Jonathan Pie explains it

[DanaC]

Not the reason but almost certainly one of them.
The timing of his announcement clearly had the potential to impact early voting. It was a hugely damaging blow. The hardline hilary haters already considered her criminally corrupt - with that announcement those prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt were offered apparent evidence that there really is no smoke without fire - right before they were expected to cast their vote.
By the time the fire was revealed to be merely a smoke machine the damage was done.

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Not the reason but almost certainly one of them.

That would make sense if what was on the ground (literally) was ignored. Visit the hinderlands of FL or PA. Those Trump signs were everywhere. Trump signs outnumbered all other candidates combined. Those signs were there long before Comey made his comments.

Clinton's comments would be based in data that was clearly flawed. She can only blame what her data would explain.

For example, many did not see 'the wall' as necessary to keep out immigants - legal or illegal. Many families in the hinderland are suffering from major heroine problems mostly traceable to opiate addiction. A problem created by big Pharma that is now more interested in profits than the product. 'The wall' is viewed as a solution to their major problem.

Did Clinton's grass root operation and data structure identify these problems?

A major change in America is productive jobs moving to big cities - mostly coastal cities. Farming and other rural communities no longer create new jobs. People who graduate with higher educations leave for the big cities.

Auto jobs are gone from a mid west industrial belt - directly traceable to a motor industry that stopped innovating ten and thirty years ago. Jobs created today could only exist if innovations were being created ten and more years ago. Neither coal nor steel does necessary innovation in the past 40 years. So jobs losses become major today.

Even a white appliance business is not being downsized since MBAs have now taken over and merged those companies in the name of cost controls. Samsung and LG are now preferred products.

Where did Democrat data reflect a severe cultural depression in these hinderland? It doesn't. Hilary can only blame what her data sees. It apparently does not see what exists, why it exists, a stagnant living standard, and propaganda routinely repeated daily in the hinderland to enhance anger.

Her data should have seen a tidal wave combined with cheapshot anger that was growing in the hinderland. Her data apparently did not explain all those Trump signs months ago combined with an anger behind them. Comey did not create that discontent.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by DanaC

... The hardline hilary haters already considered her criminally corrupt - with that announcement those prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt were offered apparent evidence that there really is no smoke without fire - right before they were expected to cast their vote.
By the time the fire was revealed to be merely a smoke machine the damage was done.

That's not quite the way it works here. Only the Clinton supporters want to draw the line at whether or not a crime was committed.

Americans do not have a right to a security clearance. As an American, if your country is in conflict with another country (or subset group) and you marry a member of that group, it's not a crime; but, you can lose your security clearance. If you have substantial gambling debts, it's not a crime; but, you can lose your security clearance. Just about anything you do that makes you susceptible to detrimental influence (e.g. extortion), that's not a crime, can cause you to lose your security clearance. If your job requires a security clearance, you lose your job. If your job doesn't require a security clearance, like the Presidency, you still lose your ability to function.

The mere fact that additional copies of Clinton emails turned up somewhere not yet accounted for did her in with many. Who knows if and where they'll turn up in the future. Who knows if they'll be redundancies; or, if there'll be something new. Who knows if more turn up, that someone won't want something from a president Clinton in return for not making waves; or, worse.

Even when government employees are authorized to use personal assets for government work, there are conditions. The personal assets have to meet or exceed government requirements and come at no cost to the government. Any problems associated with the choice to use personal assets become the sole responsibility of the person who chose to do so. How much has the government, funded by the taxpayers, had to pay for the aftermath of Clinton's decision?

These conditions apply to all levels of government service. As an SF O&I NCO I was issued a photographic equipment set AND I was authorized to use my personal equipment. If my performance suffered because my personal equipment wasn't serviceable to military standards, I could be disciplined. If my personal equipment was lost or damaged in the line of duty, the government had no liability. Even though I was taking photographs with my personal equipment, they had to be handled in accordance with government regulations. Everything was FOUO (For Official Use Only) with tentative higher classifications (e.g. confidential, secret, top secret) required as appropriate until they could be reviewed by a classifying authority.

Clinton felt she was above all that just because she was in the top strata of government. She was right in that she could get away with it with her peers and superiors. She was wrong in that she could not get away with it with the public. Clinton's actions put the onus on FBI Director Comey to deal with the adverse ramifications of her poor judgement as they developed. She bears full responsibility for the consequences and their timing. He just did his job. Clinton blaming Comey just makes her a scoundrel.