Clinton and Trump were opponents in an election. She was talking about her opponent's supporters. The reaction to Clinton's speech can't be described without re

Clinton and Trump were opponents in an election. She was talking about her opponent's supporters. The reaction to Clinton's speech can't be described without reference her opponent's campaign. She said something like "half" which is essentially a statistic, not an accusation towards any individual, and was not an unfamiliar idea at the time. I used the term "political correctness" for the social habit of leaving some truths unspoken, and "gaffe" for breaking that rule. Principled reasons could have been articulated by the other half. There were also Democrats who had principled reasons for favoring other candidates, but Clinton won the primary. Knowing that those people were in the minority on both sides was a fact of contemporary political campaigns. Given that it was essentially a two-way contest, principled objections would need to identify actual principles, and indicate whether her opponent was likely to address those principles. Trying to discern which opinions are indeed "principled" and which are propaganda driven is a fact and challenge of modern political discourse.