[Dan in Wichita]

None of the Clinton scandals has ever made a difference. None whatsoever. Why does anyone think it matters now? What difference, at this point, does it make?

No matter how many more scandals are exposed, Hillary has 47% of the vote in the bag. All she needs is a hair over 3% more. With her propaganda machine, this is easily attainable.

The fact that she still doing well in the polls illustrates how far gone this country is.

And, don't forget all the millions of Third Worlders who will be ready by Nov 2016 to pull the lever for her.

[Alberta's Child]

What's often overlooked in these discussions is this: If Hillary Clinton was really a credible candidate for the White House, she would have been nominated in 2008. She wasn't nominated in 2008, which meant her presidential aspirations were derailed by Democrats.

I don't see anything that has changed in advance of 2016. If anything, it's worse for her among the Democrat core. They have plenty of good reasons never to trust a wealthy white woman who: (1) spent six years on Wal-Mart's board of directors, and (2) is indistinguishable from a candidate who would run as an inside-the-Beltway Republican.

[EDINVA]

“All she needs is a hair over 3% more. With her propaganda machine, this is easily attainable.”

With Blumenthal, et al. the eventual GOP nominee had better not have one overdue library book in his past. All the Clnton scandals over the decades will be as nothing compared to what they will do to that GOP candidate and his one overdue library book.

[mrsmel]

The scandals don’t matter if it’s just a matter of the voters. But if a player on the left (Soros, ValJar) wants her gone, it will be a whole different ballgame.