NYT suggests that Comey was manipulated by Wikileaks into making an announcement

[uti2]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/22/us/politics/james-comey-election.html

"During Russia’s hacking campaign against the United States, intelligence agencies could peer, at times, into Russian networks and see what had been taken. Early last year, F.B.I. agents received a batch of hacked documents, and one caught their attention.

The document, which has been described as both a memo and an email, was written by a Democratic operative who expressed confidence that Ms. Lynch would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far, according to several former officials familiar with the document.

The document complicated that calculation, according to officials. If Ms. Lynch announced that the case was closed, and Russia leaked the document, Mr. Comey believed it would raise doubts about the independence of the investigation.

Mr. Comey’s defenders regard this as one of the untold stories of the Clinton investigation, one they say helps explain his decision-making. But former Justice Department officials say the F.B.I. never uncovered evidence tying Ms. Lynch to the document’s author, and are convinced that Mr. Comey wanted an excuse to put himself in the spotlight."

So, Russia releases the hacked emails to help Trump, Comey is manipulated by it into making an announcement. This shows you how different of a dynamic a race without Trump would've been.

For all those who are taking about the GOP downballot. Hillary's entire strategy was to court republicans, which damaged the GOP downballot:

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137093/clinton-campaign-decision-made-may-doom-down-ballot-democrats

On top of that, in the 2000 race, you had Nelson/Bush voters, Carnahan/Bush voters, and Santorum/Gore voters, don't expect that people in downballot races would necessarily vote that way in a presidential race. Santorum won more votes in PA than Bush did.

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

The New York Times also suggested that Secretary Clinton had a 90+% chance of winning the presidency...

[Beet]

The New York Times also suggested that Secretary Clinton had a 90+% chance of winning the presidency...

Nate Silver had her only at 71%, and I don't think anyone really believed she had a 90+% chance. I certainly gave her no better than a 50/50 shot.

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

The New York Times also suggested that Secretary Clinton had a 90+% chance of winning the presidency...

Nate Silver had her only at 71%, and I don't think anyone really believed she had a 90+% chance. I certainly gave her no better than a 50/50 shot.

I distinctly remember seeing ridiculously high numbers between 80 to 95% chance of winning.

[Beet]

The New York Times also suggested that Secretary Clinton had a 90+% chance of winning the presidency...

Nate Silver had her only at 71%, and I don't think anyone really believed she had a 90+% chance. I certainly gave her no better than a 50/50 shot.

I distinctly remember seeing ridiculously high numbers between 80 to 95% chance of winning.

I remember on the night the Comey announcement came out, I was at a campaign event, and one of the people there, almost as black humor said, "Well Huffington Post has us at 99%". You could tell from the look on everyone's faces and the mood of the room that not a single person gave a shred of credence to that statistic. Just laugh these people off.

[uti2]

The New York Times also suggested that Secretary Clinton had a 90+% chance of winning the presidency...

This is a news story, not commentary. In contrast, your beloved National Review was 95% commentary about Trump losing, your beloved NR also hyped Romney in 2008, who lost.

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

The New York Times also suggested that Secretary Clinton had a 90+% chance of winning the presidency...

This is a news story, not commentary. In contrast, your beloved National Review was 95% commentary about Trump losing, your beloved NR also hyped Romney in 2008, who lost.

I don't read National Review. I'm more left-wing than you think.

[Virginiá]

The New York Times also suggested that Secretary Clinton had a 90+% chance of winning the presidency...

fallacy

nice way of avoiding the topic tho

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

The New York Times also suggested that Secretary Clinton had a 90+% chance of winning the presidency...

fallacy

My fault, I was off by 5 points. Please forgive me.

[uti2]

The New York Times also suggested that Secretary Clinton had a 90+% chance of winning the presidency...

This is a news story, not commentary. In contrast, your beloved National Review was 95% commentary about Trump losing, your beloved NR also hyped Romney in 2008, who lost.

I don't read National Review. I'm more left-wing than you think.

Just find it funny you claim an extremely right wing guy (rubio) was the most likely candidate to win besides Trump, when he was a candidate based on the same level of media hype as clinton's inevitability, the whole reason the establishment hyped him up was because he wasn't Trump or Cruz. Without Trump in the race, they wouldn't have bothered constantly trying to rehabilitate him after his so many mistakes, and the money and establishment support would've stayed behind Jeb.

You're buying into the same media narrative that your implying you're too smart to fall for.

[Virginiá]

My fault, I was off by 5 points. Please forgive me.

it has nothing to do with the numbers lol

you're deflecting, and I guess apparently you're not even aware of it either

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

The New York Times also suggested that Secretary Clinton had a 90+% chance of winning the presidency...

This is a news story, not commentary. In contrast, your beloved National Review was 95% commentary about Trump losing, your beloved NR also hyped Romney in 2008, who lost.

I don't read National Review. I'm more left-wing than you think.

Just find it funny you claim an extremely right wing guy (rubio) was the most likely candidate to win besides Trump, when he was a candidate based on the same level of media hype as clinton's inevitability, the whole reason the establishment hyped him up was because he wasn't Trump or Cruz. Without Trump in the race, they wouldn't have bothered constantly trying to rehabilitate him after his so many mistakes, and the money and establishment support would've stayed behind Jeb.

You're buying into the same media narrative that your implying you're too smart to fall for.

(Nick Young face)

When did I mention Rubio in this thread? I know I said he could win PA in a different thread, but he's not part of this conversation. If you wish to discuss Rubio's likelihood of winning, then we can do that in the other thread. You seem awfully angry over something I didn't mention here.

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

My fault, I was off by 5 points. Please forgive me.

it has nothing to do with the numbers lol

you're deflecting, and I guess apparently you're not even aware of it either

I think this whole Russia hysteria is ridiculous. Russia has been hacking us since the development of computers and the internet, and Wikileaks has been leaking since George W. Bush. Nothing new. Just outrage that Her Majesty Hillary didn't win.

[uti2]

The New York Times also suggested that Secretary Clinton had a 90+% chance of winning the presidency...

This is a news story, not commentary. In contrast, your beloved National Review was 95% commentary about Trump losing, your beloved NR also hyped Romney in 2008, who lost.

I don't read National Review. I'm more left-wing than you think.

Just find it funny you claim an extremely right wing guy (rubio) was the most likely candidate to win besides Trump, when he was a candidate based on the same level of media hype as clinton's inevitability, the whole reason the establishment hyped him up was because he wasn't Trump or Cruz. Without Trump in the race, they wouldn't have bothered constantly trying to rehabilitate him after his so many mistakes, and the money and establishment support would've stayed behind Jeb.

You're buying into the same media narrative that your implying you're too smart to fall for.

(Nick Young face)

When did I mention Rubio in this thread? I know I said he could win PA in a different thread, but he's not part of this conversation. If you wish to discuss Rubio's likelihood of winning, then we can do that in the other thread. You seem awfully angry over something I didn't mention here.

The 'mainstream media' hyped up rubio on the GOP side as much as they did Clinton on the Democratic side. So, it's hypocritical you lambast the same mainstream media for hyping up Clinton, but not rubio. And as I said in other threads, if you look at the 2000 election, you had Santorum/Gore voters, Nelson/Bush voters, and Carnahan/Bush voters, downballot =/ Presidential vote.

My fault, I was off by 5 points. Please forgive me.

it has nothing to do with the numbers lol

you're deflecting, and I guess apparently you're not even aware of it either

I think this whole Russia hysteria is ridiculous. Russia has been hacking us since the development of computers and the internet, and Wikileaks has been leaking since George W. Bush. Nothing new. Just outrage that Her Majesty Hillary didn't win.

If Russia influenced Comey to make his announcement that actually does show how Russia was able to have an effect on the race, since statistically, the Comey announcement caused a large swing in the state of the race (including the downballot Toomey votes you hype up).

[heatcharger]

There are many examples of why teenagers shouldn't be on this forum.

[Ronnie]

The New York Times also suggested that Secretary Clinton had a 90+% chance of winning the presidency...

Total non-sequitur.  NYT didn't have an anti-Trump bias when it said that Clinton was favored to win; that's just what the polling indicated.  In any case, that has nothing to do with this topic.

[Thomas Jackson]

The New York Times also suggested that Secretary Clinton had a 90+% chance of winning the presidency...

Nate Silver had her only at 71%, and I don't think anyone really believed she had a 90+% chance. I certainly gave her no better than a 50/50 shot.

I distinctly remember seeing ridiculously high numbers between 80 to 95% chance of winning.

You are correct. CNN had her at 91% http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/07/politics/political-prediction-market-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/
Reuters at 90% http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKBN1322J1
HuffPost at 98% http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/polls-hillary-clinton-win_us_5821074ce4b0e80b02cc2a94
Sam Wang had her at 99% http://election.princeton.edu/todays-electoral-vote-histogram/
Here are a few more: https://www.bustle.com/articles/170404-7-2016-election-predictions-all-have-good-news-for-hillary-clinton

Silver was the lowest at 71%.

Don't let the leftists lie now about their predictions.

[uti2]

The New York Times also suggested that Secretary Clinton had a 90+% chance of winning the presidency...

Nate Silver had her only at 71%, and I don't think anyone really believed she had a 90+% chance. I certainly gave her no better than a 50/50 shot.

I distinctly remember seeing ridiculously high numbers between 80 to 95% chance of winning.

You are correct. CNN had her at 91% http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/07/politics/political-prediction-market-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/
Reuters at 90% http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKBN1322J1
HuffPost at 98% http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/polls-hillary-clinton-win_us_5821074ce4b0e80b02cc2a94
Sam Wang had her at 99% http://election.princeton.edu/todays-electoral-vote-histogram/
Here are a few more: https://www.bustle.com/articles/170404-7-2016-election-predictions-all-have-good-news-for-hillary-clinton

Silver was the lowest at 71%.

Don't let the leftists lie now about their predictions.

It's not about 'leftists'. National Review, etc. were all saying the same thing.

Hillary's strategy was based on courting republicans. Comey's Wikileaks-influenced announcement consolidated the traditional GOP vote for Trump and killed off her GOP courtship plan:

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137093/clinton-campaign-decision-made-may-doom-down-ballot-democrats