Would Donald Trump have lost if it weren't for Comey?

[🕴🏼Melior🕴🏼]

Yes (not a delusional hack)

Do you guys realize how close this election was? This election was decided by a total of ~100,000 votes in 3 states (MI, WI, and PA). This was one of the closest elections in history. Before Comey's interference, Clinton was ahead of Donald Trump nationally by an average of around 5 points. After Comey's interference, Hillary's nationwide polling average dropped to around a 2 point lead. Her polling average dropped by around 3 points nationwide after Comey.

Donald Trump would've obviously lost if it weren't for Comey. Anyone who believes otherwise is a delusional hack.

[Mr. Smith]

Yes, but literally any LAST MINUTE "scandal" could've done it, and any last minute foot-in-mouth move by Trump could've held out The Midwest or flipped The Sun Belt to Hillary.

[Pericles]

Clinton would have won 307 EVs without Comey.

[Liberalrocks]

Clinton would have won 307 EVs without Comey.

[Phony Moderate]

The calling off of it on the final Sunday was probably more damaging to Clinton - as others said at the time, it ensured that the issue dominated the news cycle during the final hours of the campaign.

But it should never have been so close that something like that could have been able to flip it anyway.

[Mr. Morden]

As I said in the other thread, how much of the shift at the end from Johnson and Undecided to Trump was inevitably going to happen at the last minute anyway, regardless of what was going on in the campaign?  It's hard to disentangle any "natural" 3rd party deflation from what was going on with Comey.

[Fuzzy Bear]

MI and PA, the biggest coup states for Trump, did NOT have early voting.  Comey had wrapped up the matter prior to anyone voting.  So, no, I don't think was the deciding factor for Trump. 

If Comey were, in fact, the deciding factor in Trump's victory, he'd have won the popular vote, IMO. 

[Pericles]

MI and PA, the biggest coup states for Trump, did NOT have early voting.  Comey had wrapped up the matter prior to anyone voting.  So, no, I don't think was the deciding factor for Trump. 

If Comey were, in fact, the deciding factor in Trump's victory, he'd have won the popular vote, IMO. 

On Election Day he still had an impact by reinforcing Clinton's email scandal in voters' minds and distracting from Trump's vulnerabilities. He unfairly added to the impression Clinton was crooked, destroyed her momentum and added to Trump's narrative of a 'rigged system.'

[Coolface Sock #42069]

I'm not sure. I'm a little skeptical that it would be enough to flip Pennsylvania. I don't think it turned Clinton votes into Trump votes as much as it turned Johnson votes into Trump votes.

[Pericles]

I'm not sure. I'm a little skeptical that it would be enough to flip Pennsylvania. I don't think it turned Clinton votes into Trump votes as much as it turned Johnson votes into Trump votes.

pennsylvania only went to Trump by 0.75%. That could easily be changed. Wisconsin was slightly more for Trumo, but at 0.76%, it could too be flipped.

[Mr. Morden]

OK, that's one theory... but if that were the case then why were the exit polls the day of the election pretty much spot on?  The CNN sample is almost 25000 people and was fairly accurate.  These polls are taken largely from people coming out of the voting booth, in person... given that this is in person voting, wouldn't these polls be even more inaccurate if people are "embarrassed" to admit they voted for/would vote for Trump?

The exit polls are basically fixed to match the actual election day results.  That's why the early exit numbers are often off, yet magically "fix themselves" to match what the vote count says a few hours later.

But more than that, to the extent that the polling in the race was off, I don't think it was because of any "shy Trump voter" effect, where people were actually lying to pollsters about who they supported.  Rather, the issue is that the pollsters weren't reaching a truly representative sample of the people who would end up voting.  This is an especially big problem for the internet and robo-polls, which tend to have lower response rates.  See this graph, for example, which shows how the internet and robo-polls at the national level remained incredibly static:



Not just static, but static around a Clinton lead that almost exactly matches the margin by which Obama beat Romney in 2012.  While I can't prove it, my hunch is that these polls were baking in some kind of assumptions that the 2016 electorate would look like the 2012 electorate, and that's where they failed.  Would be interesting to see this graph replicated for the swing states where the polls missed by more, like Ohio and Wisconsin, but I don't have the time to look into that.

[Mr. Morden]

OK, that's one theory... but if that were the case then why were the exit polls the day of the election pretty much spot on?  The CNN sample is almost 25000 people and was fairly accurate.  These polls are taken largely from people coming out of the voting booth, in person... given that this is in person voting, wouldn't these polls be even more inaccurate if people are "embarrassed" to admit they voted for/would vote for Trump?

The exit polls are basically fixed to match the actual election day results.  That's why the early exit numbers are often off, yet magically "fix themselves" to match what the vote count says a few hours later.

But more than that, to the extent that the polling in the race was off, I don't think it was because of any "shy Trump voter" effect, where people were actually lying to pollsters about who they supported.  Rather, the issue is that the pollsters weren't reaching a truly representative sample of the people who would end up voting.  This is an especially big problem for the internet and robo-polls, which tend to have lower response rates.  See this graph, for example, which shows how the internet and robo-polls at the national level remained incredibly static:



Not just static, but static around a Clinton lead that almost exactly matches the margin by which Obama beat Romney in 2012.  While I can't prove it, my hunch is that these polls were baking in some kind of assumptions that the 2016 electorate would look like the 2012 electorate, and that's where they failed.  Would be interesting to see this graph replicated for the swing states where the polls missed by more, like Ohio and Wisconsin, but I don't have the time to look into that.

What is your theory then, as to why they were off, unusually high turnout in very rural areas in some states?

This is not a super well-thought out theory, but sure, unusually high turnout in rural areas, lower than expected black turnout, or anything else that caused 2016 to be different from 2012.  Polling isn't easy, and it's already well known that internet polls in particular face big challenges in trying to create random samples, and robo-pollsters have been shown to have practiced "herding" which lowers the accuracy of the polling average because you could have "the blind leading the blind".

I haven't taken a close look at the data to prove my case.  It's just the impression I have from what I've seen so far, based on the few pieces of evidence I've mentioned already, like the internet and robo-polls closely matching the results of the 2012 election throughout the campaign.  That seems awfully suspicious to me.

[Beet]

60 million people voted between Oct. 28, 2016 and Nov. 6, 2016, thinking one of the major party candidates was a criminal. That many of them voted for the criminal anyway tells you how much the people wanted Clinton over Trump, even though they were being gaslighted in the other direction by the authorities.

[Phony Moderate]

Yes of course he caused this mess.

What I don't get is, Trump people refute the Comey impact by just saying the polls were off... they say that there was this "hidden vote" for Trump that the polls didn't recognize and that the surprise win was people who were embarrassed to say they were going to vote for Trump secretly voting for him.

OK, that's one theory... but if that were the case then why were the exit polls the day of the election pretty much spot on?  The CNN sample is almost 25000 people and was fairly accurate.  These polls are taken largely from people coming out of the voting booth, in person... given that this is in person voting, wouldn't these polls be even more inaccurate if people are "embarrassed" to admit they voted for/would vote for Trump?

Thus, I think the polls were accurate all along, and clearly demonstrated a shift to Trump right after Comey did what he did.

I would have thought that many Trump supporters would happily say that Comey made a difference, given how they view Hillary.

As for the polls, they clearly were not accurate in the states that mattered. Hillary was, I believe, ahead in every single Wisconsin poll.

[pbrower2a]

Yes. It takes time for anyone to recover credibility from any defamation.

[mencken]

OK, that's one theory... but if that were the case then why were the exit polls the day of the election pretty much spot on?  The CNN sample is almost 25000 people and was fairly accurate.  These polls are taken largely from people coming out of the voting booth, in person... given that this is in person voting, wouldn't these polls be even more inaccurate if people are "embarrassed" to admit they voted for/would vote for Trump?

They adjust the exit poll as results roll in so that they match. On Election Day the exit polls were showing Clinton winning an Obama 2012-style win.

[cvparty]

most likely, the election was very close

[Confused Democrat]

No.

Even though I don't agree with Comey's actions during the election, Hillary Clinton was 100% at fault for her loss in November. Democrats are doing themselves a grave disservice by using Comey as a crutch for why they lost the election.

[Pericles]

No.

Even though I don't agree with Comey's actions during the election, Hillary Clinton was 100% at fault for her loss in November. Democrats are doing themselves a grave disservice by using Comey as a crutch for why they lost the election.

That's not answering the question. Yes Clinton was flawed.  But she would have won without Comey. Trump has no mandate and no legitimacy.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Trump would have lost the EC by a meta-margin of .3 points.

[Confused Democrat]

No.

Even though I don't agree with Comey's actions during the election, Hillary Clinton was 100% at fault for her loss in November. Democrats are doing themselves a grave disservice by using Comey as a crutch for why they lost the election.

That's not answering the question. Yes Clinton was flawed.  But she would have won without Comey. Trump has no mandate and no legitimacy.

How is that not answering the question? I said, no, she wouldn't have won.

We lost because we presented the very epitome of an establishment politician to an electorate that was craving change. Another major reason why Hillary lost, and it absolutely baffles me why some of the red avatars on this forum don't think this is a problem, is that the Democratic party epicly failed to appeal to the white working class, specifically union workers in the midwest. A demographic that has stood with the Democratic party for decades. Donald Trump managed get Reagan-levels of support from union households in 2016:



Hmmm, why do you think that is? It sure as hell wasn't because of Comey. It's because the Democrats have abandoned WWC voters. Clinton and Obama pushed hard for free trade agreements without making sure that the millions of blue-collar workers who would lose their jobs had means of getting new ones that paid at least as well.

They allowed for corporations to abuse labor unions by not reforming labor laws and by failing to impose actual impactful penalties on corporations that violated them. They all promised to do so, but backed out with their tails between their legs because they didn't want to waste "political capital" on it. Well no wonder these people think politicians are all talk and no action.

Let's not forget the stagnation of anti-trust enforcement, the accelerated growth of large corporations, and the continued concentration of major industries.

Let's add insult to injury and point out how the Democrats have completely turned their backs on campaign finance reform. I mean, I could go on and on...

Get a grip Democrats. There is a reason why we lost WI, MI, and PA, and it wasn't Comey.

[Mr. Smith]

No.

Even though I don't agree with Comey's actions during the election, Hillary Clinton was 100% at fault for her loss in November. Democrats are doing themselves a grave disservice by using Comey as a crutch for why they lost the election.

That's not answering the question. Yes Clinton was flawed.  But she would have won without Comey. Trump has no mandate and no legitimacy.

How is that not answering the question? I said, no, she wouldn't have won.

We lost because we presented the very epitome of an establishment politician to an electorate that was craving change. Another major reason why Hillary lost, and it absolutely baffles me why some of the red avatars on this forum don't think this is a problem, is that the Democratic party epicly failed to appeal to the white working class, specifically union workers in the midwest. A demographic that has stood with the Democratic party for decades. Donald Trump managed get Reagan-levels of support from union households in 2016:



Hmmm, why do you think that is? It sure as hell wasn't because of Comey. It's because the Democrats have abandoned WWC voters. Clinton and Obama pushed hard for free trade agreements without making sure that the millions of blue-collar workers who would lose their jobs had means of getting new ones that paid at least as well.

They allowed for corporations to abuse labor unions by not reforming labor laws and by failing to impose actual impactful penalties on corporations that violated them. They all promised to do so, but backed out with their tails between their legs because they didn't want to waste "political capital" on it. Well no wonder these people think politicians are all talk and no action.

Let's not forget the stagnation of anti-trust enforcement, the accelerated growth of large corporations, and the continued concentration of major industries.

Let's add insult to injury and point out how the Democrats have completely turned their backs on campaign finance reform. I mean, I could go on and on...

Get a grip Democrats. There is a reason why we lost WI, MI, and PA, and it wasn't Comey.

This is all true, but the minority voters could've stayed at the same highs, and the suburbanites probably would've flipped over.   FL, PA (thanks to Philly burbs), MI (thanks to Wayne County not dropping so low) would've held, and a probable AZ flip [albeit by NC '08 margins rather than poll projections 'cuz of Obamacare premiums].

It was Comey that told both the skeptical but loyal minorities and the avowed conservative #NeverTrumpists "both sides do it".

[Confused Democrat]

No.

Even though I don't agree with Comey's actions during the election, Hillary Clinton was 100% at fault for her loss in November. Democrats are doing themselves a grave disservice by using Comey as a crutch for why they lost the election.

That's not answering the question. Yes Clinton was flawed.  But she would have won without Comey. Trump has no mandate and no legitimacy.

How is that not answering the question? I said, no, she wouldn't have won.

We lost because we presented the very epitome of an establishment politician to an electorate that was craving change. Another major reason why Hillary lost, and it absolutely baffles me why some of the red avatars on this forum don't think this is a problem, is that the Democratic party epicly failed to appeal to the white working class, specifically union workers in the midwest. A demographic that has stood with the Democratic party for decades. Donald Trump managed get Reagan-levels of support from union households in 2016:



Hmmm, why do you think that is? It sure as hell wasn't because of Comey. It's because the Democrats have abandoned WWC voters. Clinton and Obama pushed hard for free trade agreements without making sure that the millions of blue-collar workers who would lose their jobs had means of getting new ones that paid at least as well.

They allowed for corporations to abuse labor unions by not reforming labor laws and by failing to impose actual impactful penalties on corporations that violated them. They all promised to do so, but backed out with their tails between their legs because they didn't want to waste "political capital" on it. Well no wonder these people think politicians are all talk and no action.

Let's not forget the stagnation of anti-trust enforcement, the accelerated growth of large corporations, and the continued concentration of major industries.

Let's add insult to injury and point out how the Democrats have completely turned their backs on campaign finance reform. I mean, I could go on and on...

Get a grip Democrats. There is a reason why we lost WI, MI, and PA, and it wasn't Comey.

This is all true, but the minority voters could've stayed at the same highs, and the suburbanites probably would've flipped over.   FL, PA (thanks to Philly burbs), MI (thanks to Wayne County not dropping so low) would've held, and a probable AZ flip [albeit by NC '08 margins rather than poll projections 'cuz of Obamacare premiums].

It was Comey that told both the skeptical but loyal minorities and the avowed conservative #NeverTrumpists "both sides do it".

No, the minority vote wasn't depressed because of Comey. I believe it was depressed because Trump made an effective argument about the Democratic Party "taking the African American vote for granted."

His pitch of "what do you have to lose" wasn't merely as stupid as every talking head in MSM spun it as.

[Fuzzy Bear]

No.

Even though I don't agree with Comey's actions during the election, Hillary Clinton was 100% at fault for her loss in November. Democrats are doing themselves a grave disservice by using Comey as a crutch for why they lost the election.

That's not answering the question. Yes Clinton was flawed.  But she would have won without Comey. Trump has no mandate and no legitimacy.

How is that not answering the question? I said, no, she wouldn't have won.

We lost because we presented the very epitome of an establishment politician to an electorate that was craving change. Another major reason why Hillary lost, and it absolutely baffles me why some of the red avatars on this forum don't think this is a problem, is that the Democratic party epicly failed to appeal to the white working class, specifically union workers in the midwest. A demographic that has stood with the Democratic party for decades. Donald Trump managed get Reagan-levels of support from union households in 2016:



Hmmm, why do you think that is? It sure as hell wasn't because of Comey. It's because the Democrats have abandoned WWC voters. Clinton and Obama pushed hard for free trade agreements without making sure that the millions of blue-collar workers who would lose their jobs had means of getting new ones that paid at least as well.

They allowed for corporations to abuse labor unions by not reforming labor laws and by failing to impose actual impactful penalties on corporations that violated them. They all promised to do so, but backed out with their tails between their legs because they didn't want to waste "political capital" on it. Well no wonder these people think politicians are all talk and no action.

Let's not forget the stagnation of anti-trust enforcement, the accelerated growth of large corporations, and the continued concentration of major industries.

Let's add insult to injury and point out how the Democrats have completely turned their backs on campaign finance reform. I mean, I could go on and on...

Get a grip Democrats. There is a reason why we lost WI, MI, and PA, and it wasn't Comey.

This is all true, but the minority voters could've stayed at the same highs, and the suburbanites probably would've flipped over.   FL, PA (thanks to Philly burbs), MI (thanks to Wayne County not dropping so low) would've held, and a probable AZ flip [albeit by NC '08 margins rather than poll projections 'cuz of Obamacare premiums].

It was Comey that told both the skeptical but loyal minorities and the avowed conservative #NeverTrumpists "both sides do it".

No, the minority vote wasn't depressed because of Comey. I believe it was depressed because Trump made an effective argument about the Democratic Party "taking the African American vote for granted."

His pitch of "what do you have to lose" wasn't merely as stupid as every talking head in MSM spun it as.

Hallelujah!  Someone who gets it!