# The Great Un-Fork Hillary Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [April 12, 2015, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458 "2015-04-12T00:17:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 63
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2015, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1241 "2015-08-29T03:18:06Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Not just like Obama. Independents disapprove of her by a more than 2-1 margin. Obama lost independents (who it turns out aren’t really “independent” for the most part) by a big margin in 2012. I don’t know if it was 2 to 1. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2015, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1242 "2015-08-29T03:18:34Z")
If Republicans and Republican leaners make up the majority of voters, that’s not good for your side. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2015, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1243 "2015-08-29T03:29:34Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > If Republicans and Republican leaners make up the majority of voters, that’s not good for your side. Obviously… is this supposed to be news? I see no evidence that this is the case right now. Not everyone who opposes Hillary is a Republican, but losing independents doesn’t tell us much, especially this early. Turnout now is what’s important, not the supposed swing voters (of which there are just not that many). Your constant wishful thinking is tiring. Yes, you want the Republicans to win, and yes, you will generally tend to interpret every fact as somehow favorable to this when possible. You must realize that none of us are going to take your analysis over Nate Silver’s, right? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2015, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1244 "2015-08-29T03:41:25Z")
Clinton’s current approval is 39%. And we still haven’t hit bottom. I’m just wondering at what point your own wishful thinking would end. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2015, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1245 "2015-08-29T03:52:06Z")
[An interesting **opinion piece** \* on some of Hillary’s problems](http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259944/last-days-hillary-daniel-greenfield) I don’t know the site, but David Horowitz is involved, so it’s clearly not a left-wing site\*\*. That said, I thought the piece raised some good points (especially with regards to Obama doners who’d open their wallets for Biden but not for Hillary). \*I know it’s not news. It’s some guy’s opinion. \*\*ETA–Ok, I checked their front page…they’re about twice as far to the right as HuffPo is to the left. That said, I still think the specific article I linked to is worth looking at even if most of the rest of the site is frothy. ---
**Author:** ![RandMcnally](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b782af/32.png) [@RandMcnally](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandMcnally)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2015, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1246 "2015-08-29T04:12:07Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > [An interesting **opinion piece** \* on some of Hillary’s problems](http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259944/last-days-hillary-daniel-greenfield) > > I don’t know the site, but David Horowitz is involved, so it’s clearly not a left-wing site\*\*. That said, I thought the piece raised some good points (especially with regards to Obama doners who’d open their wallets for Biden but not for Hillary). > \*I know it’s not news. It’s some guy’s opinion. > > \*\*ETA–Ok, I checked their front page…they’re about twice as far to the right as HuffPo is to the left. That said, I still think the specific article I linked to is worth looking at even if most of the rest of the site is frothy. Oh God, the comments…why did I read the comments? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2015, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1247 "2015-08-29T04:15:43Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Clinton’s current approval is 39%. And we still haven’t hit bottom. I’m just wondering at what point your own wishful thinking would end. What wishful thinking? I’m with Nate Silver: these polls don’t tell us much that’s meaningful this early. I’ll start to believe she’s in serious trouble when he does. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2015, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1248 "2015-08-29T05:48:41Z")
For all the right-wing talking points (and those echoing them here), [this image](http://images.dailykos.com/images/161200/large/Clinton_vs._GOP_field_(March_1_2015).png?1440612199) seems to me much more accurate. It’s a graph showing the average of national polls of Hillary Clinton vs. the GOP field, for the 6 months from March 1st to mid-August. It’s essentially flat, with the variation of about +/- 4% – about the error rate of most polls. > [@](#): > > at the beginning of March, Clinton led the GOP field by an average of 50.3 to 42.6, or 7.7 percentage points. Now, in late August, she leads 48.7 to 41.2, or 7.5 percent. Clinton’s “collapse,” in other words, is 0.2 percent! (The [full article (here)](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/26/1415688/-Hillary-Clinton-s-poll-numbers-haven-t-dropped-at-all-and-this-one-chart-proves-it) also contains a section on why ‘favorability ratings’ are pretty meaningless for elections.) ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2015, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1249 "2015-08-29T11:36:11Z")
Boy, Clinton’s email server sure is in big trouble: [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/28/source-fbi-team-leading-serious-clinton-server-probe-focusing-on-defense-info/](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/28/source-fbi-team-leading-serious-clinton-server-probe-focusing-on-defense-info/) You know, seeing as how Clinton says the investigation is directed at her server, not her. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2015, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1250 "2015-08-29T13:33:58Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Boy, Clinton’s email server sure is in big trouble: > > [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/28/source-fbi-team-leading-serious-clinton-server-probe-focusing-on-defense-info/](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/28/source-fbi-team-leading-serious-clinton-server-probe-focusing-on-defense-info/) > > You know, seeing as how Clinton says the investigation is directed at her server, not her. And she is likely right on that. > **[Wash. Post's David Ignatius Explains The "Scandal" Missing From Clinton's...](https://www.mediamatters.org/washington-post/wash-posts-david-ignatius-explains-scandal-missing-clintons-email-use)** > [@](#): > > Washington Post opinion writer David Ignatius checked the “overstated” uproar over Hillary Clinton’s email use as secretary of state, citing national security legal experts who roundly dismiss the idea that any criminal mishandling of classified information occurred. > > In an August 28 post describing “The Hillary Clinton e-mail ‘scandal’ that isn’t,” Ignatius cited legal experts and agency officials to explain how Clinton’s use of a private server is “not something a prosecutor would take to court” and how transmitting unmarked, then retroactively classified emails does “almost certainly not” constitute a crime: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > Does Hillary Clinton have a serious legal problem because she may have transmitted classified information on her private e-mail server? After talking with a half-dozen knowledgeable lawyers, I think this "scandal" is overstated. Using the server was a self-inflicted wound by Clinton, but it's not something a prosecutor would take to court. > > > > "It's common" that people end up using unclassified systems to transmit classified information, said Jeffrey Smith, a former CIA general counsel who's now a partner at Arnold & Porter, where he often represents defendants suspected of misusing classified information. > > > > [...] > > > > Clinton's use of a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state has been a nagging campaign issue for months. Critics have argued that the most serious problem is possible transmission of classified information through that server. Many of her former top aides have sought legal counsel. But experts in national-security law say there may be less here than it might appear. > > > > First, experts say, there's no legal difference whether Clinton and her aides passed sensitive information using her private server or the official "state.gov" account that many now argue should have been used. Neither system is authorized for transmitting classified information. Second, prosecution of such violations is extremely rare. Lax security procedures are taken seriously, but they're generally seen as administrative matters. > > > > [...] > > > > Informal back channels existed long before e-mail. One former State Department official recalled the days when most embassies overseas had only a few phones authorized for secret communications. Rather than go to the executive office to make such a call, officers would use their regular phones, bypassing any truly sensitive details. "Did we cross red lines? No doubt. Did it put information at risk? Maybe. But, if you weren't in Moscow or Beijing, you didn't worry much," this former official said. > > > > Back channels are used because the official ones are so encrusted by classification and bureaucracy. State had the "Roger Channel," named after former official Roger Hilsman, for sending secret messages directly to the secretary. The Joint Chiefs of Staff had a similar private channel. CIA station chiefs could send communications known as "Aardwolves" straight to the director. > > > > Are these channels misused sometimes? Most definitely. Is there a crime here? Almost certainly not. > > > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2015, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1251 "2015-08-29T17:40:05Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > For all the right-wing talking points (and those echoing them here), [this image](http://images.dailykos.com/images/161200/large/Clinton_vs._GOP_field_(March_1_2015).png?1440612199) seems to me much more accurate. > > It’s a graph showing the average of national polls of Hillary Clinton vs. the GOP field, for the 6 months from March 1st to mid-August. It’s essentially flat, with the variation of about +/- 4% – about the error rate of most polls. > > (The [full article (here)](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/26/1415688/-Hillary-Clinton-s-poll-numbers-haven-t-dropped-at-all-and-this-one-chart-proves-it) also contains a section on why ‘favorability ratings’ are pretty meaningless for elections.) Yeah we talked about this post earlier. As mentioned, taking the averages of polls against ten Republicans seems pointless, does it really matter that Hillary continues to poll well against Mike Huckabee? However if you look at Rubio or Jeb her lead has indeed narrowed significantly. His analysis of favorability is also dubious. In fact at this stage of the race it’s probably a better indicator that head-to-head because the Republican contenders are largely unknown to the public. Once they select their candidate and he becomes widely known, then it becomes the best indicator. Hillary had a favorability of +25 when she was SOS and everyone agrees that that was going to fall. But what is a reasonable baseline to judge her current number? One natural baseline for any politician anytime is 0. Another would be Obama’s number since he is the face of the Democratic party. Another could be Obama’s number at a similar stage in 2012. All three indicators point to a similar baseline number of 0-2 which is where Hillary seemed to have stabilized in early 2015. Not a great number but a reasonable basis for a successful presidential campaign. However since then it has dropped rapidly to -9 which is most certainly not a healthy position. I don’t know the last politician who has won a presidential election with a favorability of -9 at this stage and I suspect it has never happened. And there are a bunch of other numbers to suggest Hillary is not in good shape. She has terrible numbers on honesty and poor numbers on “cares about the needs”. Her swing state numbers are also poor to terrible. She still does OK on national head-to-heads but even there Biden does better. Overall she is definitely struggling. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2015, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1252 "2015-08-29T21:35:08Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > You’re actually taking succor in right-wing hack media like TownHall? What happened to you? > [@Shayna](#): > > Taking succor? Jesus you Hillary supporters are wound up. Yeah, **jayjay**. Why are _you_ so wound up? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2015, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1253 "2015-08-29T21:54:27Z")
> [@RandMcnally](#): > > Oh God, the comments…why did I read the comments? Well how else would you know Obama is secretly pushing for Susan Rice or Collin Powell? I think it’s neato that some administration insider is willing to spill the secrets. Normally I wouldn’t read the comments but this time its very good to do so because it lines up with what I think. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2015, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1254 "2015-08-29T22:10:46Z")
> [@RandMcnally](#): > > Oh God, the comments…why did I read the comments? You enjoy having your brain slightly melted? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2015, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1255 "2015-08-30T06:19:29Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Boy, Clinton’s email server sure is in big trouble: > > [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/28/source-fbi-team-leading-serious-clinton-server-probe-focusing-on-defense-info/](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/28/source-fbi-team-leading-serious-clinton-server-probe-focusing-on-defense-info/) > > You know, seeing as how Clinton says the investigation is directed at her server, not her. Yes, [the Intelligence AG’s memo](http://democrats.benghazi.house.gov/sites/democrats.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/2015_07_23_CN_Summary_of_IC_IG_support_to_State_Department_IG.pdf) had referred the concern that information that _he_ feels _should_ have been classified was not classified at the time (and thus made into non-secure systems including Clinton’s) to the FBI. I would certainly _hope_ that they would take such a referral extremely seriously. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2015, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1256 "2015-09-01T16:16:54Z")
According to [this AP article](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/hillary-clinton-emails-state-department--2), an initial look at the latest email dump indicates that there were indeed efforts to avoid sending classified information via email. My favorite part is an example of the kind of thing that can be very frustrating when dealing with classified information (or information that might be “adjacent” to classified info): > [@](#): > > Clinton also expressed frustration with the State Department’s treatment of certain ordinary documents as classified. After an aide noted the draft of innocuous remarks about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was on the State Department’s classified messaging system, she responded, “It’s a public statement! Just email it.” > > Sent a moment later, the statement merely said that U.S. and British officials would work together to promote peace. “Well that is certainly worthy of being top secret,” Clinton responded sarcastically. I’ve come across similarly nothing-statements that happened to be stamped “Confidential” or “Secret” (probably due to laziness – some official doesn’t feel like going through every page in a document so they stamp every page with the same classification as the most sensitive part) in my time in the Navy and working as a civilian for the Navy. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2015, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1257 "2015-09-01T16:21:28Z")
This takes me back to my argument about accountability. This is something that everyone has known is a problem, yet Presidents and their close appointees(Secretaries of State) act as if they are powerless to do anything about it. Um, this government is ruled by the people through their elected representatives, NOT by the unelected bureaucracy. That right there is why Donald Trump is doing so well. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2015, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1258 "2015-09-01T16:31:12Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > This takes me back to my argument about accountability. This is something that everyone has known is a problem, yet Presidents and their close appointees(Secretaries of State) act as if they are powerless to do anything about it. > > Um, this government is ruled by the people through their elected representatives, NOT by the unelected bureaucracy. That right there is why Donald Trump is doing so well. It’s a problem of every large organization. The government isn’t just big, it’s millions of people. In the short term, which is the only term presidents get, there’s not much change that can be made. Better would be laws that track accountability of public workers, with penalties and rewards for bad and good behavior. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2015, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1259 "2015-09-01T17:13:21Z")
Presidents focus on stuff all the time and not just big stuff. So do Secretaries of State. It would seem that this would be something important to work on. Clinton’s Reinventing Government initiative fixed a lot of small problems within the government but for whatever reason classification rules got overlooked. But now that those rules seem ready to derail a Presidential campaign, maybe now they’ll be considered important enough to address. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2015, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/1260 "2015-09-01T22:22:32Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > But now that those rules seem ready to derail a Presidential campaign, maybe now they’ll be considered important enough to address. You have a seriously idiosyncratic definition of “derail”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458.md?page=62) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458.md?page=64)