Instead, a defeat would more likely result from among the following possible scenarios:
1. The ongoing economic expansion fades with the unemployment rate increasing in the months ahead of the election. There are some headwinds that could trigger such an outcome, but the continuation of a highly accommodative monetary policy by the Fed (even with some small increases in interest rates), possible stabilization or return to at least modest growth in the EU, continuing growth in parts of Asia, and fairly low energy prices, all suggest that downside risks are probably not too significant.
2. A candidate's successfully creating a narrative that U.S. foreign policy and its world role is in a markedly worse state than it has been in quite some time, with real foreign policy, national security, and economic risks for the nation and his/her successfully tying Secretary Clinton to that outcome. In effect, the candidate's challenge would be to convince the nation that it is losing control of its own destiny, the path proposed by Clinton would not alter that unfavorable trend, and that Clinton's decisions contributed to that state of affairs.
3. A candidate's successfully articulating a coherent and attractive vision for the country and effectively making the case that he/she can bring about that vision (ability to work with Congress, governance experience, demonstrated leadership). That vision would need to appear more attractive and more realistic than the one advanced by Clinton.
4. Errors and missteps by the Clinton campaign. In the Democratic Party nominating process, there are no really strong opponents. Sen. Sanders has a small, passionate base of support. In some ways, as a Socialist, he's the "Ron Paul" of the Democratic Party. Gov. O'Malley also stands little chance. He was succeeded by a Republican governor in an overwhelmingly Democratic Party majority state and that's a fairly decisive repudiation of his record. Sen. Warren almost certainly won't seek the nomination and would have limited appeal (mainly the progressive wing), though she would be stronger than either Sanders or O'Malley.
That list is not all-inclusive. More than likely, some combination will be required, especially if the economic expansion continues. For now, at least the way I see it at this point in time, those are some big challenges and the electoral landscape continues to tilt toward a Clinton election. Such an outcome is not cast in stone and things can change.
Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy
Well here is some news that will come out with the Benghazi part which will be connected to her emails and her server.....but like Gowdy stated. He also had questions concerning Libya Policy and the rest of Libya and Security. So that will be some more new revelations that will arise.
Moreover other committee members have stated they will be calling in Blumenthal to testify. He can of course, take the 5th.
If the motives to wipe the hard drive on Hillary Clinton’s e-mail server weren’t already crystal clear, a new development last night put it in Ultra HD. Gawker’s Jeff Girth and Sam Biddle uncovered a secret, private intelligence network run by Sidney Blumenthal for Hillary’s benefit, apart from the State Department’s own Bureau of Intelligence and Research. Hackers got e-mails that went through Hillary’s private server between her and Blumenthal, e-mails that show her own private intel group was also warning her that Libya was collapsing in the weeks and months prior to the sacking of the consulate in Benghazi:
It also seems that Hillary’s private intelligence operation penetrated other intel groups, including those of allies. On one level, one could be impressed with the organization of such an effort — if it had led to better choices. Instead, the hacked e-mail trail here has Hillary’s own network warning her of a string of terrorist attacks in Benghazi three weeks before the attack on our consulate. By that time, of course, the US facility had already been hit by a bomb attack two months prior to these warnings, yet Hillary and Patrick Kennedy did nothing to boost security or get American personnel out of harms’ way. Why, with these warnings ringing in her ears, did she allow US Ambassador Chris Stevens to come to Benghazi at all? By the way, the e-mails also speak to the “YouTube video” cover story, and makes it clear that Hillary’s own private network had discounted the claim 48 hours after the attack:
This goes beyond cover stories, though. What was a Secretary of State doing in running her own private intelligence service — and providing so little security for its communications? It’s getting very obvious why 32,000 e-mails got deleted from a four-year period, something like 21 e-mails every day in every year. It wasn’t just notes to Bill or discussions of Chelsea’s wedding plans that got wiped, but the records of Clintons’ clandestine network of operatives......snip~
Was Hillary running a secret intel network? « Hot Air
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pol...l-network.html (Was Hillary running a Secret Intel Network?)