Sen. Bernard Sanders famously said he wasn’t going to make an issue of Hillary Clinton’s “damn emails,” and some analysts say he’s paid a steep price for that decision. 
 
 For the Vermont independent, the choice was a principled one: He said he wanted to fight the election on issues he thought voters cared about, and progressive leaders maintain that Mr. Sanders would’ve done little to help his candidacy by zeroing in on the email issue. 
 
 But the decision undoubtedly allowed Mrs. Clinton to hurdle some of the deepest questions about her candidacy and avoid tackling the root causes of why so many voters find her untrustworthy. 
 
 “It was a mistake for Sanders not to go after Clinton on the email scandal. That has attracted lots of media attention and Sanders lost an opportunity to question Clinton’s integrity on a variety of topics. He could have used this subject to tie together controversies on the Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, and lecture fees,” said Darrell West, director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution. 
 
 While Mrs. Clinton is poised for major victories on Super Tuesday and seems to be on the fast track to the Democratic nomination, a collection of issues has led voters to conclude she’s untrustworthy. In addition to the revelations around her use of a private email account while secretary of state — and the fact that classified information passed through that account, something Mrs. Clinton previously had denied — the Democratic front-runner also has faced questions about whether foreign donors essentially bought political favors through contributions to the Clinton Foundation. There also are questions still swirling about whether Mrs. Clinton has been honest about her actions in the lead-up to and aftermath of the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attacks. 
 
 Those and other issues seem to have led many voters to conclude she simply isn’t an honest candidate. 
 
 A CNN/ORC International poll released Monday found just 36 percent of Democrats see Mrs. Clinton as the most trustworthy and honest candidate in the Democratic field. Nearly 60 percent said Mr. Sanders is more honest, and other polls have shown similar results. 
 
 Mrs. Clinton has struggled to shed that reputation of dishonesty. At a town hall meeting last month, she merely said she has “always tried to” tell the truth and doesn’t think she’s ever lied to the American people. 
 
 Despite all of that, Mr. Sanders has focused almost entirely on the issue of income inequality and hasn’t made the Democratic primary election about Mrs. Clinton’s character and honesty. 
 
 While he has questioned Mrs. Clinton’s paid speeches to Goldman Sachs and her ties to the so-called Wall Street and political “establishment,” he said in a debate last October that he didn’t believe the email issue was worth discussing. 
 
 “The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails,” Mr. Sanders said at the debate. “Enough of the emails. Let’s talk about the real issues facing America.” 
 
 Last month, the senator did say he considered the email scandal to be a “serious issue,” but he failed to bring it up again in subsequent debates and speeches. 
 
 Still, some progressive leaders reject the idea that latching onto Mrs. Clinton’s emails would’ve truly helped Mr. Sanders. 
 
 “It’s the worst kind of Republican gotcha politics, and in a Democratic primary, playing that up is not going to help you,” said Neil Sroka, communications director for the liberal PAC Democracy for America. 
 
 Other political analysts say that whatever short-term benefits Mr. Sanders may have gotten from focusing on Mrs. Clinton’s emails may have been outweighed by the damage done to his own reputation. 
 
 “It would be seen as a selfish power grab,” said Michael Cornfield, a political science professor at George Washington University. It “wouldn’t go over well with the many idealists, especially the young, in his base.” 

 “It’s something that gives you pause,” she added. 
 
 In Iowa, Mr. Sanders campaigned slightly more than Mrs. Clinton — but he also had far more work to do there, having started the campaign 40 points behind her in polls. He waited to run campaign advertisements there until late fall, preferring to save his resources instead. 
 
 Mr. Devine said the senator might have won Iowa’s caucuses if he had spent a few more days wooing voters in the western and rural parts of the state. “In retrospect, it would have been better to have spent a little less time in New Hampshire and some more time in Iowa, but New Hampshire was our flank, and he had to defend it,” Mr. Devine said. 
 
 The senator won New Hampshire by more than 20 percentage points. 
 
 Mr. Sanders also resisted pleas to do the kind of retail-style campaigning that Iowa voters like. He wanted to do more large rallies instead, even though many Iowans like politicians winning them over face-to-face. 
 
 “Bernie would say, ‘If I’m at a diner having a cup of coffee, I don’t want candidates coming up talking to me,’ ” Mr. Devine said. 
 
 For Mr. Sanders, a close outcome in Iowa was a significant achievement on one level, given how far ahead Mrs. Clinton had been. But he was disheartened with the Feb. 20 caucuses in Nevada, where he lost by five points. In an interview, he said he had strong support from voters there but — because of time, resources or other factors — his campaign could not turn them out. 
 
 “In Nevada, we knew where our support was,” Mr. Sanders said. “We brought out significantly less than we should have, and that’s the difference.” 
 
 Since then, Mr. Sanders has been campaigning virtually full time and has gone on to win 14 states — including an upset victory in Michigan — to Mrs. Clinton’s 18 states.
– What Bernie Sanders has touted as his devotion to his home state and his refusal to get negative against Hillary Clinton may be exactly what's hampered his campaign. That's according to more than 15 people in Sanders' camp—either professionally or personally—who tell the New York Times that the Vermont senator missed early opportunities to go after Clinton and gain valuable momentum that could have placed him in a much better position than he is now—even in the front-runner seat. And part of the reason for these "early missteps" in 2015 and early 2016, as the Times frames it, may seem surprising, considering the tenacity and perseverance that Sanders is now showing: He didn't initially think he could win and simply wanted to spread his message about the inequities in America. Some feel he could have stepped up more aggressively, and sooner, speaking out more about Clinton's email, Goldman Sachs speaking fees, and involvement in Clinton Foundation finances—topics Sanders initially passed on. And some say if he had stumped more in early voting states instead of attending to his senatorial duties, as well as tried earlier to make inroads with black voters in key Southern states, he may have built the momentum he needed. Not everyone agrees: A George Washington University professor recently told the Washington Times that a tough Sanders offensive would have seemed a "selfish power grab" that "wouldn't [have gone] over well with the many idealists ... in his base." Although Sanders has now dug his heels in for the long haul, Clinton has what some say is an insurmountable delegate lead—1,712 to Bernie's 1,011, per Bloomberg. Even his wife, Jane, seems to have regrets. "We didn't run all over the nation last year," she tells the New York Times. "It's something that gives you pause."