Just a thought and requesting input from all sides.

Within the Democratic Party, her total vote count totals tell a much different and more accurate story.

They could have just let her talk her way into various messes over time.

You have no clue who I am. None. Over the last 18 years I have worked local, state and National campaigns (including 2008 against Sen. Clinton). I am well-informed of who she is, what she stands for and what she is capable of.

You should read one sometime.......LOL

IRL I know a few die hards but none that seem so quick to toss other's ideas, feelings, and experiences than on the HRC forums I have looked at. Then to try and look to her for answers just to feel OK about voting for her in the GE just makes it all much worse!

Long Answer... Hell to the yes, every criticism of Hillary Clinton we have is considered bullshit. The smugness. The arrogance.

I think the worst is being told we are idiots stupid enough to fall for RW lies. As if how dare we question a democrat. We must blindly follow no matter how much the party marches to the right

But RW smears don't really affect me and my views. All high profile Ds suffer those.

I am affected by her record and by her husbands record. I have huge issues with both and cannot discount or ignore those issues.]

In addition, Hillary's personal style is a turn-off to me. Not true with Bill, or Obama, though
I have significant policy issues with both.

Naughty voter!

We saw Jeb go down, yet Hillary is leading because she only had Sanders as a serious challenger. I will predict that if she is the nominee, the media will be on board for Hillary ONLY because Trump and Cruz are so fricken crazy.

to have become a Trumpalooza. She's not getting the same attention as she did months ago. Thanks for the input.

that is absolutely true.

We need "a big refresh and reboot in America" (like one of my disgusted Australian friends said, looking at it all from afar).

Clintons and Bushes are the old Operating System. Subject to too many crashes now.

Bernie & Co. are qualified to do the upgrade.

--Whereas Trump and the Rethugs are like the guy in the Allstate Mayhem commercial--

I know that several inquiring minds that were new to politics were flushed right out of their consideration for being too questioning, and that turned those people off to her more than they ever had been curious.
I can offer a personal anecdote, from the caucus this weekend.
After breaking into our precincts we counted off by show of hands. We had approx (and I'm only remembering approximations) 160 in our precinct. The moderator asked for the Undecided to raise their hands, about 4 of them. They then asked the Clinton supporters to raise their hands....and there were 5 or 6. It was put forward by one of the volenteers we could subtract the clinton and undecided voters and the result, to many many nods, would be the sanders total.
One of the Hillcats stood forward, agitated, outraged 'How can you give PROXY votes to sanders, MAKE THEM COUNT OFF.' None of us objected, and most looking right at him, raised our hands.....with 2 of the undecideds joining us. We counted out to about 140. From the moment that count started this man took his infant daughter from his wife and paid attention to NOTHING else for the duration of the caucus until he beat a hasty retreat complaining all the while about 'no nothings'.
From that one instance, I can tell you that yes, some Clinton supporters can turn off their possible allies in a heartbeat by just being a DICK, and make allies for Bernie with every word and disdainful glare.

Of voters not agreeing with him. Thanks, JIG.

He was very strident and then very very reluctant, and we were all pretty damn friendly, if that moment of conflict did result in many smiles towards him as we took pride in passing the 6 or so number and continued into the 100s.

I think we're in a political environment where "hating the other side" is prominent. In previous cycles, respectful disagreement was more of the socially acceptable position, that is, people would be more likely to say that they like and respect someone they would never vote for. We're much more Balkanized these days.

So I think we're going to see higher negatives than we've seen in the past for all major Presidential candidates, simply because the other side is more likely to say they have a negative impression.

The only Presidential candidates that are escaping high negatives at this point are Kasich and Sanders, the ones that are precieved as having a very low chance of winning their party's nomination. If either of them were to win, those numbers would undoubtedly go higher as the campaign wore on.

This doesn't completely explain Hillary's high negatives, but I think it's a big part of the picture.

Sanders does not have a negative favorability.


Clinton made her bed and now she can lie in it as all the chickens come to roost

is legitimately felt for the policies and actions that some have held or performed.

And some people who mostly agree with me annoy me. LOL. Not naming names. Not you though.

I believe it's her policies, her disgusting Rovian politics, the fact that she's using fucking Brock as her liferaft; et cetera.

But I came into this race with a soft "leans Hillary" bias. I thought it was about damned time that we had a female as president, and her resume seemed impressive.

Then I really started researching her positions, and the more I learned, the less I liked.

People say all kinds of capricious things during an election, so I either give them a soft ignore (pay them no mind) or a hard ignore (ignore list). The only voice that I can't ignore is the voice of the candidate, and those who speak as official surrogates.

I find Hillary to be craven and corrupt, and completely dishonest, and nothing her casual supporters do or say has contributed to that finding.

It was all Hillary.

for her at all and it is basically two things with a third supporting leg that caused me to become very opposed to her:
1. The Lies about Reagan being an AIDS hero. Unacceptable and scary.
2. The oozing antisemitism of some of her supporters.
3. The tacit support given to the first two points by her supporters who know better.

They stay relatively good until she starts demanding to be the nominee again:

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=

She was very popular while working for Obama. Don't try to make all those years as Secretary of State disappear just because they contradict the narrative you're trying to push.

Does it not coincide with Hillary conceding to Obama ?

the less happy I became. I also started out very negative about her previous stay in the White House as I believe this can very easily be seen as banana republic style corruption, but my anxiety about the possibility quickly became horror at the fact the corruption appears to be a done deal.

As her supporters became increasingly offensive, I began using the Ignore and Trash philosophy. I attribute much of the venom to standard Primary Passion, although this seems way more intense than 2008 (but keep in mind I was dealing with young twins during 2008 and not as focused, so I may have just missed things).

I am not banned from the Hillary group to my knowledge, but have always tried to respect the sanctity of it as a "protected" group (which is how I try to treat all of the special interest groups on DU - with respect). I consider the GDP area to be reasonably open for mild sarcasm and snark, but never for abuse. To my knowledge (again, I temporarily have a large number of voracious hidden folk) I have generally been treated with courtesy and respect by fellow members.

Hope this helps!

Surrogates, like David Brock are a different story. They contribute, but not her voters.

Literally.
http://qz.com/624346/america-loves-women-like-hillary-clinton-as-long-as-theyre-not-asking-for-a-promotion/

How can we reconcile the “unlikable” Democratic presidential candidate of today with the adored politician of recent history? It’s simple: Public opinion of Clinton has followed a fixed pattern throughout her career. Her public approval plummets whenever she applies for a new position. Then it soars when she gets the job. The wild difference between the way we talk about Clinton when she campaigns and the way we talk about her when she’s in office can’t be explained as ordinary political mud-slinging. Rather, the predictable swings of public opinion reveal Americans’ continued prejudice against women caught in the act of asking for power.

People have used Hillary Clinton to study the effects of sexism in politics. She's literally in uncharted territory for female politicians, because none before her have built the resume she has nor worked as diligently to break the glass ceiling as she has. And Americans seem to hate her for trying, but then turn around and applaud her for the work she does.

With the qualifier that the kind of operatives and dirty tricks strategy that she employs is seen as part of who she is.

When I watch her give a formal speech it's like listening to an address to an assembly of elementary school students. Very slow, very measured, very rote. On the other hand, when she does give spontaneous remarks it often ends in her yelling whatever it is she's trying to get across.

Than phony Hillary grinning and pointing at imaginary people and trying to show that she's really warm and cares about the regular folks. She is just so transparently fake. Better to just be what you are. Margaret Thatcher didn't try to pretend she was warm and fuzzy.

Americans like their politicians bigger-than-life.

To counter it, I've found that imagining them all without their pants helps.

The nicest supporters in the universe could not make me support a candidate who is for war and fracking and cluster bombs and the TPP, to name a few of her favorites.

Anyone who says they are against a candidate because of that candidate's supporters is a shallow fool who does not educate themselves on issues, records, and deeds, or is just lying for effect, and I don't bother with them.

others, non-apology, trial balloon, semi-apology, retraction, apology, and finally claims that "I have been vetted."

However, Hillary's supporters on DU (a very small fraction of Democrats) may be pushing some Sanders supporters who read DU to Jill Stein (not me - I'm voting for Sanders in the primary and hopefully in the general election too, but regardless of the nomination process I'll be voting for the Democrat in the general election).

... relationship with the press.

That combined with the dossier of smears the GOP has built over the years, is more than enough to explain her unfavorables.

That is the primary reason I spent so long in the undecided column.

But after the debates, I came to the conclusion that despite her vulnerabilities, she'd make the stronger candidate in the GE to defeat the monster that emerges from the right.

On that, I'm a single issue voter.

... free floating outrage from the perpetually disgruntled in the far left.

That's most of it.