Jeb Bush released his emails seven years later. In waves. 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011. In 2014 the Jeb Bush administration discovered 25,000 additional emails that had never been released.
Which, as has been stated, may have been stupid, but not illegal. And not unique to her. Colin Powell and Condi Rice did the same. Jeb Bush also used a non-government email address, jeb@jeb.org.
You seem to be operating under the belief that this situation is unique to her. It’s not. Nor was it without precedent.
Hillary is not going down for this, nor will she take others with her (that may not have been you that said that, so I’m just speaking in general). And Gretchen Carlson pointed to a Gallup Poll that showed that, as of now, the voters don’t consider this an issue. Clinton still viewed favorably at around 50%. By way of comparison, the closest to Mrs. Clinton in familiarity - Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush is at 68 percent and his likability is at 35 percent.
Voters have short memories, and it’s hard to think that people who don’t care about this now will end up caring in 2016.
I agree with that. They’ll care about whatever the current new scandal is. Or what Bill Clinton said to screw up and overshadow his wife’s campaign. And the personal infighting within the campaign that’s causing it to stumble. And the shady campaign contributions.
Clinton’s negatives are already baked into the cake. What you guys don’t realize is that those negatives make her beatable by any Republican that meets the low threshold of electability.
Those “negatives,” as you put it, don’t seem to much matter to the voting public. If she runs (I won’t say anything definite until she does), the voting public seems to think - and, again, it’s very early - that Clinton, warts and all, is loads better than anyone the Right plans to run. If she runs, and this is the worst that comes out, she’d be elected in a landslide.
You’re letting name recognition fool you. Plus she’s not even a candidate and her popularity tends to sink once she actually takes her wooden, overly packaged act on the road.
Yes, it’s still very early. But everything else being equal, good poll numbers are better than bad poll numbers, no? “Name recognition” implies that the public is responding to superficial familiarity and the real in-depth goods have still to be discovered. But in point of fact, almost everything there is to be known about Hillary is probably already known. She’s already had a run for the nomination, and she’s been investigated and hounded by every known committee seven ways to Sunday. Are you anticipating the discovery of a motherlode of evil plots from her super-secret private email server?
Certainly not. What I expect is that these issues remind people who Hillary Clinton actually is rather than the idealized version they saw as Secretary of State, when her approval numbers went up to 60%. She’ll probably return to her normal 47-47 approval/disapproval once the campaign gets going. Plus there’s still the tiny matter of having to run in an environment where most voters want a candidate to make a change from Obama’s policies.
It takes a talented candidate to win in such an environment. Unfortunately, she’s Al Gore all over again, just with more baggage and less straight talk. She can’t win on her own. She needs the Republican candidate to actually lose for her. Which is certainly possible.
And you’re letting your partisanship and blind hatred for anyone with a D after their name fool you.
I’ve claimed several times that it’s still early. But unless one of those emails says that she eats babies, I don’t see much of a negative swing in her numbers.
Except that most of those scandals weren’t scandals; they were right-wing smear tactics. What you’re doing here is stating that the fact that Obama was the target of multiple persistent mudslinging campaigns means that he must be dirty.
What if they blame Obama? Or the poor or liberals or immigrants? Or just deny that anything at happened, or shrug it off with “Mistakes were made”?
Once again you’re equating mudslinging with actual scandal. I’m not saying there’s nothing there, but this all suffers from a “crying wolf” problem - when you have loudspeakers blaring “WOLF!” on a 24/7 loop, the appearance of any actual wolves gets lost in the noise.
Which again disqualifies the entire Republican field.
The right has barely peeped on any of these. The mainstream media is the entity you are accusing of crying wolf. Apparently they’ve been wrong about Hillary Clinton for over 20 years. Who knew?
On the SDMB the problem is the opposite - every scandal is automatically denied.
You can’t tell the seriousness of a scandal from the reactions of the GOP, and certainly not from the reactions of liberals - they will deny everything up to the moment when the Democrat pleads guilty.
