|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 15 2019 23:12 Plansix wrote:
Lucky for you the FBI is currently being raked over the coals for daring to investigate potential wrong doing by political figures. They don’t seem like much of a threat at this time. Now the NSA, that might be a different story.
I’m reluctant to read into national polls right now, mostly because I can’t tell how much is just name recognition over anything else.
I mean I probably should have just put "the alphabet agencies".
They are useful for identifying trends, but aren't necessarily reflective of final percentages by far. If you're polling in <3% category for 3 months you can go ahead and call that campaign dead.
the 7%+ are viable tier 2's
Bernie's the front runner and Biden is the polling wild card (with somewhat predictable fallout).
The other thing we have to do is take them in context to fundraising, volunteers, and potential. This is why of all the polling Biden's number is the most worthless and Buttigieg is the strongest tier 2 at the moment in polling but probably not overall.
It's not scientific but Buttigieg's reddit seems to be markedly more populated than any other candidate besides Bernie. This indicates to me the most active young volunteer base and potential for growth other than Beto since he does have an extensive support network in Texas (which is also on Super Tuesday).
Looking at poll in itself as gospel this early is silly, taking it into context with the overall political landscape can be quite informative.
On April 15 2019 23:23 Wombat_NI wrote:
Bernie/AOC dream team. I mean yes she’s too young I realise this, but the entertainment value would be immense.
On a more serious note I’m not sure the candidate matters all that much as long as they aren’t absolutely terrible, purely in terms of winning the election.
In a straight shoot-out I think the full gamut of moderate to European left style policies could conceivably win
I have my personal preferences of course, plus the political ground could shift too. I feel the never Trump and the avowed Trump supporters are pretty set in stone, the variables are the undecided but also getting those who didn’t vote last time and were unenthused, back out doing so.
Trump himself controls a lot in terms of his appeal to the vague centre, so we’ll have to see how he does. Enthusing non-voters from the Dem base is really dependent on who the candidate is, although it was such a tight election last time anyway that you could still conceivably win without a return to Obama’s turnout, or anywhere near.
I'm going against typical political wisdom and agreeing with you that getting someone to vote (especially someone who has voted before) is a better and more effective strategy than trying to convince anyone who voted Trump reluctantly or not. Also that there's more than enough of those voters in the Dem base to win, as well as some more to the left of them.
|
Northern Ireland26235 Posts
On April 15 2019 23:12 Plansix wrote:
Lucky for you the FBI is currently being raked over the coals for daring to investigate potential wrong doing by political figures. They don’t seem like much of a threat at this time. Now the NSA, that might be a different story.
I’m reluctant to read into national polls right now, mostly because I can’t tell how much is just name recognition over anything else.
Yeah it’s way too early, and things shift pretty quickly. Plus previous metrics like fundraising numbers aren’t as useful as they used to be in a predictive sense:
I mean I do enjoy it, we’re very much at the stage where politics nerds are having our fun and some groundwork is being laid, but until we shift out of that zone into full campaign mode where everyone else gets exposed to candidates it’s difficult to make even informed guesses.
|
Speaking of polls,
New RCP polls out showing trump beating Warren, Pete, and Tied with Harris.
This is the first time I have seen trump over anyone in a general election poll. I know it is early but it is still cool to see that 2020 might actually be a fight. (He still is crushed by sanders and Biden)
|
On April 15 2019 23:31 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2019 23:12 Plansix wrote:
Lucky for you the FBI is currently being raked over the coals for daring to investigate potential wrong doing by political figures. They don’t seem like much of a threat at this time. Now the NSA, that might be a different story.
I’m reluctant to read into national polls right now, mostly because I can’t tell how much is just name recognition over anything else. Yeah it’s way too early, and things shift pretty quickly. Plus previous metrics like fundraising numbers aren’t as useful as they used to be in a predictive sense: I mean I do enjoy it, we’re very much at the stage where politics nerds are having our fun and some groundwork is being laid, but until we shift out of that zone into full campaign mode where everyone else gets exposed to candidates it’s difficult to make even informed guesses.
Yeah. It is interesting to see who is gaining traction in the discourse. But since we are all in our own weird social media and information bubbles, it is harder and harder to tell how that will translate into reality. I'm interested to see who throws in the towel before Iowa even happens.
Edit: head to head polls at this point are very strange in the primary and don't that predictive. I honestly don't know why they are conducted at this point in the process.
|
On April 15 2019 23:31 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2019 23:12 Plansix wrote:
Lucky for you the FBI is currently being raked over the coals for daring to investigate potential wrong doing by political figures. They don’t seem like much of a threat at this time. Now the NSA, that might be a different story.
I’m reluctant to read into national polls right now, mostly because I can’t tell how much is just name recognition over anything else. Yeah it’s way too early, and things shift pretty quickly. Plus previous metrics like fundraising numbers aren’t as useful as they used to be in a predictive sense: I mean I do enjoy it, we’re very much at the stage where politics nerds are having our fun and some groundwork is being laid, but until we shift out of that zone into full campaign mode where everyone else gets exposed to candidates it’s difficult to make even informed guesses.
Yes P6 brings up a valuable point about how their name recognition can further inform us about the value of the poll numbers.
Buttigieg is the least known t2 candidate indicating that he can expect to see further growth as he becomes more well known unless or until the negative stories start coming out.
So he basically ends Booker's run outside of winning SC.
fwiw my political circle couldn't care less about electoral politics so I have to just go out into the wide world to gather data and assess it myself.
|
Northern Ireland26235 Posts
On April 15 2019 23:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2019 23:31 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 15 2019 23:12 Plansix wrote:
Lucky for you the FBI is currently being raked over the coals for daring to investigate potential wrong doing by political figures. They don’t seem like much of a threat at this time. Now the NSA, that might be a different story.
I’m reluctant to read into national polls right now, mostly because I can’t tell how much is just name recognition over anything else. Yeah it’s way too early, and things shift pretty quickly. Plus previous metrics like fundraising numbers aren’t as useful as they used to be in a predictive sense: I mean I do enjoy it, we’re very much at the stage where politics nerds are having our fun and some groundwork is being laid, but until we shift out of that zone into full campaign mode where everyone else gets exposed to candidates it’s difficult to make even informed guesses. Yeah. It is interesting to see who is gaining traction in the discourse. But since we are all in our own weird social media and information bubbles, it is harder and harder to tell how that will translate into reality. I'm interested to see who throws in the towel before Iowa even happens.
Absolutely, especially around Biden of late. Think that’s the most interesting potential early dropout we could conceivably see.
|
On April 15 2019 22:50 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2019 14:22 ChristianS wrote:On April 15 2019 13:14 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2019 13:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 15 2019 13:07 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2019 13:02 Zambrah wrote:On April 15 2019 12:51 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2019 12:32 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 15 2019 11:39 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2019 11:36 ShambhalaWar wrote:
[quote]
Spoken like a true believer! Who really doesn't believe in it all that much. Do you realy want to question the measure of one's faith based on your opinion of their religion? My statement had as much to do with opinions about a religion as his statement about the good samaritan had to do with the teachings of Jesus. Questioning faith is healthy, unquestioned faith amounts to dogma and is dangerous. The Christian church of all institutions has a pretty horrible record of preaching values/faith and then hurting people through actions outside of those very same values/faith. People frequently like to take religion and repurpose the teaching to serve their purposes, such as in this case... the teachings of Jesus didn't preach border walls and child separation, that's not secret knowledge. His teachings did preach helping those who are hurting and in need of help... When someone comes to our country seeking asylum, those are by definition those people. My post was about questioning the measure of ones faith based on your opinion of their religion. Questioning ones religion is one thing but questioning how much someone believes based on your opinion of their religion is something completely different. You made an attack on someone's faith based on your generalized opinion about his religion while referencing a parable that was about how you can't generalize your opinion of people. God was talking about caring for one's community and the poor and hurting people in ones own community moreso the congregation then society itself. He was not advocating for taking in the poor or caring for the poor of other communities for the sake of impoversing the community. How can you claim to understand what God meant? The same as what you can say he didn't mean. The power of imagination? That's a bit flippant but I'm also serious. That's a bit more than flippant. But because you at least acknowledged it we're talking about faith and religion so to be a dick enough to turn this into a "her der how do you know thats what he ment" Disqualifies you from getting a decent response in my book. How shitty of an argument do you have to have ready if you're going to go even farther and try to bring "how can you claim to understand what god meant" 1.trying to disqualify me having a legitimate faith 2. trying to make this a fact based argument 3. trying to disqualify me from having an opinion in the first place. Nothing good is going to come next in this conversation so might as well head it off at the pass. Maybe I misunderstood you, but it sounded like you were explicitly saying "all that Jesus stuff about helping the poor and needy was only talking about helping people in your own community, God didn't mean we have to take in poor/needy from other communities too." If I misunderstood you, I'd certainly appreciate clarification, because otherwise, I simply don't understand how you came to that conclusion. Where does Jesus suggest his teachings only apply to ingroups? Isn't it worth noting the Good Samaritan was, well, a Samaritan (that is, for purposes of this discussion, not from the same community as the man he helped)? If anything, basically everything in the New Testament is about spreading God's love, not just within the Israelite community, but to everyone, everywhere. How, then, can someone conclude "oh, help those asylum seekers who are showing up in our country desperately in need? Surely God didn't mean to help them"? Your post is exactly what I was talking about. Instead of understanding that we're talking about religion you're going to try and get us into an argument based on logic and reason. Thats not the point. Stop trying to argue reason and logic on an empethetic and belief based discussion.
I meant no offense. I only wanted to better understand what you believe and why; clearly you’re not looking for that kind of attention, so I apologize.
|
Trump is back to attacking the Mueller report, which is coming out Thursday, despite claiming total exoneration. I suspect the facts on obstruction are not going to look too great for him.
|
Total exoneration! Also fake news! Democrats! Hillary! Obama!
It would surprise me if anything came out of this supposedly heavily redacted report, but the fact that Trump is squirming on the basis that it might just goes to show how hilariously guilty he knows he is.
|
On April 16 2019 01:56 Excludos wrote:Total exoneration! Also fake news! Democrats! Hillary! Obama! It would surprise me if anything came out of this supposedly heavily redacted report, but the fact that Trump is squirming on the basis that it might just goes to show how hilariously guilty he knows he is. I don't expect it to be to heavily redacted.
If it is the Democrats will simply not stop screaming for it to be released.
Better to show it and hope people forget by the time elections come around.
|
On April 16 2019 01:57 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2019 01:56 Excludos wrote:Total exoneration! Also fake news! Democrats! Hillary! Obama! It would surprise me if anything came out of this supposedly heavily redacted report, but the fact that Trump is squirming on the basis that it might just goes to show how hilariously guilty he knows he is. I don't expect it to be to heavily redacted. If it is the Democrats will simply not stop screaming for it to be released. Better to show it and hope people forget by the time elections come around.
There's always excuses to be made. It is being redacted for security reasons, and there are absolutely no way of knowing if the parts that are redacted are information on active spies or an erotically formulated summary of the pee pee tape. So if anyone whines about it they can just claim it's for security reasons.
|
I'm not expecting much out of the report beyond it showing that the Trump team was seeking foreign aid during the election, were happy to take meetings offering it and felt no need to report any of this to anyone. It is just a question of how plain the language is on that subject and the obstruction.
|
I don't think it matters what's in the Mueller report redacted or not politically speaking.
Even if the Mueller report had a check signed from Trump to Putin with "2016 election" on the memo line it doesn't really change the calculus imo.
Mueller didn't recommend charges so congress isn't bringing impeachment before 2020, which wouldn't really matter anyway since Republicans would ride it out before impeaching their own president amid an election, especially one more popular than they are in their primary.
So it's down to voters to oust Trump in 2020 of which the Mueller report shouldn't even be a blip on the campaign. Any candidate who can't win without the Mueller report practically clearing Trump should just drop out now imo.
EDIT: Provided Bernie is releasing his returns tonight, doing it on his Fox Town Hall is kinda politically brilliant even if I have my disagreements with it ethically.
|
Agreed, the report won’t prompt impeachment the way the Nixon tapes did. It will just be more fuel on the fire for 2020. The only thing that would change the impeachment discussion is something like the President being caught on tape telling border patrol to commit a crime and he would pardon them. Something that is impossible to spin or ignore. Absent that, it will just be the Republicans keeping their heads down and hoping there is no crisis in the next 2 years.
|
On April 16 2019 02:30 Plansix wrote:
Agreed, the report won’t prompt impeachment the way the Nixon tapes did. It will just be more fuel on the fire for 2020. The only thing that would change the impeachment discussion is something like the President being caught on tape telling border patrol to commit a crime and he would pardon them. Something that is impossible to spin or ignore. Absent that, it will just be the Republicans keeping their heads down and hoping there is no crisis in the next 2 years.
You really think so? I don't see a political upside for either side in pursuing impeachment at this point regardless of what comes out? I don't think anyone has even so much as speculated who those 16+ Republican senators would be to actually remove him. I caution Democrats on thinking it's fuel too, it may be, just for the wrong fire.
|
On April 16 2019 02:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2019 02:30 Plansix wrote:
Agreed, the report won’t prompt impeachment the way the Nixon tapes did. It will just be more fuel on the fire for 2020. The only thing that would change the impeachment discussion is something like the President being caught on tape telling border patrol to commit a crime and he would pardon them. Something that is impossible to spin or ignore. Absent that, it will just be the Republicans keeping their heads down and hoping there is no crisis in the next 2 years. You really think so? I don't see a political upside for either side in pursuing impeachment at this point regardless of what comes out? I don't think anyone has even so much as speculated who those 16+ Republican senators would be to actually remove him. I caution Democrats on thinking it's fuel too, it may be, just for the wrong fire.
The impeachment of Nixon seemed impossible and turned around in like 7 days. When it is not longer possible to deny that the President is conspiring to commit criminal acts to further his agenda or protect himself, it changes the political calculation.
Right now there is deniability of some form. They can blame the Democrats, the deep state, the globalist and so on. A tape of Trump overtly and clearly telling someone to break the law, as an example, and receive a pardon would remove final defense. That is what the Nixon tapes did. It removed any ability to deny that Nixon was involved with a crime and the cover up of said crime.
That being said, you might be right and the Republicans in the Senate are completely feckless and would just ignore all of it. But they don’t have as firm of a hold on the Senate as they going into the mid-terms, so there might be enough of them that are worried about losing their seat.
|
On April 16 2019 02:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2019 02:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2019 02:30 Plansix wrote:
Agreed, the report won’t prompt impeachment the way the Nixon tapes did. It will just be more fuel on the fire for 2020. The only thing that would change the impeachment discussion is something like the President being caught on tape telling border patrol to commit a crime and he would pardon them. Something that is impossible to spin or ignore. Absent that, it will just be the Republicans keeping their heads down and hoping there is no crisis in the next 2 years. You really think so? I don't see a political upside for either side in pursuing impeachment at this point regardless of what comes out? I don't think anyone has even so much as speculated who those 16+ Republican senators would be to actually remove him. I caution Democrats on thinking it's fuel too, it may be, just for the wrong fire. The impeachment of Nixon seemed impossible and turned around in like 7 days. When it is not longer possible to deny that the President is conspiring to commit criminal acts to further his agenda or protect himself, it changes the political calculation. Right now there is deniability of some form. They can blame the Democrats, the deep state, the globalist and so on. A tape of Trump overtly and clearly telling someone to break the law, as an example, and receive a pardon would remove final defense. That is what the Nixon tapes did. It removed any ability to deny that Nixon was involved with a crime and the cover up of said crime. That being said, you might be right and the Republicans in the Senate are completely feckless and would just ignore all of it. But they don’t have as firm of a hold on the Senate as they going into the mid-terms, so there might be enough of them that are worried about losing their seat.
I'm of the opinion Trump could shoot someone on 5th ave in broad daylight and not lose voters, therefore not lose senators, and therefore not get impeached. They aren't sure Trump will recognize losing an election, let alone an impeachment. Trump succeeded imo in making the negatives outweigh any potential positives from impeachment this late into the game.
Democrats need to let impeachment go and focus on a real 2020 strategy at this point, they've lost far too much time already imo.
As to the 2020 senate it's a pretty safe slim majority for Republicans especially with Manchin endorsing Susan Collins. It takes everyone up (minus the very safe seats) plus the usual opposition Republicans just to have a chance and not all of them are in races where running away from Trump is an option.
|
On April 16 2019 03:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2019 02:48 Plansix wrote:On April 16 2019 02:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2019 02:30 Plansix wrote:
Agreed, the report won’t prompt impeachment the way the Nixon tapes did. It will just be more fuel on the fire for 2020. The only thing that would change the impeachment discussion is something like the President being caught on tape telling border patrol to commit a crime and he would pardon them. Something that is impossible to spin or ignore. Absent that, it will just be the Republicans keeping their heads down and hoping there is no crisis in the next 2 years. You really think so? I don't see a political upside for either side in pursuing impeachment at this point regardless of what comes out? I don't think anyone has even so much as speculated who those 16+ Republican senators would be to actually remove him. I caution Democrats on thinking it's fuel too, it may be, just for the wrong fire. The impeachment of Nixon seemed impossible and turned around in like 7 days. When it is not longer possible to deny that the President is conspiring to commit criminal acts to further his agenda or protect himself, it changes the political calculation. Right now there is deniability of some form. They can blame the Democrats, the deep state, the globalist and so on. A tape of Trump overtly and clearly telling someone to break the law, as an example, and receive a pardon would remove final defense. That is what the Nixon tapes did. It removed any ability to deny that Nixon was involved with a crime and the cover up of said crime. That being said, you might be right and the Republicans in the Senate are completely feckless and would just ignore all of it. But they don’t have as firm of a hold on the Senate as they going into the mid-terms, so there might be enough of them that are worried about losing their seat. I'm of the opinion Trump could shoot someone on 5th ave in broad daylight and not lose voters, therefore not lose senators, and therefore not get impeached. They aren't sure Trump will recognize losing an election, let alone an impeachment. Trump succeeded imo in making the negatives outweigh any potential positives from impeachment this late into the game. Democrats need to let impeachment go and focus on a real 2020 strategy at this point, they've lost far too much time already imo. As to the 2020 senate it's a pretty safe slim majority for Republicans especially with Manchin endorsing Susan Collins. It takes everyone up (minus the very safe seats) plus the usual opposition Republicans just to have a chance and not all of them are in races where running away from Trump is an option.
The senate in impossible to predict this far out, but the Republicans are facing an uphill battle. Last election they were facing the most advantageous map for the senate that any party had seen in a century and only picked up 2 seats. This time they are defending 20+ and a lot of those states could be in play. And in 2016 the Democrats picked up seats in the senate, despite Trump winning the election. Just think if they didn’t have a trash candidate in 2016 the number of seats they might have had?
|
On April 16 2019 03:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2019 03:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2019 02:48 Plansix wrote:On April 16 2019 02:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2019 02:30 Plansix wrote:
Agreed, the report won’t prompt impeachment the way the Nixon tapes did. It will just be more fuel on the fire for 2020. The only thing that would change the impeachment discussion is something like the President being caught on tape telling border patrol to commit a crime and he would pardon them. Something that is impossible to spin or ignore. Absent that, it will just be the Republicans keeping their heads down and hoping there is no crisis in the next 2 years. You really think so? I don't see a political upside for either side in pursuing impeachment at this point regardless of what comes out? I don't think anyone has even so much as speculated who those 16+ Republican senators would be to actually remove him. I caution Democrats on thinking it's fuel too, it may be, just for the wrong fire. The impeachment of Nixon seemed impossible and turned around in like 7 days. When it is not longer possible to deny that the President is conspiring to commit criminal acts to further his agenda or protect himself, it changes the political calculation. Right now there is deniability of some form. They can blame the Democrats, the deep state, the globalist and so on. A tape of Trump overtly and clearly telling someone to break the law, as an example, and receive a pardon would remove final defense. That is what the Nixon tapes did. It removed any ability to deny that Nixon was involved with a crime and the cover up of said crime. That being said, you might be right and the Republicans in the Senate are completely feckless and would just ignore all of it. But they don’t have as firm of a hold on the Senate as they going into the mid-terms, so there might be enough of them that are worried about losing their seat. I'm of the opinion Trump could shoot someone on 5th ave in broad daylight and not lose voters, therefore not lose senators, and therefore not get impeached. They aren't sure Trump will recognize losing an election, let alone an impeachment. Trump succeeded imo in making the negatives outweigh any potential positives from impeachment this late into the game. Democrats need to let impeachment go and focus on a real 2020 strategy at this point, they've lost far too much time already imo. As to the 2020 senate it's a pretty safe slim majority for Republicans especially with Manchin endorsing Susan Collins. It takes everyone up (minus the very safe seats) plus the usual opposition Republicans just to have a chance and not all of them are in races where running away from Trump is an option. The senate in impossible to predict this far out, but the Republicans are facing an uphill battle. Last election they were facing the most advantageous map for the senate that any party had seen in a century and only picked up 2 seats. This time they are defending 20+ and a lot of those states could be in play. And in 2016 the Democrats picked up seats in the senate, despite Trump winning the election. Just think if they didn’t have a trash candidate in 2016 the number of seats they might have had?
Fair points, seems the experts only have 3 senators currently in the "toss-up" bucket and Doug Jones (D) is probably the most sure to lose his seat. Then Colorado, and maybe Arizona. While Republicans have a lot of seats up, it's not really that bad of a year considering their relative safety even this long into the Trump administration.
Abrams is probably the best shot Dems have to take a seat candidate wise but faces an uphill battle in her state. It's unlikely either party ends up with more than a single vote majority (which is less secure/rigidly in line than Republicans small majorities).
But considering a blowout would still leave Dems several votes shy, even with Republican defectors impeachment and Mueller should be put to rest as far as a 2020 election strategy from my perspective. They've garnered nothing politically and little legally, while sucking nearly all the political oxygen.
|
Northern Ireland26235 Posts
On April 16 2019 03:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2019 02:48 Plansix wrote:On April 16 2019 02:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2019 02:30 Plansix wrote:
Agreed, the report won’t prompt impeachment the way the Nixon tapes did. It will just be more fuel on the fire for 2020. The only thing that would change the impeachment discussion is something like the President being caught on tape telling border patrol to commit a crime and he would pardon them. Something that is impossible to spin or ignore. Absent that, it will just be the Republicans keeping their heads down and hoping there is no crisis in the next 2 years. You really think so? I don't see a political upside for either side in pursuing impeachment at this point regardless of what comes out? I don't think anyone has even so much as speculated who those 16+ Republican senators would be to actually remove him. I caution Democrats on thinking it's fuel too, it may be, just for the wrong fire. The impeachment of Nixon seemed impossible and turned around in like 7 days. When it is not longer possible to deny that the President is conspiring to commit criminal acts to further his agenda or protect himself, it changes the political calculation. Right now there is deniability of some form. They can blame the Democrats, the deep state, the globalist and so on. A tape of Trump overtly and clearly telling someone to break the law, as an example, and receive a pardon would remove final defense. That is what the Nixon tapes did. It removed any ability to deny that Nixon was involved with a crime and the cover up of said crime. That being said, you might be right and the Republicans in the Senate are completely feckless and would just ignore all of it. But they don’t have as firm of a hold on the Senate as they going into the mid-terms, so there might be enough of them that are worried about losing their seat. I'm of the opinion Trump could shoot someone on 5th ave in broad daylight and not lose voters, therefore not lose senators, and therefore not get impeached. They aren't sure Trump will recognize losing an election, let alone an impeachment. Trump succeeded imo in making the negatives outweigh any potential positives from impeachment this late into the game. Democrats need to let impeachment go and focus on a real 2020 strategy at this point, they've lost far too much time already imo. As to the 2020 senate it's a pretty safe slim majority for Republicans especially with Manchin endorsing Susan Collins. It takes everyone up (minus the very safe seats) plus the usual opposition Republicans just to have a chance and not all of them are in races where running away from Trump is an option.
I tend to that line of thinking myself.
Trying, for quite a sustained period to find a smoking gun that will actually work isn’t without political damage being occurred of some form.
Political damage at this stage IMO that is only counteracted and worthwhile to take if you pull the sword of the stone out.
Finding/confirming no amount of other shady shit about Trump in the process doesn’t really matter all that much. It hasn’t worked thus far, why would that change?
Watergate was a different era and timeframe, although not irrelevant in the discussion either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
