|
Djarum posted:Someone with money needs to just buy billboard/commercials in red districts and run truth/things Trump said and/or did. Frankly it Steyer or Bloomberg did that with the millions of dollars they are spending it would do more good. People would either say “faaaaaaake” or “yep, that’s why we like him”. It would be pointless.
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 16:28 |
|
|
haveblue posted:The pressure on the Senate would not be meaningfully different from what it is today without a black swan event. More crimes on the list wouldn't change the current acquittal plan. Agreed, though stacking bribery and emoluments violations might be good for optics, and if they can tie that to Trump lying about his worth they might get him to tilt and do more self destructive things
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
As much as I agree Nancy withholding the articles, I think Mitch has the upper hand right now. All he has to do is dig in his heels on not allowing witnesses and it comes back on Nancy like she's loving around politically. She's not, of course, and her reasons are legitimate, but the right is unfortunately excellent at spinning a narrative.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 19:00
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:As much as I agree Nancy withholding the articles, I think Mitch has the upper hand right now. All he has to do is dig in his heels on not allowing witnesses and it comes back on Nancy like she's loving around politically. She's not, of course, and her reasons are legitimate, but the right is unfortunately excellent at spinning a narrative. And I'd agree with you if Mitch McConnell hadn't stupidly told the world "I'm not going to be impartial at all!"  Public opinion OVERWHELMINGLY favors a real trial--including a large majority of Republicans. Mitch screwed up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 19:18
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:Agreed, though stacking bribery and emoluments violations might be good for optics, and if they can tie that to Trump lying about his worth they might get him to tilt and do more self destructive things I would have liked to see Bribery as part of the charges, mainly because it's one of the two specific crimes outright named as a reason for impeachment rather than the more ambiguous "High Crimes and Misdemeanours."
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 19:29
|
|
|
I personally disagree with charging bribery. It's not that it's incorrect, but the case for abuse of power is irrefutable and I think is politically safer. Remember Richard Nixon was charged with abuse of power, obstruction of justice and obstruction of congress so by charging Trump with the 1st and 3rd of those Democrats have wrapped themselves in the legitimacy of the Watergate inquiry. It's forced Republicans to either argue a president's abuse of power is subjective and can never be a high crime, or that demanding political investigations isn't an abuse of power. Also Amash voted for both, apparently he would've opposed bribery and former Republican/independent support matters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2019 00:47
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:And I'd agree with you if Mitch McConnell hadn't stupidly told the world "I'm not going to be impartial at all!" Conservatives won't care Mitch said that. My conservative family is completely oblivious to Mitch's remarks, but they sure have a lot to say at how much of a hypocrite Nancy is for doing a quid pro quo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2019 02:10
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:
is this true
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2019 02:45
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:is this true It kind of is in that Democrats want it to happen because they think it will gently caress over Trump, while the hardcore CHUD Trump base also wants it because they're absolutely certain Hair Furor will be absolutely vindicated and the deep state will finally lock them all up. So...yes...kinda. Lots of support, different reasons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2019 03:42
|
|
|
Eregos posted:I personally disagree with charging bribery. It's not that it's incorrect, but the case for abuse of power is irrefutable and I think is politically safer. Remember Richard Nixon was charged with abuse of power, obstruction of justice and obstruction of congress so by charging Trump with the 1st and 3rd of those Democrats have wrapped themselves in the legitimacy of the Watergate inquiry. It's forced Republicans to either argue a president's abuse of power is subjective and can never be a high crime, or that demanding political investigations isn't an abuse of power. Also Amash voted for both, apparently he would've opposed bribery and former Republican/independent support matters. My main disagreement for bribery is that it has a high bar for conviction in normal legal settings, and in the Senate that would give them cover and an excuse to acquit
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2019 16:34
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:
This will change as Republicans receive their opinions via trough as always. The marching orders won't cause any cognitive dissonance either because these pieces of poo poo are incapable of feeling it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2019 23:18
|
|
|
1. How has the impeachment of Trump helped the dems since last week? 2. Apparently 1/8th of all Miluwakee citizens are losing their voting rights to the Wisconsin govt. Is anyone outside of the state giving a poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2019 23:31
|
|
|
Midgetskydiver posted:This will change as Republicans receive their opinions via trough as always. The marching orders won't cause any cognitive dissonance either because these pieces of poo poo are incapable of feeling it. But Trump also wants the real trial and witnesses because he's delusional and is quite vocal about it. They're going to listen to him, not Mitch and his cronies in the senate who actually not what's good for Trump.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2019 01:10
|
|
|
Latest poll (MSN) puts support for conviction at 55%, and opposition to conviction at 40%. Possibly an outlier, but some folks in the Senate have to be feeling the pressure if they know about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2019 14:07
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Latest poll (MSN) puts support for conviction at 55%, and opposition to conviction at 40%. Doubtful because that 55% doesn't live in Trump states
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2019 14:27
|
|
|
They have an interesting and unproven methodology, but based on the trend, this isn't a single outlier.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2019 14:34
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:But Trump also wants the real trial and witnesses because he's delusional and is quite vocal about it. They're going to listen to him, not Mitch and his cronies in the senate who actually not what's good for Trump. "real trial and witnesses" = "not enough votes to convict" = "exoneration", + "Pelosi said she wouldn't pass articles on until she got a fair trial, & despite her hypocritical quid pro quo we had the trial so therefore it was fair"  If Trump is actually convicted & removed....can he run in 2020 anyway? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2019 15:29
|
|
|
oldskool posted:"real trial and witnesses" = "not enough votes to convict" = "exoneration", + "Pelosi said she wouldn't pass articles on until she got a fair trial, & despite her hypocritical quid pro quo we had the trial so therefore it was fair" There's a straight majority vote they can and would pass to prevent him from holding public office again, so no
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2019 15:31
|
|
|
oldskool posted:"real trial and witnesses" = "not enough votes to convict" = "exoneration", + "Pelosi said she wouldn't pass articles on until she got a fair trial, & despite her hypocritical quid pro quo we had the trial so therefore it was fair" Impeachment plus removal bars him from holding public office for life. Edit: actually no it is a separate vote but simple majority Slowpoke! fucked around with this message at 15:38 on Dec 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2019 15:36
|
|
|
oldskool posted:
Even if he can't, he'll try anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2019 15:42
|
|
|
I'm sure the supreme court won't stand in the way, so, probably.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
Lambert posted:I'm sure the supreme court won't stand in the way, so, probably. As an originalist, I can confidently say the Founding Fathers made no mention of preventing Trump from running for office a second time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2019 15:46
|
|
|
I wonder if the 2 or 3% of people who were under the impression that Impeachment would remove the president have now flipped to the "..ohhhh and conviction in the senate" column and are accounting for this shift in polling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2019 16:47
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Doubtful because that 55% doesn't live in Trump states Republicans won't care about polling numbers unless support for conviction goes over 70%, because they are well aware that their voting base is very small. The only reason the GOP isn't a regional power is because the electoral college is stupid and voting districts are gerrymandered. Trump isn't getting convicted in the Senate. Pelosi is holding back the articles of impeachment because Mitch got a little too erect about pissing off the Democrats and overstepped his bounds, and gave her an excuse to hold them back. Mitch and Trump can crow all they want about Trump not really being impeached, but the fact of the matter is that every excuse the Democrats have to extend this process helps them. If Mitch was smart, he would've kept his mouth shut, quietly ran a fake trial for appearances, and acquitted Trump. Instead he went on Fox News with his stupid poo poo-eating turtle grin and gave Democrats and moderate Republicans an excuse to go against his flow. The longer impeachment stays in the public consciousness, the better it is for Democrats in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2019 18:15
|
|
|
SchrodingersCat posted:Republicans won't care about polling numbers unless support for conviction goes over 70%, because they are well aware that their voting base is very small. The only reason the GOP isn't a regional power is because the electoral college is stupid and voting districts are gerrymandered. if 55% of voting americans actually want trump kicked out of office, then republicans would be making GBS threads their pants. We'd be talking about a landslide in the electoral college and dem majority in the senate in 2021. I think there's enough of em assuming that polling is trending higher than reality and that they can somehow weather the storm and change the narrative in the following year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2019 18:26
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:if 55% of voting americans actually want trump kicked out of office, then republicans would be making GBS threads their pants. We'd be talking about a landslide in the electoral college and dem majority in the senate in 2021. I think there's enough of em assuming that polling is trending higher than reality and that they can somehow weather the storm and change the narrative in the following year. Or they see it as a challenge, triple down on voter suppression, gerrymandering, seizure of power from incoming democrats so on and so on, generally abandoning representational democracy in favor of hyper partisan minority rule while stacking the courts as an untouchable veto in their favor on all the arguments brought against them to stop this. I know which one I'm betting on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2019 18:48
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:Or they see it as a challenge, triple down on voter suppression, gerrymandering, seizure of power from incoming democrats so on and so on, generally abandoning representational democracy in favor of hyper partisan minority rule while stacking the courts as an untouchable veto in their favor on all the arguments brought against them to stop this. Is it a 'bet' if the outcome your imagining will happen is already happening though?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2019 18:56
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:Or they see it as a challenge, triple down on voter suppression, gerrymandering, seizure of power from incoming democrats so on and so on, generally abandoning representational democracy in favor of hyper partisan minority rule while stacking the courts as an untouchable veto in their favor on all the arguments brought against them to stop this. come on. That poo poo only works at the margins, if 55% of voters want him booted right now, it's a nightmare for republicans. A 1% net vote suppression gain strategy nationwide would be a spectacular win and it wouldn't prevent a GOP wipeout in the elections
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2019 19:02
|
|
|
Based on a track record of beating other polling aggregators, I'd trust the 538 impeachment average the most. It shows an unchanged small plurality favoring it. Since Democrats need wave elections just to lose the Senate narrowly and narrowly hold the House, a +1.7% plurality isn't really good enough for them. But it's at least close to politically neutral. What they really need is a game changer, like tapes of Trump directly ordering crimes and coverups. There's no real chance even that would lead to conviction, but it would more seriously pressure Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2019 20:06
|
|
|
I think 538 actually messed up the tracker on the same page. If you look at all the individual averages by question type, the polls have remained steady, but the main tracker with all polls shows a clear drop around the time impeachment happened. I think this is because the main tracker shows polls about both impeachment and removal, but all the polls started focusing on removal after impeachment actually happened, dragging down the average of all polls. I'd put something together proving it and send them a message to fix it, but 
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2019 20:52
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Doubtful because that 55% doesn't live in Trump states 55% on a national level is a bigger landslide than 2008 when Obama won by 10 million votes and got 365 EV.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 00:31
|
|
|
Trump got 46% of the popular vote in 2016 
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 02:47
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:come on. That poo poo only works at the margins, if 55% of voters want him booted right now, it's a nightmare for republicans. A 1% net vote suppression gain strategy nationwide would be a spectacular win and it wouldn't prevent a GOP wipeout in the elections The raw number matters less than how strongly they feel about it. 80+% of Americans want background checks, for instance, they just don't want them enough/to the exclusion of all the other stuff they want.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 05:23
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:The raw number matters less than how strongly they feel about it. 80+% of Americans want background checks, for instance, they just don't want them enough/to the exclusion of all the other stuff they want. Saying you want the president impeached and convicted is way stronger than the normal I disapprove statement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 06:48
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:The raw number matters less than how strongly they feel about it. 80+% of Americans want background checks, for instance, they just don't want them enough/to the exclusion of all the other stuff they want. This isn't a great comparison because policy questions in a vacuum are generally immune to political tribalism. Once an actual background check bill is written, it becomes less about the contents of the bill and more about the people who wrote and sponsored it. Fox would immediately jump on it and declare it an evil plot by Pelosi to take are freedums and it would suddenly poll at ~50%. Impeachment is definitionally a political question, not a policy one. The lines are already drawn in the sand and everyone is entrenched in their position.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 09:50
|
|
|
You'd might get five GOP votes against him if it's 60% I think you'd need to hit 2/3rds for his support in the senate to collapse. https://twitter.com/Scaramucci/status/1210211845769977856
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 11:38
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:You'd might get five GOP votes against him if it's 60% I think you'd need to hit 2/3rds for his support in the senate to collapse. The Senate is a bit different than the House in terms of Senators need to worry about their entire states than the small local district. States like Wyoming or Utah you don't have to worry too much about your vote as they are going to elect you no matter what. Anything above 55% you start moving out of the lean and into the likely territory. 60% would put a ton of Senators in a really, really bad position and there is no way they could support him further. 55% is you losing CO, AZ which you are likely doing already. 60% is losing all of the battleground states as well as well as your leaning states and your likely states like KY, TX and KS become in serious danger as well as perhaps some of your safe states like a SC. Honestly I am sure if this would have been any other guy they would have already asked him to step down for the good of the party. The problem is Trump doesn't give a gently caress about the party and I would assume less about any of the other members. At a certain point that reality will catch up with all of them. Frankly the longer this is up in the air and the longer the impeachment goes on the worse it is for Trump and the GOP. Mitch knows this and it is why he was trying to get a kick sham trial done. Now the chances of that happening are slim they are going to have a worse time going forward. Also Mitch doesn't have the votes right now to do anything, which I think is why he tried to bluff and overplay his hand. This will just get worse as things go on. Do I think it will hit 2/3rds? Right now, no. If we saw 60% in the polls there is a better chance of that. Granted if we hit 60% or really anything about 55% there is absolutely no way Trump will win re-election and everyone with half a brain will realize that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 17:34
|
|
|
KillHour posted:This isn't a great comparison because policy questions in a vacuum are generally immune to political tribalism. Once an actual background check bill is written, it becomes less about the contents of the bill and more about the people who wrote and sponsored it. Fox would immediately jump on it and declare it an evil plot by Pelosi to take are freedums and it would suddenly poll at ~50%. I'll grant that it's not a great comparison, but what I'm trying to get at is that just looking at the national aggregate number doesn't take into account how much people care about the issue, especially here when a semi-reasonable person could take the position that, yeah, they want the fucker gone, but they could also just vote against him in a little under a year, so it's less of a big deal how their own Senator votes. That consideration, plus the fact that 2/3 of the Senate can safely assume their constituents will have mostly forgotten how they voted when they're next up for election makes the popularity of removal a non-issue for most of them, so the raw number, while satisfying, doesn't make me think removal is all that much more likely. This is a lesson we all should have learned in 2016 where the nationally unpopular candidate won with fewer votes because our system has a bunch of geographic bias built in. Stoked for Collins to get hosed over by it, though 🤞 tl;dr: the Senate is not representative of or very responsive to national opinion, by design, so pinning your hopes to national numbers is probably setting yourself up for disappointment Charlz Guybon posted:Saying you want the president impeached and convicted is way stronger than the normal I disapprove statement. I'm honestly not sure it is anymore thanks to the partisanship KillHour cites.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 18:15
|
|
|
Djarum posted:
There wasn’t an impeachment obviously, but at this point in 2005 things were already worse polling wise and that was before the financial breakdown.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 16:28 |
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:There wasn’t an impeachment obviously, but at this point in 2005 things were already worse polling wise and that was before the financial breakdown. I wasn't talking about polling so much as the polling plus all the scandal/impeachment. Granted if this was pretty much any other guy you wouldn't likely have all the scandal/crime/impeachment as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 18:36
|
|