Poll Finds Voters in Both Parties Unhappy With Their Candidates

Jul 15, 2016 · 930 comments
elhag1 (US)
sorry! i can't stand either of them...they both make me buke...but even less of the fact that hillary got off criminal charges that, as an ordinary citizen, i would have been pounded for. there is even worse, she told that she did not know that the information sent via her private email was classified. how horrific is that when she held a position of state secretary mingling with leaders of foreign countries, trying to build relationships with those who don't necessary like america. maybe she did share the classified information to build those relationships...hence, who can trust that she didn't share classified information with enemy countries!
Dave (Dallas, Tex.)
Clinton's punishment for her email crimes seems to be a Sisyphean one, where every time she seems to put it to rest it pops up again. Seems strangely fitting.
Daniel Sudduth (Anaheim, Ca)
The fact that Clinton can't easily beat Trump should worry the DNC . After fixing the superdelegates, rigging the media ( including the NY Times ) and purging voter rolls, to deliver the nomination to her, they know they can't fix the general. So decide. Sanders is still available and still beats Trump by a good margin. Or, stick with the plan, lose the general but hold on to all that sweet party power and $. I'M not holding my breath
Jack (Middletown, Connecticut)
Both Clinton and Trump are too sleazy and too old for the Presidency. So sad for America that this is all we have to choose from.
Trump has run his businesses by filing 4 bankruptcies, and unlike Clinton and he won't publish (so far) his tax returns. Filing for bankruptcy may work for large corporations, but is it a good business plan for Trump supporters?
Joe (Danville, CA)
I'll vote for Hillary if there is a firm pledge from the family that Chelsea will never run for a political office. Power is a drug for the Clintons, and drugs are addictive, and addiction runs in families.

I can put up with it for four more years. But please, and this goes for the Bushes as well:

LEAVE US ALONE!!!! We're simply tired of you.
timbo555 (ATL)
I am reading the verbal contortions, rationalizations, excuses, justifications, and shaky explanations on behalf of a women who lied and cheated and badgered her way through her eight years with Bill, and then Lied and badgered and cheated her way through her time as Secretary of State, accomplishing nothing of note in the bargain save to wring her hands and dither as four good men died. And then lied about it to their families, I think the very next day.

And I imagine a bell shaped curve. And I imagine the progressive left. They occupy a place two full standard deviations to the left of center. And their delusion is that the ARE the center, Righteous and upright, the paragons of virtue. That's how they can stand there and defend that criminal with a straight face. "She can't be guilty, she's one of us and we are all so pure and full of dignity."
I wish you all the best.

P.S. I am a conservative, and I reside one full deviation to the right of center and the difference between us is that I have no delusions about where I am. And I'll be happy to relate the ways and i am flawed, if you have day or two.
But the worst kind of person in the world is he or she who know whats best for everybody else, and I shudder to think what she would do with that much power
Harry Pearle (Rochester, NY)
I think that Hillary Clinton needs to show some "humble pride". She has so much to be proud of, because she has worked all her adult life in public service. I think she should share some short stories of her experiences and saver them.

On the other hand I think she should contrast her lifetime of experience in politics and government with Trumps total lack of experience.

That's zero (0) experience for Trump
That's total lifetime experience for Clinton.

The only thing we have to fear is... Donald Trump!
CEQ (Portland)
I heard Obama in an interview recently talking about how he can't have a regular smart phone - and by the way, it wasn't up to him. There are security people who take care of this stuff. Where were these people in the State department? Well I bet they are there now but John Kerry said he wasn't using secure emails and others in powerful government positions have come up to point out that what Hillary is being taken to task for is not happening to her alone. Well, the attack is happening to her alone. Here is what I see, I see the GOP enemy attack machine, fishing around and this is what they came up with as something she did wrong - insecure emails. And they say it over and over so much that no one is hearing Condoleeza Rice talking about her insecure emails and also, does anyone notice that it isn't like a committee decided to look into all the people in government and figuring out who was or wasn't sending secure emails. Same issue with the Bengazi issue. If you are going to look into this travesty, then what is stopping you from looking into all the others? See, what is happening, is there is a very big and powerful and dark effort going into taking Clinton down. And you know what? That makes me want her to be president even more, although I am a little worried for her life. I don't know if the white hats can win right now but I sure as heck fire am grateful for everyone trying. Oh, and Hillary is one of my heroes. See, I am a child advocate, and she is too. I'm so w/her
brent (michigan)
And the media is surprised people hate both candidates? Give us jokes for leaders and you won't have enthusiasm. One candidate that can't write a email without being a scandal because she's incompetent saying her experiance is good even though that's not proven from her voting record or understanding of her email practices that were less protected than a Google account. And a idiot snake oil salesman who speaks at a 4th grade level. Hillary supporters so what's your excuse for keeping hillary on the ticket at this point? She's liked as much as trump and the guy doesn't even have minority support.
Kay Johnson (Colorado)
So does Mr. Lieb of Florida who teaches history know the history behind the economic disaster Bush handed off to Obama? That the stock market has tripled since then?? That every country but Russia has a higher approval now of the US than when Bush left office? Does the GOP de-stabilizing through obstruction and government shut-downs mean anything?
Marq Goldberg (Vancouver WA)
The fact that Trump is a lousy candidate and a lousy human being does not make Hillary one iota better at being either one. She should have been indicted. And Sanders should be the Democratic candidate. Sanders destroys Trump. The latest polls show Hillary falling behind. Anyone who would support a candidate who has done what Hillary has, not just the emails but also in her incessant rush to war - any war, deserves to have Trump for President. Too bad you insisted on dragging good Sanders supporters down to your level.
Thought Bubble (New Jersey)
What's with the headline change? Had to work all day to come up with one that is less damaging to Clinton? Still can't change the fact that being tied in July is devastating for Clinton.
Memi (Canada)
When I signed on this morning around 7:00 am, this shocking headline blared out at me. There were no comments as yet. I was moved to pen a comment. By the time I clicked send, there were 280. Now at 4:00 pm there are over 2,000.

I feel hornswoggled, duped into snapping at the red meat that the New York Times dangles before the maw of those who cannot help but respond. Trump is now tied with Clinton. Oh no! I am embarrassed by my Pavlovian response and have put myself, yet again, on my 12 step program to resist.

I can't stand that the New York Times has to harvest this low hanging fruit time and time again. It and every other media outlet has giving Trump all the attention he has needed to get where he is today without having to spend a dime of his own money. And I absolutely hate that I have helped them do it.
bkw (USA)
The "stuff" that appears to bring Hillary down in the polls compared to the divisive undisciplined immature toxic rhetoric that's constantly spewed from Trumps undisciplined unqualified to be president mind and mouth (which conversely/insanely appears to move him up in the polls or not make a dent) demonstrates what appears to be a gross "boys will be boys" double standard that apparently and shamefully still exists.
Peter (NY)
If I were a democrat I would be worried ...very worried. Look what mr trump did to the17 contenders for the republican nomination. The American electorate is very upset . Their tired of career politicians and the mess they have made . Hillary represents the ultimate career politician. She's got a tough fight on her hands.
GMHK (Connecticut)
As has been stated many times before, "The cover-up is worse than the event." HRC and her crew distorted and contorted her use of a private email server after they were found out. She should have just come clean those many months ago and possibly this would be behind her. Of course, two other thoughts come to mind: 1. She should have never gamed the system to begin. 2. She and her crew had just so many moving pieces to contend with (rouge server/emails/attorneys without clearance/Clinton Foundation, etc.), that they couldn't honestly defend them as the investigation proceeded because they never thought they would get caught.
MyThreeCents (San Francisco)
Apparently democracy is a good thing only so long as the hoi polloi are inclined to vote for HC. We can weed out undesirable voters with two simple questions:

Question 1: "Are you stupid?"

If the voter says "Yes," he or she is out. No second chance. The voter's name will be put on a "No Entry" list given out to poll workers on Election Day.

Unfortunately, some stupid people won't admit it, and some people are so stupid that they don't even know they're stupid. That's where Question 2 comes in:

Question 2: "Do you plan to vote for Hillary Clinton?"

If the voter says "no" – or seems to have trouble understanding three-syllable words (such as "Hillary") – he or she is out.

Those two simple questions should winnow the pool sufficiently, at least if people answer honestly. Poll-takers will have discretion, of course, to change a respondent's answer if the poll-taker thinks the respondent is lying.

So much for this democracy stuff!
geoff (Germany)
The fact that Hillary Clinton's poll numbers have taken a hit as a result of FBI Director Comey's statement that she had lied about the facts, destroyed evidence, and likely endangered national security through her “extreme negligence” ought to be good news for everyone, even Clinton supporters since it shows that most Americans still put the moral integrity of those running for office above partisan issues.
labman57 (CA)
The GOP has thrown everything at Clinton, including the kitchen sink.
And yet, Trump has not been able to show any sign of dominance.

On the flip side, numerous scandalous skeletons in Donnie's closet have yet to be fleshed out. Stay tuned ...
Ivan (Princeton NJ)
These results are not surprising. "This too shall pass..." but perhaps it won't. Are the Democrats really ready to roll the dice on this one?
Sam Darcy (Astoria OR)
Two awful choices. What's the polling on disdain toward both these scoundrels.
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
Then: "It's the economy, stupid."
Now: "It's the dishonesty, stupid."
Le plus ca change, but Clinton Dynasty is immune to change. It can only adapt.
Etaoin Shrdlu (New York, NY)
I can't see why people think Clinton showed poor judgement in using a private mail server. I mean, she conferred with her illustrious predecessors Colin Powell and Madeleine Albright, and they told her it was A-OK!
InaneOne (NY)
I don't think that it's the emails that are making Hillary's numbers drop...... maybe it's, oh I don't know, everything? The media is so sure that Bernie Sanders supporters will support Hillary Clinton because of his endorsement that they are jumping to all kinds of ridiculous conclusions about the reason why she is doing so poorly in National and state polls.... some of us have actually considered supporting Jill Stein now if Bernie does not receive the nomination at the convention. Some Bernie supporters are going to vote for Trump in protest. But none of us are going to vote for Hillary Clinton.
Sean (Ft. Lee)
1932- Roosevelt vs Hoover
1952-Eisenhower vs Stevenson
1960-Kennedy vs Nixon
1980- Reagan vs Carter

2016-clinton vs trump
Jonathan Ariel (N.Y.)
Hillary is the ultimate example of someone who would rather be right than be President. For God's sake, she needs to learn some humility, admit she screwed up and apologize, and then get on with the business of defeating Trump.
RB (California)
While Hillary needs to continue to acknowledge that she made some mistakes with her email setup, it's important to stand up to what amounts to republican bullying. It's a witch hunt, clear and simple. The overly secretive culture of the "intelligence" community is partly responsible. Revelations about the drone program were already in the public domain. In addition, the State Department has a less stringent approach to "classified" information. Really the debate should be about this hyperactive need for secrecy. We as Americans have a right to know. Stop keeping information from us! I also agree with other commenters, that anyone voting for Donald Trump is very foolish. He is a demagogic bully with no understanding of or respect for our Constitution.
Anetliner Netline (Washington, DC area)
I will support Clinton over Trump, albeit with little enthusiasm.

My own view (formed from conversations with a friend with access to DNC thinking) is that Democratic elites worked hard in 2013-2014 to hand Clinton the Democratic nomination, squelching meaningful competition but for the maverick campaign of Bernie Sanders.

The problem is that the public has never shared the party's enthusiasm for Clinton. A significant minority of voters would never vote for Clinton, while a plurality dislike or distrust her. The FBI's email findings increased that plurality.

Thus, we have a widely disliked candidate (Clinton) up against an unthinkable one (Trump.) Both parties should push the reset button.
Robert Levine (Malvern, PA)
If Beau Biden hadn't died when he did, or if the stunned, grief stricken Joe Biden could have recovered sooner, we wouldn't be facing this dangerous situation. If Hillary Clinton had a shred of common sense and a little more concern for the safety of the country, rather than her own political future, she would release her delegates and ask them to support Biden. He would roll over Sanders in a contested convention and the threat would pass.
Anetliner Netline (Washington, DC area)
Agreed. I would love to see Biden elected to the presidency. Further, I strongly suspect (but can't prove) that Biden was urged by the Democratic hierarchy not to challenge Clinton. I base that suspicion on having heard through an insider that "the Party wants Clinton" throughout 2014. If this is correct, bad call by the Democratic elites.
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
To put it kindly, that's a highly contingent scenario.
rjh (NY)
If Biden ran we would still have Hillary v. Trump. In the few polls of Hillary v. Biden she solidly trounced him among Democrats, with the same polls showing he did 10points in General Election matchups.
zb (bc)
I don't care if Hillary was found guilty of robbing the Bank of England the idea there is even one person even considering voting for Donald Trump is an epic embarrassment to the Nation and its people.
Independent (Maine)
She wouldn't rob the Bank of England, but would instead try to get a large donation to the Clinton "Foundation".
Christopher Mcclintick (Baltimore)
Polls are notoriously unreliable at this stage, but we will know come election time just how ill the body politic really is. No one in his or her right mind could vote for a cretinous rube like Trump, and the fact that he is as close to the presidency as he is is simply astounding. Even the notorious RBG, horrified at this prospect, felt compelled to lend her voice to stopping the madness. If Trump is, in fact, elected a lot of folks are going to wish others had done something as well.
Brenda Wallace (MA)
All polls are inherently flawed. Companies that do polls want to keep their customers (on both side of the isle) happy.
So, they make sure the questions and the answers you are required to pick from (no original thoughts allowed!) are skewed one way or the other depending on employer. They get more skewed as time goes on. The point of them is to make these companies money. Not the integrity of the companies, candidates, media, or us the citizens. It's all a big scam to make money for these companies. This is the big time for them to make easy money. Once every 4 years they can pile it in. So, it could say Trump has 120000% of all votes. Then maybe someone would look at whoever actually did the poll (maybe not too). Same with a poll that says Ms Clinton is really a man, and everyone picks 'yes I believe that'. Paid for polls are stupidly dishonest.
Kris (Indianapolis, IN)
No, this is not "Hillary's fault" as some here state. Let's place the blame where it really lies -- that some people are so sexist that they would rather vote for someone with no political experience, who is backed by Kim Jong-un and David Duke, has mafia connections, as long as that candidate is male. Wow.
Hillary's a liar who abused the public trust. Trump's got my vote unless Bernie somehow swoops back in to the race.
ak (brooklyn)
ask Bernie if he thinks this makes any sense
Nancy (Vancouver)
LR - I find your willingness to vote for DT quixotic in the extreme after having supported Senator Sanders. DT is the exact opposite of the principled and ethical Senator. Didn't you hear *anything* Mr. Sanders said? Do you really want DT to be able to appoint members to SCOTUS?

Maybe you need to listen to this again. Please reconsider -

rudolf (new york)
Very dangerous that Hillary is slipping and Trump is expanding. Obviously Ms. Clinton is missing something in her strength and creativity to make it. She constantly reminds me of these 12 year old kids that win a spelling test.
Joseph (albany)
I cannot weight for the day when Vladimir Putin has a press conference and divulges Hillary's yoga schedule (and more important items).
CWP (Portland, OR)
Quick, liberals, panic! She spend $100 million. He spends nothing. They're tied! Just wait until this fall, when the NRA reminds millions of hunters in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania that the Democratic Party wants to repeal the second amendment.
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
With pithy quotes and a close-up of Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the NRA's mailings. Case closed.
Jerry Engelbach (Mexico)
It's pretty alarming that 52% of voters for Trump vs 41% for Clinton think that Trump will be better at putting people back to work.

There's nothing credible in his platform about how he would do that. Getting that 52% to change their minds is of paramount importance to the Clinton campaign. Jobs are the number one hot topic for working people who are struggling to make ends meet.
JJ (Chicago)
Glen (Texas)
Yes, Hillary played by Dirty Harry rules. And, yes, we love Clint Eastwood's character because the bad guys always got their just deserts (or was it "desserts," I never was quite sure) before the screen credits rolled.

Hillary got the job done, too. Just not with the same applause at the end as the credits rolled. Her email fiasco was merely a serendipitous Republican windfall with no connection the the events that triggered the $7 Million inquiry cum inquisition. Taxpayer money the Republicans feel is well spent if she comes in second.

Hillary, like Harry Callahan, is incapable of apologizing, sincerely, for errors committed. She will never release her speech transcripts. She will either ignore or dance around any requests or questions regarding either subject.

Yes she will be the far superior President, if she is elected. No, she will not accomplish a fraction, if any, of her agenda as long as the Republicans retain a single-vote majority in either house.

Trump, on the other hand, if he prevails, will be swept into office as was Stonewall Jackson...mud on the boots and all. And before the New Year dawns on 2018, he will already be a lame duck. Can you say President Pence?
L’Osservatore (Fair Verona where we lay our scene)
I still say that Hillary will never allow a press conference where any one with a loud-enough voice will get to ask her why the arrangements of Foundation gifts were so tied in with the donors' business with the U.S. and Bill's speaking engagements.
The most secretive woman in political history can never explain her working this racket. I just hope it doesn't put Chelsea in prison.
Independent (Maine)
Actually if Chelsea is an officer of the "Foundation" and the organization goes down in a RICO trial, she stands a chance of going to jail. That would be fine with me, she's had all the benefits of the Clinton corruption all her life. She needs to learn how the others live. Her husband can care for the kids, if he doesn't end up going too. The Clinton's are lousy parents. Who would send their kid out to blatantly LIE about the most ethical candidate's health care plan. If she had any integrity she would have told Mom to stuff it, when told to smear Bernie.
BKC (Southern CA)
This too shall pass. Of course - she is, after all Hillary Clinton who is made of Teflon as is her husband. Had this been anyone else she would be indicted but not Hillary. Will she be a good president? Probably not after all she is so seriously careless. It makes me sick that our justice system is so corrupt. Probably more corrupt than most nations. I cannot remember when the last time a high level political star or general or banker was prosecuted and jailed. It just does not happen anymore. At the same time our prisons are overcrowded with people serving time for much less. And half of them black. Half of the prison population is black while they make up 10 to 12% in the general population. I will never take H. Clinton seriously. She is so flawed she sometimes make extremely flawed Donald seen normal. Obviously most Americans do not know how dangerous she is and will be if President. She will continue to grow poverty She won't be happy until she has bombed the entire middle east and she and Bil are in the top .1%. Neoliberalism, money and War are her favorite things. Stop believing the Democrats are for the People. They have done a 180 degree turn around and now are only for rich Democrats and Harvard graduates.
Hillary and Donald both come with excess baggage. Anyone stuck on the idea of a boy or girl scout candidate should look to the Greens or the Libertarians who are - theoretically anyway - pure as the driven snow and about as likely to achieve elective office as I am. I am worried by Mrs. Clinton's self-destructive instincts and her hawkish-bent, but scared to death of Trump's vain, smug ignorance (...where does one cut off the growing list of his shortcomings?). That leaves me likely to vote for Hillary and quite worried about a country where a specimen like Donald Trump can become the presumptive nominee of a major (or what was once a major) political party. By the way, to Senator Sanders' disappointed followers who cannot yet see any way they could ever vote for HRC, allow me to repeat something I think you already know; a vote for the Greens or the Libertarians may make you feel good - and certainly some of what their candidates advocate makes sense - but the actual result is less likely to be the furtherance of a "political revolution" and more likely to be a vote that will warm the heart of Donald Trump and encourage the kind of ugliness he panders to, if not, in fact, landing this vile creature in the White House. I respectfully submit there's an important difference between the two candidates with a realistic chance to win in November. You don't have to love Hillary. You don't have like Hillary. You may not trust Hillary. But, she can do the job. Trump can't.
lrichins (nj)
The fact that this is a horse race at this point is a testament to how bad a candidate Hillary is, she singlehandedly sunk herself. The GOP has a nominee who is a clown, a racist, a bully, a flim flam man who says anything he wants, whenever he wants, and whom most people in this country find to be a dangerous loon. The GOP as a party has just presented a platform that if it was presented by the Mullahs in Iran would be denounced, the GOP is so far to the right of many people in this country that Trump should be losing by 30 points or more......

It is a pretty sad state of affairs when an idiot demagogue is in the race because the candidate who should be breezing through self destructs time and again. I only wish Joe Biden had decided to run, he would have made mincemeat out of Trump. As much as I love Bernie Sanders (besides keeping Larry Rich employed), he would likely have lost once the GOP started trumpeting the "return to the USSR" propaganda.
Commenter (Honesty First)
Bernie would have won, but given the "rules" in place, excludes independents until the general, when the DNC NEEDS them. So, since the power elite want the TPPA, it has to be an establishment candidate. That's the sad part. And this is the reason we've ended up the way we did. In one side, a reality show host, on the other, a compulsive liar, and a felon, yes, I know they didn't charge her, which is worse, because she definitely broke the law. The only good thing is that, for those paying attention, they've found out just how corrupt the democrats are, so they certainly can't be the kettle calling the pot black. Obama knows Hillary broke the law, and interfered with the investigation by putting in his two cents, and don't get me started on Bill and Loretta. What a shame!
Michael S (Wappingers Falls, NY)
The DNC just didn't get that the public is so done with Clinton shenanigans.- It's so 1990s and the "achievements" of the Clinton administration have not aged all that well. Bill Clinton as the avuncular party elder was never going to fly because, well because it's Bill Clinton. The Clintons haven't changed one bit since they were king and queen of their cracker kleptocracy in Arkansas.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
How rich were the Clintons when they abdicated their thrones in the Cracker Kleptocracy, Michael S.? Have you examined their tax returns?
Michael S (Wappingers Falls, NY)
At the time I dealt with "friends of Bill" in Arkansas who had valuable state contracts and thought they could do whatever they wanted. That combined with all the buzz about the state of Arkansas under the Clintons has convinced me. BTW there are many ways to accumulate wealth that doesn't show up on tax returns and many ways to turn profits into losses so tax returns are no guarantee of virtue.
Reader in Paris (Paris FR)
I just cannot get excited about email practices.
I suspect that this is a subject where the people casting stones are living in glass houses, but like Hillary are too technologically illiterate to realize it.
Give them the same scrutiny, and you will get similar results.
L’Osservatore (Fair Verona where we lay our scene)
You've obviously never had a friend or family member working undercover in a foreign country where discovery would mean certain torture & death. Hillary had the movements of now-dead Ambassador Stevens and the names of people working for us in her wide-open, unsecured and un-watched servers.
But WHY is the question. She was doing clearly illegal things simply to accrue a fortune so that she could live like the celebrities the Party is so clearly indebted to and whom she had rubbed shoulders with for years.

Just understand that your President will enter office refusing to think that any stupid law passed by Congress would EVER apply to her.
Marcus Aurelius (Terra Incognita)
Sorry to intrude. That should be "security clearance." iPads can be unforgiving...
Pragmatist (Austin, TX)
What a double standard if it was true - Clinton is not trusted because of her email scandal, so someone would choose Trump instead? Seriously?!? How could it be rationale for a person to think Clinton was wrong on one issue when I have every expectation that Trump could not keep any secret?

What it really means is that people are looking for cover to justify their bigotry! Time to call a space a spade.
Marcus Aurelius (Terra Incognita)

Your "expectations" meaning nothing. Try focusing on facts. You don't know as much as the OIIG or the FBI. All you care about is partisanship, party loyalty, and name calling. People like you are what is driving sensible voters toward Trump. They're sick of being called bigots. And another thing, learn the difference between rational and rationale...
Working Stiff (New York, N.y.)
Mrs. Clinton has earned the nation's distrust. She has forged the chains around her leg, link by link.
Tim McFadden (Florence AZ)
All the polls showed that Bernie Sanders had a more commanding lead over Trump than Hilary did. But, as the Republicans hate Obama more than they love America, the Democratic machine loves Hilary more than it loves America. So it worked the system in her favor. And now it's time for it to pay the piper.
Mitchell (Oakland, CA)
What a disappointment (and potential disaster) that all the Democrats have to put up against the likes of Trump is damaged goods.
L’Osservatore (Fair Verona where we lay our scene)
The best reason for people to support a candidate is the other candidate.
Ivy (Chicago)
If one doesn't like Trump, fine. But don't go shoving "Saint Hillary" down our throats because the "widdle girl just didn't realize having a private server and deleting over 30,000 emails was a boo-boo". The Clinton's are slimy. How ironic they hate each other but really do deserve each other.
John Schisel (Coupeville, WA)
I will probably vote for Gary Johnson but all this ta-doo about Hillary's e-mails seems just one more smear on the part of the GOP. I imagine her basement server was probably as secure as the official one. Ever hear of a government that didn't leak?.......After what she's been through I'm sure she was more concerned about FOX news than the Russians or Chinese.
Commenter (Honesty First)
Whether or not her server was more secure is irrelevant. It's s felony to remove state property from the state department. The Republican party had nothing to do with Hillary's decision to do what she did. It was done to dodge FOIA requests. And this is who you want for your President? Might as well pick a drug dealer off the street, who's been in jail before. Would be less of a felon in some ways. Remember, highly top secret information, can get people killed. Hillary was so arrogant, she could care less.
Thomas D. Dial (Salt Lake City, UT)
No, the clintonemail.com server was not as secure as those at the Department of State; it was not as secure as the average consumer laptop or PC. Specific insecurities are described here:


If, as you suggest, Ms. Clinton was more concerned with Fox News than the Russian or Chinese intelligence services, it would be decisive evidence that she was unfit for the office of Secretary of State and is unfit for any office of public trust, especially including the presidency.
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
Every state that made marijuana and hash recreational cost Gary Johnson millions of votes. He's way past his sell-by date, and his New Mexico is a perennial basket case.
SF_Reader (San Francisco, CA)
Seriously, if anyone thinks Trump's recent attempt to be more 'refined' when he get's behind a microphone is a sign of a better candidate who can serve the country, then you're not serious about the truth. Clinton should answer to the recent polls and attacks against her integrity. If she ignores it then it fuels the perceptions of dishonesty. But if honesty and integrity are important attributes in a leader - which they should be - then don’t forget that many of the past and present candidates have not lived up to that. We should not dismiss it, and say that its better to focus on the candidate who can get the job done, but people should be realistic about it. My perception of Trump is that just about everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie. And what’s more frightening is I have not heard one word about how he intends to address all of the important issues we are now facing in our country.
Commenter (Honesty First)
Neither of them has a clue about what it means to have integrity.
garrett andrews (new england)
It totally makes sense that they are tied.

On one hand and after millions and millions of dollars of your money searching fruitlessly for more, we have Hillary, who sent and/or received several classifieds on her un-secure email server.

On the other hand we have a completely mentally unbalanced sleazeball of a business person with no political experience whatsoever; who until Cohn died used the same infamous Roy Cohn attorney as Trump's historical predecessor, the even more infamous Senator Joseph McCarthy; and who is now heavily influenced (this cold-blooded alligator told Trump in '11 to become a 'birther') by the advertising-in-back-pages sexual swinger and in-tight pal of Trump advisor Paul Mannafort, an evil toad named Roger J. Stone.

It totally makes sense they are tied.
R.W. Clever (Concrete, WA)
Polls show that most of the general public and, most importantly, independents, have been swayed by the daily hammering by Republicans on "Hillary the Liar." It is discouraging to see how many people swallow that narrative without any attempt at seeking their own facts. Republicans have every reason to be pleased with themselves. The 24/7 smearing of Hillary seems to be working. In the world of lying, Trump makes Hillary look like Mother Teresa.
Commenter (Honesty First)
They are asking the facts, and the facts show things are much worse than the press, and others have reported. Just look at the circus, starring Bill, Hillary, Loretta, and Jim. Shameful! This woman committed a felony and was let off the hook. I'm so pleased that Comey did what he did. Too bad the dems are too corrupt to send her where she belongs, jail .
Hank (NY)
She's pulling even, but at the same time taking a majority of all swing states in what would be a crushing electoral college victory. The headline seems ill-fitted for the content...
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
Donald's gonna clobber her in Pennsylvania, esp. among its coal-mining regions. Of 94,000,000 jobless Americans many are there, extending west to the Rust Belt and southwest to coal country. Clinging to their guns and religion, and ballots! The sons and daughters of yesteryear's Reagan Democrats.
Tanya Insanally (Washington, DC)
How many people in this poll? Around 1,400? Give me a break. Why they continue to get us worked up over national polls which do not even come close to telling the real story.
Andy (Salt Lake City, UT)
Only Democrats could nominate the one candidate in the US that stands, at best, a 50-50 chance against Trump. I'm mean: good grief! You could run John Kerry again and he'd win in a landslide. There are foreign dictators more favored than Clinton. Trump has, albeit ungracefully, made that very argument already. In fact, the only thing that can defeat Trump right now is Trump. What gives?
Steve Bolger (New York City)
One swift-boating by you hypocrites is enough for anyone.
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
Kerry, like Gore, was a favorite son ensconced in a position way far from the front lines in Vietnam. Only for 120 days was he in combat, on a river boat. Big deal.
Andrew Patton (Louisville, CO)
The Dems have allowed the DNC to select a weak candidate and will suffer the consequences. Had they only gone with Bernie Sanders, there wouldn't be any question of who would be on top.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
Trump and Sanders could split the nihilist vote right down the middle.
Scott (Charlottesville)
We are not a banana republic. Yet. But we do have a problem with banana republicans.
Jarvis (Greenwich, CT)
Meaning what, exactly?
Commenter (Honesty First)
The banana republicans are the democrats. They've been republicans since Bill's first term. Dolls the money behind the Democratic convention, and surprise! It's Republican money, so what does that tell you? That if Hillary gets in, being on more fracking, TPPA, and who knows how many more secrets, and deals for pay to play for donations to the Clinton foundation.
MyThreeCents (San Francisco)
I'd set the multiple far lower, but...

"Hillary is a thousand times more likely to get us into wars to please her pro-Israel donors than Trump."

I'd set the multiple at about 1.4. But that's still a lot more than 1.0. If Hillary were President instead of Obama, I think we'd have had troops in Libya (who might still be there, or soon on their way back), Syria (wondering who, exactly, they should be fighting against), and possibly the Ukraine. The wind-down in Afghanistan probably would have gone more slowly. Iraq? Probably about the same.

On balance, that's a lot more US military presence in the Middle East than we have now -- whether one sets the multiple at "a thousand times" or only 1.4.

I don't "distrust" Hillary. I just think her competence is vastly overstated, and this email issue has made me believe that even more strongly. She always favors whatever the latest poll tells her is most popular, and too often the latest poll tells her we ought to intervene in some foreign war, usually in the Middle East. I'm not for that -- she is; simple as that.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
What public policy and/or attitude do you advocate to deter war?
Erik Kreps (Palm Springs, California)
Stay the corse with Obama's reluctance. At least we will not slide any further into quagmires like Syria presents every potential of becoming.
ISIsS is probably an artifact produced by George W. bush and our 'ally' Saudi Arabia, so let's stop blaming Obama for that one, until we understand their origins better.
L’Osservatore (Fair Verona where we lay our scene)
Question: What public policy and/or attitude do you advocate to deter war?
Answer: Just start out by surrendering to every enemy. Hasn't it worked for Mr. Obama? He surrendered to Putin over air defenses in Eastern Europe, he surrendered over Iran's missiles, and he's made sure we let ISIS fans into the U.S. with barely a look at their history.
And Russia, China, Iran, and ISIS love us, right?
ava (vermont)
If you think Hillary Clinton is "crooked," you have been duped by the right-wing media. Investigation after investigation, costs YOU (the taxpayer) millions of dollars, fail to find any criminal activity.

Meanwhile, our last Repub president lied to the country about WMD, bringing us neverending war in the Middle East, causing the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives, the rise of ISIS, the current refugee crisis, etc, etc. And the current Repub nominee is a crook of the highest order, with his fake university, constant lies, screwing of his workers/contractors, appeals to white supremacists, etc etc.

Unless you happen to be a racist, misogynist, anti-semitic, nihilistic old white male billionaire, you would have to be certifiably insane to vote Republican this November.
Jarvis (Greenwich, CT)
I'll be voting Republican, and, rest assured, I'm none of those things.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
Bush didn't just lie, he interrupted a peaceful negotiated process to resolve the WMD issue.
Jerry Engelbach (Mexico)
Yet you are voting for people who are, whose party has a platform that is all of those things.
casual observer (Los angeles)
Did Hillary know that she was being reckless and did it anyway because she feels entitled to do whatever that she wants? Why do so many Americans seem to think that is the case when it comes to Hillary Clinton? Has she fulfilled her responsibilities as Secretary of State and as a Senator faithfully and as well as she was able or did she do as she liked or not without regard to her responsibilities? Do most people who distrust her even know or even care?
N. Smith (New York City)
Why bother asking?? -- You've already answered your own questions.
But somehow it seems to have escaped you that Clinton clocked in 3+million votes over the other candidate.....So obviously, some Americans "care".
Urizen (California)
"Mrs. Clinton has largely based her campaign on lifting the economic fortunes of a middle class that has felt squeezed after nearly 15 years of stagnant wages..."

Middle class wages have been flat for several decades, but the Times wants to divert scrutiny away from Bill Clinton's reign - some of that dirt would no doubt rub off onto Hillary.

But, who better to boost "the economic fortunes of a middle class" than an "extremely careless" former Walmart Board member who supported NAFTA and the TPP and is pretty much an employee of Goldman Sachs?
muslit (michigan)
Amazing. The animal is neck and neck with Clinton. Sure, polls don't mean that much. But still. In the end, this says more about the Democratic candidate than anything else. Clinton was not the best choice. The truth is, being less worse than the other should NOT be an option.
Mike (Texas)
Just recent history tells you how terrible Republicans are at domestic governing, foreign affairs or creating wealth for anyone but PAC donors.

They're like Lucy with the football and a killer PR department.
Hugh (Los Angeles)
Both candidates have repeatedly demonstrated dishonesty and lack of judgment on important issues. I will vote, but not for either of these morally bereft people.
N. Smith (New York City)
It's really nice that you think another candidate, who most Americans have probably never heard of, might actually win the election....
Too bad it will only end up as a vote for Donald Trump.
Don Shipp, (Homestead Florida)
One thing that worries me about poll numbers is that both cable networks and polling companies benefit from a close election. How do we know the numbers aren't doctored?. When I see the anti Trump demographic poll numbers involving women, Latinos, Asians and blacks and then hear the race is a toss up, I really question the veracity of the polls. Is there an inherent conflict of interest and will the cable networks cherry pick the polls to boost their own ratings?
APS (Olympia WA)
All this and I'm really not looking forward to Hillary pivoting even farther to the right for the general election.
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
She's the great proponent of the No-Fly Zone over Syria. Oh, how Putin looked forward to that! General Hillary, fulfilling her post-Wellesley dream of wanting to become a United States Marine, as she wistfully recalled one day. Watch her overcompensate with needless belligerence to make up for her husband's timidity in the war on terror.
Desi (Atlanta)
At a certain point we have to just begin calling out the american people for actively deciding to choose a man who is rabbit xenophobic and bigoted. We as a country are choosing to support a man who is supported by white supremacists. Nothing Hillary has every done even comes close to just this alone, not to mention all the other ridiculous qualities of Trump and his disaster of a campaign. i am sort of disgusted there are so many people in this country who would either vote for trump or not actively involve themselves with stopping him. is it because Hillary is a woman? I just don't get it. She is seen fairly well among people of color and older people. it's just whites and younger people who seem to have real issues with her 'honesty". i don't mean to bring up race but I just don't get it. She's adored in the black community, young and old. But she is not fairing as well with young whites and some young Hispanics. Just sad to see. She is an awesome choice but is being attacked at every angle like Obama used to be.
Patrick Moynihan (RI)
Rep. Trey Gowdy correctly argued, during the Dir. Comey's testimony, that Secretary Clinton used false exculpatory statements to cover her improper use of a personal email account and private server(s). He rightly argued that this would suffice to prove "intent".

Secretary Clinton clearly intended to evade scrutiny of her work activity by shielding her emails (work and personal) and destroying records of her meetings.

It is only reasonable to assume that she either participated in or facilitated unethical transactions (pay to play) while Secretary of State. The onus rest with her to prove that she did not benefit improperly from her position. However, the evidence has likely been destroyed as it is most likely in her personal emails.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
If you always assume the worst, whatever reason could you possibly have to vote for Trump?
SMB (Savannah)
Trey Gowdy had to conclude his $7 million taxpayer funded "investigation" without finding anything wrong with what Sec. Clinton had done. And that was something like the 8th investigation that found the same thing. Comey found no crime had been committed.

Trey Gowdy released the name of a CIA source, and had people on his committee who mishandled classified information.

Witch hunts are not reasonable. And they often depend on spectral evidence.
Jefflz (San Franciso)
The naivete of the comments supporting a third party run or hopelessly praying for a Bernie nomination is appalling. We live in a right-of-center nation. Thirteen million idiots voted for an ignorant racist fool, Donald Trump A revolution takes years to implement (Civil Rights, for example) given our form of highly flawed government where true democracy is but a dream. The pseudo-moralistic rejection of a pragmatic strategy that will lead to a critical Democratic win in November even for a right-of-center candidate like Hillary brings back memories of '68 and the implosion of the Democratic Party. That gave us Nixon, and not long after the desolation of Ronald Reagan and Bush I.

Bernie is over and done. That is the reality. Stein is not even on the ballot nationwide and will get 3% of the vote max.

Be a purist and help Trump get elected. Those who deny history are condemned to repeat it.
Jerry Engelbach (Mexico)
The 2008 election resulted in the election of a candidate with a progressive platform, nowhere near "right of center."

Obama proved to be right of center on a number of issues, but that is no reflection on the voters who elected him, hoping otherwise.
Paul (Bellerose Terrace)
1358 respondents? Couldn't you have gotten a smaller sample size?

Cognitive dissonance alert: you are rapidly appproaching 50% MORE comments on this thread than people polled.
Sue Salvesen (NJ)
The two worst candidates in the history of this country. Vote third party and get rid of the two party cabal system that only benefits the donor class.
geoff (Germany)
If Bernie Sanders were the presumptive Democratic nominee he would have a twenty percent lead over Donald Trump at this stage, not be tied. Perhaps it's time for both parties to ditch their current candidates in favor of ones who will not make the election seem like an episode out of The Book of Revelation.
N. Smith (New York City)
Nein. Stimmt nicht. Sanders missed out on a significant part of the "Minority" and Black vote in most states with large urban populations.
Another thing. He would have a prayer against Trump in the end.
CathyZ (Durham CT)
Wake up people! Reading Jane Mayer's book Dark Money. It basically outlines how the Koch brothers are evil incarnate (my words). Hillary was right in the early 1990's to call it a "vast right wing conspiracy ". No one took her seriously then, so IMO she and Bill played by those "rules" too, to amass their personal fortune, albeit in millions not the billions the Koch brothers have. Now we see the Repubs calling Hillary corrupt, but she was playing the game they invented and perfected. They are all guilty. The only one who was not was Bernie, and the Clintons used their power and influence to scare most of the Dems. from endorsing Bernie. (Look what happened to Lucy Flores in NV.)
Now we have a candidate in Hillary who can't poll above possibly the worst candidate-- Trump --America has ever seen. I hope the 20-somethings look up from their snap chats long enough to learn more about all of this. We cannot let the Koch brothers have any more influence in Washington. We cannot elect a Republican period end of story.
Andrew (New Jersey)
Umm, those 20 somethings you disparage were the ones voting for Bernie in droves, so don't blame us...
Ken (New York, NY)
The fact is, I totally understand what motivated Ms. Clinton to set up her own e-mail server, and fully support her in that act. The fact is, and certainly neither the FBI nor anyone else in the US government is going to say so, that the systems in place to protect electronic assets are pitiful at best. By maintaining her own server, she was at least able to control it. And it's not as if nobody knew about it; after all, everyone was sending messages to her own e-mail address. Actually, I find that she did that worthy of praise, rather than condemnation.
Tman (California)
Hillary did that to work the system without consequence... She was obligated to preserve her correspondence and didn't ... She knows how to play the game and survive ... They are experts at that.... Once she is elected she will do whatever she wants to do regardless of what she told anybody or any social class... More do nothing government and then she will be a billionaire with her system above reproach... Do you really think she cares about anyone but herself and her legacy ....give me a break... Anybody but Clinton
Ken (New York, NY)
Oh please spare me. The double standard is become tiresome. The entire Iraq was was conducted based on a lie without consequences. Ms. Clinton took the risk and it may or may not have paid off; we will never know. My point is that what she did was not recommended, but not illegal either (and many have done the same). But clearly your comments are venting about a system that you do not like, and in particular Mr. Clinton.
Incontinental (Earth)
It's driving me nuts. The openly slanted right-wing media of Fox/Murdoch and Limbaugh bash Democratic candidates unfairly every day to sucker voters into pretend scandals so that the plutocrats can remain in power. The "legitimate" press bashes Democratic candidates every day with false equivalencies to prove that they are above the motivations of the right wing press. Is this how Hitler got in?
Jessica (New York)
I am stunned at how many Clinton supporters have simply bought and repeat her lies. No Coline Powell nor Condi Rice used a private SERVER , let alone one set up in their house specifically to avoid going through a government system. They used private emal accounts which is completely different. The FBI and the Inspecter General of the State Dept both found unequivically that Clinton did this against the rules and without permission and yet she still insists they are wrong. I am a very progressive, left voter and while I am actually more concerned about Clinton's massive ties to Wall Street and support of reckless military intervention the emails simple reinforce that she is in fact a liar. I understand Trump is also a liar but that is not enough reason to support such a horrible candidate as HRC. For some of us the Truth does matter.
SMB (Savannah)
The Bush White House officials (about 22 of them) used the private and non-secure RNC server. Congresspeople are permitted to use private servers and private emails. 22 million emails were deleted by the Bush administration.

Please put things in perspective. This is a totally false narrative which also ignores every other individual (all with high security clearance) involved in the email chains, and the fact that Clinton's email was never hacked, unlike the government's.

The FBI found unequivocally that no crime had been committed. People had plenty of time to ask Clinton to not use her private server, and to provide her with an alternative secure Blackberry and system.

For some of us, the Truth does matter, and biased Swiftboating that ignores all other individuals and the context is not the Truth.
Objective Opinion (NYC)
Hillary has withstood the Whitewater scandal which plagued her law firm....the suicide of Vince Foster, believed to be caused by his reluctance to tell the truth about the Clintons, her abuse of the White House staff during her husband's terms in office, Benghazi, deleted and inappropriate use of emails, etc. Trump may be unfit to be President, but Ms. Clinton isn't deserving either.
RT (New Jersey)
More than ever, voters need to option to vote for "None of the Above."
Looks like the voters may want to become a third world country - a banana republic.
Quandry (LI,NY)
Hillary, time for you to be expressly contrite, and continually follow through with that promise.

You need to state now that you, Bill and Chelsea will put ALL of your foundation and business interests in blind trusts, profit and non-profit, if elected, and compare that to what Trump has contrarily stated about operating his businesses, and producing his income taxes (audit is no excuse, but a coverup). You need to reign in Bill. You, and not Bill will be the candidate. You are no longer in Arkansas, and this is not 24 years ago with "Slick Willy" bumper stickers on cars around the US. The world has changed, and is transparent to the second.

You can't promise one thing and do another, i.e. your delegates on the Platform Committee did not expressly oppose the TPP vote in the lame duck Congress, despite your campaign rhetoric. Again, you will be the candidate and not Obama, who is primarily advocating his own legacy, which may not be best for our futures. You are continuing to lose important support, due to your credibility.

Reign in your campaign staff. We, the people are not stupid.

Most important don't forget from where you came. If you don't, you will be back there November 9th.

And a tv show host, who is running a 24/7 mega-media show will be the next President with "let's make another deal" after the contract is signed. Our grandchildren cannot afford to have a carnival with one hand on that red phone.
Pecan (Grove)
"Reign in your campaign staff. We, the people are not stupid."

Rein, not reign.
Kingfish52 (Collbran, CO)
And for all those who are using the rationale that "Trump is worse", don't be so sure that he'll actually get the nomination. What if the Republicans pick someone else, like Romney, who would now be considered a moderate? If that happens, Hillary is toast.
Patriot (USA)
Comey indicted her even if Loretta Lynch and Obama will not. The American people will decide her fate. There is still much she can be charged with under an honest administration and the email case can always be reopened.
Hue (Federal Way, WA)
This is a lie. Who is letting these lies be posted? Comey did not indict Hillary. In the end, Comey allowed at the hearing that there was just ONE email chain that hadn't been resolved. Since then, every single email on Hillary's email server has been cleared. The New York Times needs to do some clear reporting on the FACTS.
lzolatrov (Mass)
Great. Thanks NYTimes and the maniacal Hillary supporters and most of the Democratic party and establishment for giving us such a terrible candidate, especially when we had a much better candidate in Bernie Sanders.

What is most troubling is the poll that shows Trump leading HRC 52% to 41% on JOBS AND THE ECONOMY!! That's what people care about, at the end of the day, that's all they care about. And she's losing on that issue. Unbelievable.
Honeybee (Dallas)
"Maniacal" is right.

As with OJ, there are legions of people who would support Hillary no matter what she did.

It's just bizarre.
Frank (Santa Monica, CA)
It's not just the emails.

The swing states where Hillary has fallen behind -- particularly OH and PA -- are among the manufacturing states that were devastated by NAFTA. Perhaps voters in these states were paying attention when Hillary's surrogates on the DNC platform committee overrode Sanders' delegates to make support for the TPP official Democratic Party policy.
SMB (Savannah)
Too many gullible people in this country who believe the Fox/Limbaugh propaganda. 3 emails out of 30,000 actually marked classified with small notations buried in the text. That doesn't compare with previous administrations, with Bush White House officials using the RNC's private and non-secure server.

It's hard to tell how much is ignorance, misogyny, genuine confusion, or Koch/Trump trolls. It's pretty idiotic and ignorant, and hopefully this Swiftboating will run its course before someone who is totally not fit for the presidency buys it in part using his bigotry, racism and fascism.
Jerry Engelbach (Mexico)
The bar is not whether government documents are marked classified.

It's whether those who handle the material take care that it is all kept internal until it is officially released to the public.

Many of those documents may later have been re-marked as classified.

I don't care about that per se: I'm in favor of total transparency. But that doesn't let Clinton off the hook.
SMB (Savannah)
And who is pure here? Congresspeople in the course of their investigation of Clinton released classified information like Trey Gowdy's committee releasing the name of a CIA source. Congresspeople can use private servers and private emails, and they have not been held accountable for any of their misuse and mishandling of classified information (which includes Darrell Issa). The Bush White House deleted 22 milliion emails and used the RNC's private server in the middle of two wars.

Amazing how people want to place the entire burden on Clinton whose emails were not hacked.
Dan Cummins (NYC)
Where is practical leadership from Obama at this critical time? He controls the only means to oppose the unyielding Clintons and provide a path for a sensible (i.e. not Sanders) and morally upright candidate to emerge. It's on Big O... he must not allow the country to fall to a mob.
N (Washington, D.C.)
Where is Obama at this critical time? He's out lobbying for passage of the TPP to ensure his legacy with the one percent, or haven't you been reading the NYT?
Scott (Los Angeles)
I, too, as a lifelong member of the Democratic Party, serving as a volunteer and deputy registrar of voters numerous times cannot and will not support or vote for Hillary Clinton. She is a unrepentant liar about her email set up and was deemed extremely careless about our national intelligence while entrusted with the office of Secretary of State. I have profound fears that she has engaged in possible corrupt practices with the Clinton Foundation while in office. Her surrogates are so disingenuous that I change the channel when they appear on cable talk shows. Why have the Democrats put all their chips on her? For me this is about principle. If her foibles result in the election of Donald Trump, that's bad, but well, it's all on her and her bad choices. I'll vote for one of the third party candidates.
David Gregory (Deep Red South)
We who support Bernie have been telling the Clintonistas all along that Hillary is a weak candidate and there are way too many who would never vote for her. She comes across like Richard Nixon in a designer pantsuit, but without the warmth.

The only thing stopping America from a third choice is buying into the meme that a third party cannot win. Americans used to vote for Federalists, Whigs, Know-Nothings, Dixiecrats, American Independents, and others. Maybe, with any luck, we can consign the Republicans to the ash-heap of history.
Milliband (Medford Ma)
Its interesting that many of the Sanders supporters do not follow the wise path of Bernie in creating a united front - something he always said he would do if he didn't get the nomination-but use Nixonian adjectives against Hillary when the person who made up the whole untrustworthy meme in an1995 essay without a SHR:ED of evidence was the despicable, retrograde, Nixon toady, hatchet man, faux linguists and world class liar William Safire. That's where the untrustworthy or crooked meme has come from and has been floating around the ether since. Its disgraceful that instead of joining in a United Front against an existential threat like the German Social Democratic Party did in1931, there is still carping about the nomination process and the fantasy that a vote for Jill Stein will be for the overall good.
Kingfish52 (Collbran, CO)
If only we had the provision to vote "None of the above", and if that "candidate" won, it would mandate new selections to be offered! I think both are unfit for President. We need to replace the stranglehold of the two-party system with a more parliamentary-type system where minority parties can still have an influence due to the need to form multi-party coalitions.

I won't be voting for either.
Freedonia (Wiscasset, Maine)
This restores my faith in the American electorate. Its record for not being able to see the forest for the trees is unequaled. Obviously Hillary needs to adopt Trump's tactic and make every word out of her mouth a lie, instead of damaging her credibility with just a few.
Josh (Grand Rapids, MI)
Hillary's default setting is to lie. The truth is never, ever the her first answer. For 25 years..
Kodali (VA)
She lies so often that Republicans are having hard time to keep up with her. She still has the rating she has because of incompetence of Republicans.
NYer (NYC)
People say they'll vote for a race-baiting, proud know-nothing, documented liar-on-a-daily basis, multiple-bankrupt, job-destroying (Atlantic City casinos), student-duping crook (Trump "University")?

Has the nation gone utterly insane?
Kevin Goldman (Santa Rosa ca)
While almost everything you say about Trump is reasonably true ( and perhaps more ) unfortunately the democrats choose to run candidate who made millions from Wall Street speeches while saying she was reforming Wall Street, hundreds of millions of contributions from foreign donors for her family charity, was for the mass incarceration of black men in order "to bring them under heel" ( direct quote), who flip flopped on just about every decision she has made over her career ( NAFTA, same sex marriage, TPP ( gold standard, want for in primary now is part of platform ), involved with Laureate University ( her husband Bill made millions there, while the government increased its support ), selling uranium to the Russians for donations ( see NYT articles on subject ).

So while I am almost certainly voting Jill Stein this November, I can see how someone might actually say: Donald Trump is a lesser evil then Hillary Clinton.

It was insane to put up a candidate that was so incredibly damaged when just about any other Establishment Democrat or Bernie could have easily beaten anyone in the Republican field. Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Bush ( really GOP?!? that was your favorite-LOL ) or Trump.

Chickens might be coming home to roost...just saying...
MinnRick (Minneapolis, MN)
If there's any possible outcome to look forward to in this none-of-the-above election it is spectacle of the complete and utter meltdown which will befall those on the left (and their allies at the NYT and the rest of the mainstream press) if Trump actually finds a way to win this thing. Few aspects of modern political theater offer greater pleasure than watching (and reading) modern progressives wail in torment when the ideology to which they subscribe, and to which any alternatives are simply unthinkable, are rejected by the American electorate.

The popcorn is at the ready.
northlander (michigan)
when 25% of the population have no idea who we fought in the revolutionary war, we judge on the basis of email protocol? Pokémon president here we come!
Descarado (Las Vegas)
Why should any American accept the Republican and Democratic presidential offerings?

What have those two parties brought to the table in the last half century?

Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan? A Middle East in shambles? An education system that produces students who score 36th out of 72 nations in the PISA math tests? The most pathetic health care insurance system in the industrial world? And now Trump and Hillary?

Why should Americans accept being force fed questionable leaders after such a pathetic track record?

The Green Party's Jill Stein and the Libertarian Gary Johnson offer the missing maturity and integrity.
jane allen (danbury ct)
I don't really care about national polls...only the swing states...I guess this sort of "news" generates site traffic.

I do think instead of better candidates we need a new citizenship. How anyone could think Donald Trump is qualified to run a country with zero experience and his racist and misogynist views is frightening. It is also scary that the "email" scandal which was revealed to be not criminal at all could possibly the outweigh universal racism, misogynist statements, fraudulent business practices (Trump U), bankruptcies and general lack of control from Trump is also appalling. Is that really what is making you vote Trump? Hmm...Does anyone read history (holocaust, registering Jews ring a bell?). Sub in any religion or ethnic group for Muslims and Mexicans (let's try Catholics and Italians or Jews and Germans - both have been prejudiced). There would be a huge outcry...

I also recommend reading "Living History" which takes you through all of the many humanitarian deeds and long history of public service to which Hillary Clinton has devoted her life. She is a brilliant woman who could have made millions as a lawyer in the private sector but chose service and politics.

I know Trump supporters won't read it (do they read?). If he gets elected Mexico (and Canada too) will be paying us to build the wall to keep our crazy citizens contained!
Honeybee (Dallas)
Instead, she's made millions in the public sector, as a supposed "public servant."
Sue Salvesen (NJ)
Trump is disgusting, but I had to laugh out loud about your comment, "She is a brilliant woman who could have made millions as a lawyer in the private sector...". Um, she made many, many millions as a "public servant" by giving speeches for corporations and Wall Street. You may want to rethink that sentence in your post. Just Sayin' ;-)
"67 percent of voters say she is not honest and trustworthy."
67 percent of voters are correct.
Milliband (Medford Ma)
If anyone doesn't think that Donald Trump isn't a potential walking breathing security risk every time he opens his mouth, there's a "University" in Queens I would like to sell you.
RVP (St. Louis, MO)
We, the American people, are always commended for our wisdom. I find this laughable. In reality, we are really stupid! We claim that we don't trust Mrs. Clinton because she lied about her e-mails. I am not naive enough to stipulate that any politician would do anything but lie to my face if it meant that they would get my vote, my money, or both. So let's abandon this balderdash and ask a simple question: Who really understands the complexities of governance, the challenges we face as a nation and as a leader of the free world, and the importance of crafting solutions to thorny problems that are long-lasting and will benefit all of us, not just our best friends or those who look like us? And who has the experience to do what it takes to be a true leader? My unequivocal answer, given the choices in front of me, is Hillary Rodham Clinton. I don't need to like her, know her, or worry about where her e-mail server lives. I have studied the facts, pored over data, evaluated her positions and her record, before arriving at my decision. I tried to do the same with her opponent, but sadly when I looked for a track record, experience, vision, or leadership, I came up empty. Elections are about choices not about who will be my best friend. I choose HRC for president.
Virginia Reader (Great Falls, VA)
Excellent and accurate analysis! Thanks.
Thought Bubble (New Jersey)
HRC could barely beat an unknown senator from a tiny state, and who is a self-described socialist. And in fact, the only reason she "beat" Sanders is because of the superdelegates. The only thing that is surprising is that people are surprised that she is such a weak candidate. If she was running against someone who could actually run a coherent campaign, she'd be behind by scores.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
One cannot run a coherent campaign when one is catering to a grab-bag of single-issue voters.
Ken (New York, NY)
Sorry, but I don't know what you are talking about. HRC received many more votes than Sanders.
RobTAK (Anchorage, AK)
HRC only won those votes by indulging in the same practices used by Republicans to decrease voter turn out and none of the voters in caucus states count.
John Wilson (Ny)
It is stunning that in a year when the Republican candidate is arguably unfit to be president that the Dems are fielding a candidate who is CLEARLY unfit for the job. Her utter contempt for the rule of law and the sanctity of the public record makes her uniquely unsuited for the job. Who knows what historical facts have been lost forever from her tenure at State because of her carelessness and selfish actions.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
The "sanctity of the public record"? Who are you fooling besides yourself?
Applarch (Lenoir City TN)
Why isn't the Times pointing out that indicting Clinton would have required the FBI to also indict the 300 career civil service professionals at State who participated in the email discussions? The FBI shopped State emails to the intelligence agencies, who felt that 50 discussions should have been conducted on the secure messaging system State execs, including Clinton, used every day. The top career civil service echelon at State initiated the overwhelming majority of these discussions, with political appointee Clinton mostly being copied.

Comey knew he could never get away with taking out the entire executive ranks of a government agency, and it would have distracted from his laser focus on Clinton. He thus used lawyerly words to create the impression she was getting off, even while singling her out for harsh criticism that violated FBI and DOJ practices.

Maybe self-described Comey is a party hack. The level of destruction he has singlehandedly wrought on the Democratic nominee should have Republicans hailing him as a superhero. Guess he’ll have to settle for being of the unsung variety. Or maybe he's just being "extremely careless" with the accusations he draws from this body of facts.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
So you want to give no-access denied to all US secrets to Trump as president without even seeing his tax returns? Really?
SMB (Savannah)
The FBI is also not indicting Trey Gowdy who released to the public the name of a CIA source, or Darrell Issa who released to the public sensitive information about Libya that probably resulted in the loss of lives. Comey only admitted during the hearing that only 3 out of 30,000 emails were in fact marked classified, and they were marked with a small (c) in the text. He had to admit that Sec. Clinton might have overlooked the marking, and he had to admit that he was not aware the State Department said the information wasn't classified anyway.

This whole thing is a witch hunt that certainly never happened when Bush officials did far more careless handling of emails, including deleting 22 million emails and using the RNC's private server.
Virginia Reader (Great Falls, VA)
Exactly correct. Secretary Clinton should not have used a private server, but I strongly believe that most of the fuss about Confidential material, most of which should never be classified; information which was not correctly marked classified so that the recipient had no way to know its classification; and most insidious, material that has been retroactively classified and which was not classified at the time of transmission. I knew Senator Clinton when I worked on the Hill as a staffer; she always struck me as very sensitive to the need to protect secrets!
Jerome Barry (Texas)
In 2008 Mrs. Clinton asked us to trust her to take the 3 a.m. telephone call.

That call came on September 11, 2012, from Benghazi.

Her first impulse, her first response, her first action, was to seek political advantage. It was perceived within the Administration that September 11, 2012 was an inopportune moment to be attacked by Islamic jihadists. Political advantage overrode every State interest. A U.S. Ambassador died, as well as several others, while the United States Government refrained from any response. The lives of these federal employees were spent wastefully for the sake of political advantage.

Against such a candidate for the Presidency, I'll support anyone. Anyone.
Marge Keller (The Midwest)

While this article was rather enlightening on some levels, its contents certainly did not come as a surprise to me. What IS surprising is that the continued fallout of Mrs. Clinton's "email-gate" situation is starting to pick up some serious steam, especially in the media. The biggest challenge/hurdle I see is how so many folks like me will vote. In one camp are the die-hard "Hillarys" and in the other camp are the die-hard "Trumps": no matter what poor decision either candidate has made in the past, their loyal supporters are with them to the end. But a lot of folks like me are stuck in the middle: I don't trust Hillary and I fear Trump - so who do I vote for? I guess it comes down to whatever my common sense and conscience tells me to do. I truly detest being put in a position where on so many levels, no matter who wins in November, a greater sense of loss will be felt.
AccordianMan (Lefty NYC)
A not so Solomonic choice. Fear and trust - I'd rather be subject to some fear than deal with a gaggle of untrustworthy hacks.
Marge Keller (The Midwest)
Thank you AccordianMan! Your logic sounds mighty convincing. I appreciate your input and honesty.
Sue Salvesen (NJ)
There are other choices. Please don't believe the hype that a third party vote is a wasted vote. We have to start somewhere to break up the corrupt two party cabal. Please look at other viable candidates: Dr. Jill Stein for the Greens and Gary Johnson for the Libertarians. Both immensely better than Trump or Clinton.
FinalMythology (CA)
She's received money from Saudi Arabia, she can't be better on terrorism than Trump, she practically supports it. Plus she's got NYT and all the other corporate liberal bias in her favor so she's actually doing worse than they're telling you.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
FinalMythology? Do you believe the Rapture is nigh too?
anr (Chicago, IL)
As a lifelong democrat, there is no way that I would ever vote for Clinton. I am not going to hold my nose. November is far enough to bring about surprising changes. Perhaps the Green Party, Sanders, Jill Stein, but most definitely, not Clinton!
robgee99 (new york, ny)
This election should be a cakewalk for HIllary against a candidate who is basically a cartoon and a fake. The fact that she is not ten 20, 30 points ahead of him already says everything about her.
Mary (Philadelphia)
It was very short sighted of the DNC to act as if this was a non-issue and make HC their main candidate. They have been ignoring all of us who have said in no uncertain terms that she is not a candidate we can trust and they called us all names and said it was just another with hunt. How's that working out? reminds of 2000 when they could have run anyone but Al Gore, who was widely disliked, and run away with the election but they ignored the voters once again and decided to follow their insiders and party members. Fools.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
Gore would have won if the US presidency were determined by a one person one vote election nationally.
Wine Country Dude (Napa Valley)
Given the number of lefties who are hiding behind the Electoral College today to ward off the poll news, you surely are being ironic.
LiveToFish (<br/>)
Brexit, anyone? Buyers remorse either way.
Kat IL (Chicago)
The NYT had an article a while back about how these polls are pretty much meaningless because many people are not yet paying attention. Why do you then keep publicizing them?
Ed (Washington, Dc)
Hillary does make it difficult for herself. Her disingenuousness and dismissiveness regarding the questions that have arisen about her motives on the email issue are an example of her attitude of entitlement, and of her belief that she is above mundane things such as departmental regulations and policies. Her flamboyant lack of humility and conspicuous lack of remorse in flouting State security and policy to extreme levels as exemplified through her years of instigating and carrying out this email mess is very telling. Her gross sloppiness in using only her private email servers as Secretary State to send sensitive, classified materials over her unprotected system, and her abhorrent responses on this topic over the past two years, gives me ample reason to seriously question her trustworthiness, mindset, and ability to make sound judgments in office.

Hillary deserves and has heartily earned the limitations that Speaker Ryan raised in his Op-Ed yesterday in the Post in preventing her from having access to any sensitive State material until she is elected.

Maybe by being treated as someone who cannot be trusted with secure State information will teach her that blatant disregard for State security, strong sense of entitlement to high office, and willingness to flout regulations and policies simply because they are somewhat inconvenient, does in fact rub folks the wrong way.

Sure wish Gov. Kasich were running against Hillary….what fun those debates would have been...
Steve Bolger (New York City)
Governor Kasich is another Bible-thumped halfwit who can't take his mind off what other people do in their own bedrooms.

Do you have any idea what an insult to intelligence it is to be governed by idiots who promise to get God off the America's case with idolatrous public policy?
Wally Wolf (Texas)
Sometimes you just can't stop fate. Here you have the most dishonest, destructive child-man running for president against a woman who is far superior intellectually and because she's a woman, has had to take a lot of hits that male politicians would never be faced with. I mean for instance where is the inquiry into the missing millions of Cheney/Bush emails from a private server? It's almost like people are self-destructing somehow, and if they elect Trump as the next president, they will have fulfilled their goal. Even poor Justice Ginsburg is trying to warn the public, which is an almost unheard of occurrence. So now the public is bashing Ginsburg. i'll tell you what. If Trump wins and ya'll are still standing in an upright position in 4 years, I promise I will tell you I told you so. That's what I did after Bush won and destroyed just about everything in this country; except I couldn't find anyone who admitted voted for him by then. LOL
EinT (Tampa)
The public is not bashing Ginsberg. She is bashing herself.
Susan Ricker McFarland (WA)
Maybe there's been no inquiry into the RNC missing emails because they were all recovered? Never deleted as Mrs. Clinton did with over 32,000 of hers! How come there was no flap over the 2 million Hillary and company's emails "lost" and never recovered during the Whitewater investigation?
Kevin Goldman (Santa Rosa ca)
He won Texas in 2004 so you can't have searched that hard.....unless you are saying that the vast majority of Texans are liars
St. Thomas (NY)
The media and most notably Les Moonves of CBS last Feb said that Trump is "making money for us." Someone in that feckless audience should have immediately stood up and said Trump is promoting racism and he's a racist and by association you Mr Mooves are implicated. No one did. Seems like the media like race wars. It sells copy.
Hari Prasad (Washington, D.C.)
Surely there's an imbalance which is not reflected in perceptions. It would be a pity if political tactics, e.g. making the most of topical scandals, were to blur this imbalance. The worst that can be thrown at one candidate and her husband is making money through influence, a well-known habit of politicians (Mr. Kissinger, for instance, over several decades). The worst that can be said about the other candidate is in a different category altogether - total focus on self promotion at the cost of creditors or the weak and ignorant swindled in scams, and a lack of preparation for any public office.
Brent (California)
Well, the one candidate and her husband making money through influence may have had a bit more to it. That influence that she sold appears to be tied to actions of the State Department on behalf of the people that were buying said influence while she was the SecState. In our country that is called "bribery".
Hari Prasad (Washington, D.C.)
Bribery, if proven, is of course a criminal offence. But so is defrauding the public, as in Trump U, for which charges have been filed. Besides, he may just be too sick for the position.
Jefflz (San Franciso)
The Clinton's fought tooth and nail for single-payer health care and were destroyed for that pioneering effort by Newt Gingrich's "Contract on America" funded by insurance and health care industry giants. We know who Hillary is - no surprises there. She has been under attack by the right wing press for more than twenty years. Her enemies have pounced on her every personal crisis, her every mistake, leaving no stone unturned in trying to undermine her. But Hillary is very bright, very tough, and she has weathered these storms courageously.

Sanders engaged in a valiant battle - yes, without a doubt. But Bernie has lost the contest for the nomination. Now he and his supporters must realise that self-righteousness in the face of rising fascism is no virtue.
Seb Williams (Orlando, FL)
They did not fight for single-payer. They fought for, basically, Obamacare, except more complicated and more advantageous to insurers.
Frank Black (New York, NY)
People are starting to get it now. "Crooked Hillary" is what she is.
Hue (Federal Way, WA)
You lie. Hillary is not crooked. She didn't lie about her emails and she consistently receives the highest truth ratings from reputable fact checkers, even when Bernie was in the race. In case you missed the report (that the New York Times never published, as far as I could tell), the Comey hearing revealed that there were just three email chains (that HIllary did not originate) that contained a "(C)" code for confidential (not top secret) deep in the text (not in the header) that someone else had inserted after the initial email was sent. Everyone in Congress gets his/her own private server and email service. How man of them monitor every single email chain that someone else originates to make sure someone else ha
Steve Bolger (New York City)
I get how utterly stupid Trump supporters are to give the man a pass on disclosing his taxpaying history. No wonder this country is globally known for its phenomenal birthrate of suckers.
Hue (Federal Way, WA)
[cont'd from earlier response that got cut off...]
...As Ted Lieu said at the Comey hearing, every member of Congress gets his/her own private server and email service over which they receive classified email. How many of them monitor every single email chain that someone else originates to make sure someone else has inserted a "(C)" to a portion of that email? It's the height of hypocrisy to be trying to turn Hillary into a criminal for what they all do.
NI (Westchester, NY)
" Hillary is not trustworthy ", so the saying goes. And Trump? Is there anything remotely trustworthy? I just don't get it.
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
Try to walk the dog backwards, to Little Rock 30 years ago. That's how long the Clintons have been corrupt. No one even knew who Trump was then.
heinrich zwahlen (brooklyn)
We needed Bernie but DNC guys blew it!
Steve Bolger (New York City)
Have you studied the available 30+ years of Clinton tax returns to see how they did it?
karl (la)
Astonishing that Hillary supporters actually believe that a winning strategy is "I'm with her and she's less awful than him".
Steve Bolger (New York City)
Nobody knows better what a psychopathological bad trip the US "vast right wing conspiracy" is.
CLSW 2000 (Dedham MA)
Bernie younger supporters are skewing the polls. They believe childishly that if Hillary's numbers tank enough all of the Super Delegates will turn to their hero. I can't quite believe that they would actually be so spiteful as to vote for Trump, who is the opposite of everything they claim to believe, but one never knows. The hatred that Bernie has instilled in them for Hillary, through innuendo and insinuation rather than facts, is very strong. The true story of Bernie will be told in his behavior in the coming months.
Brent (California)
Blaming other for her problems? Sounds very Clintonian, actually. Bernie did not make her lie abount numerous things, he did not set up her private server to hide her communications from FOIA requests and scrutiny, he did not force her to accept hefty speech fees from people she claims she will be tough on and refuse to release the transcripts, he did not cause Bill to get income from foreign concerns that had business before the State Department, he did not cause the Clinton Foundation to get large donations from those very same foreign concerns that had business before the State Department, nor did he cause the Clinton Foundation to pay Clinton family members salaries and consulting fees as a way of diverting said donations into personal accounts.

Hillary has trashed herself through her behavior.
Susan Anderson (Boston)
I don't think it's Bernie's fault. They did that all by themselves. They huddled on social media and repeat every Republican opposition tactic as if it was their own discovery. He is a bit single-minded and does oversimplify, but it is the purity monster that makes young people unwilling to do what is necessary to achieve their goals, which is to work over time in the face of resistance.

They need to show up in midterms, and vote. They need to stop blaming Democrats for what Republicans do.

Here's President Obama:

Transcript: http://www.newsweek.com/obama-full-transcript-rutgers-university-commenc...

"let me be as clear as I can be. In politics and in life, ignorance is not a virtue. It's not cool to not know what you're talking about. That's not keeping it real, or telling it like it is."

"None of these changes happened overnight. They didn’t happen because some charismatic leader got everybody suddenly to agree on everything. It didn’t happen because some massive political revolution occurred. It actually happened over the course of years of advocacy, and organizing, and alliance-building, and deal-making, and the changing of public opinion. It happened because ordinary Americans who cared participated in the political process."
Steve Bolger (New York City)
They evidently don't believe they will get old enough to become cynical.

I think Bernie was betting the Republicans would get Hillary indicted for the e-mails and he'd get the nomination by default.
Richard A. Bucci (Binghamton, NY)
As much as some Clinton supporters would like to make this a partisan issue, it's not. Her set-up of a private email server was misguided and the complications from that decision exploded exponentially. There were missteps in her subsequent explanations of her motives and the consequences of unsecured classified material. The FBI Director's assessment of Clinton's actions was harsh. It's his assessment that's moving voter perceptions of her character. It will remain potent flash-point throughout the campaign.
Hue (Federal Way, WA)
As Representative Ted Lieu said at the Comey hearing, every single member of Congress has his/her own personal server and personal email account that handles classified information; it was the height of hypocrisy to turn Hillary's use of one into an FBI criminal investigation.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
So who got burned as a result of this? Was it anything like the foreign contacts who got burned when Bush or Cheney or Scooter Libby disclosed Valarie Plame's CIA affiliation?
em (Toronto)
What's Hillary's agenda? I'm not clear. What new programs will she unveil? I'm confident she will be terrific but I want details right now.
Susan Anderson (Boston)
Then look. Her policies are public information.
Heddy Greer (Akron Ohio)
What's Hillary's agenda?

The cost of a speech given by Bill Clinton when Hillary is President is triple the cost when she is only Secretary of State.

Or do you really believe she's looking to improve regular Americans' lives?
N. Smith (New York City)
And do you honestly believe that Donald Trump is looking to improve regular American's lives??? -- If so, then you haven't been listening closely to what's coming out of his mouth.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
Hillary has disclosed over 30 years of tax returns.

Obviously Trump is more private and secretive than she is.
WallaWalla (Washington)
How about those wall St transcripts?
Wally Wolf (Texas)
I guarantee you that Trump's tax returns will reveal much more about your boy than the Wall Street transcripts will ever reveal about Hillary You can practice shouting "He lies" now at the top of your lungs so you'll be pitch perfect if and when his tax returns ever come out.
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
Sen. Warren refuses to release the official documents from Penn and Harvard on which she indicated she was of Native American lineage. Lying on such documents for preferential Affirmative Action treatment is a Federal crime. Penn and Harvard are being sued right now for white woman Warren's secret documents.
jk (Santa Barbara, California)
Yeah right... "No worries Dems" you are about to attempt to elect the most corrupt politician in history. Last time it was a marxist community organizer who left his mark on all things American. Now it is a gangster who sells influence and lies constantly. Pass the Fool Aid please...
Jeff Fisher (Seattle, WA)
Trump still has a long way to go, but everyone said he couldn't win the GOP nomination too, so it is terribly dangerous to count him out. The consequences for America and the entire world if he wins are so disastrous that it will be a huge indictment of the entire Democrat establishment. If he wins, each superdelegate and each member of the Democrat leadership that weighted the critical early part of the election so heavily in Clinton's favor (Remember the debates, and the initial refusal of the Democrat establishment to admit to Sander's civil rights record?) must be made to answer for their part in the disaster.
Barbara (Las Vegas)
this is so outrageous! Trump would be a disaster for our so-called democracy! people are so gullible.
FinalMythology (CA)
It never was an actual democracy. Just put an end to the evil and pass the torch on to UK.
Heddy Greer (Akron Ohio)
"people are so gullible."

Well, Obama was elected twice so I certainly agree with you.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
At least President Obama never nominated Sarah Palin for the vice-presidency or wore magic underwear to secure a better planet in his next life.
Steve Sheridan (Ecuador)
By backing the candidate they could control--rather than the one who could win the election--the DNC and other Establishment Democrats have likely sealed their doom.

As their ship is sinking, appealing for help to Progressives--that they've shamed, blamed, dismissed, derided, infantilized and otherwise treated with contempt--is not likely to bear fruit.

They insisted on this ship, and now they're going to go down with it.

Viva la Revolucion!
CLSW 2000 (Dedham MA)
Just tell me this....what is Bernie hiding in his tax returns? We know Jane is corrupt, we know what she did to Burlington College. And I'm sure Bernie was aware. Until a few years ago Congress was not prohibited from using inside information to invest. My theory is that he made a killing, and wants to hide his assets. Why didn't he release?
CapeCodKid (Amador County, CA)
Hillary's legacy will be an aversion to transparency, the truth, good judgment.
Brent (California)
And unfortunately, she has stained Obama's legacy as well. Why he, whom I view as a decent man, would endorse her while she was under criminal investigation by the FBI, is beyond me. She must have something on him.
Patrick (Santa Monica)
Economically, if Trump is elected, the era of America as a world power will end -- There has never been a better time to dump the dollar as the world's power-currency, trade wars will batter us while raising the profile of others, and Brexit has already diminished NATO's clout, just as China and Russia have turned bellicose. So, who will lose out most and quickest? Uneducated, middle Americans: Trump's own voters, naturally.

If ever there was a demonstration of democracy failing wildly, this is it.
Brent (California)
A bit of hyperbole in there. The end of America as a world power? The scare campaign failed to prevent Brexit in the UK, and I believe it will fail to make Trump unelectable here in the USA. Note that I am not a Trump supporter. I feel both he and Clinton are unacceptable for the presidency, albeit for different reasons. I plan on voting third party. In any case, trying to use fear to prevent his election is a strategy doomed to failure. The middle classes in Western industrialized nations do not trust the prognostications of the "experts" whom they view as aligned with the elite. They saw how NAFTA was supposed to create a wonderful future of expanded trade the benefited everyone, including the middle class, but they see it as actually costing them jobs, security, wages, social stability, and a decent future. The more that fearful predictions are made, the more they will flock to Trump.
Dean M. (Sacramento)
The weakest Democratic nominee in recent history with big negatives versus a businessman blow-hard turned reality TV personality who turned his name into a profitable brand and fooled GOP voters into thinking his business acumen is good enough to make him president of the United States. I think it is finally time to dismantle the two party grip on america's political process.
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
And despite all your pejoratives, he's still beating her. How sweet it is!
Wine Country Dude (Napa Valley)
Wait. I thought the answer was to abolish the Electoral College and go to a direct national popularity contest, which would raise liberals and their minority wards to the heights of power. But it's a contest that Trump likely would win this year.

What do you folks really want (other than to just see your gal in the White House this year)? I mean, as far as constitutional revision?
Bob Arora (Houston)
Both candidates have high negatives with voters - one is untrustworthy and other in unpredictable. In battle of two negatives a new positive candidate must come to front - finally a third party candidate gets a chance. If Hillary's campaign has any brains , it will pick Sanders as VP pick and reduce her negatives. No such luck for Trump campaign
Mank (Los Angeles)
The time has come for Democrats to admit that Hillary Clinton has only herself to blame for having the lowest rating for honesty and speaking the truth of any major candidate in American history. What is her problem? She tells lies after lies, as the State Dept IG and the FBI director have stated. Understandably the American public doesn't trust her, and it's unbelievable that someone of such poor character could be elected President. That her husband was impeached for immoral behavior and for telling lies also makes one shudder at the prospect of how they will behave if they are back in the White House. "Secrecy" is their password, and their relationship with Wall Street and the big banks who pay Hillary unconscionable fees for speeches and the like convince me that Bernie Sanders was too kind to her. What sort of example does this set for the country?

And yet Donald Trump appears to be ludicrous, and totally unprepared and undeserving to be President as well. At a time for national renewal and a need to break up the Republican Party who have refused to govern positively and have surrendered to the most backward cowboys who are out to destroy our government, not improve it, even though our infrastructure is falling apart, and the great challenges which lie ahead for us need leaders of vision.
This nation of more than 300 million people are ready to put our future in the hands of Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. - I think this is unbelievable! Can't we do better than this?
willtyler (Okemos)
So who did the other 20% support - Libertarian and Green candidates? Why are they being excluded? These polls are not legitimate and biased if they don't include all the candidates on enough state ballots to be elected. This self-censorship violates journalists' code of ethics and amounts to political discrimination.

I would like to know how Libertarian Gary Johnson and Green candidate Jill Stein are doing in the polls. Leaving them out of polls and reporting gives voters the impression there are only two choices. There are four. Please sign the petition to include Johnson in the polls.
Doug (MSP)
I'm a democrat. I held an S.I. security clearance, higher than top secret. I can never forgive Hillary and now the FBI for letting her off the hook in regards to handling of classified materials. There is no such thing as 'intent' in regards to the handling of these classified materials. I'm so mad about this. I held the secrets of the cold war closely to my heart. I do not believe the story ends here. There is more to come.
Alan (Dallas)
It is exceptional hard to argue that any mere mortal that had engaged in the conduct of Clinton would not have been a) striped of their clearance; b) barred from service in government national security; c) indicted at the very least --- since the landscape is littered with tens of such cases both publicly well know and not …. Yet the ability of the readers of this paper to systematically rationalize her behavior through all manner of “they all do it”, “it wasn’t that bad”, “Trump is worse” and so for is a true testament to the human condition.
Orange County (Costa Mesa, CA)
I've already made plans to leave the country and relinquish my U.S. citizenship if Trump wins.
BearBoy (St Paul, MN)
Why don't you save yourself further anguish, and just leave now?
WallaWalla (Washington)
Ditto Clinton. Making plans as we type
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
Walla Walla, you're so close to Vancouver B.C. that you could just commute! You lucky dog!
Z.M. (New York City)
The photograph of Hillary accompanying this article is telling. One more step and she is out of the frame. Inevitable exit?
Byrd (Costa Mesa, CA)
Has no one at the Times considered that its continued campaign of printing pro-HRC propaganda as news, in combination with "let's grow up, liberals" insults to Democrats who don't like her, is the principal reason for her descent in the polls?

We Americans hate being told what to think and what to believe. The Times has done nothing but publish opinions as news during this election cycle. As a direct result, the vastly incompetent Donald J Trump will win the Presidency in November.
Susan Anderson (Boston)
More balance for all the hatred and oversimplifications appear at speed recently:

"The vast majority of messages and comments about HRC that I see consist almost solely of either personal attacks, false claims, childish conspiracy theories, assumptions of guilt by association or complaints about legislation passed by her husband decades ago. Almost none of the comments I see (or have received) even bother to address her current policy positions, and most of the small few that do either willfully misrepresent them, assume as a given that they are terrible or dismiss them altogether as mere political expediency."

Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
Behold: one person's opinion. Anyone could post 10 in rebuttal. But it's too easy.
Tom (Pa)
Agreed. But here's the real problem with Hillary: the Clinton foundation. The Clintons received millions and millions of dollars from foreign donors who have the benefit of anonymity. Some of those donors are foreign governments. In the Clinton presidency her negotiating position would be compromised with all of those governments. They could blackmail her by threatening to release the fact that she acceoted money from them. I'm sure the Russians and the Saudis have already figured this out and are licking their chops at the thought of her becoming president. The Clintons are bad news for this country. Liberals need to open their eyes.
Tim McCoy (NYC)
Susan Anderson: No blogger is going to change the public's mind about Hillary's untrustworthiness. She was deemed untrustworthy by a large segment of the citizenry before the State Department's Inspector General weighed in, and she was deemed by a large segment of the citizenry before the FBI weighed in.

Nothing in the two Reports on her tenure did anything to assuage the reality. She repeatedly lied to the public during the primary season about her e-mails.

As far as her current policy positions are concerned, about the best that can be said is that they are subject to current polling. Her positions have changes substantially to reflect polling results. Today she is Bernie Lite, yesterday she was Bill the Second, back in the day she was a Goldwater Girl. Next year she may be the second coming of Richard Nixon. One thing's for sure, based on her past history, her future policy positions will be changing, a lot.

Rob (NOLA)
So much self delusion from the left. Hillary's use of private emails servers = Rice + Colin Powell. Except Rice and PowelL totaled 12 emails, not 30,0000+ 103 classified. And, they didn't set up their own servers, the emails were sent to their private accounts and the finding was there were no classified emails among those 12. AND, they quickly put a stop to it.

Much better to stay indoctrinated and deceive yourselves so you can believe the lies than ever investigate what really happened and "educate" yourselves so that you can become "better informed" voters. Never a worry of cognitive dissonance if you live your life in the Socialist Echo Chamber.
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
In lieu of tax returns, we can simply gaze in awe at his real estate empire. That will have to do, Steve.
EinT (Tampa)
You could own 100% of Tesla's stock and your net worth would be about $25 billion. your taxable income would be $0.

What will a tax return tell you? We tax income in this country, not wealth.
SMB (Savannah)
Talk about self delusion. 3 emails out of 30,000 were actually marked classified, and the marks were small (c) buried in the text which Comey said Sec. Clinton might have overlooked. The State Department said that these were not actually classified anyway. The other 110 emails that included classified information were not marked classified, and many others were included in the correspondence. Why is no one investigating all the others?

22 Bush White House officials used the private RNC server during their time in office. It was not secure, and it was a partisan headquarters. This was during two wars. 22 million Bush administration emails were deleted.

Indoctrination and not information seems to rule on the right. All fake scandals, and misinformation to the point of either propaganda or the Party of Stupid.
She made her bed. She alone convinced me never to vote for her. No amount of PR spin or Trump fear mongering or guilt or insults or foot stomping will push me into her waiting arms. Never Hillary. Still Sanders.
N. Smith (New York City)
No need to fear-monger" about Trump. He is truly frightening on his own.
And your vote will help to put him where you thought Bernie should be --
Some "revolution".
Tony (New York)
Just gear up for at least four years of a President who is a corrupt liar and who is obsessed with privacy to the point of paranoia and who has no sense of right and wrong (as opposed to legal vs illegal). We will see lots of smoke and we'll see calls for investigations to find the fire. Unfortunately, this is what the American voters seem to want. So buckle in and watch the extremely careless President.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
Trey Gowdy and Darrel Issa will keep Trump on the straight and narrow path!
Tony (New York)
I thought that was the job of Elizabeth Warren and Nancy Pelosi.
Steve C (Boise, ID)
Here's a simple way for Hillary to improve her trust numbers: Release the transcripts of her speeches to corporations and financial institutions.

Also she should stop criticizing Comey's findings about her email system. Her declaration that using the private system was a "mistake" and then objecting to Comey's description of the system's use as "extremely careless" makes it look like the "mistake" she's admitting to is regretting the political fallout rather than realizing what a poor idea the private system was for functional and security reasons. Her position on her email system seems to be that it was a mistake because she was caught using it. That's not a position that engenders trust.
jkj (pennsylvania USA)
Just another reason to vote ONLY Democrat 2016 and shove the Republican'ts so far down that they will never recover.
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
Where's my earbuds? Gotta drown out the whistling over by the graveyard, it's approaching 100 decibels, like a Led Zeppelin concert!
EinT (Tampa)
So if the Republican party never recovers, do you honestly think they'll all become Democrats? Are you that naive?

Even if the Republican party which currently controls the House, the Senate, 67 state legislative bodies, and 36 Governors' mansions does indeed go away, Democrats will still face opposition under another name.
Caleb (Brooklyn, N.Y.)
Comment after comment about how Hillary Clinton is far more trustworthy and reliable than Donald Trump.

Look, it cannot reasonably be disputed that Trump is an incorrigible and unrepentant fraudster, philanderer, and racial arsonist. Contending that someone is more trustworthy and reliable than he is is hardly a celebration of that person's character. Just because Trump's misdeeds and lies are disastrous doesn't make Clinton's somehow "no big deal."

I don't trust Clinton. I trust Trump even less.

I wish there was a candidate in this race I really could trust. I know the average commentator on here will resent my saying so (because clearly I should be "over it" by now), but I sincerely wish Bernie had won the nomination.
Steve C (Boise, ID)
Have a look at Jill Stein's ideas. They correlate well with Bernie's.

And here's more detail about her ideas:
willtyler (Okemos)
There is a candidate you can trust who should be on the ballot in all fifty states - Libertarian Gary Johnson. He has a well respected, proven record as a two-term governor of New Mexico where he reduced the size of government, balanced the budget and left the state with a surplus. Without any scandals or lies. When he took the "Isidewith.com" quiz he agreed with Bernie Sanders on 83% of the issues. He's got my vote.
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
There's only ONE Trump for you not to trust. But there are TWO Clintons, each with a checkered past, to put it mildly. For you, that's Hobson's Choice.
Hulojones (texas)
The corruption that follows the Clintons just keeps rearing its self to the surface.
JJ (Chicago)
Has Obama commented on the FBI findings/Comey statement? Just curious.
Heddy Greer (Akron Ohio)
Who do you think wrote Comey's statement?
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
He doesn't want to be an accessory after the fact, so he's dummied up. Though it's hard to tell, concededly.
Marcus Aurelius (Terra Incognita)
Commented? Good lord, he flew HRC on Air Force One to a campaign rally right after she was shown by the FBI investigation to be both incompetent and utterly mendacious. Actions do speak louder than words...
John Smith (Houston, Texas)
I view both candidates as deeply flawed but am predicting the e-mail matter is going to sink Clinton. Here you have a person with a Presidential appointment to his cabinet who deliberately skirts national security guidelines when representing the United States on diplomatic matters worldwide. If that doesn't indicate a huge error in judgement, nothing will. The woman's arrogance and cavalier attitude knows no bounds.
Howard64 (New Jersey)
My vote for Clinton will really be just a NO vote for Trump and I do not want the House choosing our President! I do not trust Clinton but the email server has nothing to do with it.
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
You're endorsing Corruption, which is no surprise for a Democrat in New Jersey.
Howard64 (New Jersey)
@Charles corruption? II am not a Clinton supporter but Clinton has been investigated more that anyone else ever to run for president with no findings of corruption. Trump on the other hand... And as for NJ... corruption is has been at the hands of the Republicans. Christie for example who was a leading Republican presidential candidate and possible VP with Trump.
Concerned Voter (Pittsburgh)
It amazes me that some people consider Donald Trump an outsider! He's one of the billionaires that run the country.

And, what evidence is there that he ever supported the middle class prior to running?

He is a status quo candidate. Look at his economic policy of tax cuts that favor the rich and deregulation. Does that sound familiar? It should. That's virtually the economic policy of the past 34 years, and we see how well that worked out!

Mr. Trump brings to mind another so called outsider that ran for president in 2008. His name was Barak Obama, and he turned out to be a Trojan horse that maintained the status quo.

Then, there's Hillary Clinton. What a choice! We either vote for one of the billionaires that run the country or someone who is owned by the billionaires that run the country.

If anyone really thinks that either one of them will change the direction of this country, well, I have some great swampland in Florida that I am willing to let go at a bargain price.
Tom Hunter (Indianapolis, IN)
As a lifelong Democrat who donated to President Obama 8 times, I would seem a natural fit for Hillary Clinton. Yet, based on her support for keeping and expanding the H-1B visa program--support she reiterated this past week in an interview with Vox--I cannot vote for her. I have been frustrated with "elites" such as her who give lip service to the desires of voters only to perform an about-face once she gets in office.

No more. I do not like Donald Trump and would never cast a vote for him. He's now the devil I don't know, versus the devil I do know: Hillary Clinton.

Dr. Jill Stein will receive my vote this year unless Mrs. Clinton comes out and states in no uncertain terms that she plans to curtail or end the H-1B visa program.

Currently, half of entry-level positions go to H-1B visa holders. That cannot continue.

Of course the rich tech executives will support her--since she's carrying their water on this issue. If she's with them--she's against me. End of story. I will hope for an actual Democrat to run against Mr. Trump in 2020.
Milliband (Medford Ma)
What's Dr. Stein's policy on H-1B visas? Didn't think she had one.
Jason Galbraith (Little Elm, Texas)
Entry level positions in all fields, or just IT?
Tom Hunter (Indianapolis, IN)
From what I've read, that refers to entry-level programmers.
Susan Anderson (Boston)
Here's an excellent well reasoned article that responds to some of the lies and exaggerations about Hillary Clinton:


Here's a teaser:

"If you want to take a different position than I did I think you should do that. But simply stating that you are against Hillary because she’s a ”pathological liar” or “war criminal” is not an argument, and it’s not a position. It’s just an insult pretending to be discourse. And while you are entitled to your opinions, you are not entitled to respect for those opinions. There seems to be some confusion on that point, and there really shouldn’t be. Also, while I have a natural curiosity toward other people’s views, if your main communication tactic is calling people names ... you can probably count me out.

"I’m interested in people who take a position and then communicate it with logic and reason. In other words, people who actually try. And I’m particularly interested in those people open to the possibility that maybe, just maybe, there are things they think they know that they don’t. Because quite frankly, it seems clear to me that the Internet is full of people who know all kinds of things about Hillary Clinton that they don’t actually know."
Copernicus (Los Angeles)
This cold incompetent bumbling imbecile used her husband's influence to secure a position as Secretary of State where she oversaw the public murder of an American ambassador in Benghazi, and used her Wall Street backers to finance a campaign that left little chance for her more qualified competitor, Bernie Sanders. Nobody should be surprised that she mishandled classified documents. Now Americans are faced with a decision between two of the most terrible people imaginable in Hilary and Donald, and frankly, I'm not sure which candidate is more dangerous to this country.
MyThreeCents (San Francisco)
"you can't trust polls!"

Except, of course, for polls that show your candidate ahead. Those polls you can trust -- just not the ones that show your candidate behind.
concerned american (Boston)
Like most of Washington, Hillary is corrupt, and it's becoming common knowledge.

The "paid speeches", the super pacs, the superpredators. She's a politician of the generic kind, out for power.

Ignoring the whole indictment ordeal; Hiliary deleted "personal, non work related" emails. Google, "politico hillary email traffic" to understand why the deleted emails implicate her in even further in less than noble activities.

To learn more about how she rewards donors, Google; "Hillary Clinton Rajiv Fernando".

It goes on. Lightening doesn't strike the same place 3 or 4 times. She's corrupt, to use plain language.

I'm not saying she's the only one, I am saying she's no exception to the rule of thumb for politicians.

So remember, when you go to vote hillary to avoid he-who-should-not-be-named - we deserve better.

Don't forget it.
Dan (New York)
According to CNN and Kevin Spacey, you have to be corrupt to win, whether you're name is Kennedy, Lincoln, or Clinton
Milliband (Medford Ma)
Lincoln and his crew pulled some of the biggest dirty tricks at the Republican Convention in 1860 to secure him the nomination.. Was he corrupt? There is a reason that Ghandi would have never run for elective office.
Joe (NYC)
Hope everyone in the DNC is happy now. You've marginalized and neutralized your best candidate to put up the most flawed and uninspiring candidate the Democrats have ever seen. You must be very proud of yourselves
Melissa Perez (New York)
I wouldn't be shocked to learn that Hillary has had something to do with all the "killings of black men by white police officers" that have been set off lately. It's a big coincidence that the one area where she does better than Trump--race relations--is becoming such an fixed issue, specially in the past days. She has been acquainted with criminals in the past. And, it just doesn't make sense this regression in such a short concentrated period of time.
Brent (California)
Though I doubt that even she would stoop quite that low, sadly I cannot exclude it as a possibility. Her narcissism and lust for power & wealth do not appear to have many boundaries.
Maurelius (Westport)
I cannot understand why Mrs Clinton would create a private server in her home while she was at the State Department. My friends and I debate this and we can't seem to figure out why would someone who had their eye on running for President do something that would come back to haunt them.

No one in her circle could could have said, think ahead Ma'am; this is not the right thing to do. Just as former President Clinton meeting with the Attorney General - seriously?

Weren't they concerned about appearances? The Attorney General or someone in her vast entourage should have told said, you know, tell him to send me an email.

Who walks around airplane tarmacs looking for people to talk to anyway? What is wrong with these people?
carl6352 (florida)
Look up, quid pro quo! That was the only reason, because she wanted to hide the paper trail to the foundation! Bills tarmac meeting was to offer her a job if she wins as I am sure comey or one of his underlings had already told them what would happen and not make waves!
Ravi Kumar (California)
She did not want Republicans (through the FOIA) to find out about personal matters like details of flower arrangements for Chelsea's wedding. That is the reason for the private server in the basement.
EinT (Tampa)
I have heard he prefers hardwood floors to tarmacs.
J. Marti (North Carolina)
I think we have stripped the elections of the main substance. At the end of the day "personalities" should not matter. The heavy weight should be placed on policy positions. Who lies the least or is the least crooked is nothing compared to their positions on Global Trade, Immigration, Fiscal and Economic Policy, Foreign Policy etc. If you want "open borders" you will vote Dem and if you oppose them you will vote Rep. regardless of who lies or doesn't. It seems like all politicians do at some point. Even Bernie who I had in high esteem has now after asserting Hillary's recklessness and saying she was "not qualified" to be president has bowed and kissed the ring.
MM19 (Pittsburgh)
It's human nature to focus on all this personal stuff when to truly face the intractable real issues like global climate change...it's too hard to contemplate.
Pete (Germantown, MD)
Count me in as one of the Bernie supporters who will never vote for her. I still haven't decided if I will vote for Trump or not vote at all.

Trump has little support in Congress, so I see him as having very little ability to wreak havoc as president. I endured 8 years of W, so I can endure 4 years of T. Hillary, on the other hand, would continue in her sneakiness and purchased behaviors and is the much bigger threat.
Mikeyz (Boston)
Please wake me up. I'm having a very bad dream!
Lenore M (Colorado)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that Trump and his antics receive the majority of press, while nearly every article on Hillary mentions her emails along with the public's perceived lack of trust in her. If one reads continually reads this, it serves as confirmation of her character. Perhaps a more factual presentation is called for, and speaking of facts, where is mention of the fact that both Republicans Colin Powell and Condoleez Rice apparently used private emails systems? Certainly, Hillary Clinton is not perfect, but there is no comparison between her and Trump in terms of personal attributes or in qualifications for the presidency. The press should not favor one candidate over the other, and so far it appears that Trump and his antics gain way too much coverage by so-called impartial news, and this may be at least part of the reason why he is unbelievably popular with so many voters. Please, newspapers and TV as well, let's be fair! Let's not popularize Trump just because he's a showman. In the hopefully unlikely event that he's actually elected, our country will suffer, and there will be a mass exodus to Canada.
EinT (Tampa)
If either Rice or Powell were running for President you can bet your bottom dollar that this would be an issue. But they're not. Hillary is.
Fhc (Chi)
And now, MSNBC is reporting that Pence as VP "is premature" - changing his mind already!
Wine Country Dude (Napa Valley)
Maybe MSNBC is the one changing its mind prematurely. Hard to believe, I know, from such a trustworthy source. I haven't heard The Donald say a dang thing about his decision.
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
MSNBC? As pointed out by Howard Kurtz on Media Buzz this week, Rachel Maddow for 48 hours said not a peep about tons of fresh negative news about Hillary. Pantsuits are powerful.
Marcus Aurelius (Terra Incognita)
Though may not realize it, you, sir, have a natural talent for creating campaign slogans. "Pantsuits Are Powerful!" has a ring to it...
Shelley (St. Louis)
The media has to take much responsibility for this. Journalists know that most of the email fooflah was a contrived scandal by the Republicans. What Clinton did was not unlike what past Secretaries of State did. Rice's assistants used private email, as did Colin Powell. Her having her own server was no less reliable or secure than any other private option.

Probably more reliable than the State's systems, which we knew were hacked.

And the media quotes Comey and others without context. Her "extreme carelessness" was no such thing. We already know from statements made by Powell and others that the post-classification that occurred was more about the intelligence community's obsessions than any real security issue.

Everything about her email was simple, understandable, uncomplicated. She made a mistake using personal email for work. OK, well people in the White House still use personal email, and the use of personal email is an accepted practice in the Federal Records Act, as recently amended (2012).

But the media wants a horse race. Trump is so appallingly underqualified that they have to grab on to the emails as their only want to ensure maximum attention during this election campaign.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
I'd like to see how Trump would handle being questioned by Trey Gowdy's congressional panel of nitpickers.
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
"Vastly enjoyable" is how Donald would describe the opportunity to school the professional politicians in how the private sector operates. Rep. Sanchez might even change back to her Anglo married name in that event.
MyThreeCents (San Francisco)
Are you "indicting" the wrong person?

"That Trump should be tied with Clinton in the polls is an incredible indictment of the American voter."

Well, it's an "indictment" of someone, but I'm not sure it's the "American voter."
Wine Country Dude (Napa Valley)
Wow. Favoring Trump now subjects one to indictment. Who said the Obama DOJ doesn't overreach?
Susan Anderson (Boston)
Wine CD: You need a dictionary. Indict and convict have other meanings. Nobody mentioned the DOJ, it was an opinion. Now you're going to go around claiming government had something to do with an individual commenter's opinion?
Wine Country Dude (Napa Valley)
Oh, Ms. Anderson: while my comment was, IMHO, a delightful play on the multiple meanings of a word, it has an unmistakable basis in truth. (And I understood your people to be more intelligent and nuanced than the right.)

The left believes that the fact that an opponent has pulled even in the polls is an "indictment" of the American voter. It's not something merely incorrect, or something with which the left disagrees, or which it even sees as foolhardy. It is an indictable offense, colloquially speaking. Surely you recognize something far over the top, and destructive, with that statement? Or maybe you don't; and hence, your political position.
Niles (Connecticut)
Of course emails are weighing on her. Even Democrats are honest!
Wine Country Dude (Napa Valley)
The second sentence was clearly ironic, in order to make a point. Certainly there are some (estimated to be 1-2% of registered Democrats) who are honest. And, by way of faint praise, my tombstone will read, "On the whole, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Al (State College)
I would like the so-called super delegates to justify their apparently unwavering support for Hilary Clinton, even as her poll numbers plummet.
Laura (Upstate New York)
Hillary Clinton won the primary race, the so-called super delegate numbers not included. Just sayin'.
Marcus Aurelius (Terra Incognita)
Well, Al, since Bill is one of them, he'll probably come up with something... If he doesn't, he'd better look into getting sized for a full suit of war-grade body armor..
Roy Weaver (Stratham NH)
When super delegates state up front - before the race even begins that they are going to negate thousands of votes to support Clinton, this is toothpaste that can't go back in the tube. Many voters were already seeing the deck was stacked against anyone else and this might influence them to vote for the pre-coronated one.
Just saying.
Woody (Toronto)
Working on gaining trust? She doesn't even dare to hold a news conference or giving an interview. There are too many questions that she cannot answer. She cannot admit "extreme carelessness". It would disqualify her. She cannot deny it, either. It would make her even less trustworthy to do so. There is nothing left for her to run on except attacking Trump.

Yes she's escaped punishment for numerous wrong doing. This time, however, it seems that she would not be so lucky before the court of public opinion. No matter how smart a cold calculator can be, he or she will eventually be caught. It is, therefore, pretty dumb to always act on calculation.
Don (USA)
Since it's documented that Hillary blatantly lied about her emails multiple times why should we believe any of her presidential campaign promises.

Imagine what Hillary would do as president when she was really above the law.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
Why don't you want to know why the IRS evidently doubts what Trump tells it?
Wine Country Dude (Napa Valley)
Steve: if the IRS telegraphed any disapproval of the Donald's returns, it would be a slan dunk violation of disclosure law. Tax returns are "confidential taxpayet informatuon", with exceptions not relevant here.

Actually, Trump could not do better than to receive such a weapon.
EinT (Tampa)
Why would the IRS audit poor people? They have very little taxable income and even if it was determined their tax liability was more than reported, there is little chance they could pay.

I have been audited for 10 of the past 12 years and ended up (net) with the IRS paying me. Had they left me alone, the government would be $20,000 richer. Well, not really. They would have found a way to waste the money.
MyThreeCents (San Francisco)
Many HC supporters insist she should "fight back" on this issue. I disagree. It bothers me -- and many other Americans, I suspect -- to keep hearing her argue that the State Department "over-classified," or that there's no evidence her basement server was actually hacked, or that other SOS's did the same thing (though, to her credit, she's largely dropped this last one lately).

She screwed up, and she only makes it worse by denying that she screwed up. She should just ignore it and move on, cross her fingers and hope voters don't consider it a big deal -- or do, but dislike the alternative (Trump) even more. That's her only hope.

As for those who think Gary Johnson or Jill Stein will matter: better check your US Constitution. The highest vote-getter in a state gets 100% of the state's electoral votes. Johnson or Stein will matter only if they pull votes away from Hillary more than from Trump. That's unlikely: They'll both be diluted about the same, if recent polls are any indication. Trump probably will be hurt a bit more as Sanders supporters stop telling pollsters they'll vote for Johnson and Stein and admit that they'll vote for Hillary (as she's always known they would).
Steve Bolger (New York City)
Only one thing is certain about third party candidates in the US: in the unlikely event they get elected, they unite the two main parties to get rid of them.
Germanicus (New York City)
The Constitution doesn't actually specify how each state should allocate its electoral votes. That is each state legislature's prerogative. Selection of electors via winner-take-all popular vote is an emergent convention consistent with but not required by the Constitution.
MyThreeCents (San Francisco)

Fair point. Nevertheless, that's how it's done, with a very minor exception. Voting for a third party candidate has exactly the same effect as not voting at all.
Doug Broome (Vancouver)
An article in the current issue of Science states that biodiversity is being lost to the extent that world food production is imperriled. But keep that off the front page.

The rapid acceleration in the rate of warming in 2015/16 bespeaks a tipping point when positive feedback loops bring on such rapid warming it overwhelms even the mitigation measures mandated by the Paris accords.

Don't worry. Be happy. Climate change is a hoax and the least of concerns.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
The sooner we break this planet, the sooner we'll be Raptured to a better one!
MM19 (Pittsburgh)
It's true--all this
blackmamba (IL)
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both have only their own greedy immoral human hubris frail duplicitous actions and inactions to blame for their status in the polls. In a nation of 320 million persons, the evil of two" lessers" from New York, is what we have earned and deserve. In our divided limited power democratic republic we cannot blame either an armed dictator tyrant nor a divine royal head for our plight.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
You're not going to get a lot of good people to run for public offices if the very act of doing so makes them morally suspect.
EinT (Tampa)
Not at all. I have out earned the President since I was 30. Why would anyone put themselves and their family through that for $400,000 per year?
nyalman1 (New York)
To all the HRC apologists that claim Powell and Rice did the same thing please objectively (which I know is impossible for an HRC supporter) read the non-partisan fact checker Polifact who deemed HRC's claim her predecessors did the same thing as Mostly False (which kind of sums up why HRC has a credibility/honesty problem!)


"Clinton said, regarding her State Department email practices, "my predecessors did the same thing."

This is a misleading claim chiefly because only one prior secretary of state regularly used email, Colin Powell. Powell did use a personal email address for government business, however he did not use a private server kept at his home, as Clinton did.

We rate this claim Mostly False."
Pete (Germantown, MD)
It really doesn't matter even if they did-- they are not running for President.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
I am still objectively waiting for a Trump supporter to tell me why they are not a chump for giving Trump a pass on divulging his tax returns. What does "Politifact" say about you deliberately deaf dumb and blind people?
Jihad Ange (Berlin, USA)
Hillary was the secretary of states. Everything she does in that role is subject to public scrutiny and the information belongs to the people. In order to avoid public scrutiny, she set up a private email server to hide from the public. Now she must paid for her sin. End of story.

I will cast my vote for Trump because he's the only American who is willing and ready to end the party system as we know it. Starting with the GOP.

What American need now more than ever is a massive disruption. Hillary is not the person to do this. It's going to take an outsider, and that outsider is Donald Trump. The village must be destroyed, and destroyed completely to save us all. I have great confident Donald Trump will win, and will lead us on a new path.

No more foreign interventions. No more handouts. No more wars. Tax dollars should be spent here. Fix up our schools, rebuild infrastructure, help our vets, help our children, help our unemployed, and help our seniors. Get rid of the illegals.

The future is bright, if you want it.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
Yeah right. "We had to burn down the village to save it" in Vietnam.
MyThreeCents (San Francisco)
A Hillary supporter leads with his chin:

"Where was all this vitriol over mishandling classified information when it was Edward Snowden doing it on purpose?"

Snowden had to flee the country – not stay and run for President.

See the difference?
Dan Darnell (USA)
Of all the astonishingly well qualified visionaries, intellectuals, peace-makers, and leaders in America, these are the two half-wits we have to choose from.

Sad times indeed.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
If Hillary were actually a half-wit, she wouldn't make you so fearful of her. She has always been the most prepared in any situation I have seen her on panels of several presidential candidates.
ZcodeSportSystem.com (PA)
2 unpopular candidate to pick from...what a shame.
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
Vote Jill Stein, and wash your hands of the Clinton scandals sure to come.
MyThreeCents (San Francisco)
What good is experience if HC's "experience" has been to thrust us into foreign wars at every opportunity. Fortunately, she hasn't been calling the shots to date, and so cooler heads have prevailed. But if she'd been running the show, we'd probably have troops in Libya and Syria right now, and maybe in the Ukraine as well.

If that's what "experience" means, no thanks.
N. Smith (New York City)
Just which foreign wars are you talking about??? -- Can you name them?
And please. Don't start with Iraq , because that one's on GW Bush in his search for WMDs (and Oil).
You're very anxious to paint Clinton as a war-monger -- but Libya?? Syria???
Give up some FACTS to back this.
Cass (NJ)
Well, we could have had Bernie who would be mopping up the floor with Trump right about now. Perhaps the DNC and their cronies will see the error of their ways and we'll have a draft Bernie movement at the convention. Not likely, but interesting to ponder what might have been.
Jake Hempe (Los Angeles)
This election is her's, and her's alone to lose. "Sexism, populism, Sanders, milinnials" well be cast as scapegoats, but the real problem is that Hillary is a crook. Public office should be for serving the country, not a tool for gaining personal wealth from who donate to her foundation, and pay her speaking fees.
WestSider (NYC)
The email issue isn't simply about emails, but what she was trying so hard to hide by resorting to setting up servers in her basement, lying on multiple occasions and wiping out thousands of the emails before turning in what she wanted to turn in.

What was she up to? Dauble-dealing behind Obama's back with her neocon donors? She is so immersed in her neoconservative circles that we don't trust her when it comes to her eagerness to wage wars in the middle east to please her donors.

Trump is much less likely to start wars than Hillary, It's really as simple as that. Wars are bankrupting us, and preventing us from doing what we want to do with our tax dollars: infrastructure, education,
rjs7777 (NK)
Thank you for writing this. I am really a one issue voter. We must not repeat George W Bush's capricious military invasion of Iraq, or anything like it. It is the most monstrous crime of the 21st century. If for example, OJ Simpson runs on a non-intervention platform, I would vote for OJ Simpson over Clinton. OJ only killed 2 people. That is nothing compared to Clinton's past congressional work on Iraq, and her campaigns for new wars within the Obama administration. She and Bibi would ignite a conflagration against mainly innocent people, as is their established practice.
Wine Country Dude (Napa Valley)
Democrats lambaste the Electoral College as an unrepresentative remnant of our agricultural past, but hide behind it when popular vote polls show their candidate cratering. They tout polls, until the polls turn against them. Thn they attack specific poll (such as Rasmussen) or dismiss all polls, other than those commissioned by the DNC, as speculative or worse. And then there's always the old standbys: charging misogyny and a bad orange haircut.

They are losers.
Lisa Fremont (East 63rd St.)
Like the optic here. Looks like she's on her way out.
BB (Boston)
I blame the media for making this Orange Menace seem entertaining and benign. Americans who are supporting Trump are just fools. They don't know what it will do to America and to the world if this dangerous buffoon gets elected. All bets will be off. Trump is just a pathologically lying, hateful egomaniac, who is clueless about anything that matters. It is truly disturbing that Americans are not able to make this critical distinction between the candidates.
Wine Country Dude (Napa Valley)
Classing 50% of the electorate as fools is a sure winner! You just need to get the message to HRC headquarters!
Heddy Greer (Akron Ohio)
Well Thank God this intellectual from Boston has cleared thinks up that Trump supporters are fools. Sorry but this Ivy League educated "dope" is still voting for Trump. Of course, he hasn't dodged sniper fire in Bosnia, protected the average little guy while serving as a Wal-Mart Director, or flunked the DC bar exam.

Who's the dope again?
Deborah (Montclair, NJ)
If Hillary Clinton loses this one, James Comey's gratuitous pontificating will come back to haunt him.
Wine Country Dude (Napa Valley)
Neither gratuitous, nor pontificating. And I doubt that the man who stood up to the White House in 2004 against its end run against a hospitalized AG Ashcroft is going to be "haunted" by much of anything.

(Fast forward to 2020: a bearded, bedraggled James Comey searches trash cans on K Street, all the while muttering to himself, "If only...if only...I hadn't said those mean things about Hillary...I wouldn't be living at the men's shelter now.")
mita (Ind)
it seems that people have forgotten what the trump uni has done to people. it seems that people have forgotten that he has accused a good judge of not being able to act impartial solely because he would like to protect himself. it seems that people have forgotten that trump refused to disclose his tax returns. it seems that people have forgotten that he bankrupted his companies and, as a result, many of small companies sufferred. it seems people have forgotten that he said women must be punished for taking abortion.. after what he has said and what he has done to our judge, to his business partners and to women in general, the use of private email by hillary is nothing..
MM19 (Pittsburgh)
The thing that sticks in my craw the most about Trump is how, when confronted about outsourcing lots of manu jobs to countries he hates, he just says "I'm a businessman, that's what I do..." And then no one pushes back on that. If one is comfortable with that approach, then you can imagine saying "I'm President, that's what I do..."
Thought Bubble (New Jersey)
Can you imagine how bad this would be for Hillary if she were up against a real candidate?
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
Paul Begala said he thought the same until January 2016, when he realized the Trump phenomenon was unstoppable. Super Tuesday clinched it.
JJ (Chicago)
Paul Begala is unable to view anything objectively when it comes to the Clintons. He is theirs: hook, line & sinker.
N (Washington, D.C.)
She was up against a real candidate -- Bernie Sanders. That she will be the candidate just shows that the Democratic Party is as corrupt as the Republican Party -- and that establishment Democratic Party voters just as reliably enable/support corruption as die-hard Republican voters.
Brendan R (Austin, TX)
I bet Trump is actually doing even better than what this poll is saying. There are still many people who are afraid to say they will vote for Trump - even on the phone to a stranger.
IZ (<br/>)
Not true...
N. Smith (New York City)
And more than likely the same is true with Clinton.
So, what does that tell you??? -- you can't trust polls!!!
Wine Country Dude (Napa Valley)
Very true. They just feel bad about revealing such shattering information to the earnest college kid pollsters on break from Bennington. And then receiving a fusillade of irrational criticism, that boils down to four concepts: racism, misogyny, Black Lives Matter, and a doofy orange haircut.
Durt (Los Angeles)
Considering the horrifying Republican convention platform and their presumptive candidate, the fact that this contest is remotely close - even in meaningless July polls is testament to two things: the GOP continuing to play chess while Democrats play checkers, and criminal malpractice by the DNC.
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
"Horrifying?" I thought Cleveland had improved, based on its basketball team's performance. I should get out more.
WestSider (NYC)
Actually it's only a testament to Hillary Clinton the hawk being a lousy candidate, beholden to her donors, who comes with a truckload of baggage no one is interested in.
Durt (Los Angeles)
"Platform" is the key word here ... not location.
Voter (2016)
the Clinton Foundation took $20 million from Saudi Arabia, a country that enslaves women and persecutes gays. She supported the Iraq invasion and the failed economic system of "globalization". She is incompetent. Trump is an idiot who will get us into a war. America is treading through some desparate days.
WestSider (NYC)
Hillary is a thousand times more likely to get us into wars to please her pro-Israel donors than Trump.
N. Smith (New York City)
ONE MORE TIME. Do you remember WHO started the war in Iraq and WHY???
Answer: G.W. Bush and WMDs (& Oil)
Another thing.
Almost EVERYBODY supports Saudi Arabia in one way or the other, because they are so highly invested EVERYWHERE.
But you're right -- these are strange and desperate days.
N. Smith (New York City)
You are talking pure anti-Clinton tropes.
Have you ever bothered to listen to Trump, who is as thin-skinned as they come, and holds a grudge??? -- PLUS, there's the fact that he has zip knowledge of Foreign Policy.
Hence, if ANYONE could drag this country into a conflict, he could!!
M.I. Estner (Wayland, MA)
There is a difference between lying and merely failing to accurately describe facts. The former is intentional; the latter may be error.

The FBI had no evidence of her intentionally misstating facts whether any emails were confidential. My recollection is some 30,000 emails were turned over to the FBI. No doubt she relied on staff to review whether any of them were confidential. She was told none did, but apparently some 100 or so did; and these slipped by staff review. That is lying only if you already hate Clinton or you want to besmirch her.

On top of that, Comey's use of the term "extremely careless" was uncalled for. That term would mean that she could not humanly be more careless, which is absurd. We have no idea how many tens of thousands of confidential emails did properly go through the secure State Dept. server. If it is true that 100 were confidential, that is 3/10 of one percent (0.3%) of the 30,000. How is that extremely careless? It seems extremely rare.

Neither Clinton nor the DNC have figured out how to combat the "big lie" that Clinton is untruthful. She had better come up with a short, cogent explanation as a narrative and just stay with it. If a big lie can be believed if repeated enough times then a "big truth" can also be believed if likewise repeated. She's got three full months, which is enough time.

And if Trump insists on calling her Crooked Hillary, then she should call him Crazy Donald, which is easily more true.
Dan (New York)
Extremely careless means just careless enough that it's extremely disturbing. Certainly she could have been more careless, but I'm disturbed that as Secretary of State she apparently didn't know or didn't think about the classified status of information she was sharing.. Not just once, but 100 times.. and I support her.
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
She was no less careless in paying attention to her priapic husband's conjugal needs, as the Western world knows.
Packin heat (upper state)
I can certainly understand her losing support, the lies from landing under sniper fire in Bosnia, the Benghazi video to her lying numerous times about receiving/sending classified e-mails. Clinton supporters need to check their own moral compass and ask why are they supporting her, if her gender is the only thing then maybe you need to stay home and not vote.
EinT (Tampa)
Democrats have a moral compass?
IZ (<br/>)
Trump lies all day; he will not release his tax returns; he flip flops on every issue, about which he knows less than nothing; he attacks anyone who actually confronts him. Hillary is infinitely better than a conman Trump!
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
Liz Warren refuses to release her college forms from Penn and Harvard on which she indicated "Native American" lineage to get the inside track as an Affirmative Action baby. That's a Federal crime.
Jefflz (San Franciso)
We have just witnessed another witch hunt brought against Hillary Clinton for breaking the same rules that her predecessors broke. The Republicans have yet again chosen to abuse their Congressional power. They do not seek truth or justice, they seek only to politically assassinate Clinton when they are not undermining healthcare or Social Security or cutting taxes for the 0.1%

However, in the face of their certain knowledge about Donald Trump's instability and complete lack of qualification to be President and Commander-in-Chief, the Republican leadership has pledged to support Trump. They are knowingly backing someone who has nothing but contempt for what our nation has fought and died for. Trump has made a laughing stock out of the electoral process. That the contest is close is appalling beyond belief
Thought Bubble (New Jersey)
"[...] Hillary Clinton for breaking the same rules that her predecessors broke." Which rules? Are you talking about the oft-quoted argument that Rice and Powell also used private email servers? That is incorrect. What HRC did was far different and that's why she was under investigation, it was not a "witch hunt". She wrongly funneled all of her communciations through her private server so that she could shield those communications from becoming public records. That is not remotely the same thing as what Rice and Powell did.
Larry (Seattle)
The perception of the masses is there is one set of rules for us and another for them (Both Dem and Republican). This is the reason Bernie and Trump have gained so much traction.
Jefflz (San Franciso)
To put Bernie and Trump in the same category is to insult Mr. Sanders . He is not a racist, bigot or misogynist. He not an ignorant fool like Trump. This is a comment made by Trump fans trying to add credibility to the horror that Trump represents.
I certainly won't vote for Hillary.

She's the sort of boss who believes the rules only apply to the little people. Not her.
Deborah (Montclair, NJ)
Trump's the kind of guy who actively stiffs the little people. Never him. Ever. Not ever. No no no. Ugh.
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
Trump employed over 10,000 little people in Atlantic City, including my 2 brothers. They made good $$$ at the Taj. My brother gave me an original artwork from Evil Knievel, he got tons of bling as a casino host.
Larry (Seattle)
Have you ever read any of the article of how Hillary treats her staff and secret services? there have been books written about it.
Annie Dooley (Georgia)
Time for Dems to use their files on Donald Trump. The only way to fight scandal is with another scandal. Even if it's just innuendo and smear. Bring it out, bring it on and keep repeating it until it creates doubts and distrust. Obviously, his tax returns would be a rich source but since they're confidential, I suggest as smear campaign like, "Let me tell some of the things that COULD show up in his tax returns. Like every billionaire with many businesses and an army of tax accountants and lawyers, he PROBABLY (did so and so to avoid paying tax, to cover up offshore accounts, etc.) "
EinT (Tampa)
Do you voluntarily pay more taxes than you owe?
Larry (Seattle)
And who said the election process couldn't sink any further.
Wine Country Dude (Napa Valley)
Think they haven't already raided their oppo files on The Donald? And suggesting what his returns "might" contain is transparent buffoonery. No one outside the DNC will fall in line with that one.
RB (West Palm Beach)
Mrs. Clinton's e-mails indiscretions are benign in comparison to Trump's baggage
he will bring to the Presidency. To name a few; he is a bigot and a scam artist.
Most of all he lacks good judgement and will send America straight to the ditch.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
Computers have been programmed to calculate a person's mental age from their vocabulary and use of language. I'd like to see the score such a program would give to Trump's vocabulary and sentence-structure.
Mel (NYC)
An "extremely careless" previous secretary of state who is clearly above the law as president? The DNC has turned rigged and corrupt in order to help Hillary since that is the only way she could grasp the Democratic nomination--the will of the people being irrelevent. How could you have someone like her in the white house? What wouldn't she be capable of doing?
RobTAK (Anchorage, AK)
As a 58 year old Bernie supporter who has to "Grow Up," I'd like to remind the NYT of several things: they convicted the Central Park Five in the press long before the trial, they have overtly supported Hillary in both the opinion and news sections of the paper, they have helped make Donald Trump the nominee of the Republican Party, and they are printing that Hillary is even with Trump at this point as if that were news. All of these actions have one thing in common, they are all wrong.

As a Bernie supporter I have several options at this point. As Americans, we should not have to hold our nose when we go into the ballot box. I can support Bernie until November, a high likelihood if he runs with Jill Stein as a third party. in the event that Bernie does not do this, I have 4 viable choices for president. These four candidates have to support issues that I support. I can't trust Hillary or Donald. Jill Stein, Green Party, and Gary Johnson, Libertarian party both have elements of Bernie Sander's major points, but they also differ in important ways. Your readers may not know either of these two candidates because the Times balanced coverage has maybe given each candidate about three column inches up until now. If you do not like Hillary or Donald, these candidates at least deserve a look. Not many pundits are giving them a chance, but as candidates they may just support what you want better than what their PR machines and the Times have tried to sell us.
Deborah (Montclair, NJ)
They. can't. beat. Trump.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
History will never forget Alaska's signature gift to 21st Century public policy, Sarah Palin.
Steve Sheridan (Ecuador)
Neither can Hillary, I'll wager.
Stu (San Diego, CA)
Saw this one coming. That's what you get for 'blind allegiance.' Even the merest 'taint' of impropriety is sufficient. God help us should Donald Trump be elected.
Nathaniel Brown (Edmonds, Wa)
And Trump *can* be trusted?
Darlene (NYC)
I'd rather vote for Trump for his lack of experience to do what's right than to vote for Clinton for her experience to do what's wrong.
N. Smith (New York City)
And when Trump starts a major conflict, because some world leader was being "mean" to him -- just remember you helped put him there.
Rob (West)
There is no doubt that it is troubling that Clinton seems to keep shifting on the email controversy. I think part of this comes down to the complexity of the issue... just look at all the email classifications and what "classified" means etc etc.. but I do think what she did was a lie..
However, how a voter can compare this action with the Trump University fiasco and not come down on the side of Clinton is beyond me - despite her flaws.
If you read about the Trump University (and many of his other business dealings) this man becomes an obvious scam artist, a liar on a far larger scale than Clinton, and a con artist.
Trump University story is illuminating - He created this company and owned 90% but cannot answer simple questions about who the company hired. The employees had none of the backgrounds that were given in the sales seminars.
Then, he says that it was a legitimate business -several states are suing for fraud, and thousands of people are suing for being lied to, deceived and defrauded of money.
Then, when questioned about these people, he says that most of the people who took the class were happy - when he knows full well that all those reviews were done before any of those poor folks had even take the classes.
The entire thing was a pyramid scheme of epic proportions, not legitimate, stole money / or at least tricked them out of money, he owned 90% of the company, and yet he says he did not know this was going on?
Common.. are Trump supporters really that stupid?
Randall S (Portland, OR)
Where was all this vitriol over mishandling classified information when it was Edward Snowden doing it on purpose?
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
Check the NYT archive -- tons of anti-Snowden vitriol there. Snowden's been negotiating his surrender since forever -- his lawyer begs for 5 years in jail, the FBI insists on 10 years. It's well-documented.
Thought Bubble (New Jersey)
Can you really not see the difference, or are you just being obstinate?
1. Edward Snowden is not running for president of the United States.
2. Edward Snowden's actions revealed the secrecy surrounding government privacy invasions.
3. Hillary Clinton's actions kept secret what she was doing while Secretary of State.
Clark M. Shanahan (Oak Park, Illinois)
Snowden is not running for president.
The point of this article is that 67% of those polled find HRC untrustworthy.
That, in itself, is simply horrific.
I cannot believe the level of denial in these comments.
EnergyGal (Boston, MA)
Why does this come to my inbox as "Breaking News". It's not even news let alone breaking--- having the focus on "emails" for a week and Congress wasting our taxpayers dollars with "further investigation" is bound to impact a poll in the short term. And, it appears, people do not need much to find bad things to say about Hillary. I am so sorry the NY Times feels the need to call this news.
EinT (Tampa)
That's the same argument the Republicans used about Watergate. How did that work out?
hurting head (CA)
EinT: Except in Watergate the candidate actually broke the law. I know it's hard, but try to get some perspective. As Bernie Sanders said, "Enough of the emails. Let's talk about the real issues facing America." Clinton will deal with those issues. Trump will create new ones.
Lizzy (Gulfport, Florida)
After spending the last 16 months denigrating, disparaging and accusing Sanders progressives of being possessed of "pie in the sky" logic, the DNC is now, after kicking them overboard, relying on those same progressives to shore up their slowly sinking ship. In truth, and I've been deeply involved with the evolution of this election, Sanders progressives have turned their attention to sanitizing the Congress and Senate, supporting progressive down ballot candidates and building a political force for change. The DNC by supporting a highly flawed candidate and a superdelegate structure mesmerized by that candidate continues to push the idea victory will come via half a deck. Should Trump be elected, the responsibility for it rests on the heads of the DNC, their preferred candidate and superdelegates incapable of reading the hearts and minds of the American people. Superdelegates should be aware that they and their candidate are in the political crosshairs of the progressive movement.
hurting head (CA)
Newsflash: The DNC and superdelegates did not deny Bernie the nomination. Hillary Clinton won the democratic primary by millions of votes. That means she goes on to compete in the general election. That's how democracy works. So if Trump is elected it will be because some of Bernie's supporters don't understand that fact and instead subscribe to unfounded conspiratorial thinking.
Lizzy (Gulfport, Florida)
Its clear that the voting process was severely compromised in many states. The DNC has been served with a number of lawsuits addressing the same. Superdelegates committed themselves to HRC long before other candidates entered the race. DWS admitted early on that the superdelegate process was specifically created to prevent grassroots candidates from securing a DNC nomination. The primary process was a frustrating and disenfranchising experience for millions of Americans. Where those votes might have gone should worry every American and certainly make An HRC "win" more suspect.
hurting head (CA)
It's nice to see from the comments that Trump's supporters are actually starting to read the NYT. Unfortunately, though, a lot of Bernie's supporters still haven't figured out that he lost the primary by millions of votes and went on to endorse Hillary Clinton. Stay classy, guys. I'm sure that continuing to tear into Hillary Clinton will get you what you want in the presidential election. After all, she only voted identically to Bernie 93% of the time they were in the senate together.
JJ (Chicago)
Thanks for helping with the party unity.
Air Marshal of Bloviana (Over the Fruited Plain)
I wonder when Hillary will don her fake Princess Leia buns, in public.
DrT (Chicago. Illinois)
3 months ago one of my fanatic Democrat colleagues was delighted with the fact that Trump would be the Republican nominee. He is no longer laughing today. The Devil could beat Hillary if he was running. I think she should go back to her previous job : giving speeches to investment banks at $ 450,000 per hour.
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
Paul Begala on CNN laughed out loud when Trump's candidacy was announced. "It's a Godsend for Hillary!" he crowed. In the ensuing months, esp, after Super Tuesday, the fellow panelists often mocked poor Paul, who brought new meaning to the word "sheepish" in his subsequent comments.
Clark M. Shanahan (Oak Park, Illinois)
"One candidate uses a personal server for emails, as did the last two secs of state (and many others) and you don't trust her?" Jaxgatordan

This oft-repeated statement is not correct.
I never liked Condi nor Colin, but, they never channeled all their communications through their private server in order to wrongly keep personal control of the message.
What HRC did was totally wrong for a public servant to do.
EinT (Tampa)
...and maybe that's why neither of them is running for President.
Stan Continople (Brooklyn)
Seems like time for another well considered Andrew Rosenthal editorial, issued from his penthouse bubble, to really seal the deal for Clinton.
JJ (Chicago)
Or how about another well considered editorial from that other drivel spewer, what was his name? Kevin Baker? You know, the one who told 12 million voters to "grow up." Thereby really helping out HRC's cause.
MikeC (New Hope PA)
Why won't Trump show us his tax returns? What is he hiding? That he's not as rich as he says he is? That he pays close to zero taxes? And yet he's more trustworthy? Give me a break!
WestSider (NYC)
Trump won't show us his tax returns because NO real-estate developer in NYC pays any taxes. Don't like that, take it up with Congress about the loopholes they have created for developers among others.

And yes, he is more trustworthy because he isn't beholden to money lords like Hillary.
EinT (Tampa)
In which block do I report my net worth to the IRS on my tax return?

Seriously, I want to know because after all these years I must be doing something wrong.
Z.M. (New York City)
I don't care to compare whose transgressions and lies have been worse. What Hillary Clinton did concerning her e-mail server and everything related to it's operation is simply indefensible. Period. FBI director Comey's testimony under oath makes that conclusive. She is a flawed and weak candidate - face it- not the formidable one who should be beating Trump by double digits. These polls and her dropping numbers should give pause to the super delegates who crowned her even before the contest had a chance to begin.
Nagarajan (Seattle)
Irony of ironies, Bernie chooses to endorse Hillary just as her popularity is taking a dive. He should have waited.
AccordianMan (Lefty NYC)
Waited indeed.

He could have destroyed her but chose not to.

He could have hit her where it hurts: EMAILS, EMAILS, EMAILS.

What did her gang of thugs have on Bernie? NADA!!

He blew it big time. Project blame where it belongs one the DNC and Bernie. He could have eviscerated her but decided not too - sort of like Romney last time but even more so. Lame, lame, lame.
Richard Chapman (Prince Edward Island)
That Trump should be tied with Clinton in the polls is an incredible indictment of the American voter. The level of ignorance and blind stupidity it would take to consider that this fraudster is in any way qualified to lead a great nation is nearly inconceivable. On knowledge of issues, morality, competence, trustworthiness, temperament or any of innumerable other characteristics he fails.

I heard a clip of Donald Rumsfeld (liar and un-indicted war criminal) in which he jumped through various hoops to justify his intention to vote for Trump. It was pathetic. He said he couldn't bring himself to vote for Clinton. He prefers a racist idiot. I used to think that Rumsfeld was amoral but somewhat intelligent. I guess amoral will have to do. He's not alone. With a few honourable exceptions such as George Will, the entire right-wing of American politics seems eager to endorse a lying, ignorant, narcissistic, bigoted swindler as their choice to lead the nation. Perhaps America deserves Trump. Even if he loses the election the fact that so many will vote for him makes me despair for the United States - truly and empire in decline. Is Trump America's Nero? Or Caligula? I am so glad I moved to Canada. Trudeau should start building a wall.
Mooky (East Village, New York City)
Richard, It's not as you say "an indictment of the American voter" - it is an indictment of the candidate.
areader (us)
@Richard Chapman,
"On knowledge of issues, morality, competence, trustworthiness"
Could you please share your knowledge of specific examples of Hillary's morality, competence, trustworthiness?
To make it fair, I will quote Comey for a proof of her incompetence, lying, bad judgement, negligence and ignorance.
N. Smith (New York City)
But it's the American VOTERS who have made them candidates...
just say'n (Detroit Michigan)
The national media, in my view, seem to have an addiction to polls, as a substitute for deeply resourced journalism. This poll in particular, like others today, had a difficult time reaching a fair cross section of registered voters, likely voters or whatever segment they are targeting. The younger generation have no land lines, get their news from Facebook, and the rest of us don't answer calls from pollsters. The interpretation of those "results" are offered by reporters and pundits with zero statistical analysis credentials. The usual "fob off" comment in the reports on the polls is that they were taken at a slice in time, when they actually dragged over several days, involving different news cycles, and are out of date before they are even released. Yet, the media love affair with their own polls continues, as a substitute for sustained solid journalism.
Respectfully, the NYT's and CBS should redirect their money away from incessant polling and hire more highly qualified reporters and correspondents.
Dan (New York)
This poll included cell phones and land lines.
There is a poll for every day of the week indicating something different. It really is tiresome. I'm getting the feeling it's more about manipulating the public.

I don't believe for a minute this will be a close race in November.
As a ferverent Bernie supporter, and an inevitable Jill Stein voter, I'm still planning to phone bank for Hillary in swing states, but she has just got to fix this. She needs to make a grand gensture. She needs to do the hard work of moving the progressives over to her.

At this point all I hear from her campaign and her supporters is "fall in line for the sake of the country." Not only does this argument have its limit, but it's bothersome to hear it from people who willfully shot down the one candidate who was a sure bet against Trump. She needs to do more. You need to do more.

I hope all the Hillary supporters out there are working very seriously to bring progressives and independents over to her, rather than chiding and blaming them for this mess, like so often happens in these pages.
ellen (new york city)
How brutal is this job that these are the best candidates we could find?
robert (jacksonville)
All that money and that is the best poll they can buy, Trump for the Win
Bogara (East Central Florida)
I am particularly taken by the emotional claims about Clinton on this message board, affording her with all sorts of feelings (because she is female and you are biased in thinking females are always more intuitive and understanding?) Do you think that she comes up with her remarks by herself, after private soul-searching? Nope, that's what staff is for; to analyze information and compose what a candidate says, especially in Clinton's case as it appears that Trump often speaks from the hip (which is, ironically, why so many take him seriously). Many Clinton supporters instill her with attributes that you have no way of knowing whether or not she possesses -- or are you an intimate friend of hers? What we have are two powerful and accomplished people, both of whom are terribly flawed as candidates for the Office (reminds me of Gore-Bush). What matters is that you examine each in order to make your best choice about what they will do as Commander in Chief. Not say, but do. Not what they cry about, feel about, think about, (as if you know), but what he or she will DO for a powerful and prosperous country, and if she or he is able to work with Congress so that they, too, can transform into a body of actively working public servants instead of whining about their colleagues while becoming wealthy through your taxes.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
Emotion motivates thinking. No practitioner of artificial intelligence knows how to confer emotions to machines.

If you are really in pursuit of happiness, you need to think about what makes you think.
Wiccy (DE)
lol Well if they want Hitlary they will end up with Trump . It's that simple . Bernie endorsed her and his followers are doing exactly what they said they would do . Vote anyone but her . I'm in over 30 Bernie groups on FB . So my lil window shows me what they are saying and doing . Most are still sticking with Bernie . Some are going with Jill S. Id say about 20%for Jill . Few going to Trump and I say about 3% to Hitlary . I'm going on the post and polls I see in those Bernie FB groups . I see a lot of people posting they left the Dem party or they will after the convention on the 29th . So they got Hitlary but lost a bunch of voters who just turned their backs on it . These groups have anywhere to 3 to 5 k members up to over 54 k members . I for one will not vote for her . I have yet to see anyone say they will change their minds when VPs are announced . I do see a lot of people calling Warren a sell out . lol
HamiltonAZ (AZ)
Good grief! Hillary's numbers fall because she, too is dishonest. Face it, nobody should ever have to accept dishonesty until they have to make a choice and both choices are dishonest. Honesty cannot be a deciding factor in this race. It doesn't distinguish the candidates.
Hillary is distasteful within normal boundaries. Trump is distasteful and operates outside normal boundaries. That is dangerous.
It is very depressing that the USA has come to this choice. Perhaps we all should ask ourselves what we should have done differently.
Jon (Home)
"...three in 10 saying a vice-presidential candidate would have no effect on their vote."

And 6 out of 10 saying the presidential candidate would have no effect on their voting either, as they would just vote on party lines.
Jason Galbraith (Little Elm, Texas)
By far the largest group of Americans are independents, but they aren't necessarily likely voters.
pj alexander (tacoma wa)
Clinton surrogates are calling for a time out for the polls. Obviously, this is not what they would be doing if it was trump who was faltering. With the Democratic convention just around the corner it is more important now than ever that we test the weather of this flawed presumptive candidate, before the final nomination. I say daily polls and throw Sanders back in the mix to give the polled electorate a choice that fits their voice. Novel idea, I know, but why risk a trump presidency unnecessarily due to partisan reporting.
Robert (Out West)
Sorry, but Saint Bernie already conceded.
pj alexander (tacoma wa)
He did not concede, he endorsed Clinton. A vote at the convention for her nomination, or for his, must still take place. FDR endorsed his opponent and then went on to win the nomination.
Washington Heights (NYC, NY)
The FBI busted her on at least a half dozen lies. Even if you like her, why would you or anyone believe her?
Robert (Out West)
It's not a question of liking somebody I've never met.

It's a question of getting a President who's not a narcissistic, greedy, ignorant fool.
Richard Brody (Mercer Island, WA)
An excellent review of today's polls and so many terrific comments. The only true poll will be the one come Election Day. In the meantime it's no wonder these polls fluctuate. How many times in our lives have news stories of information or misinformation changed the tide of electoral preferences? "Flip flop", "swift boat", "bigotry", "lying", et al. My hope is that ultimately, in spite of the daily drudgery of this campaign and becoming worn out with the vitriol and posturing, a huge turnout will determine who our next President will be. And whomever we choose, with a great turnout on Election Day, will tell us that in this democracy has stated its preference in no uncertain terms.
indiana homez (tempe)
Polls, polls, polls... what should we think?

Hypothesis: IF you were a person that a month ago thought that "the polls are too early to mean anything" when Donald Trump was on a downward trend; then you will likely think the same today regarding Hillary Clinton's downward trend.

BUT... if you were of the opinion a month ago that the election was all but 'over' for Trump; then, you are likely a little worried right-now about Hillary's prospects; or, you are a disingenuous poster and your political analysis is bunk!
Leigh (Qc)
Why are people surprised by these numbers. Reps like the execrable Trey Gowdy have to be elected to office by someone...
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
Speaking of execrable, Charlie Rangel (D-Countrywide) just got convicted on 11 of 13 Ethics charges by a bipartisan Congressional panel.
Not to be outdone by NYC, Philly admirably offered up longtime black Rep. Chaka Fatah, convicted in Federal Court last week of standard-issue Democrat corruption.
Care to explain?
rondonaz (AZ)
It's not so much the emails as Hillary's complete lack of integrity, coupled with her blind lust for power. Bernie would have been SO much better as a presidential nominee; he is a bit naive on some issues, but his integrity is beyond reproach. It is baffling that each party chose such incredibly polarizing people. While I dislike Trump's in-your-face NYC attitude, at least he is honest. I actually believed Hillary when she ran those '3am phone call' ads during her last Presidential campaign, but then she actually got that call, from ambassador Stevens, and proved herself unworthy of trust - both his and ours.
Robert (Out West)
I thought Sanders' supporters knew stuff?

Stevens did not call Hillary Clinton.

Here's what actually happened.
Alex Hicks (Atlanta, GA)
What's all this hullabaloo about one quirky poll? The blind Pied Pipperish run toward the most dramatic reading of the latest tea leaf?

What's all this nonsense about candidate Hillary Clinton as an especially dishonest politician? How can it survive Clinton's Politifact ratiings with Sanders and Kasich as one of a trio of especially honest politicians? Three things: the not entirely professional Comey's editorializing to cover his posterior Re his Republican co-religionists; Fox and friends; and the so far uncommented hordes of unwitting Fox Fellow Travellers.
Shelley Dreyer-Green (Woodway, WA)
Well why don't you do your job, NYTimes, by reporting on the overwhelming positives of Hillary Clinton as our next president, instead of continually chastising her and dwelling on the inconsequential negatives dredged up by Republican witch hunts. Trey Gowdy and Co. must be howling with joy.
EinT (Tampa)
So the job of the Times is to get Hillary Clinton elected?
N. Smith (New York City)
NO. It's the job of the VOTER to get a candidate elected.
Didn't they teach that in Civics 101????
JJ (Chicago)
Thanks, EinT. You took the words out of my mouth.
Southern Boy (Spring Hill, TN)
As Hillary Clinton's poll number continue to fall, and fall they will to levels that will no longer be measurable, Donald Trump's numbers will rise until they are off the charts. Although Trump is bombastic in his own way, Clinton is dishonest and has no respect for the nation's laws and disdained national security. Trump, as far as we know, is not a criminal.
Robert (Out West)
Perhaps you could point to one of Hillary Clinton's convictions. See, we have this whole "there has to be a trial," thingie in this country.
EinT (Tampa)
So in order for someone to stand trial, there has to be a prior conviction?

I don't think that's how the criminal justice system works.
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
She's as innocent as OJ is, by Robert's metric. Have they found Nicole and Ron's killer(e) yet? No?
MyThreeCents (San Francisco)
Many HC supporters claim the email issue has been overblown:

"With all that is going on in this country and the world, her private email server is an issue?"

Maybe so, maybe not. But is it really not "an issue?" If HC gets elected and uses a private server in her NY basement to handle all incoming and outgoing emails from the White House, would you consider it "an issue" then?
Hanon (LA)
Nope, still not really an issue. I'd love to see this same level of scrutiny applied to George W Bush for the war he brought the country into on false grounds, or the country that he wrongfully invaded (which has led directly to the ISIS problem today). THAT seems a bigger issue than emails sent from a personal account.
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
Only 240 days into office, G W Bush inherited the terror wars that Bill Clinton ignored during the previous EIGHT years in office.
Item: October 2000, USS Cole, 17 sailors dead in Yemen. Clinton's response: NOTHING. And look at Yemen today.
Pgs. 2-3 of the Executive Summary of the Official 9/11 Report list 10 events that Clinton failed to respond to, or responded to ineffectually. Making 9/11 inevitable.
Ray (Texas)
Hillary has no one to blame, but herself. She's lied repeatedly; from her cattle futures trades, to her claims of the "vast right-wing conspiracy", to her excuses to the Benghazi family members, to being "dead broke", to her Goldman Sachs speeches, to the e-mail server. She can't be trusted and wouldn't even be able to get a security clearance in normal circumstances. The American people can suffer a lot, but not a leader who's a proven liar.
Roy Weaver (Stratham NH)
Not unlike Brian Williams she lied about ducking bullets. Williams career was hurt. Hillary gets promoted.
ben (massachusetts)
Interesting that the polls supposedly show Hillary’s area of support as being on immigration. That in light of the Brexit vote is actually surprising.
If Hillary wins then 12 MILLION illegal immigrants are immediately transformed into undocumented citizens, with the first order of business being to make them documented US citizens.
This will be done without any vote of approval by the American public.
Further the Supreme Court will become complicit in allowing the President to allow in or block from entry whomever the President feels comfortable or uncomfortable with.
That impacts the environment and the use of tax dollars.
I agree with Dem’s on many issues but I disagree on those 2. I am for ZERO SUM immigration. And I sure don’t want the Supreme Court saying it is ok for one person to simply legalize 10’s of millions of illegal immigrants.
Robert (Out West)
Uh, Sparky, if the President could simply wave a wand and do this, your own crazy ideology says that our commiemoozlim Prez would have done it by now.

The President can't. Honest. Big court case two weeks ago and everything.
ben (massachusetts)
Hey Sir Robert the Genius -
Point being if Hillary gets to assign the future Scotus jurists then they will give the power to the President to do just that. Trump would appoint conservative justices who would probably not expand those powers as such.
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
Hilary sees it slipping away. When will she cry in the diner again, as Obama made her do? She's her own worst enemy, after her cheating husband.
Will (New York)
I cannot believe James Comey's status as a major Republican donor went entirely unreported by the Times of all publications, particularly given Comey's influence on these polls with his condemnation of Hillary Clinton. As if being appointed the head of the FBI magically strips you of all political affiliations, loyalties, and interests when you speak publicly and turns you into an impartial saint.

Shame on you, NYT, for jumping on board with the rest of the media that would like nothing more than to see this election be as tight as possible through November. You are better journalists than this.
EinT (Tampa)
You have no idea what a major donor is do you?

A "major donor" funds his or her own superpac. A "major donor" gives not thousands, but hundreds of thousands of dollars to the party. If not more.
You have a point - poor Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was the subject of a whole editorial because she called the man a "faker."
NYCLAW (Flushing, New York)
If Trump ends the Republican party, the history will reflect that Republican Party was started by one of most honest Americans and ended by one of the biggest liars in American history.
calo (Vermont)
What gets both Clintons into trouble is their sense of entitlement. Bill can have a meeting with whomever he wishes, when and where, and Hillary can use her own email account because it's easier for her. They are demonstrating for us whom they represent and who they are. It ain't us.
Hanon (LA)
How is that entitlement? Their achievements and personal intelligence makes it possible for them to get meetings... And the emails are such a non-issue. General Petraeus actually gave up really specific classified information to a lover and didn't get this amount of backlash.
EinT (Tampa)
He lost his job. And he's not running for President is he?
kladinvt (Duxbury, Vermont)
Since both the DNC & RNC are corrupt failures, this would be the perfect time to introduce "None of the Above" to all ballots. That's the only reasonable choice when voters are confronted with just these two.
EinT (Tampa)
We already have that. They are called people who chose not to vote. Like the rednecks who stayed home in 2008 and 2012 for lack of an acceptable candidate. And all the young people and minorities who will stay home this year because of the same.
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
Democrat voting rate in 2012: 42%. Even in vote-by-mail states they did not vote!
EinT (Tampa)
"not voting" is relative. Republicans voted at a much lower rate.
Mark (Tx)
LOL! she's not tied. She's losing badly. It's simple, Hillary has disgraced and disqualified herself. The public revelation of Hillary's personal email server while at State and the concluding FBI investigation exposed her corruption and lies. The democrats have pivoted from hope and change to hopelessly corrupt. Trump is the grown up in the room.
Northern CA Resident (California)
Wondering whether the Times is aware that other polls this week show HRC far ahead of Trump.
Mickey (Fla)
I do think bringing back jobs and industries to the U.S. will itself go a long way to solving many social problems which are mostly rooted in poverty and joblessness. I think Trump can do that. The democrats have been chasing jobs and manufacturing out of the U.S. for decades with ill-advised tax and trade policies, and oppressive labors laws and other regulations. While Trump was not my preferred GOP nominee, I will vote for him. I cannot pull the lever for Hillary. Let's face it - the woman is a congenital liar and crook and Washington D.C., to the extent it can get any more dirty and corrupt, will only get worse with her in power.
Rita (California)
Who had control of Congress and the White House for the last 30 years, while tax and trade policies were enacted? And who has had control of Congress for the last 6 years. What steps have they taken to repeal or reform tax and trade policies.

At most you can blame both parties. And arguably the Republicans get more of the blame because they have held control or veto power for most of that time.

As for labor laws, do you really want to work for low wages, no benefits, overtime in unsafe work conditions?
Morris Bentley (42420)
No truer words have ever been spoken.
Susan H (SC)
Right there in your neighborhood Trump uses H1B workers for his private clubs and golf courses and has the products he sells made in China and Bangladesh. I think I even read that Trump steaks come from Canada! Congress makes the laws and passes and signs the Trade agreements. Last I heard the Republicans were in charge, and everything I've read about the TTP says it is being pushed by the Republicans. If you really believe Trump wants to bring back jobs, why can't he started to do so? If he's so rich, why isn't he building factories in this country?
Bill Appledorf (British Columbia)
To Hillary supporters, who inveigh us Bernie backers to eschew our choice and vote for her to prevent the catastrophe of a Trump presidency, I say: it is not too late to wake up to reality and run Bernie in November. Convincing yourselves your arguments for Hillary are airtight and that no one in their right mind would vote against her or stay home is the epitome of arrogance. Not everyone thinks like you. If ever you needed to understand this, it is now, when you can still see the light and run a guaranteed winner -- Bernie -- against Trump instead of a candidate whom many voters cannot stomach because she is incapable of speaking in straightforward, honest statements no matter what you have convinced yourself they are.
Susan Anderson (Boston)
Very few Clinton supporters think "arguments ... are airtight". We (and I switched form Bernie, who is a great guy) support her, bruised and battered, because we look at the whole record and find she is not as caricatured.

So please stop exaggerating, and please get back into the real world. All this focus on white-knight Bernie is not helping. In an ideal world, I'd vote Green, but I have a better chance at getting realism about climate change and clean energy from Hillary.

And she's not the superhawk you all paint her as either.

Nor was she criminal about Benghazi. Enough already!
Bill Appledorf (British Columbia)

Your reply illustrates exactly what I am saying. You are convinced and therefore dismiss any disagreement with your opinion as just plain stupid. I admit that I am rarely if ever as smart as I think I am, but a quick glance at whom Americans elect and why is all it takes to realize that running a "flawed" candidate is a bad idea. You can minimize Hillary's flaws to yourself because you want her to win, but in politics this strategy is the equivalent of waiting for your opponent to miss in pool. You might never get another shot.
Hanon (LA)
It's usually a conservative trait to demonize one while seeing another as a white knight hero -- which is what makes it so disturbing to see this from democrats. Guess what? The world can exist in greys, and your moral superiority is not going to get a thing done -- other than get trump elected
Pierce Randall (Atlanta, GA)
This particular polling slump will probably pass. It at least doesn't tell us much about the general election. But it does show how Clinton is a flawed candidate, and serves as a kind of rebuke to people who think that she's the reasonable choice by default because she's a seasoned politician.
richard schumacher (united states)
Complacency is the Democrats' greatest enemy. Keep your eyes on the prize: the Supreme Court. We need Clinton appointees, not Trump appointees. That also means we must elect a Democrat Senate.
C. Richard (NY)
Excellent point - that without a Democratic Senate the Republicans would continue their obstruction. Next thing to consider: which Democratic candidate would be more likely to get out the Democratic vote?
Susan (NYC)
The longer the press characterizes the candidates as untrustworthy and unlikeable, the more it will be believed.
Fhc (Chi)
Am re-posting this comment since it's been buried in the hundreds of others. It deserves to be read:

Marcus Taylor Richmond, CA. 51 minutes ago

... because most "White" Americans are dumber than rocks! Let's look at the "proof"... Remember Watergate? Republican President Richard Nixon had to resign before he was "impeached".... right after his Vice-President had to resign for accepting "bribes" while in office (Agnew went to Federal Prison in the end).

Remember Republican President Ronald Reagan and the Iran/Contra/Guns-for-Hostages/Oliver North/Cocaine fiasco? Maybe you remember Reagan's Savings & Loan fiasco? By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of the Reagan administration was the worst ever ...... Starting to get the picture about "Saint Ronnie", the man every GOPer wants to be like?

Now how can we forget George W. Bush ... here is a man who's Vice President handed out no-bid contracts to a corporation he was formerly CEO of (Halliburton) and continued to collect payments from ... while Vice President! Agnew went to prison for it ... Cheney didn't. And of course Bush had his "Banking Scandal" and almost destroyed the world economy.

And now we have the closing act on the GOP ... "Donald (the Destroyer) Trump".
Tullymd (Bloomington, Vt)
The country richly deserves him.
EinT (Tampa)
Her husband was impeached.
Robert (Out West)
And the guy who led the charge said he went too far, a week before his university got busted for concealing sexual assaults by football team members.

And Dennis Hastert--jail. Statutory rape, with boys.

And Newt Gingrich...hoo, boy.

Yeah, leacure some more about morality.
ET (Washington DC)
For the Democratic party to field a candidate that at any point can have the same poll ratings as Donald Trump is a true disgrace. Is there not a mechanism to get Hillary replaced by someone more trustworthy such as John Kerry, VP Biden or Al Gore before she loses again a presidential campaign and sends us all and the whole world into the abyss of a Trump presidency?
jorge (San Diego)
Seeing the percentages breakdowns on who'd do a better job I'm once again convinced each citizen should have to pass a basic exam on economics, history, and the Constitution before they are allowed to vote. Thinking liberals and conservatives alike believe he would create a disaster regarding the economy, jobs and trade-- unemployment and prices for manufactured goods would both go sky high. As for national security, immigration, and race relations, Trump is a nightmare. At least Mitt Romney and John McCain didn't scare people.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
Maybe the US should begin by obliging candidates for local school boards to pass science and civics tests.
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
Several news shows in 2015 revealed that 30% of San Diego County's grade-school students had NEVER been vaccinated, forcing parents to either homeschool their children, or put them in private religious schools where vaccinations were mandatory.
You can't learn history, economics, etc. when you're sick with a third-world disease, jorge. Not surprisingly, tho it's a Democrat bastion, California law now mandates such vaccinations before the schools have no Caucasian or Asian students left....
jorge (San Diego)
The majority of "anti-vaccers" in CA (with a sprinkling of New-
Agers) are religious conservatives and/or conspiracy believers, i.e., Trump supporters, which sort of lines up with the lack of reality-based education.
DDW (the Duke City, NM)
This article makes a compelling case to vote for Jill Stein come November.
Jon Smith (Washington State)
Rasmussen poll out today has Trump up +7 over Clinton. The slide for Clinton has started.
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
She's on the USS Thresher, figuratively. The bow planes have stuck on her maiden voyage at an irreversible downward angle, but Capt. Clinton does not quite feel it yet. It can only end badly.
Mary Rose Prokop (Cambridge, Maryland)
While we can't expect Mrs. Clinton to act ethically, it's not too late for the delegates to do so. Use whatever back door rule you need to, but please do not put this woman on the ballot. I would strongly suggest you recruit
Joe Biden if you want any chance to win in November. I know way too many
Democrats who will NOT vote for Hillary.
Clark M. Shanahan (Oak Park, Illinois)
Biden is a nice guy, but,
Sanders brings in the Independents.
Alex (Indiana)
The email scandal is certainly hurting Ms. Clinton, but it's probably not the most important issue.

To many, the Supreme Court is a far more vital matter. Supreme Court justices do more than resolve disagreement involving ambiguous laws. They have taken it upon themselves to write the law. While this should not be their job, it's how their role has evolved. And there is no appeal from their rulings. Justice Ginsburg has now provided an extraordinary in-our-face demonstration of just how political SCOTUS is today.

The next president will likely appoint several judges, and set the direction of the court for decades to come; justices of the Supreme Court of course enjoy lifetime tenure.

There are good reasons to fear a President Trump. But there are also good reasons why intelligent people may worry about a Clinton Supreme Court.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
The present Supreme Court doesn't even understand "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". How stupid does one have to be to misconstrue "no law" or deny that an "establishment of religion" is a faith-based belief, not an organization or institution?

What a sorry muddled mess has been made of this country by its village idiots.
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
Based on nothing more than an old white Supreme Court justice discerning deep in the Constitution - after 197 years - some ephemera called "penumbras and emanations," over 55,000,000 pre-born children have been aborted. A society based on Violence, from conception through adulthood.
Tom (Coombs)
What's new? A nation that considers Reagan as it's best President, elected Richard Nixon and G.W.Bush and had an Austrian body builder as one of it's governors, shouldn't be shocked to see Trump tied with Hillary Clinton.
EinT (Tampa)
Yet Hillary's husband was the one who was impeached. Strange.
Heddy Greer (Akron Ohio)
How'd that peanut farmer do as President? Any many feel he did a better job than Obama.
Gordon Jones (California)
E-mail stuff - Tempest in a Tea Pot. If the reasonable reader dug in themselves and explored all the stuff that is out there they would conclude that she did not lie. She trusted her staff and State Dept. employees to screen e-mails to avoid violating Dept. policies. Lets see now - well over 30,000 e-mails reviewed. Indications that 11 may have qualified to be classified, but even that is questionable. The devil is in the details folks. Most disconcerting of all is the fact that our press and media have not parsed the various reports and data. They have been content to keep alive the image of "lies". That folks is disgusting. Media focus is on what headlines - almost always sensational and misleading - will sell newspapers and disgustingly shallow on line "articles" - with related ads. Journalism is failing us once again.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
Meanwhile the candidate of all these suspicious little paranoiacs gets a free pass on disclosing his tax returns, notwithstanding his well-established reputation as a deadbeat.

All they have on Hillary is their own transference-projection.
Don (USA)
Hillary may be above the laws that the average American has to adhere to but she is still accountable to voters.

Hopefully integrity and honesty are still part of all Americans value system!
Tullymd (Bloomington, Vt)
Steve Bolger (New York City)
You haven't made a good first impression of yourself here.
Talleyrand (Geneva, Switzerland)
Let us compare:
Hilary Clinton: made a mistake that a person is likely to make, but given the brouhaha, has most certainly learned a lesson. Sh is capable of change.

2) Trump has been the same tacky, vituperating, screeching orange banshee since whenever and will neither admit a mistake or be able to change. His incompetence will sink him and, if elected, the country as well. We will become a kind of Russia-lite.

Now: let us hear from the both-siderists in the audience, the false-equivalence-mongers, the equaltimers...

.... Ah, the silence is deafening.
Heddy Greer (Akron Ohio)
Let us compare:

1. Hillary dodges sniper fire in Bosnia. Trump dodges errant golf balls on his golf courses.
2. Hillary blames Benghazi on a YouTube video while telling her daughter it was a terrorist act. Trump appears in the movie Zoolander which is available on video.
3. Hillary leaves the White House flat broke. Trump will enter the White House as a billionaire.
4. Hillary cares for the little people while serving as a Wal-Mart director. Trump employs tens of thousands of little people in his multitude of businesses.
5. The ambassador to Libya was assassinated under Hillary's watch. Trump tried to buy the LA Ambassador Hotel.
6. Hillary peddles influence. Trump buys it.

Sorry to shatter the silence.
MM19 (Pittsburgh)
A lot of the "little people" trump hires are not in the US
Jon Skinner (Granite Bay CA)
How is it we hear all of these major groups and subsets of the American electorate stating they emphatically will NOT vote for Trump-- Latinos, Women, African Americans (zero% in one battleground state)...and yet the media and their pollsters have it close?? More importantly if are accurate, how is that the relatively minor issue of mishandling emails while performing the duties of SOS under a lot of pressure at times, due to an admittedly bungled effort to maintain privacy from right wing hatchet jobs out get her, is more damaging than the volumes of issues (don't even know where to begin) The Donald brings? You want to see a world economy tank...elect Trump.
Patricia Barber (Chicago, IL)
you don't just report the news, you create it. which you already know. this is immoral. if Trump wins this election, i hope you remember this. and yes, this will pass and would pass faster (and is small, small thing and admittedly a partisan attack) if you'd stop treating Trump like a legitimate candidate. he IS the Republican candidate. but he is not an appropriate candidate for the President of the United States. i'm increasingly bothered by the NYtimes coverage. as CNN has already admitted to blatant corruption and bias toward the reporting of Trump, there aren't very many places left to go. Seriously disappointed in your coverage. Patricia Barber
Heddy Greer (Akron Ohio)
Right. The NY Times is in the tank for Trump. Thanks for letting us in on the secret.
Dave (Dallas, Tex.)
I'm not a Trump fan, but I can tell you Clinton's fall in the polls is entirely her own doing. She could defuse the entire email mess by coming clean and at least *acting* contrite, but that's something very hard for her to do. Ego above all isn't a terribly endearing trait for a leader.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
There's no doubt where Trump stands on contrition. He never does it.
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
Hillary still calls the FBI's investigation a "security review," despite the FBI director saying there is no such critter: "We only do criminal investigations."
She's incorrigible, like Tawana Brawley.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
The law does criminalize deliberate security breaches by people with security clearances. The investigation found no intent by anyone involved to divulge secrets, and no damage attributable to anyone hacking her system.
Wesley Brooks (Upstate, NY)
While I don't see Clinton as much of a job creator myself (evidenced by her work as New York's junior senator), how can 10% believe that Trump would do any better. Trump's record speaks for itself in a three decade long trail of bankruptcies, defaults, lawsuits, fraud and abuse that has served only Trump, Inc..

How anyone can possibly suggest that he cares a whit for the common person clearly isn't looking at the published record. It is an embarrassment to America that someone with his credentials is this close to being the leader of the free world. While Hillary may not be a shining example of ethical behavior (admittedly Politician's Ethics is a pretty low bar to begin with) most of her actions appear to be desperate defensive cover against a continuous personal assault, which has no parallel to Trump's blatantly unscrupulous behavior. I am ashamed for us all.
Dan Kerr (Stony Brook, NY)
The FBI has recently revealed for all to see the truth of what William Safire said in the New York Times more than 20 Years ago (January 8, 1996), “Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady -- a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation -- is a congenital liar.”
Susan Anderson (Boston)
Safire and a dedicated Republican machine have worked since the day when Hillary was trying to figure out how to deliver universal health care to brand her a liar. This is not different, and it's not new. They don't like her progressive / liberal ideas. Using time honored repetition to get everyone on board.

What is the matter with Democrats that they are so willing to repeat Republican lies and fight with each other?
Steve Sheridan (Ecuador)
WHAT Progressive ideas?? If it weren't for Bernie's ideas, she wouldn't have any at all! "No We Can't" is not an idea, it's a negation of ALL ideas!
Steve Bolger (New York City)
I've been here the whole 20 years this place has existed, and one thing has never changed. Right wing posters are the person they transference-project onto others.
Roy Weaver (Stratham NH)
The DNC has treated their voting base as ignorant inconsequential statistics. They have not listened and they have made them feel like things are unfair. They jammed HRC down our throats before the debates even began. Sanders won most all of the debates, he is trusted and has polled better to defeat Trump for quite a while.

The DNC - right from the beginning lost so much credibility when super delegates flat out negated Sanders. A message that let's their base know right from the start that their vote will not matter that much.

Listen: One thing we should keep in mind; as recently demonstrated in England, people don't vote out of reasoning or logic - they most often vote out of emotion. Studies have been done that prove that the mind will make negotiations and decisions that are not in their own best interest if they think they're being treated unfair.

I'm a democrat and can say from my perspective - the DNC has been extremely unfair.

For this and many other reasons: I'm no different than any other human being and will not support Clinton.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
I'm a Democrat and I consider Bernie an interloping opportunist betting with his credulous donor's money that Hillary would get indicted for the e-mails and the nomination would fall into his lap.
Hanon (LA)
The DNC and the RNC are both trying to support the candidate they think most likely to win a general election. To that end, the RNC had clearly been trying to favor bush or Rubio over trump -- but no one seems to have a problem with the RNC.

Also sanders won a lot of caucases because that favors the white, independent voters - but Clinton did win overwhelmingly among diverse voters. Don't take away the voices of minorities and women just by claiming the DNC pushed Hilary.
Vicki (Florence, Oregon)
The "email issue" has been the focus of both the Republicans and the Media and used to whip up controversy and instill doubt in the voting public. Other government office holders have used private servers, but that has been brushed aside as interference with the rhetoric they prefer. Meanwhile, they continue beating the same obstructionist drum they beat against President Obama.

What isn't discussed to death, as is the email fiasco, is that unlike other government servers, such as the CIA, FBI and the state department, Hillary's server was never hacked. No "top secret" emails were hacked. In fact, no emails were hacked.

The "woulda, coulda, shoulda" Monday morning quarterbacking of the issue is a waste of the public's money and Congress' time. Time that would be better used addressing the many bills left languishing while they pursue their witch hunt. Not at all surprising, the Republicans are refusing to accept the FBI findings and are continuing the investigation. I don't remember off hand who it was that said something to the effect that madness was when you kept doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. This is what our Do-Nothing Congress devotes its time to.

This far from the election, polls are only useful to the people/institutions that take them - for the publicity and the chance to write a story. Many people don't truly make up their minds until just before the election. Here's hoping sense will prevail, not bigotry and hatred.
Mooky (East Village, New York City)
Hi Vicki,

How do you know her top secret emails weren't hacked? She said there was nothing confidential on there, and there was, there were also top secret and secret emails! She lied, again. The FBI said:

'It Is Possible Hostile Actors Gained Access to Secretary Clinton's Personal Email Account'

That's upsetting to many Americans, and Congress members are correct to be concerned.
Tiburon110 (San Francisco)
You cannot say that Hillary's server was not hacked -- the FBI said there was a likelihood that it was but they just don't know. I realize you must have very little faith in the government to believe that the CIA. FBI and State Department servers were hacked, but Hillary's home brewed server in her Chappaqua garage was not. Ridiculous. By the way, this email server issue is probably the 10th or 11th Clinton issue where she lied (wait till the Clinton Foundation pay to play info comes out), tried to cover up, blamed others, etc. Do you think there is a pattern?
Mary (Seattle)
Doesn't this happen every time before and right after the Republican conventions? That the Republican polling goes up. There's a bump. So pay more attention to the polls after both conventions.
Observer (Backwoods California)
Maybe they are waiting until after the R Convention, but at some point the HRC campaign needs to emphasize that Colin Powell and Condi Rice also used non-government email servers as well. Not having complete control of those servers was arguably a more reckless that what Clinton did. "They all do it," is not the greatest defense in the world, but with highly sensitive material flooding out of government servers through Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning, one has to ask just how reckless HRC really was, in real world terms.
Mariah (St. Paul, MN)
Incorrect: Powell and Rice didn't use private servers. They used private email accounts and they told other government officials they were using private email accounts. No government official knew about Hillary's private server. If you can't tell the difference between an email account and a physical server that existed in Hillary's home, then you aren't qualified to be commenting about this issue.
pj alexander (tacoma wa)
If the NYT dares to put candidate Sanders in the poll he would trounce trump and Clinton and everyone knows it. The collusion in presenting this false choice continuously to the public since long before the race is over has set this nation up for a potential trump presidency. Clinton is a weak candidate against him, she is distrusted, disliked, corrupt and a pay to play lobbyist crony big bank politician. Only Bernie Sanders as the Democratic nominee will defeat trump soundly and guarantee the white house and Democratic victories down ballot. Push her forward at your own peril, but the electorate is speaking.
hurting head (CA)
Newsflash! Hillary Clinton defeated Bernie Sanders in the primary by millions of votes, and Sanders has gone on to endorse her. You confuse your own voice with "the electorate speaking".
cb (mn)
People usually get what they deserve. The only issue is whether American's will elect an unethical serial liar criminal president and lifetime woman abuser husband or a proven businessman who has created thousands of jobs for Americans and their families. You decide.
Hanon (LA)
You mean an accomplished senator who was the very first person to even push for universal medical coverage... Or a businessman plagued by multiple bankruptcies who has profited off exploiting thousands of "students" and employees?
C. (ND)
"...she will confront an electorate in which 67 percent of voters say she is not honest and trustworthy."

That's easy-peasy for a rubber stamp op-ed columnist like Charles M. Blow to chuck aside, but the 67 percent were here from the start. Luckily for the Democrats, Donald Trump's offensiveness is even worse — and the only hope for Sec. Clinton.

Maybe the Times can help by printing more op-eds about the election's ramifications on Supreme Court appointments — will not help — or more about how supporting underdog ideological candidates is waste of the reader's time and definitely not strategically smart for his or her overall well being. We need to be told.
Honeybee (Dallas)
Talk about winning the battle but losing the war.

An indictment would have made Hillary more sympathetic in the public eye.
Once the public's desire to see justice equally applied was quenched, people would have rallied behind Hillary and dismissed the importance of her lies about the emails.

Badly played, Clintons, badly played.
The failure to indict her after the long laundry list of her misdeeds was detailed hurt Hillary.
The polls show that once you leave the Clinton Fan Club Echo Chamber, the rest of the US thinks she got off like OJ.
Adam locke (Washington)
I think they should make a movie if Bonnie and Clyde Clinton, How they taught America it's ok to Cheat and lie! Thanks for demoralizing America guys!
Kimberley (Hong Kong)
If America elects Trump as President I will never visit the States again. I will pretend as if it doesn't even exit. I am really upset that it would even be possible for someone like Trump to be a viable contender for President. I always used to ask how was it that Hitler came to power. How was he able to get away with and do the things he did. I think I have my answers.
Marcus Aurelius (Terra Incognita)
"If America elects Trump as President I will never visit the States again."

Just Data (Arizona)
Never visit again? Do you think your temper tantrum is sending shock waves through the American electorate? Why do you oppose Americans doing what's right for our nation, society, and citizens instead of getting fleeced by despicable corrupt globalists like Wall Street Hillary?

Do you hereby absolutely swear you'll never darken our door again? Really, it's just another reason to vote for #Trump!
Michael Cohan (St Louis, Missouri)
It would be nice if the Times acknowledged that there are other candidates for President and that Trump and Clinton are not voters' only options. Libertarian candidates Gary Johnson and Bill Weld have been polling between 6 and 12% even with minimal publicity, will be on the ballot in all 50 states, and are both experienced two term governors of major states (New Mexico and Massachusetts), who both have the governmental experience and competence Trump lacks and the honesty and competence Clinton lacks. Gary Johnson belongs in the presidential debates and his substantial credentials deserve everyone's consideration. If you can't stomach Trump or Hillary, you do have a choice.
Just Data (Arizona)
I read last week that Johnson didn't get on the ballot in Ohio. Are you sure he's on the ballot in all 50mstates?
Slim Pickins (San Francisco)
Can we please have Bernie now? This is EXACTLY why I didn't want Hillary Clinton to run. The Clintons have a long history of scandal, and whether those scandals are proven to be true or not, the effect is HIGHLY divisive. I am so tired of these political distractions from our leaders! And if anyone thinks Trump as President would escape scandal think again! Meanwhile Rome burns.
Harley Bartlett (USA)
Trump lies so much and so often that he has established new standards of relativity by which his lies are judged. There is not one tiny thread of integrity in this human wind bag of foul air.
Mariah (St. Paul, MN)
Replace the word "Trump" with "Hillary" and that phrase is also accurate.
Amanda Schulman Brokaw (Brooklyn, New York)
One of the major talking points of the Sanders campaign all along was that Clinton and Trump were basically tied and that he was the only candidate that polling showed beating Trump. Are these numbers different? Or are they essentially exactly what Sanders was claiming for the last few months?
Ray Russell (Virginia Beach)
As the campaign drags on, her litany of lies throughout the decades will hurt her more, especially among the younger voters who are not aware travelgate, whitewater and Vince Foster, Monica, looting the white house, filegate, chinagate and her cattle futures investment Add to that the present day scandals with the Clinton Foundation, the uranium scandal, emailgate, sniper fire in Bosnia, and of course Benghazi. Of course the Trump campaign will constantly remind the public of the foregoing and more until the November election.
Copyleft (Atlanta, GA)
The Democrats have managed to settle on the ONE candidate with enough negative baggage to actually lose to a pathetic loon like Trump.

Well done, DNC. You always find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Robes (NYC)
Commenting on this thread is like preaching to the converted. Like if one were a Conservative constantly commenting on Breitbart. Better to learn by challenging opinions.

There has been almost no money in attacking Clinton by the Trump team. This is a big factor in analyzing the race. The leftist MSM will pollute the internet with anti-Trump rhetoric headlines, non-issues and skewed reporting that blurs the lines between fact and opinion. NYT is the least of the evils most likely, but a participant. The headline should read: Trump 44%, Clinton 37% in new Rasmussen Poll. She is trending downward.

It doesn't matter who you are siding with, the truth seems to be that Clinton is the most corrupt, untrustworthy, lying and bitter person to run for the WH.
She is the epitome of entitled behavior, which sorry to say as being a trait that the Democrats embrace. Trump can only be guilty of political incorrectness, lack of refinement and not versed in playing the political game. His perceived negatives by the left are actually positives to independents and the middle-class in this election cycle. Clinton is pulling the wool over the typically non-informed, low information liberal voter. What I wonder is, why do the well-informed liberals want to vote for her?
Hue (Federal Way, WA)
You are lying about Clinton. Take off your blinders. She is the most trustworthy of all the candidates. Check out any reputable fact checker. If she is an introvert, she is also a highly compassionate listener. The policies she cares about have always testified to this. My hunch is the New York Times has never known what to do with the Clintons because they arose, as did President Obama, from humble, working class situations.
Doug Broome (Vancouver)
The Dems had a winning candidate available but the party establishment and the NYTimes united in ignoring and belittling his mild social democratic proposals to fix a broken nation.
And so you have a candidate who created extreme child poverty through Bill's "welfare reform", and mass incarceration through Bill's criminal justice "reform."
blowdart (Incline Village, NV)
Although I left the Republican party because of the Trump fiasco, I respect the many influential Republicans who have sacrificed party unity for an honest appraisal of their candidate. The same cannot be said of the Democrats who insist on endorsing a candidate with a history of mendacity and serious foreign policy failures (Honduras, Libya) as Secretary of State. The state of denial among Democrats is profound and disturbing. But of course, it's only the niave who crave honesty and integrity in a President, we should all grow up and through ethics to the wind. But, what happens to a society that openly eschews ethical standards for their leaders...? There are several examples thoughout the world today and throughout history that we can look to for the results.
carl6352 (florida)
if you guys did this then she is in big trouble! this is 08 all over! whats worse she has spent millions upon millions in negative advertising, my favorite was that toadie general ad could not stop laughing at him! trump has spent not even a 10th of what she has spent and keeps rising and no matter how much she spends it won't work as people especially the younger crowd just does not like her which makes them smarter than a lot of the older crowd! see you all in nov because if turn out is in record proportions she and both parties are in trouble especially when tpp they voted for and it's unlimited foreign work visas and no more tariffs for asian countries comes to light as the pol's and hillary keep trying to hide it along with the msm it seems!
Great Lakes State (Michigan)
Hillary Clinton should have told the whole truth from the get go, it was a mistake that she probably greatly regrets, hopefully.

Quit feeling sorry for yourself Hillary, it only drives the electorate away from the electoral process and democratic party. You chose this battle, now start acting like a fighter for all of the people, those beyond your family and circle of friends.
This e-mail business is not the end of the world, put an end to the speculation and uncertainty, ask for forgiveness, then draw the line in the sand between your candidacy and Trump's. It is time to start romping all over Donald Trump.
Don (USA)
Hillary has proven that she is above the law but so far she is still accountable to voters.
Occupy Government (Oakland)
how readily people are willing to blame Hillary Clinton for "lying" when the galactic champion liar is running against her.

Still, I believe she had reasons for keeping her contact list private -- campaign donors, political supporters, pollsters, staffers, friends -- who should not be compromised by FOIA requests. The lady has a right to privacy.

Notwithstanding, ten years ago, we didn't know about cybersecurity in the same way we do today, with Wikileaks, Edward Snowden, the hacking of government and business data.... It is unfair to judge anyone then by today's standards.
Michjas (Phoenix)
Clinton is weighed down by too many campaign staffers, resulting in an overcautious, unimaginative campaign. She has almost twice as many staffers as Obama did in 2008, which seems to me to have been a model campaign. Trump has 1/10 the staffers of Hillary, which helps explain both many of his gaffes and the lack of a discernible strategy. Voters aren't crazy about corporate-type campaigning. Nor are they crazy about off the cuff strategy. Clinton''s 700 staffers are way too many. Trump's 70 is way too few. If Clinton doesn't streamline and Trump doesn't expand, the race will likely stay close and neither candidate will run a particularly eff4ective campaign.
Michael Branagan (Silver Spring, MD)
I think Hillary should nominate Warren, playing The Donald's unpredictably card and throwing the Reps into chaos (sp?). The stupid e-mail thing is too much of a burden. And remember, the point is not to put Hillary or a woman in the WH, it's to keep The Donald out!
PCW (Cleveland)
Well, Congressional Republicans have done it. They have become masters at creating political storms (mostly in a teapot) but damaging political rivals in the process. The silly Benghazi witch hunt has finally turned into what could be Hillary's undoing. Can't say she didn't bring it onto herself, but what strikes me most in this whole business is that Republicans have perfected political persecution to their advantage. Since it is highly unlikely that they will change this winning formula anytime soon (no matter how disgusted and fed up voters might be with it), Democrats need to step up their own mud-slinging game plan to avoid being buried in the mudslide unleashed by their adversaries.
Frank (Johnstown, NY)
Still early. I'm not pleased with the way the Clinton campaign handled the email 'thing' (but should it ever have been a 'thing' at all? - I wonder). BUT I am sure she never deliberately did anything that put the security and safety of the US in jeopardy (as attested to by the FBI Head). Could her email server have been compromised? Maybe. But various US government servers HAVE been hacked. Nothing on the internet is safe. And that's just a fact.

I'll put Hillary's handling of the email servers against Trump University, Trump not know anything about our government, Trump embarrassing himself (and us) across the world, Trump being a favorite of Mr Putin and admiring Sadam Hussein, Trump going bankrupt FOUR times and ruining the small businesses along the way (how would YOU like to get 30 cents on the dollar for work you did - that's what bankruptcy means to vendors), Trump lying about pretty well everything (either that or he simply doesn't know what he's talking about), Trump using words like 'stupid', 'lyin', 'crooked' about other politicians (even in his own party). The list goes on.

I'll take Hillary a thousand times over - and I trust the people of the US will do the same as they think more clearly about what a Trump Presidency would mean to our country.
jkemp (New York, NY)
I despise Trump and I voted for Hillary in 2008. I will not be voting for her again. For months she said it was legal for her to use a private server. The State Department's report stated it was not and she never asked if it was. The director of the FBI admitted under oath: 1) her use of a private server endangered the country, 2) providing classified emails to her lawyers violated the law, and 3) if she worked at the State Department now she would be fired or sanctioned for what she did when she Secretary of State. How can she be qualified to be the chief federal employee?

Also, there are 9 documented instances where entities with business before the State Department that had no previous interest in the Clinton Foundation made large donations or hired Bill to speak and then received favorable rulings by the State Department. They never interacted with the Clinton Foundation again. These decisions, including sales of uranium deposits and selling cell phones to a sanctioned Iran, directly affected our national security. She has never addressed these charges except to say there's no evidence. Even the NYT said the charges are meticulously documented. She needs to address them.

Saying, "move on", "it's old news", "right wing conspiracy", or "Trump is evil" won't work for me anymore. It's our State Department. It's our national security. Consider joining me in voting for the Green Party. Until we have more choices-like Canada or England-we won't be represented.
Eric S (Philadelphia, PA)
I started following Jill Stein on Facebook recently and have observed that the number of her followers is growing (at present) by an average of about 10 per minute.

The extraordinary and simultaneous dissatisfaction in both the Democratic and Republican parties could, possibly, deliver unintended manna in the form of finally breaking the political stranglehold of our two-party system. I would be thrilled! It's amazing what's already happening, now that they sense that they actually have to compete or else face loss of membership.
Babel-17 (NY)
Thanks for the great explanation regarding the Clinton Foundation. The Democratic party establishment was irresponsible in getting behind Clinton. There is a minimum standard and Secretary Clinton fails to meet it. The voters shouldn't be asked to excuse her ethical lapses and bad judgement. None of the above was a new development, everyone with some awareness knew that she had issues that should be disqualifying. Those at the top of the party should have quietly told her they wouldn't stay silent if she was to run. Now the Democrats have an albatross at the top of their ticket. Her health looks sketchy, as does that of Bill, so I guess she might resign herself to being the kingmaker and passing the torch to a Biden/Warren ticket. The party and country should be so lucky ...
Tennis Fan (Chicago)
Remember that the votes for Ralph Nader probably gave us President George W. Bush. This time its definitely either President Clinton or President Trump. There is, as mathematicians say, as close to 0% chance as you like of a Green or Libertarian President.
Adam Raney (Mexico City)
Most polls - including the nyt / cbs news one seem to avoid the key question - who can win the electoral college? By all measures HRC seems still favored there. A nationwide poll this far out seems like pretty avg horserace coverage.
Ed (Old Field, NY)
To be clear, almost no one likes Clinton or Trump. Before a few months ago, Clinton never even claimed that she could or wanted to work well with people of different viewpoints. Trump’s disruptiveness is obvious. G. W. Bush said he wanted to be a uniter, but left the country more divided than it had been in years. Obama really wanted to be a uniter, but here we are. In fairness, few Presidents, by force of personality alone, have been able to unite—and keep united—Americans. That has to be earned. To vote for Trump is obviously to take a bit of a chance, but you just know that everyone who votes for Clinton (one of whom I know well), if she is elected, will spend the next four years in more grumbling and complaining: nothing really seems to change for many people, except for worse, and the rich get richer. And why is removing Assad from power our biggest problem? And how can it be that the TPP, on second glance, with some putatively compensatory government program for workers, looks pretty good to her after all? And why…?
John Brown (Denver)
Everyone with a brain cell knows that when the private Jets of A.G. Lynch and Bill Clinton met that it wasn't some miracle coincidence. At that point the fix was in and Obama and Hillary both sent their Consigliore to seal the final corrupt deal. Of course, Director Comey and to have been part of the agreement. Despite all the LIES, and gross negligence with classified and top secret information which was a violation of the law, Hillary got a get out of jail free card. What Obama, Lynch, and Comey got we don't know, but probably pretty much whatever they wanted when/if Hillary is elected.
I didn't think about it at the time, but FBI agents were with Lynch and they fanned out of her plane onto the Tarmac to stop any cell phone, video, or pictures to keep the meeting secret. So Comey had to know about it the meeting in advance. Now we are hearing FBI Agents who had to sign special non-disclosure forms also thing their was a secret corrupt deal.
Of course Hillary's lies and negligence with the emails are only the tip of the Clinton Iceberg of lies and corrupt. There's the $675,000 she took for secret speeches with Goldman Sachs and the tens of millions from the Big Banks and the rest of Wall Street.
Then there is the Clinton Foundation which in reality is a multi-billion dollar slush fund, not a charity. Crooked Hillary is the leader of the Corrupt, lying, Wall Street owned Establishment.
Mark G (Great Neck)
Hillary is such a liar and evil person

Yet, Democrats are such sycophants they don't care

Thank God for independents

Hillary is toast. Not even the head of the FBI trusts her.
Hanon (LA)
The head of the FBI is a Republican, under enormous pressure from Republicans to find something to rebuke Clinton for. All he could say was that she was careless, which considering the manhunt they started, means absolutely NOTHING.
dmgrush1 (Portland OR)
Hillary untrustworthy? What does that generally mean for her future behavior? All of life is a learning experience. Mistakes can make us wiser. But these judgments are always partisan. It the candidate is your guy, you say "let it slide." If it is the other side's guy, you say "they're incompetent." That's what I'm tired of.
Interesting Enigma (The Mind of God)
It's so funny to sit here and read all the liberal freakout trying to figure out how their precious Clot is loosing ground. Thanks kids, I really did need that laugh.
SMB (Savannah)
Double standard. The Bush administration (in office immediately before Hillary Clinton became the Secretary of State) deleted 22 million emails and almost two dozen White House officials used the private RNC server that was certainly not secure. This was during two wars, and some of the information would have been classified. The two secretaries of state during that period used private email. None of this ever caused the slightest ripple by the Republican outrage machine.

As for the emails of Sec. Clinton, only 3 were actually marked classified, using a small (c) buried in the text, and the content turns out not to have actually been classified. The other "classified" emails chains turned out to be publicly known drone information published in the newspapers. The chains involved hundreds of people (like Sec. Clinton with high security clearance), but none of the other people are being held accountable.

The GOP Congress has more than once released classified or confidential information to the entire public -- Darrell Issa with his Libyan names (some of whom were killed later), Marcia Blackburn with her PP witchhunt releasing researcher names that could be targeted by domestic terrorists, and Trey Gowdy himself releasing the name of a CIA source. Where are the prosecutions and the outrage? Why isn't Congress held to the same standards? They are allowed to use private emails, private servers, etc.

I am so tired of the hypocrisy. It is one witch hunt after another.
Ray (Texas)
Condeleeza Rice did not use a private e-mail account. Please stop spreading this lie. Colin Powell is a despicable person and should have been punished, as should have Hillary.
Michael (Brookline)
To think this was preventable.

The private email & server speaks volumes about how the Clintons view themselves as above the rules, common sense rules that are especially important for those handling classified material. Lack of accountability and trust is one reason Americans have highly unfavorable views of her and others in govt.

That said, I think this issue is being muddled and blown all out of proportion by Republicans and erstwhile Republican appointees. She made a mistake setting up a private email account. But there is no evidence, zero, that any classified material was compromised. So how does Comey remark that classified material "probably was" compromised? Even a state.gov email is not 100% secure and multiple government departments, including the IRS, have had their email and databases breached by hackers.

Of those 110 emails that contained classified material only THREE were marked with a (c) somewhere in the email chain - not at the header - indicating classified material. Two of those were marked in error because they were only confidential. As I understand it, none of the other emails were marked as containing any classified material and were emails sent to her.

She needs to get out front on this with a press conference, take responsibility but set the record straight. Most voters don't dig into details but I think she can succinctly sift thru facts vs innuendo.

Also announce a firewall between the Clintons and the foundation if she is President.
Ray (Texas)
Government employees acknowledge that classified materials must be secure, no matter the markings. Either she's incompetent or purposely ignored that regulation - there is no other excuse. If she were a regular person, she wouldn't even be able to get a security clearance from the FBI.
Thomas D. Dial (Salt Lake City, UT)
Hillary Clinton did not use a personal email account on a competently administered commercial server. She used a personal email account on a highly vulnerable personally owned server. The server was known within certain parts of the hacker community and therefore almost certainly was known to numerous foreign intelligence services. FBI Director Comey's statement that it was possible the server was penetrated by foreign agents was charitable in the extreme; that it was is the only sensible conclusion.

The defense, so called, that state.gov also had vulnerabilities and might have been penetrated (actually, has been penetrated) is a misdirection in that material classified at secret or above on a state.gov email account would be as much a violation as its presence on clintonemail.com.

"Getting in front" at a press conference simply will not do; the time for that is long past and was discarded in favor of dissimulation, misdirection, and grudging cooperation with the State Department and various investigators when the issue first came up. Ms. Clinton has shown with this, if not with earlier events, that as a public official she put her personal wishes ahead of her official duties, and as well her responsibilities to her superiors and her subordinates, and to the people. It is not clear at all how she can turn that around.
sleepy (nevada)
Frick and Frack
Freeland_Dave (USA)
She cites her qualifications for the presidency as being her reign as a Senator and Secretary of State. Those are the two overwhelming reasons why I cannot vote for her. Like it or not, Trump is a successful businessman and has not once put our nation and its people at risk. Given her foray into National Security and her adeptness at handling Secret and Top Secret material, not to mention some 900 FBI hit files she discovered in her personal office when she was First Lady under Bill's administration or the Travelgate issues she created when she took up the position as first lady or her inside trading deals not to forget Whitewater, only a complete blithering idiot would come to the notion that she might even come close to being qualified to be president. Still she has her adoring following that believes she can do no wrong, which illustrates perfectly that no matter how hard you try you just can't fix stupid.
Ray (Texas)
Where's Craig Livingstone these days?
Marian (New York, NY)

Thou art arm'd that hath thy crook'd schemers straight.
Cudgel thy brains no more, the Clinton plots are great.

This latest scam of the Clintons makes their 90s White House quid pro quo look like—if you’ll pardon the oxymoron—penny ante treason.

While Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State, the couple pocketed billions in “pay to play.” The multifarious vectors of transaction and the massive, disproportionate Clinton gains are prima facie evidence of the crime. Why else would so many pay so much for so little?

The Clintons' appetite for money and power is insatiable. Like laboratory rats, put enough of the goodies in front of these two and they will gorge themselves to death.

The Clintons have a long history of selling out this country to the enemy, often in plain sight. For eight years, they methodically, seditiously and with impunity auctioned off America’s security, sovereignty and economy to the highest foreign bidder.

And they are selling out the country in plain sight today with the biggest cover and slush fund of all time: The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation… which brings us full circle and explains why Hillary Clinton chose to scrub the server and risk being charged with obstruction of justice….

You put these two miscreants back in power at your own peril. And your children’s.
Joey (TX)
Billary needs to back off on gun control- or she's gonna lose to a.... very.... unsuitable candidate.
ducbil (Pennsylvania)
I would like to be proud of the fact that we may likely elect the first woman president, but this candidate is so flawed, it is as if we are about to elect Marion Barry instead of the Barack Obama we need.

She will get my vote, but I will hold my nose and cross my fingers while I am doing it. (Which is really difficult to do!)
Paul gary (Las Vegas)
It is not the e-mails, most of the public could care less or even know about them. It is Hillary herself. A lifetime of being dishonest, having no integrity or ethics, no personal character or positive characteristics, saying what she thinks people want to hear with no core, no conviction and not being honest about her zero care, simply business relationship with her philandering, impeached president husband. In private she is a witch to him and aall that work for her.

She believes the rules are not for her; she is tied to big banks and takes money for the country that helped bring about 9/11 ( you remember that day don't you NYTimes)?

Stop making excuses for her and treating her like a god. She loves money and power, not America and it's people.
Aaron (Cambridge, Ma)
I will vote for Hillary Clinton if she takes the following positions:

1. No new taxes for anyone, rich or poor.
2. Don’t do anything for global warming (e.g., making it more expensive to drive, heat our homes, fly someplace, or run a business.)
3. Have a foreign policy that advocates the values of Superman (i.e., Truth, Justice, and the American way).
4. In general treat society as a group of individuals trying to do the best for themselves, and thereby in the aggregate doing the best for society.
5. Don’t follow any of Bernie Sanders suggestions.

Donald Trump is a flawed candidate, so my vote is in play. But I need all 5 items from Hillary, or I will vote for Trump.
Optimist (New England)
It's still premature to see who polls better till they choose their running mates. At their age, the qualification of their VP does matter even if their VP is old.
GreenGal1967 (San Francisco, CA)
It's true. She can't be trusted. Neither, however, can Trump. Anyone who expects to be able to trust a politician is naive. They all lie, manipulate, and equivocate. It's part and parcel of being a politician. Knowing this, the question then becomes which of the candidates will be least embarrassing to the U.S. and do the least damage and the answer to that is clearly Clinton.
EinT (Tampa)
I don't necessarily disagree with your first two sentences but I don't think they lie. I think they genuinely do intend to fulfill campaign promises but they rarely do. As Mike Tyson said - "everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face". So I don't think they are lying per se, but they are easily able to weasel out of their promises by blaming the opposition. Or blaming exogenous influences.

As for your last two sentences, I don't understand why so many of you worry about the US embarrassing itself. Let's say we do, what's the downside? Are these other countries going to stop selling us their stuff? Are they going to stop accepting our economic or military aid? Why do you worry so much about that? The President works for us and no one else. He or she is our employee and his or her #1 priority is to Americans - no one else.
Cira (Miami, FL)
Indeed, Hillary Clinton has lost many of her supporters once it was revealed her top secret emails practice that the F.B.I. considered it as an act of an act of recklessness but not illegal. Clinton is untrustworthy but we do know the deep love she feels for this for country. Had she known top secret emails could be damaging our security by getting in the hands of hackers, she would have handled her emails in the proper fashion. Many times, new technology makes us a failure.

The Republican Party has used the F.B.I. investigation as a “witch hunt” against Clinton with the purpose of destroying her as a presidential candidate. The Republican Party is supporting Trump as President even knowing he doesn’t follow their conservative principles but they believe it’s extremely important to keep this country’s ownership at any costs, even with Trump. A man who’s a fascist, a racist that shows profound contempt for the separation of power; he’s asked his supporter for loyalty, the loyalty he never followed in his personal life nor his businesses practices. A candidate who believes that people like him, at the top of the socioeconomic scale should be given another tax break; that $7.95/minimum hourly rate is too high.

I’ll be taking a “leap of faith” and vote for Hillary Clinton. Jesus said and I quote:
“Let Him Who is Without Sin Cast the First Stone.”
Air Marshal of Bloviana (Over the Fruited Plain)
As "a consummate liar" Hillary has an edge, alright! Until her words are carefully reviewed in the totality of any circumstance, they can run free to harm others like wolves ripping through a nursery herd of ewes and lambs.
Deborah Moran (Houston)
Mysogyny is alive and well. The difference is not the attacks from Republicans which are universally vicious toward any Democrat who has positions scary to them, whether it is Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton. What is alarming is the degree of viciousness of attacks from members of her own party...Bernie Sanders calling her the "lesser of two evils" even though she shares most positions with him and when she doesn't, it is only because she already tried passing some his reforms and realizes you need more Americans to come on board to do it, Bernie Sanders saying she is unqualified even though she has more relevant experience than any recent candidate in history, members of her own party repeating Republican smears including misogynistic labels, a concerted attack on her e-mail practices claiming that she is putting national security at risk while it is the attack itself that threatens to reveal far more sensitive information than her e-mails ever did, claiming that she was far more careless and put our secrets at far more risk than any other member of an administration present or past when that is clearly not the case. In fact, we have no idea how much the degree of care she took compares to anyone else because no one else has had the same scrutiny...no one is comparing the security of the government server to that of her own and no one is comparing the era of Bush when everything was done through private e-mail.
Michael S (Astoria, NY)
Bernie who? Oh, that guy we should have chosen back when Trump got elected. How many times have we seen this story in our history?
Michael (Southeast US)
In light of recent activities, especially the completely inappropriate announcement by James Comey the polls have been effected. I don't remember another FBI director calling a press conference to announce that there was no evidence to prosecute someone for a crime, yet at the same conference he allowed his own opinion which I find absolutely unwarranted. As director of the FBI impartiality should be the standard.
SMB (Savannah)
I was shocked at his Congressional testimony to realize how very minor the infractions in fact were - small markings on only 3 emails that even Comey admitted she might not have seen.
JT Streeter (Los Angeles)
Comey didn't call for a press conference he was called before Congress to testify and had to answer questions under oath. Being director of the FBI he, unlike Felony Clinton, could not commit perjury. Hillary could and should be brought up on charges of lying to congress. Scooter Libby went to jail for merely lying to investigators.
Amy D. (Los Angeles)
Though the polls indicate the race is close, Trump's serious flaws have to come to the surface and be hammered into the psyche of all Americans . I cannot believe voters would even consider a candidate such as Trump no matter their party affiliation. It comes down to this..... do we want someone who is steady and proven or someone who is uncertain and erratic?
Marcus Aurelius (Terra Incognita)
Nothing like a "steady and proven" liar... There's a made to order campaign advertisement: "Clinton for President -- A Steady and Proven Liar."
John T (NY)
Good thing we got rid of that guy who was consistently polling double digits better than Trump!

You're backing one of the few people in the world whom the American people trust less than Trump. Good job, guys.
Andy B (Dallas, TX)
So voters don't trust the candidate with email issues, but the candidate behind the Trump university fraud, who files multiple bankruptcies, and who won't release his tax information... voters trust him somehow?
Joan (Wisconsin)
When will the media stop treating Hillary Clinton and Trump as equals? They aren't!!!!!!! Thoughtful, sincere, and honest individuals understand that Hillary is a thousand times more qualified to be president than the narcissistic con-artist Donald Trump.

The Republicans have made a mountain out of a molehill with Clinton's e-mail mistake. There simply is no absolute security for anyone or any group once they have entered the realm of the internet.
JPBarnett (Santa Barbara)
Notice the design of the survey and the all important framing statement: "Regardless of how you intend to vote." If the opinions of polled people were solicited with this idea in mind, is it really sincere of the headline to suggest the candidates are even?
Just maybe everyone has had enough of this whole charade with Democrats this time around. You have to admit, every single thing had been a spectacular failure with Hillary's campaign. She's a proven cheat and liar and still people hold out hope for her. That's a serious mental illness actually.

There has been so many, that I can't even remember.

Madeline Albright makes stupid comment, polarizes women and everyone else. Makes hollow apology.
Gloria Steinham makes stupid comment, polarize women and everyone else. Makes hollow apology.
Nancy Pelosi - everything. Everything is wrong with her.
Eric Holder - corrupt. Everything is wrong with him.
Loretta Lynch - makes perhaps a once in lifetime mistake for the head DOJ and all we get is an oops, my bad.
Bill Clinton - everything. Makes one stupid comment after the next.
Ruth Badler - makes perhaps a once in a lifetime mistake for a supreme justice and all we get is an oops, my bad.
Hillary's technician who installed the server, pleads to the 5th and stonewalls the FBI.
Cheryl Mills openly lied and stonewalls the FBI.
Bernie Sanders sells out like a cheap suit for $10.00 (saddest thing I ever witnessed)
Debbie Wasserman Shultz - did perhaps the most unethical thing I've seen in in rigging the DNC and dropping the mic on the way out.

So you ask, just emails? It's everything. It's a corrupt crooked group and anyone who refuses to see past this really needs medical help.

Trump in comparison really isn't that bad.
CWP (Portland, OR)
So here we are, with Hillary Clinton having spent $100 million and Trump having spent nothing, and the media overwhelmingly dumping any standards to openly campaign against Trump -- and the liberal-leaning NYT/CBS poll pronounces the race "tied," which means that he's ahead.

Maybe that gun control gambit wasn't such a great idea? Just wait until hunting season, when the NRA will reach out to its 5.5 million members to remind them that liberals want to repeal the second amendment.

Rudolph Clausius (Florida)
There's a 50 megaTrump bomb is waiting to be dropped. I'm hoping the Donald waits until just after the nomination process is complete.
Mel Farrell (New York)
Rasmussen has Trump ahead by 7 points, 44 to 37, so methinks the "lies like a rug", Hillary, is in deep trouble, all of her own making.

Thank God for the Internet; an informed electorate is the nightmare of the corrupt.

Of course Trump is no better, so the Democrats can thank themselves, if he becomes the next President of the United States.
Margarets Dad (Bay Ridge)
Rasmussen famously had Mitt Romney winning big in 2012. So I wouldn't put too much faith in their polls.
Red O. Greene (Albuquerque, NM, USA)

Polls are utterly meaningless at this juncture.
For millions of Americans, the issues, (ingredients) don't matter.
Marketing companies know this. The GOP knows this.
Getting elected is all about the marketing campaign. Packaging.
Appealing to the gut feeling.
This is 21st century America. Don't try and educate the voters to make a rational decision.
GOP. Democrats. They're products. So sell them like any other product.

Crooked Hillary? I just can't get that jingle out of my head.

Trump will make America Great Again?
And by association me too. And make my floors shine brighter and I'll lose weight faster with Trump. Trump is lighter and fluffier. Trump is "New!"

How? Why? Who cares? People don't read the label. They vote for the message.

Given the choice of drinking a beverage that is "refreshing", that associates you with the "in" crowd, etc. (the GO message) or a product that causes diabetes, obesity, and has no nutritional value (democratic message) what will the public choose to do? Drink it!

If the Democratic Campaign Committees, (Advertising Agencies). can't sell the party to the American people when their alternative choice is as easy as Trump to defeat they don't deserve to win. And never will again..
Lyn (Portland, OR)
Here's how to bridge the trust gap: the least-trusted politician could choose the most-trusted politician, Bernie Sanders, as her running mate AND give him meaningful policy work. (Like when Cheney was vice president, only with ethics.) For the best effect on public trust, that work should involve reining in the 1 percent and especially the 1.1 percent.

It's okay. They can afford it.
Steve Sheridan (Ecuador)
However despicable Trump's methods, ideology, history and personality, he is a Populist: he is attuned to the frustrations of the legions of the dispossessed.

Hillary, by contrast is NOT a Populist, and seems strangely and persistently OUT of tune with the frustrations of the 90% of Americans who have NOT benefitted from "trickle-up" economics.

Her popularity is therefor likely to continue to drop, in comparison to Trump's, unless something dramatic emerges from one of the upcoming conventions to change these underlying realities.

If Hillary truly had the best interests of the Country at heart, rather than her own obsessive political ambitions, she would step aside, and cede the nomination to Sanders--it takes a Populist to defeat a Populist in these troubled times.

Hillary's nomination may have been forced upon us by the DNC, Wall Street and the oligarchs...but the general election is not so easy to engineer. I hate to be an I-told-you-so...but Hillary's chances of being elected, in the current Zeitgeist are doomed.

It's time for Plan B. It's time for the Democrats to back someone who can actually win this election, rather than go down with the ship they chose without taking into account the Temper of the Times.
PaulB (Cincinnati, Ohio)
This result is at least partially due to the incredibly poor coverage the entire email saga has received from the mainstream media. The "offense" -- HRC using her own private server -- was not unprecedented and she apologized for this action a long time ago.

As for the emails themselves, the DOJ/FBI went through some 30,000 messages and came up with three (3, out of 30,000) that involved "secret" information, but information that was classified secret after the fact.

FBI Director Comey pulled off a stunt all county prosecutors know: if you can't bring charges on the law, smear the person in question. His action was unprecedented and unjustified.

Yes, Clinton and her advisers fumbled their response. Yes. Careless? Slipshod, certainly. But was national security ever jeopardized? Did Hillary place the United States of America in mortal danger because she used a private server? And what of the thousands of people in an out of government who received emails from Secretary of State Clinton; did they also jeopardize national security? Should they be fired, shot, expelled?

This was first, last and always a Republican exercise to damage Clinton's candidacy, and the news media has completely played along. Including the NY Times, which ought to know better.
finscrib (Seattle)
Baloney on that! Trump hasn't spoken in the public sphere for a week, other than twitter. The public will soon be reminded once again why he is the worst possible candidate for the presidency.
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
The FBI squad is surveilling Hillary and Bill, not Donald. They're making the case. Stay tuned for the October Surprise.
Chris (Calif)
But he is winning all the polls. LOL
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
If Donald has not spoken in public for a week - hilariously - where did the TV clips of him speaking in various places in the last 3 days originate, Seattle? DUH.
Joe McArdle (Harrington Park NJ)
As Dem supporter who voted for Pres. Clinton x2, I feel that the time is right for a change in direction away form the Clintons. Hillary and her husband have a long history of entitlement and dishonest behavior which include obfuscation of the facts and a sort of "twilight zone" reading of public opinion. A simple and sudden "mea culpa", as others here suggest she do, is not going to wipe away over 30 years of this kind of behavior-and should be seen as just another example of sheer political expediency. In that potential scenario, what would we then have a repentant Hillary suddenly "finding religion" , meeting w ministers, attending church etc. ? Not unlike Bill did after he was revealed untruthful. ("I did not have sexual relations w that woman, Monica Lewinsky & " I guess it depends on what the definition of "is" is! ) Please spare us the prospect of such continued spectacle because I believe very few people would buy it.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
People seem to like Donald Trump because he's a world-class obfuscater of facts. What's the difference here?
David. (Philadelphia)
"As Dem supporter who voted for Pres Clinton..." No, that's not who you are, because you're delivering the identical false talking points of the Trump campaign. One example: HRC didn't suddenly "find religion"; she was always a devout Methodist, taught Sunday school and was part off a Senate prayer group. Trump, on the other hand, was never religious but suddenly became "born again" a few weeks ago to nail down the evangelical vote.

Trump's convention, it has been announced, will be dragging out Bill Clinton's impeachment yet again, even though the impeachment exonerated Clinton of all charges. And there you are, dragging it out as well. If you had truly been a "Dem supporter," you'd also be very aware of the 30-year smear campaign the GOP has orchestrated against the Clintons.
Joe McArdle (Harrington Park NJ)
Yes Dem. supporter from Carter on. If voting for and supporting Bernie Sanders makes me less of a Dem. in your eyes-then so be it. At least he doesn't carry the sort of baggage the Clintons do- which you are obviously are blind to.
Bill (Hells Kitchen, NYC)
This is the election that has driven me to become an independent.

On the one hand we have a horrible Republican nominee that most of the Republican establishment wants nothing to do with, yet the people clearly don't care about that and are supporting him. On the other hand we have a horrible Democratic nominee that the Democratic establishment and media is propping up with no cost spared, yet the voters don't care about that and are clearly rejecting these desperate attempts to be sold on her.

At this juncture isn't it obvious that it would just be easier and better for the country for a somewhat qualified candidate, who comes across as honest without a massive ego, to run as a third party option? Sanders? Romney? Biden? Michelle Obama? If someone would step up I'm sure legions of voters who are fed up with these choices being offered would contribute vast sums to publicize a write-in campaign for November.
Blue state (Here)
Mitch Daniels, take one for your country!
Steve Bolger (New York City)
Before you donate money for this, get a clue. Electronic voting machines don't count write-in votes.
The Man With No Name (New York)
January 8, 1996 --- NYT columnist William Safire dubbed her a 'congenital liar' with a laundry list of lies she told as First Lady.
20 years later -- Nothing has changed.
If she wins? We'll likely see another Clinton impeached.
Susan Anderson (Boston)
Republicans worked hard to get her labeled a liar. She was working on universal health care at the time. Go figure!
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
Her paranoia sank her own efforts on HillaryCare. The predecessor to Huma was Harold Ickes Jr., a Roy Cohn type from the wormy Big Apple. Secrecy 24/7, in the Nixon tradition -- which plagues her even today since Hillary is "to the manner born," the manner of Mendacity.
Sen. Bob Kerry, democrat, during MonicaGate: "Bill Clinton is an unusually good liar." Birds of a feather.....
S charles (Northern, NJ)
NY Times reporters and most of the readers who comment here would support her even if she ended up wearing orange in a federal prison which is where she belongs.
MR (Philadelphia)
This "trust" stuff is a baloney. Citizens in a democracy should always cast a jaundiced eye at their so-called "leaders" if sovereignty is in the people as a whole -- not this or that individual or group of individuals. Americans have generally done so for 200+ years. Trump is not simply untrustworthy -- he is unqualified and unfit.

Trump does not have the experience for the job he seeks and, at age 69, is not going to be learning much. Some might argue that Trump will find the right people to help him. But that is the problem his lack of experience in government boils down to precisely the fact that he has little or no idea of who these people are. Moreover, many of "these people" (i.e. Republicans qualified to hold the 3000 or so high appointive offices that a President Trump would have to fill) don't like or trust him. For good reason.

Trump's naked pandering to bigotry shouldn't be tolerated -- not even by bigots. The United States is founded on the proposition that "all men are created equal," even if that has all too often been honored in the breach than the execution. We cannot have a so-called "head of state" who openly flouts this principle, regardless of whether he is or is not personally a "racist," "anti-semite," or "xenophobe." It would be extraordinarily corrosive to the foundations of our social, economic and political system. Say what you want about Nixon, Reagan, or either Bush -- none ever carried on the way Trump has. Not even close.
A parishioner (PA)
Trump is not a racist: Many black people who know him personally vouch for him.
Trump is not an anti-semite. His own daughter is an orthodox jew, and he has never been accused of antisemitism before.

Trump is not a xenophobe. Wanting to protect your country from completely unregulated and chaotic immigration, particularly from parts of the world PROVEN to be teeming with terrorists does not make one a xenophobe. Trump wants immigration. BUT ONLY THOSE THAT THE US NEEDS AND WILL HELP BENEFIT THE US ECONOMICALLY, not those immigrants who are dirt-poor, uneducated and will costs taxpayers billions more in food stamps, medicaid, education and other costs than they contribute with their unskilled labor, which also depress wages for the rest of us to boot. Trump wants SMART immigration laws.

Ask yourself: if Trump was all those things you accuse him of, wouldn't that have come to light years ago, being that he is such a famous public figure? It did not because none of the accusations are true. In fact many people OF ALL RACES AND RELIGIONS who have known Trump personally have spoken up to defend him from these false accusations. These accusations ONLY STARTED when he ran for president, which proves to me that they are merely smears with no truth in them whatsoever.
Greggore (North America)
If you compare the investigations and evidence between Richard Nixon and Hilary Clinton, which one of the two broke the trust of the people and the law more? One had to step down as President for their actions, the other dodged charges to run for President. But to you, the individual who votes, this is an important point to consider.
Third.Coast (Earth)
[[Poll Finds Emails Weighing on Hillary Clinton, Now Tied With Donald Trump]]

Whaaaaaat?!? The "most qualified candidate in history" is having trouble with a used car salesman? A carnival barker? The last time we elected a "seat of the pants" president he got us mired in the longest war n American history. But here we are again, smitten with a guy who can't be bothered with details.

Hillary's dilemma is that she needs to sell herself to the American people but half the people in America can't stand the sight of her or the sound of her voice. The more ads that run, the more she TALKS in that SHOUTY, ANNOYING WAY she does about WHAT she's GONNA do, the more she alienates people.

Also, she is a liar.

Trump is deranged. But his "crooked Hillary" barb will be devastating.

And while I appreciate his party loyalty, I'm embarrassed for Obama that he has to prop up her candidacy.

Is it too late to get John Kerry in there?
Steve (New York)
The Democratic super delegates still have time to reconsider. Their purpose was to try to avoid the nomination of an inferior candidate. If there is a time for them to step up and do this, it's now.
If they are willing to sit by and risk a possible Trump presidency, then they will be to blame and not Bernie Sanders and his supporters.
Jim K (SC)
Does anyone think that these numbers are legit or mean anything? Trump will get good numbers until he has secured the Republican nomination and then the Dem machine will crank it up to 11. By the time the election rolls around Hillary will look so good in the media's eyes that Trump supporters shouldn't even bother to get out of bed.
Jack (Asheville, NC)
I believe this about as much as I believe that 80 percent of white evangelicals will vote for Trump. Respondents lie to pollsters all the time.
Andrew (NYC)
Allowing Donald Trump within D.C. city limits would be a mistake of astounding proportion. He would rip our country apart and emerge on the other side laughing and counting his money.
Charles (San Jose, Calif.)
Yeah, the paved-over Anacostia Swamp that's too big to be a mental hospital, but too small to be a state, will collapse when Trump comes to town for the ribbon-cutting of the Old Post Office he now owns. It's a short hike from his new lodgings at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Ian MacFarlane (Philadelphia PA)
This finding, if in any way a reflection of our nation's electorate when coupled with those we "elect" to puportadley represent the citizenry, is another indication of just how little we need chosen leadership and how much we want a dictator.

We just don't want to learn and prefer to live in a dreamworld where former President Reagan is the savior.

In many ways we really are a social absurdity.
Dick Purcell (Leadville, CO)
If the fake democratic super-lemming nominate Hillary they will take their party and their country -- our country -- over Clinton Cliff, to land at a probable presidency of Trump down at the bottom.

Nominating Hillary would give Trump a Royal Pinata to hit from now to November.

Worse distrust and unfavorability than Trump.

Funded by and represents the Money-Insider Establishment Royalty that The People have risen up against.

Emails, secret Wall Street speeches at $325,000 a pop. Clinton Foundation drenched in money from Saudi Arabia, other foreign despots, big-money insiders here at home.

What a Royal Pinata for Trump to hit and hit.

Nominating Hilary would be not only foolish, but political suicide, and for America treason.
When, oh when, will it be screaming headline news that Colin Powell also used a private email address?

And what's preventing the Clinton campaign from even mentioning this?
Chris (Calif)
No he did not!
SMB (Savannah)
Chris - Sec. Powell spoke out publicly and said that he did. Fact.
muslit (michigan)
America deserves Trump.
And just remember when Trump takes office, which in mind, is pretty much a forgone conclusion at this point, you have only Democrats to blame. Democrats are single handily putting Trump into the White House. For many people here, that's far too big to understand why.
twstroud (kansas)
Her team should explore having Colin Powell make a statement.
S charles (Northern, NJ)
You are joking right? Why would he besmirch himself by defending this congenital liar?
Just Data (Arizona)
Sure. Powell could clearly state that he never had a private server while Sec of State and that he never lied to Congress or the Americsn people about his emails while Sec of State like Clinton has lied non-stop.
It'll be great!
ScottW (Chapel Hill, NC)
And for all of the Hillary supporters who find the email scandal a non-issue--does it bother you even a little she lied about why she set up the account, lied when she said the State Dept. approved the account and lied when she said she never received or transmitted any classified/top secret information. The last one probably being the most important lie. Does she really believe Americans don't care if a Presidential candidate lies?

Why did she lie? And no--I don't support Trump. I just want a candidate who does not lie so much.

And then we have the secret speaking transcripts to special interests. "I will release my transcripts when every other candidate does the same." So what now?
Peter Zenger (N.Y.C.)
The polls are now reflecting the fact that here is no "Jesse James effect" in American politics - being crooked many, many times, does not, somehow or other, make an American Politician a hero.

Americans are growing hesitant about placing Ms. Clinton at the top of our nation, because they recall the old saying, "A fish rots from the head down".

Her, "I'm still standing" braggadocio, may reverberate well amongst her big contributors, but to the typical voter, it's just arrogance.

This year, we may see third party candidates getting the greatest percentage of the total vote, in the modern history of our nation.

The media would serve our nation well, by not pretending that there are only two choices.
MyThreeCents (San Francisco)
It bothers me greatly that Clinton continues to defend her private-email-server behavior by pointing out that there's no evidence that hacking actually occurred. Maybe it didn't, but maybe it did and the hacker tried, successfully, to cover his tracks.

A key ethical question arose in World War II from the British government's breaking of the Germans' Enigma code. The British learned that a bombing attack on Coventry would happen within the next day or so, but decided not to warn Coventry residents since that would have let the Germans know their code had been broken.

Hackers often try to hide their tracks so that the "hacked" doesn't make some simple change to plug the hole the hacker has found. Maybe that happened here, maybe it didn't. Why take that chance?

Clinton supporters often argue that the State Department's server was hacked too, and so Hillary's emails might have been hacked even if she'd used the State Department server. (She never did, of course -- she never even had a State Department email address.) Maybe so, but that argues for beefing up security on the State Department server -- not for running your official Secretary of State emails through a private server in your basement.

Ask yourself: If this hadn't actually happened, would you believe it was even possible?
Uzi Nogueira (Florianopolis, SC)
Regardless of misgivings about Hillary's trustworthiness among the general population -- remember tricky Nixon?-- Donald Trump cannot win the coming election.

An implausible victory by Trump would be a black swan event equivalent to the financial meltdown of 2009.

Trump's pro workers/small business agenda goes against the 1% wealthiest individuals and corporations in the land.

Trump brings uncertainty/trepidation among transnational business and financial corporations while Hillary brings predictability.

Very importantly, senior Republican and Democrat leaderships feel comfortable that Hillary Clinton will not 'rock the boat.' As far as Capitol Hill, business as usual with Hillary president.
Heddy Greer (Akron Ohio)
If Hillary's only lies had to do with her email server:

1. Sniper dodging in Bosnia
2. Cares about working people (see time served as Wal-Mart Director)
3. Cares about women (see Bill Clinton's sexual conquests, improved lives of middle eastern women while Sec. of State)
4. Cattle futures investment guru
5. Benghazi due to YouTube video
6. The Scoobie mobile
7. Friends and family on the Clinton Foundation payroll

But she's not Donald Trump and she has a vagina. For most NY Times readers, that's enough to warrant voting for her.
S charles (Northern, NJ)
The NY Times wants us all to forget about all those old lies and in one week they will trey to make us forget about the latest ones as well.
Julie (Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio)
Given the results of this poll I'm sure that Donald and his kids will plan to talk about this email thing next week at the RNC ad nauseam -- too bad for all those convention goers -- it sounds like a groundhog day agenda.
S charles (Northern, NJ)
Yes we should all forget she pretty much gave away top secret information by leaving it in the open on an unsecure server and then constantly lied about it. you demonstrate all the worst characteristics of the left, the willingness to accept lies and deceit from your leaders. Obama is a complete case in point. How about your side all move to a different ready made socialist country, Venezuela beckons. Take your lying politicians like Hilary and Obama with you.
For those of you who still go to church occasionally, or remember when you used to, consider this.

Every so often the pastor would deliver a fairly stern sermon asking you to look at yourself honestly and consider whether you are meeting the standard.

What standard was he setting? Did he suggest that you ask yourself "Am I a better person than Satan? Am I a better person than Hitler?"

No, he set a higher bar than that.

Hillary is a better person than The Donald. This is hard to gainsay?

But is that the standard we truly want to set for our President?

When commenters in this string find fault with Hillary, they are mostly holding her to a higher standard than the life-record of Donald Trump.

At least one hopes they are.
Richard E. Schiff (New York)
Hillary Clinton would defeat Donald Trump if the election were held today, heading to a relatively easy victory even if Trump were to win the key battleground state of Ohio.

A massive new poll by Morning Consult finds Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, would collect 320 Electoral College votes to Trump's 212, far more than the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House.

The poll, taken between April and early July, surveyed nearly 60,000 registered voters in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, a large enough sample to make a complete estimate of Electoral College results as the presidential race stands now.
Just Data (Arizona)
The exit poll of actual voters (not pre-polls about possible intentions but the exit poll of voters) showed that Remain won with 57% of the vote. The actual vote count had Brexit win 52-48.
If you think any data from April is any indication about anything except what those individuals told pollsters at that moment, you might get a big surprise in November.
Mrs. Bill's plans for the likes of Jeb, Cruz, or Kasich isn't going to work well against Trump and the Year of the Outsider doesn't bode so well for the ultimate corrupt insider pol. It's going to be very interesting to see how that turns out.
I'm ordering in extra popcorn.
Nathanial Poling (Ohio)
What is that sound? Democrats all over the country crying at the prospect of 8 years of Donald Trump in the White House. Did anyone really think #CrookedHillary and all her baggage wouldn't have these issues?
S charles (Northern, NJ)
The NY Times and its readers tried to ignore the issues now it's in their face.
Robert (France)
Non-stop campaign coverage for over a year now and the country is supposed to be united? We need a new system. Yes, it's grueling, and that's a benefit, but this is absurd. The country's political institutions are completely paralyzed, from Congress to the Supreme Court. Six months should be more than enough...
ScottW (Chapel Hill, NC)
In 2008, Hillary knew she had low trustworthy numbers in polling with the voters, yet she went ahead and implemented an unprecedented basement private email server to handle all of her public/private email. No--neither Powell, nor Rice did the same.

Leaving State, she took all of her public emails with her and only disclosed them once caught by the disclosure of emails hacked from Blumenthal. She had her private attorney decide which emails were public and private.

Why oh why would someone who is already not trusted by the public engage in such secrecy and skirting of legal requirements?

Awful judgment is a hallmark if the Clintons.
Peter M (St. Louis)
The conventions have nothing to do with it. They are for the tried and true. Those that worship Hillary. H. has dug her own grave. Their is nothing to 'paint' If you read the evidence carefully only a true believer, as Eric Hoffer once said discounts this evidence and thinks all things will go on as normal. Whether she wins or not, she will be so damaged she will find it almost impossible to govern because no one, not just Republicans, believe her. Like Ginsberg, she should have retired.
Billy (up in the woods down by the river)
Not only do I not trust Mrs. Clinton.

My trust in the NYT evaporated in the past year as it became increasingly clear that it was part and parcel of her campaign.

It's a feeling of untetheredness. Like trying to plant your feet during an earthquake.

Some day this subject will make a good book when somebody working their now decides to write it.
Snarkles McBlathersby (Santa's workshop)
Such over-the-top comparisons are so shopworn. An earthquake simile? Seriously?

Dislike of content doesn't make it inherently untrue or biased.

If you don't trust Clinton, don't voter for her. Why complicate things with conspiratorial musings that only make one look foolish?
Billy (up in the woods down by the river)
Book Title:

The Big Backfire:
How Carlos Slim, the NY Times and partisan ownership of the mass media set America back 50 years.
Dairy Farmers Daughter (WA State)
The CBS poll mentioned this morning on the morning news program had them tied at 40/40. This means 20 percent of registered voters either haven't decided, or won't vote for either of them. Unfortunately, I think those being blase about Mrs. Clinton winning easily in the end are fooling themselves. Older, white voters vote. Younger voters often do not. Minority turnout will have to be very strong in "swing" states for Trump to prevail. Britain's recent vote to "Brexit" is an example of how an older, white and very disenchanted voting block can swing an election in surprising ways. People simply do not like or trust Hillary Clinton. Trump is telling people what they are afraid to voice in fear of being labeled "politically correct" - and believe me there are many people out there that agree with some of Trump's more outrageous statements. I would dearly love to see a crushing defeat for the GOP per Thomas Friedman's recent column. Unfortunately, I think those of us who truly fear a Trump Presidency will be biting our nails in November, and could well wake up with a very nasty surprise.
Doug B (California)
How's Hillary supposed to 'win' back the trust of voters ? She's been dirty (& above the law) ever since the
Whitewater coverup (scandal). "A leopard cannot change it's spots"
S charles (Northern, NJ)
That is my hope just like I had to wake up twice to the disgrace called Obama winning.
Christie (Bolton MA)
Now I am getting emails urging me to buy a "not Trump" bumper sticker.
That is all Hillary has for a winning agenda.

“During the drafting of the Democratic platform in St. Louis, as well as the larger meeting in Orlando, Clinton Democrats worked to thwart the “political revolution” on climate change, a fracking ban, healthcare, living wage, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Gaza, and Israel. Clinton Democrats voted against outlawing racial gerrymandering, public banking, ending corporate welfare for companies which ship jobs overseas, regulating the revolving door in government, and expanding Social Security."
“Has the “political revolution” finally brought us to a breaking point, where enough people are no longer willing to tolerate the two-party system? Have we reached a point where bold movement politics will give rise to equally inspiring electoral politics, which will give the poor and working class the hope of true political representation?

from Common Dreams:After Bernie's Defeat
guy veritas (miami)
Ginsburg Says Her Criticisms of Trump Were ‘Ill Advised’ - the essence of integrity.

Then there's lying Hillary .......................
Olivia (Pa)
Then there is lying Donald whose followers won't see his mendacity.
Rose (Cottonwood Heights, Utah)
Hillary has learned/is learning a lesson, I'm sure taking it seriously. I'm going to forgive her mistake and vote for her.
Honeybee (Dallas)
I bet the jurors said the same thing about OJ
S charles (Northern, NJ)
Yes, she certainly learned after whitewater, the travel office firings, hiding law firm billing records for 2 years, trying to destroy women who accused her husband of rape, etc, etc., etc. You are evidently clueless she NEVER learns.
Lucien Dhooge (Atlanta, GA)
We will have the hubris of the Clintons to thank should Donald Trump capture the White House in November. A Democrat with less baggage would be lapping a candidate with such weak credentials and noxious views as Trump. Instead, the race is far closer than it should be and will turn on the outcomes in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Not unlike Ralph Nader whose parting gift to the country was Bush II, the legacy of the Clintons could very well be a Trump presidency.
Olivia (Pa)
How about blaming the Republicans for Trump. He is their creation.
scott (San Francisco)
It does not help that the NYT continues to be on a very odd and biased jihad against Clinton. While on candidate bald face lies out of their mouth, the NYT accuses her of "shifting and inaccurate explanations" and of sending "classified" information. Well on the first, I have no idea what they are talking about, perhaps it was her claim to want to use a single devise, and Comey said he used "multiple" devises. The NYT immediately accused her of lying about this, dispite Comey making clear that devises were retired and replaced, and did not say she used multiple devises at the same time.

And the "nothing was classified when sent" that multiple NYT articles have treated as a lie, well as it was dragged out of Comey (who is a republican, lets be clear here) at the hearing, this involved someone putting a "c" before and after a paragraph in a long e-mail sent to Hillary. The e-mails were not marked as "confidential" (which is what a
"c" with proper headers would indicate, the lowest level of run of the mill classification) let alone highly classified and did not have the required headers, and as such if was actually confidential (State says it is NOT) it was improperly and inadequately marked. When Clinton's lawyers reviewed the stuff they did not see the small "c" which was an improper way to try to mark something and I'm sure said nothing to her.

Now we would not see anything about this in the NYT, we have to go to other non-biases news sources to find these facts.
sfdphd (San Francisco)
I have yet to meet an executive or manager of anything who has a clue about their email server. That's for the tech department. That's why everyone calls "tech support".

There is no way a Secretary of State would know enough about IT to understand all the details of such things.

Anyone who wants to hang Clinton based on her email mistakes is someone who already hated her and is just looking for another excuse for continue hating her...
Margaret (Cambridge, MA)
I'm pretty sure she understood the details of "such things" as keeping a private server in your house makes it easy to hide your correspondence from pesky Freedom of Information Act requests.
Daniel Rose (Shrewsbury, MA)
"No worries, Dems?"

I think the American people have much to worry about, though half seem to be worrying about their place in an entirely different America and world from the other half. Sounds like a really bad marriage, where the last time vows were tested was in the mid-19th c., and Abe Lincoln was about to become the nation's progressive candidate to be elected President. Half seem to believe their own candidate to be either the least of two evils or the only competent and corruption-free candidate worthy of the office. Others think it doesn't much matter which of the two major candidates wins.

I'm certainly with Hillary, as I am one of those who sees the Donald as a potential disaster as President and someone who could well usher in a period not seen since the Civil War. At the same time, my worst fears are being tested about Hillary's almost inexplicable use of a personal email server when she knew she was in the running for the highest office. I tried to line up with Bernie about the triviality of the issue, all the while fearing the worst, and the worst has almost happened with the scathing (though non-criminal) FBI report.

Yes, Hillary was probably blinded by her own exhaustion with 25 years of relentless Republican attacks, and wished a simple refuge from all of that moving forward. Unfortunately, her decision has all but destroyed that refuge and forced her to find a way to convince enough voters that she is still more honest and reliable than Trump.
Observer (Backwoods California)
If Hillary had not used a private email server, the Donald and his minions would be harping on something else. Maybe they would resurrect Whitewater. I still see references to her "murdering" Vince Foster. The "vast right-wing conspiracy" is a real thing we see every day. Calling it out as such doesn't make her paranoid, It makes her perhaps a bit too outspoken for a mainstream politician.

I'm a bit of a hothead myself, and I'm sure if I was in her shoes, I'd be calling him "cheatin' Donald" every single day. He routinely cheats business partners, contractors, customers of his "university," pretty much everybody he comes in to contact with.
Richard1725 (Ormond Beac, FL)
Rasmussen has it today as Trump 44..Clinton 37~
Snarkles McBlathersby (Santa's workshop)
Rasmussen is a conservative pollster. I don't believe their results when the Democrats are ahead in them.

Wait until the debates.

She'll blindside Trump in a New York minute.
MikeC (New Hope PA)
Over the years, Rasmussen is known to be pro-Republican biased. No other poll other that Rasmussen finds Trump ahead.
Bubba1984 (Seattle)
Has to be a mistake. None of my friends on the upper East Side would dream of voting for Trump.
Jeff Barge (New York)
It's the press that's obsessed with these emails, not any of us here in Flyover Land.
Paul (White Plains)
New York is not exactly flyover land.
Jeff Barge (New York)
Just wait until global warning!
Kali (San Jose)
I assume Hillary will win simply because the establishment will do everything in its power to deny Trump the presidency. If that occurs, she will be the most reviled and divisive president in American history. She will also be entirely beholden to the establishment - Wall Street, banks, Fortune 500 corporations, mainstream think tanks, and mainstream media - which means the anti-establishment climate among the 99% will increase and expand. Hillary will quickly disappoint the Bernie supporters (myself included) who will
very reluctantly hold their nose and vote against Trump by pulling the lever for Clinton. Hillary's committed war making will be on full display as she will make GWB and Obama look like doves. Most of all she will convince 80% of the population that she is dishonest. It (almost) makes a Trump presidency sound preferable by comparison.
DickeyFuller (DC)
Keep telling yourself that.

As a woman, you know what a Trump presidency would mean to reproductive rights, among_so_many_other_things.
150303 (Canada)
The worst thing that can happen in a democracy is for a critical mass of people to assume that the results are clear enough that they don't need to vote. So from an outsider's perspective hopefully the polls stay close enough that everyone gets out to vote.
Richard (New York)
Let's keep it simple: a candidate that 67% - that is more than two-thirds - of voters consider not honest and not trustworthy, will not be elected President of the United States. End of.
Snarkles McBlathersby (Santa's workshop)
But Trump, who is at a 62% percent untrustworthy rating in the same poll, will be.

Because, you know, that's at least less than 67%, so...
MikeC (New Hope PA)
Hillary had 66% approval rating when she was Sec. of State. What changed? Dah! the minute she announced she's running the Republican attack dogs came out to destroy her.
MikeC (New Hope PA)
Politifact analyzed all the statements that Trump and Clinton made.
They found that Trump lied 75% of the time and H. Clinton 13% of the time,.
But the American people are buying the story line about Hillary being fed to them by the Republican machine and repeated every 2 minutes in the cable shows and other news media.
Doug (Boston)
The question that hasn't been answered is "Why?" What was her motive for using a personal email server? Did she gain personally by using her own server? I doubt it. So why did she use it? Working in IT I find that when a computer system doesn't meet the needs of what you need it to do, you find a "work-around". Despite all the TV programs, through different articles I've read, I do not get the impression that government computer systems are particularly sophisticated. As I doubt Hillary got any personal gain from using her own server, I expect she used it because the one provided her didn't allow her to do her job adequately. Consequently the people who worked for her found a "work-around" so she could competently do the job she needed to do. Ultimately to move past this issue, Hillary needs to address the "Why?
Hue (Federal Way, WA)
As Representative Ted Lieu said at the Comey hearing, every single member of Congress has his/her own server and own personal email account that handles classified information, and it is the height of hypocrisy to turn Hillary's use of one into an FBI criminal investigation.
Penn (Pennsylvania)
It's really simple, Doug. She wanted complete control of the record. This allowed the State Department to shrug off FOIA requests for her communications, because she made sure they didn't have those communications.
Honeybee (Dallas)
Oh good grief.
You definitely do not work in IT.
Cal E (SoCal)
Maybe all those campaign stops with Elizabeth Warren weren't such a good idea. But the story doesn't mention the real news from the poll -- Gary Johnson is at 12%, knocking on the door of the 15% threshold to get into the debates. There is a third choice this time.
Sarah Morison (Newbury, Massachusetts)
Your third choice boils down to a vote for Trump. Remember the 2000 election where Ralph Nader gave us George W. Bush? That was quite a victory for America, wasn't it?
DickeyFuller (DC)
Gary Johnson will never be President of the US. It's a wasted vote.
BarbT (NJ)
The NY Times toots its own horn here by publishing the latest results of the NY Times/CBS News general election polls which showed Clinton and Trump tied.

FiveThirtyEight, which provides statistical analyses of polls results, gives the NY Times/CBS news an A- rating but it's worth noting that it has predicted correct election outcomes only 77% of the time. And we have four months to go. Polls are more likely to be more accurate within 21 days of an election.

Meanwhile, other polls, also rated A- or better by FiveThirtyEight, were more favorable to Clinton. The most recent Quinnipac poll, the Marist poll, and the Ipsos polls showed Clinton ahead by 2-12 percent (raw numbers) or 1-10 percent (as adjusted by FiveThirtyEight).

The takeaway message: the NY Times/CBS News poll has a margin of error of 3%. A "tie" falls within this margin of error.

I don't take polls results too seriously at this point in the election cycle.

I think it's important to evaluate the objectivity of the "news" story in which poll results are reported. The NY Times has demonstrated an unfortunate tendency to mix news and opinion in political "news" stories during this election cycle. For example, this "news" article quotes a single person who apparently supported Bernie Sanders during the primary to arrive at the conclusion that ALL voters consider Hillary Clinton to be "disingenuous."

I do not share this view and I deplore the NY Times lack of commitment to straight news reporting.
DaveG (Manhattan)
As a registered Democrat, the Clintonistas here that praise Clinton do so mostly by comparing her to Trump.

The comparison is one between abysmal (Trump) and slightly less abysmal (Clinton).

Her praisers are unconvincing. And whether I vote or not, I live in a state that will give Clinton its electoral votes. So, I’m voting Green…to withhold my one, lousy popular vote from going to either “abysmal” or “slightly less abysmal”.
Susan Anderson (Boston)
"Clintonista": and you complain about namecalling.

How's about you take a broader view and stop repeating Republican opposition work memes.
Will (New York)
I'm sorry, but voting green is voting for Trump, and you know it.

It's also super-selfish from anyone who identifies as a progressive. Fine, you're increasing the chances Donald Trump will be elected, but at least if he is, you can brag about how you are so proud of yourself.

This is the problem with Democrats----they do not grasp that voting isn't an academic exercise. It's one or the other. If you ask a polling worker, "Hey, can I have one of those ballots where I get to write in why I'm voting for this person? I really want everyone to know!" they will look at you like you are a jerk. Because you are.
njglea (Seattle)
BIG democracy destroying money masters and their radical religious and socially unconscious operatives are really scared. There will actually be a woman as OUR next President of the United States. America will actually grow up.
Good Job, America!
True Observer (USA)
Comey was absolutely right to say that she needed a full-time security specialist.

How simple can people be.

She knew exactly what she was doing.

She set up a system for personal enrichment using her government office.

The scheme involved giving dictators and business people access for contributions to her charity.

Setting up charities appears to be a new way to receive bribes.

Tony Blair's wife set up a charity too. She even asked for Hillary's help in making introductions.

Congresswoman Corinne Brown set one up too but got busted.
Me (NYC)
For everyone who doesn't understand that Hillary put national security at risk with a private email server: nobody else has done this BTW. They had personal email accounts which is TOTALLY different. Also, yes it's the emails, but it's the lying. She lied outright and continues to lie about it. That's why nobody trusts her: she's a liar.
SMB (Savannah)
Wrong. Almost 24 officials in the Bush White House used the private and un-secure RNC server during two wars. Only 3 out of 30,000 emails were marked classified, and they were marked with small (c)s buried in the text. They turned out not to really be classified. Her server was never hacked. There was no national security risked here. Perhaps you should look at Trey Gowdy who released to the public the name of a CIA source? Or Darrell Issa who released to the public sensitive information including the names of people in Libya, some of whom were later killed?

Comey himself said that Sec. Clinton could have overlooked the small and buried classified markings.

Faux scandal. Witch hunt. Double standard. Trump has been rated by multiple fact checkers as lying 70% of the time. (Unlike Hillary who is among the most honest according to the fact checkers). The lies are just the usual GOP smears like the Swiftboating of Kerry's honorable record or that of Max Cleland.
Jan Erik (Norway)
Green Party candidate Dr. Jill Stein explains why she is running for President and why Bernie Sanders supporters should vote for her rather than Hillary Clinton in November. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmC3pskhCco
Gilbert Brovar (New York)
I think it would be important for Hillary to humanize herself and address the email issue head on as it is not going away. She should admit that she was wrong and less than forthcoming about all of it but make it clear that there were never sinister motives. While nobody is perfect, the difference between her and trump is that she has enough insight to know when she is wrong and is able to learn from her mistakes while Trump does not have enough insight to realize he is wrong and hence is incapable of learning.
annberkeley2008 (Toronto)
To an outsider a lot of this Benghazi - emails - seems like trumped up stuff. Isn't it time all these high priced senators and whatnot got on with the job they are supposed to be doing and stopped politicking on the taxpayer's dime? I'd be appalled if stuff like this happened in our Parliament. These guys are paid to work.
Greg (Portland, OR)
It still amazes me the naivete of so many of the comments. Trump has been a front runner from the beginning and has capitalized on the resentment and anger of a very volatile and energized population. In contrast, the DNC has put forth a flawed and corrupt candidate that has a dismal approval rating. She has determined this is her destiny and "deserves" this. Had we more factual and unbiased reporting from the start things may have turned out differently, but the media has been fabricating a false narrative for too long.
drriddle (Pasadena)
The alert email said she was a "damaged" candidate. This is based on one poll that shows a tie...what about the poll the other day that showed her leading by 10+? Polling right now is going to be all over the place....most people aren't engaged and won't be until the conventions and then debates.

A bigger issue is the phrasing, and the continual negative coverage of Clinton. Every article about her seems to spin negative, and anything positive that she does, including some really great speeches recently, are completely ignored. She is also getting far less coverage than Trump. Combine the two and the race looks like it's being dominated by Trump and Clinton is falling apart, and that appearance is completely the creation of the media.

I expect better from the NYT, I expect balanced, factual coverage, and I expect it to stay unbiased in the news while pointing out what the candidates are honest or dishonest about. That goes to every aspect of the reporting, and especially to the lede that is sent out with an article. To me, it really seems like the media wants Trump to win...I'm sure he makes a better business case, but that should not affect the media presentation of the news. Do better.
Nathan Meyer (Berkeley, CA)
Comey was a GW Bush appointee (to the AG's office) and long time Clinton-hater. So there was a reasonable expectation that he would indict HRC.

A Clinton indictment was what Democrats needed. HRC is probably going to get edged by Trump. If GOP Ownership manage to dump Trump and run something human, Clinton will lose by an avalanche. On the other hand, Trump vs. just about anybody but HRC loses and loses big.

What Director Comey did was the most Clinton (and Democrat) damaging action he could take. Comey basically said: HRC deserves to be indicted, but we can't do it under existing law. That points out what an arrogant sloppy privileged idiot she was, while leaving her in place to lose the election.

The irony is that Clinton was never supposed to be more than a token sacrifice; in an election the GOP Ownership was expected to sweep. Accepted wisdom was that, (after Obama being stymied by a hostile Congress for eight years), the Electorate would demand change at the top. (Entertainingly, the more people look at Donald and HRC, the higher Obama' job rating goes). That is why there were only 3 Democrats but 17 Republicans in the respective primary campaigns. It's why the DNC let Bernie in- just a cruel joke on their part. Then the GOP shot itself in the face, and here we are with a choice between a Disaster (HRC) and Apocalypse (Trump). I'm voting for Disaster over Apocalypse. You can recover from Disaster.
@PISonny (Manhattan, NYC)
Think about it, liberal America: after nearly 8 years of Obama 'rule', youth unemployment among the blacks is at the worst levels we have seen; the wealth gap has widened, and racial relations have gotten worse.

So, do you want at least 4 more years of 'more of the same' under Hillary who has vowed to pursue the same failed Obamanomics? Unless you think she is lying about following in the footsteps of Obama to get votes, she is not good for America.

Let your brain do the thinking, not your genitals or heart.
Valerie (Maine)
Most of what you mention are tied to the purse strings controlled by Republicans, who are focused on abortion, gay marriage, birth control, and where people pee. They have refused Obama's jobs bills. They refuse to fill vacant court seats. They refuse to do anything for the economic good of the country, in the hopes people like you will blame their partisanship on Obama. Congratulations on delivering.

As for the worsening of race relations, no, they didn't worsen under Obama. They were exposed because of his elections. From birthers to an increase in white supremacy memberships to the fact that Obama has had to have the highest number of Secret Service agents than any other POTUS, the right wing's Southern Strategy has simply had more light shined upon it, and it has reacted accordingly.

Obama has been an excellent president, and only the truly partisan deny this.
abie normal (san marino)
"Let your brain do the thinking, not your genitals or heart."

Just out of curiosity, if one were to let their genitals do the thinking, whom would one vote for?
DickeyFuller (DC)
The Republican House blocked every single jobs measure, and basically every single piece of legislation he proposed.

They vowed to do so the night he was inaugurated.
Anthony N (NY)
1. Thank you FBI Director Comey for your inappropriate and unnecessary comments. Justice Ginsburg has basically apologized for hers. Maybe you should man-up and do the same.

2. When it comes to "shifting and inaccurate explanations", no one holds a candle to Trump.
Paul King (USA)
Consider this:

Hillary is probably the only Democrat that Trump might have any chance of beating in the election.

Trump is probably the only Republican Hillary has a chance of beating (well you could throw in Cruz or Ben Carson).

So, a perfect match of imperfect candidates.

With one saving grace for Democrats.
Hillary can be normal and rehabilitate her image over the next few months and win a close election.


Excuse me while I enjoy a good laugh.
Penn (Pennsylvania)
"Hillary can be normal and rehabilitate her image over the next few months..."

If she was capable of that, she'd have done it already. She can't, and there isn't enough time. Trust, when compromised, takes a very long time to win back. Instead of accepting the criticism for her unprofessional behavior that risked state communications for years, she pushes back and worse, ropes 300 State employees into the mess she created. That's not leadership, that's not rehabilitation, it's myopia and cowardice.

I'd laugh, too, except there's nothing funny about it.
Margaret (Cambridge, MA)
"Hillary can be normal and rehabilitate her image over the next few months"--only if you believe there's some version of an e-meter or a tinfoil hat that will erase the memory of those of us who remember the 1990s with disgust. Excuse me while I enjoy a good laugh.
surgres (New York)
Can we please stop will all this polling! These numbers are completely meaningless. The election will be decided by the ground game, and Hillary has a huge advantage over Trump.

So why doesn't the media report about that?
Honeybee (Dallas)
How do you know Hillary has a "huge advantage over Trump"?
What is the evidence that your claim is accurate?
Could you provide the citation?
Laura Reich (Matthews, NC)
Hillary Clinton has to be the most scrutinized person in the world. I could care less about the emails. She is far better suited to be President than a man who is narcissistic, misogynistic, and who has no cares how the world works for anyone else but himself.
MyThreeCents (San Francisco)
Many Hillary defenders have made essentially this point:

"I would bet many don’t know the first thing about the location of their own servers."

True, many Americans are "computer-challenged." But anyone who's picked to be Secretary of State should at least have some vague sense that it's not OK to run official emails through a private server in one's basement. Nor, when caught, would most of us defend this practice by pointing to the lack of "evidence" that Russia, China, North Korea -- or some bored 14-year old sitting cross-legged on his bed with a laptop -- has hacked our basement server. Maybe that has occurred and the hacker chose not to leave a calling card. Even if it hasn't occurred, certainly it could have. I'm amazed that anyone would ever take such a risk, or offer such lame defenses when it came to light.

Frankly, I'm also disappointed, and nearly amazed, that others let this happen. When Obama, for example, got emails from Hillary's "clintonemail.net" server, he probably wondered about that but figured that some beanie-copter technonerd must have figured out a way to make this work. But apparently there was no beanie-copter technonerd on the case -- or perhaps there was, but Hillary's aides told him to back off. Either way, it's jaw-droppingly amazing that something like this could actually happen. Clinton would be wise just to drop it -- stop trying to defend what she did, just drop it, move on and hope it blows over.
itsmildeyes (Philadelphia)
I'm so weary of thinking about this; but, since you directly quoted my earlier comment - I mean, why did her emails go through and why did the emails of others reach her? If State's servers were configured in such a manner that only stuff generated on State servers would successfully send and receive, why would her emails go through; and, probably more importantly, why would she receive any from the State Department? I've already emailed people and have gotten the 'undeliverable' message. I still think it seems like a plumbing problem and you're getting hot water in the cold water pipes. That's a job for a guy with low-hanging pants and a wrench (apologies to all you plumbers out there), not the owner of the bank that holds the mortgage on your property.

I'm with you on the let's 'just drop it.' But, those who vehemently wish her to fail, keep digging it up. Ask yourself, why do they dislike her so? They claim she's a tool of Wall Street. I thought Republicans loved Wall Street. They don't want any regulations on any aspect of capitalism. Why are they so afraid of her if she's a member of their chummy club? (Obviously, I don't think she is.) They characterized Sen. Sanders as a commie. They paint Sec. Clinton as a closet conservative. They're throwing the spaghetti against the wall to see what's sticks. As a result, a lot of decent citizens are being played.
William Case (Texas)
It’s ironic that polls favor Hillary Clinton on immigration. Donald Trump promises to enforce the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1996. This act calls for the deportation of unauthorized immigrants and a crackdown on employers who hire them. Clinton promises she will not enforce the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, but will issue executive orders to stop deportation. This would be a violation of the presidential oath of office. President vows to faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States. The Constitution tasks presidents to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

It’s odd that Clinton polled higher than Trump on race relations. Hillary backed her husband's landmark 1990s crime bill that led to the mass incarceration of blacks and Hispanics. Trump has not proposed any measure that would harm African Americans or Hispanic Americans. His stance on immigration and visas affect only foreign nationals.
mark (chicago)
Dems should have gone with Bernie Sanders, He was the safe scandal free option that polls showed could win.
SMB (Savannah)
What about those weird rape fantasy articles, his secret tax returns, and other unexamined parts of his history (trips to the Soviet Union, Cuba, support for Central American dictators, etc.)? He has always been given a free pass since the GOP really wanted him to be the candidate. Double standard.
Christopherbarker (Vegas)
Not to mention, Clinton now appears to have adopted the majority of his positions. So now we get Bernie's platform with Hillary's scandals... What more could America ask for?
mja (LA, Calif)
Hard to imagine there's anyone in the United States who'd be a more unappealing choice for president than Trump. Even harder to figure how the Democratic Party beat the odds and found one.
Dossevi Trenou (Atlanta)
LOL. Thanks for my best laugh of the day. :-)
jeff (nv)
Had the GOP picked one of their several "legitimate" candidates, I could understand voting for them rather than the "challenged' HRC. But under the circumstances I say vote for anyone but Trump.
N B (Texas)
This means that Trump is seen as less of a threat than Hillary. While I can't believe that Hillary would be so definite about never sending or receiving classified email and am very disappointed in her for that she is still so less scary than Trump. Who could be more scary than Trump, Cruz probably.
SMB (Savannah)
3 emails marked classified. 3 out of 30,000. And the classified marking was a small (c) buried in the text. Who in the world would catch every single small mark like this within what was no doubt enormous volume of emails sometimes reviewed while traveling or before a meeting or something. And the information turned out not to really be classified after all, according to the State Department (one was on a condolence call).

This is absolutely ridiculous. No lives were placed in jeopardy, and even the FBI said no crime had been committed and there was no intent to hide anything.
njglea (Seattle)
John Chick says, "I've just finished driving from Chicago down to Palm Springs. Along the way, in almost every city and town the TRUMP lawn signs outnumbered the Clintons by I'll bet a margin of 3:1. And almost every rural farm has a TRUMP sign on the property."

Of course. It's fox so-called news country and the signs say "keep those farm and gambling subsidies coming." No thanks. Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton has my vote, my support for the next 8 1/2 years, and then I'll promote Senator Elizabeth Warren to be President. Time to stop letting the media and BIG democracy destroying money masters decide who will lead America.
Margaret (Cambridge, MA)
I actually observed the same thing driving through upstate NY last week. Except I saw NO Billary signs whatsoever.
Here (There)
Warren will be 75 in eight years
RPW (Jackson)
" He [Trump] demonstrates no empathy or sympathy for those he cruelly ridicules. Not for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who suffered broken bones and internal injuries from years of torture, whose heroism Trump cannot bring himself to acknowledge. Not for Carly Fiorina, who ran a determined, classy primary campaign, but whose appearance Trump found unacceptable. Not for the disabled reporter whom Trump callously mocked. Not for the U.S.-born judge subjected to Trump’s bigotry. Scores of hurtful statements by Trump, but not a single apology to date. Those who lack a conscience and human feelings of contrition often become ruthless autocrats when given great power." The Washington Post. Sorry about the emails by Hill, but we can't let Trump win. He's sick and dangerous in a way we've never seen. Far too dangerous.
EinT (Tampa)
"Hillary Clinton. She’ll say anything, and change nothing. It’s time to turn the page. Paid for by Obama for America."
Mike (NYC)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Bernie was a far better general election candidate. If we wind up with President Trump, the blame will be squarely on Hillary's primary voters and the media campaign (of which the Times was a significant player) to promote her over Bernie.
Joe (Los Angeles)
This is not an election where one chooses the lesser of two evils, this is the difference between night and day. Hillary is basically a moderate Republican and Trump is a volatile, narcissistic sociopath. I cannot fathom how this is not obvious to each and every one of my fellow citizens save for the influence of Fox News.
Nick Metrowsky (Longmont, Colorado)
Fine, Joe, then have Ms. Clinton run for the GOP and have Mr. Sanders run for the Democrats.
Gordon (USA)
Night and day. Hillary lied under oath to Congress, lied to the American public for 18 months about putting national security at risk with her "extremely careless" handling of our nation's national security. I don't recall Trump doing any of that.
Susan Anderson (Boston)
Please stop. Hillary is a Democrat. This is so old and so wrong.
While the Clinton's email server is, by comparison, a minor issue (especially since other Secretaries of State, including Colin Powell) used personal severs. However, it weighs heavily on her campaign. If Mrs. Clinton were truly looking out for the good of the Country, she would withdraw and allow the Democratic Party to nominate Biden or Bloomberg as their nominee. Defeating the force of Trump is more important for our country and the world than her aspirations. But sadly, her aspirations are the same as Trump.
Penn (Pennsylvania)
Other secretaries of state used PERSONAL EMAIL ADDRESSES. They did not use PERSONAL SERVERS. Only HILLARY did that.

Yuge difference.
Kelvin F. (Pacific Northwest)
Until Democrats demand better of their party, morally and legally compromised candidates such as Hillary Clinton are the best that they will get. Until registered Democrats refuse to "get in line" and vote party line, they will not get honest and trustworthy candidates. Until the DNC has reason to legitimately fear third-party candidates, it has no reason to try harder. Until Liberal voters stop being afraid to vote their conscience and thereby "throw away their vote," we will keep getting people like Hillary to represent us. The Left needs to send the DNC a message: no more Hillary Clintons. This is why I'm voting for the Green Party's Jill Stein in this election. I'm unwilling to throw away my vote by affirming a dishonest politician such as has been anointed by the DNC. Castigate me if you will, but even with Bernie's endorsement, this farce of a Hillary campaign will not have my seal of approval.
Jim (Sedona, Arizona)
@ Kelvin
Legally compromised"?
How so?................
Bob Mulholland (Chico, California)
Ultimately the American people will not put David Duke & the KKK candidate, Donald Trump in the White House. Sure a majority of white voters will vote for the immigrant bashing Trump but that's normal. The last time white voters went with a Democrat for President was LBJ in 1964. November 8th will have the largest turnout of minorities ever, probably 32% of the electorate and Secretary Clinton will receive 70 to 95% of the vote in these communities. Jewish voters always vote for the Democrat but this time we will win a higher %. Mormons always vote for the Republican candidate but that % will drop for Trump.
Sal (New Orleans)
Your comment is soothing to this registered voter in Louisiana. Reminded me that we elected The Crook over David Duke for governor some years back. Surely the American people will deny Donald Trump the presidency come November.

(I thought Trump and the media were just kidding and that he'd be busy putting his name on other commercial stuff by now, certainly not on the presidential ballot, for real.)
Patriot (USA)
Hillary has disqualified herself. Anyone that even considers voting for this corrupt politician should turn in their passport and leave the country. Liberals obviously, do not understand the principles and values that maded this country great. They cannot be assimilated into American society and should go to Venezuela or Russia where they will be comfortable with the like minded.
Susan Anderson (Boston)
I'm hoping this is a self caricature. If you are for Trump, you should look at his record. Cheats ... cheats ... cheats ....
Honeybee (Dallas)
Susan--one doesn't have to be "for Trump" just because they don't want a proven liar who is also a self-enriching career politician for president.
Susan Anderson (Boston)
Honeybee, did you read the comment to the end? That was what I was responding to:

"Liberals obviously, do not understand the principles and values that maded this country great. They cannot be assimilated into American society and should go to Venezuela or Russia where they will be comfortable with the like minded."
Michjas (Phoenix)
The view that Trump's constituency is limited to angry white males does not account for his increasing percentage support (although the percent of votes he received is, inexplicably, not reported). It would appear that disenchanted Clinton supporters have changed allegiances. The swing vote in this election is a curious crowd willing to swing 180 degrees at the drop of a hat. They apparently see little difference between a conventional core Democrat and an unconventional eccentric Republican. I suspect that a study of the swing voters would reveal that they are unsure which party the candidates belong to, unsure of the office they are running for, and maybe even unsure about which is which.
rjs7777 (NK)
I study the issues extremely closely and believe Clinton is a neoconservative, while Trump has more than a passing similarity to Sanders. And he (Trump) is the strongest candidate for African American interests in decades, via populist, wage-boosting policies. So yes, I guess you could say I am "unsure..." which party represents what.
Hugh Briss (Climax, Virginia)
Elections are about choices, so I will reluctantly vote for Clinton.

Because I trust Ruth Bader Ginsburg's opinion of Donald Trump more than that of Antonio Sabato, Jr.

The fact that The Donald is unacceptable does not solve the problem of HRC's untrustworthiness.

In the end we will elect her, because He is ridiculous.

BUT.... we will be electing an intelligent, experienced and worldly person of low integrity.

There will be a cost to her ingrained dishonesty.

But that cost will be less than the Armageddon that would ensue with The Donald.

Truly. Americans are not God's chosen people in 2016!
que (que)
Exactly who are these wise pollsters? You will buy sand in the dessert before electing Trump president.
Sherry Jones (Washington)
Don't worry. For 17 years in a row Hillary Clinton has been the most admired woman alive. She earned that high reputation through her extraordinary courage, intelligence and perseverance in public service, and in the public eye, all her adult life. She is most admired in part because of her mistakes and her remarkable poise faced with the Republican Congressional inquisition squad. Regardless of rightwing smear campaigns, and even partly because of them, the good woman will always shine through.

K (Mountainville NY)
Dontcha wish you'd voted for Bernie now?
Anyone out there realize how bad you've got to be to be tied with Donald Trump. My Golden Retriever would out poll Donal Trump a week before the convention.
Will (New York City)
Given these two choices, which one of these people would you trust:

1- a naked man on a hot day (temperature above 100 degrees);
2- a woman wearing a heavy coat/gloves on a hot day (temperature above 100 degrees)?

The choice is as clear as this analogy people.
Ken (San Diego)
I looked up the definition of demagoguery: Demagoguery is a manipulative approach — often associated with dictators and sleazy politicians — that appeals to the worst nature of people.
I won't be voting for that candidate.
Hillary for president!
MyThreeCents (San Francisco)

"If only a vote against Clinton didn't mean a vote for Trump."

A vote for Trump would hurt Clinton twice as much as not voting at all or voting for a third-party candidate. If Clinton's winning a state 35-34, two votes for Trump would give Trump that state, but two votes for a third-party candidate, or two "no votes," would leave Clinton the winner of that state.
Nick Metrowsky (Longmont, Colorado)
Electing a person to prevent another person, from winning, is a very poor strategy.

I remember, when this country was much better than it is today, that both parties strived to get the best candidates possible (it wasn't easy). And, that the candidates spent their time trying to impress voters for their vote. Not, use fear to encourage voters to select one person over another. There is just something wrong about this.
RML (Washington D.C.)
Hillary's email was better protected than the emails on NSA and Department of Defense servers. Bradley Manning and Snowden did more damage to national security using so-called government protected servers. In addition, Secretary Clinton used email exactly like her predecessors Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. I am confident in Hillary. I trust Hillary!
Ray Russell (Virginia Beach)
That excuse will not work or help.
Howard (Queens)
The American voters should worry more about Trump's truth telling than with Clinton's lies.
Clinton is no more dishonest than most career politicians.
She will make a more competent president than a candidate.
The promises Trump makes and the manner in which he conducts his campaign are far more disturbing than Clinton's "lies"
Margaret (Cambridge, MA)
Sorry, I doubt most career politicians have been openly peddling influence and selling off U.S. natural resources to foreign governments to the tune of millions of dollars in donations to their personal money-laundering firm, aka the "Foundation."
prnter (la, ca)
Why are we not discussing Comey's unprecedented part in all of this? His most damning criticisms were peppered with "possible" and "potential" and no supporting facts. This is totally in line with his disingenuous handling of the Apple phone [which cost taxpayers $1M when anecdotal evidence suggested that phone was irrelevant] and his unsubstantiated claims that viral videos spike crime. Comey's political agenda gets the better of him each time. To take him at his word is a mistake. That we blindly do speaks as much to our biases. Clinton isn't blameless, but we should keep an eye on the big picture as we consider our choices.
Ben (Austin)
Can we not freak out about one poll? NYT's own polling averages still shows Hillary with a lead bigger than the margin of error. So do 538's, HuffPo, and RCP polling trackers. The email news hit her hard (unsurprisingly) but it's disingenuous to say the race is all of a sudden a dead heat.
Nick Metrowsky (Longmont, Colorado)
FYI, they are both tied in Ohio, and she is falling, while Trump is rising. Very reflective of the national poll.

Also, Ms. Clinton, and Trump, for most of the polls, have been in, or near, the margin of error. It has been more or less tied for weeks. Excluding liberal and conservative polls.
Ted Cooper (San Francisco)
They both stink.
Matt Jackson (Pennsylvania)
Your own reporters have noted that polls this far before the general election have little value, especially around the time of the national conventions. So why commission and report on polls at this stage? I am guessing that the NYTimes coverage of this election has been about 95 percent about the horse race and only five percent substantive discussion of issues. It is mostly click bait that might serve your bottom line but not our democracy.
Lisa Fremont (East 63rd St.)
As the song goes:" We've only just begun"....on her.
Nava (DC)
Time to step up, Dems (and anyone else who doesn't want a blustering buffoon for president) — volunteer for the campaign, donate, whatever. This is just a reminder that we can't take anything for granted.
PMAC (Parsippany)
Hillary is a woman scorned! She was made Sec. of State because obama needed the Clinton's support when he ran for president. As Sec. of State, she was a disgrace.
It was also very shocking to learn that the Clinton foundation accepted millions of dollars from foreign countries. That should never should be allowed. No foreign companies, countries or individuals should ever be allowed to contribute to a presidential campaign in this country.

her handling of the emails -- well the cover up worked to a certain extent -- the consequences were American citizens were murdered.

Say what you want about Trump -- he is saying what the American people have been thinking for the past 8 years. We are tired of crooked politicians! Give the man credit for speaking THE TRUTH.
April (Brooklyn)
Now WHY does the Democratic Party wants to put this candidate froward in the general election?
And if HRC cared about "fighting for us" wouldn't she want to step aside under these conditions and allow for a better candidate that would defeat Trump with more certainty?
The unified goal of the unified democrats is defeat Trump, not have Hillary as president. So focus on the goal.
John (US Virgin Islands)
She is dishonest. You can see how she looks when she lies when they show the side by side of her statements and those of the FBI director, and it is the same face she has on when she says she will fight for blacks, for justice, for working people. All Lies. She is fighting for her own power and for her Party of Power - Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the big money Goldman bankers and Hollywood
A-List and the international donors to the Clinton Funds.
Hue (Federal Way, WA)
You are not paying attention.

The hearing determined that Hillary did not lie, and she wasn't evasive; there was little matter for concern. Three email chains (that HIllary did not originate) that contained a "(C)" code for confidential (not top secret) deep in the text (not in the header) that someone else had inserted after the initial email was sent.

It's the Director of the FBI and the Republicans who owe Hillary an apology for mischaracterizing her actions as crimes or negligence.
John (US Virgin Islands)
Sorry, the FBI directly and forcefully contradicted Hillary's oft stated positions on her complete turning over of work emails, her handling of marked confidential information, etc. You can call it 'not lying', or debate what the meaning of 'is' is, but I call it lying.
Chaz1954 (Houston, TX)
HRC is in deep trouble as the election is less than 4 months away. Her serial lying, ineptness, carelessness and overall disdain for the rule of law has caught up to her and many Dems are finally getting sick of it. To now adopt and support Socialist tenets is the final nail in the coffin for her.
Nava (DC)
"Serial lying, ineptness, carelessness and overall disdain for the rule of law"...sounds like a perfect description of Trump, actually. He defrauded students at "Trump University" and has bankrupted many of his business ventures. According to the Washington Post, 78% of Trump's fact-checked statements during the campign are false or mostly false. Its mind-boggling that Hillary is perceived as the dishonest one.
Ted (Miami)
Mind boggling, maybe. But true non the less.
Chaz1954 (Houston, TX)
Who is less trustworthy? Check out the polls.
Frank McNeil (Boca Raton, Florida)
"A bit disingenuous", Ms. Wollard said of Hillary Clinton. That, however, is not the same as untrustworthy, which Donald Trump certainly is.

One sees phony optimism among Democrats, who must get used to the fact that if we (and she) don't work like heck, we will lose to Mr. Trump. Recall that Lincoln said, you can "fool all of the people some of the time."

The nation has made terrible choices before. Arguably Andrew Jackson, who hung a "whites only" sign on his populism and Richard Nixon, who had terrible flaws, among them a racist "Southern Strategy" which Donald Trump has perfected. Or James Buchanan, who fiddled while the Civil War's fuse burned. And don't forget George W. Bush who, his human virtues notwithstanding. departed from his prudence about foreign affairs during the election campaign, to engage in a reckless attempt to become something akin to Emperor of the Middle East. ISIL is just the latest unintended consequence of the Iraq invasion.

To win, Democrats will have to rid themselves of the smugness on display in Peter Baker's column and refrain from taking Sanders voters for granted. Beyond the platform, it seems wise for Hillary Clinton to take steps to prove she will not let her foreign policy be taken over by neoconservatives and liberal interventionists.

How she does that is up to her, but the country needs to know she will not engage in foreign adventure, particularly in the Muslim world.
Robert Cohen (Atlanta-Athens GA area)
The e-mail spaghetti is sticking to the wall.

The opinion polls are reflecting volatility.

As sports announcers say, it's a new ballgame.

It is depressing to contemplate DJT presiding.

BREXIT is not irrelevant

Some Brit voters are supposedly undergoing voter remorse, and I'll suggest it happened over there last month and that an angered expression of discontent may well happen here this November.
Alan Silver (Owings Mills, Maryland)
There's no question that Hillary is by far the better candidate. The trust issue is just another Republican falsehood they've been trying to attach to Hillary for years! You're telling me Donald Trump is more trustworthy than Hillary Clinton? Give me a break! There's only one thing you need to vote for Hillary. A brain.
Nick Metrowsky (Longmont, Colorado)
For a person with a better brain, it looks like she left it back in Chappaqua, next to her private e-mail server and Blackberry. And, also left there common sense.

Ms. Clinton, who knows she as a trust problem, has done everything possible to fuel that lack of trust. She is assuming that she can win, because of her opponent. Think "Tortoise and the Hare" here. Or, "Grasshopper and the Ant". She does not have to work hard, it will just come to her, because she is entitled. No matter her flaws, because she is less flawed than Trump. Never mind that many people see the flaws of both candidates; equally.

In this election, it is akin to watching a steeplechase race, and both athletes keep tripping over the hurdles, get caught on the bushes, and fall into the water. Someone will win, but both will be battered and bruised to the point that neither will be effective.

Neither candidate is using their brain effectively. Maybe that is the reflection of how dumbed down this nation has truly become. Why? Because people have accepted these two and must choose between them, instead of demanding a better choice.
Toni Taylor (Bushwick)
Oh for a little context setting. Could the press, including the NYT, please report on Secretaries of State under Republican administrations doing the same thing. While you're at it, remind us again how many emails Bush/Cheney deleted after our entrance into Iraq under known to be false circumstances.
Honeybee (Dallas)
No one else set up a private SERVER in their basement.
I realize you don't understand the technology involved, but lots of us do. And what Clinton did was shocking.
Sumana (USA)
They are not running for president...so what is your point?
Kathleen Cunningham (Berkley, MI)
As unfair as it may be, & it is, I think it is a huge mistake to nominate a "wounded" candidate. The public perceives her as damaged, & it is dangerous to ignore this reality. I think HRC would be doing a noble thing to withdraw herself from nomination & the Democratic Party could then nominate a Biden/Warren ticket that could easily trounce Trump.
Jet Gardmer (Columbus OH)
Is it any wonder this country has been torn in half?
A clear election leader isn't going to boost ratings or sell papers. Everyone from Fox News to the Washington Post has been intentionally manipulating the news to keep elections for the last 20 years tight. Am I the only one whose noticed that if Trump pulls too far ahead, suddenly the press/media attacks him, and if Hillary pulls ahead suddenly there's negative stories about her?
Marian (New York, NY)

Shame on the race demagogues. Their Faustian bargain w/ the Clintons perpetuates the myth.

"There is such a thing as a lesser evil & Hillary is not it"—Michelle Alexander

Reading comments here to the contrary, I am reminded of Harriet Tubman's brilliant observation about the insidious nature of entrenched subservience: "I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves."

When deconstructing reflexive black support for the Clintons, Randall Robinson implored: "For God in heaven, what for?" (C-SPAN video, 9/13/07)

Recall Hillary's "superpredators."

Recall "Hillary's Firewall"/"drag & drop," virulent, insidious, dehumanizing racism, vote-stealing & vote-denial disguised as voting rights.

Recall the NAACP suing the Clintons for intimidating blacks at the polls.

Recall the Clinton crime bill.

Indeed, recall Rwanda.

Some black intellectuals argue that blacks were against the 94 crime bill and blame its passage on the "selective hearing" of whites.

"Selective hearing" sure sounds to me like a euphemism for "black lives do not matter."

How else can one possibly explain Rwanda?

"Be Careful…Genocide finding could commit USG to do something"

The Clinton role in the Rwandan genocide, the Haitian refugee repatriation to certain death, the Ricky Ray Rector execution, & the expansion of mass incarceration, should have long ago disabused all blacks—and all whites—of Clinton nostalgia.
Mor (California)
I am not sure what each item in this pile of unsupported allegations and conspiracy theories even means. But what does Rwanda have to do with the race relations in the US? You do know, don't you, that the victims were Tutsis, lighter-skinned than their butchers, the Hutu, who adopted a ridiculous theory that the Tutsis were not native Rwandans but "Semitic" invaders. The genocide did have a racial dimension but very different from the black-white divide in the US. And even if President Clinton knew that something bad was brewing in Rwanda, what was he supposed to do? Invade the country before the slaughter even began?
Marian (New York, NY)

Unsupported? Check the links and cites.

Also check Samantha Power, our current, Obama-appointed UN Ambassador, who details the horror of–and the Clintons' role in–the Rwandan genocide in her Pulitzer-prize winning book, "A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide." Power called Hillary "a monster." The NYT book review called Bill Clinton "an amoral narcissist."

As to your racist rant about degree of skin darkness mitigating damage, you are both outrageous and missing the point: This is not about Hutus vs Tutsis. It's about the Clintons vs their view of blacks as disposable. Perhaps the rows on skulls on the shelves in the photo at the Nyamata Genocide Memorial will open your eyes.


800,000 skulls lined up on shelves
Nyamata Genocide Memorial.
"Never again" didn't apply to blacks.
Clinton denial was categorical

800,000 skulls lined up on shelves
The little children bled
Butchered in 100 days
800,000 Rwandans dead.

Bill Clinton biting his lower lip
Didn't bring the Rwandans back
No absolution from the Africa trip
Still dead, 800,000 blacks.

800,000 skulls lined up on shelves
Clinton indifference raptorial.
Generations of children never born
Nyamata Genocide Memorial.

—by me

Marian (New York, NY)
Clinton himself conceded he could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives, but only after the docs proveing Clinton complicity were declassified.

The Clintons could have prevented most of the deaths.

During the 100-day period from April 7, 1994 to mid-July 1994, an 800,000 were slaughtered in the genocide

Declassified docs confirm the Clintons knew w/in the first few days that a "final solution" to kill all Tutsis was underway. They instructed officials not to use the word "genocide" lest it provoke public pressure to do something. Worse, they stopped others from doing anything

"Be Careful…Genocide finding could commit USG to do something"

Note: "At an interagency teleconference in late April, Susan Rice, a rising star on the NSC… stunned a few of the officials present when she asked, 'If we use the word 'genocide' and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November [congressional] election?' Lieutenant Colonel Tony Marley remembers the incredulity of his colleagues at the State Department. 'We could believe that people would wonder that,' he says, 'but not that they would actually voice it.'" —"Bystanders to Genocide," Samantha Power, The Atlantic, Sept. 2001

Two malefactors in the Rwanda genocide, like in Benghazi, are the same Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice, demonstrating that character is the only meaningful measure of our politicians and the only accurate determinant of their future acts.
Libra (Maine)
One cannot but wonder how many of those who clamor for Clinton to be charged with a criminal offense are sufficiently informed or qualified to pass judgment in her case. Did they actually actively participate in the year long FBI investigation and so were privy to all deliberations of the committee? Or did they read all of the voluminous report? Are they trained lawyers able to assess the legal implications of all of the testimonies and evidence? Are they experts in criminal law? The comments of the director of the FBI to the press and to Congress suggest that he, personally, would have loved to indict Clinton, but even he concluded that "no rational prosecutor "would pursue the case. It appears that facts and the law are no longer relevant in the court of public opinion.
Steve (Wayne, PA)
So, the 'news' is that the American people find a politician not trustworthy? Particularly after she has endured years of a sustained effort by the Republican party to discredit here at every opportunity...when one steps back and looks at the two candidates in terms of experience, accomplishments and what they say, being trustworthy doesn't even make it on to the top ten list.
Lies, darn lies, and polling results, eh?


Here's the ugly truth - people who know how to conduct polls, know very well how to fudge their results by selective polling and careful phrasing.

Woe unto all of us, who have been given these two reprehensible choices!
Josh (Grand Rapids, MI)
Amazing how the average Hillary refuses to connect the dots. How many countries or companies that donated to the Clinton Foundation or paid Bill to speak while Hillary was SoS got a clearance on a federal contract or a favorable ruling?
Scott Smith (West Hollywood CA)
The email problem is very minor compared with Trump's brazen lies and incredible positions--here's a point by point look at Clinton https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/open-letter-sanders-supporters-scott-s-sm...
Nemesis (Boston)
The email server issue is far from a minor problem. But have you forgotten about Benghazi, Whitewater, Vince Foster, Foggy Bottom, the millions and millions she's earned being cozy with Wall St. and giving "speeches"?
Susanna (Greenville, SC)
As my bumper sticker says, "She's worse."
Steve Bolger (New York City)
How do you know without seeing Trump's tax returns?
You and your bumper sticker are both wrong.
EinT (Tampa)
Where does your tax return show your net worth?
Nick Metrowsky (Longmont, Colorado)
A few minutes reading this:


She tried to cover up the idea she was using a private e-mail server. She tried to cover up she was using a Blackberry. She dismissed this situation as a "witch hunt". She tried to cover up that sensitive e-mails went through both her private e-mail server and her Blackberry. Finally, she claimed it was "legal".

Some of her comments were made to the media, in speeches and to Congressional panels.

The State Department and FBI admonished her for for how she handled the situation, how she handled her e-mails and her reactions. But, she came close to, but not cross the line, into something that could be prosecuted. Congress is still working on perjury.

I am surprised, she has not dropped further in the polls, Also, considering the "Experienced" candidate, is tied with someone who has not elected office experience, should be cause for concern. Not only in trust, but electability of her, and other down ballot Democrats.

Yes, the only important poll is the one on election day, but there is a long four months to the election. Between now and then both candidates will be bruised and battered. But, Ms. Clinton is becoming a liability, as much as Mr. Trump.

If nothing else, this poll shows deep seeded anger of the electorate that both political parties, and government institutions, have failed miserably. And, they demand real and honest change. Think Green and Libertarian here.
Eric Damian (San Diego)
Aces there Democrats. Your bench is so thin you are stuck with a pathological liar who can't be trusted with state secrets and whose only accomplishment in life is enabling her predatory husband in his unending assault on women.

It is inconceivable how your party of competing parasites has been reduced to 3 governors and 5 state legislatures. Or not.

I mean, seriously. The 1930's called and they want their ideas back.
Wine Country Dude (Napa Valley)
And, the notorious RBG is forced to apologize to The Donald. The left is its own worst enemy.
Susan Anderson (Boston)
Having to walk it back because of her professional standing, fine ... but many of us agree with her that civilization might not survive a Trump presidency.
Ed B. (NYC)
Your headline is misleading. Trump has not pulled even; Hillary has dropped to his level. It's like saying you got a raise because everyone else took a cut in salary.
lorenzo212bronx (bronx)
Unfortunately, the NYT has the same problem Hillary does - lack of trust because of lack of truth. The poll probably was 60-40 in favor Trump, but just like the article which seems to have to denigrate Trump at every opportunity, we the paid subscribers, even us Democrats, have seen through your spins. It is a sad day when the NYT imitates the horrendous Washington Post & Foxnews in style. Ok, none of like Trump, but Hillary hasn't earned us and she should step down and give way to Bernie who has no baggage. And the Times should be behind that effort. But instead of right actions, the Times still stands with Hillary. That is very sad. You were the last hope.
Marie S (Portland, OR)
I have a few friends who say "I don't trust Hillary!" When I ask them, specifically, what is it that you are afraid she will do - they have no answer. Will she insult leaders of foreign countries? Give all who cross her demeaning nicknames? Spew racial insults? Retweet anti-semitic posts? Or demonstrate to the world that she is anything but presidential by bragging about herself at every opportunity???
As many have said, even if everything the Right claims about Hillary were true - and it is not! - she would still be far and away the better choice in this race against the despicable Donald Trump.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
They're really telling you that they are afraid of smart people, particularly smart women.

Fear of smart people is a big factor making politics an exercise in stupidity in the US.
WallaWalla (Washington)
She will [likely] advocate for increased military actions judging by her decisions regarding Iraq, Libya, Honduras, and now Syria.

She setup systems to [intentionally?] circumvent the Freedom of Information Act.

Is she for or against TPP? She supported it, then she came out against it, and finally, she was absolutely silent when the party was defining its platform.

She still has not released the wall street transcripts.

These aren't right-wing conspiracies. These are undeniable truths which perfectly explain why she is deemed 'untrustworthy'.

Perhaps you are right: Clinton is bad, but Trump is worse. Dark days in the Republic...
Amy (Earth)
I'm not voting for trump but I also don't trust Clinton. Specifically I'm afraid of her war mongering and abysmal foreign policy record. The US and the world does not need more war.
cornflower 3b (Los Angeles)
If only a vote against Clinton didn't mean a vote for Trump...
Dave (Rochester, NY)
As a baseball fan, I find that most things in life have a parallel to baseball. The current presidential race seems to me like a World Series with two wild-card teams that sneaked in with records barely above .500. Everybody knows that neither one of them is the best in their respective league, but each won the league pennant, so we're stuck with them.
Now we get to the Series, and both teams are playing horribly, committing errors and making dumb plays, but neither can take advantage. Still, somebody has to win.
And so it is now. Clinton and Trump are so widely disliked that either one seems eminently beatable. Trump has done just about everything he could to torpedo his own campaign and yet he's virtually even with Clinton in the polls. And the Democrats are about to nominate someone who is even more hated, by more people, than Obama, and things continue to look worse for her.
At least in baseball, a new season will start six months after the Series, and a new champion crowned in a year. With the presidency, well ... this could be a long four years.
ACM (Austin, TX)
My significant other insists the emails will be old news come November. "It won't have any legs by then," he says.

Not if the Republicans keep putting prosthetic limbs onto the issue and turn it into the bionic email scandal. One hearing after the next, all on the taxpayer's dime. They want the presidency that badly.
Mark Shark (Chicago)
The economy and jobs should have us all scared. Neither candidate seems to care about jobs for "regular people," but Trump is at least smart enough to tell bigger lies.
ACM (Austin, TX)
We've now come to the point where a Supreme Court Justice has been silenced at Donald Trump's wish. Despite the fact that Scalia and Thomas were/are openly political, it's the liberal woman who is forced to apologize for speaking out against the coming of a tyrant.
Chaz1954 (Houston, TX)
They never weighed in on the politics of an election..only the impact of political actions. Huge difference.
Cas (CT)
Please point to an example of either Scalia or Thomas openly endorsing a political candidate. Thanks.
Mark Shark (Chicago)
Good point. Come to think of it, Sandra Day O'Connor was the only SCOTUS I can recall who expressed anything like regret for their illegal installation of Bush in 2000...if that wasn't political expression I don't know what is.
gino schafer (michigan)
Unfortunately I don't see how Clinton wins. Outside the echo chamber of NYT readers, people in fly over country see Hillary for what she is: Devious, power hungry, and dishonest. Trump has his flaws without a doubt, but he is no where near as reviled as Mrs. Bill Clinton.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
I am utterly stunned by the number of fools who are prepared to vote for an outright con artist for US president without even peeking at his tax returns.
Dave Swindell (Acton, MA)
I realize that you may just be a messenger, but what does it mean for our once great country when we have become so ignorant to pick Trump over Clinton?
Lorraine (Manhattan)
"Trump has his flaws." Are you kidding me?
Hue (Federal Way, WA)
The New York Times is like a nervous nelly about Hillary. It's reports of the Comey hearing read quite differently than the Wall Street Journal's coverage. Guess what? From the NY Times, you'd never know that the hearing debunked any comparison between Hillary's actions with her email server and Petraeus's situation. You'd also never know that the hearing made it clear that Hillary did not lie; she was not evasive. It was established that the potential "crime" she had committed related to three (not 110) email chains (that HIllary did not originate) that contained a "(C)" code for confidential (not top secret) deep in the text (not in the header) that someone else had inserted after the initial email was sent. It was established that State Department protocol had been followed when decisions were made about which of the emails were classified; that Hillary and any other busy, reasonable person could overlook that "(C)" in making that determination. Since the hearing, the number of problematic (potentially classified) emails has been reduced to zero. I have not seen summary reports from the New York Times about any of these critical details.

I'm grumpy at this newspaper. I'm also guessing a bunch of Congresspeople on both sides of the aisle were very busy last week wiping their hard drives after realizing that if someone inserted such a character into some long email chain they were included on, it could lead them in front of a Republican hearing (aka trial).
Cas (CT)
You are misinformed. There were over one hundred emails containing classified information. Hillary knew, and signed a non disclosure agreement stating, that certain information is classified, marked or not. Comey implied that she was stupid, or " unsophisticated". We know better.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
It is always OK when Republicans do it because there is only one letter of difference between "GOP" and "God".
Hue (Federal Way, WA)
Fact check for yourself.

For fact-checking purposes, here are links to Comey's testimony with Representatives Connolly, Cartwright and Lieu:
Gerry Connolly
Matt Cartwright
Ted Lieu
ALSO: The question about the emails Hillary's lawyers deleted is covered in the report Comey produced, now on the FBI website: https://www.fbi.gov/.../statement-by-fbi-director-james-b...
Comey's report indicates the FBI investigation found no reason to be concerned about the process used by HIllary's lawyers to determine what was classified. Another talking point that keeps coming up is that Hillary used more than one device and server. In the report you'll see that Comey allows that she changed out devices and servers (presumably as most of us do --every two years or so).
FINALLY: Here is a link to relevant fact-checking by the Annenburg Public Policy Center:
bb (berkeley)
Bernie was the only honest one when compared to Trump and Clinton. The media was unfavorable toward him and in fact announcing the day before the primary that Clinton was the presumptive nominee hurt him terribly. Of course the Democratic Party process gave her an advantage early on. All this said his supporters, however reluctant, must vote for Clinton. If Trump is elected the country will be slipping further down the icy slope.
Larry (NY)
If the New York Times says Trump and Clinton are even, the reality must be that Trump is running away with the election!
DM (Dallas)
Oh, I'm so torn! On the one hand, there's an experienced but untrustworthy politician whom everyone admits is prepared for the job, but who's made a bunch of mistakes over the last few decades and whose husband is a creep. On the other hand, there's that giant orange toddler screaming and whinging and pulling Judge Ginsburg's hair and throwing all the family heirlooms on the floor and peeing on the national furniture and demanding astronauts and clowns at his birthday party and somehow wearing Sauron's own hairpiece. They're so... equivalent. How can I decide? I mean, she's a total politician, and he's an especially orange Satan... Please, fellow Americans, help me make the right choice here!
Jeff Atkinson (Gainesville, GA)
I think it was about 2 minutes after the presidential election results for '08 .became known that the Democratic party establishment, which includes this newspaper, settled on Hillary as their candidate for '16 - THE FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT. She was immediately given Sec. of State as a resume builder. The party establishment has never reconsidered its choice, her obvious weaknesses as a candidate notwithstanding. Even with the luxury of time, no attempt was made to find and develop potentially better candidates, indeed other potential candidates were discouraged. In order to avoid a boring solo waltz to the nomination, Bernie, an elderly, self described socialist with no name recognition from a small state, was recruited as her foil. Even when he, effectively her sparing partner, actually challenged her nomination, the choice of Hillary wasn't questioned.

So this is what a crazy Republican party base and a stubborn - and not very clever - Democratic party establishment has given us - the realistic possibility that Donald Trump might be president. God help us.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
People inclined to vote for Trump seem to believe God's patience with humans has run out, and the Rapture is nigh.
Matthew Carnicelli (Brooklyn, New York)
My fear is that the American people are preparing to shoot themselves in the chest.

There's no way to sugarcoat this: We're not a bright country.

Trump lies 71% of the time on the stump, but Hillary is untrustworthy?

My favorite one is that when Hillary became a Senator, she allied herself with The Family, that odd Christian group in Washington, with whom she apparently shares a certain evangelical sympathy; yet the crackpot evangelicals are overwhelmingly lining up behind the Devil incarnate, Trump.

Many terrible things will likely happen if Trump wins this election, including the possibility of both trade and shooting wars with nuclear superpowers (think China); but one good thing will come out of a Trump victory.

We'll demonstrate once and for all time that America is not an exceptional nation. Time for the village idiots of America to take a long look in the mirror.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
America is exceptionally afraid of smart people.
Caleb (Illinois)
The e-mails certainly hurt Hillary Clinton's candidacy. But I think that if Trump wins in November, the real turning point will have been Sanders capitulation to her two days ago. Sanders was always going to endorse Clinton if she had more delegates at the end. He always said that. But this was not good enough for Hillary. She wanted an abject "endorsement" which, under surface appearances, was really a public shaming session. She vindictively wanted to punish Sanders for doing so well against her. At last her real personality has come out into open display on the mass media, and she will not be able to take it back.
MyThreeCents (San Francisco)
That's what Trump's primary opponents thought:

"No worries, Dems. This too shall pass."

They too took Trump lightly. (So did I, I'll confess.) And look what happened to them.
AACNY (New York)
Seems many of Clinton's "mistaken explanations" are still being repeated here as truths.

According to FactCheck.org*:

-- Only Colin Powell used a private email account for govt. business. Rice did not use a personal email account for business. Kerry used one "infrequently" and none used a private server.

-- Over 2,000 emails Clinton handed over to the State Dept. were found to have contained classified material.

-- Attempts were made to hack her email server but no evidence exists that they were successful. (Comey said this wasn't proof that it didn't happen.)

-- It had been State Dept. policy since 2005 that day-to-day business be conducted on govt. servers. Its IG report said Clinton had an obligation to discuss her private server, and had she requested permission it would have been denied.
The distinction you make, AACNY, are correct.

But they are probably immaterial.

It is the aura of dishonest, rather than the facts, that will follow Hillary whether she wins or loses.

The aura has been around too long, and associated with too many mistakes, ever to go away.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
But as snoopy as you are, you don't even want to see Trump's tax returns. Your persistence here astounds me.
AACNY (New York)
Steve Bolger:

FactCheck.org can be very "snoopy", yes.
bern (La La Land)
It's over for Billary. Something odd happened - America woke up.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
Nihilism is on the march.
W.E. Coyote (Colorado)
There are other choices than Clinton and Trump. This is the election we can send a resounding and firm message to both major Parties that business as usual is not acceptable. Either Stein or Johnson is a better choice than the miserable pairing of Hillary and Donald.
Bob (Dallas)
Again, is this the best the party of FDR can do? Hillary is "tied" with Donald Trump.... Tied! Our candidate should be far in front. What's wong?
Paul (White Plains)
Lying congenitally to the American people and self-enrichment with phony speech money from the vary corporations you demonize publicly will do that to you...
Jobi Schwartz (Morristown NJ)
I'm sorry but whatever she did in regards to the email is benign compared to what Bush and Cheney did by deceiving America into an unnecessary war in Iraq. The world would be a very very different place if Al Gore would have won the Presidency. Yes she is flawed but politicians are flawed by virtue of being a politician. But her record of public service and helping others has much more substantial weight. Donald Trump has no record of helping anyone but himself and is a danger to the well being of society. He cares nothing for those who think he does. He will cause more harm than good. He cannot work with other foreign leaders. He cannot compromise. He is belligerent to anyone who doesn't agree with him Hillary Clinton, with all her flaws in mind, will rise to the occasion and be a responsible, reasonable leader. I am with her!
@PISonny (Manhattan, NYC)
Generally, Democrats vote from a position of FEAR (what if my abortion rights are taken away? what if my illegal alien neighbor is deported? what if....) and Republicans vote from a position of ANGER (how dare she lie! Why is Obama so blatantly pro-Blacks? Why....)

So, in the final analysis, her lies may not matter to her hard-core, fear-driven voters.

She will, however, have a hard time getting the support of Sandersites and independents who do not like the sleaze that the Clintons represent.
fb0252 (4laethe4)
Mr. Wall v. Ms. Open Borders. Tough choice!
guy veritas (miami)
Hillary should do what's best for the country and withdraw.
Bernie would run much stronger against Trump.

Bernie would bring the Democratic Party voters and a majority of independents.

With Hillary, it's all about Hillary, she won't be doing what is best for the country.

The super delegates could stop Hillary but the Wall Street & special interest dominated Democratic Party won't rise to the occasion and will gamble a Trump win.
Amy D. (Los Angeles)
"Asked if her email practices were illegal, 46 percent of voters said yes...."
That tells me that 46% of the voters listen more to what conservative radio talk show hosts have to say rather than the US Attorneys General. We live in a country where too many people would rather focus on hearing what backs up their prejudices and beliefs rather than the truth. A dangerous road indeed.
Joe (New York)
She is just as dishonest today as she was at the beginning of the campaign. Her dishonesty is part of her nature. It's not that she is lying about her emails, it's also the fact that she was dishonest in her approach to the whole question of responsibility as Secretary of State when it comes to future F.O.I.A. requests. Clinton believes in her right to double-deal. So did her husband. She believes it is her right to disingenuously and deceptively keep her private communications with Goldman Sachs entirely private while saying in public that she will rein in the banks.
The Times and Amy Chozick in particular have been deflecting and defending her dishonesty since the campaign began. That doesn't speak well about them. Perhaps if more pressure on her to be honest had been applied the public perception of Clinton would be different today. I think it is now too late.
Hue (Federal Way, WA)
Hillary is not a liar. She didn't lie about her emails and she consistently receives the highest truth ratings from reputable fact checkers, even when Bernie was in the race. In case you missed the report (that the New York Times never published, as far as I could tell), the Comey hearing revealed that there were just three email chains (that HIllary did not originate) that contained a "(C)" code for confidential (not top secret) deep in the text (not in the header) that someone else had inserted after the initial email was sent. Everyone in Congress gets his/her own private server and email service. How man of them monitor every single email chain that someone else originates to make sure someone else hasn't inserted a (C) into it? Who is calling for that investigation?
Laura (Florida)
I would be dreadfully concerned about her dishonesty, really, if I were not at capacity being appalled by the alternative.
RML (Washington D.C.)
The Donald is a dishonest cheat in both his business and family life. He doesn't pay his workers, he has been bankrupt four times, he has more lawsuits that he cannot keep count of and he has outsourced a lot of business overseas and to Islamic countries that he supposedly distrust. He regularly consorts with white supremacist groups like the KKK and Aryan Nation but you can trust the Donald? I choose Hillary. She is the most honest candidate in this election year despite the propaganda from the hate noise machine like Fox news and Rush Limbaugh.
carnap (nyc)
The real reason is because Bill Clinton and Attorney General Lynch had an impromptu meeting "...discussing their grandchildren" just days before the FBI Director, James Comey, made his announcement. Prior to that, very few people cared about "email-gate." It demonstrated a level of arrogance on the part of the Clintons and the current administration that did not serve them well.
Susan Anderson (Boston)
I'm afraid I agree with you there. Bill is getting old; he must have had a brain fart. I don't think Hillary is anything but hardworking and bullied and much maligned, but this was hard to excuse.
It is a crying shame how short Americans' collective memories are.

the email 'scandal' that Dems really should care about came out back in January of this year regarding Libya.



In short - Hillary Clinton lied about the reasons for the US/NATO attack on Libya, lied about who the rebels were, and lied about non-existent atrocities alleged to have been committed by Libya's dictator.

We were lied into Iraq, we were lied to about Libya, and we are most assuredly being lied to in significant part about Syria, and Iran (not to mention Russia/Ukraine).

Trump is a highly unpleasant option [if we only have 2?] - but electing the warmongering, inveterate liar Hillary Clinton is absurd.
Patricia Durkin (Chicago, IL)
Has there been any evidence of an actual national security breach in which Hillary Clinton has been identified as the source?

If not, sit down, and that includes Mr. Comey, who by the way, would have been a valued prosecutor during the Spanish Inquisition.
PJF (Seattle)
Clinton's actions have turned what should be a political landslide into a squeaker at best, if she wins, and at worse a victory for Trump and a calamity for the country. To nominate her is political malpractice. It's not worth the risk. Democrats should dump her now if they care about the country.
MG (Tucson)
To me, a 69-year white male I have no problem with her emails. She spent what 4-years emailing and receiving emails from everyone in the government and no one noticed she had a private email account and not a state department email? Had it been a big deal about security someone in the CIA/NSA would have said something. If you remember it was the state department servers that got hacked and all those document got released - not emails from her server.

Trump on the other hand doesn't know what truth is - he is constantly sprouting make up statements - if anything I hold the TV news media guilty for giving Trump a free ride with all the free TV time because it boosts their revenue.

While I would prefer someone younger and more progress than Clinton - having Trump as President with a Republican Congress is a scary thought - especially with so many Supreme Court positions likely to become vacate over the next 4-years.
bkw (USA)
As President Obama, who knows better than anyone else observed, Hillary Clinton is the most qualified and experienced nominee ever running for the presidency. Additionally, he noted, she will be ready day one to successfully takeover when he leaves office. I believe him. Thus it's near impossible to understand the focus on anything else including emails or polls which only serve to motivate "sheep" or the apparent tendency for so many to overlook or take lightly the serious threat that a Donald Trump who is the embodiment of massive ignorance, lack of self discipline, immaturity, thin skin, along with a scarcity of psychological/personal/emotional growth would pose once in the White House.
EinT (Tampa)
What did you expect him to say?
MyThreeCents (San Francisco)
You have it exactly wrong:

"Clinton should dispute [Comey's "extremely careless" comment], not just hope [the email issue] blows over."

Clinton should hunker down and hope this blows over. The more she tries to defend what she did, the longer voters will pay attention to it. And, frankly, there IS no good defense. Every time she tries, I wonder whether she really "gets it." A responsible Secretary of State simply does not conduct her official business from a private email server in her basement, and defend that choice by saying there's been no evidence that hacking occurred. Hackers often try to hide their tracks: They're afraid you'll plug the holes they've found if they let you know they've found those holes.

The less said about this, the better for Clinton. She's dug herself a hole, and there's no pretending otherwise. All she can do is hope that voters forget.
Sumana (USA)
This is not a temporary slump at all. HRC has been a flawed candidate from the start - one pushed by the Democratic establishment. Bernie Sanders was the ONLY candidate who has led Trump by significant margns in every poll. But hey - you wanted her...here she is...so don't complain if you end up with President Trump!
Marian (New York, NY)

I agree with Clinton. She wasn't careless

She was calculating

Her lawyers didn't wipe the server "like with a cloth or something." They scrubbed it w/ Brillo

Their elbow grease paid off. But for fragmentary bits & bytes, all email about daughter's wedding/mother's funeral/her yoga moves & assorted other kickbacks are gone for good & she is home free

Or are they? Is she?

Experts say it's a certainty Putin has the E-missives as do China & a motley assortment of malefactors/adversaries. Even pimple-faced prepubescent hackers can't be ruled out—Comey said the "unsophisticated" SoS's system was easier to penetrate than a standard g-mail account & her email address was disseminated far & wide

Enemies won't disclose their cache. Yet. Why dislodge a blackmailable potential prez?

As opposed to non-state actors/renegade hackers, who must act now. Trump & Clinton may be engaged in a bidding war even as we ruminate…

There's a 2nd problem—an intriguing correlation between Hillary's email gaps & the Russia uranium deal.

Specifically, the gaps on days of U-dealing suggest deletion.

Clinton emails were event-driven; volume of cables & volume of emails about specific events tended to rise & fall in unison

Except in the case of Rosatom, the Russian State Nuclear Agency—where there were dozens of cables "including a hair-raising one about Russian efforts to dominate uranium market," but only 1 innocuous email about Rosatom’s activities. In Ecuador

Jake Hempe (Los Angeles)
Those who think she's the second coming of Joan of Arch need to read 'Clinton Cash'. The Clinton foundation (90% of donations go to administration) is a money racketeering scheme devised to get bribes from foreign governments in exchange for favors from Feds. Like when the Saudis donated nearly 1 mil and the very next day got a 30 mil $ weapons deal. The reason for the private server, was to evade the FOEA. and oversight. Then there's the investments that go from 1k into 100 k within a year (insider trading). For the Clintons, public office is a tool to enrich themselves.
Ken L. (Charlotte)
Clinton Cash was baseless speculation by a former Bush Administration hack.
Mytwocents (New York)
It is not speculation. It is painfully researched and mater of fact. The author is now writing a book about Bush Cash.
Paul King (USA)
The Republicans are intoxicated by their loose canon leader.

Leading them to believe any xenophobic, impolite, beyond the boundaries statement will now be tolerated. They're wrong. And they've been lured into a trap by their "Big Lip".

Watch them go off the deep end at their convention next week. Watch them over do it. Watch them party like it's 1959.
Watch them assume that their often vicious conservatism is acceptable to a nation that has moved forward without them.
Watch them make offensive, self-satisfied speeches that only they don't realize are a turn off. Watch them be blind to reality.

Watch their un-hinged, open-carry gun spectical outside the convention center.

Then watch their poll numbers sink.
Good riddance.
JR (New Jersey)
Too much noise is being made out of one poll.
science prof (Canada)
The Republican strategy of repeating falsehoods makes them true still works because the American public has been sufficiently dumbed down and is very easy to manipulate.
I just hope that the polls are inaccurate given the out-of-date polling methods.

I am voting for Hillary Clinton with confidence in her competency and vision. She will be just as fine of a president as Obama and the U.S. will be fortunate indeed if she is elected.
Telecaster (New York City)
While witch hunts are an old trick in the Republican book, using secure email is a pretty basic expectation of many professional careers. It's actually something of a headache -- being able to VPN in to work and access all the materials we need in a secure fashion that is consistent with organizational policies.

But as a professional working with controlled information that's what you do. I can't really see how this shouldn't raise questions about her fitness for the position. It would be a problem even for an entry-level employee in many cases. Seems like we just don't have any other options after allowing the better candidate to lose the nomination so everyone is pretending that it's no big deal.
Anna (New York,NY)
New York Times,really? I have a hard time believing that they could possibly be tied...if true, this country is on the downslope for sure.
JSD (New York, NY)
Respecting that opinions can differ on Ms. Clinton's culpability in this matter, can someone please tell me why (from a completely strategic point of view), the Clinton Campaign doesn't come totally clean on this one? They could literally not hurt her election prospects more than they are with the evasion and ignoring of the issue that they are currently engaging in.

Why not just have a press conference addressing just this matter to:

(i) lay out all the facts of the matter as they see them,

(ii) have Ms. Clinton describe what her judgments were on the server and her reaction to the investigation and what advice drove those judgments;

(iii) tell the American people that she is sorry for what she did and that she recognizes that it was wrong and in violation of the rules;

(iv) reconcile her past false statements with the facts as we know them today and describe any distinctions;

(v) describe the decision not to cooperate with (i.e., allow interviews with) investigators;

(vi) acknowledge a commitment to follow the spirit and letter of laws and rules in the future; and

(vii) commit to better transparency on this and other matters.

Even if she personally believes that she did absolutely nothing wrong; even if she is totally insincere in holding such a press conference; and even if this is just a totally manufactured controversy created by Republicans playing investigatory games, wouldn't this be strategically a better approach than what she is doing now?
Bob (Dallas)
Really, this is the best candidate?
Susan Anderson (Boston)
Obviously those who have "decided" that Clinton lies (way too many progressive Democrats have fallen for Republican opposition work) won't listen. She has made her positions pretty clear, and they are pretty good in the main. I have to hope she wakes up on climate change.

Meanwhile, we need Democrats across the board or our civilization is going down in flames.
JSD (New York, NY)
I would listen and it would affect my support.
Tibby Elgato (West County, Ca)
Clinton never saw an election she couldn't lose. She would have lost the NY Senate race to Rudy G. if he had not developed cancer + a very messy divorce during the election. Trump can just do nothing and she will beat herself. She is one of the worst candidates ever and should drop out and let Bernie run.
Ernie Zampelli (Washington, DC)
Three points: (1) Last Thursday, Comey basically recanted his charge that Clinton sent emails containing classified information. In particular, he said that the three emails (out of 30,000!) to which he was referring were not properly labeled and that even classification experts would have presumed they were not classified. (2) His claim that Clinton was "extremely careless" in handling the emails is a bit of hyperbole considering that she was sent this same information over the same channels by over 300 career State department professionals. (3) There is absolutely no evidence that national security was compromised by the use of a private server.

So the real results from investigating this email mishandling--ZERO, NADA, ZILCH! Just like the Benghazi investigation. Hey, but don't let the facts get in your way.
EinT (Tampa)
Nixon wasn't taken down by the Watergate break-in. He was taken down because he lied about it.

the break-in itself made no difference at all in the campaign. It was a landslide.

But he did lie about it and try to cover it up.

Her husband wasn't impeached because of adultery, he was impeached for lying under oath.
Milliband (Medford Ma)
Were Colin Powell and Condi Rice careless in their email use in ways that probably transcend what Hillary did. You Betcha!
Chaz1954 (Houston, TX)
You are comparing small apples to very large oranges!
Dave Swindell (Acton, MA)
How so? References please.
George Heiner (AZ Border)
I'm curious about the writers of this article. Are you at all surprised at this news?

When Bernie attached himself to the Clinton bulldozer, he apparently believed Clinton's promises would be fulfilled. I'm wondering how anyone who has reviewed her record can believe that. I believe that Trump is more progressive than Clinton, if you look at her record and that of Bill as well.

They are closet neocons of the worst order. That is assuredly not Trump. Just ask George Will. He should ask Obama back to his house for another visit. Maybe they can start a new party for the Will-fully disaffected neocons.

That would be a better use of the President's time than his racial lectures. Obama is no Martin Luther King, and aside from campaigning, he appears to evince no true belief to preach from any other pulpit than the bully pulpit. He has an almost fatal obsession for balance two visions of reality, and only two. He tries to paint rainbows, but just makes millions weary with his inappropriate lectures. After all these years, I have no idea what he really believes, unless he is coming out of the closet in some strange manner.
Jon (NJ)
Last week was a rough week for both candidates and, of course, our country. Between the shootings, and Clinton's trashing at the hands of FBI director Comey, these latest polls aren't the best barometer of America's mood on the candidates. And with the conventions looming, and both candidates announcing their running mates, don't expect the polls to reflect anything accurately until mid-August when the real campaign begins. I'm sure by then Clinton will stabilize, and Trump will continue to plunge as he repeatadly puts his foot in his mouth.
John (Princeton)
I always amazed at how easy it is to find something with Google and how difficult it is to find an article at the NYTimes website; so the NYT saves money by using a 1980s search engine. Maybe their polling is done to same money as well.

Rachel Maddow reports much different results on the 12th of July:

Voters under 30 (Pew)
Hilliary 47%
Gary Johnson 22%
The Donald 21%

White College Educated (Bloomberg) (33% of voters)
Hilliary 48%
The Donald 37%

All College Educated (Bloomberg ?) (50% of voters)
Hilliary 54%
The Donald 32%
Not sure 14%

Graduate Degree Holders (Bloomberg ?)
Hilliary 61%
The Donald 27%

So which number do you want to believe.

My only hint is that it is relatively simple to find an old story on Bloomberg or on the Pew site.
Bob (Dallas)
Interesting how you cherry picked your poll numbers. Keep on believing but remember when she loses, she lost. It wasn't the millions of disillusioned Democrat votes who went green or stayed home.
John (Princeton)

my point, and I do have one, is that the tied data the NYT story is promoting is based on some very shoddy, but probably cheap, survey using online data; no screening and no cross-tabulation (the NYT can't identify the characteristics of the respondents).

And I am sympathetic to the difficulties they face. There was a time when their paper edition sold for over a $1 a copy and they were at the cutting edge. Those days are gone. They now portray a race that I don't believe is that close.
Gene Cass (Morristown, NJ)
I may never understand why a person would assume Trump would be better for the economy because he is a "business man". Getting rich by selling Pet Rocks or downloadable University degrees for that matter does not necessarily make you qualified to set in motion the many things required to make a huge and complicated economy like the United States run well.
Also, the US economy ran very well under Bill Clinton, presumably Hillary would take some of that experience with her into the Presidency. Trump will be starting at square one. Why should we roll the dice on Trump? If he wants to bolster his case that he's a great businessman, why doesn't he show his tax returns? It's all smoke and mirrors with him.
Dktampa (tampa, fl)
Of greater concern to the electorate should be the "why" of the server arrangement to begin with. There weren't 30,000 emails, an equal number to actual work emails, concerning yoga or funerals. Clearly she was acting as SecState and Fundraiser-in-Chief for the "foundation." She may have deleted her copy but the other parties still have their copies. It is also likely that the Russians or Chinese hacked her homebrew basement server and thus have a treasure trove of blackmail material. If she is elected, she will come to office with a gargantuan amount of leverage over her from former potentates on the receiving end of her grifter correspondence and from our international adversaries. This is an unacceptable situation regardless of how one might feel about The Donald.
John Townsend (Mexico)
The looming prospect now of a Trump presidency is undoubtedly prompting a rethink by US adversaries of the necessity for a vastly boosted nuclear capability in terms of arsenals of more powerful atomic weaponry and more effective far reaching delivery systems. This incentive is driven not as much for security concerns as it is a radically deepening fear for survival. Even if Trump fails in his quest for power, his reckless bombast has already changed world attitudes towards the US.
dan (ny)
Oh my god. I'm so sick of having my family, and my kid's future, held hostage to the vicious, low-information hate factory of the right and those who vote for them. So sick and tired. Yeah, I know, we should leave Merka the beautiful and go live in some cawmniss country. No, they (most of whom don't even know the difference) should go live in a fascist country.
Aqualaddio (Brooklyn)
One televised debate--not to be held in a Fox News echo chamber, of course--will have Secretary Clinton back in the lead right away.
dan (ny)
From your lips to god's ears. I've believed from the get-go that there's no way this clown can possibly be elected. I predicted the moment when the wheels would start to come off the clown car. I thought I had it all the way. But now it's making me really uncomfortable.

As far as the debates go, I couldn't agree with you more. But, remember Y2K? We were, like, rolling on the floor at my house, howling at the spectacle of Dubya and "fuzzy math", etc. Then we woke up next morning to read all about how he'd won the debate -- how very presidential he'd seemed up there. And I'm not talking Fox and the New York Post, either. That was crazy. And, remember 2003, when "we all believed" that they had WMD? I remember it being as obvious then as now that the whole thing was genocide for dollars. Up is down, black is white. There's no limit to what these people will do. All bets are off, as to what may happen come election day.
Uno (Earth)
She is an unlikable, mean spirited, aloof, criminal.
C.C. Kegel,Ph.D. (Planet Earth)
With 20% of voters not choosing either candidate, it is impossible to predict this election. Only polls that include Johnson and Stein, who will be on ballots in November, have any validity.
Carla Tisdale (Lincoln, Nebraska)
Don't blame me. I voted for Bernie.
Dan (New York)
NY Times readers should understand that socialist policies of Obama/Clinton/Sanders actually create wealth inequality - they make the rich richer. That is why we are seeing unprecedented wealth equality under the Obama administration. So I am not surprised the polls are showing Americans are finally waking up to this
Tim McCoy (NYC)
The presumptive Democratic Party Presidential Nominee lied to the nation; she lied boldly, deliberately, and openly throughout the 2016 Primary Season.

Hillary Clinton lied about having received permission to have all her official communications while serving as Secretary of State run through a private e-mail server in her home. She said it was permitted, over, and over, and over again. The Obama Administration's State Department Inspector General flatly denied all her allegations. She had not received permission, and it was not permitted under Federal rules established before her term of office in order to observe existing Federal Laws.

Secretary Clinton lied about not sending classified materials, and then amended her lie to state she did not sent materials marked classified, on her private e-mail server. The FBI reported that she did indeed send materials that were marked classified, and she also sent materials on a home-brew server that were obviously secret, whether marked classified or not.

She was Secretary of State not an administrative assistant.

Secretary Clinton said she was careful with her communications. The FBI stated flatly that she and her closest aids were extremely careless with official communications including materials rated above top secret.

However, some of her most sensitive communications were with the White House, so the Obama Administration must have known she was violating the rules and, eventually, lying about it.
Susan Anderson (Boston)
You are repeating lies about Clinton. I know you believe what you say, but that does not excuse this wholesale refusal to look at the facts and stop letting Republican opposition work lead you by the nose.
Tim McCoy (NYC)
Susan Anderson (Boston)
Yes, I read what Comey said, and a lot more besides. You still have it wrong. As as to passion, your HillaryHateTM is passion. My defense (I'm kind of a Bernie fan) is much more reasoned, based on decades of following politics, both from the Clintons and Bernie, as well as both Bushes, Reagan, and others. The dirtiness of politics is a fact. People who work with it are tarred by it, but people who refuse to work with it also fail. I'm against Trump because he is a selfish mean jerk who hurts people to advantage himself, and I'm for Clinton because over a lifetime she has done a lot of good. Her record is good. His is lousy.

Bernie's fans are absolutists, and at my age I have come to feel that the search for purity is a monster and does a lot of harm.

In any case, vote midterms. 2010 and 2014 are part of the reason we are in this fix.
Thomas Payne (Cornelius, NC)
This will blow over.
In the meanwhile, the NYT would do us a service to revisit the issue of over-classification and it's costs $$$ to the U.S. taxpayer.
By the time the election rolls around Trump will be reduced to exactly what he is: POS, not POTUS.