Hillary Clinton email megathread

[Mehmentum]

The fact is that without Hillary the Democrats don't really have a plan B.  Sanders and Biden are both unelectable, and O'Malley/Chafee/Webb aren't viable.

At this point, I would be willing to support an alternative to Clinton, should a serious and electable alternative emerge.  Unfortunately, nobody of that description is currently challenging her or is even rumored to be challenging her.

Right now Democrats are stuck hoping that this email scandal blows over.  Barring that, we have to hope that the Democrats have someone lined up to enter the race (who isn't Biden). 

[Mehmentum]

The fact is that without Hillary the Democrats don't really have a plan B.  Sanders and Biden are both unelectable, and O'Malley/Chafee/Webb aren't viable.

At this point, I would be willing to support an alternative to Clinton, should a serious and electable alternative emerge.  Unfortunately, nobody of that description is currently challenging her or is even rumored to be challenging her.

Right now Democrats are stuck hoping that this email scandal blows over.  Barring that, we have to hope that the Democrats have someone lined up to enter the race (who isn't Biden).  

And there lies the issue. But if you stick with such a corrupt individual, wouldn't that destroy the credibility of your party? Wouldn't it make more sense tactically to surrender 2016 and target gains in 2018 instead?

There is no such thing as 'tactically' surrendering a presidential election.  Losing the presidency won't help us in 2018.  In fact, if the economy continues to grow, then Democrats would be in an incredibly bad position in 2018, fighting against both an incumbency advantage from the economy and low turnout.

[Mehmentum]

The fact is that without Hillary the Democrats don't really have a plan B.  Sanders and Biden are both unelectable, and O'Malley/Chafee/Webb aren't viable.

At this point, I would be willing to support an alternative to Clinton, should a serious and electable alternative emerge.  Unfortunately, nobody of that description is currently challenging her or is even rumored to be challenging her.

Right now Democrats are stuck hoping that this email scandal blows over.  Barring that, we have to hope that the Democrats have someone lined up to enter the race (who isn't Biden).  

And there lies the issue. But if you stick with such a corrupt individual, wouldn't that destroy the credibility of your party? Wouldn't it make more sense tactically to surrender 2016 and target gains in 2018 instead?

There is no such thing as 'tactically' surrendering a presidential election.  Losing the presidency won't help us in 2018.  In fact, if the economy continues to grow, then Democrats would be in an incredibly bad position in 2018, fighting against both an incumbency advantage from the economy and low turnout.

Wrong. There will be a lot of term limited governors in 2018. Easy pickings since midterms favor the opposite party. You could also maintain your at risk Senate seats versus almost invariably lose them. Losing them would almost certainly destroy your chances of taking back the Senate in 2020 and probably 2022 since the blue state Pubs will probably be filtered out next year.

I am aware that historically the minority party usually made gains during the midterm.  Not contesting a presidential elections (and by default, the governorships, house and senate seats during that election) for a better chance in the following midterm is incredibly foolish.

You're trading the guarantee of 4 years of complete Republican control for the potential of winning some governorships.  Trading a certainty for a possibility is a bad idea in the first place.  Especially so when the thing you're giving away (the presidency) is more valuable than the thing you'd be gaining (breaking up some Republican gerrymanders in the House).  The President is much more powerful than the House of Representatives.

[Mehmentum]

I'm honestly glad that the FBI is investigating this.

If it turns out that Clinton seriously mishandled her email account, then an indictment would force her out, clearing the way for a more electable Democrat.

If they find no evidence of wrongdoing, then this effectively becomes another Benghazi.  (i.e. something that Republicans will go on about ad-nausium, with little effect since Clinton has an effective counter to the accusation.)

Imo, a win-win situation.

[Mehmentum]

There's some serious denial going on here about just how big a deal this is. There's a decent chance that the Democratic frontrunner could end up under federal indictment during this election season. Even Ted Cruz could win under those circumstances.

We have people here posting that this story is nothing, or nothing but partisan slander, or whatever. You'd better wake up. This is going to be huge.

It's amazing how partisan loyalty can make people defend the worst things, you know.

Please explain how this is a "worst thing"..... she chose to use a different e-mail system,what is the big deal? There is no criminal investigation of her...this is a MADE UP SCANDAL

At worst, Clinton's actions are irresponsible and reckless.  Even in the worst case scenario, it isn't that bad in the whole scheme of things.  There isn't any evidence intentional malice or ill intent here, just poor judgement.

Now, this is definitely hurting her, because a). good judgement and responsibility are things you want in a president, and b). it feeds into a general narrative of Clinton being corrupt.  However, calling this horrendous act is really overblowing what's actually happened.

[Mehmentum]

I feel like we've been hearing the exact same news story over and over again for 6 months now.