You are conflating two different things. Her dishonest rating is caused by Republican propaganda, that's a fact as the evidence clearly shows she is the most honest candidate in this election.
No you're ignoring the entirety of the situation with your tunnel focus on number of lies. People put stock into the context of the lie. Lying about breakfast twice will be less of an issue than lying once about killing someone. People expect and seem less bothered about the myriad of more traditional campaign lies - those about taxes, who voted for what when etc. However Hilary had some more substantial lies out there like the ones regarding her emails (and politifact agrees they are lies). She also has an established history of lying. 'No negative ads towards Bernie', 'Obama threatened to bomb pakistan' and I think we can all remember that she 'landed under sniper fire' at one point too.
Every campaign tries to put out propaganda that the other candidate lies and she gave them plenty of high profile ammunition to use. But yes it must just be republican propaganda. Its not like other Democrats ever had anything to do with it. Its not like Obama strongly suggested it:
http://www.snopes.com/obama-hillary-clinton-isnt-qualified/
Or a Democrat needed to think for a day about whether she was trustworthy:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/17/politics/hassan-clinton-honesty-answer/