton some benefit of the doubt regarding her motives was somehow being partisan.
In this environment, Comey's revelations were like bombshells, because no conspiracy was too great on the right, and on the left, Clinton got blamed for not being above reproach.
But it was clear that every action of hers was scrutinized through the lens of mistrust and paranoia. The right wing media and politicians did their part to portray Clinton as untruthful, and the MSM played along, acting as though giving Clinton some benefit of the doubt regarding her motives was somehow being partisan.
In this environment, Comey's revelations were like bombshells, because no conspiracy was too great on the right, and on the left, Clinton got blamed for not being above reproach.
11
Her VP choice was a smart one, but he was too "energetic" during his debate with Mike Pence.
As each of Hillary's fallacious arguments for why she lost gets debunked, hopefully the Democratic Party can stop playing the blame game and do the more vital work of examining the real source of their defeat so as to not repeat their mistake: running a highly flawed, broadly disliked candidate who the majority of Americans distrust; abandoning their working-class principles and promoting a neoliberal who took millions from the banks; abandoning their non-interventionist foreign policy roots for a neocon war-hawk who puts Israeli interests above global peace and security; abandoning their historical pursuit of basic human rights for a candidate who argued against universal, single payer health care, universal higher education, and a living wage for all.
Perhaps now, the Democrats can focus on the true progressive roots and support those policies that the majority of Americans do, rather than those pushed by their corporate masters.
Perhaps, next time, they'll actually choose a candidate who has historically established integrity and a public and private position that match; a candidate who inspires people and offers someone they can look up to rather than someone they feel suspicious of.
Hopefully, the Democratic Party can stop blaming imagined outside causes for their losses and begin doing the real soul searching that will help them see that the real culprit lies within, and that they and their misguided, corrupted values deserve the real scrutiny and blame.
Perhaps now, the Democrats can focus on the true progressive roots and support those policies that the majority of Americans do, rather than those pushed by their corporate masters.
Perhaps, next time, they'll actually choose a candidate who has historically established integrity and a public and private position that match; a candidate who inspires people and offers someone they can look up to rather than someone they feel suspicious of.
Hopefully, the Democratic Party can stop blaming imagined outside causes for their losses and begin doing the real soul searching that will help them see that the real culprit lies within, and that they and their misguided, corrupted values deserve the real scrutiny and blame.
17
thank you
1
And would the New York Times support such a candidate or merely mouth support for such a candidate's political positions once he or she has been defeated?
Please, Mr. Cohn, let's not do simplistic analysis. Several factors outside of Clinton's control - and outside of democracy's control - turned the election to Trump: collusion of the GOP in Russian hacking (as we just saw with the French election) and the barrage of fake news targeted at a desperate populace, along with Comey's ridiculously biased, destructively timed email revelations.
Two tactical errors Clinton made that exacerbated these three and would have given her an even more sizeable win: she should have fired Huma Abedin to get Weiner's insane/abusive pornography far away from her campaign, and she should have listened to Bill Clinton NOT Robby Mook, when Mook had her avoid midwestern states because of her past stance on international trade. Instead, she should have gone to the Midwest to explain why international trade was a fact of the real world that Donald Trump would never be able to change either. She should have worked hard to form partnerships with universities and businesses to demonstrate how she would generate well paying jobs in green energy and specialized technologies. Those joint announcements would have brought hope instead of Trump's lies to the desperate former middle class. Now, under Trump, the Midwest will still have no decent jobs, along with no healthcare AND pollution AND earthquakes like Pruitt's destruction of Oklahoma from fracking to contend with.
Two tactical errors Clinton made that exacerbated these three and would have given her an even more sizeable win: she should have fired Huma Abedin to get Weiner's insane/abusive pornography far away from her campaign, and she should have listened to Bill Clinton NOT Robby Mook, when Mook had her avoid midwestern states because of her past stance on international trade. Instead, she should have gone to the Midwest to explain why international trade was a fact of the real world that Donald Trump would never be able to change either. She should have worked hard to form partnerships with universities and businesses to demonstrate how she would generate well paying jobs in green energy and specialized technologies. Those joint announcements would have brought hope instead of Trump's lies to the desperate former middle class. Now, under Trump, the Midwest will still have no decent jobs, along with no healthcare AND pollution AND earthquakes like Pruitt's destruction of Oklahoma from fracking to contend with.
10
In other words, she had bad judgement and listened to bad advice - just what is needed in a president! Denial is not common sense. Wishful thinking about what a plutocrat wannabe - or you fantasy policies - would be and accomplish is not common sense. Hillary was silent on a Carbon Tax, one that was promoted by Gore and Bill. What do you make of that?
Hillary might have made a better POTUS than a candidate, but we never will know. We got someone who made a better candidate. SAD!
Hillary might have made a better POTUS than a candidate, but we never will know. We got someone who made a better candidate. SAD!
3
San Ta - compare the two errors I listed, which would have simply made it a larger Clinton win, against Trump's *3500* lawsuits as of June 2016, 6 bankruptcies, his $25 million Trump University fraud payment and the roster of criminals he chose to advise him (Manafort, Flynn) and Clinton's judgment (correct spelling) is proven to be far superior.
That all said, the bottom line is that we need to get Russian interference out of our elections now. Our democracy is too important to allow Russia imperialism to destroy it.
That all said, the bottom line is that we need to get Russian interference out of our elections now. Our democracy is too important to allow Russia imperialism to destroy it.
1
The reality is that many factors are involved in determining if a politician succeeds in an election or not. The Comey letter may have adversely impacted Clinton's presidential bid, but it is just ONE of many factors that were in play. Other factors included Americans' desire for an outsider president, her campaign's lack of vision, her poor campaigning skills, her coziness with Wall Street, her campaign's over-reliance on data analysis versus more traditional polling techniques, and her campaign's incompetence in the Midwest states. This is just a sample of many other factors.
For Clinton to zero in on one adverse factor to explain her loss, when there were so many others which she had much greater control over, is a gutless cop-out. Until her and the Establishment Democrats own up to their gross failure as a political force, stop blaming individual factors for their loss, and start representing Americans again instead of their corporate donors, they can expect only more failure in the future.
For Clinton to zero in on one adverse factor to explain her loss, when there were so many others which she had much greater control over, is a gutless cop-out. Until her and the Establishment Democrats own up to their gross failure as a political force, stop blaming individual factors for their loss, and start representing Americans again instead of their corporate donors, they can expect only more failure in the future.
22
A further factor not captured in national polls or even most big-state polls was the local media bounce and base-energizing effect of personal visits and public rallies by the candidates. Trump simply worked harder. It’s not just that Hillary never campaigned in Wisconsin, to cite her most glaringly omission. During long stretches between the convention and Election Day Hillary didn’t campaign anywhere at all. She held just one rally for the entire second half of August through the (late) Labor Day weekend. She again went mysteriously – complacently? arrogantly? – missing for most of a critical three weeks from September 7 to September 26th, when she held just three rallies, one each in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Trump held 17 in the same period – including several in each of those three battleground states, plus Michigan, Iowa, Ohio, Colorado, Arizona, Virginia and New Hampshire. With the exception of those last two, Trump won them all. In the middle of October, October 5th to October 20th, Hillary campaigned on just three of those 15 days, hitting five states; Trump campaigned in 11 states on 11 of those same 15 days.
17
It's not the location--it's the campaign promises. No one could make the promises (lies) Trump made. There were 15 other GOP candidates, all campaigning in the same states as Trump. He steamrolled all of them on the strength of his outlandish but compelling promises. Hillary could have followed Trump around the country, state by state...it wouldn't have made a difference.
1
She had ill health issues to deal with. How dare you attack her for being absent on the campaign trail then?
1
Clinton has low energy. Remember the collapse and the cough. It's hard to hold rallies that matter when the candidate is dragging and the crowd is thin.
3
The flood of books and Phd dissertations about the 2016 election has started. When the peak of these learned analyses will be reached is anyone's guess. But, as with many quandries, the simplest answer is the best answer.
In this case, the simplest answer is that too many people didn't like Hillary more intensely than they didn't like Trump. All of the purported reasons like the 'Comey effect' could have mattered, but only slightly at the margins. Of course, in such a close race, slight effects might be important. However, they simply reinforced the existing dislike for her that had been festering for a long, long time.
So, the Democrats put forth a flawed candidate that too many folks disliked, intensely. The real culprit in her loss is the Primary process that put her there. Put the blame on it. Makes one long for a return to the success of the smoke-filled rooms, doesn't it?
In this case, the simplest answer is that too many people didn't like Hillary more intensely than they didn't like Trump. All of the purported reasons like the 'Comey effect' could have mattered, but only slightly at the margins. Of course, in such a close race, slight effects might be important. However, they simply reinforced the existing dislike for her that had been festering for a long, long time.
So, the Democrats put forth a flawed candidate that too many folks disliked, intensely. The real culprit in her loss is the Primary process that put her there. Put the blame on it. Makes one long for a return to the success of the smoke-filled rooms, doesn't it?
5
"Makes one long for a return to the success of the smoke-filled rooms, doesn't it?"
I am sure that the "smoke filled rooms" would also have chosen HRC, just like the corrupt "super-delagates" did.
I am sure that the "smoke filled rooms" would also have chosen HRC, just like the corrupt "super-delagates" did.
So the same folks who consistently got it wrong throughout the election cycle are now telling us that the letter didn't matter. Hmmmm.
Yes, HRC was a bad candidate. But the change in the atmosphere was palpable after the release of that letter. There is no question that likely HRC voters either stayed home or, thanks to that letter, felt the two candidates were now morally equivalent, given them permission to vote for Trump.
Yes, HRC was a bad candidate. But the change in the atmosphere was palpable after the release of that letter. There is no question that likely HRC voters either stayed home or, thanks to that letter, felt the two candidates were now morally equivalent, given them permission to vote for Trump.
3
I don't think the evidence here is strongly for or against the idea that Comey had a negative effect. Theres not enough data. In an alternate world without the letter maybe the "natural" swing up would have been more decisive. Maybe late deciding voters would've split more evenly. I think with how close the election was, its hard to rule out Comey, Russia, or anything as a factor.
5
Interesting article, which reveals that even the supposedly objective pundits whose job is to impartially analyze data can be blinded by their own prejudices and opinions. It could be argued that they themselves may have affected the election, since it's conceivable that voters who were on the fence about Hillary could have been lulled into complacency by the polls showing her with a comfortable lead and decided they had the luxury of voting for a third-party candidate or staying home. Had the media sounded the alarm bells about Trump gaining ground in the last week of October then I'm sure at least a few thousand people would have been spurred into action to vote for her and encouraged others to do so as well on social media.
While I myself voted for Hillary, I know a lot of Stein voters, so I'm confident that the above scenario makes more sense than giving weight to the Comey letter, which was greeted by my friends with a shrug - it didn't say anything they didn't already know. Whereas they were very aware which states were safely blue and which weren't, because as much they hated Hillary they hated Trump more.
As for the Trump lovers in my universe - and I have a surprising number of them - their minds were made up well before October. They hated Hillary and thought the US needed "disruption." And no, not all of them are white.
I'm not crazy about Clinton either, but I was taught that democracy is about resisting tyranny, not electing the perfect candidate.
While I myself voted for Hillary, I know a lot of Stein voters, so I'm confident that the above scenario makes more sense than giving weight to the Comey letter, which was greeted by my friends with a shrug - it didn't say anything they didn't already know. Whereas they were very aware which states were safely blue and which weren't, because as much they hated Hillary they hated Trump more.
As for the Trump lovers in my universe - and I have a surprising number of them - their minds were made up well before October. They hated Hillary and thought the US needed "disruption." And no, not all of them are white.
I'm not crazy about Clinton either, but I was taught that democracy is about resisting tyranny, not electing the perfect candidate.
5
Before Comey's letter, Hillary's plan for the last week of campaigning was to make a strong offensive with closing arguments explaining why she would be the better president.
But when the letter came out,she had to change plans and go on the defensive about the re-opened investigation. Like they say, when you are defending yourself you're not winning.
But when the letter came out,she had to change plans and go on the defensive about the re-opened investigation. Like they say, when you are defending yourself you're not winning.
22
Regardless of all of this hand-wringing over swaying the election, Hillary was a terrible candidate and needs to disappear. The Democrats have not yet come up with their next candidate. Bernie and DNC Chair Perez are cavorting around the country promoting Bernie's socialist agenda, which is not likely to fly with more moderate voters, not to mention that he'll be 79 in 2020. Dems need to start growing the next batch of political powerhouses. (Hint: start courting Cory Booker!)
4
Geoffrey - Cory Booker has his own baggage, including ties to the pharmaceutical industry, and I don't see him either wooing away disaffected Trump voters or uniting the fractured DNC. Whereas Elizabeth Warren has a better chance of getting support from both the Bernie and Hillary camps and getting votes in the heartland on her economic message.
7
I think Comey thought Clinton would win despite anything he did or did not do. You can see it in his eyes - he hates Trump as much as the rest of us do.
7
If we are going to almost rule out the Comey effect, that leaves Putin...plus one. It was so close in the deciding states that lies and disinformation from the Russians could have tipped that balance. But Bernie Sanders deserves some credit. When it was clear that millions more Democrats voted for Clinton and he was not going to get the nomination, instead of turning down the volume, he spent about 2 more weeks convincing his supporters that Hillary was terrible and no different from the Republicans. In very close states with big college and post-college populations, Wisconsin and Michigan, we can give Bernie the destructive edge in getting Democratic voters to vote third party or stay home. Bernie deserves more credit for the Trump disaster. Putin and Bernie gave Trump his bizarre win.
6
hb - wrong on both counts. Sanders campaigned vigorously for Clinton, and polls show that the vast majority of Sanders supporters voted for her in November. And speaking of empirical evidence, there is none showing that Putin is responsible for Trump's win, and giving him "credit" for it is just flattering him by feeding into the myth of his power.
Clinton lost because 1) she ran a terrible campaign and 2) a lot of people weren't any better off after eight years of Obama, and voted for Trump out of anger and desperation. Of course they just made things worse for themselves, and they're mad at the wrong people, but that's what they did, and the world now pays the price.
Clinton lost because 1) she ran a terrible campaign and 2) a lot of people weren't any better off after eight years of Obama, and voted for Trump out of anger and desperation. Of course they just made things worse for themselves, and they're mad at the wrong people, but that's what they did, and the world now pays the price.
2
@Jacibs
Sorry. But by the time Sanders begrudgingly campaigned for Clinton, the months of his divisive and hateful rhetoric had already taken effect..In fact, he almost sounded like a Republican.
Besides, Sanders couldn't get the Black vote, no matter how often he brought up his one and only Civil Right march.
Guess what?? ..... La luta continua.
Sorry. But by the time Sanders begrudgingly campaigned for Clinton, the months of his divisive and hateful rhetoric had already taken effect..In fact, he almost sounded like a Republican.
Besides, Sanders couldn't get the Black vote, no matter how often he brought up his one and only Civil Right march.
Guess what?? ..... La luta continua.
2
Yes, that's how bias works. Five percent here, five percent there, throw in another and there you have it. A loss by that same darn percentage women lose to men in pay, air time, respect and on. Did Comey really say it was Bill's fault? Really?
5
Please, let's move on. HRC ignored wisdom (and Bill) by running a blind and arrogant campaign. The sooner she falls on the sword of culpability the better. She blew it, she knows it, and we know it. I can't wait for a female president, but let's move on, America.
11
O, we are going to trust polls now?
3
18 months later, we finally get some intellectual honesty from the Times. Where was this during the runup to the election? Trump isn't the end of the world, Hilary wasn't holy, or even worth supporting, and the NY Times is surviving in spite of the wailing of progressives.
6
The spectacular collapse of Hilary’s election in last Nov was well documented by Jonathan Allen in the new book (2017) “Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign”. It always easy to blame someone else for one's own failing and Hilary's excuses for her unsuccessful campaign is no exception. Lack of personal reflection suggests she has not learned any lesson from the debacle and is ready to repeat it.
15
Comey is directly responsible for handing over the White House to it's current illegitimate occupier. Whether he was bought or had such a deep seated hatred of the Clintons doesn't matter. He is still responsible. I would like to think that he will work for all Americans to uncover the Trump/Putin Coalition that was the other Election Game Changer. Also nobody seems willing or able to go after the Criminal Organization that calls itself Wiki Leaks. Any or all of these failures should provide grounds for removal.
5
The longer the pollsters and pundits debate the causes of the Clinton meltdown, the longer it will be before the Democrats show signs of life with the 2018 election not that far off. Clinton was not a good selection - by the DNC - before the primaries (distrust, dislike). Her email problems were of her own device and were well known prior to the Comey/Putin sideshows. Sanders hurt the Clinton candidacy by openly attacking the very interest groups Clinton cozied up to and took vast amounts of money for her campaign and personal use.
Her most damning statement came when asked why she took millions from Wall Street for speaking engagements to gain access to the next President of the United States.
"That's what they offered."
In my mind, the most revealing and damning statement of her campaign.
Her most damning statement came when asked why she took millions from Wall Street for speaking engagements to gain access to the next President of the United States.
"That's what they offered."
In my mind, the most revealing and damning statement of her campaign.
7
This is misdirection that would make Trump proud. The press set up a campfire with far too much wood. The Russians provided high quality tinder. And Comey, under pressure from traitors in his FBI, lit the match. Fiction belongs on a different page. Is the Times having a hard time staying on the story? We have three branches of illegitimate government. One of them may well stay with us for 40 years.
8
The real issue was that Hilary Clinton did things that were questionable and possibly illegal, and not that the voters managed to find out about it. If the Democrats think that better ways of covering up what they really think and do will solve their problems, they are deluding themselves.
15
Huh?! The guy that was elected has actually done illegal things! Not Hillary.
1
"But in such a close election, anything and everything could have plausibly been decisive"; like in a sporting even where the outcome is a one score difference and some "external" caused a change in "momentum" which may have altered the outcome. Yes, sports fans will argue, discuss, and "what if" for years to come. For the history books, the issues as to the many issues which impacted the outcome and by how much will be prevalent for a decades to come. If Republican's control majorities and the presidency for many election cycles to come, the impact of the election will be staggering. However, if the usual shifts in power take place, the true impact of the election outcome may be minimal. The future will tell and history will discuss like the sports event.
1
If I was on the fence in terms of supporting a candidate and looking for a reason not to, Comey's disclosure would have shifted me to the other candidate or, if I couldn't tolerate the thought of voting for that one, to a third party or not voting at all. Therefore you cannot say, unless there was a huge swing, that Comey's disclosure had no effect on the election.
12
The election was a contest between two candidates that had gained ambivalent support among large swaths of their electorate. Simply put, a great many people had determined to vote for Clinton in spite of their reservations; and the same is true of Trump.
The voters were like birds perched on a wire, and they'd fly away with the first strong gust of wind, only to return when things had calmed down. Trump, of course, learned this early on: with only around a third of the Republican vote, he had managed to win his party's nomination. A series of mini-scandals, each of which led to a drop in his poll numbers, followed by a recovery, revealed the provisional nature of his candidacy.
In retrospect it seems clear that the election was won by swaying those "voters at the margins" who could not muster enough enthusiasm to abide by any particular resolution. Comey's announcement on the very eve of the election, the inundation of leaked emails, and the occasional fake news story besmirching Clinton, combined to shake the wire and scare away enough votes that we must now wallow through the next four years of a Trump administration.
The voters were like birds perched on a wire, and they'd fly away with the first strong gust of wind, only to return when things had calmed down. Trump, of course, learned this early on: with only around a third of the Republican vote, he had managed to win his party's nomination. A series of mini-scandals, each of which led to a drop in his poll numbers, followed by a recovery, revealed the provisional nature of his candidacy.
In retrospect it seems clear that the election was won by swaying those "voters at the margins" who could not muster enough enthusiasm to abide by any particular resolution. Comey's announcement on the very eve of the election, the inundation of leaked emails, and the occasional fake news story besmirching Clinton, combined to shake the wire and scare away enough votes that we must now wallow through the next four years of a Trump administration.
6
From poll data that excluded whole age groups, to old poll data being used by MSM (such as CNN) when newer poll data was less favorable to Clinton, reports on poll data were meaningless in this election. If you go back to the primaries you can see in Indiana poll data widely reported that favored Clinton that grossly (to put it mildly) underrepresented millennials. If you extrapolated from that data to compensate based on the proportion of voters in Indiana who were millennials, it was clear Bernie would win. Yet Hillary was predicted the easy winner and, of course, she lost. Similar shenanigans were played with poll data during the general election, so please don't factor any of that garbage data into the question of whether Comey likely influenced the election.
2
You can't discredit national polls -- generally accurate -- by citing state polls, which vary massively in reliability and are often way wrong. This is what Trump supporters also do. It's time for Clinton supporters to stopping sounding like Trump supporters with the media and poll bashing.
1
It's clear she was a vulnerable candidate with lots of baggage, who struggled to excite voters. But it seems logical that the last minute Comey letter forced a much more competitive race.
We may never fully understand the riddle of 107,000 voters in 3 swing states, which led to one of the greatest electoral upsets in history.
We may never fully understand the riddle of 107,000 voters in 3 swing states, which led to one of the greatest electoral upsets in history.
6
It was a miracle.
God Bless Our President Trump!
He defeated lefty liberalism!
God Bless Our President Trump!
He defeated lefty liberalism!
To put it simply: the Comey letter certainly didn't help Clinton in a election where many people were undecided and negative ratings of both candidates were high.
Add to that a certain amount of American misogyny and the fact that Clinton took Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan for granted, and one gets the awful result we now have.
But let's be clear: Clinton did win the popular vote. And Trump's approval rating thus far suggests that his presidency will be (to say the least) troubled.
Add to that a certain amount of American misogyny and the fact that Clinton took Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan for granted, and one gets the awful result we now have.
But let's be clear: Clinton did win the popular vote. And Trump's approval rating thus far suggests that his presidency will be (to say the least) troubled.
6
The real question is not did Comey's statements affect the outcome but what was the motivation. Since Comey outright failed to follow normal FBI protocol, he knew very well he was buying the farm if his man wouldn't win. If she had won, he would have been the first official to get the ax.
6
Nice one sided explanation. TRUMP RUSSIA. Comey + that idiot, Chaffetz who actually did the leaking of the Comey letter. There's a Russian elected guy in the Oval (when he's not playing golf). Get your story onto the important stuff - HRC is out of the picture. Russian interference is what you SHOULD be writing.
10
Comey gave America and world a fascist & racist leader, who is patriotic to himself.
Now, can we focus on what damage DJT is doing everyday and investigate Russia connection pl.
Now, can we focus on what damage DJT is doing everyday and investigate Russia connection pl.
12
At this point, arguing about the Comey effect is without value. The democrats need to pay attention to what has occurred with health care and the republicans. With approximately 60 votes to repeal the ACA over the past few years, they stayed tone deaf to the changing perspective of the public that utilized and benefited from the ACA. They were so intent on "delivering on our promise", that they lost sight of what the needs of their constituents were.
In order to gain traction, and to develop a logical strategy moving forward, the democrats need to keep their ears to the ground, and listen to what the people are saying. They should have realized with this disastrous election, that the Clintons have seen their day in history. It is time to move on and focus on fresh ideas, and energy. A great deal of care must be taken in seeking out suitable candidates for the next election.
In order to gain traction, and to develop a logical strategy moving forward, the democrats need to keep their ears to the ground, and listen to what the people are saying. They should have realized with this disastrous election, that the Clintons have seen their day in history. It is time to move on and focus on fresh ideas, and energy. A great deal of care must be taken in seeking out suitable candidates for the next election.
6
Comey did not work his evil alone - there was the NewsMal alt.right media, the National Enquirer, Russia, Flynn, and the creepy pattern that emerged that this cabal was a coordinated attack. The obstruction of investigations into this scandal appear equally coordinated and insidious. We're hearing from Yates today two months after she was originally scheduled and Nunes ran around like a toad on a hotplate.
4
The Times, including the author, the person who gave us the 92% win probability number for Mrs. Clinton, want to avoid culpability here. The Times overreacted to the Comey letter which gave other media permission to trumpet the story. By writing this column, Cohn gives The Times cover for screaming about the letter and telling us that it wasn't THEIR fault.
69
Comet effect. The Email debacle. Bill's Meeting on the tarmac. Bernie's backers who stayed home. Hillary's put down of a typical Trump backer. Trying to figure out which negative had the most impact is useless. Just put them all in one bowl, add a tablespoon of general dislike, a tablespoon of very bad campaign abilities and a cup of making the same mistakes in 2016 that were made in 2008 and you have a recipe for a perfect storm. Probably the only person who Trump could defeat ran again not him. Right now, the Dems are a Party without a leader. They need to figure it out or the nightmare will continue.
8
“Right now, the Dems are a Party without a leader. They need to figure it out or the nightmare will continue.”
How right you are, SteveR!
Unfortunately, (in my opinion) a new leader won’t help. Despite their progressive ideals the many Democrats (both those now serving in state or national positions and those in support) are hobbled by existing commitments.
Thus my hope lies in a different party formed and led from bottom up rather than top down. Out of the many interest groups now in opposition to the GOP a charismatic leader in the mold of Sanders and Warren but younger is essential.
It’s happened before and it must happen now or we are doomed.
I agree but a new party must be attractive to both sides. Although you and I would prefer a Warren, Sanders type, we would still be in the same divided boat with them. Washington and the Country are in this mess because the differences are so extreme, the gap is too wide to repair. A new party must convince the majority that concessions by both sides must be made. A moderate and strong leader must lead us there.
Definitely a new Centrist party. Though I’d prefer a party with Progressive leanings, we must build a party that can win ELECTIONS, not just the popular vote.
Hilary apologists continue to repeat “But she WON by three million votes…it’s just that the stupid electoral college is so unfair….”
It is difficult for me to grasp the ineptitude of the DNC which blindly sought popular votes instead of the objective. Even after creating “superdelegates” to help attain the real goal, they seemed not to recognize their error.
Our new party must be aware of the obligatory pathway to the Oval office. Only then could repairing or replacing the College be considered.
Hilary apologists continue to repeat “But she WON by three million votes…it’s just that the stupid electoral college is so unfair….”
It is difficult for me to grasp the ineptitude of the DNC which blindly sought popular votes instead of the objective. Even after creating “superdelegates” to help attain the real goal, they seemed not to recognize their error.
Our new party must be aware of the obligatory pathway to the Oval office. Only then could repairing or replacing the College be considered.
This is not a binary question of whether Comey's atrocious actions alone determined the election's outcome. What's clear is that Comey affected probabilities and, by changing the odds, he poisoned the process, whose outcome is therefore compromised. End of story.
By accepting the burden of proof while making a counterfactual argument, we play right into their hands. Trump's illegitimacy is a fact, he proves it anew with his every utterance, and we shouldn't allow ourselves to get backed into a corner on this question.
By accepting the burden of proof while making a counterfactual argument, we play right into their hands. Trump's illegitimacy is a fact, he proves it anew with his every utterance, and we shouldn't allow ourselves to get backed into a corner on this question.
How could anyone twist the Comey / Hillary story the way the left has? The left would have us believe that the touchstone of all ethics is how any act of commission or omission would have affected Hillary's run for the White House, not whether a person in high office had a duty to reveal the truth in a timely fashion. Truly breathtaking! Wake up to the fact that Hillary lost because of her long record of dirty deeds, not because responsible people told the truth about her.
13
Ah, but that supposedly responsible person Comey didn't reveal the far, far more dangerous finding that there was a Trump-Russian connection!
He didn't reveal The Truth; he enflamed a scandal about where there really wasn't one and the one about Trump that really was one!
This isn't about left and right, but doing the correct, proper thing -- which he didn't!
He didn't reveal The Truth; he enflamed a scandal about where there really wasn't one and the one about Trump that really was one!
This isn't about left and right, but doing the correct, proper thing -- which he didn't!
Comey's action was timed and coincident with Giuliani's intimations that Clinton would be under indictment that weekend. It was clearly a psychological warfare campaign with Russian and far-right fingerprints. The Republicans and Trump still try to play the Russians as Communists. Putin is an autocrat, just like Trump aspires to be.
4
Bernie would have won
10
No offense. But only in your dreams.
Why? -- He simply didn't connect with a lot of people.
And not so much because of his ideas, which were quite valid! (unequal distribution of wealth, and the right to getting a good affordable education, etc.)
But he shot himself in the foot by attacking Clinton as virulently as any Republican. He wasn't a good team player, and that ultimately helped Trump to win.
Why? -- He simply didn't connect with a lot of people.
And not so much because of his ideas, which were quite valid! (unequal distribution of wealth, and the right to getting a good affordable education, etc.)
But he shot himself in the foot by attacking Clinton as virulently as any Republican. He wasn't a good team player, and that ultimately helped Trump to win.
2
Please stop divining the ashes from the polls when the simplest answer is staring you in the face like a stiff corpse! Ohio! Michigan! Wisconsin! Pennsylvania!
Hillary lost because the Democrats drove away the Midwestern working class by becoming the hysterical Party of PC.
It remains to be seen where the Midwestern working class will land after Trump disappoints them. Maybe they will simply stay home in 2018 and 2020?
Hillary lost because the Democrats drove away the Midwestern working class by becoming the hysterical Party of PC.
It remains to be seen where the Midwestern working class will land after Trump disappoints them. Maybe they will simply stay home in 2018 and 2020?
22
Mrs. Clinton lost the election for the simple reasons that she was a poor candidate, didn't address the concerns of parts of the electorate who traditionally vote democrat, and had no common sense by using a private server.
It's as simple as that. Let's don't look for any other reasons because they don't exist.
It's as simple as that. Let's don't look for any other reasons because they don't exist.
21
James Comey, for all his drama, made a big mistake. If news reports can be believed, he was being held hostage by a bunch of kook agents in NY in bed with Rudy Guiliani. I am sure we can all agree this was a bad situation and should not be repeated. Comey was also aware that the Trump campaign was in bed with the Russians but chose to ignore the elephant in the room, so to speak. Whether Hillary was going to win or lose, and 70,000 votes is a pretty slim margin, we need a better response to the meddling in the election than we have had to date. Probably the French will do the actual work and figure it out.
While I am all for providing different viewpoints, an election that turned on 100,000 votes in 3 states was surely impacted by Comey. His lies and aspersions lent credibility to the outright lies of Trump. Also, we must remember that Comey's unsubstantiated accusations (and they were not informational as any prosecutor would tell you) started well before the last couple of weeks. This "analysis" has just enough truth to appear legitimate and is the hallmark of "fake news."
Hard to forget how hard Chozik rode the fake server anti-Clinton story for the Times as if she actually believed this alt.right potted plant. The Times was major guilty in not exposing Comey's bias and the illegal actions of the NYC FBI colluding with Giuliani!
I think the lesson of Clinton's loss is that campaigns are often won with strongly made arguments, not weak arguments.
Trump was a weak candidate, but he made a strong case for change and polarization. Clinton was a strong candidate, in terms of experience, but she made a weak case for her programs and her personality, as a woman.
Hopefully, the Democrats will rebound and the French election may help.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trump was a weak candidate, but he made a strong case for change and polarization. Clinton was a strong candidate, in terms of experience, but she made a weak case for her programs and her personality, as a woman.
Hopefully, the Democrats will rebound and the French election may help.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
Also, I think Clinton's campaign suggested "treadmill" leadership, a "holding pattern."
Frustrated voters wanted change, even the wrong change, to get us off the "treadmill." Email concerns made it easier for voters to abandon Clinton.
Frustrated voters wanted change, even the wrong change, to get us off the "treadmill." Email concerns made it easier for voters to abandon Clinton.
3
Here, Harry, here is a strong argument:
https://www.democrats.org/party-platform
You see the problem is that propaganda, works better than facts. You are a symptom of this problem in that personalities are more persuasive than policies. Thus Trump could LITERALLY promise "great healthcare" "everybody will be covered" while never, ever having any concern, plan, or goal to get to that point, but rather actually concerned with, and planning to, attain the goal of taking healthcare AWAY from people to enrich his pals. We need wiser voters. That look beyond the optics of candidates. That read platforms. I could not have cared less that Clinton was an uninspiring candidate (I actually was inspired, BTW), but I cared all to well that we would not end up in the tragic situation where we find ourselves, witnessing the undoing of Obama's legacy piece by piece as they continue to dismantle everything democrats have done to strengthen the country and make it more equitable and sustainable since 1930.
https://www.democrats.org/party-platform
You see the problem is that propaganda, works better than facts. You are a symptom of this problem in that personalities are more persuasive than policies. Thus Trump could LITERALLY promise "great healthcare" "everybody will be covered" while never, ever having any concern, plan, or goal to get to that point, but rather actually concerned with, and planning to, attain the goal of taking healthcare AWAY from people to enrich his pals. We need wiser voters. That look beyond the optics of candidates. That read platforms. I could not have cared less that Clinton was an uninspiring candidate (I actually was inspired, BTW), but I cared all to well that we would not end up in the tragic situation where we find ourselves, witnessing the undoing of Obama's legacy piece by piece as they continue to dismantle everything democrats have done to strengthen the country and make it more equitable and sustainable since 1930.
3
Right, Comey had little to do with it. Hillary lost because:
- she called half of all Americans "deplorables"
- she is a felon. Just Google 18 U.S. Code § 793 (f), entitled "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information"
- she is a hypocrite for pretending to be a feminist, having accepted tens of millions from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, who are among the worst abusers of women in human history
- she accepted tens of millions of dollars for speeches from Wall St. banks, unlike Trump who is independently wealthy and was not bought by any special interest. She then refused to release her transcripts, probably because she called poor people deplorables in the speeches
- she advocates for a "public position" and a secret "private position"
- she supported NAFTA and TPP and called for "open borders" then lied about it
- she has a horrible laugh
- she called half of all Americans "deplorables"
- she is a felon. Just Google 18 U.S. Code § 793 (f), entitled "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information"
- she is a hypocrite for pretending to be a feminist, having accepted tens of millions from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, who are among the worst abusers of women in human history
- she accepted tens of millions of dollars for speeches from Wall St. banks, unlike Trump who is independently wealthy and was not bought by any special interest. She then refused to release her transcripts, probably because she called poor people deplorables in the speeches
- she advocates for a "public position" and a secret "private position"
- she supported NAFTA and TPP and called for "open borders" then lied about it
- she has a horrible laugh
13
Trump is deeply indebted to Russians, collaborated with Russia to take an American election, and "won."
3
Jay, you could have saved space and just admitted you're a trumpjunkie.
Both James Comey and the New York Times thought they should take the election as an opportunity to balance their ideological books. Comey was terrified of the far right in Congress, and the Times was terrified of what reporting the truth about Trump had done to their reputation for balance. So Comey wrote a letter and the Times left it on the top of their homepage for three days. Both were acts of craven cynicism that are nevertheless understandable given the incredibly well-funded Pravda-like media apparatus commanded by the far right in the Western world. At best, Comey will go down as this century's farcical Neville Chamberlain - a cowardly appeaser whose desire to remain above the fray cost him and the world dearly. The Times will stumble on, now distracting, now denying - which is what they are doing here. The lesson for the rest of us is that neither our most 'respectable' leaders, nor our most 'responsible' journalists are willing or capable to defending us or themselves against illiberal nationalism. That job remains with everyday people in the streets.
17
Finally someone who gets it.
Hillary was/is a bad candidate that lost the election all on her own.
Hillary was/is a bad candidate that lost the election all on her own.
10
Just wondering. Have you ever heard of the "Electoral College"?
That's the only way an inept candidate with less than the majority of votes could ever win an election...not counting the Russians, of course.
That's the only way an inept candidate with less than the majority of votes could ever win an election...not counting the Russians, of course.
2
@N. Smith
What happens when the popular swings in favor of conservatism? What then? Liberals would be fuming about mob rule.
Electoral college is the best system by far. Im think you have no idea what the electoral college is.
And yes the Russians made me and millions others vote.
The singular moment that Hillary lost was the deplorable moment.
What happens when the popular swings in favor of conservatism? What then? Liberals would be fuming about mob rule.
Electoral college is the best system by far. Im think you have no idea what the electoral college is.
And yes the Russians made me and millions others vote.
The singular moment that Hillary lost was the deplorable moment.
1
Typical Democratic response: blame your failure on someone else. Look, if Clinton had never put that server in her basement, the name of James B. Comey would be forever lost in the annals of FBI history. But she didn't, and anything bad that happened to her after that was by her own hand. Capisce?
You're still missing the point.
Yes, I absolutely believe the combined effect of Comey's ridiculous comments, his bizarre letter, the fabulist Wiki Leaks leaks, Russian intervention and, of course, dastardly Republican of voting norms are among reasons Clinton did not win.
I absolutely believe the insane behavior of The Bernies contributed.
And, of course, the amateur Clinton campaign strategy was a critical failure.
None of that matters here.
What matters is Comey's utter lack of integrity and good sense.
What matters is his finally confirming the thoroughgoing politicization of the agency charged with domestic law enforcement at the highest levels.
What matters most, though, is the obvious unwillingness of our very government, in the person of corrupt and irresponsible Republican majorities in both houses to get to the bottom of the situation and reassure the nation that our elections mean something, and are secure.
Clinton lost. I wish she had not. I'm well over it.
It will take decades to restore confidence in the FBI and the courts. And that will have serious consequences in the streets and in the courtroom.
The tragedy is that its clear this is exactly what these grifters on the Right want.
Yes, I absolutely believe the combined effect of Comey's ridiculous comments, his bizarre letter, the fabulist Wiki Leaks leaks, Russian intervention and, of course, dastardly Republican of voting norms are among reasons Clinton did not win.
I absolutely believe the insane behavior of The Bernies contributed.
And, of course, the amateur Clinton campaign strategy was a critical failure.
None of that matters here.
What matters is Comey's utter lack of integrity and good sense.
What matters is his finally confirming the thoroughgoing politicization of the agency charged with domestic law enforcement at the highest levels.
What matters most, though, is the obvious unwillingness of our very government, in the person of corrupt and irresponsible Republican majorities in both houses to get to the bottom of the situation and reassure the nation that our elections mean something, and are secure.
Clinton lost. I wish she had not. I'm well over it.
It will take decades to restore confidence in the FBI and the courts. And that will have serious consequences in the streets and in the courtroom.
The tragedy is that its clear this is exactly what these grifters on the Right want.
3
Hillary has always been her own worst enemy. Hillary is the reason she lost. I voted for her as the better of two horrible candidates.
I am a life long liberal and could never understand why HRC would opt to lie when the truth would work in her favor.
On paper, she was fully and eminently qualified, even if she is GOP lite. In person she was wooden and lacked any sort of conviction. One never really knew where she stood on any issue, triangulation is her methodology.
The DNC aided and abetted her by not supporting open primaries and a candidate whose positions were much closer to FDR than anyone in recent history.
The US needs progressive candidate, not the GOP or GOP lite.
I am a life long liberal and could never understand why HRC would opt to lie when the truth would work in her favor.
On paper, she was fully and eminently qualified, even if she is GOP lite. In person she was wooden and lacked any sort of conviction. One never really knew where she stood on any issue, triangulation is her methodology.
The DNC aided and abetted her by not supporting open primaries and a candidate whose positions were much closer to FDR than anyone in recent history.
The US needs progressive candidate, not the GOP or GOP lite.
14
These stories are so confusing.
Next The Times will blame Comey for setting up Clinton's ILLEGAL email server.
He should have stepped in and helped her, yeah that's it.
You know NONE of this would have happened if Clinton had OBEYED the law and not set up an illegal email system.
Who do you blame for that? The tooth fairy?
Next The Times will blame Comey for setting up Clinton's ILLEGAL email server.
He should have stepped in and helped her, yeah that's it.
You know NONE of this would have happened if Clinton had OBEYED the law and not set up an illegal email system.
Who do you blame for that? The tooth fairy?
By all news accounts, just before the Comey letter, Trump's camp was very depressed and resigned that they were going to lose. Trump complained incessantly about the "rigged election". Trump was despondent about the impending loss, and he had to be cheered by his son-in-law Jared.
Then when the letter came, Trump and his camp were totally transformed and energized. I watched the transformation in Trump speeches it was as if he had been given a vitamin B-12 injection to revitalize him and talk trash about Hillary. Fake news came out of Giuliani's "FBI sources" that Hillary was going to be indicted any minute.
The 24/7 news cycle talking about the letter when it came out so close to the election had a negative impact even in Hillary's supporters. I personally KNOW a 91-year-old Hillary supporter who suddenly had strong doubts about voting for her on account of the letter coming form the FBI, an institution she trusted.
Then when the letter came, Trump and his camp were totally transformed and energized. I watched the transformation in Trump speeches it was as if he had been given a vitamin B-12 injection to revitalize him and talk trash about Hillary. Fake news came out of Giuliani's "FBI sources" that Hillary was going to be indicted any minute.
The 24/7 news cycle talking about the letter when it came out so close to the election had a negative impact even in Hillary's supporters. I personally KNOW a 91-year-old Hillary supporter who suddenly had strong doubts about voting for her on account of the letter coming form the FBI, an institution she trusted.
4
Can Nate send this to Paul Krugman who has been chest thumping about the Comey effect. He has been remarkably cavalier about the outcome of the election result that's multifactorial.
Clinton- vote for me because you're a woman, black, Asian, LGBT &&&&&
Trump- vote for me because it's the economy and jobs stupid!!!
Clinton- vote for me because you're a woman, black, Asian, LGBT &&&&&
Trump- vote for me because it's the economy and jobs stupid!!!
5
Shall we stop wasting space and characters? Just boil this down to "Golly! I mean, by Jiminy, it COULD have been something else!" My statistics professor would be proud of you. It IS possible that the sun won't come up tomorrow; there is NO certainty. But I'll stick with "Thanks, Comey."
4
You can say what you want, to put together a column, but I was following the election extremely close and I think the first Comey letter did critical damage without a doubt, which effectively cost her the election.
I remember all of the polls widening at that point, even Donald Trump looked deflated in a couple of recent speeches and appearances, just before the letter, Trump looked visibly worn-down and sounded like he was accepting that he was not going to win.
When that Comey letter came out it was like a firestorm, infused the Trump and his campaign with an injection of steroids, immediately Trump was out attacking and using the letter as huge sledge hammer, and the media focused all of their energy, pundits were inundating the public airwaves with the prospects of Anthony Weiner's involvement and the possible new damaging information, sucking all of the oxygen from the room.
The election dynamics changed dramatically immediately, and infused Trump with new energy, gave him a weapon to hammer away at Clinton, which he did incessantly regarding the pending charges, etc.; and conversely it put Hillary Clinton's campaign on the defensive and completely upended the focus and message, and anyone who claims otherwise is not being accurate and is trying to rewrite history.
I remember all of the polls widening at that point, even Donald Trump looked deflated in a couple of recent speeches and appearances, just before the letter, Trump looked visibly worn-down and sounded like he was accepting that he was not going to win.
When that Comey letter came out it was like a firestorm, infused the Trump and his campaign with an injection of steroids, immediately Trump was out attacking and using the letter as huge sledge hammer, and the media focused all of their energy, pundits were inundating the public airwaves with the prospects of Anthony Weiner's involvement and the possible new damaging information, sucking all of the oxygen from the room.
The election dynamics changed dramatically immediately, and infused Trump with new energy, gave him a weapon to hammer away at Clinton, which he did incessantly regarding the pending charges, etc.; and conversely it put Hillary Clinton's campaign on the defensive and completely upended the focus and message, and anyone who claims otherwise is not being accurate and is trying to rewrite history.
3
You do understand (don't you?) that you're only describing half of the effect: Comey also DIDN'T release a similar statement at the same time telling the electorate that the DJT campaign was under active investigation for Russian connections. In other words, the act of omission in this case is just as damning as Comey's act of commission re HRC's emails.
20
Okay, okay, but regardless of whether it single-handedly "cost" Clinton the election, I think we can all agree that it had at least *some* effect. It doesn't seem unreasonable that people who were on the fence, unsure what to think about all the accusations of "crookedness", might be tipped away from Clinton at the news that she was being investigated again. It also doesn't seem unreasonable to imagine that undecided voters might also be swayed by the news that Trump's campaign team was also under investigation. The correct thing to do, not only ethically but also according to FBI guidelines, was to not make a big public announcement about an ongoing investigation, in both cases. The fact that Comey felt like he could pick and choose, regardless of his motivation, is what is the most troubling. His decision was wrong, it did impact the results (regardless of how much), and it is upsetting for that alone.
1
Oh for God's sake. I would not have voted for Hillary Clinton if James Comey had sent a letter saying she was utterly innocent of all suspicions of any kind whatsoever, and that she had been secretly carrying on Mother Theresa's work. Nor would anyone else that I know.
I voted against Hillary because I do not like her philosophy, her stances or her proposed programs. Comey had nothing to do with it, and if Democrats don't acknowledge that, they'll get fewer and fewer heartland votes.
I voted against Hillary because I do not like her philosophy, her stances or her proposed programs. Comey had nothing to do with it, and if Democrats don't acknowledge that, they'll get fewer and fewer heartland votes.
32
For some people Clinton lost because she had no plan. Others because they didn't like her plans.
Admit it. You just had irrational hate for her that you didn't apply to Trump or any GOP candidate.
Admit it. You just had irrational hate for her that you didn't apply to Trump or any GOP candidate.
@newspaperreader - clearly, you did not read my post. I said quite plainly that I disliked her philosophy, her stances and her proposed programs. I did not impugn her character, nor did I offer her any disrespect. Your comment about me shows far more prejudice than I ever experienced towards HRC.
While there may have been some negative effect on Hillary by Comey's announcement, I say there was comparatively much more positive effect on Hillary by the media, DNC and political operatives.
Take away the minor negative effect by Comey and major positive by media et. al. the net result would be significant lower numbers for Hillary and we would now have a Sanders presidency.
Take away the minor negative effect by Comey and major positive by media et. al. the net result would be significant lower numbers for Hillary and we would now have a Sanders presidency.
20
The narrative that the media gave major positive coverage is refuted by a study out of Harvard that indicated just the opposite.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/12/report-general-election-c...
From the December 7th article: "According to the analysis, both candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump “received coverage that was overwhelmingly negative in tone and extremely light on policy.” Trump was covered slightly more negatively than Clinton over the course of the general election, with coverage being 77 percent negative to 23 percent positive compared to Clinton coverage running 64 percent negative to 36 percent positive coverage. But over the course of the entire campaign, Clinton was covered more negatively than Trump, with 62 percent negative and 38 percent positive coverage compared to Trump's coverage, which was 56 percent negative and 44 percent positive."
It's true that much of the coverage of Clinton assumed she'd win, but I believe that actually harmed, not helped her. Witness all the scornful, bitter comments in any NYT article about her, saying how she felt the presidency was "owed" her in some way.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/12/report-general-election-c...
From the December 7th article: "According to the analysis, both candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump “received coverage that was overwhelmingly negative in tone and extremely light on policy.” Trump was covered slightly more negatively than Clinton over the course of the general election, with coverage being 77 percent negative to 23 percent positive compared to Clinton coverage running 64 percent negative to 36 percent positive coverage. But over the course of the entire campaign, Clinton was covered more negatively than Trump, with 62 percent negative and 38 percent positive coverage compared to Trump's coverage, which was 56 percent negative and 44 percent positive."
It's true that much of the coverage of Clinton assumed she'd win, but I believe that actually harmed, not helped her. Witness all the scornful, bitter comments in any NYT article about her, saying how she felt the presidency was "owed" her in some way.
1
@Poghina
I am not debating whether Clinton or Trump received the more negative coverage or if their coverage was overall positive or negative.
My point is that whatever the coverage Ms. Clinton received, pos or neg; The coverage helped her in a much more significant way than any aspect of Comey's actions especially when you factor that part of the Clinton coverage was the lack of coverage, positive or negative of Bernie Sanders.
That lack of coverage of Sanders was more influential for Clinton in a positive way than any detraction that Comey may have had.
I am not debating whether Clinton or Trump received the more negative coverage or if their coverage was overall positive or negative.
My point is that whatever the coverage Ms. Clinton received, pos or neg; The coverage helped her in a much more significant way than any aspect of Comey's actions especially when you factor that part of the Clinton coverage was the lack of coverage, positive or negative of Bernie Sanders.
That lack of coverage of Sanders was more influential for Clinton in a positive way than any detraction that Comey may have had.
3
The Comey effect fails to take into account a number of equally important contributors to her failure. First, why didn't she campaign in the key midwestern states that she lost? Why did she alienate Bernie supporters? Why did she not learn from her 2008 loss to Obama, a first-term, African-American Senator from the midwest? Structurally, what did the Dem's loss of the house, Senate, and governorships in 2010 have to do with Comey? She is undoubtably an experienced, highly-qualified public servant. But she was an terrible candidate in 2008, and again in 2016.
75
Hillary's supporters alienated Bernie supporters, big time. They shamed them, they called them bots and brats and what not. They bullied them and then had the cheek to say it was Bernie bros who were bullies and misogynists. From young high schoolers to college going kids, their parents and grand parents, these people actually loved Bernie. Even 90 year old Dick Van Dyke campaigned for "young" 75 year old Bernie. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/05/28/dick-van...
“What I want to say to my contemporaries is, as Bernie says, in the ’50s and ’60s, real democracy was really working from the bottom up, like it’s supposed to. There were no economic crashes during those decades because regulations were in place.”
“What I want to say to my contemporaries is, as Bernie says, in the ’50s and ’60s, real democracy was really working from the bottom up, like it’s supposed to. There were no economic crashes during those decades because regulations were in place.”
1
Another data point to reinforce the idea of "Clinton Fatigue," which I witnessed while polling in the late 1990s and during Gore's campaign. Hillary Clinton's support was never strong to begin with, either in 2008, when she was overtaken by a guy no one had ever heard of, and then in 2016, when Bernie Sanders almost beat her and showed how vulnerable she was.
42
The Comey Letter theory is an easy way for the Clinton camp to avoid the truth: They had a weak candidate and ran a poor campaign. And imagine if Comey didn't release the information and the news leaked anyway--it would have caused a huge firestorm just days before the election.
84
What upsets me the most is that there's such a huge disconnect between "strong candidate" and "well-qualified candidate". I mean, "weak" seems like a stretch given that the majority of Americans voted for her, but I can't really argue the fact that she didn't inspire people as much as other candidates did. Logically, she was one of the most qualified people ever to run for President, and I get that for a lot of people that isn't enough, but it's still upsetting to me I guess.
1
If she was so weak, how did she manage to win by a 3 million vote margin in spite of intense efforts by the FBI, Russia, and Bernie Sanders to paint her as demonic and corrupt, not to mention the NY Times. Seems to me an amazing accomplishment against pretty stunning odds.
2
Finklefaye, the majority of those 3 million votes came form California, not necessarily representative of America as a whole. That's not much of an argument, irrelevant in any case, as we don't decide presidential elections by the popular vote.
5
It seems odd to me to base this rather strong conclusion on 1. polls from a single source (Upshot/Sienna) and 2. polls from North Carolina and Florida. When an aggregate of polls are considered, does this purported effect remain?
Also, in terms of NC and FLA, the race was always closest in these two states. Looking between June and Nov, Clinton was more frequently ahead in the FLA and NC polls--but, within the same time period, other polls showed Trump with the advantage. My point here is two-fold: neither FLA or NC were ever certain wins for Clinton--because the polls fluctuated quite a bit and were always rather close (not to mention the fact that Obama lost NC in 2012 and only won FLA very narrowly with >1%). Given these factors, one wouldn't be able to see whether a single event (or series of events) drastically altered the state of play in either NC or FLA.
The published analysis would be stronger if it included data from states where Clinton was favored to win: namely WI, MI, & PA. Given the precipitous drop in her polling there, combined with how that drop was reflected in the national polls, I think a different picture might emerge. A picture in which Oct 27th emerges as a potentially important date. Further, the analysis would be more methodologically sound if it considered polls from more than a single source (Upshot/Sienna).
Also, in terms of NC and FLA, the race was always closest in these two states. Looking between June and Nov, Clinton was more frequently ahead in the FLA and NC polls--but, within the same time period, other polls showed Trump with the advantage. My point here is two-fold: neither FLA or NC were ever certain wins for Clinton--because the polls fluctuated quite a bit and were always rather close (not to mention the fact that Obama lost NC in 2012 and only won FLA very narrowly with >1%). Given these factors, one wouldn't be able to see whether a single event (or series of events) drastically altered the state of play in either NC or FLA.
The published analysis would be stronger if it included data from states where Clinton was favored to win: namely WI, MI, & PA. Given the precipitous drop in her polling there, combined with how that drop was reflected in the national polls, I think a different picture might emerge. A picture in which Oct 27th emerges as a potentially important date. Further, the analysis would be more methodologically sound if it considered polls from more than a single source (Upshot/Sienna).
1
Anyone read the profile of Kellyanne Conway in The Atlantic last month?
She identified the issue and Trump road it all the way to the White House - it was immigration.
It's a fascinating article. I highly recommend it.
She identified the issue and Trump road it all the way to the White House - it was immigration.
It's a fascinating article. I highly recommend it.
11
You're right. It was immigration,more than anything else.
It's that simple.
It's that simple.
1
Good article
The whining from dems about the election will go on forever. But there are several important facts -- real facts -- that the dems leave out. First, HRC was a horrible candidate and conducted a poor campaign. I knew when it was apparent she was going to be the dem's candidate she would not get the vote out. Second, it is unlikely Comey's letter affected the outcome. Both candidates had good and a lot of bad things come out about them. But there would have been no Comey letter if HRC had not set up her own private e-mail server, destroyed subpoenaed e-mails and lied to the American public. That, more than anything else, is the bottom line. Third, those who cared to examine her history knew that HRC's was full of scandal and corruption as a public official, highlighted by her running a pay for play operation as SofS.
But perhaps more important than anything, and what the Dems still fail to recognize, we'd just had 8 years of Obama. A lot of his policies and pronouncements did not go over well, and HRC presumed to continue in his footsteps. Then we'd had 8 years of Bill Clinton, sold as a 2 for 1, HRC as co-president. Bill wasn't a bad president, but Americans don't favor dynasties so 8 more years of a democratic president who was a Clinton was more than many could handle. It wasn't misogyny, the Russians, or Comey.
And don't forget, the dems lost congress and many state govs.
The whining from dems about the election will go on forever. But there are several important facts -- real facts -- that the dems leave out. First, HRC was a horrible candidate and conducted a poor campaign. I knew when it was apparent she was going to be the dem's candidate she would not get the vote out. Second, it is unlikely Comey's letter affected the outcome. Both candidates had good and a lot of bad things come out about them. But there would have been no Comey letter if HRC had not set up her own private e-mail server, destroyed subpoenaed e-mails and lied to the American public. That, more than anything else, is the bottom line. Third, those who cared to examine her history knew that HRC's was full of scandal and corruption as a public official, highlighted by her running a pay for play operation as SofS.
But perhaps more important than anything, and what the Dems still fail to recognize, we'd just had 8 years of Obama. A lot of his policies and pronouncements did not go over well, and HRC presumed to continue in his footsteps. Then we'd had 8 years of Bill Clinton, sold as a 2 for 1, HRC as co-president. Bill wasn't a bad president, but Americans don't favor dynasties so 8 more years of a democratic president who was a Clinton was more than many could handle. It wasn't misogyny, the Russians, or Comey.
And don't forget, the dems lost congress and many state govs.
46
"And don't forget, the dems lost congress and many state govs."
Federal, state, and local elections are interrelated. If Dems stayed home or Republicans turned out in larger numbers resulting in an (R) presidential win, they also stayed home or turned out for Senate, Congressional, and other races.
Federal, state, and local elections are interrelated. If Dems stayed home or Republicans turned out in larger numbers resulting in an (R) presidential win, they also stayed home or turned out for Senate, Congressional, and other races.
kick --
true, but the dems have been losing congressional seats and state guvs for several years prior to the election. So it wasn't just this election. There has been a shift away from the dems and particularly, identity politics. Which HRC used on her campaign -- (vote for me, I'm a woman) -- particularly by calling half of Trump supporters deplorables.
true, but the dems have been losing congressional seats and state guvs for several years prior to the election. So it wasn't just this election. There has been a shift away from the dems and particularly, identity politics. Which HRC used on her campaign -- (vote for me, I'm a woman) -- particularly by calling half of Trump supporters deplorables.
Prior to Comey's devastating and Hatch Act violating public announcement, the alt.right media was ablaze with assertions - expressed as certainties - the candidate Clinton was going to be indicted! Comey's statement seemed to confirm confident assertions by Trump mouthpieces like Rudy Giuliani.
This is typical of weaponized disinformation as epitomized by Russia through cozy bear and fancy bear, and its western counterparts in Dark Web Site consultants such as CambridgeAnyltics.org, which apparently has been taken over by the evil Mercer family. See:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-bre...
Nate Silver tends to comment upon polls and trends based upon main-stream media and news actions, but we are now in a world of fake news and mal-ware aided commercial data enterprises that involve illegal data capture and manipulation of consumers and the public in the service of malicious and greed motivated clans and families like the Trumps, Kushners, Mercers and Bannons. Everything they accuse the 'mainstream media' of - theft, manipulation, 'fixes' and 'bugging my phones' - are pure projections of their own illegal acts hiding behind the Roy Cohen defense of: "Accuse others of what you are doing to them." Russia is good teacher.
This is typical of weaponized disinformation as epitomized by Russia through cozy bear and fancy bear, and its western counterparts in Dark Web Site consultants such as CambridgeAnyltics.org, which apparently has been taken over by the evil Mercer family. See:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-bre...
Nate Silver tends to comment upon polls and trends based upon main-stream media and news actions, but we are now in a world of fake news and mal-ware aided commercial data enterprises that involve illegal data capture and manipulation of consumers and the public in the service of malicious and greed motivated clans and families like the Trumps, Kushners, Mercers and Bannons. Everything they accuse the 'mainstream media' of - theft, manipulation, 'fixes' and 'bugging my phones' - are pure projections of their own illegal acts hiding behind the Roy Cohen defense of: "Accuse others of what you are doing to them." Russia is good teacher.
120
Why is Obama waiting until NOW to come out and say he personally warned Trump not to hire Flynn? Obama should have had true courage and taken forceful action and arrested Trump, Robert Mercer, Rudolf Giuliani, and Flynn when their planned coup became evident. Instead the US is now a fascist state. Karma for what you did to Chile and our free elections.
3
LOL -- Trump won fairly in the Electoral College -- just like every other US President!
And Obama had no right nor ability to arrest private citizens for working for Trump's campaign.
Clearly you have no idea what a "fascist state" even is....
And Obama had no right nor ability to arrest private citizens for working for Trump's campaign.
Clearly you have no idea what a "fascist state" even is....
I do not understand why the press continues Hillary-bashing. I'm sure Trump is happy to see the press hitting her again and again; she is his political scapegoat, after all, and he, himself, tweets about "Crooked Hillary" now and again only to spark renewed contempt among his dwindling supporters.
In fifty years historians will look at the big picture and make an objective assessment of factors that caused the election's result. Their findings may not fault Comey, WikiLeaks, or the Russians as much as the American press. This era could be dubbed The Age Spin.
In fifty years historians will look at the big picture and make an objective assessment of factors that caused the election's result. Their findings may not fault Comey, WikiLeaks, or the Russians as much as the American press. This era could be dubbed The Age Spin.
1
The intensity of anti-Clinton bias at the Times continues to astonish. Maybe the Comey effect would have been less powerful if this newspaper hadn't published daily negative reports on this non-scandal. And you can't stop. Here a headline implying there was no Comey effect on a story that ends up declaring rhere is no way to know and, well, maybe there was a Comey effect.
4
Anyone believing Clinton was a lock to win in October was whistling past the graveyard. The Comey inconvenience took some PSI out of her balloon but not more than she did herself. Clinton is not a closer. This was not her first such rodeo. The Trump train was careening while Clinton energy was stalled in real time. She is a cautionary tale and a statistical anomaly to be sure. It's like blaming an upset in a close game on one bad call in the fourth quarter; maybe it cost you, but what the heck were you doing in that position in the first place?!
The more puzzling question is: why is this still considered 'news?' I'd rather hear more about the Russians damage to our political process than Clinton's lament.
The more puzzling question is: why is this still considered 'news?' I'd rather hear more about the Russians damage to our political process than Clinton's lament.
18
Comey tried to reveal the provenance and likely aim of the Podesta hack in an Op-Ed he wrote in the summer just after the DNC (http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/326427-comey-sought-to-revea... . Obama officials, including Comey's boss Loretta Lynch, forbade him from doing so.
This is what baffles me about the liberal furor at the FBI director. Yes, his October statement regarding HRC was ridiculous, but then again so was the non-stop coverage of that reveal, let alone the continuous cable news simulcasts of Mr. Trump's incoherent rallies. People ask, why didn't Comey publicly address the hacking situation? Why was he so one-sided? The truth is he did try to reveal it, and was stopped by the Obama administration who took the election of HRC for granted.
This is what baffles me about the liberal furor at the FBI director. Yes, his October statement regarding HRC was ridiculous, but then again so was the non-stop coverage of that reveal, let alone the continuous cable news simulcasts of Mr. Trump's incoherent rallies. People ask, why didn't Comey publicly address the hacking situation? Why was he so one-sided? The truth is he did try to reveal it, and was stopped by the Obama administration who took the election of HRC for granted.
6
"The truth is he did try to reveal it, and was stopped by the Obama administration who took the election of HRC for granted."
Is this true? I still can't wrap my head around why Comey gets skewered for not publicizing the Russia hacks, but Lynch and Obama knew and chose not to publicize the hacks as well -- and no one is upset with them???? I don't get it.
Is this true? I still can't wrap my head around why Comey gets skewered for not publicizing the Russia hacks, but Lynch and Obama knew and chose not to publicize the hacks as well -- and no one is upset with them???? I don't get it.
4
Not sure what message Cohn wants to convey. Comey had no effect? He's mainly basing this on one survey out of Florida? Hillary won by almost 3 million votes and he seems to be forgetting that little fact. The polls were pretty accurate but missed a tiny swing in the rust belt. I never thought she'd win Florida.
2
Let's please stop kidding ourselves. Comey's thumb was more than enough to tip the scales of this tight election.
7
Yeah and if Hillary hadn't put that server in her basement, which started this whole mess, Comey wouldn't have been a factor. Who's to blame for that?
6
Putin helped the draft dodging daughter dater too.
19
The Comey letter and a combination of WikiLeaks and Flynn generated fake news were also responsible. The Press which was no friend of Hillary even in her first run against Obama was also responsible.
Pundits like David Brooks questioned her rationale for running for the office. May be he did not realize that anyone can run for the office. May be he wanted to be very clever and to show off his unique brand of punditry.
Given the low level of voter interest in the election process and low levels of education about the issues that she was supporting, the outcome surprises no one. Popularity is not a good reason to elect someone to a complex job like the US Presidency. Intelligence and tenacity are likely reasons. Electing someone on the basis of emotion got us Donald Trump.
Pundits like David Brooks questioned her rationale for running for the office. May be he did not realize that anyone can run for the office. May be he wanted to be very clever and to show off his unique brand of punditry.
Given the low level of voter interest in the election process and low levels of education about the issues that she was supporting, the outcome surprises no one. Popularity is not a good reason to elect someone to a complex job like the US Presidency. Intelligence and tenacity are likely reasons. Electing someone on the basis of emotion got us Donald Trump.
7
The purpose of the "Comey Letter" explanation for Hillary Clinton's loss was to explain events in a way in which neither Mrs. Clinton nor her campaign staff had to take any responsibility whatsoever. It was never a real explanation for what happened.
What really happened was that Hillary Clinton was deeply unpopular long before November 2016. When she stopped being Secretary of State, her approval ratings steadily declined from +22% in January 2013, reaching 0% in March 2015, and continuing the trend to -16% by the beginning of November 2016. The reason that this election was so depressing to so many Americans was that by the time of the party conventions, we had the most hated presidential nominee since the invention of the opinion poll (Trump) up against the third-most-hated presidential nominee since the invention of the opinion poll (Clinton).
One of the things you learn from reading the various Wikileaks emails is that both the DNC and the Clinton campaign staff thought tactically rather than strategically. They were focused on "win this news cycle" and "Trump is worse!" and not "here's why Hillary Clinton would be great president".
What really happened was that Hillary Clinton was deeply unpopular long before November 2016. When she stopped being Secretary of State, her approval ratings steadily declined from +22% in January 2013, reaching 0% in March 2015, and continuing the trend to -16% by the beginning of November 2016. The reason that this election was so depressing to so many Americans was that by the time of the party conventions, we had the most hated presidential nominee since the invention of the opinion poll (Trump) up against the third-most-hated presidential nominee since the invention of the opinion poll (Clinton).
One of the things you learn from reading the various Wikileaks emails is that both the DNC and the Clinton campaign staff thought tactically rather than strategically. They were focused on "win this news cycle" and "Trump is worse!" and not "here's why Hillary Clinton would be great president".
64
I don't know what bubble you live in, but here in Central Oregon, Hillary was very popular. Her pins sold out the second we put them on display at the county fair Dems booth in years before 2016. Her campaign office was filled with volunteers during the summer. And I remember when she was incredibly popular as she served as Sec/State, tweeting about her travels. She was among the most popular women in the world here and abroad.
Then, Republicans waged war on her, pretending she had authority to send the military in to save Benghazi--no Secretary of State has authority to order the military to do anything, btw! Pretending she "sold 20% of US uranium to Russia"--she did not. Every Sec/State sits on a committee chaired by Sec/Treasury that advises the President on whether to ban the sale of majority shares in a company that mines uranium....they did not advise him to block it--he can nationalize the mine if necessary. Duh. On and on the lies piled up. An A-rated foundation that saved over 11 million lives was turned into an on-going criminal enterprise while Trump got a free pass for real crimes like bribery. Only David Farenthold reported on Trump's lies. The rest was "get Hillary" or celebrity worship Trump. Hillary spoke of her proposals--but that was too boring for the media. They skipped it in favor of Trump one-liners. Male reporters never distinguished between coded misogyny and politics. Willie Geist daily reported on "Hillary, whatever you think of her..."
Then, Republicans waged war on her, pretending she had authority to send the military in to save Benghazi--no Secretary of State has authority to order the military to do anything, btw! Pretending she "sold 20% of US uranium to Russia"--she did not. Every Sec/State sits on a committee chaired by Sec/Treasury that advises the President on whether to ban the sale of majority shares in a company that mines uranium....they did not advise him to block it--he can nationalize the mine if necessary. Duh. On and on the lies piled up. An A-rated foundation that saved over 11 million lives was turned into an on-going criminal enterprise while Trump got a free pass for real crimes like bribery. Only David Farenthold reported on Trump's lies. The rest was "get Hillary" or celebrity worship Trump. Hillary spoke of her proposals--but that was too boring for the media. They skipped it in favor of Trump one-liners. Male reporters never distinguished between coded misogyny and politics. Willie Geist daily reported on "Hillary, whatever you think of her..."
1
I would suggest that you read the book Shattered. The internal dysfunction of the Clinton campaign was truly astounding. They kept secrets from each other, blindly followed data analytics to the exclusion of any other information, disregarded repeated pleas from state and local people for more resources, ignored warning signs from people on the ground that the message wasn't getting across and if all that wasn't enough, had a candidate who could not verbalize what the central theme of her campaign was. Comey's actions did not help, but she would have lost without his October surprise.
80
Something like 68,000 votes? I call bs. She was winning. She did, in fact, win the popular vote by 2.86 MILLION votes. The constant stream of lies comes from 1. Trump himself (I believe Republicans have destroyed the political discourse in America for the foreseeable future with the way they support and encourage constant dishonesty in campaigns and even now from the W.H. and Congress (example is their new Healthcare bill they must know will be terribly unpopular with their own voters by the way they pretend it will create insurance for all Americans!); 2. Surrogates from campaigns, politicians, pundits, etc--even trying to put Obama in the W.H. on 9/11, invading Afghanistan and Iraq, presiding over the Gt. Recession...16 years! and 3. FOX News pretending to report on real news, as do right wing newspapers--the Washington Times is no longer right enough--they need the Washington Examiner to get out there on the fringe far enough to disregard truth. Not to mention those insane investigations that push total lies to further a partisan agenda that rejects what's best for America in favor of what's best for Repubs running for office. They targeted Hillary. And yet, she was winning. Trump was a lying baboon who had no clue about govt, foreign policy, domestic norms, science, history, nothing, zip. So they doubled down with Putin's help. And thousands of bots spreading lies. We still read people repeating Pizzagate! Mind-numbing stupidity. Which started as lies from Repubs.
Hillary lost the election herself, to an opponent who was more impassioned and at least spoke about Americans' concerns, including jobs. While Hillary spent the month of August 2016 campaigning hard in the Hamptons, voters in places like Wisconsin asked themselves what this social-climbing, money-grubbing, embodiment of the reviled establishment could possibly do for them, and came up with the answer, NOTHING. Hillary couldn't even inspire her own campaign workers, who compared the mood at campaign HQ to the Batann Death March. Polls well before the election showed that Hillary would lose to Trump, but Bernie would win. Nevertheless, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and her army of Superdelegates put their fingers on the balance and chose Hillary for us in the Dem primaries. Personally, I lost faith in the Dems and their process, and I blame Hillary and her network of enablers and hangers-on for pushing out Bernie. Congrats Hillary, you won the popular vote! But you, and only YOU, are responsible for the electoral loss.
274
@bob
In 168 words you have stated clearly what I have been struggling to put into words for some time.
Thank you for your clarity.
In 168 words you have stated clearly what I have been struggling to put into words for some time.
Thank you for your clarity.
7
another Bernie or bust advocate
I am so glad I did not have to vote for him. To this day I cant his whiny supporters. You were the ones that got us Trumpco
I am so glad I did not have to vote for him. To this day I cant his whiny supporters. You were the ones that got us Trumpco
6
Boy, you Bernie Bros. just won't stop, will you? The reason Clinton lost is because you guys bought the Russian influence in the election hook, line, sinker, pole, fisherman and seawater. It was because people like you thought Vladimir Putin's motives didn't matter.
You want to talk about losing elections? Hillary got 3 million more primary votes than Bernie. Get over it.
You want to talk about losing elections? Hillary got 3 million more primary votes than Bernie. Get over it.
3
The question Cohn asks is highly dubious. It is impossible to either confirm or refute the Comey effect in this way because the number of votes that swung the election was so tiny. Cohn knows this. Why does he continue to publish this sort of speculation about the election? This is irresponsible.
Nate Cohn has earlier claimed that "millions of Obama voters" cast their votes for Trump. Lynn Vavreck made the even more outlandish claim that "9 percent of the electorate moved from Barack Obama in 2012 to Mr. Trump in 2016". If that were true, 12 million Obama voters would have had to switch, which is implausible given that Trump's vote share was actually *lower* than Romney's had been. I have asked Cohn and Vavreck to explain the apparent mathematical impossibility of their claims, to no response. I'm starting to wonder what is behind these irresponsible speculations. Are they intent on revising history?
We know what happened in 2016. We know about the media's obsession with Clinton's emails, reinforced by Comey's traitorous intervention; the media's failure to meaningfully report on political issues, and their application of much lower standards to Trump. We know about the misogynistic hate that was in full display during the campaign, fueled both by Trump and shamefully by some on the anti-Clinton Left. We know that Clinton won 2 million more votes. Cohn's revisionism isn't adding anything of value to this knowledge. Stop it.
Nate Cohn has earlier claimed that "millions of Obama voters" cast their votes for Trump. Lynn Vavreck made the even more outlandish claim that "9 percent of the electorate moved from Barack Obama in 2012 to Mr. Trump in 2016". If that were true, 12 million Obama voters would have had to switch, which is implausible given that Trump's vote share was actually *lower* than Romney's had been. I have asked Cohn and Vavreck to explain the apparent mathematical impossibility of their claims, to no response. I'm starting to wonder what is behind these irresponsible speculations. Are they intent on revising history?
We know what happened in 2016. We know about the media's obsession with Clinton's emails, reinforced by Comey's traitorous intervention; the media's failure to meaningfully report on political issues, and their application of much lower standards to Trump. We know about the misogynistic hate that was in full display during the campaign, fueled both by Trump and shamefully by some on the anti-Clinton Left. We know that Clinton won 2 million more votes. Cohn's revisionism isn't adding anything of value to this knowledge. Stop it.
109
What is the sense of this, Nate Cohn??...Not enough nails in the coffin, yet???
Just for the record. If there was a slide in Clinton's ratings, as you suggest, it's hardly surprising given the 24/7 battering she received from both the left and the right.
It's not easy fighting a battle simultaneously on two fronts.
And then there were the Russians....and Comey.
Nevertheless, Clinton landed 3 MILLION more popular votes than Donald Trump, who basically won courtesy of the Electoral College.
So if there's anything to be skeptical about, it's that.
Just for the record. If there was a slide in Clinton's ratings, as you suggest, it's hardly surprising given the 24/7 battering she received from both the left and the right.
It's not easy fighting a battle simultaneously on two fronts.
And then there were the Russians....and Comey.
Nevertheless, Clinton landed 3 MILLION more popular votes than Donald Trump, who basically won courtesy of the Electoral College.
So if there's anything to be skeptical about, it's that.
222
Courtesy of the Electoral College and months of media malpractice.
2
Not enough nails in the coffin? It is Hillary herself (well, along with numerous dejected supporters) who continue to raise this as an excuse for her loss. It is appropriate for the Times to report on this when she is helping to keep this supposed story alive.
17
Here we go with the 3 million popular votes that liberals spout to sleep at night.
3 million votes were from from California and NY. Big whoopee doo. Those are big fat blue states to begin with.
Two states do not decide a Nations fate. U.S of A is not a democracy! Get it through your head.
Liberals would love a popular vote instead of electoral when they think it favors them. But when it doesnt what then? How would you feel about a popular vote decided by Conservatives?
3 million votes were from from California and NY. Big whoopee doo. Those are big fat blue states to begin with.
Two states do not decide a Nations fate. U.S of A is not a democracy! Get it through your head.
Liberals would love a popular vote instead of electoral when they think it favors them. But when it doesnt what then? How would you feel about a popular vote decided by Conservatives?
6
Possibly if the NYTimes hadn't decided her email server was the biggest deal EVER and reported meaningless stories with breathless headlines, Comey would never have found it important to send the letter in the first place. You, too, bear a lot of responsibility here
394
media malpractice
1
NYT already endorsed her over the candidate that could have actually beaten Trump, the one with huge progressive and independent momentum and support. Quit whining.
1
How about the fact that Hillary Clinton set up that private email server? If she had not done that then Comey would never have been involved period.
He would never have made the statement or the raging criticism following her NOT being charged if the candidate was a man. Fact
7
No, it's not a fact, it's a biased assumption trying to prop up a losing candidate.
20
Comey was not even-handed in his treatment of the Clinton and Trump investigations. To use his own terms, he chose to "speak" in the case of Clinton and "conceal" in the case of Trump. This enabled Trump to exploit the possibility that a Clinton presidency would be overshadowed and distracted by investigations and possible indictments while his would be clean and free of these damaging distractions. Trump made much of this in his speeches.
Your analysis fails to reflect at all this double effect of Comey's actions.
Your analysis fails to reflect at all this double effect of Comey's actions.
81
Interesting article. I think the big thing that people in the media or pollsters ignore is the fact that many GOP voters based their vote on longstanding raw hatred of Hillary Clinton, ignoring who the GOP candidate was. They may have held their nose at voting for Trump but could never and would never vote for Clinton. It is a decades long irrational hate, only made worse with accusations made during the campaign in an "I told you so" way.
Of course these same people conveniently ignore Trump's major flaws and lack of leadership but it didn't matter. And polls simply don't or won't cover that
Of course these same people conveniently ignore Trump's major flaws and lack of leadership but it didn't matter. And polls simply don't or won't cover that
8
@newsreader
You could also look at it the other way: given the alternative, millions of voters held their nose and voted for HRC as the 'lesser of two evils'. That would explain her popular vote majority.
You could also look at it the other way: given the alternative, millions of voters held their nose and voted for HRC as the 'lesser of two evils'. That would explain her popular vote majority.
2
@Imberti
Wow. I thought they had buried those old tropes by now....That said, there were also MILLIONS of voters who didn't have to "hold their noses", because they already knew what most are just getting around to seeing now, with Trump in the White House.
Are you "winning" yet????
Wow. I thought they had buried those old tropes by now....That said, there were also MILLIONS of voters who didn't have to "hold their noses", because they already knew what most are just getting around to seeing now, with Trump in the White House.
Are you "winning" yet????
M. thanks for proving my point.
FWIW, I don't view either as "evil" but I think the hatred of Candidate Clinton was a huge factor in her loss. People come out with all sorts of accusations of her which are just fabricated and the same ol' same ol'. (Benghazi, server, health care, lying, no plans, too many plans, too liberal, not liberal enough, whatever it is). People have said they got turned off of her when she was first lady, when she was in arkansas, when she was Sec'y of State. Whatever it was, they would have voted for the "anyone but Hillary Clinton" candidate, even if they voted for unqualified Trump
FWIW, I don't view either as "evil" but I think the hatred of Candidate Clinton was a huge factor in her loss. People come out with all sorts of accusations of her which are just fabricated and the same ol' same ol'. (Benghazi, server, health care, lying, no plans, too many plans, too liberal, not liberal enough, whatever it is). People have said they got turned off of her when she was first lady, when she was in arkansas, when she was Sec'y of State. Whatever it was, they would have voted for the "anyone but Hillary Clinton" candidate, even if they voted for unqualified Trump
Donald Trump was the most beatable candidate ever, and Hillary couldn't put him away. It is time to move on.
40
He actually wasn't the most beatable candidate ever. That's the flip side of the coin that Democrats have yet to fully examine. One the one side, Hillary offered nothing. On the other, Trump did actually offer something. And it wasn't all "deplorable."
8
If Trump was so beatable how did 13 established GOP candidates manage to fail? I think he was uniquely appealing for some reason. Probably his bombast or celebrity. Add that to the unadulterated hatred for Clinton and it's not surprising.
Comey tipped a bit but in my opinion he didn't change the dynamic significantly
Comey tipped a bit but in my opinion he didn't change the dynamic significantly
1
I don't know how to square my interest in understanding why Clinton lost the election with my profound skepticism about the pollsters and analysts offering explanations. I just don't trust you guys anymore!
You remind me of a student who got a failing grade on an exam, then shows up at the professor's office saying he really deserves to get a higher grade, because now he has better answers that he meant to give earlier.
I think the polling system is broken. Until it's fixed, re-analyzing inaccurate polls is not going to help avoid a repeat of the Trump election disaster.
You remind me of a student who got a failing grade on an exam, then shows up at the professor's office saying he really deserves to get a higher grade, because now he has better answers that he meant to give earlier.
I think the polling system is broken. Until it's fixed, re-analyzing inaccurate polls is not going to help avoid a repeat of the Trump election disaster.
19
Prior to Comely letter Ms. Clinton appeared to have a measly six point lead against a candidate who had never held public office, has a well documented history of false statements, and admitted on tape to sexually assaulting women over many years.
Mrs. Clinton lost the election because she did an excellent job alienating voters- seeming to go out of her way at times to mock and threaten what should have been her core-constituency. Mrs. Clinton spent more time flying over crucial Democratic states than visiting them.
She did not lose because of emails, Benghazi or any of silly little cooked up scandal. She lost because she said she was going to put the coal industry out of business, and met with the parents of young African Americans murdered by police officers instead of meeting with widows of fallen officers.
White working class voters abandoned Mrs. Clinton because they felt she abandoned them.
Mrs. Clinton lost the election because she did an excellent job alienating voters- seeming to go out of her way at times to mock and threaten what should have been her core-constituency. Mrs. Clinton spent more time flying over crucial Democratic states than visiting them.
She did not lose because of emails, Benghazi or any of silly little cooked up scandal. She lost because she said she was going to put the coal industry out of business, and met with the parents of young African Americans murdered by police officers instead of meeting with widows of fallen officers.
White working class voters abandoned Mrs. Clinton because they felt she abandoned them.
37
I agreed with everything you said except this:
"... met with the parents of young African Americans murdered by police officers instead of meeting with widows of fallen officers"
Why is that an either/or? Why is it that you think that supporting cops and supporting young African-Americans are somehow naturally opposed to each other? Justice based on the idea of equal protection under the law demands that we start with the idea that shooting somebody is illegal unless properly justified, regardless of who is holding the gun. And good policing demands that our cops be the good guys, which means that they have to know how to restrain themselves from shooting or otherwise killing civilians that do not present a lethal threat to them, instead of (as all too often happens) trying to cover up for their actions.
"... met with the parents of young African Americans murdered by police officers instead of meeting with widows of fallen officers"
Why is that an either/or? Why is it that you think that supporting cops and supporting young African-Americans are somehow naturally opposed to each other? Justice based on the idea of equal protection under the law demands that we start with the idea that shooting somebody is illegal unless properly justified, regardless of who is holding the gun. And good policing demands that our cops be the good guys, which means that they have to know how to restrain themselves from shooting or otherwise killing civilians that do not present a lethal threat to them, instead of (as all too often happens) trying to cover up for their actions.
2
Lousy campaigner. She couldn't articulate a message. Who remembers her theme? Trump's, sure, it's rubbish, but we remember it: Make America Great Again. Hillary's? It's My Turn.
Go away, Clintons.
Go away, Clintons.
This is important for The Times to report on, despite what some commenters may say. Most importantly, Clinton supporters and the liberal elite must start taking responsibility for the loss to Trump and neglecting to address and stand up for issues that are important to many middle class and lower class voters. Hillary openly admitted that she could not relate to them...and this was more than apparent when looking at her [original] platform. Addressing these voters was far more important to regaining likability after twenty years of her denigration by the right than the Comey letter. Voters are demanding that we move beyond the status quo and start "progressing"!
34
Since Comey violated the Hatch Act with his announcement right before the election about Clinton, yet said not a word about the active investigation of Trump surrogates acting in concert with the Kremlin, we are parsing his true impact on the election for little gain.
History and his maker will judge him. His can only show contrition by holding Trump and his surrogates accountable for their paid involvement with Russia and Turkey before the election.
It is undeniable that the Kremlin has decided to aggressively influence western elections and will do so until a suitable response makes it unprofitable for the kleptocrats to continue doing so.
We are also seeing state sponsored cyber-theft accelerate dangerously, of our elections and property.
Both government and private consortiums should focus on that response immediately.
Forget wasting money on missiles that are shot like fireworks at air strips for show. Fortify the nation's cyber-security and establish devastating responses to cyber-criminals.
History and his maker will judge him. His can only show contrition by holding Trump and his surrogates accountable for their paid involvement with Russia and Turkey before the election.
It is undeniable that the Kremlin has decided to aggressively influence western elections and will do so until a suitable response makes it unprofitable for the kleptocrats to continue doing so.
We are also seeing state sponsored cyber-theft accelerate dangerously, of our elections and property.
Both government and private consortiums should focus on that response immediately.
Forget wasting money on missiles that are shot like fireworks at air strips for show. Fortify the nation's cyber-security and establish devastating responses to cyber-criminals.
25
We should have devasting responses to politicians who mishandle and forward classified information to unauthorized individuals as well. Comey wouldn't have had cause for letter if not for hillarys illegal actions. It all circles back to hillarys own actions any way you look at it.
Comey's press conference to publicly shame Clinton had far more effect than his October surprise. That public discussion of the investigation was a political act he undertook because he felt AG Lynch would soften the language. Not his place, and he did it while thinking Clinton would win. That political act kept the issue alive all summer, delighting the NY Times headline writers and the MSM.
18
Clinton lost because "it's my turn" does not give people a compeling reason to vote for anyone. Her loss lies squarely on her own shoulders. The Democrats nominated pretty much the only candidate capible of actually losing to Mr. Trump. Now, the party and Ms. Clinton own the loss. Deal with it and move on.
192
Its her turn was also the fault of the women democratic senators who urged Hillary to run. It was also the fault of the black congressional caucus PAC who made sure Hillary and only Hillary would get the African American votes in the south. These two groups falsely convinced Hillary that she was "destined" to be the first female President.
2
Prezactly. Biden would have won. Sanders would have won. And lest we ride the unquestionable element of misogyny too hard, Warren would have won, too (my progressive, feminist wife and daughters certainly voted for Clinton, given the grotesque alternative, but -- woman or no -- have very little use for her.)
And people can debate style vs substance all they want (putting aside for the nonce that they are not mutually exclusive) but being able to read lines convincingly, persuasively, passionately if need be, is every bit as much of a legitimate requirement for an aspirant to elective office as it is for an actor.
And people can debate style vs substance all they want (putting aside for the nonce that they are not mutually exclusive) but being able to read lines convincingly, persuasively, passionately if need be, is every bit as much of a legitimate requirement for an aspirant to elective office as it is for an actor.
3
i'm so tired of the endless rehashing (yes, i see the irony that i'm reading another rehash).
she wasn't a politician. that was her appeal.
he is a salesman. he did his job.
she was the target of hundreds of millions in attacks by congressional committees before she even ran.
still hard to credit that people vote against their interest, believe the unbelievable, accept anything if it helps their "team".
Washington and Adams were right to warn us of this. maybe the real surprise is that it took so long to get this bad.
she wasn't a politician. that was her appeal.
he is a salesman. he did his job.
she was the target of hundreds of millions in attacks by congressional committees before she even ran.
still hard to credit that people vote against their interest, believe the unbelievable, accept anything if it helps their "team".
Washington and Adams were right to warn us of this. maybe the real surprise is that it took so long to get this bad.
3
"she wasn't a politician. that was her appeal."
Err, what? Hillary Clinton has been a professional politician since 1999, when she decided to run for the US Senate. She was proud of her experience, talking about it extensively during debates. What you just stated there was pure revisionism.
Err, what? Hillary Clinton has been a professional politician since 1999, when she decided to run for the US Senate. She was proud of her experience, talking about it extensively during debates. What you just stated there was pure revisionism.
10
ok, i guess that's the only way to read what i said.
no way you could know that i meant "charismatic personality adept at campaigning".
no way you could know that i meant "charismatic personality adept at campaigning".
1
The week before the election, I was calling registered Democratic voters in Florida to encourage them to get out and vote. I met a surprising degree of hostility to Hillary Clinton, with one (Democratic) voter lecturing me at length on what a crook she was. I can't believe that the Comey letter had no effect on the Florida outcome. If the letter discouraged Democrats, how many additional Republicans did it spur to get to the polls? Hillary lost Florida by one percent. I believe Comey was responsible for that loss.
76
Comey had already inappropriately favored Clinton by previously announcing that there was no reason for an indictment concerning her use of a private email server. The Attorney General then inappropriately followed his judgment, rather than doing her job and making a decision herself. It would have been way over the top for Comey to then withhold information about renewal of the investigation. Comey was in a trap of his own making. Morevoer, it is time for Clinton to stop whining and finally take responsibility for creating the email scandal to begin with.
21
Don't forget that BILL Clinton colluded with AG Lorretta Lynch on the airport tarmac...a clear case of bribery and influence meddling.
1
"Inappropriately favored?" He was required to advise that no charges would be forthcoming. If you had read his letter to FBI employees you would know he had no choice but to say that.
As his letter states, the only charge available is Espionage, written for other situations (as where spies deliberately disclose classified information). Espionage requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that one of the following 3 showings be proved: 1. that the defendant intentionally profited or tried to profit from the disclosure (Petreus disclosed info to his gf who was writing a book they intended to sell); 2. that the U.S. was injured by the disclosure; or 3. that an enemy country benefitted from the disclosure (these last two are where codes are disclosed etc). None of these existed in Hillary's situation. Her haters can whine or howl at the moon, but that does not change the fact she was never guilty, would never be guilty, and everyone knew.
Comey acted inappropriately. Certainly. He went off script stating no charges would be filed by endlessly editorializing on how she would be "punished" (a grown woman--imagine saying that about a man!) if she were a govt employee--which she is NOT, NEVER WAS. He violated explicit FBI rules by commenting on an investigation so close to an election--we vote by mail states were already voting and had to mail ballots in before the last comments about "nothing new here." If he cheated to hurt her, Trump should have been treated the same.
As his letter states, the only charge available is Espionage, written for other situations (as where spies deliberately disclose classified information). Espionage requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that one of the following 3 showings be proved: 1. that the defendant intentionally profited or tried to profit from the disclosure (Petreus disclosed info to his gf who was writing a book they intended to sell); 2. that the U.S. was injured by the disclosure; or 3. that an enemy country benefitted from the disclosure (these last two are where codes are disclosed etc). None of these existed in Hillary's situation. Her haters can whine or howl at the moon, but that does not change the fact she was never guilty, would never be guilty, and everyone knew.
Comey acted inappropriately. Certainly. He went off script stating no charges would be filed by endlessly editorializing on how she would be "punished" (a grown woman--imagine saying that about a man!) if she were a govt employee--which she is NOT, NEVER WAS. He violated explicit FBI rules by commenting on an investigation so close to an election--we vote by mail states were already voting and had to mail ballots in before the last comments about "nothing new here." If he cheated to hurt her, Trump should have been treated the same.
1
The bottom line here is that Trump got more votes in enough States to win the electoral vote and thus the election. We will never really know how much of that was due to "external forces" such as Mr. Comey and the Russian Hackers or "internal forces" such as running an ineffective campaign strategy in terms of both message and performance. The Democrats should focus on what they can change-the internal. Stand for something, tell the voters what that stance consists of in a direct and intelligable manner, and don't take anything for granted. Move forward and don't rifight the lsat "war'.
5
Assuming we can assume Comey had an effect, since polling aside, the event was certainly corrosive at a critical moment to a critical vulnerability manufactured entirely by HRC's propagandizing political enemies, & assuming we can assume Comey was & always would have been a willing coconspirator in the shenanigans of manufacturing the otherwise utterly unfounded unease about HRC, I still blame Anthony Weiner & his sick sexual compulsions for handing an opportunity to the hatemongering GOP a reopening of a known, if manufactured vulnerability.
Had Weiner not been an irrepressible creepster singlehandedly offering up a prior vulnerability which HRC had already survived, the inevitable exploitation by inevitably partisan hack Comey would never have happened.
Thanks Weiner.
Had Weiner not been an irrepressible creepster singlehandedly offering up a prior vulnerability which HRC had already survived, the inevitable exploitation by inevitably partisan hack Comey would never have happened.
Thanks Weiner.
3
While I'm also skeptical of Comey costing Clinton the election, I'm even more skeptical of any poll data mentioned by "The Upshot"
6
Let us not forget that Nate Cohen called every single thing about this election WRONG...right up to the last minute.
I remember his column in late October, where he said "Hillary Clinton has an absolute lock on the Electoral College".
I remember his column in late October, where he said "Hillary Clinton has an absolute lock on the Electoral College".
This article makes unprovable assertions such as "post-debate coverage faded and Republican-leaning voters belatedly and finally decided to back their traditional party's nontraditional candidate." Or Mrs. Clinton's numbers were dropping before the Comey letter but then rose after it!
A simpler hypothesis might be that the country is so divided and its political cross-currents so dense that polling is less reliable an instrument than it used to be.
A simpler hypothesis might be that the country is so divided and its political cross-currents so dense that polling is less reliable an instrument than it used to be.
6
Comey went public with a non story before conducting an investigation into the contents of of the e-mails on Anthony Weiner's computer. At the same time he failed to reveal the existence of an ongoing investigation between the Trump campaign and Russia.
As Mr. Cohn states: "It’s hard to rule out the possibility that Mr. Comey was decisive in such a close election. Mr. Trump won Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania by less than a percentage point."
There were a number of factor that contributed to "the perfect storm" that resulted in the election .of Donald Trump. Comey's finger on the scale was one of them. There is no excuse for his act or for his omission.
As Mr. Cohn states: "It’s hard to rule out the possibility that Mr. Comey was decisive in such a close election. Mr. Trump won Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania by less than a percentage point."
There were a number of factor that contributed to "the perfect storm" that resulted in the election .of Donald Trump. Comey's finger on the scale was one of them. There is no excuse for his act or for his omission.
5
Comey did not go public. A senator leaked the information. Even if he did, Clinton caused her own issues with trying to guard her illegal activities with a private server at home. It's all on her.
1
To suggest that the Comey letter had no effect on the election absolutely strains all reason and credibility. Turnout, Clinton's messaging in the final week before the election, enthusiasm of Trump supporters in the Midwest all could have been significantly impacted by the Comey letter. She lost the electoral college by 84000 votes in three swing states.
142
It does not matter if it is ONE vote.
GW Bush won in 2000 with ONE more Electoral Vote than Al Gore.
ONE VOTE.
GW Bush won in 2000 with ONE more Electoral Vote than Al Gore.
ONE VOTE.
Lost=Lost
Hillary Clinton lost the election in the period from September 2012 when she was Secretary of State and her polled favorability was 74% (Huffpo aggregate) to early 2016 as the campaign was getting underway and her rating had fallen to 42%. How could anyone normally expect to win with such ratings? Of course since Trump's ratings were even worse it was supposed that his support would evaporate in the face of the even worse (and true) revelations about him. This did not happen, so we have to question the importance of all of the late-campaign events that people use to point fingers for the outcome.
Clinton was the same person in 2016 as in 2012 and she had already been through several campaigns, so the decline seems most likely to be due to effective character assassination by the media. How much of this is due to the amplification of the fake Benghazi and email server "scandal" by the MSM and how much to Fox News and other Republican propaganda outlets? Why can no effective counter for Fox News be found?
It is also evident that many white working people have lost faith that the Democratic party is "on their side". This could be called the deciding factor (in the late stages) as much as anything. Shouldn't the party think about policies that have some chance of reversing the still-growing inequality?
Clinton was the same person in 2016 as in 2012 and she had already been through several campaigns, so the decline seems most likely to be due to effective character assassination by the media. How much of this is due to the amplification of the fake Benghazi and email server "scandal" by the MSM and how much to Fox News and other Republican propaganda outlets? Why can no effective counter for Fox News be found?
It is also evident that many white working people have lost faith that the Democratic party is "on their side". This could be called the deciding factor (in the late stages) as much as anything. Shouldn't the party think about policies that have some chance of reversing the still-growing inequality?
101
It's funny, hysterical really, "change policies", OK, I ask you to go back and LOOK at the democratic party platform and tell me what you would change. ENOUGH with this notion that we were not the party of working people. We are now busy busy busy turning this meme into a reality at our own peril. It simply is not true. HRC ran on the most progressive platform of any democratic candidate in history - and every plank in that platform was very much in the best interests of working people.
But you put one other word in there: "white". Why? Do you propose we would have done better to tailor a race-based message? Like Trump did?? Well to that I say NO. Or then you have to tell me what the messages would sound like - the wording - that would have made white folk happy based on their whiteness and not also have become racist screeds. Very quickly you will discover you can't.
But you put one other word in there: "white". Why? Do you propose we would have done better to tailor a race-based message? Like Trump did?? Well to that I say NO. Or then you have to tell me what the messages would sound like - the wording - that would have made white folk happy based on their whiteness and not also have become racist screeds. Very quickly you will discover you can't.
5
Since it now costs over a billion dollars to run for president, I don't see how any candidate can afford to turn their backs on Wall Street money. Until Citizens United is overturned, if it ever is, the candidates must go hat-in-hand to those with the money.
2
"Clinton was the same person in 2016 as in 2012 and she had already been through several campaigns"
I should point out that her record as a campaigner is not particularly good. In New York senate races in 2000 and 2006, she was able to win, but by substantially smaller margins than fellow Democrats Chuck Schumer and later Kirsten Gillibrand running in basically the same electorate. And in 2008, she started with a commanding lead in the polls but ended up losing to relative newcomer Barack Obama in the primaries. Repeated assertions that she was a strong candidate and great campaigner were more bluster than fact.
I should point out that her record as a campaigner is not particularly good. In New York senate races in 2000 and 2006, she was able to win, but by substantially smaller margins than fellow Democrats Chuck Schumer and later Kirsten Gillibrand running in basically the same electorate. And in 2008, she started with a commanding lead in the polls but ended up losing to relative newcomer Barack Obama in the primaries. Repeated assertions that she was a strong candidate and great campaigner were more bluster than fact.
5
Let's consider what might have been in covered in the news had not, as Nate Cohn asserts, "The story dominated the news for much of the week before the election." Florida is not the state that is central to the winning of the election, it is the razor thin margins in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
7
My niece is only one individual in millions, but she literally told me she could not vote for a candidate who was going to be indicted by the FBI. I believe there were many, many others who felt the same way she did. I believe the focus now should be on whether Comey committed an act of treason. If he did, Democrats must pursue justice.
301
I happened to catch a poll on CNN the day of Comey's announcement regarding Comey's announcement. About THIRTY PERCENT of those polled had changed their minds based on the announcement.
5
"My niece is only one individual in millions, but she literally told me she could not vote for a candidate who was going to be indicted by the FBI."
Well the first thing you could do, for the betterment of the rest of us, is to explain to your niece that the FBI can't indict people.
The reason we have Trump as president is because of people like this, with absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
Well the first thing you could do, for the betterment of the rest of us, is to explain to your niece that the FBI can't indict people.
The reason we have Trump as president is because of people like this, with absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
9
Unless your niece lives in a district in PA, WI, MI, NC , OH or FL her not voting for HRC because of the Comey effect is meaningless.
4
Polls measure voter preference but are weak predicting turnout. There's no doubt that the Comey letter depressed turnout for Hillary.
271
The 100 million people who couldn't be bothered to vote and the 62 million who voted for Trump do not deserve any compassion whatsoever, but the 65 million of us who tried to stop this catastrophe most certainly do.
4
Depressed turnout? She received three-million more votes than trump.
Apparently the NYT now feels the need to undercut Mrs. Clinton's narrative on the election. Yesterday the editorial board created a false equivilency that priviate citizen Clinton when specifically asked - talking about the FBI letter and Russian hacking affecting her campaign was on par with the elected President asserting that millions of illegal votes were cast for the popular candidate casting a shadow in his "unprecedented electoral win" (though no Democrat since FDR has been able to take the White House for their party beyond 8 years). Here's the bottom line. Trump won the election by 77,000 votes cast in three states that gave him the electoral college. Clearly announcing the reopening of the investigation in the middle of early voting hit the Clinton campaign hard. Parse it anyway you want to Nate, but she was up by six points before the weekend and down 4 points after the FBI letter news cycle. And you are correct that there is little other polling to support your assumption that Comey's actions didn't matter. Naturally, the NYT editorial board asks her to please stop talking about this and move on, a typical paternalistic and condescending request.
383
Trump outworked and outsmarted Hillary and her sense of entitlement. It's that simple but maddening at the same time. He went to the states that mattered while she went to Beverly Hills and the Hamptons. He talked to the everyday man/woman, like Obama did, while she hung out with pop culture icons. This is how you lose elections.
The Clinton's are not into self loathing so don't expect them to say they made a mistake. They have a history of pointing fingers and taking out frustrations on staff. The "buck stops over there" is their mantra.
The Dems are caught in a Clinton time machine and need to move on. Better candidates and better ideas are needed badly.
and it eventually became noise.
The Clinton's are not into self loathing so don't expect them to say they made a mistake. They have a history of pointing fingers and taking out frustrations on staff. The "buck stops over there" is their mantra.
The Dems are caught in a Clinton time machine and need to move on. Better candidates and better ideas are needed badly.
and it eventually became noise.
11
"The need to undercut her narrative?" Is she entitled to blanket unquestioned acceptance of that narrative regardless of it's likely validity? If Mrs Clinton wants to speak publicly on these matters then the press is entitled to consider it. Everything that hasn't gone her way for decades has always been the fault of the " vast right wing conspiracy". Nothing is every her fault. I guess even noticing that makes you a co-conspirator.
7
Keep drinking the Kool-Aid and ignoring the DNC squelching of the candidate that could have actually beaten Trump. It was HER TURN, right? Nevermind the fact she was a Goldwater Girl from the Board of Wallmart who had been taking millions from Wall Street after warmongering as SecOfSt. Yes, blame the Russians, blame Comey, blame misogyny.
2
I don't understand, really, why journalists are having so much trouble understanding what happened. Comey didn't cost Hillary the election, but his October 28 announcement gave wavering voters 'permission' to reject Clinton and vote for Trump, and that's what they did.
Let's move on to something important, shall we?
Let's move on to something important, shall we?
277
Sure he did.
3
re "his October 28 announcement gave wavering voters 'permission' to reject Clinton and vote for Trump, and that's what they did. "
... in other words Comey DID cost Hillary the election
... in other words Comey DID cost Hillary the election
6
This is still very important. And so is the investigation of the Russian subterfuge with Trump and his associates.
I want a very bright flashlight on both of these issues.
I want a very bright flashlight on both of these issues.
5
In truth, we will never know. There are simply too many variables, and too many ways to interpret those variables. The Trump people will have their interpretations, and the Clinton will have theirs. In the end, it's for politicos to endlessly debate about, while everyone else realizes they are still fighting the last war. We have the disaster known as Trump to deal with now.
61
Sure, there are a lot of variables that went into the mix, but when you consider that Clinton lost the electoral college by a mere 70,000 votes spread across three different states, a fraction of a percentage point, then each variable likely constituted a "but for" event that resulted in the loss. So, yes, Comey cost her the election. The same can be said of the Russians ...
3
and cohn is a trump "people".
1
While I will not totally dismiss the Comey effect, Clinton was a poor candidate and did not help herself. She could have united the party by writing a more inclusive platform, and by picking a Vice presidential candidate who was more liberal.She needed to campaign more especially in states with large Blue Collar populations. Those two things alone would have over come the Comey effect.
She should have address the letters head on and most importantly made better decisions and not placed herself in that predicament in the first place. Alone any one of those things were not insurmountable but together they were going to be hard to over come. Finally she underestimated Trump and his Team as we all did.
Chuck From Ohio
She should have address the letters head on and most importantly made better decisions and not placed herself in that predicament in the first place. Alone any one of those things were not insurmountable but together they were going to be hard to over come. Finally she underestimated Trump and his Team as we all did.
Chuck From Ohio
152
Not sure how picking a more liberal VP candidate would have helped HRC win in the "purple" states that she lost.
All these commenters seem to be focused on turnout. But Hillary's problem was that most of her votes came from a handful of blue states. Increasing turnout might have increased her popular vote margin, but that wouldn't have won her the election.
All these commenters seem to be focused on turnout. But Hillary's problem was that most of her votes came from a handful of blue states. Increasing turnout might have increased her popular vote margin, but that wouldn't have won her the election.
7
Reply to Chuck from Ohio: Hindsight is 20/20 so I have to disagree with you sir. Clinton was an excellent candidate. Her platform couldn't have been more inclusive ... my gosh. And Tim Kaine is plenty liberal. A more liberal VP choice would have been ok for Progressives but would have lost more centrist Democrats and the hoped-for votes of moderate Republicans. Whether or not Comey's actions impacted the votes for her, the trump blusterbuss was too much, the lying and sky-high promises felled decent Republican candidates, as well as Clinton.
Perhaps you're correct but have you seen Senator Kaine's record on unions? HRC picked a "Right-to-work" milquetoast nobody as her VP. As you said, it probably didn't hurt, but it definitely did not help.
7
Please leave that whats her name who had that Oscar envelope moment in November leave her alone.
We all know she lost.
All this looking at past data to now reconfirm what happened on Nov 8 - well, its like the weatherman who tells you about the precise time a tornado would hit you - yesterday.
It's always easy to have a 20-20 vision in the past - but who has the eyes in the back of their head.
What other gem of trivia will you find that you knew all along about that Oscar moment in November