The people don't decide, the people who vote in primaries decide. Hillary and Donald received more votes than any of their competitors... you should be angry at everyone who didn't vote in the primaries.

The unfavorables are high, but who cares? Trump is a divisive figure and Hillary is unlikable. She'll be a good president.

I'm not angry I'm just stating the fact that the nominees for president are people who the majority of voters don't want to be president, regardless of who they voted for or who's to blame.

The unfavorables being high literally means that the people care.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Jul 3 2016 05:49pm

I think it's more evident that many voters are frustrated with status quo politicians(which hurts Hillary and helps Trump), and many voters don't like Trump's divisive rhetoric. If the Republican party had its shit together like the Democrats do and chose Kasich or even Rubio, they wouldn't have high unfavorables and we would win this election.

This post was edited by IceMage on Jul 3 2016 05:54pm

I think you're right in your analysis but I think that it proves that there is something wrong with the U.S. election process.

I agree with the sentiment of this post. This election cycle has been pathetic. Calling this a sad time in American politics would be an understatement, and hearing people say we should just come to expect this amount of corruption from our leaders is very discouraging.

But ultimately we were the ones who decided on these two candidates. The political parties, political establishment, and wealthy members of this country undoubtedly had a disproportionate say in the nomination process, but the primary voters were the ones who cast the most votes for these two disappointing candidates.



Would you classify being involved in an FBI investigation with potential criminal indictment charges a normal amount of "baggage" or corruption?

Furthermore, do you think we should strive to hold our leaders to be transparent, trustworthy, and more accountable for their actions or simply accept increasing levels of corruption?



The Republicans would certainly have a good shot at this election if they chose Kasich or Rubio. With the way Hillary's scandal and criminal investigation has picked up some steam lately, I think there would be a decent window for a GOP victory in November. The RNC must be kicking themselves right now. This was a lost opportunity for the party. Hillary Clinton has turned out to be a weaker candidate than the DNC imagined and has historically low levels of favorability with the American public.

Baggage. She mishandled classified information but she's not going to get indicted and I doubt any other cabinet secretaries will make the same mistake.

I think she's a strong candidate but she does have low levels of favorability and we can all agree she is not the most charismatic or likable politician. Pollster will disagree, but I do believe Rubio or Kasich would beat her.

Clinton is exactly who she has always been. She's predictable af and at the end of the day plenty more people will know she is the better choice in this election and vote accordingly.

I don't see how someone that weathers every single storm she has sailed into can be called a weak candidate. She makes some dumbass choices as far as optics go from time to time but I don't see her as weak.

Literally anything she says or does is going to be attacked and blown way out of proportion even more so than typical political BS.

I agree that she's unlikely to be indicted, but this wasn't simply a case of mishandling information.

It took a lot of wrongdoing for her previous employer (State Department) under a President of the same party to issue the scathing and damning audit that they did. Sure, previous Secretaries of State have also fucked up in the past and our country could do a better job of updating their protocol in this new age of technology, but the OIG audit listed multiple policies that she blatantly violated, including many that her predecessors did not commit.

She ran an unencrypted email server out of her own private home despite not being granted permission to do so, and in the OIG's words, would not have been granted permission to do so even if she had asked for permission.

That posed an enormous national security risk for our country, and Hillary Clinton failed to report the multiple hacking attempts that were made on her private server. A Clinton staffer twice had to shut down the serve due to it being hacked.

My point is that classifying this scandal as "mishandling classified information" is an enormous understatement and a misunderstanding of the information that we have available to us now.

Arguably even worse, she has repeatedly lied to the American public about the whole thing. Most of what she has said she did or didn't do has turned out to be false. She has been the opposite of forthcoming about all of this.

She's earned her poor trustworthy ratings with the American public, and she's also demonstrated that she is not a responsible leader. Make no mistake, what she did with her private email server was definitely putting her "personal convenience" over the safety of this country and her duty as Secretary of State.

Also, I agree that Rubio or Kasich could beat her. They certainly would have a shot. I think Kasich would have a better shot than Rubio.



Are you sure Hillary Clinton is the same person that she was in the 1990s? The same person that was fighting for universal health care as First Lady? Heck, even from 2008-2012, she had very favorable ratings with the American public as Secretary of State.

You're making it seem like Hillary Clinton has not brought upon these scandals and her poor trustworthiness with Americans upon herself. Is it all some vast right-wing conspiracy?

Do you think Hillary Clinton represents the standard of corruption in American politics? Do you think being involved in an FBI criminal investigation is normal for a major presidential nominee? What level or standard should we hold our public servants to?

I don't think this shit is nearly as big of a deal as you do. I don't think most of this shit changes much. These presidents come and go and life goes on.

I leave the doom and gloom to young people and republicans. The only real danger we have been in during recent times is a Trump presidency and even then his ass either gets himself impeached or kicked out in 4 years and we move on

Wow, what an inspiring standard to hold our Presidents to: "Shit doesn't change. Life goes on."

No wonder you don't strive to hold your leadership to be more accountable, transparent, trustworthy and responsible. I think it's easy to say that a President doesn't do much and forget what the likes of Washington, Lincoln, and FDR have done for this country while in the Oval Office.

It isn't unreasonable of me or young voters to have a problem with the amount of corruption we see in modern American politics or our likely next Head of State being in the middle of an FBI criminal investigation.