Hillary is a woeful politician. She has little presence, and no sense of authenticity. Perhaps worst of all, she generates no excitement among voters. Voters are tired of the Clintons and if anyone is going to vote for her it’s out of a dull sense of obligation.

Then there are the emails.

I understand that her supporters will write this off as more Republican scandal mongering, and there’s a certainly a partisan interest behind much of the reporting to date - but these allegations are incredibly real, and incredibly serious. If the leak in the NY Post is correct, she will be indicted. The attorney general simply won’t have a choice.

Bernie is authentic, and he does generate genuine excitement. He’s also far too liberal to win the general election.

So going back to your point, I think Trump will Republican primary - and I think he can beat whoever he runs against in the general election.

This problem is not going away, and I’m amazed that seemingly no one here wants to talk about it at all. These sources are not right wing rags. They are the Washington Post, and politico.

At this point, there is a non trivial chance that Hillary Clinton actually committed a felony here. And this isn’t another crazy Republican goose chase. There is seemingly real evidence here, of actual wrongdoing.

This is becoming potentially a major problem if she were to be the Democratic nominee.

The following is a felony.

I have to assume Hilary Clinton’s seemingly very soft campaign in recent months is strategy and not laziness. But she certainly doesn’t present the image of someone with a clear plan to win the primary election.

I believe he will be able to remarket himself in the general election.

How could he do this when he had spent the past few months doing what seems to be an impression of Mussolini?

Is he just gonna say, “I was just joking about banning that religion!”

His negatives have actually improved as the primary progressed, which is unusual.

I would point to his salesmanship though. He’s very good at listening to people and then telling them exactly what they want to hear.

So what will he do? He’ll probably reposition himself, and when a reporter calls him out … he’l get angry, bluster, and complain about getting misquoted. He will then raise such a stink with the reporters employers, that the reporter will end up writing copy in Anchorage Alaska.

My prediction on how the primary will go: Trump will dip when conservatives start paying attention to what he believes instead of looking at him superficially as an outsider.

But there’s a twist! Conservatives don’t actually give a shit about the issues. In the end they just want to win the election. (Supreme Court justices, dontcha know.) So if Trump maintains his lead, a lot of them will rally around him by default, kind of like they did with Romney even though that was post-Tea Party.

In the general election, some Tea Party diehards will sit out. You’d think that would mean they would lose the election yet again, but Clinton is so unlikeable that I’m not sure. I also think the email issue is more serious than Lewinsky or even Benghazi. I do think it’s arcane enough that if she doesn’t get indicted, the American public will probably brush it off as “boys will be boys” behavior from our dear leaders, and the Republicans won’t be able to get much traction out of it merely from the standpoint of grave (but nebulous) national security danger, lying, or acting above the law. Voters don’t care about those things.

I think we tend to make political decisions based on how we feel, and how we feel is distantly related (but not disconnected) to the issues that candidates adopt. So I’d agree with you. I think many Republican voters will look past his platform, and vote for Trump the personality.

I do think it’s arcane enough that if she doesn’t get indicted, the American public will probably brush it off as “boys will be boys”

I would second that. It won’t resonate without an indictment.

As a side note, there is some masterful SEO work going on out there. I googled the word “unlikeable” to make sure it included an ‘e’ in the word. There’s no Google definition at the top or link to m-w.com or anything. Just Hillary Clinton links. Apparently there’s a book about this!

There is some truth to that. But it’s also extremely likely Trump will get himself impeached in short order. So the real question might actually be: who is going to be his running mate? Because they might be President in a year or two.

I believe you’re wrong.

I have been, and will continue to be, wrong about many things.

We’ll see I suppose.

I actually believe that Bernie is going to get the nomination. The email thing is not going away and from what I read last week she’s in deep shit. But even without that, she’s in free fall.

A month ago Clinton had a 36 point lead over Sanders in South Carolina. It’s down to 19% and dropping fast. It also appears that Sanders is finally starting to gain traction with African American voters and Clinton just lost an important South Carolina endorsement on that front:

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/25/lawyer-for-walter-scott-family-switches-sides-to-endorse-bernie-sanders/

In Nevada there is still a lot of resentment towards Clinton from how she conducted herself in 2008 and the unions are taking a wait and see approach on their endorsements:

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/22/hillary_is_no_lock_in_nevada_bernie_gains_ground_in_key_primary_partner/

Clinton’s lead is shrinking in every major demographic at this point including liberals and women:

If the trends continue the way they’re going and if Sanders wins big in Iowa and New Hampshire, the dominoes may begin to fall. Clinton’s primary support at this point is from pragmatists who think she has the better chance to win but even this isn’t true. She has no real enthusiastic support and, just like in 2008, the more desperate she gets, the uglier she’s going to get and that’s going to alienate even more primary voters.

She’s in trouble.

As for Sanders, folks keep writing him off as a crazy leftist but I’m telling you right now, he is an independent with bi-partisan appeal. Trump and Cruz are tapping into a legitimate anger that spans both sides of the political spectrum but where they are preaching a message of fear and divisiveness, Sanders has a truly populist message. He’s not faking it. He’s the real deal and on some levels Fox has paved the way for him by co-opting populist rhetoric in support of their right wing agenda. Much of what Sanders has to say will sound very familiar to people who have been bombarded by years of lip service about the welfare of small businesses/Main St America, the beleaguered middle class and doing right by our veterans. Sanders speaks to those same issues but with him it’s not lip service.

Everyone seems to be waking up to the fact that our system is broken right now. It’s why Trump and Cruz are surging on the right and Bernie on the left. This election may come down to who people trust most to try fixing it.

(Now, whether it’s possible to fix or not, I can’t say.)

I tend to agree. I’ve always said Sanders and Trump are both tapping into the same frustration, just Sanders has an actual record and isn’t going the fascism route with it. Cruz is also playing to that same demographic, only taking the religious route. There’s a reason these guys are the tops of polls: people are sick of this shit. They only really differ in how they think things should be fixed.

That’s an opinion piece. I googled this latest controversy, limiting results to the past week. Lots and lots of articles on how dire this is … until Media Matters talks about the source for NY Post article that began the latest salvo:

The New York Post published a discredited conservative writer’s thinly-sourced report that former State Department aides to Hillary Clinton illegally “cut and pasted” classified materials and sent them to Clinton’s personal email. The report seems to be based solely on the claims of a former State Department official who has worked with the anti-Clinton organization Judicial Watch.

In his January 24 report, Paul Sperry, a visiting media fellow at the right-wing Hoover Institution, reported that “former State Department security officials” say that the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) is “investigating whether members of Hillary Clinton’s inner circle ‘cut and pasted’ material from the government’s classified network so that it could be sent to her private e-mail address.” Sperry gave no indication how the unnamed former officials would have access to information about FBI investigations.

Citing no sources at all, Sperry claimed that the FBI is “zeroing in on” former Clinton State Department aides Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, and Jake Sullivan for their alleged involvement in improperly circumventing government classification systems.

The bulk of Sperry’s piece consists of speculation from retired State Department Diplomatic Security agent Ray Fournier, who reportedly “says it’s clear from some of the classified e-mails made public that someone on Clinton’s staff essentially ‘cut and pasted’ content from classified cables into the messages sent to her.” Fournier theorizes that “Clinton’s staff would have simply retyped classified information from the systems into the non-classified system or taken a screen shot of the classified document”; he concludes, “either way, it’s totally illegal.”

Sperry gave no examples of the emails that Fournier claims are “clear” evidence of illegal behavior or how he would know their redacted contents. While Sperry referenced “former State Department security officials” as the source of his claim that the FBI is investigating this allegation, he neither named nor referenced any other in his piece. Notably, Fournier has a history of conservative activism – he conducted a review of the Benghazi terror attack on behalf of Judicial Watch, a right-wing organization with a decades-long history of attacking the Clintons.

In fact, Judicial Watch investigator Chris Farrell is the only other named source in the report – Sperry quoted him claiming that Clinton’s receipt of classified information outside secure channels “is a mortal sin” and that “a regular government employee would be crucified” if they engaged in such activity.

Sperry also baselessly claimed that “Clinton instructed Sullivan to convert a classified document into an unclassified e-mail attachment by scanning it into an unsecured computer and sending it to her without any classified markings.” In fact, national security experts say it is not illegal to separate unclassified material from classified documents and send it through unclassified channels, which is what Clinton has said she was asking Sullivan to do.

Sperry – a former Washington bureau chief for WorldNetDaily – has a long history of producing baseless conspiracy theories.

In 2005, he published a book alleging that “Islamic radicals have worked their way into our government through intimidation and exploitation of religious tolerance.” The book specifically cited conservative Grover Norquist’s “ties to militant Muslim activists,” a long-time bugaboo for Islamophobes. In 2009, he published a follow-up claiming that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an educational non-profit, was attempting to infiltrate Congress and undermine democracy – by seeking to place Muslim interns in congressional offices.

Sperry recently contributed New York Post reports that claimed that Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a self-proclaimed democratic socialist, is “a diehard communist” threat to American values, and that President Obama is building a secret racial database to allow “race cops and civil-rights lawyers” to control "virtually every aspect of society.

This is confirmation bias at work. It’s eerie and just a little scary how effective that can be when information is reported without any context or consideration of the source.

Trump is running a pro war-crime platform: He’ll kill terrorists familes:

“When you get these terrorists,” Trump said, “you have to take out their families.”

O’Reilly, at the event, asked Trump if he was serious. According to Lizza, Trump said yes — and the crowd roared their approval:

Trump’s fans tend to express little regard for political norms. They cheer at his most outlandish statements. O’Reilly asked Trump if he meant it when he said that he would “take out” the family members of terrorists. He didn’t believe that Trump would “put out hits on women and children” if he were elected. Trump replied, “I would do pretty severe stuff.” The Mesa crowd erupted in applause. “Yeah, baby!” a man near me yelled. I had never previously been to a political event at which people cheered for the murder of women and children.

Yes, but at some point you just gotta hold your nose and go with the lesser of two weevils*.

*Yes, I totally stole that from The Master and Commander movie.

Yeah, this is what I mean. If she doesn’t get indicted, there’s not enough to pin on her aside from the sheer stupidity and recklessness of allowing the opportunity for this stuff to be improperly (or illegaly by someone else) sent to a private email server, and no one really cares about that.