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.
On November 23 2019 08:46 Sermokala wrote: Impeachment won't even show up in the senate. McConnell can just refuse to receive the articles of impeachment and end it there.
Latest impeachment polling suggests McConnell won't have to try. 538 has opposing impeachment just .1% behind support (both under 50%) in the average with it having actually flipped to a plurality against impeachment in the latest Emerson poll
Just a heads up, that update they did is based on a single thousand person poll that is significantly out of line with every other poll that has come out in the last 2 weeks. I would suggest waiting to see if it was just a one-off rather than taking that poll as gospel. If you look at 538's data, there have been several occasions already where similar things have happened, (in one case, support dropped ~3% for one day on October 7th before jumping back up the next time polls were added). If the trend continues, then we can take it seriously, but as of right now, it's just a single poll that disagrees by over 10% for both the Democrat and Republican numbers with two polls that came out the day before. For the Democrats, that Emerson poll had high 60%s versus the high 70s and low 80s of all of the other polls, and for Republicans it was 22%(!!!!!) versus ~10% in all the other polls. I can't see Republican support of impeachment jumping 10% in a single day. Something seems funky about that Emerson poll.
Not to mention that poll was done prior to the two days perceived to be the most damaging to Trump. I'd recommend waiting until the polling comes out next week before making any conclusions about the influence of the hearings.
On November 23 2019 06:02 jrkirby wrote: Would a senate trial change the calculus of getting witness testimony? Right now, people are ignoring House subpoenas. But a trial in the Senate would be presided by the SC Chief Justice. Surely people can't simply ignore it if the subpoenas come from him on behalf of the Senate, can they? What would the process look like there?
Wouldn't the Senate need to be the ones pushing for that? Trump can be impeached because the House has a majority of Democrats, but the Senate Republicans won't turn on Trump.
So I'm not sure exactly how it works. But I thought that since the Chief Justice was presiding, they would be able to decide on which witnesses were relevant to the case, and let them be subpoena'd, in a nonpartisan manner. Perhaps I have too much faith in the system.
On November 23 2019 08:46 Sermokala wrote: Impeachment won't even show up in the senate. McConnell can just refuse to receive the articles of impeachment and end it there.
Latest impeachment polling suggests McConnell won't have to try. 538 has opposing impeachment just .1% behind support (both under 50%) in the average with it having actually flipped to a plurality against impeachment in the latest Emerson poll
Just a heads up, that update they did is based on a single poll that is significantly out of line with every other poll that has come out in the last 2 weeks. I would suggest waiting to see if it was just a one-off rather than taking that poll as gospel. If you look at 538's data, there have been several occasions already where similar things have happened, (in one case, support dropped ~3% for one day before jumping back up the next time polls were added). If the trend continues, then we can take it seriously, but as of right now, it's just a single poll that disagrees by over 10% for both the Democrat and Republican numbers with two polls that came out the day before.
Their polling average has support for impeachment trending down for over a month now and it never got to 50%. I understand people getting sucked into the Mueller gag, but "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice..."
Not to mention that poll was done prior to the two days perceived to be the most damaging to Trump. I'd recommend waiting until the polling comes out next week before making any conclusions about the influence of the hearings...
It's going to go like every other time we've done the "wait till X then Trump will be done for" we've had for the last 3 years
On November 23 2019 08:46 Sermokala wrote: Impeachment won't even show up in the senate. McConnell can just refuse to receive the articles of impeachment and end it there.
Latest impeachment polling suggests McConnell won't have to try. 538 has opposing impeachment just .1% behind support (both under 50%) in the average with it having actually flipped to a plurality against impeachment in the latest Emerson poll
Just a heads up, that update they did is based on a single poll that is significantly out of line with every other poll that has come out in the last 2 weeks. I would suggest waiting to see if it was just a one-off rather than taking that poll as gospel. If you look at 538's data, there have been several occasions already where similar things have happened, (in one case, support dropped ~3% for one day before jumping back up the next time polls were added). If the trend continues, then we can take it seriously, but as of right now, it's just a single poll that disagrees by over 10% for both the Democrat and Republican numbers with two polls that came out the day before.
Their polling average has support for impeachment trending down for over a month now and it never got to 50%. I understand people getting sucked into the Mueller gag, but fool me once shame on you, fool me twice.
I'm aware of that. I'm just saying as a person with a statistics background, don't take single polls as gospel. You're reading things into my post that aren't there. I've looked at 538's data a great deal. I am aware that support hasn't hit 50% in the last few weeks and is slowly trending downward (though mostly still within margin of error). That's not my point. Your post was referencing a sudden one-day 1% dip in their aggregation that is influenced heavily by a single poll with significantly different results than multiple other polls from the last few days, so I pointed out the reasons to potentially be skeptical of that poll. Do you not think it's odd that this poll shows Republican support for impeachment has doubled overnight?
Polls that are statistical anomalies happen all the time. We saw a bunch of them in the last Canadian election, and it's no different for things like this too. That's why I said to wait and see if other polls reflect similar trends before making any conclusions.
If I'm reading the 538 page correctly, (unless you press the button to say otherwise) they are combining questions about support for opening an impeachment inquiry, etc. with questions about whether Trump should be actually impeached/removed/etc. I would expect the first kind of question to (a) result in more "support" responses and (b) to have been asked (proportionally) less as time went on, and therefore be contributing less to the average.
When only looking at the second kind of question, the trend is far less distinct.
(Furthermore there is another distinction between "impeach" and "impeach and remove" that isn't taken account of at all. In general the question is being asked with very little consistency.)
On November 23 2019 11:20 Aquanim wrote: If I'm reading the 538 page correctly, (unless you press the button to say otherwise) they are combining questions about support for opening an impeachment inquiry, etc. with questions about whether Trump should be actually impeached/removed/etc. I would expect the first kind of question to (a) result in more "support" responses and (b) to have been asked (proportionally) less as time went on, and therefore be contributing less to the average.
When only looking at the second kind of question, the trend is far less distinct.
You are correct. It's rather bizarre that they're combining polling on questions like "Should President Trump be impeached and removed from office?" and "Do you approve or disapprove of Congressional Democrats starting an impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump?" in their datasets and combining them in their main graph (as you mentioned, there's 3 different graphs on the page, but it's not immediately clear since they're hidden by poorly advertised radio buttons). I think it would be much more useful to just show two graphs: one with support for impeachment proceedings, and one with support for removal, and treat them entirely separately in terms of data (they already have this, but they hide it behind that dumb overall graph that's useless). For example, the proceedings graph graph has been stable at above 50% support for almost a month now. The removal graph has been the one with the most shifting. They also should be addressing undecided answers in a much more transparent way than they currently are. Right now they don't really show the percentage of people who answered the polls that are undecided at all. Seeing whether that group contracts in size or expands is certainly of interest.
On November 23 2019 08:46 Sermokala wrote: Impeachment won't even show up in the senate. McConnell can just refuse to receive the articles of impeachment and end it there.
Latest impeachment polling suggests McConnell won't have to try. 538 has opposing impeachment just .1% behind support (both under 50%) in the average with it having actually flipped to a plurality against impeachment in the latest Emerson poll
Just a heads up, that update they did is based on a single poll that is significantly out of line with every other poll that has come out in the last 2 weeks. I would suggest waiting to see if it was just a one-off rather than taking that poll as gospel. If you look at 538's data, there have been several occasions already where similar things have happened, (in one case, support dropped ~3% for one day before jumping back up the next time polls were added). If the trend continues, then we can take it seriously, but as of right now, it's just a single poll that disagrees by over 10% for both the Democrat and Republican numbers with two polls that came out the day before.
Their polling average has support for impeachment trending down for over a month now and it never got to 50%. I understand people getting sucked into the Mueller gag, but fool me once shame on you, fool me twice.
I'm aware of that. I'm just saying as a person with a statistics background, don't take single polls as gospel. You're reading things into my post that aren't there. I've looked at 538's data a great deal. I am aware that support hasn't hit 50% in the last few weeks and is slowly trending downward (though mostly still within margin of error). That's not my point. Your post was referencing a sudden one-day 1% dip in their aggregation that is influenced heavily by a single poll with significantly different results than multiple other polls from the last few days, so I pointed out the reasons to potentially be skeptical of that poll. Do you not think it's odd that this poll shows Republican support for impeachment has doubled overnight?
Polls that are statistical anomalies happen all the time. We saw a bunch of them in the last Canadian election, and it's no different for things like this too. That's why I said to wait and see if other polls reflect similar trends before making any conclusions.
I'm aware of that and certainly not taking any polling, let alone a single poll, as gospel lol. It's a lot less about what I think about the polling than what conservative Democrats in the house do though.
On November 21 2019 00:08 Lmui wrote: So over the last few days, it's pretty much confirmed that Trump tried to extort the Ukraine. The only remaining question is whether or not extortion/bribery rises to an impeachable offense in the eyes of Republicans.
I'm still not convinced it's getting out of the House.
Democrats need to vote before support for impeachment drops below opposition to have a chance to get it out of the House and they are almost out of time.
Basically reinforcing my point that they are running out of time.
I really don't understand the US. Why are any people happy with Trump as a president? He is immoral, corrupt, incompetent and utterly unsympathic. He should clearly never have gotten elected, and he demonstrates this every day.
Carter was one of the most moral, scandal free, and down to earth president the USA has ever had. Jimmy ended his 4 years with an approval rating of 28%. The vast majority of voters do not care about any of those qualities in a president. They just want a president that will kill the bad guys, pave the road roads, and gtfo.
Joe Biden Almost had as many protesters at his rally as supporters.
I would gladly vote for Sanders, Warren, or ever Butileg if they were nominated. At this point its looking like im gonna have to do the same thing i did in 2016 and vote for hippy grandma Jill Stien
On November 23 2019 08:46 Sermokala wrote: Impeachment won't even show up in the senate. McConnell can just refuse to receive the articles of impeachment and end it there.
Republicans would LOVE to broadcast Trump being cleared to the entire nation, no matter how BS it is.
Its the biggest victory they can hope for.
or their biggest loss It's not too far fetched to imagine trump tumbling during his questionning. He can talk shit to the masses, its harder when there are people who are listening and recording everything you say, and turning it against you. Kinda like prince andrew
Trump's jury is the Senate and they're the least impartial group possible. He can't lose. This is like the cardinals investigating the Pope.
On November 23 2019 08:46 Sermokala wrote: Impeachment won't even show up in the senate. McConnell can just refuse to receive the articles of impeachment and end it there.
Latest impeachment polling suggests McConnell won't have to try. 538 has opposing impeachment just .1% behind support (both under 50%) in the average with it having actually flipped to a plurality against impeachment in the latest Emerson poll
Just a heads up, that update they did is based on a single poll that is significantly out of line with every other poll that has come out in the last 2 weeks. I would suggest waiting to see if it was just a one-off rather than taking that poll as gospel. If you look at 538's data, there have been several occasions already where similar things have happened, (in one case, support dropped ~3% for one day before jumping back up the next time polls were added). If the trend continues, then we can take it seriously, but as of right now, it's just a single poll that disagrees by over 10% for both the Democrat and Republican numbers with two polls that came out the day before.
Their polling average has support for impeachment trending down for over a month now and it never got to 50%. I understand people getting sucked into the Mueller gag, but "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice..."
Not to mention that poll was done prior to the two days perceived to be the most damaging to Trump. I'd recommend waiting until the polling comes out next week before making any conclusions about the influence of the hearings...
It's going to go like every other time we've done the "wait till X then Trump will be done for" we've had for the last 3 years
This is a really dumb take given that Mueller confirmed Trump did interfere with the investigation and punted it to impeachment. Nobody was fooled, Trump keeps doing impeachable things and people keep investigating him for it. This is like using the sheer quantity of smoke as evidence that there probably isn't anything concerning about that bright hot thing.
On November 23 2019 08:46 Sermokala wrote: Impeachment won't even show up in the senate. McConnell can just refuse to receive the articles of impeachment and end it there.
Latest impeachment polling suggests McConnell won't have to try. 538 has opposing impeachment just .1% behind support (both under 50%) in the average with it having actually flipped to a plurality against impeachment in the latest Emerson poll
Just a heads up, that update they did is based on a single poll that is significantly out of line with every other poll that has come out in the last 2 weeks. I would suggest waiting to see if it was just a one-off rather than taking that poll as gospel. If you look at 538's data, there have been several occasions already where similar things have happened, (in one case, support dropped ~3% for one day before jumping back up the next time polls were added). If the trend continues, then we can take it seriously, but as of right now, it's just a single poll that disagrees by over 10% for both the Democrat and Republican numbers with two polls that came out the day before.
Their polling average has support for impeachment trending down for over a month now and it never got to 50%. I understand people getting sucked into the Mueller gag, but "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice..."
Not to mention that poll was done prior to the two days perceived to be the most damaging to Trump. I'd recommend waiting until the polling comes out next week before making any conclusions about the influence of the hearings...
It's going to go like every other time we've done the "wait till X then Trump will be done for" we've had for the last 3 years
This is a really dumb take given that Mueller confirmed Trump did interfere with the investigation and punted it to impeachment. Nobody was fooled, Trump keeps doing impeachable things and people keep investigating him for it. This is like using the sheer quantity of smoke as evidence that there probably isn't anything concerning about that bright hot thing.
I think you misunderstood the argument I'm making. Folks like Ben... would be the ones using the sheer quantity of smoke as evidence there isn't anything concerning about the bright hot thing.
I'm not trying to absolve Trump of anything, nor do I think he should be allowed to stay in office. I'm just pointing out Democrats failure to remove him isn't just Republicans fault. We gotta blame the ~20% of Democrats and ~55% of independents too (and the rest of Democrats for failing to move them/find new voters).
The trick is fooling people into thinking this is more than political theater meant to distract people from things like the bipartisan support/aiding and abetting of ethnic cleansing which is much more devastating than the Mueller/Ukraine thing for example. Or the concentration camps Trump expanded as another (related to the Biden clip)
EDIT:Worth noting plenty of people were fooled into thinking Mueller wasn't going to punt (which I called when he was assigned).
On November 23 2019 08:46 Sermokala wrote: Impeachment won't even show up in the senate. McConnell can just refuse to receive the articles of impeachment and end it there.
Latest impeachment polling suggests McConnell won't have to try. 538 has opposing impeachment just .1% behind support (both under 50%) in the average with it having actually flipped to a plurality against impeachment in the latest Emerson poll
Just a heads up, that update they did is based on a single poll that is significantly out of line with every other poll that has come out in the last 2 weeks. I would suggest waiting to see if it was just a one-off rather than taking that poll as gospel. If you look at 538's data, there have been several occasions already where similar things have happened, (in one case, support dropped ~3% for one day before jumping back up the next time polls were added). If the trend continues, then we can take it seriously, but as of right now, it's just a single poll that disagrees by over 10% for both the Democrat and Republican numbers with two polls that came out the day before.
Their polling average has support for impeachment trending down for over a month now and it never got to 50%. I understand people getting sucked into the Mueller gag, but "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice..."
Not to mention that poll was done prior to the two days perceived to be the most damaging to Trump. I'd recommend waiting until the polling comes out next week before making any conclusions about the influence of the hearings...
It's going to go like every other time we've done the "wait till X then Trump will be done for" we've had for the last 3 years
This is a really dumb take given that Mueller confirmed Trump did interfere with the investigation and punted it to impeachment. Nobody was fooled, Trump keeps doing impeachable things and people keep investigating him for it. This is like using the sheer quantity of smoke as evidence that there probably isn't anything concerning about that bright hot thing.
I think you misunderstood the argument I'm making. Folks like Ben... would be the ones using the sheer quantity of smoke as evidence there isn't anything concerning about the bright hot thing.
???
What are you even talking about? This comment makes no sense.
Again, you seem to have a substantial issue with reading into people's posts and making assumptions about their stances. I have never made any claims one way or another about whether these hearings will amount to anything. I've commented on information that have come out from them but that's it. You seem to be making an assumption that I think something will happen with these hearings (either public opinion shifting or anything concrete actually being done) when I haven't said as much. I in fact said the exact opposite with regards to public opinion when I said that we should be waiting to see how polling is affected before making any conclusions.
He's doing the thing where he pretentiously coopts the analogy to refer to something different, in this case that Trump himself is the smoke and the fire is something something neoliberal conspiracy something something revolution.
On November 23 2019 18:23 Belisarius wrote: He's doing the thing where he pretentiously coopts the analogy to refer to something different, in this case that Trump himself is the smoke and the fire is something something neoliberal conspiracy something something revolution.
It's not complicated. Trump is obviously a megalomaniac criminal narcissist. By all appearances that's not enough to prevent him (or another in the future) from being president.
That's the bright hot thing, not that he's a criminal. That was obvious before he got elected.
edit: I can break it down further if people still don't understand my point, or someone who does can restate in a way they think you guys would understand.
On November 23 2019 20:39 Sbrubbles wrote: The bright thing is that he's a criminal, not that he's a criminal?
That he's obviously and unabashedly criminal, and also the president of the US. The belief leading up to Trump was that he couldn't get elected or if he did the system would check his brazen criminality.
That belief was obviously wrong. Rather than reconcile that, Democrats look at the copious amounts of smoke (the kabuki of Mueller/Ukraine) as evidence there's no reason to worry about the bright hot thing (the systems inability to remove an obviously corrupt president).
It smacks a bit of nailing Al Capone on taxes, except they’re not even going to nail Trump.
Trump’s long and storied record of screwing the little guy whenever possible through legitimate means or settling and throwing cash at things should have stopped him getting near the White House in the first place, but alas.
One can of course not absolve one person of wrongdoing simply because other people have done worse, but in my lifetime we’ve had this impeachment and one about a blowjob, the architects of the Iraq war are appearing on Ellen, back in the corridors of power or earning lovely consultancy money.
I find it a rather low bar to set to only go after a cartoonish villain level of corrupt incompetence like Trump, it doesn’t really enthuse me all that much or inspire much confidence.
Which I think is somewhat reflected in poll numbers on this, but I’m not sure what motivates answers. I’d imagine there’s people who like the strongman breaking the rules type and don’t think it’s a big deal, equally I’m sure there’s some who shrug and think among a cesspit this is what you’re cleaning up?
On November 23 2019 20:39 Sbrubbles wrote: The bright thing is that he's a criminal, not that he's a criminal?
That he's obviously and unabashedly criminal, and also the president of the US. The belief leading up to Trump was that he couldn't get elected or if he did the system would check his brazen criminality.
That belief was obviously wrong. Rather than reconcile that, Democrats look at the copious amounts of smoke (the kabuki of Mueller/Ukraine) as evidence there's no reason to worry about the bright hot thing (the systems inability to remove an obviously corrupt president).
So instead of 'wasting' time on Trump with the possible payoff of winning the next Presidential election you would want them to waste time on re-writing the constitution and the entire electoral system?
On November 23 2019 20:39 Sbrubbles wrote: The bright thing is that he's a criminal, not that he's a criminal?
That he's obviously and unabashedly criminal, and also the president of the US. The belief leading up to Trump was that he couldn't get elected or if he did the system would check his brazen criminality.
That belief was obviously wrong. Rather than reconcile that, Democrats look at the copious amounts of smoke (the kabuki of Mueller/Ukraine) as evidence there's no reason to worry about the bright hot thing (the systems inability to remove an obviously corrupt president).
So instead of 'wasting' time on Trump with the possible payoff of winning the next Presidential election you would want them to waste time on re-writing the constitution and the entire electoral system?
No. I think that obvious cynicism is part of why support for impeachment isn't over 60% in the first place (wombat touched on this).
EPT
