Hillary Clinton’s Honesty Problem Just Keeps Getting Worse - WaPo

[WillyT]

Hillary Clinton’s honesty problem just keeps getting worse
By Chris Cillizza - WaPo
August 20 at 11:53 AM

<snip>

Hillary Clinton and her surrogates have spent lots of time over the past few days making the case that everything is going perfectly according to plan with her 2016 presidential campaign. They are exactly where they want to be, to hear them tell it, and nothing that has happened to date -- not the rise of Bernie Sanders, not her ongoing problems with maintaining a private e-mail server -- has surprised them. Nothing at all.

In fact, the only people talking about Clinton's problems, which don't really exist, are in the media -- who are bored (because it's August and a slow news time) and, therefore, are looking to create a narrative based on an inaccurate reading of polls.

To wit, Hillary communications director Jennifer Palmieiri said this in an interview with NBC's Luke Russert on Wednesday:

"The press coverage of her poll numbers is pretty skewed." --@jmpalmieri.

— Chris Cillizza (@TheFix) August 19, 2015

Okay. Except, not really. While Clinton's remains comfortably ahead nationally and -- as James Carville helpfully notes -- is viewed more favorably than any of her potential Republican opponents, there is significant evidence of trouble brewing for her.

Check out new polling by Quinnipiac University in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- the three biggest swing(ish) states in the country. Scroll all the way down to question #46, which asks, "Would you say that Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy or not?"

Thirty-two percent of respondents in Florida and Pennsylvania said she was; 34 percent of Ohioans said so. Just in case that's too much math for you: Only one in three voters in the three largest swing states in the country think that the overwhelming favorite for the Democratic nomination is honest and trustworthy.

But wait, you say! Context matters. I bet those same voters trust the Republican frontrunners even less!

Except, again, no.

The only Republican candidate with honest/trustworthy numbers like Clinton is Donald Trump. And, Trump's numbers are still not as bad as Clinton's. His lowest score on the honest/trustworthy measure is in Ohio where just 37 percent of voters say those words describe him. When compared to someone like Jeb Bush on the honest/trustworthy question, Clinton's numbers are anemic. Sixty-four percent of Floridians say Bush is honest and trustworthy -- perhaps not surprising given that he was the governor of the state for eight years But 54 percent of voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania say the same.

Clinton's problems on the honest/trustworthy question go even deeper -- as this great chart from Philip Bump reveals:



<snip>

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/yes-its-a-major-problem-that-two-thirds-of-voters-dont-think-hillary-clinton-is-honest-or-trustworthy/

[WDIM]

1. The wiping the server with a cloth response didnt help

It shows intellectual dishonesty. She knows what wiping a server means. She should just give honest answers to honest questions and not play word games.

[Hortensis]

28. Oh, please. Take a joke? This is the new BenghaaazEEE!, and as honest an attack.

[magical thyme]

36. indicates tone deafness. it's past the point of making jokes

if she wants the controversy to end, she needs to quit playing cute word games and give honest answers.

And her attitude came shining through. She wasn't laughing.

[SoapBox]

39. Ditto.

Her campaign should know damned well how bad even the appearance of something wrong, witch hunt or not, is...

So what does she do? Act snotty. NOT the correct thing to do.

The other thing she does is get a "look" on her face...and it's not a pleasant look either.

[Juicy_Bellows]

48. I completely agree, it wasn't the way to handle it.

You address it forthright, you don't throw oily rags on the fire.

[Motown_Johnny]

38. That simply isn't true.

Benghazi is pure bull shit. There was never any basis for any accusation of wrong doing by her or anyone else.


This is clearly very different. Hillary (or someone following her instructions) deleted ~30,000 emails without any oversight.

If you look at her answers to questions during the presser in NV a couple days ago, there are serious problems with it. She claimed that this all started because she asked for her emails to be released. She did not ask for her emails to be released until 3 days after the story broke. Her answer was simply false.

She also claimed that if she had used a separate government server for her work emails that the same problem would still exist. This is also clearly false. If all her work emails were on a separate server then nothing would have ever been deleted from it and this problem would not exist.

Her "joke" that she pretended the reporter was asking about her housekeeper's dusting habits, instead of if the information on the server was purposefully removed, was not a joke. It was a way to evade the question. The idea that she doesn't understand exactly what the question was about and how that works on a digital level is not credible. Anyone in this society who reads a newspaper or watches cop shows knows exactly what that phrase means. If the FBI announces that the server was wiped, the joke is going to be on her. That clip is going to backfire big time. That is just one more ready made attack ad.

On her way out she claimed that nobody talks to her about the emails except "you guys" (meaning the press). If that is true then her entire staff needs to be replaced. She better start preparing for questions about this and the answers need to be better than "I didn't want to carry two phones". Remember that little gem? Remember that it took them eight days to come up with that nonsense? The response to this issue has been a problem from the very start.

This isn't Benghazi. She (or someone following her instructions) really did wipe out ~30,000 emails without any oversight. Maybe that wasn't illegal but it sure looks improper. If you are running for President then you better understand that even the appearance of impropriety can be a problem.

Beyond that is the possibility that some classified information might have been mishandled. It is to soon to know if that happened or not. Or even if it did, if the information was over classified and still not really an issue. Anyone claiming this is leaning toward the Benghazi style of attacks. But to claim that the entire scandal is the same as Benghazi simply isn't true.

You may find her trustworthy but the majority of Americans don't. That is why you can't accept that this is a real problem. Nobody believes her even when they can't prove that what she is saying is false, and then she holds a presser and strings falsehoods together like popcorn on Christmas Eve. Just watch what happens to those trustworthy numbers when the next poll comes out. Down down down...... nowhere to go but down.

[BeanMusical]

43. Totally agree.

[WDIM]

49. It wasn't a joke it was sarcasm.

When i heard that response it made my stomach turn because it was a bad response. She knew exactly what the reporter meant but chose to dodge the question instead by being sarcastic and acting ignorant. It made her look bad in my opinion. And reinforces the public view that she is not trustworthy.

I have nothing against her using private email. I do not believe she should of had the server wiped. I think she should of done the correct thing and turned over her emails and the intact server as soon as she left her post at the state department. All government work is government property and should of been left with the government. None of this would be happening if she would of done it correctly.

Honestly 4 years of Clinton scandal after scandal does not sound appealing. I already lived it in the 90s. We need somebody that will call the Repugs on their BS and be straight forward and honest and redirect to the real issues and not play into the kabuki theater of DC. That response just prolongs the scandal and keeps people talking about it.

[AppalachianLeftist]

2. She's a terrible candidate.

Her nomination all but guarantees 8 years of Republican rule and a conservative SCOTUS for a generation or more.

The havoc that will be wreaked makes me sick to my stomach.

For the good of the party and country, Hillary, please bow out.

[DrDan]

25. exactly - we don't want a candidate that is at the top of the polls

[Hortensis]

30. What an interesting viewpoint. What sources do you suggest to explore it?

[xynthee]

3. What a disaster! nt

[rhett o rick]

4. I think a lot of people decided in 2002 that she wasn't trustworthy. Believing George Bush? nm

[John Poet]

5. Hillary's backers here will say, "But I trust her!"

The Democratic numbers for trust of Hillary don't matter, when it comes to general elections.

We've already been lectured by Hillary backers on the importance of independent voters in general elections (within the 'Bernie can't win a GE' meme).

Well, guess what, Hillary supporters: Hillary's "trust" numbers among independents are going to be your biggest problem.

A few months ago, I was confident that Hillary would win a general election if she became the nominee. I no longer have that confidence.

The head-to-head poll numbers vs. GOP may say "things are ok right now", but the underlying trust numbers are for shit. Thirteen more months of this drip, drip, drip of Hillary's trust numbers going down the drain, and I think she'll be nowhere.

She might still be able to win the Democratic nomination regardless of her general election weakness....

but so did Walter Mondale.

(Walter Mondale also got the lion's share of party endorsements that year...)

[ericson00]

7. The Clintons won twice despite bullshit "scandals" and "trust issues,"

and I've made a thread about this thread about this, and cleaned up after the messes Mondale/Dukakis/McGovern, so yes clearly no one cares. And she's still winning against all GOP candidates.

So yes, Clinton supporters call Clinton haters bullshit on Cilly.

[leveymg]

9. No. A lot of people gave Bill a pass because they liked and voted for him. Not so, Hillary.

Her overall negatives in polls going back to 2008 are as high as her untrusteds in this poll. About 60% among Independents, who are 60% of the electorate. But the negatives also mean, "I would never vote for that woman."

[Dawgs]

22. Bill won twice...not Hillary. n/t

[John Poet]

23. Hillary isn't Bill.

[fbc]

26. That's for sure!

Bill made people feel great even when he was lying to their faces. Hillary makes people cringe even when she is telling the truth.

[bvar22]

33. Astute Observation!

I'm still laughing.
You NAILED it.

[RufusTFirefly]

44. Absolutely right.

It may often have been deceitful and calculated, but Bill had an ability to connect with people. Hillary seems tone deaf in this respect. It's sad, really.

[askew]

32. Bill and Hillary very different candidates.

Tying their electoral results together is BS. Bill is 1000% the politician that Hillary is and Bill's scandals were very different than Hillary's were. Sex scandals don't impact voters the way that secrecy and avoiding laws/regulations to hide emails do.

Hillary's won 2 easy Senate races in a blue state and that's it. She lost her only tough race she's ever been in.

[RufusTFirefly]

41. Fascinating how Hill is equated with Bill when it's convenient ...

... and separated from him when it's not.

"The Clintons" won twice.
But NAFTA, Welfare reform (sic), DOMA, the Telecom Act of '96, and the gutting of Glass-Steagall? Those were Bill's fault.

[BeanMusical]

45. Yes, I noticed that too.

Really pathetic.

[HFRN]

8. 'we trust her, she's the presumptive nominee, therefore, your trust of her is mandatory' nt

[ericson00]

6. Cilizza has shown his cards. He just hates the Clintons.

he's a sad excuse for a "journalist" connected Loomis Chaffee prep-school kid reporting skewed QU polls. Other than the fact every piece of his is an anti-Clinton screed, he probably beat out qualified kids from public HS and as good or better UG schools, maybe even kids with grad degrees too, because he knew the right people. The Clintons grew up middle class and made their way. Clearly, Cilly just doesn't relate to the Clintons. He relates to Bushes, Kennedys, Chafees, Trumps, etc.

[Fred Sanders]

12. Check out his long list of Hillary hating posts at the link.... No agenda there!

And of course uses the debunked Quinnipac poll.....only. Which was in three States way over sampling Republicans.

Another in a long list of "anything anti-Hillary must be instantly re-posted at DU" and any criticism is of course easily deflected by saying "I am just reposting!" Or "but we should hear all sides" false equivalency.

Like peeing into the wind.

[cali]

14. what nonsense. for you and those sharing your besieged mindset

anything from a journalist but fawning, glowing coverage makes that person a hater. You reflect the Cintons in that way. No, the majority of his pieces on hillary aren't remotely negative.

And so what if he went to Loomis? Your personal attack on Cilizza is pure nasty speculation.

[Fred Sanders]

10. Chris Cilizza is as anti-Clinton as it gets.....how about that CNN poll yesterday, Chris?

Another one of his brilliant opinion headlines:

Maybe Hillary Clinton just isn’t a very good candidate
What else could explain how the Democratic front-runner’s campaign has struggled?

[ericson00]

16. WaPo either needs to fire him, or its' reputation is a sinking ship

[cali]

17. bullpucky.

[tblue]

11. Not gonna jump on her

The rightwing has ample time and fodder to drag her down, punch her in the face, and disfigure her until she's no longer recognizable. Not gonna help them. She has weathered almost every storm and I don't know what's gonna happen in this case, but she might do it again.

I'm for Bernie but I just can't bring myself to add another piece to the Jenga pile. Peace out.

[ibegurpard]

13. 04 all over again

Party going to the mat for a weak candidate who will sink us all and kneecapping a fighter.

[ericson00]

15. Are you fucking kidding me? Hillary has fought back, unlike like John Kerry

notice how in the face of tons of attacks, Hillary still wins in the reputable polls? Kerry got sunk off attacks that look like child's play compared to what is thrown at the Clintons.

[ibegurpard]

24. jesus...

You think I'm questioning whether she'll fight to win the nomination and the election??? We're not eve speaking the same language...I'm talking about what she'll fight for if elected and it sure as shit won't be the values I think Democrats should be championing.

[RufusTFirefly]

47. Self-preservation is Hillary's primary motivation.

She doesn't hesitate to use a scorched-earth policy when fighting back.
Her nasty smears of the current President during the 2008 campaign provide a notorious example.

Unfortunately, a Presidential election is not about the preservation of Hillary. It's about the preservation of this country.

[John Poet]

29. In 2004 I wanted Hillary to run.

I thought we needed a heavyweight like her to take out George W. Bush.

But Hillary preferred to play it safe that year, and we got four more years of W.

After that, I lost interest.

[zeemike]

31. That's what it looks like to me too.

Perhaps TPTB have decided it is the Republicans turn...Jeb needs to rescue the family name.

[ellisonz]

18. Can someone put this turd in a car trunk, drive to Iowa and leave him stranded in a cornfield? n/t

[seabeyond]

19. how do you know she is lying? she is a woman.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said on Sunday that some of the criticism directed at his Democratic primary rival Hillary Clinton is motivated by sexism.

“I can’t think of many personalities who have been attacked for more reasons than Hillary Clinton,” Sanders told John Dickerson on “Face the Nation.”

“And by the way, let me be frank – and I’m running against her – some of it is sexist. I don’t know that a man would be treated the same way that Hillary is,” Sanders added.

Sanders remarks came in response to a question about whether Clinton’s use of a private server while secretary of state has hurt her trustworthiness in the eyes of some Americans. Sanders refused to comment on the scandal or Clinton’s honesty, and went on to emphasize that his concerns with her as the Democratic nominee are about her policies, not personality.

[HFRN]

20. African Americans examine Butter Hillary sculpture at Iowa State Fair

'It was very lifelike, it was almost as though she was there, talking down to us'

[bvar22]

34. LOL!

Still laughing.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. We aren't supposed to trust politicians. We're supposed to hold them accountable.

Hillary's got a lot to account for. See IWR vote for example.

[Thinkingabout]

27. Huummmm, looks like Cillizza honesty is still low. Tunnell vision.

[NotHardly]

35. You know who owns the Washington Post... right??? Mr. Amazon.com ... he owns it and rules it

Think he might influence it...LOL.... you bet your sweet arse he does.
Oh, and by the way, he's a dyed in the wool Republican 1%er and misogynistic like a lot of other folks. Then some are just misogynists, period.

[Motown_Johnny]

40. So you have polling data that contradicts this?

If not, you have no point at all.

[Stellar]

37. I'm sick of hearing about Hillary's emails and Benghazi !

Please. I personally don't care about her emails. The media need to chill the f*** out. Conservatives have been trying to make this an issue for far too long and I have not considered voting for her! Jeebus!

[trumad]

42. Yawn!

[BeanMusical]

46. Kick and R