Post removed

[jmg257]

1. I think it hurt her, but not sure how much. The Foundation was made to look like a collection point.

Not sure how much it was reported as such on fox news, or whatever.

But NYT had quite a few articles on the subject.

[Hoyt]

2. I think the Orange Buffoon trumped her on that one too. Don't like the idea, but she certainly

wasn't worse than Trump in that respect and there is no evidence she favored those who donated.

[Wounded Bear]

3. Probably...

But for those looking just a little beyond the headlines, Hillary had Wall Street regs in her platform aligned pretty well with Bernie's platform. Unfortunately, bumper stickers seem to be more effective.

[nikibatts]

4. It was all bullshit to begin with. Her speeches and e-mails came nowhere close to the problems

of 45's financial connections to Wall Street and Russia.

[Motown_Johnny]

5. Yes

She lost credibility on those subjects because of her ties.


I would include free trade along with the other economic policies that she lacked credibility on.

Some voters we should have won in PA, MI and WI (and OH for that matter) voted the other way because they were trying to reverse the decline in their states. Lacking credibility on Trade and Wall Street was fatal.

[Yavin4]

6. No, she lost because Trump ran a nakedly racist campaign

and the surge in the rural White vote out paced the African American and suburban White vote.

[factfinder_77]

7. Have you been taken by the "dark side" - your not comfortable subject is "fake news"

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/sep/01/fact-checking-clinton-foundation-controversy/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/07/fact-checking-donations-clinton-foundation/

[dembotoz]

8. yes

the secret speechs the wall street ties....she at times looked more gop than she could have