. impeachment, who would benefit???

Trump said:

agree to disagree

Trump is no Chavez imho

Click to expand...

The fact is that if you voted for your preferred candidate to be an agent of destruction, then he's going to be immune to scandal because the chaos is the point.

That's why any other President's administration would have been terminated with 1/100th the number of Trump's scandals. That doesn't make him a "survivor"; it makes him the agent of destruction his base meant him to be.

GDViking said:

It seems trump and his cultists believe that impeachment would benefit the don in the election.

Many Democrats see his crimes as inexcusable and he should be punished, regardless of how the chips fall, at least the truth comes out.

So who will actually benefit???

Click to expand...

Unless there is iron clad proof of wrong doing that even Mitch McConnell would have to yield to, something that would get a conviction in the Senate, Don Vito tRump would turn it back on the Dems and benefit from being impeached. I think they need to keep the pressure up for evidence, the more Crime tRump Inc. resists the worse he looks. Eventually the Barr "investigation" into all that precipitated the Mueller investigation will come to nothing, hopefully about the time the Congressional investigation bears fruit.

Cardinal said:

The fact is that if you voted for your preferred candidate to be an agent of destruction, then he's going to be immune to scandal because the chaos is the point.

That's why any other President's administration would have been terminated with 1/100th the number of Trump's scandals. That doesn't make him a "survivor"; it makes him the agent of destruction voters intended him to be.

Click to expand...

you say destruction I say reason.

the reason he survives is because accusations are truly phony and wrong. "nobody nobody wants" Trump crashed the party and swamp responded with chaos.

Cardinal said:

In both cases, voters want their preferred candidate to be an agent of destruction, and in both cases they got their wish.

Click to expand...

That much is true, but Trump actually fixed things. Chavez didn't

Trump said:

you say destruction I say reason.

the reason he survives is because accusations are truly phony and wrong. "nobody nobody wants" Trump crashed the party and swamp responded with chaos.

Click to expand...

What you're demonstrating is the other component of populism that I posted here: "...the presence of a charismatic mode of linkage between voters and politicians."

Trump calls all the reports of his corruption and criminality "fake news," and so you believe him regardless of all facts to the contrary. This adherence to the charismatic figurehead and a culture of anti-truth is also quite parallel to Chavez-ian populism.

Grandpappy said:

That much is true, but Trump actually fixed things. Chavez didn't

Click to expand...

Trump hasn't fixed anything. Hell, his first two years in power with a Republican controlled congress, all he did was pass some lousy tax cuts, and appoint two "conservative " judges to the SC, all standard Republican things that would have been done by any other idiot GOP president.

Grandpappy said:

That much is true, but Trump actually fixed things. Chavez didn't

Click to expand...

If you redefine "destruction" as "fixing," then Chavez did, in fact, fix his country precisely as his based meant him to.

Cardinal said:

What you're demonstrating is the other component of populism that I posted here: "...the presence of a charismatic mode of linkage between voters and politicians."

Trump calls all the reports of his corruption and criminality "fake news," and so you believe him regardless of all facts to the contrary. This adherence to the charismatic figurehead and a culture of anti-truth is also quite parallel to Chavez-ian populism.

Click to expand...

if it wasn't fake news Pelosi would have impeached him long ago with all the so called evidence...correct?

Perotista said:

Since those who want impeachment seems to be a one party affair, short term, Trump may benefit from it. The one party affair, you can see that 71% of Democrats want Trump impeached and removed from office, 10% of Democrats do not. Republicans on the other hand show 81% against with only 9% favoring impeachment and removal. You can't get more partisan than that. Independents, the non-affiliated, less to non-partisan, probably most not in either the pro or anti Trump camps. 31% favor impeachment and removal, 41% are opposed with 28% not sure or don't give an owl's hoot one way or the other. Question 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/dl1xj5lsd9/econTabReport.pdf

Who does impeachment favor, I look back at Bill Clinton's impeachment. His approval rating among independents, only independents rose from 51% to 70% with his overall approval rating going up from 59% to 65% during the impeachment process and trial. Most Americans didn't want Bill to go anywhere. His impeachment was also a one party affair which backfired on the Republicans. That was the short term effects, Trump would probably gain in the short term in that independents don't like a one party affair as it stinks of a very partisan political vendetta against a sitting president.

Long term, 3 months after the trial ended, Bill Clinton dropped back to a 50% approval among independents. What he gained during impeachment, he lost once it was over. I figure the same would happen to Trump. But if Trump was impeached, it might end the political vindictiveness against him which might help come reelection time or not. It could lead to a political campaign against the Democrats that they tried to railroad a legitimate president out of office. Sort of a silent coup. I think if impeachment happens before the beginning of next year and all the presidential campaigns, it would be a wash. A waste of time, energy and money as the senate would never gain the 2/3rds majority needed to remove Trump. Ala Bill Clinton in his 1999 senate trial.

Click to expand...

Impeachment never hurt Republicans. They ended up winning in 2000, albeit by a tiny margin. Granted, Democrats are held to a higher standard for some reason, but still.

Trump said:

if it wasn't fake news Pelosi would have impeached him long ago with all the so called evidence...correct?

Click to expand...

You're winding back around to the original claim that he's a "survivor," in this case that he would survive impeachment. But again, that's only possible because of the same populism that vaulted Hugo Chavez to power, and the same populism that ultimately resulted in Venezuela's total economic and democratic destruction.

GDViking said:

It seems trump and his cultists believe that impeachment would benefit the don in the election.

Many Democrats see his crimes as inexcusable and he should be punished, regardless of how the chips fall, at least the truth comes out.

So who will actually benefit???

Click to expand...

I remember the Clinton impeachment well. I wanted him removed for lying (how naive I was back then). Anyways, the Republicans gave it their best shot and ended up shooting their own feet off.

There’s ideal and real to consider. Ideally, go for impeachment and if it fails, resulting in a boon to Trump’s re-election and Republicans regaining control of both houses, the Dems can pat themselves on the back for doing “the right thing”. Or the Dems can deal with Trump realistically by continuing to chip away at him, getting his financial/tax records and exposing his deep, long history of lies and corruption, only opting for the Big “I” if the public mood calls for it.

Ideally I’d go for the first plan, but we don’t live in an ideal world so ....

Puigb said:

Impeachment never hurt Republicans. They ended up winning in 2000, albeit by a tiny margin. Granted, Democrats are held to a higher standard for some reason, but still.

Click to expand...

I think it did for awhile, short term. But no long term effects. That could be a matter of perspectives.

Mycroft said:

What you describe is the best hope for the Dems. Unfortunately, it's not good enough.

You see, there is a tsunami of evidence pertaining to the actions of the corrupt Obama administration bearing down upon DC. People will go to jail. People will resign. People will sing like song birds. House members and Senators will see their careers swirling into the sewers.

And when the waters reside, Trump will still be there.

Click to expand...

That won't play. Trump and his cronies have so screwed the hooch that nothing Barr comes up will be believed by anybody but the Trump base which is not large enough to win an election. If Barr would leave Prosecutor Durham alone there might be a slim shot at the Electorate believing what Durham unilaterally comes up with MAYBE. But that is not going to happen and we all know that is not what is going to happen. Barr is going to massage and manipulate the material and even if he doesn't since the material is going to run through his office, nobody outside of the Trump base will believe he has not massaged and manipulated and selectively chosen it to make the case he wants to make.

So it boils down to the same thing. An effort on Trump's part that simply helps him keep his base which is not large enough to win another election. By the way, Trump does not help himself by visibly defaulting to the answer that he wants without a single piece of reliable evidence for the answer that he wants. Do you really think nobody notices that he already calls this an attempted Coup and that he is calling out Intelligence officers for treason? How much of a dunce cap do you have to be to not recognize that he damages his own chances of being believed or having any of his henchmen believed when he continues to publicly default to the answer that he wants before anybody has investigated any of the things he wants investigated. Good luck with that.

Perotista said:

I think it did for awhile, short term. But no long term effects. That could be a matter of perspectives.

Click to expand...

IMO, the GOP successfully created the narrative that Bill Clinton was corrupt and that him and his party needed to be thrown out of power. And it worked. Will it work for the Dems now? I'm not so sure. Democrats are not as good as the GOP when it comes to hardball politics.

GDViking said:

It seems trump and his cultists believe that impeachment would benefit the don in the election.

Many Democrats see his crimes as inexcusable and he should be punished, regardless of how the chips fall, at least the truth comes out.

So who will actually benefit???

Click to expand...

Who it benefits is of course a completely different case than whether it is justified or not. Myself, I think the evidence for Impeachment is overwhelming along a broad range of fronts. That being the case, I would opt for impeachment helping the Democrats. The whole story of Trump "wanting" Impeachment is just that, a story. He wants the fight because he always wants the fight because he always thinks he will win. But he does not actually want Impeachment.

Assuming he is Impeached, that moves things to the Senate where McConnell will really be put in a box. He can simply refuse to take up removal in which case the entire Republican Party feels the wrath of the Dems and Independents taking the position that since Trump was impeached the Senate should take up the Removal case.

If McConnell takes up the case, the mountains of evidence that will come out in the Removal case will force Republican Senators to finally give up on DonDon or again face the same wrath from voters that they will face if McConnell does not even allow it to come to the floor.

This situation is done and dusted as long as the Courts continue to offer expedited service on these cases. I told the forum that Courts would offer expedited service and that is exactly what is happening.

jnug said:

That won't play. Trump and his cronies have so screwed the pooch that nothing Barr comes up will be believed by anybody but the Trump base which is not large enough to win an election. If Barr would leave Prosecutor Durham alone there might be a slim shot at the Electorate believing what Durham unilaterally comes up with MAYBE. But that is not going to happen and we all know that is not what is going to happen. Barr is going to massage and manipulate the material and even if he doesn't since the material is going to run through his office, nobody outside of the Trump base will believe he has not massaged and manipulated and selectively chosen it to make the case he wants to make.

So it boils down to the same thing. An effort on Trump's part that simply helps him keep his base which is not large enough to win another election. By the way, Trump does not help himself by visibly defaulting to the answer that he wants without a single piece of reliable evidence for the answer that he wants. Do you really think nobody notices that he already calls this an attempted Coup and that he is calling out Intelligence officers for treason? How much of a dunce cap do you have to be to not recognize that he damages his own chances of being believed or having any of his henchmen believed when he continues to publicly default to the answer that he wants before anybody has investigated any of the things he wants investigated. Good luck with that.

Click to expand...

LOL!!

Grand Jury indictments have a way of making people believe stuff. You should know that.

You see...Barr doesn't care about Trump's base. He cares about the law and whether it has been broken or not.

The only people who want this to be about an election are the Dems.

Mycroft said:

LOL!!

Grand Jury indictments have a way of making people believe stuff. You should know that.

You see...Barr doesn't care about Trump's base. He cares about the law and whether it has been broken or not.

The only people who want this to be about an election are the Dems.

Click to expand...

hahaha..ah.ah.ah..ha,,ha. Good luck with that as well. Barr on his white stallion....ah-huh

Least you forget, Impeachment is a political process and so are elections.

jnug said:

hahaha..ah.ah.ah..ha,,ha. Good luck with that as well. Barr on his white stallion....ah-huh

Least you forget, Impeachment is a political process and so are elections.

Click to expand...

Nervous laughter. Yeah...I don't blame you.

Like I said, the only people who want this to be about an election are the Dems.

Mycroft said:

Nervous laughter. Yeah...I don't blame you.

Like I said, the only people who want this to be about an election are the Dems.

Click to expand...

Yea I'm nervous...about what more the psycho in the WH (excuse me, the stabile genius) does to protect himself before this is all over. By the way I have NEVER known an actual genius, stabile or otherwise to claim to be a stabile genius. Genius is by and large self evident and NOT CLAIMED.

Puigb said:

IMO, the GOP successfully created the narrative that Bill Clinton was corrupt and that him and his party needed to be thrown out of power. And it worked. Will it work for the Dems now? I'm not so sure. Democrats are not as good as the GOP when it comes to hardball politics.

Click to expand...

I suppose one could say that since Bush won the presidency. But the GOP lost 5 senate seats and 2 house seats in the 2000 election. Certainly Bush had no coat tails and brought no one into office with him. I think Bush winning had more to do with Al Gore, the non-charismatic statue than Bill Clinton or impeachment. Bush wasn't all that charismatic either, but at least he came across as a down home guy. Gore didn't inspire the democrats to turnout either, ala Hillary Clinton in 2016. The Democrats had a 5 point advantage in the percentage of the electorate over the GOP. But that advantage shrunk to only 3 points among those who actually turned out to vote.

Gore carried the Democratic base 87-11 over Bush, Bush carried the Republican base 91-8 over Gore. Independents went to Bush 48-46 with 6% voting third party. If the Democrats had turned out in the same percentage as Republicans since they had the larger base, Gore would have won. Same can be said of Hillary in 2016.

Where Bill Clinton was able to win the southern states Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia and Missouri. Gore lost all of them along with New Hampshire, Arizona, Ohio, Nevada and Florida. States Bill carried in 1996. I have always said it wasn't Florida that caused Gore to lose, it was losing his home state of Tennessee along with failure to inspire the Democratic base to turnout and vote for him. Gore and Hillary had a lot in common there.

GDViking said:

It seems trump and his cultists believe that impeachment would benefit the don in the election.

Many Democrats see his crimes as inexcusable and he should be punished, regardless of how the chips fall, at least the truth comes out.

So who will actually benefit???

Click to expand...

Unless and until the Democrats can get the majority of Americans behind impeachment, Trump benefits.

That said, a House impeachment 'investigation' would Constitutionally force the executive branch to surrender witnesses and all requested documents.

I also believe something on the order of the televised Watergate hearings would be an eye-opener for Americans writ large.

But atm, I believe the Pelosi strategy is the correct strategy. Federal courts are beginning to order the Trump administration to comply with the law.

Perotista said:

I suppose one could say that since Bush won the presidency. But the GOP lost 5 senate seats and 2 house seats in the 2000 election. Certainly Bush had no coat tails and brought no one into office with him. I think Bush winning had more to do with Al Gore, the non-charismatic statue than Bill Clinton or impeachment. Bush wasn't all that charismatic either, but at least he came across as a down home guy. Gore didn't inspire the democrats to turnout either, ala Hillary Clinton in 2016. The Democrats had a 5 point advantage in the percentage of the electorate over the GOP. But that advantage shrunk to only 3 points among those who actually turned out to vote.

Gore carried the Democratic base 87-11 over Bush, Bush carried the Republican base 91-8 over Gore. Independents went to Bush 48-46 with 6% voting third party. If the Democrats had turned out in the same percentage as Republicans since they had the larger base, Gore would have won. Same can be said of Hillary in 2016.

Where Bill Clinton was able to win the southern states Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia and Missouri. Gore lost all of them along with New Hampshire, Arizona, Ohio, Nevada and Florida. States Bill carried in 1996. I have always said it wasn't Florida that caused Gore to lose, it was losing his home state of Tennessee along with failure to inspire the Democratic base to turnout and vote for him. Gore and Hillary had a lot in common there.

Click to expand...

You make some good points with the data, but it still doesn't change the fact that Bush won. Had impeachment really had a notable effect on the GOP politically, Gore would have been president, and independents would have voted for him. Republicans successfully created a "Bill Clinton was corrupt and amoral" narrative that helped allow Bush a narrow victory in 2000. Could the Dems do the same now? Doubtful, as they are generally held to a higher standard than Republicans.

One thing I will point out though is how Republicans can barely win presidential elections anymore. Since Bush in 2000, Republicans have barely squeaked by with narrow victories in 2004, and 2016, and this is almost always due to lower turn out among Democrats. On the other hand, Clinton won twice by decent margins, and Obama did very well in 2008, and even in 2012. If the Republicans don't find a way to try and appeal to other demographics outside of their base, they could end up a regional party very soon, and Trump is doing them no favors at all.

Perotista said:

Since those who want impeachment seems to be a one party affair, short term, Trump may benefit from it. The one party affair, you can see that 71% of Democrats want Trump impeached and removed from office, 10% of Democrats do not. Republicans on the other hand show 81% against with only 9% favoring impeachment and removal. You can't get more partisan than that. Independents, the non-affiliated, less to non-partisan, probably most not in either the pro or anti Trump camps. 31% favor impeachment and removal, 41% are opposed with 28% not sure or don't give an owl's hoot one way or the other. Question 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/dl1xj5lsd9/econTabReport.pdf

Who does impeachment favor, I look back at Bill Clinton's impeachment. His approval rating among independents, only independents rose from 51% to 70% with his overall approval rating going up from 59% to 65% during the impeachment process and trial. Most Americans didn't want Bill to go anywhere. His impeachment was also a one party affair which backfired on the Republicans. That was the short term effects, Trump would probably gain in the short term in that independents don't like a one party affair as it stinks of a very partisan political vendetta against a sitting president.

Long term, 3 months after the trial ended, Bill Clinton dropped back to a 50% approval among independents. What he gained during impeachment, he lost once it was over. I figure the same would happen to Trump. But if Trump was impeached, it might end the political vindictiveness against him which might help come reelection time or not. It could lead to a political campaign against the Democrats that they tried to railroad a legitimate president out of office. Sort of a silent coup. I think if impeachment happens before the beginning of next year and all the presidential campaigns, it would be a wash. A waste of time, energy and money as the senate would never gain the 2/3rds majority needed to remove Trump. Ala Bill Clinton in his 1999 senate trial.

Click to expand...

I understand where you are coming from, however in this case we have real crimes not just someone backed into a corner lying about a blowjob.

Clinton was a great president, however he was a politician, so he would lie even when he did not need to.

First "I did not inhale"

Who the **** is going to believe that.

The appropriate response would have been of course I have tried pot, it was the seventies...

Second "I did not have sex with that woman"

Proper response, none of your God dammed business, that is between my wife and i"...

We are in a whole different world with trump, and I do not see the public being as forgiving of trumps crimes...

Puigb said:

You make some good points with the data, but it still doesn't change the fact that Bush won. Had impeachment really had a notable effect on the GOP politically, Gore would have been president, and independents would have voted for him. Republicans successfully created a "Bill Clinton was corrupt and amoral" narrative that helped allow Bush a narrow victory in 2000. Could the Dems do the same now? Doubtful, as they are generally held to a higher standard than Republicans.

One thing I will point out though is how Republicans can barely win presidential elections anymore. Since Bush in 2000, Republicans have barely squeaked by with narrow victories in 2004, and 2016, and this is almost always due to lower turn out among Democrats. On the other hand, Clinton won twice by decent margins, and Obama did very well in 2008, and even in 2012. If the Republicans don't find a way to try and appeal to other demographics outside of their base, they could end up a regional party very soon, and Trump is doing them no favors at all.

Click to expand...

I agree with that. I know low turnout among Democrats caused the losses in 2000 and 2016. Checking it out, 2004 each party's voters who turned out made up 37% of those who turned out. You're right, the Democrats had a 3 point advantage over Republicans in the total electorate. Low voter turnout by the Dems equaled the party's strength.

Actually, we do have regional parties. The Democrats own the Northeast and West coast plus some island states around the Great Lakes. The south, plains and mountain states are pretty much Republican. But the Democrats are making inroads into the south. Virginia, once solid Republican has gone Democrat three straight times. My state of Georgia very well could go democratic in 2020 depending on whom the Democratic nominee is. North Carolina has become a tossup. Out west Arizona is up for grabs.

Trump winning Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania was a fluke that should have never happen if Hillary had played a bit of attention to those three states. I personally don't think Trump has a path to victory in 2020. The Republicans after Romney's loss in 2012 had started an outreach toward Hispanics. Trump killed that.

If the Democrats can get their base to turnout, then keep independents close, they're going to win. Having the larger base means the Democrats don't have to win independents, but the Republicans do. Failure to win the independent vote means a loss for the GOP.

The thing is the Democrats have always had the larger base or were always the larger party since FDR. At times by almost a two to one margin.

Trends in Party Identification, 1939-2014 | Pew Research Center

We have a new factor today, independents. Indies have risen from 30% of the electorate in 2006 to 44% today while the two major parties have shrunk. This is why I emphasize the Democrats nominating someone who is attractive to indies. Independents don't like Trump much, but that was true back in 2016 also. Only they disliked Hillary more than Trump. Here's hoping the Dems don't make that same mistake. Even with the larger party, candidates matter.

Trump said:

if it wasn't fake news Pelosi would have impeached him long ago with all the so called evidence...correct?

Click to expand...

Nope polosi is far, far more intelligent than trump and McConnell, she is just playing with them...