“Contrary to the narrative that got hammered into the national psyche, Hillary Clinton was not a weak candidate at all. She was one of the strongest candidates in Democratic history.”
Looks like this line is the one people like and that has been highlighted. It is, of course, bullshit. The fact that Clinton went down in defeat to the most unpopular major-party presidential candidate in the history of polling speaks for itself. The campaign generated plenty of data on this question though. Clinton’s poll numbers had been in decline for years before she joined the presidential race, as, indeed, they have gone down every time she’s in the public spotlight for any sustained length of time. By the Huffpost Pollster database, her polling average dropped below 50% in July 2014, never to rise above it again (the RealClearPolitics database, which uses some slightly different polls, had it dropping below 50% by March 2015). By mid-April 2015, on the same week she announced she was running for president, her numbers went underwater, with more people saying they disliked than liked her. That was over a year-and-a-half before the election — where things stood on Day 1 of her campaign. She stayed underwater too (she’s still there now). By election day, over 55% of the public said they disliked her.
The wider polling on Clinton was absolutely brutal. She was chosen as less ethical than anyone else on the race on either side; overwhelming majorities were telling pollsters they didn’t consider her honest or trustworthy; a plurality was saying they’d be “pessimistic and worried” if she won; asked if they’d be proud to have her as president, 56% said no. And so on.
All of this was before a single vote had been cast. That data on this is extensive and its conclusion clear. For anyone misled by Stone’s rubbish, go here: