Mornin DS. :2wave: Well there are 2 IG investigations taking place with her. Which none can come out and really say anything until they make their findings. Moreover the Times and others already stated there is more they looking into which hasn't come out.
Innoculated? I would go with something more like. Pin Cushion.
..... :lol:
IMO, the electoral outcomes are not certainties, as much can happen between now and the end of the primary process and general election. However, I suspect that if Hillary Clinton is defeated, that outcome will have little to do with either Benghazi or the e-mail issue. The Benghazi issue has been repeatedly and thoroughly investigated. The e-mail issue was under intense scrutiny. There really don't appear to be too many "unknowns" left, especially with respect to the former matter.
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.