Hillary Clinton tumbles in new poll, as e-mail scandal lingers

[Larry Engels]

Source: Christian Science Monitor/Yahoo

A new poll from Quinnipiac University suggests that public mistrust continues to linger. In the meantime, a number of new Republican challengers have begun to edge ahead of her in key swing states, the poll says – a fact that could accelerate her campaign announcement.

The poll, released Thursday, shows Mrs. Clinton falling narrowly behind Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky in Iowa, and by three points in Colorado. She is effectively tied with every Republican candidate in Colorado, according to the poll, and has a narrow lead over most GOP candidates in Iowa, with the exception of Senator Paul.

Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll, said in a statement that the results are "a boost" for Paul, who officially launched his 2016 presidential campaign earlier this week.

The one positive in the poll for Clinton is that she leads all Republican candidates in Virginia – the largest of the three swing states polled – including a four point lead over Paul.

But it's still early in the 2016 presidential cycle and polls are often volatile. In March 2014, Clinton led Paul by 10 points in a hypothetical Hawkeye State matchup, according to a Quinnipiac poll. At that time, her lead against other GOP prospects in Iowa was even stronger: Clinton was up 16 points against Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, 14 points against former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, and 13 points against Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-tumbles-poll-e-mail-scandal-lingers-205422274.html

[hrmjustin]

1. Quinnipiac had some odd polls in OH and PA senate races so i take these polls with a grain

of salt.

[calimary]

2. It's waaaaaaay too early anyway.

And rand paul is the flavor-of-the-week because he just announced. This is way too early for ANY polls about ANY candidate.

[rpannier]

3. I wouldn't. At least not for that reason

I take it with a grain for the same reason I take all of them that way
It's still frickin 2015.
I'll be more impressed/interested in polls taken after Jan 1, 2016
In January I was asked if the election were held today who would I vote for, I walked away.
I had zero interest

The only thing about this poll I would be interested in is the methodology in their polling.

[Divernan]

10. Quinnipiac's results MOST ACCURATE OF MAJOR POLLSTERS.

By "odd" you mean a major poll showing HRC's approval numbers slipping. Here's the recent poll you vaguely (and of course without a link) misrepresent:

Poll: Hillary Clinton's Margins Narrow In Key Swing States (Quinnipiac University Survey)
Source: Real Clear Politics
As Hillary Clinton prepares to launch her presidential campaign within the next month, a new poll finds her vulnerable in three critical swing states. Voters in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania question the former secretary of state’s trustworthiness and honesty, according to a new Quinnipiac University survey taken after the controversy surrounding Clinton’s use of a private email server for government communications. Her favorability ratings are down in all three states.

Also in all three states, Clinton’s previous leads have shrunk. In diverse and delegate-rich Florida, former Gov. Jeb Bush leads Clinton, 45 percent-42 percent. Clinton edges Sen. Marco Rubio, 46 percent-44 percent, and leads Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, considered another early frontrunner, 46 percent-40 percent. Pennsylvania, a key state that has been elusive for Republicans recently, could be competitive this cycle, with Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul narrowly topping Clinton, 45 percent-44 percent. Clinton beats Bush by six percentage points, Walker by five and Rubio by four in the Keystone State.

“A red flag in blue state Pennsylvania. Hillary Clinton, seemingly invincible before the e-mail scandal, ends up tied with Rand Paul,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll, in a press release. Clinton seems to have a stronger command in Ohio at this early stage of the campaign than her GOP rivals, though her margins are smaller than they were last month. In the closest matchup there, Clinton leads Paul, 46 percent-41 percent. The Democrat tops Walker by 11 points in the Buckeye State, and leads Bush and Rubio by nine points.

“Something for Secretary Clinton’s team to worry about: Thirty-six percent of independent voters in the key state of Ohio say they are less likely to vote for her because of the e-mail controversy,” said Peter Brown, another assistant director of the Quinnipiac Poll. The poll was conducted March 17-28 and surveyed 1,087 Florida voters, 1,077 Ohio voters, and 1,036 Pennsylvania voters via landlines and cell phones. The margin of error in each state survey is +/- 3 percent.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/03/31/poll_clintons_margin_narrows_in_key_swing_states_126105.html

As to the Quinnipiac Polling Institute:

The university does not disclose the Institute's operating budget, and the poll does not accept clients or outside funding.

The poll has been cited by major news outlets throughout North America and Europe, including The Washington Post, Fox News, USA Today, The New York Times, CNN, and Reuters. Quinnipiac's Polling Institute receives national recognition for its independent surveys of residents throughout the United States. It conducts public opinion polls on politics and public policy as a public service as well as for academic research. Andrew S. Tanenbaum, the founder of the poll-analysis website Electoral-vote.com, compared major pollsters' performances in the 2010 midterm Senate elections and concluded that Quinnipiac was the most accurate, with a mean error of 2.0 percent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinnipiac_University_Polling_Institute

HRC fans can be heard to say that these results aren't significant. But they are whistling in the wind if they dispute or ridicule the quality of Quinnipiac's polling. Here in Pennsylvania, politicians of all stripes pay close attention to Quinnipiac's results.

More from the OP link:

The majority of respondents in each of the three swing states said they do not think Clinton is honest and trustworthy, though a majority of respondents said they think she has strong leadership qualities, and that they approved of the way she handled her job as secretary of State.

"It is difficult to see Secretary Clinton's slippage as anything other than a further toll on her image from the furor over her e-mail," said Brown. "Voters do think she is a strong leader – a key metric – but unless she can change the honesty perception, running as a competent but dishonest candidate has serious potential problems."

[hrmjustin]

11. I meant their senate numbers. And I don't hold Quinnipiac in high regard as others do.

[Divernan]

14. So what was "odd" about "their Senate numbers"?

[hrmjustin]

15. I expected the races to be closer.

Strickland 48, Portman 39 oh race

Toomey 48, Sestak 35 pa senate cace

[jeff47]

17. So you judge them by your expectations of future elections

instead of their track record in past elections.

oooooo-kaay.

[hrmjustin]

18. I use my good common sense.

The PA senate race between Toomey and Sestak was a 2 percent race In 2010. I have a hard time believing Toomey is 13 percent ahead.

[jeff47]

19. So did the guy who "unskewed" the 2012 polls.

Boy, look how well his predictions turned out!

[hrmjustin]

20. So are sayin I should not question these results?

[jeff47]

21. You should question their usefulness this far from the election.

They are only a predictor of where things currently stand. Not where they will stand in November of next year.

Unless you can find a flaw in methodology, they're probably +/- a few percent from where things currently stand - When none of those candidates are actively campaigning, and there's more than a year to go.

[hrmjustin]

22. My point which I think I was clear on that their senate polls seem off to me.

Therefore I take these polls from them with a grain of salt. They may or may not be accurate.

Ok.

[jeff47]

24. Any my point is "seem off" is the worst possible way to judge a poll.

Better options are:
-Does the pollster have a decent track record? Are they trending more accurate or less?
-Do they lean left or right? If so, add a few points to the opposite side.
-Are they way off from every other pollster? Nobody else to compare to yet, AFAIK.
-Is this a "likely voters" or "all voters" poll? "Likely voter" models this early are going to be awful, and "all voters" won't do a good job measuring who will show up.

Lastly, your "seems off" is based on where you think the campaigns should end up after there actually are campaigns.

[hrmjustin]

25. Unless another pollster comes out with similiar numbers I think my feelings are correct.

[merrily]

101. It was one of the most accurate for the 2012 Presidential, though

But I agree with calimary. It's too early to take any poll seriously--even though I can't recall many (besides me) saying that even earlier, when the polls were showing Hillary with a huge lead.

[heaven05]

4. emails, smeemails

such bullshit about nothing. Just distraction from the real fight against the racist, fascist repubthugs......geez

[Larry Engels]

16. Iowa is a blue state, and yet Hillary lagged behind Rand Paul.

This does not look good for Hillary.

[zeemike]

27. That was my thought too.

If Rand Paul is gaining on her that says something.

[emulatorloo]

42. The more Rand talks, the less appealing he will be

[Adrahil]

61. Iowa is NOT a Blue state, at least not recently.

2 Republican Senators 3 outta 4 Republican Reps. A republican governor. The republicans control the state House of Representatives, and the Democrats have a razor thing majority in the state Senate.

For a blue state, they sure do elect a lot of Republicans!

[Smithryee]

92. Bernie will win Iowa, easily

Because Iowans do identify with Bernie more than they identify with Hillary ONCE they learn more about him.

True.

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. Gee, election day is right around the corner, and now this news comes out.

[KoKo]

6. Not a fan of Hillary...but she would maybe do best to wait and let the "Clown Car"

start to fall apart in their idiocy...which they seem to be doing on their own time... She can come in like a hero a bit later.

[former9thward]

8. She can't wait.

She signed a lease for a campaign headquarters in Brooklyn. That started a 15 day countdown clock at the FEC. She has to announce in that period by the regulations. Now I know the Clintons play at the edge of the envelope but I doubt she wants another controversy.

[KoKo]

9. Yes...I just saw she will announce this Weekend in DU "LBN"....

Well, she could still announce and get the attention and then hold off while they fall all over themselves.

What's that old expression?: "Give them enough rope to hang themselves" ????

[Larry Engels]

13. That's the trouble. There's not enough time to let it "blow over."

She has to announce under a cloud, and on the defensive. The first questions at any press conference will be about the emails.

[merrily]

102. If she wanted to wait, she would not have signed the lease.

[former9thward]

105. The poster I replied to said she should wait.

I pointed out she could not.

[merrily]

107. I know. I've been reading down the thread. My point is that she is not waiting

because she has some reason for not waiting that has nothing to do with the lease.

[Adrahil]

62. Nope... Time to get in.

Right now, the only coverage of her is about the email issue (which frankly, has already dried up) the occasional cry of "Benghazi!", and the mention that she's not in the race yet. She needs some positive coverage. She needs to start talking about is and demonstrating the leadership that she has to offer.



Go get 'em Hill!

[merrily]

108. When the story was that she was going to announce in July 2015, what did you say?

[Fred Sanders]

7. Is there an election of some sort coming up no one told me about? Again??

[totodeinhere]

12. As someone who hopes that another candidate will get the nomination, this poll is good

news. Yes it's early but I think that the best way for a bona fide progressive to defeat Clinton in the primaries is to show that she is not invincible and she is not a sure bet to beat the Republicans. I know some people who reluctantly support her because they believe that she is the only one who can beat the Republicans. We need to change that narrative.

[blkmusclmachine]

57. +1

[merrily]

103. One of several reasons I do not support her is that I think she's trouble in the general.

[pkdu]

23. Hmmmm "scandal"....search for the word today on Google News and you'll have to look down

to story number 7 , yes 7...and only one entry by , you guessed it , FoxNews.

Anyone, especially a reporter using that word in this story , is showing true colors.

[jeff47]

26. Odd that this poll is to be derided and ignored, while polls that showed

Clinton winning against all Republicans was proof that everyone had to swear loyalty oaths to the inevitable nominee.

[L0oniX]

49. Whew ...glad I'm not the only one who notices that.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

52. Your point did not go unnoticed by me. Maybe it's time we start looking for another candidate who is more viable.

[merrily]

106. Odd only to someone who is brand new to DU.

[jeff47]

121. I did not feel the sarcasm tag was necessary to detect the sarcasm in that post. (nt)

[merrily]

122. It wasn't necessary.

Just wanted to chime in for the info of those who are brand new to DU.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

28. Just shows how stupid the 'public' is

The public is obviously led by the media

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

53. Guess that also explains all those positive early poll results favoring Hillary before collapsing.

[merrily]

109. Her polls have gone down before, including while media was calling her inevitable and unbeatable.

[Gman]

29. This is an absolutely worthless poll

As is any poll done now. It's make busy work and it's a product to sell.

[Kingofalldems]

30. Thanks for all your concern.

[oberliner]

31. "she leads all Republican candidates in Virginia"

That's pretty cool.

Keeping Virginia in the blue column is critical.

[olddots]

32. was the poll taken amoungst people

who breathed thru their noses ?

[Kingofalldems]

33. And you recommended your own thread.

Isn't that special.

[jeff47]

34. Special is believing that is uncommon when a thread is close

to having enough recs to reach the greatest page.

[Kingofalldems]

35. Says you.

I call it lame and suspicious.

[jeff47]

36. And it's utterly coincidental that you don't like the story in this OP.

Self-recs happen all the time, even with "popular" posters. Commonly, the poster "unrecs" after the post hits the greatest page.

But please, keep up the Mean Girls act. Perhaps you could call the OP "fat" next. That'll surely make the story disappear completely.

[Kingofalldems]

37. Been here 11 yrs now and rarely see them.

Never even heard of what you claim in the first sentence.

This is no act. I suspect another agenda from OP. Don't like it? Too bad.

And I never make fun of anyone's appearance, so you're wrong about that to.

[jeff47]

68. Then you haven't been looking.

And the "unrec when hits greatest" means it's only a small window when it can be seen.

And I never make fun of anyone's appearance, so you're wrong about that to.

The point





your head.

[Kingofalldems]

70. I have no idea what your last 4 words mean. Was that an insult?

No response to my link in post #43?

[Kingofalldems]

43. Do you agree with this post?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1060803

[hrmjustin]

44. Oh Wow! Good catch.

[Kingofalldems]

45. Thanks. I don't do this willy nilly.

[hrmjustin]

46. I guess we can only expect more concerned friends as the primary goes on.

[Larry Engels]

75. Are you on a witch hunt?

Because that's what it looks like. McCarthyism. Looking for "subversives" under every rock. What are you afraid of?

[Kingofalldems]

80. Certainly not you.

Just noted your anti-Obama post.

And it's apparent you don't like Hillary either.

[hrmjustin]

77. Lol.

[jeff47]

67. Hrm...a post I did not write, nor did I "rec" since it wasn't an OP.

Yeah, that's gonna TOTALLY dismantle your erroneous beliefs about DU and self-recs.

Agreeing or disagreeing with one post does not mean you agree or disagree with everything they write. Will Pitt's written some good things. He's also written awful shit like his "Piece of Shit Used Car Salesman" post and his "Intuit was Hacked!!" post.

[hrmjustin]

40. But this was not the case here.

But I make no judgement because I have done it as well.

[onehandle]

38. There are a lot of new DUers that have been showing up in the last few months to diss Hillary.

Just like there are a lot of DUers here who seemingly exist here only to promote the almighty gun.

Coincidence, I'm sure.

[Kingofalldems]

39. You got that right.

[hrmjustin]

41. I noticed that as well.

[misterhighwasted]

51. Oh yes & they're ALL on my Ignore list.

Been Trashing their threads too.
Only thing to do with them.

[Larry Engels]

78. Paranoia strikes deep.

Into your heart it will creep.

--Buffalo Springfield.

[Bradical79]

55. Are you not supposed to do that?

Why would you make a thread if you don't think it's worth recommending?

[jeff47]

69. It's a high-school-like You have to show how cool you are by appearing to not care how cool you are

[Larry Engels]

79. If DU didn't want us to rec our own threads, they would block us from doing so.

Complain all you want, I'll still do it, as long as it's not against the rules.

[merrily]

110. I've seen others recommending their own threads. Big deal. Never commented on it.

A lot of private detectives on message boards, apparently.

[Warren DeMontague]

60. To rec one's own thread is, arguably, mildly bad form.

However, this goofy trend of "rec policing"- like what you're doing, or the keeping of lame little lists of who rec'd what, etc. is way worse-- -not to mention downright creepy.

[Kingofalldems]

63. I don't 'rec police'. That's just one piece of the puzzle.

Do you have just one example of me doing that? People who make shit up are downright creepy.

Read the link I provided upthread. Was that just bad form? And I don't keep any lame little list either. So there's that.

[Warren DeMontague]

64. I'm speaking specifically and only about the fad of rec policing.

And it feeds into a phenomenon which I loosely call "DU thinking way too fucking much about DU, and taking itself way too seriously".

It's entirely possible- hell, probable- judging by your linked post, that you've bagged exactly what you are thinking you've bagged, even though you know not to come out and say it directly.

But really, that's a job for MIRT. Otherwise when people start following other people around throwing links to links to links at them, building "a case" and such, you get meta.

Just my take on it, of course you can do whatever you want.

This is also all leaving aside the not-so-subtle implication that anyone who doesn't support Hillary right now before the primaries have even started must be a RW troll, but I know pretty much everyone here knows better, even if they try to hint at it.

[Kingofalldems]

66. Okay then, you do what you think is correct and I'll do the same.

Again another post with insinuations that are not true. I have a couple posts in Pets that are suspicious. You might want to check them out.

[Warren DeMontague]

81. Mmmmm, Kettle Black-Calling Pottalicious!

What you do with your pets is your own business, pal. I'm not PETA.

[Kingofalldems]

82. Hey dude I never even respond to your posts.

Until today that is, when you addressed me.

Is the Mens' Department that boring lately?

[Warren DeMontague]

83. Ah, What the fuck are you talking about?

"the mens department"- what precisely does that even mean?

Again, clearly you take DU way too seriously.

Hey, I guess everyone needs hobbies.

[Kingofalldems]

84. Men's Group.

'Again, clearly you take DU too fucking seriously'----That's the first time you posted this.

I'm still trying to figure out the first line in your previous post.

[Warren DeMontague]

86. Oh. Well I'm glad you're keeping track of... whatever you think you're keeping track of.

If you have an excel spreadsheet somewhere detailing who posted what and when, let me know, because often I can't even remember what I had for lunch.

Are we not allowed to post in the mens group? I missed the memo. Perhaps the people in charge of keeping tabs on DU should coordinate in one of their off site meeting places and come up with a clear concise list of the rules the rest of us are supposed to follow.

[Kingofalldems]

87. You totally don't get what I am saying.

Seems we had this same discussion years ago in META.

For the record, I don't give a shit where you post, don't keep track of your posts and don't give a shit about you either. You came after me and I responded.

[Warren DeMontague]

88. "Seems we had this same discussion years ago in META." - wow, you really DO have everything in the

database!

Holy fuck.

Well, man, if you can get into meta, you must know there's a fucking treasure trove trail of slimy crap left behind there, by some folks. The masks of congeniality came off a whole bunch of people, in that place.

I wasn't one of them.

But shit, some folks showed their true, creepy, seriously dysfunctional colors, in META.

Got a link?

[Kingofalldems]

94. No link, just remember you.

That 'database' nonsense is actually funny. I am computer illiterate compared to most.

Do you have a link to the database you claim I have?

[Warren DeMontague]

97. I do!

Mmmm, links.

[Kingofalldems]

99. Touche', I'm done.

Have a good evening.

[Warren DeMontague]

100. You too.

I was just gonna say, if you can really remember a conversation that far back, no wonder we made you king.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

95. I recommend my own threads if they are at 4 to get it on the Greatest Page ...

I recommend my own threads if they are at 4 to get it on the Greatest Page and then when it gets to six I remove it...

But if it has no recs or one or two I don't recommend it because it makes you look desperate....


Do I get an A for candor?

[Warren DeMontague]

96. Yeah, actually.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

98. I give it a nudge.../NT

[merrily]

115. You do in my book! Before I got past the subject line, I clicked on Reply to

commend you.

I've was tempted once, but I did not do it. Then again, I do few Op's. I'm more of a "replier."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

117. If I am at four , darn right, I'm going to give myself the 5th rec to get to the Greatest Page.

If there's one or two recs I just leave it alone.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

89. Bro, I am on record as saying I don't give a fuck how anybody on this board votes...

And I am not presumptuous enough to think I can change someone's mind on a bulletin board but there are disruptors/trolls on this board who get their rocks off by getting posters to go at each other's throats.


They won't and don't fool me...

[Warren DeMontague]

90. Like I told his majesty, he quite likely has spotted exactly what he thinks he has spotted, here.

but beyond that, the documenting of the "case" as it were is more appropriate for MIRT, or beyond that, direct PMs to admin.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

91. I didn't follow the conversation closely but it happened in the latter days of the 012 election.

Relatively low post posters would post bad polls for Obama, other posters would call bullshit, those posters were accused of trying to quell dissent by other posters, and it became one big food fight...


Not going to flip out over one poll...

[Warren DeMontague]

93. No, not gonna flip out here, either.

As someone else said, it's gonna be a long 18 months.

Actually the Obama stuff was rather enjoyable, in both elections, because the concern trolls became particularly pathetic and obvious as the election got close and it was more than apparent they were gonna lose.

It was sort of fun to watch. Wouldn't mind having that experience again.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

104. I just look for a happy poll like this one:

http://images.businessweek.com/cms/2015-04-10/Bloomberg-National-Poll-4.10.15-Methodology.pdf

[merrily]

111. Since the OP has now been locked out of his own thread, I'm glad he or she at least got to rec it.

[Warren DeMontague]

114. You know you can still rec it after being locked out, I think

not that I would know from personal experience... I swear!

[merrily]

116. Not my point, but thank you for the 411.

Also agree with you on the creepy factor.

I recently had a poster reply to one of my posts with "You must be a lot younger than I thought."

I asked what my age had to do with anything. The reply was something like Nnothing. I just thought you must be 55-65.



If my age has nothing to do with anything, why have you been trying to figure it out and how many posts of mine did you have to put together in your mind to come to some conclusion about it, right or wrong?

I found it totally creepy.

I had a couple of very bad experiences on line when I was more naive. Two nutters got my address. Never again!

[Warren DeMontague]

118. It used to freak me out, now I'm more like... okay, fine, whatever.

I answered some poll question incorrectly, once, about the first presidential election you voted in... like, clicked the wrong button. Big deal, eh?

Then a month or two later someone came back out of nowhere and referenced it in another post where I had put in something about being Generation X. (Which I am, add that to the file! ) I was, like, that poll had maybe 150 responses. Really? You went to all that trouble to figure out how old I am, you're keeping track? Awwwww.

I guess maybe it's flattering, sort of. What can I say? I'm FASCINATING!

[merrily]

120. Good way to look at it, but I still get creeped out.

I have a dear, dear DU friend with whom I truly love. We've been emailing because he no longer posts at DU, but I still can't give him my real name because of those two bad experiences. I guess they were traumatic for me.

BTW, I have a very hard time associating post content with screen name. Some kind of block. You have to be very nice to me often or very mean to me often or do something dramatic before I remember who posted what. And I can't be bothered to keep files of people's posts. Or even my own posts. So, I'll probably forget you're Gen X by tomorrow. If I do, please don't be offended. Just think of it as uncreepy.

[Warren DeMontague]

124. That's fine. My musical taste and sarcasm give my age range away anyway.

But it's all good. Someone else was like "hey we argued before, are we good now?" And I said i dont keep track, either. it is a VERY short list of people on this site Ive never argued with, about anything.


Catch me with low blood sugar and I'll fight over the weather.

[merrily]

125. .....

Have great weekend.

[Warren DeMontague]

126. You, too!

[kwassa]

47. Paul is the new kid on the block.

Remember in the last presidential election cycle, how the Republicans had all these candidates become very popular temporarily, as alternatives to Mitt?

Each guy would poll very highly for a couple of weeks until people really learned about who they were.

Paul is new, and is getting the bump-up in the polls. This won't last.

[merrily]

119. People may have gotten a kick out of learning, for the the first time, that he exists.

[L0oniX]

48. *

This will piss off all the "right" people.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

54. As many of us said at the time, this DU bit seems pretty premature and clueless now:

[merrily]

112. I don't know if it's the emails. Her numbers have fallen before.

[Darb]

56. Polls now mean exactly jack fucking squat. But thanks for bringing it in.

not

[Tommy2Tone]

59. Wait until Paul gets questioned

from someone other than Fox News. His insanity will be impossible to hide. The Republican debates will show all how crazy a bunch they are.

Oh and the HRC haters on the left won't be able to celebrate.

[alcibiades_mystery]

65. After the Rahm Tantrum Just Witnessed by our Lefty Friends

I'm really gonna start bookmarking these "Hillary is OVER!!!" threads. They will be fascinating evidence in November 2016.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

85. You're collecting "evidence"? Of what?

Evidence of people who hoped someone better would emerge from an actual primary process?

I plead Guilty as charged.

[denbot]

71. R-Money leads by 8% over Obama with just days to go..

Meh.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

72. Welcome to DU./NT

[Beacool]

73. Not worried, I would if it was October 2016.

Any time that a scandal hits the fan, it's obvious that that politician's polls will suffer. Better to get all the dirt out now rather than later. People have bad memories (or why did they vote twice for Bush?) and by 2016 will not remember, let alone care, about her e-mail account.

[Deadbeat Republicans]

74. Kick for the chicken hawk.

[merrily]

113. FYI The OP has been locked out of this thread per a hidden post.

[yurbud]

123. I would like a more progressive candidate to get nomination, but not because of this email nonsense