Day after #Brexit I posted: tantek.com/2016/177/t1/brexit-shroud-dark-side-fallen Losing so many states, it’s not clear what any one individual outside the campaign could have done differently to alter the outcome. However, one individual may have altered the outcome: James Comey History here: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/08/opinion/the-question-for-james-comey.html Summary timeline: 2016-301 (October 27th) Polls showed an 8%+ lead for Clinton, enough to win the election if not potentially in a landslide. 2016-302 (October 28th) Comey informed Congress of new emails “that ‘appear to be pertinent’”, which the media gleefully reported across the board, fanning the #doublestandard against Clinton. Within days, Clinton’s lead in the polls dropped to 3% (where they remained til the election), with no other new information about the candidates. That drop can only be attributed to Comey’s announcement. 2016-311 (November 6th) Comey informed Congress that the new emails added no new information. For NINE of the remaining ELEVEN days before the election early voters went to the polls with doubts about Clinton, doubts amplified by a double standard^1. 2016-314 (November 9th) Clinton wins popular vote by ~1%, loses Electoral College^2, despite polls up to the last minute showing she had a ~3% edge. If we conclude from that outcome that the polls had an error of ~2% towards Clinton, then before Comey raised doubts with new emails, Clinton would have had an error adjusted lead of ~6%, more than enough to swing many if not all of the rust belt states she lost by maybe ~1%. Comey’s premature announcement on October 28th, so close to election day, very likely singlehandedly swung the election, given all other factors in play. But let's not let that ~2% apparent error in the polls slide. For more on the problems with the polls, and what is to be done with them, see danah boyd’s essays: * “Reality check: I blame the media.” https://points.datasociety.net/reality-check-de447f2131a3 * “Media: End Reporting on Polls” https://points.datasociety.net/media-end-reporting-on-polls-c9b5df705b7f Lastly, that underestimation of the rust belt states support for Trump is something that film-maker Michael Moore warned us about. Watch this clip from his recent film Michael Moore in TrumpLand, and read the transcript as well: http://www.democracynow.org/2016/11/7/michael_moore_if_elected_donald_trump Was there anything any one individual (besides Comey) could have done to alter any of these? No, I don't think so. All of these point to larger, longer term problems that left us vulnerable to the same forces that brought about Brexit, with a similar outcome. ^1 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/stop-pretending-you-dont-_b_12191766.html ^2 http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president

Day after #Brexit I posted:
tantek.com/2016/177/t1/brexit-shroud-dark-side-fallen
Losing so many states, it’s not clear what any one individual outside the campaign could have done differently to alter the outcome.

However, one individual may have altered the outcome: James Comey

History here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/08/opinion/the-question-for-james-comey.html

Summary timeline:

2016-301 (October 27th) Polls showed an 8%+ lead for Clinton, enough to win the election if not potentially in a landslide.

2016-302 (October 28th) Comey informed Congress of new emails “that ‘appear to be pertinent’”, which the media gleefully reported across the board, fanning the #doublestandard against Clinton.

Within days, Clinton’s lead in the polls dropped to 3% (where they remained til the election), with no other new information about the candidates. That drop can only be attributed to Comey’s announcement.

2016-311 (November 6th) Comey informed Congress that the new emails added no new information.

For NINE of the remaining ELEVEN days before the election early voters went to the polls with doubts about Clinton, doubts amplified by a double standard¹.

2016-314 (November 9th) Clinton wins popular vote by ~1%, loses Electoral College², despite polls up to the last minute showing she had a ~3% edge.

If we conclude from that outcome that the polls had an error of ~2% towards Clinton, then before Comey raised doubts with new emails, Clinton would have had an error adjusted lead of ~6%, more than enough to swing many if not all of the rust belt states she lost by maybe ~1%.

Comey’s premature announcement on October 28th, so close to election day, very likely singlehandedly swung the election, given all other factors in play.

But let's not let that ~2% apparent error in the polls slide.

For more on the problems with the polls, and what is to be done with them, see danah boyd’s essays:
* “Reality check: I blame the media.” https://points.datasociety.net/reality-check-de447f2131a3
* “Media: End Reporting on Polls” https://points.datasociety.net/media-end-reporting-on-polls-c9b5df705b7f

Lastly, that underestimation of the rust belt states support for Trump is something that film-maker Michael Moore warned us about.

Watch this clip from his recent film Michael Moore in TrumpLand, and read the transcript as well:

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/11/7/michael_moore_if_elected_donald_trump

Was there anything any one individual (besides Comey) could have done to alter any of these? No, I don't think so. All of these point to larger, longer term problems that left us vulnerable to the same forces that brought about Brexit, with a similar outcome.

¹ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/stop-pretending-you-dont-_b_12191766.html
² http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president