Zogby Analytics -- Post election poll results


John Zogby

Enraged, deranged, vicious "Not My President" Trump haters who feel cheated that Hillary Clinton lost the election and blame it on a combination of Russian interference using hacked DNC emails, and Jim Comey's renewed 11th hour  probe into Hillary's emails will hate this excellent underreported post-election poll that proves them flat out wrong. Professional pollster John Zogby (a radically left, pro-Clinton, Democrat Arab American) took a scientific poll on November 16th (eight days after the election) to determine when voters made their decision for whom to vote for. What Zogby found was this:

When did you make your decision for whom to vote for President?

A year ago 26%
More than a month ago 39
During the presidential debates 18
In the last week before voting 8 
In the 24 hours before voting 4
In the voting booth 3
Not sure 3

26% (29 million voters) made up their minds one year before the election; 39% (52 million) made up their minds prior to October 7th, the day the massive Russian-DNC-WikiLeaks email dump began; 18% (24 million) made their decision based on the three Trump-Clinton debates (September 26th, October 10th, and October 20th). In sum, according to Zogby 83% of voters (112 million out of 135 million) were completely uninfluenced by the WikiLeaks emails.




But what of the remaining 17% or 23 million voters who were still undecided after the last presidential debate, and made up their minds in the final days and hours of the campaign? Most analysts agree that this was the group that decided the election for change agent Donald Trump over establishment candidate Hillary Clinton; that late in the day they broke for Trump in the battle ground, swing states that mattered (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan), and where Hillary was out polling him right up to the end. But why did these swing state voters break for Trump? 

Fancy Bear logo.jpg

Fancy Bear




 Indeed, did the steady drip drip drip of the Wiki-emails throughout October disillusion hundreds and thousands of Hillary leaning voters in the three swing states causing them to vote for anyone but her? or not vote at all depriving her of crucial votes to the benefit of Trump?


The answer is an emphatic NO!. For many reasons it's practically impossible that WikiLeaks mattered with late undecided voters; and this is born out by Zogby who makes mention of a "Comey Effect" in his polling data (which I'll get to later), but not of a "Wiki Effect." Why the one and not the other when both were and still are hotly debated controversial subjects? The answer is simple: unlike the "Comey effect" Zogby, when questioning voters, couldn't find a "Wiki Effect." Either Zogby found that the impact of the stolen Hillary related emails was too slight to have any post-election interest; or it was completely nonexistent; and this is understandable given the nature of the emails.

Indeed, while the DNC/Podesta emails did provide the basis for a lot of negative stories about Hillary (and hilarious right-wing mockery and propaganda) they were no more harmful to her campaign than annoying little pin pricks; they weren't politically damaging like the criminal probe into her server and emails that she lied about to the public and unsuccessfully tried to the cover up. In comparison the emails were as nothing to the electorate who were accustomed to hearing much worse about Hillary.




Look at it this way: if Donald Trump's infamous, lewd Hollywood Access groper tape, (which surfaced an hour before Julian Assange published the DNC/Podesta emails), and subsequent multiple sexual assault allegations, failed to politically hurt or stop him (though a majority of voters believed they were true, see) what fatal political damage could Hillary have suffered from the Wiki stuff?

Indeed, which is worse and more offensive for turning off actual or potential voters? Trump's groper/assault scandal where women are demeaned as sexual objects and playthings? Or emails showing John Podesta bad mouthing Hillary and questioning her judgment? Or Hillary saying she wanted "a hemispheric borderless common market," "single payer healthcare," and that as President she'd implement gun control by executive order"? In other words, if "gropergate" scarcely hurt Trump with late undecided voters then what significant electoral harm could the Wiki-emails caused Hillary?





So where does that leave Vladimir Putin? True, he (and his Kremlin hackers) tried to interfere with the election  preferring Trump to Hillary. True he hoped that the Wiki-emails would help Trump's cause and even perhaps, serving as a distraction, counter the negative effects of the Hollywood Access tape*. But was Putin Trump's kingmaker? Absolutely not! And because Putin and the Wiki-emails had zero to do with Trump's victory Zogby couldn't find evidence of a "Wiki Effect" among the voters he questioned and omits it from his survey.

*It's no mere coincidence that on October 7th, when Julian Assange published the DNC/Podesta emails it was one hour after the Access Hollywood tape surfaced (see). It is also interesting to note that October 7th was Vladimir Putin's 64th birthday (see).


Now while Zogby couldn't find a "Wiki Effect" negatively impacting voters about Hillary (which he certainly looked for when questioning them) he did find a fairly substantial "Comey Effect" in 38% or 51 million voters. But as I will attempt to prove using Zogby's polling data the Comey Effect may have somewhat changed the electoral vote count, but not the outcome of the election.
Zogby asked voters the following:

"Did the re-opening of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email server  [on Oct. 28] have a negative impact, positive impact or no impact on your feelings toward Hillary Clinton as a candidate for President? "

And the result was:

Negative impact 30%
Positive impact 8%
No impact 58%
Not sure 4%   

Now according to Zogby 30% or 40.5 million voters had their feelings negatively impacted by Comey's 11th hour Hillary probe, which dominated the news cycle for nine days. And while 83% of these or 33.6 million already made up their minds who to vote for the question is this: did the remaining 17% or 6.9 million undecided voters decide the election for Trump based on the Comey Effect? At first glance it would seem so. For if we evenly divide these 6.9 million undecideds between each of the 50 states it comes to 138, 000 voters per state. Now with Trump's close victories in each of the three swing states that won him the White House way under 138,000 votes (Pennsylvania 44,000,  Wisconsin 23,000 and Michigan 10,000) it would appear that James Comey was Trump's kingmaker -- as Hillary Clinton believes.


But Hillary is greatly, greatly mistaken. For when we factor in Zogby's data on the top issues that concerned voters (and especially the undecideds) we learn that Trump could have likely lost only one of the three key states due to the Comey Effect. In other words, as you will see, if Comey hadn't renewed the investigation into Hillary Trump would have won the electoral vote anyway.

According to Zogby top issues for voters were as follows:

Economy/jobs 32%
Taxes 5
Syria 1
Immigration 7
Trust/Truthfulness 11
Terrorism 8
The Environment 5 
Energy 1
The budget deficit 6
Social security 6
Medicare/Medicaid 4
Obamacare 8
Other (specify) 8 


You will notice that the top issue "Economy/Jobs" at 32% is followed by an issue relevant to the Comey Effect: "Trust/Truthfulness," and this intensely concerned 11% of the voters*. Now 11% of the 6.9 million voters who were negatively impacted by the Comey Effect and were likely swayed by the trust issue to vote for Trump (or one of the third-party candidates) over Hillary was 759,000 votes.

*Obviously the 32% were mostly financially insecure middle class voters; while the 11% were financially secure.

But the question again is this: did the 11% influenced by Comey win the presidency for Donald Trump (as Hillary and others believe) ? The answer is an emphatic NO! Whichever way I crunched the numbers (there's only two ways of doing this) it didn't add up to a win for Hillary.

For example, using the simple method of equally dividing the 759,000 Comey influenced/trust votes between each of the 50 states it gives us 15,180 votes per state. And 15,180 is only more (by 5180) than the margin of Trump's victory in  one of the three key swing states: Michigan (10,000 votes). Giving Michigan with its 16 electoral votes to Hillary does nothing to change the outcome of the election.

According to The Daily Telegraph Corey Lewandowski said that Comey's late investigation into Hillary related emails gave the Trump campaign "a little spring in their step." And so it did. But just a little; not enough to make a decisive difference.

However, when I used a more sophisticated method where I worked out the math on a state by state basis the result, beginning with Pennsylvania remained unchanged:




2,970,733 - Trump votes

505,024 - 17% undecided

151,507 - 30% Comey Effect

16,665 -11% trust top issue

44,000 - Trump's margin of victory


1,405,284 - Trump votes 

238,898 - 17% undecided

71,669 - 30% Comey Effect

7883 - 11% trust top issue

23,000 - T's margin of victory


2,279,543 - Trump votes

387,522 -17% undecided

116,256 - 30% Comey Effect

14,867 - 11% trust top issue

10,000 - Trump's margin of victory

  As you can see when taking the percentage of undecided voters in each of the three key swing states where Trump narrowly won, and then further reducing that number to Comey Effect voters, then reducing that to trust issue voters, again only in Michigan does it appear that the Comey Effect could have been the decisive factor helping Trump. In Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, as with the other 27 states Trump won, the overriding issue that put him over the top was the economy and jobs with financially hurting middle class voters angry over their declining fortunes. Only in  Michigan does it appear it was the trust issue influenced by the short-lived Comey probe that lost the state for Hillary.  

In sum, if there were no stolen DNC WikiLeaks emails, nor the 11th hour FBI Clinton email probe, Donald Trump would be exactly where he is today: 45th President of the United States -- but with less controversy about his historic, astonishing PROVIDENTIAL victory.


 If Trump had been the status quo Democrat candidate pledging (as Hillary did) to stay the course and continue Obama's middle class damaging legacy, and Hillary was the Republican challenger pledging economic renewal, jobs jobs jobs and radical change to the disappearing middle class she would have defeated Trump emailgate, Comey Effect, her pervert husband and all.


Joe Biden and Rahm Emanuel


These two leading Democrats both admit it was the economic plight of the middle class (not a Russian/Comey Effect) that lost them the Presidency (and Supreme Court pick) - and before that, leading up to it, the House, Senate, 13 governorships, and 1000 state legislature seats. Trump victoriously rode the crest of the Republican wave (that started in 2010) into the White House.


July 22, 2017

Trump had ‘The Art of the Deal.’ Now Democrats say their economic agenda is ‘A Better Deal for the Middle Class.’ - The Washington Post


“When you lose to somebody who has 40 percent popularity, you don’t blame other things — Comey, Russia — you blame yourself," said Chuck Schumer." So what did we do wrong? People didn’t know what we stood for, just that we were against Trump. And still believe that.”  
October 14, 2017
How Trump's relentless and extreme left-wing attacks on Bush's neo-con war policies were a huge factor in winning over the high causality anti-war states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan..






It's True: WikiLeaks dumped Podesta emails hour after Trump video surfaced | PolitiFact




  1. It was the Russians, it was Comey, it was white racism, it was xenophobia, it was Islamophobia, it was Nazi nationalism……


    1. But the Left believes that the economy is booming, and only stupid, racist, Obama-hating right wingers believe otherwise.

      1. “She literally frightened voters into voting for her opponent.”

        Completely correct. In the space of one month, her ridiculous speech against the Alt-Right, her “Basket of Deplorables speech, and finally her “medical emergency” during the 9/11 commemorations essentially erased her lead against Donald Trump. And the fact Hillary could never shake the private email server scandal, especially when one Anthony Weiner–one of the most sleaziest politicians in recent years!–got drawn into that email server scandal at the very end of the campaign season

  2. No, Comey cost the Dems, not Hillary. Had she been indicted as she should have been, another candidate might have well won the election.

  3. …Hillary is always the victim

    Nothing is Hillary’s fault. Hillary is a victim….

    More to the point…Democrats create victims. Democrats are always the victim. Nothing is the Democrats fault. Ever.

  4. This is why Hillary lost.

    57,762,169 Abortions in America Since Roe vs. Wade in 1973.

    Candidates who support genocide should always be defeated.


    Had 0bama not been such a miserable failure of a president more people might have been gullible enough to vote for old crone Clinton

  6. I don’t care if it was the Russians or Comey that brought down Hillary. That she’s not president is a blessing from Heaven.

  7. It was Comey, stupid!

    Comey set up the illegal server and paid the DNC staffer to give the emails to Wikileaks? Who did he get to write the DNC emails? They looked pretty authentic.

    Multi talented guy.

    1. Very funny. But truth be told: If Comey did what he was supposed to do, recommend an INDICTMENT for Hillary, she would have dropped out of the race and let Biden in!

      With Biden running Trump might not have won PA, WI or MI.

Leave a Reply