Trump supporters have always known the FBI director’s letter about reopening the email investigation didn’t influence the election, now there is crack in the liberal armor–Nate Cohen of the NY Times is presenting evidence showing that the Comey letter to Congress about reopening the Hillary Clinton email investigation may have had little to do with the Clinton loss. A pollster trade organization, The American Association for Public Opinion Research, agrees with Cohen’s numbers.
Just last week Ms. Clinton told supporters:
“There are lots of reasons why an election like this is not successful,” Mrs. Clinton said, according to a donor who relayed the remarks. But, she added, “our analysis is that Comey’s letter raising doubts that were groundless, baseless, proven to be, stopped our momentum.”
But that belies the facts. Nate Cohen has presented evidence in the Tuesday 5/9 NY Times that proves Hillary’s support began to crash before the letter was sent. The lag between when polls are taken and when they are reported exaggerated where Hillary’s support stood before Comey sent his letter.
Cohen’s investigation started with the Upshot/Siena College poll in Florida that he received the same day Comey sent his letter, 10/28. Cohen thought the poll was an outlier because it reported a 46%-42% Trump lead.
At the time, the poll looked like a bust. There wasn’t much reason to think the result was even in the ballpark. Mrs. Clinton was ahead by six points in national polls and ahead by a similar margin in states worth 270 electoral votes, suggesting Mrs. Clinton was probably up by a few points in Florida. I can’t say I was thrilled about having to write an article about a poll that looked flat-out wrong.
But it’s now clear that Mrs. Clinton was weaker heading into Oct. 28 than was understood at the time. Several other polls were conducted over the same period that showed Mr. Trump gaining quickly on Mrs. Clinton in the days ahead of the Comey letter. And the timing of these polls — particularly the gap between when they were taken and when they were released — has probably helped to exaggerate the effect of Mr. Comey’s letter on the presidential race.
The case for a big Comey effect hinges on the large decline in Mrs. Clinton’s lead in the polls that followed the letter. In the FiveThirtyEight model, for instance, Mrs. Clinton had nearly a six-point lead heading into the Comey letter, but just a three-point lead one week later: an apparent three-percentage-point shift against Mrs. Clinton. It seems reasonable, as many have argued, to attribute much of that decline to Mr. Comey’s decision.
The ABC/Washington Post national tracking poll conducted at the same time as the Upshot/Siena Florida poll showed Mrs. Clinton’s lead had evaporated to two points, down from a double-digit lead after the third debate. Although taken before the letter this poll was released the day AFTER Comey’s letter–10/29.
Also understand that the aggregate polls such as the Real Clear Politics, add new polls to their numbers when they are published–not when they were taken. Therefore just like the polls above, Clinton’s pre-letter downturns would not have been seen until after the FBI director’s letter to congress.
The American Association for Public Opinion Research did a major study of the 2016 presidential polling. When discussing the Comey letter they looked at the ABC/Wapo poll above plus four others (and an average). This analysis also highlights that Hillary Clinton’s numbers began to crash before the FBI letter, going from an average 6% lead over Trump on Oct. 22 to 2% on the day the letter was sent.
The polls seem to prove that overall Ms. Clinton’s campaign began to tank before FBI director Comey sent his letter to congressional leaders. While this seems to eliminate the Democratic Party whiner’s claim about Comey, it cannot be definitively proven because we don’t know if Hillary would have rebounded if the letter hadn’t been sent. IMHO she would have lost either way.
