Donald Trump

[LANS]

I don't think the risk of impeachment vote is driving any more division in american society than already exists. That 50/50 is a reflection of the increasing polarization of US society and continued shift from voting behaviour as policy choice to tribalism. A lot of voters in the US claim to vote on proposed policy and the character of the representative, but very few actually do vote based on policy and character of the representative. A 50/50 split is what you would expect the national support to be for two sports teams, neither associated with any specific city or state, and who only played each other.



In other interesting related recent research:
https://news.byu.edu/news/does-politica ... p-ideology
and:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 87186.html

[ryujin]

QUOTE (LANS @ Dec 19 2018, 11:33 AM) I don't think the risk of impeachment vote is driving any more division in american society than already exists. That 50/50 is a reflection of the increasing polarization of US society and continued shift from voting behaviour as policy choice to tribalism. A lot of voters in the US claim to vote on proposed policy and the character of the representative, but very few actually do vote based on policy and character of the representative. A 50/50 split is what you would expect the national support to be for two sports teams, neither associated with any specific city or state, and who only played each other.

I really hate the tribalism, and the part I play in it. I don't like voting straight dem- and take me back 70 years, even 20 and I would consider voting for a republican. But the current republican party is so screwed up, between making it their goal to stop anything a black president does no matter the cost, to the literal election fraud going on in the south, to the party platform that seems to be anti- any non-white minority, to promoting abstinence over sex ed, while at the same time reducing access to contraception while claiming to want to reduce abortions, while they really want healthcare to be a profitable thing and not a service for people, and maybe the @#(!tiest of all, their flat denial of climate change. For all those reasons, and others, I am forced to be "tribalized" and vote for dems.
If there was ranked voting, I would gladly vote 3rd party.
If there was a common sense republican that I felt I could trust, I would vote for them. But the fact is, all the good (and self aware) republicans are renouncing their republican status, because they have seen how corrupt and out of touch their party has become.

Heres 1

Two

Three

Four

Five

[zombywoof]

QUOTE (Dome @ Dec 19 2018, 02:06 AM) He hasn't been impeached because dems know he won't resign so it will only cause crisis and further divide.

I think he hasn't been impeached because it's not yet time for that play. I think acquittal by the senate could very, VERY well be part of a political play to take the senate and the whitehouse in 2020. I think right now the Democrats would be best served biding their time a little, pointing out each of the policy $#@!ups that DJT makes, catching him in more of those interviews where he comes across as childish and foolish, and then when Mueller's like "here it is," THEN you pounce on impeachment. The goal isn't even to remove him from office, imo, it's to split the base maybe 80-20 on the subject and convince a solid portion of conservative voters that "yeah whatever else DJT cannot be allowed to be President."

QUOTE (Papsmear @ Dec 19 2018, 04:49 AM) P1 that was a mistake on my part mentioning Nixon along with Clinton being impeached.
I'm aware of the details of what happened to Nixon and why he resigned as the POTUS.

That puts you ahead of an estimated 95% of Americans, so I hope you won't be too offended by my assumption that you know as much about American history as the average American

[cashto]

QUOTE (phoenix1 @ Dec 19 2018, 09:33 AM) I think he hasn't been impeached because it's not yet time for that play. I think acquittal by the senate could very, VERY well be part of a political play to take the senate and the whitehouse in 2020. I think right now the Democrats would be best served biding their time a little, pointing out each of the policy $#@!ups that DJT makes, catching him in more of those interviews where he comes across as childish and foolish, and then when Mueller's like "here it is," THEN you pounce on impeachment. The goal isn't even to remove him from office, imo, it's to split the base maybe 80-20 on the subject and convince a solid portion of conservative voters that "yeah whatever else DJT cannot be allowed to be President."

That's a really, really bold play that sounds like it could easily backfire.

Dems can make their case to the people without necessarily making it in the Senate. There's really no downside to doing that. Trump supporters will over time lose the enthusiasm to show up to vote for the man a second time.

But once impeachment is on the table, Trump voters could definitely see that as attack on them and rally around the president in response.

Clinton's popularity went up when he was impeached. Of course Democrats went on to lose the White House in 2000, but that had more to do with Al Gore (and Florida) than Clinton. If Clinton could have run for a third term I am positive he would have won.

I think it's too much to expect that Republican voters will ever turn against Trump. The base will always be there, the best that can be hoped for is that they just lose the motivation to show up. I really find it highly unlikely that Republicans will show up in 2020 with the intent of punishing their Senator for their vote to acquit Trump.

[Papsmear]

QUOTE (LANS @ Dec 19 2018, 10:33 AM) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 87186.html

That atricle seems to explain the posting habits of certain members of this community.
No need to name names, you know who you are.

[zombywoof]

QUOTE (cashto @ Dec 19 2018, 09:57 AM) That's a really, really bold play that sounds like it could easily backfire.

Dems can make their case to the people without necessarily making it in the Senate. There's really no downside to doing that. Trump supporters will over time lose the enthusiasm to show up to vote for the man a second time.

But once impeachment is on the table, Trump voters could definitely see that as attack on them and rally around the president in response.

Clinton's popularity went up when he was impeached. Of course Democrats went on to lose the White House in 2000, but that had more to do with Al Gore (and Florida) than Clinton. If Clinton could have run for a third term I am positive he would have won.

I think it's too much to expect that Republican voters will ever turn against Trump. The base will always be there, the best that can be hoped for is that they just lose the motivation to show up. I really find it highly unlikely that Republicans will show up in 2020 with the intent of punishing their Senator for their vote to acquit Trump.

I think you're expecting this impeachment to be like the impeachment of Clinton rather than the (threat of) impeachment of Nixon. This impeachment, if it comes, won't be some sort of "gotcha!" moment where Trump is nailed to the wall because he was involved in an affair and lied about it. This impeachment is going to be "you sold this country out to Putin and the Chinese to line your own pockets and leave us with the bill." There is a good chance it backfires, but also a good chance that a 40% approval rating president is about to find himself in the middle of the biggest corruption scandal of American history and that the Democrats can position themselves as "defenders of the Republic."

This isn't about shutting the Republicans out of power entirely, they've got too much of a base for that. It's about following up the stunning popular-vote rebuke of the Republican Party that occurred in 2018 with a counterpunch to the effect of "now you are going to have to answer as to why your Presidential candidate in 2016 bowed to dictators around the world and took their money while letting them do whatever they want on stage." The 40% base will remain central to the party, but the last time someone won 40% of the popular vote? Bob Dole 159, Bill Clinton 379. Granted, those were split-ticket years for the Republicans (with Ross Perot taking millions of voteS) so you could also look at Mondale v Reagan in '84 or Carter v Reagan in '80.

And sufficient pressure against the Republican party can help weaken already weaker Republican senate seats. Susane Collins, Corey Gardner, Joni Ernst, Tom Tillis, and the Arizona seat are challengeable. Even writing off Doug Jones' seat (since Alabama will probably not nominate another pedophile), the Democrats need four of the five which is a tall ask. But look how close Stacey Abrams came to winning Georgia. Alaska may be red, but Lisa Murkowski has taken steps to distance herself from the President's policies already.

The Democrats are poised with a coup de grace attempt that might actually work and could probably be spun in a way that makes it seem like "this is what's best for the country." If they're not at least thinking about it I want them all fired for political malfeasance.

[LANS]

QUOTE (Ryujin @ Dec 19 2018, 10:53 AM)

I'm not blaming the Dems here.

[Papsmear]

The Democrats can easily beat Trump if they can just provide a charismatic candidate not named Clinton or Sanders that has a moderate platform and impeccable credentials. Republicans that are either unhappy with Trump and his 40% approval rating or fringe party affiliates can easily be swayed buy a great candidate from the Democratic party.
Any good/great suggestions?

[ryujin]

QUOTE (Papsmear @ Dec 19 2018, 06:54 PM) The Democrats can easily beat Trump if they can just provide a charismatic candidate not named Clinton or Sanders that has a moderate platform and impeccable credentials. Republicans that are either unhappy with Trump and his 40% approval rating or fringe party affiliates can easily be swayed buy a great candidate from the Democratic party.
Any good/great suggestions?

DOME FOR PREZ

[Mastametz]

There hasn't been much in the way of presidential frontrunners I could take seriously within my lifetime (or at least the portion of it where I was old enough to care about politics, which started with GWB administration). Mostly it's all seemed like a bad joke.

Obama I actually had high hopes for being a professional of constitutional law? But I think his election furthered what I suspected - that it doesn't really matter who is elected if you're backed by the DNC or the GOP because if they back you as their candidate it means once you're elected you pretty much have to do as you're told.

Trump notwithstanding because he doesn't need their money nor care to have any friends there.

But the republican party can pick up the pieces of their party after he's through and then they'll at least have their conservative supreme court justices locked in thanks to Trump.