>>The story I read in the NYT said that she thought that they had the race in the bag and when Comey made his announcement, the polls went south.

Except that right up until the early evening on voting day, NYT said that the polls gave HRC an 85% chance of success. HuffPost was saying 98% and even Fox was quoting Nate Silver's 71%. See if you can find NYT's own graph clearly showing strong confidence for HRC right up until 5pm on voting day. By 6:15 NYT called it 50:50 and by 7pm the position was reversed.

This is interesting: 'Her campaign said the seemingly positive outcome [of Comey's letter saying no charges indicated] had only hurt it with voters who did not trust Mrs. Clinton and were receptive to Mr. Trump’s claims of a “rigged system.” In particular, white suburban women who had been on the fence were reminded of the email imbroglio and broke decidedly in Mr. Trump’s favor, aides said.'

If the polls said 85% for HRC, where were these fence-sitting white suburban women? Seems to me that any "science" trying to explain the result on such grounds, is no more reliable than the "science" that caused the MSM and pollsters to get it so wrong. In particular, there's no evidence that it was an email "imbroglio" that caused so many white suburban women to choose Trump when all the best echo chambers confirmed that only fellow misogynists and deplorables would vote for that racist woman-hating tax-dodging KKK-loving dirty old man.

>> "Never underestimate your competitor's abilty to surprise you by making a great shot, or by screwing up royally."

LOL. here's another great saying: "empty vessels make the most sound." Seems there were a lot of empty vessel reporters and pollsters out there. ;-)

Oh, and you need to get in quick if you want the limited edition latest Trump t-shirt - "We shall OverComb."