On the other hand, one kinda has to assume that the 30% who said they were "less likely" to vote for Clinton as a result of this, were at least somewhat on the fence.
You're... joking, right? You really think that's how people respond in polls? For real? Please, answer me and tell me that you're being serious here because I'd feel silly having a belly laugh if you're just casting around for debating points right now.
Logical thinking is not your forte, I guess? If the 30% number for people who are "less likely" to vote for Clinton as a result of this was mostly due to people who were not going to vote for Clinton anyway, then why isn't the number of people who are "more likely" to vote for Clinton much much higher than it is in the same poll. The exact same logic applies in both directions. If we assume that people who were already planning on not voting for Clinton would poll as being "less likely" to vote for her, then we must also assume that people who were already planning on voting *for* Clinton would poll as being "more likely" to vote for her.
But we don't see anywhere near the same number for the "more likely" side. So we can speculate that there's some other magical factor going on here, or we can conclude that this poll does actually indicate that a significant number of people who's voting choice is not yet set are now less likely to vote for Clinton as a result of the report. You're more or less desperately grasping at straws here Joph.
Yeah, right... If the polling numbers were reversed you'd be declaring victory though, right?
Well, no. Because, again, if you're dealing with a number like 30% during a partisan election it's pretty easy to guess where that 30% is coming from.
Again, then why only 8% on the "more likely" side? Are you seriously trying to argue that the pro-Clinton camp isn't partisan? I'm not sure how you're justifying this, or even frankly why. Can't you just accept that the investigation and report were harmful to Clinton and move on? We all know it's true. The question going forward is how much harmful, and whether that harm is sufficient to cost her the election. Denying that any harm occurred just seems bizarre.
Not to put too fine a point on it but, if I thought these were terrible numbers and was trying desperately to put a brave face on them while knowing it was all a farce... I'd just not post them? I mean, I wouldn't bother volunteering the info if I thought I was going to have to spin a web of lies around it. More in reality, I'd post it (just cause I find it interesting) and say "Bad news for Camp Clinton..."
And yet, you did actually post numbers that are bad news for Camp Clinton and attempted to claim it was good news. I suspect you're in a better position to judge why you did that, but you did. Maybe you just didn't think though the implications of the numbers? I mean, to me, when 30% of respondents to a poll say they are less likely to vote for a candidate as a result of something versus 8% who say they are more likely to, those are bad numbers for the candidate. I have no clue why you might have thought otherwise.