Do you think the Benghazi scandal could bring down Hillary's run for President?

Fearandloathing said:

You mean the Iraq war SUPPORTED by congress and, if I am not mistaken voted for by Hillary?

Click to expand...

Yeah. Hillary is a warhawk, that's one (out of many) reason I don't support her. :shrug:

I suppose if its numbers only, then four slobs serving their government are meaningless. But as your president gears up some outrage over a private citizen's beheading, what of this promise to "hunt them if they run?"

Click to expand...

Obama is a hypocrite, I don't disagree. :shrug:

Four Americans, one a sitting ambassador were killed by terrorists, who have walked away free and bragging that they can kill Americans with impunity and get away with it.

Click to expand...

That's problematic, but the GOP politicizing the issue and continually investigating a non-existent scandal will not serve to fix that. What we need to do is pull out of the Middle East and stop putting our men in that position to begin with!

I hope she gets the nomination and wins

Click to expand...

Why?

Navy Pride said:

what are your thoughts?

Click to expand...

Ain't gonna happen. Hillary already sat for Fox News on the issue. Both Fox and an investigation went nowhere. She knows what's she's doing.

She's going to get my vote for the saaame reason that Obama did: she won't be a confederate neocon.

ecofarm said:

It's a major drawback to my support of Hillary for President. I don't believe it was a conspiracy to get Americans killed, nor an attempt to help promote Jihad in America thereby giving Obama a third term. I don't even think covering it up with claims that it might be about a protest is so horrible; that could be a result of intel security.

I do, however, believe that more could have and should have been done.

One of the reasons I support Hillary is that she is a hawk, but she let me down on this one and I question her resolve to face tough situations with sufficient military force.

Click to expand...

Sort of this. Hillary ran in 2008 at least partly on the claim that she was the person Americans wanted answering the 2 a.m. phone call. Then, the biggest such call that came her way appears to have become a massive cluster. So it undercuts her narrative.

A parallel - regardless of whether or not you are ideologically committed at this point to see them as villains or heroes - would be the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, who used the legitimacy they gained from their own service to attack Kerry's narrative about his own.

I think it could derail her campaign, but is unlikely to actually do so.

Although it will be interesting to see who comes out of the woodwork.

Hopes that Benghazi will ever have any decisive weight in American presidential elections = wishful thinking.

People who believe Benghazi is a scandalous shame have never voted and will never vote for a Democrat anyway, Benghazi or not.

People who believe Benghazi is an opportunistic political ploy by the Republicans have never voted and will never vote for a Republican anyway, Benghazi or not.

The vast majority of American voters in-between these two extremes = entirely indifferent to Benghazi and sick and tired of the Republican's insistence with it.

Therefore, Benghazi = zero influence over a presidential election.

The Republicans need to understand the idea that beating a dead horse doesn't help their cause.

Captain America said:

Jesus Himself could lead the investigation and unless it led to the outcome the Benghazi whiners want, He too would be drug through the mud.

Click to expand...

The only actual major character assassination we've seen over this story thus far is the State Department guy that the Administration supporters went after when he was publicly questioned and challenged their narrative. We had a left-leaning poster here (Sarcogito) who is actually in the DAT program, and was in Libya. He was pretty upset, watching the administration he supported go after his friends. Quit here shortly thereafter . Which is a shame - he was a good dude.

Navy Pride said:

what are your thoughts?

Click to expand...

Right now Benghazi is pretty much a non-issue. There is way too much other things happening in the world. I think come 2016 Benghazi will have played out. Perhaps those who are going to vote against her will use it as their reason. For the Hillary backers, Benghazi means nothing. For independents, they haven't really paid Benghazi any attention up to now and that is probably how they will continue. For Benghazi to play an important role in 2016, something much more sinister has to be uncovered than what is now known. Outside of that, it will be an issue for die hard Republicans only. That is my take on this thing today.

cpwill said:

The only actual major character assassination we've seen over this story thus far is the State Department guy that the Administration supporters went after when he was publicly questioned and challenged their narrative. We had a left-leaning poster here (Sarcogito) who is actually in the DAT program, and was in Libya. He was pretty upset, watching the administration he supported go after his friends. Quit here shortly thereafter . Which is a shame - he was a good dude.

Click to expand...

There have been no shortage of crap and character assassination thrown at Obama and Clinton over Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi,Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi.

You are a VERY intelligent guy and I know you know that. Did I misunderstand what you are trying to say?

GreatNews2night said:

Hopes that Benghazi will ever have any decisive weight in American presidential elections = wishful thinking.

People who believe Benghazi is a scandalous shame have never voted and will never vote for a Democrat anyway, Benghazi or not.

People who believe Benghazi is an opportunistic political ploy by the Republicans have never voted and will never vote for a Republican anyway, Benghazi or not.

The vast majority of American voters in-between these two extremes = entirely indifferent to Benghazi and sick and tired of the Republican's insistence with it.

Therefore, Benghazi = zero influence over a presidential election.

The Republicans need to understand the idea that beating a dead horse doesn't help their cause.

Click to expand...

I agree, independents haven't paid Benghazi any attention up to now and won't in 2016. Unless there is a real smoking gun found, something sinister, Benghazi is as dead as an issue as Latin is to today's languages.

Perotista said:

I agree, independents haven't paid Benghazi any attention up to now and won't in 2016. Unless there is a real smoking gun found, something sinister, Benghazi is as dead as an issue as Latin is to today's languages.

Click to expand...

Hesterna locus.

Redress said:

Evidence of what exactly?

Click to expand...

The evidence identified in the OP article. Did you read the article?

I think most people know she's a shameless liar anyway, and this only reinforces that belief. She may have a couple even bigger problems. One is her age and health. The other is that a lot of married women, in particular, don't like her. The idea of adulterous husbands tends to be very upsetting to them, and many of them just don't trust a wife who would put up with it year after year, woman after woman. I suspect that to many married women, tolerating that much infidelity that blandly seems so unnatural that it makes it hard for them to feel any sympathy with Mrs. Clinton.

Perotista said:

Benghazi is as dead as an issue as Latin is to today's languages.

Click to expand...

Yet Roman Catholic clusters here in flyover country have now gone to one Latin mass per weekend.

Btw, I'm sure you've seen by now the huge dump of new polls on RCP today.

And the Gov/Sen patterns continue, with both Nunn and Carter up by the same +3.

Also, did you see the new dynamite ad by Grimes, which at the end showed Mitch the real way to hold a gun ? :lamo

Did Clinton Aides Withhold Benghazi Docs? - Sharyl Attkisson, Daily Signal

As the House Select Committee on Benghazi prepares for its first hearing this week, a former State Department diplomat is coming forward with a startling allegation: Hillary Clinton confidants were part of an operation to “separate” damaging documents before they were turned over to the Accountability Review Board investigating security lapses surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.
UPDATE: Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff allegedly present at after-hours document review.
According to former Deputy Assistant Secretary Raymond Maxwell, the after-hours session took place over a weekend in a basement operations-type center at State Department headquarters in Washington, D.C. This is the first time Maxwell has publicly come forward with the story. . . .

Captain America said:

There have been no shortage of crap and character assassination thrown at Obama and Clinton over Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi,Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi.

You are a VERY intelligent guy and I know you know that. Did I misunderstand what you are trying to say?

Click to expand...

:shrug: the hub-bub over Benghazi has mostly been limited the partisans and the nerds (among whom I would count our happy selves). For the broader electorate, perhaps a single headline every six to twelve months has occupied their attention for about 15 seconds apiece. There is growth still for this, especially if Hillary tries to make "Competence" one of the central themes of her candidacy.

I agree that the effect is going to be diminished from that of the Swift Boat Veterans - I am arguing that the effects would be of a similar type (to undermine the claim that a candidate wishes to make about themselves via a source of similar ability to speak credibly to that issue), not necessarily of a similar level of shock. But consider (for example) the families. Hillary lied to their face about the attack, and then asked what difference it made. I would guess that probably angered some of them. Imagine the simplicity and emotional hammer of an ad centered around a grieving couple of parents saying, well, it matters to them...

Should a GOP candidate foster that? Hells no. Both sides should leave those families alone. But if they decide to come forward on their own, theirs could be a powerful voice that does indeed have greater impact than you seem to be assuming.

There is also more to tell on this story. There are a few people who are.... bitter.... about the whole turn of events. Would someone in that community go off the rails? No idea. But the three guys interviewed by Fox are not the rest of the iceberg.

Navy Pride said:

I agree and one has to ask one selve do we want a habitual liar as a president?

Click to expand...

Damn, right NP. What we need is a president who isn't a habitual liar. We need a president like Nixon, no wait...we need a president like Reagan, no wait...we need a president like Bush the Elder, no wait...we need a president like Clinton, no wait...we need a president like Bush the Younger, no wait...we need a president like Obama, no wait...

Wait a feckin minute here! I see a pattern. Do you? All these lying ass people are representatives of the ruling two party system. America keeps doing the same thing and expecting different results. Maybe what we need is an president from outside the ruling two party system.

NIMBY said:

Yet Roman Catholic clusters here in flyover country have now gone to one Latin mass per weekend.

Btw, I'm sure you've seen by now the huge dump of new polls on RCP today.

And the Gov/Sen patterns continue, with both Nunn and Carter up by the same +3.

Also, did you see the new dynamite ad by Grimes, which at the end showed Mitch the real way to hold a gun ? :lamo

Click to expand...

I seen them, then there is the new party affiliation numbers out from Gallup today too. There were a real shocker. CNN has Shaheen and Brown tied. Although I respect CNN, it will take another poll showing New Hampshire is close before I re-add it to my watch list. I have NC going to Hagan and RCP dump re-enforces that. Michigan, Mitchell has Land within 2 of Peters, but Mitchell is usually about 5 points ahead of all other polls in the Republican favor, I do not trust them. Landmark for WSB here in Georgia is another suspect polling firm but is just the opposite of Mitchell. Insider advantage was a poll taken over the same days as the WSB one, it has Perdue up by 10 vs. Nunn lead of 3. This is why I like RCP averaging. That is as long as the averaging of polls are fairly recent. If there is enough of them I will throw out those more than a month old. Two weeks is the time limit I prefer.

But back to party affiliation. Heck I just updated my 5 indicators and it has the new party affiliation at the bottom as the 5th indicator. It shows the Democrats at an all time low of just 26%. But like other polls, I am now waiting for next month poll to see if this is an aberration or the real deal.

What are the chances of another 2010 wave election happening in November? Here are the five criteria that must be in place. Also you compare today with 2012 and 2010.

1. President Obama’s approval rating of below 45%: Today’s rating: 41.4%. This indicator says the Republicans should make some impressive gains.

2012 approval rating 51%
2010 approval rating 44%

2. I had the ACA as my second indicator, but I have come to the conclusion that the ACA is less relevant to the upcoming senate elections than the president’s foreign policy ratings. Especially with all the problems in the Middle East and the Ukraine. Today’s presidential foreign policy rating is 36.0% approve 57.6% disapprove.
2012 approval rating 50.2%
2010 Not available


3. Generic congressional poll, the Republicans must have a lead over the Democrats of 5 points or better: Today the Republicans have taken a three point lead over the Democrats 45-42. This is news as the Democrats had the lead in the Generic Congressional poll from May 13th until September 12th and sometimes their lead was as much as 5 points. It seems that after all this time the Congressional Generic poll is beginning to come into line with the first two indicators.

2012 generic Democrats 48% Republicans 46%
2010 generic Democrats 41% Republicans 51%

4. Party Favorability/unfavorability, the Democrats must be seen in a worst light than the Republicans. But today with all voters the Republicans have a 34% favorable rating vs a 56% unfavorable. The Democrats have a 41% favorable/51% unfavorable which should say the Democrats are in for very production November.

2012 favorability/unfavorability Democrat 47/44 Republican 40/47
2010 favorability/unfavorability Democrat 39/49 Republican 44/44

5. Party affiliation/identification Republicans must have a 5 point lead as they did in 2010 when counting those who identify with each party plus those independents which lean towards each party. The Republicans have exactly that 5 point lead today.

Identify as Democrats 26%
Independents lean Democrat 16% Total 42%
Identify as Republicans 25%
Independents lean Republican 22% Total 47%

2012 party identification
Identify as Democrats 33%
Independents lean Democrat 15% Total 48%
Identify as Republicans 28%
Independents lean Republican 12% Total 40%


2010 party identification
Identify as Democrats 29%
Independents lean Democrat 13% Total 42%
Identify as Republicans 29%
Independents lean Republican 20% Total 49%


Conclusion: This looks like a good year for the Republicans, the president approval ratings are low in both his overall and on foreign policy. The generic congressional poll has swung over to the Republican side and the Republicans lead in total party affiliation. The only good news for the Democrats is in party favorability where they have a 5 point lead over the Republicans. With only one indicator in the Democrats favor, I have upped my odds on the GOP gaining the senate from 50-50 to 60-40. The odds would have been much higher except for what happened in Kansas where the independent candidate Orman seems likely to snatch what was once a safe Republican seat.

Navy Pride said:

what are your thoughts?

Click to expand...

One could only hope.

What should bring her down is her lack of accomplishment in public service.

For most Americans, Benghazi is not a scandal. It's right wing Tourettes.

Ockham said:

The evidence identified in the OP article. Did you read the article?

Click to expand...

This is the OP:

Navy Pride said:

what are your thoughts?

Click to expand...

Can you show me the article in there?

Navy Pride said:

what are your thoughts?

Click to expand...

One could only hope.

cpwill said:

:shrug: the hub-bub over Benghazi has mostly been limited the partisans and the nerds (among whom I would count our happy selves). For the broader electorate, perhaps a single headline every six to twelve months has occupied their attention for about 15 seconds apiece. There is growth still for this, especially if Hillary tries to make "Competence" one of the central themes of her candidacy.

I agree that the effect is going to be diminished from that of the Swift Boat Veterans - I am arguing that the effects would be of a similar type (to undermine the claim that a candidate wishes to make about themselves via a source of similar ability to speak credibly to that issue), not necessarily of a similar level of shock. But consider (for example) the families. Hillary lied to their face about the attack, and then asked what difference it made. I would guess that probably angered some of them. Imagine the simplicity and emotional hammer of an ad centered around a grieving couple of parents saying, well, it matters to them...

Should a GOP candidate foster that? Hells no. Both sides should leave those families alone. But if they decide to come forward on their own, theirs could be a powerful voice that does indeed have greater impact than you seem to be assuming.

There is also more to tell on this story. There are a few people who are.... bitter.... about the whole turn of events. Would someone in that community go off the rails? No idea. But the three guys interviewed by Fox are not the rest of the iceberg.

Click to expand...

Who you calling a nerd? Be careful or me and my pocket protector won't talk to you again...

Clinton will make the economy the central issue of her campaign. She will position herself as somewhat hawkish on foreign policy(more than most democrats, less than most republicans), socially liberal and trying to work to benefit both the middle class and business. That is completely lacking in specifics, and that will be interesting to see, but if she runs, I think all of those are safe to say. Where she will spend her time is on the economy, and she has already started on that. Her Daily Show appearance recently she hit that message hard, that when her and her husband where coming up, if you worked hard and where smart, you would get ahead, but now that is not necessarily the case. It is a solid message that if she can put planned initiatives with could be hard to beat.

She will talk about foreign policy only as much as she has to. It isn't a winner for any candidate, with the public varying from disinterested to mostly against anything any candidate would do. She will have a stock answer for questions about Benghazi, basically stating that the procedures where flawed, they found those flaws and fixed it, and then move on to other questions.

If someone wants to take Hilary out they only need a 60 second commercial showing statements of people in the administration who knew the attack was a planned terrorist attack and Hillary lying about it in front of the dead bodies of the men who were killed as they came home. Run that once every 1/2 hour.

The candidate of your party could take a crap in your favorite drinking cup and you would still vote for him or her. Neither side if going to go to the other side.

The only thing that matters is probably which side comes out and votes.

Navy Pride said:

what are your thoughts?

Click to expand...

The media will have their lips to firmly planted on Clinton's ass hole to care what bad things she has done.Unless there is another democrat they would rather have in office instead of Clinton.

matchlight said:

I think most people know she's a shameless liar anyway, and this only reinforces that belief. She may have a couple even bigger problems. One is her age and health. The other is that a lot of married women, in particular, don't like her. The idea of adulterous husbands tends to be very upsetting to them, and many of them just don't trust a wife who would put up with it year after year, woman after woman. I suspect that to many married women, tolerating that much infidelity that blandly seems so unnatural that it makes it hard for them to feel any sympathy with Mrs. Clinton.

Click to expand...

Your right and the GOP has to keep bringing that up over and over again and the same with Benghazi.