Yes, she has. Hence why she is lower than the normally acceptable candidate. It doesn't make her equal to Trump, though. 1. Clinton has a platform that is stat

Yes, she has. Hence why she is lower than the normally acceptable candidate. It doesn't make her equal to Trump, though. 1. Clinton has a platform that is static (even if it's crafted and not a personal belief). Trump's changes with his mood and is unclear on even the basic principles and topics he chooses to focus on. 2. Clinton has shown she can keep a level head, which is important when an outburst affects millions of people. Trump has not in the slightest. 3. Clinton has shown that she can hold a high position of power and not have the world blow up (quickly). 4. Clinton has shown an ability to be relatively truthful and consistent. When she lies, she carefully crafts them, even going so far as to avoid definition lying. We now have the email chains to back that up. Trump has trouble sticking to basic facts. Again, Clinton is objectively worse than the majority of candidates. I think at this point, if you gave the US the option to elect Romney in lieu of voting for Trump and Clinton, you would have major support on both sides. Heck, at this point, (Romney = Clinton - scandals) in terms of policy. None of this touches their specific policies or even personal biases such as Trump's sexism, racism, islamophobia and more. Sure, you can say that a candidate's personal beliefs shouldn't affect his policies, but we have seen by Trump's proposals that this does not hold. Trump has not shown the ability to separate his personality from his work - his business is entrenched in his personal workings, even so much in how it operates and his brand is crafted. If you disagree with that last paragraph, scratch it. The numbered points are plenty difference enough, and again, do not touch policy or personal beliefs of the candidates.