Here's the real bottom line on the server thing, folks.

[Bonobo]

This has hurt Hillary badly, but it is important to understand that this did not cause the damage so much as REVEAL the problem. And that is that people really don't trust Hillary. They don't think she is sincere about her positions and they don't think she is honest about her behavior. And there is a long history behind that. It did not start here.

People carry the weight of their reputations with them. They accumulate a sort of impression among people. And it is that impression that makes them vulnerable to particular narratives.

For example, Bernie is considered to be a straight-talker, a man who says what he thinks and doesn't lie. So although you may TRY to float a narrative that he is not, it is highly unlikely to stick. More effective has been the narrative that he is grumpy and hard to get along with, or that he doesn't care about social issues because he is just a kind of demi-Marxist or something. Or the narrative that he is only about ideas but is not realistic. Those narratives kinda worked because it kinda fits into the "impression" he has.

Hillary, on the other hand, is judged by a huge number of people to be insincere and somewhat shady about her behavior. THAT is why this server/email semi-truth cover-up Nixonian behavior has really been damaging - because it lines up PERFECTLY with what people already think of her. It confirms their long-held impression.

[msongs]

1. 25 yrs of republican/hillary-haters/sanders crowd attacks are bound to leave an impression eh?

[Bonobo]

2. Only because she was vulnerable to that particular point.

It is what it is and it is that way for a reason. Hillary's own behavior has fed into that impression.

Think of it as a form of "co-evolution".

[hollysmom]

3. if the "sanders croiwd" attacks are so horrifying, then Clinton is not

ready for a GE where it really gets dirty. Seriously. No go for the jugular and why try to portray CLinton as a delicate flower - she is either a fighter or she isn't. I think she is a fighter, but if you consider Sanders tso damaging to her, you don't think she is ready for the GE.
One or the other. pick one

[MFM008]

4. Sanders has been so poorly vetted by media

we don't know much about him or his past because HRC and Trump get the press.
No one is a saint, what I've seen of Sanders I don't like and wont vote for.

[Peace Patriot]

6. You think David Brock hasn't "vetted" Bernie Sanders down to his underwear...

...and whether he wears boxer shorts or jockey shorts, and where he buys them, and who does his laundry, and what detergent he uses, and...well, do get the picture. This is what David Brock does for a living--he smears people. He's working for Clinton.

I think the funny thing is he couldn't find anything, so he created his smear campaign around trying to turn Bernie's positives into negatives. We saw it unfold here at DU. The photo of Bernie at CORE meetings in Chicago was somebody else. Remember that? And then John Lewis said, "I never met him in the civil rights movement." Fail. The photographer came forward--well known civil rights photographer--and not only identified Bernie in that photo, but had a whole bunch of other photos of Bernie getting arrested, and speaking out, against segregation in Chicago. Time magazine had to print a retraction about the falsely caption photo. They had bought Brock's lie hook, line & sinker.

Oh, yeah, that slime bucket has been crawling around Bernie's life since Bernie announced. Nothing. He has found nothing!.

Bernie is as clean and straightforward as he appears. He has always been clean and straightforward. He likes simple living. He likes hanging out with ordinary people. He likes eating in small town diners when he's traveling. He took coach seats in airplane travel. The Secret Service may have put a stop to that, but that was his practice, because he considers himself an ordinary person and not part of a bloodline to the monarchy. And he not only did NOT make half a billion dollars from "speeches" to Wall Street criminals, over a 2 year period, he gave virtually no speeches for any amount of money at any time! He doesn't trade on his public office for moolah.

You know how I know what David Brock's spies have been doing? Cuz if he'd found anything--even the tiniest little bit of anything with which to smear Bernie Sanders--say, his wife failed at a college fundraising campaign--we'd see it here at DU instantly, x 1,000.

And you know how I know he found no negatives, and had to try to tear down Bernie's impressive and spotless positives? Because I saw it RIGHT HERE. Bernie Sanders, who was defending civil rights, before Hillary Clinton quit being a "Goldwater Girl," is a racist! And, if Bernie uses arm gestures when he's speaking, and if Hillary is on the platform, he's a sexist! Bernie Sanders--who is actually stronger than Hillary Clinton on women's rights! It's just shit. I've never seen such foul shit in a campaign, except, well...

I'm also going on past history of Hillary Clinton's primary campaigning.

[ms liberty]

7. Well said, Peace Patriot!

[B Calm]

8. That's the Bernie I know! +2

[IdaBriggs]

9. ^== YES!!!

[Vattel]

11. And the foul shit is not just from Brock. Lots of it straight from Clinton's dishonest mouth.

Saying that Sanders "stood with" and "supported" the Minuteman militia group was a filthy attack, for example. Many repubs voted yes on that amendment to support that group but everyone knows that Sanders and some of the other democrats who voted yes did so just because the amendment only reaffirmed existing policy and so was meaningless. He didn't vote yes to help out a racist vigilante group. The thing is, Clinton knows that. But she has no decency.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. Bravo. n/t

[Armstead]

16. +1000

[libdem4life]

19. Bingo !

[IdaBriggs]

10. I *expect* her to be indicted; I will be *shocked* if she isn't.

That says what my perception of her is -- and I *wanted* to be excited about her. I used to feel sorry for her back in the day.

Unfortunately, the more I learned about her email situation, followed up by her actions at State and the problems at the Foundation, the more I realized this was a problem.

I have also watched enough of her speeches to be skeptical about "inspirational speaker worth a quarter million a pop", so I *know* there was more going on there.

If the FBI does indict on RICO, I will actually be relieved because it will calm me down about "separate rules for the rich" and make me feel safer about being protected from criminal enterprises in the government.

I was half joking with my family that I wouldn't be surprised if both Trump and
Clinton secretly whispered "Hail Hydra!" to each other!

[pdsimdars]

12. I agree, I thought it was a "nothing burger" until it kept coming up and I started looking into it

The more you learn the more you wonder what they are waiting for. It isn't encouraging about our justice system. By what has been revealed to the public already, many top officials in the intelligence community say there is no doubt of criminal activity. And the FBI has more information that we do.
If they don't indict, it will mean we have no real justice system left.

[Bonobo]

13. Actually that is the same for me and I think many.

I really thought it was "Benghazi" bullshit until I began to read up and when I finally read the long interview transcript by Lewis Luken, ambassador, I had to admit that it was not nothing at all.

It now looks like nothing so much as the long, drawn out series of lies that we saw in Watergate. Just too much lying and coverups for it not to be the tip of the iceberg.

[Tarc]

15. Your political naivete is charming

It's like buzzing past an Amish buggy in a Ferrari.

[One Black Sheep]

17. It seems like a lot of the Hillary supporters are whistling past the graveyard

They dismiss all polls that show Trump catching up, or in a tie, and even winning in some cases, and the only polls that count in Hillary world are the ones that show Hillary ahead. Likewise, they do the same with all the polls that always show Bernie winning and doing much better than Hillary versus Trump, oh, those don't count somehow. Hmmm.....

They act as if this whole email thing is no big deal, and that it doesn't reinforce negative perceptions just as your post states.

This leads further into high unfavorability numbers, which eventually, she might be consistently "winning" or beating Trump as the most hated candidate. Hillary loses independents unlike Bernie, who wins them by vast margins, and Hillary can't win without attracting independents in good numbers. The national election is not a closed primary where only long time and elderly/retired Democrats can vote. Other serious and probably fatal weaknesses for Hillary include: She loses among white people, she loses big time among men, she loses big time among youth, and she is even disliked by a scary percentage of one of her only strengths, women -- a lot of women simply don't like Hillary either. A recent poll showed almost half of women dislike Hillary...

At this point, I will be surprised if Hillary isn't losing by a consistent 10 points or so in the polls near the election. Hillary has a terrible track record, where once she falls behind, she can't catch back up again. It all goes to that likeability thing, people, by and large, just don't find Hillary likeable.

Maybe she can somehow still win, but at this point, Hillary looks like the RMS Titanic to me, and I'm prepared for an absolute disaster, all across the board (Hillary will hurt Democrats in elective office from the Senate to the House - all the way down), this November.

[jalan48]

18. Her secret speeches to Wall St. and the big banks was all I needed to know as a long time Democrat.

Are we pretending she's a good speaker or that she is simply getting what is rightfully hers (lots of money)?