Isn't it tragic that Hillary Clinton was the only candidate honest enough, brave enough and strong

[Jim Lane]

49. Good question.

There were certainly millions of voters who disagreed with her about gun control. As against that, the overwhelming majority of those voters would have voted against her anyway.

There remains the question of turnout. In 2008, and to some extent in 2012, the Republicans were scare-mongering that Obama, if (re-)elected, would somehow take away everyone's guns. After eight years of not having everyone's guns taken away, were they still able, in 2016, to get gun-humpers to the polls with this stuff? I can't say. I don't hang with that crowd. You would think that, at some point, even people who are really keen to protect their guns or their sheep would stop believing the boy who cries "Wolf!"

To ask if the issue hurt her, we have to consider the net effect. There were also millions of voters who agreed with Clinton about gun control. Most of them were probably voting for her anyway, though.

I don't think she could have improved her electoral fortunes by a flip-flop on gun control. She changed her position on the TPP without suffering much for it, but her support for gun control had been constant throughout her career. She would have had zero credibility with a change. Whether it hurt her or not, she was stuck with it.

Who knows, maybe if there had been a horrific mass shooting a few days before the election, Hillary Clinton would be President now. That one lone psycho might have changed the course of history. (No, I'm not wishing there had been a mass shooting; I'm just idly speculating about what-ifs.)