|
Munkeymon posted: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.
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 06:02 |
|
|
Djarum posted: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. Well Katrina had happened that year so....
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 18:44
|
|
|
KillHour posted: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 I don't think that's an error, more an expected artifact. I think 'All Polls' is meant to be an average of all the polls, not some sort of even weighting between polls asking about beginning an inquiry vs removing Trump from office. With no weighting control on purpose, it can move depending on which questions are asked more often. Which is why there are 3 options for average and not just one. This is exactly the kind of complicating factor I've seen 538 writers fret about before, with good reason. If they changed it they might decide the most practical solution is to remove 'all polls' entirely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 19:01
|
|
|
Eregos posted:I don't think that's an error, more an expected artifact. I think 'All Polls' is meant to be an average of all the polls, not some sort of even weighting between polls asking about beginning an inquiry vs removing Trump from office. With no weighting control on purpose, it can move depending on which questions are asked more often. Which is why there are 3 options for average and not just one. This is exactly the kind of complicating factor I've seen 538 writers fret about before, with good reason. If they changed it they might decide the most practical solution is to remove 'all polls' entirely. My issue is that it was the default way the tracker was displayed on their home page, which is misleading to people who only look at the graph and see the numbers change. They changed it to removals by party breakdown, probably because they realized the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 19:11
|
|
|
Should we expect nothing major to happen until January 6th (or 7th)?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 19:14
|
|
|
actionjackson posted:Should we expect nothing major to happen until January 6th (or 7th)? What do you consider major? Trump outed the original whistleblower on twitter by retweeting some right wing hack journal that almost certainly had the name linked to them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 19:17
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:What do you consider major? Wait what
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 20:04
|
|
|
I thought that ended up being the wrong person 
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 20:05
|
|
|
Icon Of Sin posted:I thought that ended up being the wrong person i think it is. i feel like if they got the right person. we would know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 20:16
|
|
|
Responsible media won't confirm if they have the right name so it's going to be difficult to know for sure, especially if you don't read rightosphere primary sources at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 20:29
|
|
|
haveblue posted:rightosphere primary sources I'm not sure where I fall between  ,  and "mods please!" here. Not saying they don't have the name, since that'd be easy-ish for a staffer to get and leak. It's just that, in general, their primary sources often turn out to be probably-intentional misunderstanding.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 21:36
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:What do you consider major? wait huh? when was that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 21:50
|
|
|
actionjackson posted:wait huh? when was that? Like 20 hours ago: https://www.salon.com/2019/12/27/president-trump-shares-article-outing-alleged-ukraine-whistleblower-on-twitter/
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 22:02
|
|
|
I don't know if people saw, but the New York Times just released an article on Ukraine aid saying that Esper, Pompeo, and Bolton met with the President in late August asking him to release the aid, because, they said, it was in the US interest, but he refused. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/29/us/politics/trump-ukraine-military-aid.html#click=https://t.co/bP7A55BSx1 quote:Inside the administration, pressure was mounting on Mr. Trump to reverse himself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 04:34
|
|
|
Maybe Pelosi does know what she's doing after all. https://twitter.com/neeratanden/status/1211513023610998784 https://twitter.com/neeratanden/status/1211540134149214209
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 08:09
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Maybe Pelosi does know what she's doing after all. Can the House draft new articles of impeachment for these crimes or do they still fall under the current passed articles? It’d own hard if Moscow Mitch runs a sham trial to get orange daddy out of trouble, only to have new articles of impeachment drafted and passed by the house.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 15:26
|
|
|
HONG KONG SLUMLORD posted:Can the House draft new articles of impeachment for these crimes or do they still fall under the current passed articles? Not only that, but there ain’t no rule saying a dog can’t draft them, either 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 15:38
|
|
|
It’s pretty reasonable to assume that Pelosi knows way more than any of us or even others in Congress irt: impeachable offenses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 16:01
|
|
|
regardless of whether Pelosi is right or wrong I suggest that we all agree to not unironically post Neera Tanden in this thread
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 16:09
|
|
|
eke out posted:regardless of whether Pelosi is right or wrong I suggest that we all agree to not unironically post Neera Tanden in this thread Indeed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 17:06
|
|
|
The Democrats have always been pretty okay at putting up resistance when it doesn't matter, so this impeachment really doesn't seem to be a slam-dunk for the "Pelosi is a brilliant puppetmaster" wing of the party.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
Are we really gonna have an impeachment trial without calling up a single witness? I know this is only the third time tapping this dance, but the first two movements of this symphony had witnesses called in to testify, and unless I'm mistaken they had to scale back from the number of witnesses testifying during the Clinton years cause they already had seen more than enough to pass judgement. What I'm curious is what's gonna happen once all of this wraps up; not just the impeachment trial, but the 2020 election if Trump loses and the new guard takes over. Will that be the unofficial 'official' death of the GOP that we expected to see back in 2016? That's really what this whole thing seems to be about when it comes to defending Trump. The moment he suffers his first major loss i.e. removed from office represents the turning of this page in history. I know the GOP will still be around afterwards, but will we see a rebranding of their party within a millenial's lifetime? Since most people in that age bracket tend to heavily skewer towards Democrat voting, and since a large number of the GOP base is gonna be dying out within the next decade or two, they have to change their gameplan or they WILL go extinct, they just dont have the numbers to hold the reins like they have since the Reagan years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
Parrotine posted:What I'm curious is what's gonna happen once all of this wraps up; not just the impeachment trial, but the 2020 election if Trump loses and the new guard takes over. Will that be the unofficial 'official' death of the GOP that we expected to see back in 2016? That's really what this whole thing seems to be about when it comes to defending Trump. The moment he suffers his first major loss i.e. removed from office represents the turning of this page in history. to me it feels pointless to speculate about this as everything about their future strategy will be determined by how like the next 11 months go, and there's too many dramatically different outcomes that make trying to predict it impossible. i'm sure people would be happy to talk about long-term GOP possibilities in USPOL with you, but i think it's beyond the scope of this thread Parrotine posted:Are we really gonna have an impeachment trial without calling up a single witness? I know this is only the third time tapping this dance, but the first two movements of this symphony had witnesses called in to testify, and unless I'm mistaken they had to scale back from the number of witnesses testifying during the Clinton years cause they already had seen more than enough to pass judgement. the current proposal on the table from Schumer is four witnesses that have not yet testified: mulvaney, bolton, and two of their top aides. things have been pretty much in stasis over the holidays but i suspect we will start seeing a lot more motion on this issue in the next 5-10 days also yesterday's news seriously helps the dems' case for witnesses, which was already strong in the first place https://twitter.com/tripgabriel/status/1211405517924556800 i'd note that George Kent testified that this meeting never happened which is loving remarkable, signalling that maybe they hid it from top civil servants eke out fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Dec 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
I don't see there being enough public support for another impeachment after this one is handed over to the Senate and all the Republicans wipe their asses with it. Republicans will, rather predictably, vomit bullshit out of their word holes about "dividing the country" and "undoing 2016" and whatever else their propaganda machine comes up with. Every one not in the MAGA cult will either be dumb and malleable enough to still give the both-sides fascist propaganda a chance to muddy the waters or see it for what it is and realise that party will never allow Hair Furor to come to harm. Just no point in doing it a second time. The system is broken, so now we need to rely on the system to vote him out of office.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 18:32
|
|
|
Just don't send the next impeachment until after the new Senate is sat. It can't go away between sessions
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 18:45
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Just don't send the next impeachment until after the new Senate is sat. It can't go away between sessions Edit: and would STILL require 16+ Republican Senators to flip?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Just don't send the next impeachment until after the new Senate is sat. It can't go away between sessions Agreeing with Tibalt, but also, I'm not sure that's true. As far as I know, any open congressional activity ends with that Congress. While I could be wrong, I think, once this congress is over, if you want to impeach, you'd have to start impeachment proceedings again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 19:29
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:You mean after the election that Trump presumably lost if the Democrats are flipping Senate seats in North Carolina and Kentucky? Chaos option is in the gap between Senate is seated and new President is sworn in 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 19:32
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Agreeing with Tibalt, but also, I'm not sure that's true. As far as I know, any open congressional activity ends with that Congress. While I could be wrong, I think, once this congress is over, if you want to impeach, you'd have to start impeachment proceedings again. He's impeached. It's done. The Constitution requires the Senate to try him and does not give a poo poo about which Congress it's done in. Other points are good tho
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 19:40
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:I don't see there being enough public support for another impeachment after this one is handed over to the Senate and all the Republicans wipe their asses with it. I'd argue that hitting again does the opposite of giving the fascists a chance to muddy the waters; it keeps the drum beat going that Trump is a criminal president has to be removed going. Yeah, it's only going to happen through election, but that's not the point. If there's no impeachment, then it's a tacit approval. Impeachment tells the low information people who don't pay attention to any politics that Trump's acts are important. It makes them pay attention. That's something that will matter a lot come November.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 19:41
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Agreeing with Tibalt, but also, I'm not sure that's true. As far as I know, any open congressional activity ends with that Congress. While I could be wrong, I think, once this congress is over, if you want to impeach, you'd have to start impeachment proceedings again. you're confusing the rules for the house, where membership turns over entirely every term, with the senate the impeachment would still be at the senate in a new term. the reason it's not One Weird Trick is that, even with a democrat majority, they'd probably still just vote to dismiss it
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 19:55
|
|
|
the downside to holding onto the articles for too long, say into late spring, is that the narrative "let the voters decide" becomes more palatable and sensible to the voting public
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 20:05
|
|
|
It's going to be real hard to prevent 50 senators to vote to dismiss the articles when the president is going to leave office in a few days. Especially if you think it's going to end in acquittal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 20:15
|
|
|
The whole point is to get all the ghouls on record. Make them vote on something. The strategy of never vote on anything means they can never be nailed down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
Idk how Google determined that I'm some on the fence voter because that's dead wrong but my entire internet experience as of late is nothing but trump 2020 ads. Part of my wants to click on them and fill out bullshit surveys to my muddy the data but then I have pretty much ruined any chances of not being buried with chud ads for all time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 20:29
|
|
|
cr0y posted:Idk how Google determined that I'm some on the fence voter because that's dead wrong but my entire internet experience as of late is nothing but trump 2020 ads. Part of my wants to click on them and fill out bullshit surveys to my muddy the data but then I have pretty much ruined any chances of not being buried with chud ads for all time. Trump is outspending everbody on political ads, possibly more than all of them combined. His campaign has completely saturated the market. Don't read too much into it
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 20:59
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:Trump is outspending everbody on political ads, possibly more than all of them combined. His campaign has completely saturated the market. Maybe I've done a pretty good job isolating myself from his media blitz, but I haven't seen loving anything from his campaign.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 21:16
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Maybe I've done a pretty good job isolating myself from his media blitz, but I haven't seen loving anything from his campaign. It's all over my Facebook, and leads me to wonder if Facebook's algorithm tracks how much blatant communism poo poo I post, or if they just don't care.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 21:40
|
|
|
Warmachine posted:It's all over my Facebook, and leads me to wonder if Facebook's algorithm tracks how much blatant communism poo poo I post, or if they just don't care. Ah. gently caress Facebook. I dropped it in like 2009. Got back on briefly around the election, realized it was a mistake, immediately deleted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 21:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 06:02 |
|
|
Warmachine posted:It's all over my Facebook, and leads me to wonder if Facebook's algorithm tracks how much blatant communism poo poo I post, or if they just don't care. Their classifies probably think you're interested in politics and economics, and the campaign is targeting those groups.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 21:45
|
|