WaPo: FBI uncovered tens of thousands more emails that Clinton didn't disclose

[Alcon]

So if nobody cares, how come nobody trusts Hillary?

No, the faux scandal did its job. The point is there's nothing more it can do. If ~550 days of email spam didn't move your vote, why would a few more days make a difference?

Because it reminds people of the aspects of the candidate that they are most concerned about, and gives voters a general feeling of discomfort and negativity.  Voters don't make decisions using hard-edged, concrete-sequential rationality much.

[Alcon]

So if nobody cares, how come nobody trusts Hillary?

No, the faux scandal did its job. The point is there's nothing more it can do. If ~550 days of email spam didn't move your vote, why would a few more days make a difference?

Because it reminds people of the aspects of the candidate that they are most concerned about, and gives voters a general feeling of discomfort and negativity.  Voters don't make decisions using hard-edged, concrete-sequential rationality much.

LOL, trust me, nobody needed to be "reminded" of the emails. The media has ensured you can't escape hearing about them daily in some form or fashion, unless you live under a rock.

Actually, yes, most people don't consume politics so regularly that something like Clinton's emails are always on the top of their mind, even when thinking about the election.  There's research that shows invoking known, negative traits about someone -- even in a vague or unsubstantiated way -- reframes how people think about them and tends to result in more negative perceptions.  Why do you think political advertising works the way it does?

[Alcon]

So if nobody cares, how come nobody trusts Hillary?

No, the faux scandal did its job. The point is there's nothing more it can do. If ~550 days of email spam didn't move your vote, why would a few more days make a difference?

Because it reminds people of the aspects of the candidate that they are most concerned about, and gives voters a general feeling of discomfort and negativity.  Voters don't make decisions using hard-edged, concrete-sequential rationality much.

LOL, trust me, nobody needed to be "reminded" of the emails. The media has ensured you can't escape hearing about them daily in some form or fashion, unless you live under a rock.

Actually, yes, most people don't consume politics so regularly that something like Clinton's emails are always on the top of their mind, even when thinking about the election.  There's research that shows invoking known, negative traits about someone -- even in a vague or unsubstantiated way -- reframes how people think about them and tends to result in more negative perceptions.  Why do you think political advertising works the way it does?

Well, if we're referring to people who inconsistently consume media, then there's no guarantee they'll be paying any attention to this story either. So my point stands.

No, it doesn't.  I disputed your apparent claim that this won't influence any votes because people are nearly universally aware of Clinton's email scandal.  I disputed it by pointing out that negative coverage can still influence sentiments and feelings even if it doesn't really move substantive views.  Your response is basically "well, if people watch news infrequently, they might miss this."  True, but so what?  I didn't argue that every single swing voter was going to see and be influenced by this coverage.  I disputed your claim that none would be.

Either your point was something besides what you plainly wrote, or it does not stand.