Let me rephrase "wanted to vote". More "actually intended to vote, and for her, at any point". I'm deeply skeptical of how many of those people would have bothered voting without Comey. The primary thing Clinton brought to the whole election was people who weren't going to vote for her.Mo wrote: ↑07 Jun 2018, 07:25I think that actually supports Shem's point. I would say the bulk, or a major chunk at least, of Clinton voters were reluctant Clinton voters*. Comey stuff isn't going to demotivate people who want to vote for Clinton, it will demotivate the, "Eh, at least she's not a vulgar sleezeball," voters.Eric the .5b wrote: ↑06 Jun 2018, 21:16I think some people are overestimating how many people ever actually wanted to vote for Clinton.Shem wrote: ↑06 Jun 2018, 20:39The same sort of people who get demotivated to vote by rain on election day? I think you guys are underestimating how weak some people's desire to vote is.Eric the .5b wrote: ↑06 Jun 2018, 19:46And anyone who was demotivated to vote by that stuff...was also not a Hillary possible.
I'm not even sure we can blame Comey's last-minute shenanigans. Who exactly was actually going to vote for Clinton but got demotivated by vague investigation announcements?
* I would say the same about Trump as well
i share Jason's rejection of the Team Blue attempt to paint Russian propaganda as determining/undermining/whatever the election. If a little propaganda undermines democracy, we might as well give up on democracy. And it's ultimately all an excuse for Team Blue's failure. What determined the election was that Team Blue put up a candidate who people hated, who couldn't beat the spread on an orange nincompoop, and who couldn't actually accomplish the electoral college strategy she laid out.