I wouldn’t be surprised if she was advised to do this by someone on her team looking forward to 2016.
She’s a Clinton! There’d undoubtedly be plenty of underhanded shit to be found to begin with so no need for misrepresentation.
Doubtful. If someone intelligent actually advised her to do this, they also would have advised letting the public know early on so that it’s “old news”. THe fact that she had a private account was going to come out, it was just a matter of when, and they should have dropped that nugget at a time of their choosing.
According to Bloomberg, a Quinnipiac poll has Biden beating Trump by twice as many points as Hillary and has her at 7 points higher favorablity rating.
I guess Bloomberg has joined the “vast right-wing conspiracy” as well?
Let’s just keep the assumptions about other people’s motives and behaviors impersonal, shall we?
Matt Yglesias kind of encapsulates what I’m feeling with regards to the media here:
True, but the Clintons have had such good success obscuring/hiding/destroying incriminating evidence and getting away with it I doubt if Hillary ever gave a moment’s thought to the question of what if news of the server got out.
One of the reasons why this is like “deja vu all over again” is that Clinton scandals have usually items that **are **a bit shady but that in the end, since the law can not be set retroactively, the Clintons usually do not have to admit any wrongdoing or the shady things were just not there as the media and partisans assume.
This makes the spectacle of the Republicans bringing a bazooka to kill a fly (I’m talking about almost all Clinton “scandals” here) to look as a very unjust or a jerky move. That then makes many people realize how dictatorial the conservatives really are and in the end the Clintons look better than they should had been.
In this case the implication is that no other result should come but to make private accounts to be available for even more attacks to be made, besides making a lot of people realize how overreaching that is, it is very unlikely that a law can be made to apply to an incident after the law is made.
And I already know why partizans love to get a hold of personal messages: **to make it easy for them to make the targets say things that are not as they seem. **
Yes, the lack of evidence of their criminality is because they’re so good at hiding it. 
Have you ever considered another, simpler explanation?
*My word choice, not theirs. As if you didn’t know that.
The latest Quinnipiac poll is bad news for Hillary and has been widely reported. I believe this is the first poll where Biden does clearly better than her in head to heads against Republicans. He is +8 against Trump, +6 against Jeb and +3 against Rubio compared to +4,+2 and +1 for Hillary against them.
Her favorability is -12 against +9 for Biden and she is -27 on honesty.
I had a look at 538’s pollster ratingsand Quinnipiac scored a pretty solid B+. And their Hillary favorability number at least is backed up by other quality polls. CNN (A- on 538) has her at -12 and NBC/WSJ (also A-) has her at -11.
I don’t think there is any question that her favorability is tanking though it would be nice to have more polls on her honesty and swing state ratings.
Has anyone asked the dog catcher for Larimer County Colorado? I think he’s a Democrat.
You would be wrong. Here’s the averages. Essentially no change at all.
I don’t know. Why don’t you get on that right away, call him up and post his opinion here. We’ll all be eagerly awaiting your report!
On the one hand, this seems like sarcasm. On the other, the literal reading would be more consistent with your posts so far in the thread.
I was talking about her favorability which is here.
And I don’t see much point in aggregating head-to-heads against 10 Republican candidates when most of them are marginal. If you look at specific candidates like Jeb and Rubio her lead has definitely narrowed.
And I know that deeply concerns you because you’re well known for your outspoken objections to people doing the same thing* in threads about candidates you don’t like. Oh wait…
*With the caveat that I’m posting links to the NY Times, The Atlantic, NPR, Bloomberg, and other reputable sources and others post stuff from shady blogs. And that I’m actually interested in the Hillary e-mail thing as opposed to just spewing anything negative I find about candidates on the other side of the aisle.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. The combination of the sarcasm and the innuendo just make it unintelligible.
I was gently ribbing you for pulling the quote from the state county commissioner. I don’t know what you’re on about with the rest of it. I thought this whole performance was about someone else’s suggestion that the email scandal was a right-wing plot, but it’s hard to say really.
I completely misunderstood you. I apologize for the confusion. I didn’t catch the ribbing, I thought you were seriously dismissing all the cites I’ve posted when I’ve tried to make a point to only link to reputable sites.
Sorry again about that (and the other response if you saw it before I edited it). My sarcas-o-meter needs serious recalibration. 