If you are claiming that calling a non-trivial proportion of Trump's supporters deplorable requires an apology, you disagree with me about what is deplorable.

The fact that a candidate for President of the United States -- whichever party they represent -- would decide to dismiss a sizeable portion of the country as contemptible or wretched seems to be the issue.

Mitt Romney dismissed 47% of the voting public in 2012 and was roundly criticized for dismissing the people he supposedly wanted to lead.

If Clinton had said 46%, would that have made it ok?

I do not think that was a good comment from Hillary, but I absolutely do not think this disqualifies her from being president: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/sep/10/hillar...

If a sizeable portion of the country is contemptible or wretched, why on earth would she not say it?

It's not dismissing them, it's saying they hold contemptible views. Just as, at one point in time, I'd imagine 50% of the population were in favour of slavery.

It's not a good political move, but it's telling the truth.

It's not about the number, but rather about the accuracy of the statement.

I don't have any problem with what Clinton said. Based on the numerous polls, she is absolutely correct. It may not be a politically prudent thing to say, but that's not an ethical matter.

> Apparently the apology was over "half" rather than "deplorables"

Which is fair. It's impossible to deny that there are white supremacists (who are deplorable) that support Trump. They're very candid about it.

Sure. There are individuals in any large group that stray in philosophy and behavior from what the majority consider rational or acceptable, and that includes Clinton, Johnson and Stein supporters.

So what is the acceptable number? "Almost half"?

And what does that say about the rest of the group? Are they too to be damned by association, for standing too close to the "real deplorables"?