Democratic impeachment calls swell as McGahn defies subpoena

[Moderate Right]

Republicans took over the White House and both chambers of Congress in 2000.

Not exactly true. Democrats won the popular vote for president and made gains in both chambers of congress.

2000 United States Senate elections - Wikipedia

2000 United States House of Representatives elections - Wikipedia

 

[poweRob]

So said 16 other candidates who ran against him in the Republican primaries and crooked Hillary in the general.

Trump isn't intelligent enough to lay a trap. Which is why the russians weighed in to help him.

 

[Cardinal]

Not exactly true. Democrats won the popular vote for president and made gains in both chambers of congress.

2000 United States Senate elections - Wikipedia

2000 United States House of Representatives elections - Wikipedia

But Democrats didn't gain the White House or either chamber of Congress. If that's how Republicans were "punished" for their impeachment of Clinton, I don't want to know what rewarding them looks like.

 

[Moderate Right]

Trump isn't intelligent enough to lay a trap. Which is why the russians weighed in to help him.

LOL. Keep on believing that.

 

[Moderate Right]

But Democrats didn't gain the White House or either chamber of Congress. If that's how Republicans were "punished" for their impeachment of Clinton, I don't want to know what rewarding them looks like.

Fact is, the popular vote for president went for the Democrat and Democrats gained seats in both houses of congress. In other words, the Republican impeachment of Bill Clinton helped Democrats.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...4f3edf1351e_story.html?utm_term=.315f3e90e75b

Lessons For Democrats From Former President Clinton's Impeachment : NPR

If I remember correctly, you yourself started a thread worrying about the pitfalls of impeachment.

 

[Cardinal]

Fact is, the popular vote for president went for the Democrat and Democrats gained seats in both houses of congress. In other words, the Republican impeachment of Bill Clinton helped Democrats.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...4f3edf1351e_story.html?utm_term=.315f3e90e75b

Lessons For Democrats From Former President Clinton's Impeachment : NPR

If I remember correctly, you yourself started a thread worrying about the pitfalls of impeachment.

Then I want Democrats to be "punished" in 2020 after impeaching trump by retaking the White House and both chambers of Congress.

 

[Chomsky]

I agree. The Democrats have the larger base and have had since FDR. Also 2016 was the most unique election we ever had. It was between the two most unwanted major party candidates in our history. 56% of all Americans viewed Hillary unfavorably or didn't like or want her, 60% viewed Trump unfavorably or didn't like or want him. That is the record for the highest unfavorable's going back to FDR. Goldwater in 1964 held the record for the highest unfavorable at 47% until Trump and Hillary came around. Barry can now rest in peace knowing he isn't the most unlike presidential candidate anymore.

Yes, turnout was an very important factor in 2016. The Democratic base had a six point advantage in numbers, but that shrunk to three among those who actually voted. Meaning the Republicans had the higher percentage turnout. Hillary's ho hum campaign and lack of campaign appearances, hitting the trail led to a lack of enthusiasm for the democratic base to turn out. Trump was always full of energy and that inspired his base. His supporters would go to the four corners of the earth for him, Hillary's, some wouldn't even go to the polls for her.

Strange as it might seem, the same thing occurred in 2000. The Democratic base had a 5 point electoral advantage, but only 3 when it came to actual turnout. The statue Gore didn't inspire either. If the Democratic base had turned out, Gore and Hillary would have both won.

I don't think the Democratic base will have that problem in 2020 regardless of whom is their nominee. Trump is a great motivator even if their candidate isn't. That was seen during the midterms. The Democratic base had only a three point party advantage in 2018 but come turnout, the democratic advantage increased to five points. It was the Republicans who stayed home more than the democrats.

Good morning!

I believe you may find this Axios article interesting, as it speaks to your last paragraph:

(Axios) The Democrats' 100-year flood

Not surprising in general, but to me surprising in specific quantity, the article claims Trump lost 3% of his core demographic in the past 4 years:

And Trump voters aren't a growing demographic group. The share of whites with less than a 4-year degree — Trump's constituency — dropped by 3% from 2014 to 2018.

That's large enough to have a substantive effect upon the election, and I'm blow-away at the size of the number. It really illustrates the age differences in each party's base. It also seems to show that Trump might be reflecting a political aberration - a pause - in the steady changing of America's citizenry to those of minority and colour. I'm thinking this Trump stuff might be sort of a "last hurray" of sorts, of traditional American WASP male political dominance.

Then we have this:

turnout rates would likely go up for everybody. But:

Older white people already tend to vote at high rates, and they're close to their maximum turnout already.

By contrast, you'll see bigger turnout increases among young people, people of color, and low-income people — generally important constituencies for the Democratic Party — because they vote in lower numbers.

From 2014 to 2018, turnout among whites with a 4-year degree went up 17%, while non-white voters' turnout increased by 15%.

The article does state that the expected Trump turnout will also be high, but not Dem high. And a key point is made: Trump's core demo traditionally has a very high-turnout, even without Trump; the Dem core demos traditionally have a low turn-out rate. This implies the Dems have far more headroom to increased turnout. And this may have been seen, in 2018. I think I agree.

So if we take the politics aside, we seem to see the general demographic characterizations seem to favor the Dems quite well. So what they would seem to need, is a highly charismatic candidate, similar to the Charisma Obama exhibited in 2008. If they do that, they seem to be in reasonable shape. These trends also would seem to show that perhaps tacking Left might be the way to go. And this last, is something I don't say very easily!

 

[tres borrachos]

I don't know what to say, here. Trump clearly seems to be asking for it. It's getting kinda' hard not to oblige him.

It might be best to start the investigative hearings, and see where they go.

Trump wants them to impeach for the same reason that the Democrats were giddy as Hell every time the idiot Republicans voted to overturn the ACA. It was nothing but symbolic votes that the GOP knew would go nowhere fast while Obama was in office. Trump wants the red meat to show his drooling fan base how mean everyone is to him.

Granted, impeachment would hurt him (even more) in the court of public opinion, but that damage has been done anyway, and the Democrats don't need to waste time on an impeachment process and vote that will die as soon as it gets to the Senate. The Republicans in the Senate have thrown in with Trump. They will not vote to remove him from office.

I think, as you said, the Democrats should investigate the Hell out of Trump. The investigations will damage Trump even further, and the Democrats won't look dumb.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

If Trump gets to decide whether or not to comply with subpoenas, our grand experiment in representative government is over.

There are those on this board who have declared that the president is not accountable to Congress. If the USSC agrees, that means the president can do whatever he wants whenever he wants.

There was a time when Washington politicians had shame (think Nixon). Nixon resigned when the leaders of his own party in the Senate went to the WH and advised him that he would not survive an impeachment trial. This will not happen today. Trump told us long ago that he could shoot someone and not lose any votes, that included the votes in the U.S. Senate. Whatever is right, whatever is wrong is irrelevant. All that matters is how does one get re-elected. Trump supporters will destroy any GOP member in their primary who dares oppose this president. His base does not care about law or justice.

 

[Chomsky]

Trump wants them to impeach for the same reason that the Democrats were giddy as Hell every time the idiot Republicans voted to overturn the ACA. It was nothing but symbolic votes that the GOP knew would go nowhere fast while Obama was in office. Trump wants the red meat to show his drooling fan base how mean everyone is to him.

Granted, impeachment would hurt him (even more) in the court of public opinion, but that damage has been done anyway, and the Democrats don't need to waste time on an impeachment process and vote that will die as soon as it gets to the Senate. The Republicans in the Senate have thrown in with Trump. They will not vote to remove him from office.

I think, as you said, the Democrats should investigate the Hell out of Trump. The investigations will damage Trump even further, and the Democrats won't look dumb.

I say start with an official investigation into Presidential misconduct, which I believe is being voted upon in the House today. Then see how the political opinion turns as Trump's secrets come out. Take it from there, as it goes.

The most important thing at this moment is to turn public opinion, and that requires Trump's secrets to be bared.

 

[Chomsky]

If Trump gets to decide whether or not to comply with subpoenas, our grand experiment in representative government is over.

There are those on this board who have declared that the president is not accountable to Congress. If the USSC agrees, that means the president can do whatever he wants whenever he wants.

There was a time when Washington politicians had shame (think Nixon). Nixon resigned when the leaders of his own party in the Senate went to the WH and advised him that he would not survive an impeachment trial. This will not happen today. Trump told us long ago that he could shoot someone and not lose any votes, that included the votes in the U.S. Senate. Whatever is right, whatever is wrong is irrelevant. All that matters is how does one get re-elected. Trump supporters will destroy any GOP member in their primary who dares oppose this president. His base does not care about law or justice.

Agreed, and well said.

 

[Moderate Right]

Then I want Democrats to be "punished" in 2020 after impeaching trump by retaking the White House and both chambers of Congress.

You're not following things here. Impeaching Trump helps Trump and the Republicans. I just proved that to you by what happened with Bill Clinton.

 

[Perotista]

[/B]Good morning!

I believe you may find this Axios article interesting, as it speaks to your last paragraph:

(Axios) The Democrats' 100-year flood

Not surprising in general, but to me surprising in specific quantity, the article claims Trump lost 3% of his core demographic in the past 4 years:



That's large enough to have a substantive effect upon the election, and I'm blow-away at the size of the number. It really illustrates the age differences in each party's base. It also seems to show that Trump might be reflecting a political aberration - a pause - in the steady changing of America's citizenry to those of minority and colour. I'm thinking this Trump stuff might be sort of a "last hurray" of sorts, of traditional American WASP male political dominance.

Then we have this:

The article does state that the expected Trump turnout will also be high, but not Dem high. And a key point is made: Trump's core demo traditionally has a very high-turnout, even without Trump; the Dem core demos traditionally have a low turn-out rate. This implies the Dems have far more headroom to increased turnout. And this may have been seen, in 2018. I think I agree.

So if we take the politics aside, we seem to see the general demographic characterizations seem to favor the Dems quite well. So what they would seem to need, is a highly charismatic candidate, similar to the Charisma Obama exhibited in 2008. If they do that, they seem to be in reasonable shape. These trends also would seem to show that perhaps tacking Left might be the way to go. And this last, is something I don't say very easily!

I think we have arrived at the same conclusion using a different path, but totally agree on the bottom line. Where Trump hasn't lost any strength among his base or core supporters, he has lost support among independents which he really didn't have that much. For a lot of independents in 2016, they voted for the candidate they least wanted to lose, not win. But least wanted to lose. Independents were so turned off by both candidates, 12% of them opted to vote for a third party candidate they knew had no chance to win whether than choosing between Trump and Hillary. That 12% still dislike Trump, some 9 million voters who should or at least could be easy pickings for the Democrats if they nominate the right candidate.

The 60 and older group has steadily voted Republican from 1972 to the present with the exception of the Clinton era. Perot was probably a factor in Bill winning the older vote. For some reason as folks age, they seem to switch from Democrat to Republican. Younger voters 18-29 has been steadily Democratic from with the exception of 1984 and 1988 since 1976.

Exit Polls - Election Results 2008 - The New York Times

College grads seems to be voting republican with the exception of 2008 and 2016. Not a HS grad has been Democratic until 2016. It seems HS grad but no college seems to go with whichever candidate has the most charisma. Bill Clinton and Obama, GW had more than Gore and Kerry etc.

Scroll through the info. Interesting tid bits

 

[Chomsky]

I think we have arrived at the same conclusion using a different path, but totally agree on the bottom line. Where Trump hasn't lost any strength among his base or core supporters, he has lost support among independents which he really didn't have that much. For a lot of independents in 2016, they voted for the candidate they least wanted to lose, not win. But least wanted to lose. Independents were so turned off by both candidates, 12% of them opted to vote for a third party candidate they knew had no chance to win whether than choosing between Trump and Hillary. That 12% still dislike Trump, some 9 million voters who should or at least could be easy pickings for the Democrats if they nominate the right candidate.

The 60 and older group has steadily voted Republican from 1972 to the present with the exception of the Clinton era. Perot was probably a factor in Bill winning the older vote. For some reason as folks age, they seem to switch from Democrat to Republican. Younger voters 18-29 has been steadily Democratic from with the exception of 1984 and 1988 since 1976.

Exit Polls - Election Results 2008 - The New York Times

College grads seems to be voting republican with the exception of 2008 and 2016. Not a HS grad has been Democratic until 2016. It seems HS grad but no college seems to go with whichever candidate has the most charisma. Bill Clinton and Obama, GW had more than Gore and Kerry etc.

Scroll through the info. Interesting tid bits

Thanks for the reply and link.

Your post brings-up an interesting point. Those Indies that didn't like Trump, but disliked Clinton more, still dislike Trump; perhaps even more! So yeah, this makes it incumbent upon the Dems to field a charismatic candidate.

BTW - That NYT database is phenomenal. Thanks again! :thumbs:

 

[Chomsky]

In what way did he ask for impeachment? Let's keep it to stuff he's said or done since the Mueller Report came out.

How is Trump "asking for it" by not complying with abuse of power and trying to exert authority in areas in which they don't have any?

Everyday he defies & obstructs Congressional investigations. Not just on select items, but in blanket fashion. He believes he is above Congressional oversight. And for this reason, I believe he deserves to be impeached & removed.

 

[Perotista]

Thanks for the reply and link.

Your post brings-up an interesting point. Those Indies that didn't like Trump, but disliked Clinton more, still dislike Trump; perhaps even more! So yeah, this makes it incumbent upon the Dems to field a charismatic candidate.

BTW - That NYT database is phenomenal. Thanks again! :thumbs:

For the 2012 and 2016 exit polls, they're here.

Presidential Race - 2012 Election Center - Elections & Politics from CNN.com

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

You might as well have 2018's, then you'll know what I'm referring to.

Exit Polls 2018

I think Trump's loss of support among independents shows up in the amount that want him to run again and those who do not among independents. Question 77. 28% of independents say yes, 49% say no. That's over a whopping 20 point difference.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/fs1r87zj1f/econTabReport.pdf

Again, lots of information. Just look at the top and find what questions asked and go there. Things like favorability, likeness and impeachment. I tend not to look at the two major parties, but at what independents think. After all, it is independents that usually decide national election.

 

[Chomsky]

For the 2012 and 2016 exit polls, they're here.

Presidential Race - 2012 Election Center - Elections & Politics from CNN.com

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

You might as well have 2018's, then you'll know what I'm referring to.

Exit Polls 2018

I think Trump's loss of support among independents shows up in the amount that want him to run again and those who do not among independents. Question 77. 28% of independents say yes, 49% say no. That's over a whopping 20 point difference.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/fs1r87zj1f/econTabReport.pdf

Again, lots of information. Just look at the top and find what questions asked and go there. Things like favorability, likeness and impeachment. I tend not to look at the two major parties, but at what independents think. After all, it is independents that usually decide national election.

Thank you!

 

[Fishking]

Everyday he defies & obstructs Congressional investigations. Not just on select items, but in blanket fashion. He believes he is above Congressional oversight. And for this reason, I believe he deserves to be impeached & removed.

Congressional oversight =/= harassing people for partisan purposes. So far as I'm tracking, there is no accusations or evidence of a crime which requires him to give them his personal tax information. That's a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment of unreasonable search and seizure. We've already had a 2 year long Special Counsel investigation, the President gets audited by the IRS every year by law, Obama had the authority to see it when he was still the President, there is nothing there. If there was something there, it would've come out by now.

This is solely harassment, not oversight. No one honestly believes it to be oversight at this point. As to being impeached and removed...ah...this was the desired conclusion all along, and the questions and actions have all been aimed at reaching that already made conclusion. That's now how these things are supposed to work. You do not work backwards from a pre-determined conclusion.

I believe now, more than ever, do these political operatives that call themselves public servants, need to be smashed entirely. Ground into national embarrassments of history so heinous that people don't even think about behaving in such a manner again. If we allow this to continue, it will only hasten the demise of the country, a track we are already going full steam down.

 

[Cardinal]

You're not following things here. Impeaching Trump helps Trump and the Republicans. I just proved that to you by what happened with Bill Clinton.

Would you rather that Republicans hadn't taken control of the White House and both chambers of Congress after Clinton?

 

[Conservative]

I agree with most of that, but there is a huge disconnect between the economy and Trump's overall job approval. RCP puts Trump's approval on the economy at 52.3%.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Trump Job Approval - Economy

But Trump's overall job approval at 42.6%.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Trump Job Approval

I've never seen that huge of a disparity. Usually if the economy is going good, a president's, any president job approval is at 50% or above. You can go back with any president when economic good times and find his overall job approval 50, 55 or even above 60%. When the economy sours, any president's overall job approval falls below 50%, sometimes into the 30%.

Presidential Job Approval Center

Reagan fell from a high of 67% overall job approval down to 35% when the economy didn't improve and had a horrible first midterm due to the bad economy. But over the next two years economy improved and Reagan shot up to 62% job approval and easily won reelection. One can say how folks viewed Ronnie was economic among other things. Trump has had a very good economy and has to yet reach 45% overall job approval. Something else is at work with Trump.

Obama had a 53% overall job approval in 2012 and won reelection.
G.W. Bush was at 55% he won reelection
Bill Clinton 58% he won reelection
G.H.W. Bush was at 40% over all job approval, he lost reelection
Reagan as I stated was at 62%
Carter was at 34% overall job approval and lost.
Ford at 45% job approval, lost.

And so on. Like with the economy you cited, one can relate that a president who's overall job approval is below 50% loses reelection, above 50% wins. With a 10 point difference between the economy and over all Job performance or approval, there's something else at work here. Something else comes into play.

I've always held it was his persona, his obnoxious personality, his unpresidential behavior. Trump is a very easy man to dislike because of that. I may be wrong, but I think it is Trump's character and behavior as president, his as seen by many independents, uncouth personality that has caused many independents to desert him. Not the economy or even Trump's stances on the issues and policy. But the man's persona. Time will tell.

What you are seeing is an overall approval rating after 24/7 personal attacks and bogus claims and charges. Results will never matter to the radical left whose agenda is to destroy the private sector. Trump's personal life is irrelevant compared to the job he is doing in the WH and results matter.

Trump is an easy man to dislike. I voted for him because he was the better alternative to Hillary and will vote for him again as he beats the alternative from the Democratic Party who stand for nothing other than politics of personal destruction.

I have never liked Trump and don't like him now but likability has never driven me to vote for a particular candidate, policies always drive me and right now the Trump results speak for themselves and the radical left is doing nothing to create positive reasons to vote for a Democrat. Anti Trump rhetoric doesn't trump the actual results generated and it is actual results generated that will be on the ballot in 2020 and if this continues he will gladly have my vote

 

[Conservative]

Trump isn't intelligent enough to lay a trap. Which is why the russians weighed in to help him.

So then we should be thanking Russia for giving us Trump?? All this time I thought it was Obama. What a return on investment Russia is getting from Trump, a stronger NATO, stronger U.S. Military, and a stronger U.S. economy. Putin really is a mastermind here

 

[uptower]

That's one point of view. But I think numbers back mine up. I could be wrong, but I think after 2 1/2 years this whole thing has got pretty tiresome to those who aren't in either the pro or anti Trump camps. Time will tell.

Maybe those in the middle are tired of the whole affair - that doesn't mean sympathetic to Trump, or they don't want to see a resolution. Perhaps they'd like to see the Dems do more governing and less whining, or put their money where their mouths are, but it doesn't mean four more years of Trump's corruption would be preferable. The numbers show most of the country suspect the president of something, regardless of whether they like Pelosi oir AOC.

 

[Conservative]

Nixon said the same thing, 'let's not quibble about obstruction of justice and abuse of power, we have important work to do.'

The problem with that argument is there are serious issues, that you choose to ignore, regarding Trump's possible illegal activities regarding his finances, his taxes and whether any financial arrangements impinge upon decisions he may make in his official capacity. Yet, Trump gets in the way of Congress getting requested info. That's why an impeachment committee is needed -- to prevent further denial of information. The judge ruling on financial information said it bluntly: “It is simply not fathomable,” the judge wrote, “that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct — past or present — even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry.”

By frustrating Congress' ability to get information, he is furthering obstruction of justice and abuse of power.

That's the crux of the issue.

Keep making things up to suit your ideology. Trump didn't obstruct anything as no negative action was taken that impeded the Mueller investigation. Comey should have been booted years ago but Obama was operating on typical Chicago politics and was getting a political Justice Dept. to do work for him. Congress has no right to a private citizen's tax returns without legitimate reasons to demand them and there are none here.

The crux of the issue is you are a partisan left wing radical who believes what he is told and ignores the results being generated. Trump had the authority to do with he did and as long as nothing impeded the investigation, you have nothing nor does Congress. 22 months, no indictment even against Don, Jr. speaks volumes.

Keep coming back for more and I will keep defeating your rhetoric with logic, common sense and facts

 

[Moderate Right]

Would you rather that Republicans hadn't taken control of the White House and both chambers of Congress after Clinton?

Republicans already had the House and the Senate before GWB won. You're implying that Republicans took control of the House and Senate in 2000. They already had both but lost seats in both due to the Clinton impeachment.

 

[Cardinal]

Republicans already had the House and the Senate before GWB won. You're implying that Republicans took control of the House and Senate in 2000. They already had both but lost seats in both due to the Clinton impeachment.

Sounds awful. I’ll take Democrats having control of Congress and the White House as punishment for impeaching trump, please.