As Donald Trump makes clear that he will not cooperate in any fashion with the Democrats wanting testimony and documents, support for impeachment and removal from office has reached a majority in public opinion polls, including the Fox News Channel poll.
That never happened with Bill Clinton, and Richard Nixon only two weeks before his resignation in 1974, and Trump is too confident that nothing can happen to him, but it is clear that his refusal to cooperate with a legitimate investigation is undermining public support, and further harms his campaign for reelection.
With suburbanites, educated women, farmers, and many working class whites seeing that Trump is a loose cannon and has harmed many with his insane tariff policy toward China and the European Union, Trump is clearly delusional, and thinks he can survive impeachment by wild Twitter statements, including calling for impeachment of Republican Senator Mitt Romney, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. His ignorance shows through, as he seems not to understand that only people in the executive and judicial branches of government can be impeached.
His public statements and Twitter feed only are undermining him more by the day, and sealing his fate as a failure as President, never having had a majority in any reputable public opinion poll supportive of him and his Presidency!
This poll: 49D/40R/12I
Gallup party affiliation: 31D/29R/38I
In this poll 51% want impeachment and 49% are Democrats.
Serious question: Did you make any effort whatsoever to analyze this poll and its internals?
Cheeky, but still serious question: Do they teach enough math in colleges these days to normalize the results to the real-world electorate?
1. You know what’s really interesting about all this, Doc? It is that once Mueller put on his show before Congress, “Russiagate” as grounds for impeachment lost a lot of momentum up on the Donkey side of Capital Hill. And never had any interest over on the other side even before his bombing.
Then along came “Ukrainegate,” which was only barely making headway until the White House disclosed the transcript of the conversation in question.
Even after that, interest in impeachment was only amped up a bit, while the possibilities of conviction in the Senate maybe nudged up a skosh or two, but certainly not enough to guarantee a verdict. And, interest outside of Swampland in the whole circus was only tepidly raised in intensity, if that, and only in some quarters in some places.
And then Trump starts with his “illegitimate,”unconstitutional,” “treasonous,” “impeach members of Congress” logorreah, and “Game Is On,” as they say in Rugby. Again.
Ya know something, Doc? If i didn’t know better, i’d say it’s almost like Trump’s owners, operators, and handlers actually, really, honestly, and sincerely want to see him impeached. And maybe even convicted.
Now why in the world would they want that?
2. i’m not sure how many farmers are upset with Trump after the $15.2 billion bailout he [and Congress] gave them as compensation for his tariff war, and as a down-payment on a bribe for Election 2020. Sort of like Yang promising $1000 a month for everybody, and virtually everybody promising a jubilee on student loans.
3. You wrote: “… his fate as a failure as President, never having had a majority in any reputable public opinion poll supportive of him and his Presidency!”
On what grounds do You dismiss Rasmussen as a not “reputable public opinion poll”? Because You disagree with their findings? Or because their findings disagree with Your beliefs on the matter?
Just remember, Doc: Clinton didn’t have a majority in the only public opinion poll that mattered back in 2016, either.
OK, I’m circling back to this because it’s really disturbing to see this poll interpreted so badly. I’m obviously no Democrat, but at the same time I don’t think it’s healthy for anyone to have an entire political party believing its own spin to this degree.
If one is to pretend to education, then on has to be numerate as well as literate. If one is to pretend to seriousness, then one has to dive beneath the headlines, even when those headlines flatter one’s biases.
In reality, this poll is catastrophic for the Democrats’ impeachment effort. With a 49% D sample, only 51% could be found to support impeachment-and-removal. Which means that in the entire universe of non-Democrats (almost 70% of the real world electorate), just 3% of that universe supports impeachment-and-removal. The margin of error on the poll is 3%.
In other words, the Democrats have convinced no one but their own partisans of the merits of impeachment and removal. In order to get to 51%, the Democrats need all of their own voters (31%) plus another 20% out of the rest of the electorate.
This poll shows that the Democrats have between 0 and 6 of that 20 percent. Assuming a start point of zero, this month-long media blitz moved the needle 15% of the distance it needs to move to achieve a genuine majority in support of impeachment-and-removal.
Once we start accounting for things like NeverTrumpers (5% of GOP) and registered voters vs. likely voters, these numbers are even worse for Democrats – they haven’t moved the needle with independents, the people they are most likely to persuade, at all.
If Democrats make decisions moving forward on the belief that a majority for impeachment-and-removal has already been achieved, they will be basing their political strategy on a demonstrably incorrect premise, and have little chance to succeed in any impeachment-related objective.
As a side note… all politically interested conservatives are already capable of doing this exercise. We learned how to do it en masse in 2016, how to un-spin the polls by looking at the internals, to obtain more reliable and accurate readings of the electorate. Until Democrats also learn to do this and not simply accept at face value that which they want to believe, conservatives will always be working with better information and have significant strategic and tactical advantages.
Jeffrey, Rasmussen Poll has always been an outlier, and no other poll sees Trump in a majority support EVER!
Alexis, everyone is aware that Trump will not be removed from office, because the Republican Senators have no convictions, no principles, and are dooming the future of the GOP. If Obama did one tenth of the abuses that Trump has, he would be ripe for their unanimous support for removal.
But Trump will be impeached by the House, rightfully, because he has committed a multitude of offenses, more even than Richard Nixon, and far more than Bill Clinton or Andrew Johnson.
For the record of history, and as a warning to future Presidents, impeachment is essential!
Otherwise, the Constitution is a scrap of paper to be disposed of, and we cannot allow that!
First of all: And to ask the obvious follow-on question: On what grounds do You dismiss Rasmussen as an “outlier public opinion poll� Because You disagree with their findings? Or because their findings disagree with Your beliefs on the matter?
2d of all: You wrote: “… and no other poll sees Trump in a majority support EVER!” NEVER??? Never is a very long time.
Would You like to bet money on that “no majority support EVER” statement?
None so far, Jeffrey, and remember it is a FOX NEWS Poll that says 51 percent in favor of impeachment.
Of course, at some point, possible another poll will show support for Trump, but not highly likely in the present political climate!
Doc: “For the record of history, and as a warning to future Presidents, impeachment is essential!”
History is written by the Winners, Doc; and there will be no winners from this impeachment. Impeachment is a complete and total waste of everybody’s time, effort, energy, money, political capital, and opportunity cost to focus on this nation’s real problems, and not those of the political class trying to sort out who gets to be at the head of the trough.
Doc: “Otherwise, the Constitution is a scrap of paper to be disposed of, and we cannot allow that!”
Significant parts of that Constitution has been disposed of for a long, long, time ~ by both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue and by both parties ~ as it served and serves the purpose of the political class and their owners, operators, and handlers.
@Ronald –
> Alexis, everyone is aware that Trump will not be removed from office,
Agreed.
> because the Republican Senators have no convictions, no principles,
Untrue. Republican Senators understand that Trump is all that stands between them and a media mob that will lynch them without trial. Their motive is survival, is based in principle and a conviction.
> and are dooming the future of the GOP.
Don’t agree. A center-right GOP based on populism and nationalism has a bright future. There is a clear track record of success and growth for this movement, which we can trace to Ron Paul 2008, the Tea Party (2009 version), the GOP wave election of 2010, Ron Paul 2012, Cantor-Brat, and now Trump. The same themes unite all these movements and it is a proven sale with the electorate.
> If Obama did one tenth of the abuses that Trump has, he would be ripe for their unanimous support for removal.
You don’t want this comparison, believe you me. Conservatives had 8 years to compile a list with full documentation of everything.
> But Trump will be impeached by the House,
I’m going to bet the other side of this one. Last week I would have agreed, but the air is coming out of this too fast and moderate Dems are starting to catch on that this will be a major liability moving forward. $1 gentlemen’s bet on this?
> rightfully, because he has committed a multitude of offenses, more even than Richard Nixon, and far more than Bill Clinton or Andrew Johnson.
It appears, from the outside in, that those offenses are entirely political. If there is an allegation that laws have been broken, it is incumbent to start producing things like US code numbers and supporting case law to make that argument. That there is no there there is not an avoidable problem when all eyes are turned to an impeachment vote.
The only legal basis I am aware of for impeachment is the same War Powers Act violations that have been going on more or less continuously since Vietnam.
> For the record of history, and as a warning to future Presidents, impeachment is essential!
What exactly is the intended message here? Is putting a stain on the record in and of itself a valid objective?
I’d consider a good warning to be “don’t exceed your Constitutional war powers” but Democrats for some reason don’t want to go there. It’s really weird, because back when anti-war rallies were a thing, there were lots of Democrats in attendance.
> Otherwise, the Constitution is a scrap of paper to be disposed of, and we cannot allow that!
You have no idea. Try being a conservative. You get no freedom of speech – liberals censor you relentlessly and ruthlessly and in bad faith. You get no freedom of religion – liberals track you down in order to file lawsuits against you. Your right to bear arms is under constant assault. You don’t get the right to face your accusers. You don’t get the right to legal counsel. Your trial is held in the media and the political opposition is the judge. Penalties will in all cases be excessive. Any attempt to defend yourself will be construed as obstruction of justice, since justice is defined as convicting you.
Those are the underlying conditions that caused this populist revolt in the first place, and why Democratic arguments are no longer selling outside the Democratic Party. The independents who ultimately decide between one party and the other can see that the situation is patently unfair, and unlike Democrats they do hear the other side of the story.
Doc: “… and remember it is a FOX NEWS Poll that says 51 percent in favor of impeachment.”
Heh. So when Fox NEWS reports a Trump approval rating of 51%, it’s just noise from an non-reputable, outlier public opinion poll. But when it reports 51% in favor of impeachment, it’s News.
You avoid the issue, Doc: On what basis, by what objective standard is Any public opinion poll about anything deemed “reputable” and an “inlier”?
Which polls that got the 2016 Presidential election so right that they are to be trusted today? Or as Pew Research put it back on 11/9:
“The results of Tuesday’s presidential election came as a surprise to nearly everyone who had been following the national and state election polling, which consistently projected Hillary Clinton as defeating Donald Trump. Relying largely on opinion polls, election forecasters put Clinton’s chance of winning at anywhere from 70% to as high as 99%, and pegged her as the heavy favorite to win a number of states such as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that in the end were taken by Trump.
“How could the polls have been so wrong about the state of the election?” [https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/why-2016-election-polls-missed-their-mark/]
@ Jeffrey Moebus
Just normalize to the electorate by party affiliation and you’ll see the truth.
These are catastrophic numbers for Democrats. No matter how loud they turn up the volume, 70% of the country simply isn’t listening any longer.
Clay nails why most Americans don’t like Trump and want to see him gone, one way or another.
Since taking office, President Donald Trump has betrayed many of our core values and beliefs as Americans: he’s shunned our allies, embraced murderous dictators and incited a version of extremism that has resulted in a rise in domestic terrorism and hate crimes targeting minorities, people of faith, LGBTQ Americans and immigrant communities.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/10/opinions/joe-biden-lgbtq-ally-aiken/index.html
Alexis wrote:
You can actually trace it all the way back to Goldwater and 1964. That’s when the seed for this whole thing was really planted. And i would be hesitant to put Ron Paul in the family tree of Trump, for what should be many obvious reasons.
A:
i agree entirely with Your first assertion, but don’t have a clue as to what You are getting at in the second. Could You clarify a bit? It sounds, well, very, almost, Clintonesque; but i’m not sure. Thanks.
A:
AMEN to that. Along, possibly, with refusal to cooperate with, and overt acts of interference with, a Congressional Impeachment Investigation.
A:
Heh. That reason is that the Democrats know that, in time, it will be their turn with their finger on the buttons.
And if You’re talking about since 9/11, there were lots of Dems at peace rallies because Republicans Cheney the Chancellor and Bush the Lesser were in the White House in 2001 and 2003. Once Obama took reign, there were no Democrats objecting to any of the Wars he dutifully carried on; just like there were no anti-war rallies.
If the Democrats were really serious about preventing a War with Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Turkey, Russia, China, or anybody else, they would craft a Joint Congressional Resolution that:
1. Voided the useless War Powers Act of 1977;
2. Informed President Trump that he will initiate no military action of any sort [overt, covert, hybrid, whatever] against anybody without a formal Congressional “Declaration of War,” and;
3. Advised him that failure to seek and get that Declaration WILL result in:
a. Immediate cut-off of all funding to the Department of Defense for the new War;
b. Impeachment and Conviction.
And then dare him to veto it.
Think any of the Democrats’ candidates for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue would go along with that?
A:
Give me a [expletive deleted]ing break, Alexis. “NO freedom of speech”? You conservatives do not have just as much opportunity and capability as liberals, progressives, anti-fas, and neo-proto-socialists to blather and blast Your message via Your very own Echo Chamber News, Views, and Truths Silos? Rubbish.
Oh, i know all about conservative speakers getting run off the stage or not even allowed on it, in the first place. And if You’re bitching about that at federally- and state-funded universities, You have a valid point. But i seldom hear Y’All complaining when the same thing happens to Leftists at rightward leaning fed- and state-subsidized institutions.
“No freedom of Speech… .” [sic] Briefbarf, InfoWarts, Drudge, Newsmax, TownHall, Unz, The Daily Caller, Limbaugh, Fox, Lew Rockwell, the Future of Freedom Foundation, the Foundation of Economic Education, the Mises Institute, etc etc etal et au nauseum. Like i said, GMAFB.
A:
How many conservatives have had law suits filed against them because of religious convictions?
And more importantly, what is the real reason some fundamentalist Christian baker doesn’t have to sell a cake to a gay couple? It is NOT ~ as many ill-informed talking heads and so-called religio-legal experts have informed us ~ because of their “right” under freedom of religion to discriminate against people who offend their religion sensibilities and sensitivities.
Rather, it is because of the fact that, as the private owners of a private business, they have the absolute Right as property owners to sell or not sell that cake to whoever they damn well please, for whatever reason. Religion has nothing to do with it.
And what about those of us who’d like a little Freedom FROM Religion? Freedom from a new Nationalist, Nativist Religion being jammed down the throats and up the butts of Americans? As Sinclair Lewis put it: “When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a bible.”
Freedom OF Religion includes Freedom FROM Religion, as well. Or at least it should.
A:
Again, GMAFB. How close right now, Alexis, do You think that Right is to being taken away? How close do You think this nation is to some form of national, federal gun control? What coalition [real or imagined] has the capability to pull that off? And even if, somehow, a national, federal gun control law was passed, how close do You think it will ever be to ever being actually, really enforced? First of all: Who’s going to enforce it? Beto’s Band of AR-15 Takers?
That “constant assault” is the bleating of elements of the political class looking for something to somehow answer another, unasked question: <<>>
You conservatives have a lot more important and pressing things to worry about than assaults on Your assault weapons.
A:
Dang, Alexis. Are You talking about “conservatives,” or are You talking about inner-city Ghetto Blacks and Latinos in general, or folks swept up in both the so-called “War On Drugs” here in America, and those swept up by America’s so-called “Global” so-called “War On” so-called Terrorism, specifically?
In any event: WHICH conservatives have been subject to all these outrages? i can think of a few potential candidates; i wonder if they’re the same as Yours.
A:
This is not merely a “populist revolt,” Alexis. This is a nativist, nationalist, racist, sexist, xenophobist, Christianist, wrapped-in-the-flag-carrying-a-bible patriotist, proto-neo-fascist revolt, my friend.
The real question right now is this: If opinion polls listed ~ as an additional choice in head-to-head individual Democrat choices contests with Trump ~ the option of “None Of These Candidates,” how would NOTC do? Eg; if, in 2016, the ballots had as a leverable vote “None Of These Candidates,” how do think it would have done? Think it might have changed the results of the election?
It would have been interesting to see what would have happened to NOTC’s Electoral College votes if it had won the plurality [however small] of a State, eh? Heh.
Now THAT is an idea for Election 2020, no?
[Just remember, more people voted against both Clinton and Trump than voted for either of them.]
Sorry. Something got lost in the transition and translation from my computer to this blog on that last message.
It would be nice if this Blog had an Edit capability, like Disqus, WordPress, and others.
Corrected Copy:
Alexis wrote: “A center-right GOP based on populism and nationalism has a bright future. There is a clear track record of success and growth for this movement, which we can trace to Ron Paul 2008, the Tea Party (2009 version), the GOP wave election of 2010, Ron Paul 2012, Cantor-Brat, and now Trump.”
You can actually trace it all the way back to Goldwater and 1964. That’s when the seed for this whole thing was really planted. And i would be hesitant to put Ron Paul in the family tree of Trump, for what should be many obvious reasons.
A: “It appears, from the outside in, that those offenses are entirely political…. That there is no there there is not an avoidable problem when all eyes are turned to an impeachment vote.
i agree entirely with Your first assertion, but don’t have a clue as to what You are getting at in the second. Could You clarify a bit? It sounds, well, very, almost, Clintonesque; but i’m not sure. Thanks.
A: “The only legal basis I am aware of for impeachment is the same War Powers Act violations that have been going on more or less continuously since Vietnam.”
AMEN to that. Along, possibly, with refusal to cooperate with, and overt acts to interfere with, a Congressional Impeachment Investigation.
A: “I’d consider a good warning to be “don’t exceed your Constitutional war powers†but Democrats for some reason don’t want to go there. It’s really weird, because back when anti-war rallies were a thing, there were lots of Democrats in attendance.”
Heh. That reason is that the Democrats know that, in time, it will be their turn with their finger on the buttons.
And if You’re talking about since 9/11, there were lots of Dems at peace rallies because Republicans Cheney the Chancellor and Bush the Lesser were in the White House in 2001 and 2003. Once Obama took reign, there were no Democrats objecting to any of the Wars he dutifully carried on; just like there were no anti-war rallies.
If the Democrats were really serious about preventing a War with Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Turkey, Russia, China, or anybody else, they would craft a Joint Congressional Resolution that:
1. Voided the useless War Powers Act of 1977;
2. Informed President Trump that he will initiate no military action of any sort [overt, covert, hybrid, whatever] against anybody without a formal Congressional “Declaration of War,” and;
3. Advised him that failure to seek and get that Declaration WILL result in:
a. Immediate cut-off of all funding to the Department of Defense for the new War;
b. Impeachment and Conviction.
And then dare him to veto it.
Think any of the Democrats’ candidates for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue would go along with that?
A: ” [Doc: Otherwise, the Constitution is a scrap of paper to be disposed of, and we cannot allow that!] You have no idea. Try being a conservative. You get no freedom of speech – liberals censor you relentlessly and ruthlessly and in bad faith.
Give me a [expletive deleted]ing break, Alexis. “NO freedom of speech”? You conservatives do not have just as much opportunity and capability as liberals, progressives, anti-fas, and neo-proto-socialists to blather and blast Your message via Your very own Echo Chamber News, Views, and Truths Silos? Rubbish.
Oh, i know all about conservative speakers getting run off the stage or not even allowed on it, in the first place. And if You’re bitching about that at federally- and state-funded universities, You have a valid point. But i seldom hear Y’All complaining when the same thing happens to Leftists at rightward leaning fed- and state-subsidized institutions.
“No freedom of Speech… .” [sic] Briefbarf, InfoWarts, Drudge, Newsmax, TownHall, Unz, The Daily Caller, Limbaugh, Fox, Lew Rockwell, the Future of Freedom Foundation, the Foundation of Economic Education, the Mises Institute, etc etc etal et au nauseum. Like i said, GMAFB.
A: “You get no freedom of religion – liberals track you down in order to file lawsuits against you.”
How many conservatives have had law suits filed against them because of religious convictions?
And more importantly, what is the real reason some fundamentalist Christian baker doesn’t have to sell a cake to a gay couple? It is NOT ~ as many ill-informed talking heads and so-called religio-legal experts have informed us ~ because of their “right” under freedom of religion to discriminate against people who offend their religion sensibilities and sensitivities.
Rather, it is because of the fact that, as the private owners of a private business, they have the absolute Right as property owners to sell or not sell that cake to whoever they damn well please, for whatever reason. Religion has nothing to do with it.
And what about those of us who’d like a little Freedom FROM Religion? Freedom from a new Nationalist, Nativist Religion being jammed down the throats and up the butts of Americans? As Sinclair Lewis put it: “When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a bible.”
Freedom OF Religion includes Freedom FROM Religion, as well. Or at least it should.
A: “Your right to bear arms is under constant assault.”
Again, GMAFB. How close right now, Alexis, do You think that Right is to being taken away? How close do You think this nation is to some form of national, federal gun control? What coalition [real or imagined] has the capability to pull that off? And even if, somehow, a national, federal gun control law was passed, how close do You think it will be to being actually enforced? First of all: Who’s going to enforce it? Beto’s Band of AR-15 Takers?
That “constant assault” is the bleating of elements of the political class looking for something to somehow answer another, unasked question: Is not having to worry about getting blown away while in school, at work, out with friends, or at a place of worship by a psychopath with a legally sold, bought, and owned weapons system a Human Right? Or is it merely and only secondarily but a Human Need and Want?
You conservatives have a lot more important and pressing things to worry about that assaults on Your assault weapons.
A: ” You don’t get the right to face your accusers. You don’t get the right to legal counsel. Your trial is held in the media and the political opposition is the judge. Penalties will in all cases be excessive. Any attempt to defend yourself will be construed as obstruction of justice, since justice is defined as convicting you.”
Dang, Alexis. Are You talking about “conservatives,” or are You talking about inner-city Ghetto Blacks and Latinos in general, or folks swept up in both the so-called “War On Drugs” here in America, and those swept up by America’s so-called “Global” so-called “War On” so-called Terrorism, specifically?
In any event: WHICH conservatives have been subject to all these outrages? i can think of a few potential candidates; i wonder if they’re the same as Yours.
A: “Those are the underlying conditions that caused this populist revolt in the first place, and why Democratic arguments are no longer selling outside the Democratic Party. The independents who ultimately decide between one party and the other can see that the situation is patently unfair, and unlike Democrats they do hear the other side of the story.”
This is not merely a “populist revolt,” Alexis. This is a nativist, nationalist, racist, sexist, xenophobist, Christianist, wrapped-in-the-flag-carrying-a-bible patriotist, proto-neo-fascist revolt, my friend.
The real question right now is this: If opinion polls listed ~ as an additional choice in head-to-head individual Democrat choices contests with Trump ~ the option of “None Of These Candidates,” how would NOTC do? Eg; if, in 2016, the ballots had as a leverable vote “None Of These Candidates,” how do think it would have done? Think it might have changed the results of the election?
It would have been interesting to see what would happen to NOTC’s Electoral College votes if it had won the plurality [however small] of a State, eh? Heh.
Now THAT is an idea for Election 2020, no?
ps: Just remember that in 2016 more people voted against both Clinton and Trump than voted for either one of them.
Jeffrey said: It would be nice if this Blog had an Edit capability, like Disqus, WordPress, and others.
Everyone here seconds that.
@ Jeffrey Moebius
re: lineage of movement
I’d argue the line was broken after Reagan and before Ron Paul. Nearly 2 decades had passed with no real liberty movement to speak of in existence. I can trace an unbroken line only starting from RP2008.
re: War Powers
Glad to see we have started to identify areas of agreement. Who know, identify enough and we might see that we have enough things in common to work productively together towards those ends.
I’m going to point out that that position puts you in opposition to all national Democrats save Tulsi Gabbard.
re: Freedom of speech for conservatives
You can experience it yourself and dispel all doubt. Create a new Twitter account, follow Trump and any 4 pro-Trump accounts with your initial setup, and start putting conservative comments (you can copy and paste from real people for content) in conversations. You’ll see the censorship manifest within days.
Every single one of the conservative news outlets you mention has experienced censorship on FB, Twitter, and/or Google – often all three.
Not going to go all the way down the rabbit hole on the rest because it takes us too far off topic. We can revisit on an appropriate topic.
> This is not merely a “populist revolt,†Alexis. This is a nativist, nationalist, racist, sexist, xenophobist, Christianist, wrapped-in-the-flag-carrying-a-bible patriotist, proto-neo-fascist revolt, my friend.
That is very amusing that you use the word “nativist”. That’s the same exact word used by people like Shaun Kenney and the VAGOP establishment that helped to lead to the historic defeat of Eric Cantor.
It is also amusing in that it’s a near-exact match to the caricature of the GOP that I described during that race, and was able to successfully pin the success of this canard on the Cantor faction.
As far as the statement as a whole, those words aren’t suitable for debate, they’re simple insults, and a wholesale mischaracterization of the movement.
Two Ukrainians tied to Ghouliani have been arrested.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/10/politics/guliani-client-arrested-campaign-finance/index.html
A: @ Jeffrey Moebius [Heh. Family rumour is that that was the name before Great Great GrandPa hit Ellis Island and ran into a “death to all excess vowels” Name Changer in the In-processing line. It then became “Moebus.” Further rumour is that there is a linkage to that Topologist who came up with the piece of paper with only one side: the Moebius Strip.]
A: re: lineage of movement. I’d argue the line was broken after Reagan and before Ron Paul. Nearly 2 decades had passed with no real liberty movement to speak of in existence. I can trace an unbroken line only starting from RP2008.
The line may have been broken with Reagan, but there was more than a little of Goldwater’s core message that Paul picked up and ran with. And that’s because that’s when the “conservative” [more neoconservative than traditional Taftian conservative] and, more importantly, the libertarian think tanks, foundations, and the like started to get their acts together; and develop an practical, saleable intellectual foundation for guys like Paul to build on.
Who, so far, is the only one to have successfully done so. He was the first and, so far, last of his time.
A: re: War Powers. Glad to see we have started to identify areas of agreement…I’m going to point out that that position puts you in opposition to all national Democrats save Tulsi Gabbard.
Heh. And i will point out that my position puts me in opposition to all Republicans, Social Democrats, Democratic Socialists, Tea Partyers, and Everybody else in Swampland [neo-con, neo-lib, neo-socialist, and neo-fascist], especially the folks on J Street. And i doubt even Gabbard is ready to go so far as to threaten impeachment for launching an Undeclared War. In fact, i doubt most Americans would go along with that. i’ll have to send Ron Paul a note, and ask him his thoughts.
A: re: Freedom of speech for conservatives. You can experience it yourself and dispel all doubt. Create a new Twitter account. You’ll see the censorship manifest within days….Every single one of the conservative news outlets you mention has experienced censorship on FB, Twitter, and/or Google – often all three.
i already have a great deal of personal experience with i-net and MSM “censorship,” or content control, Alexis. i’ve been in the 9/11 Skeptic business for 18 years and know all about what does and does not get posted to FB, Twitter, Google, and the like. Or on the morning, noon, and evening news, print, audio, and/or visual.
So what? Are FB, Twitter, and Google the only places where You folks can get Your message across? i seriously doubt it.
You have no problem with a Christian baker not selling cake to fags because it’s his business and he can sell or not sell to whoever he damn well pleases, right? Then why do You have a similar problem with FB, Twitter, and Google exercising the same Rights of Property and Ownership control?
And why do i hear the same complaints about internet censorship from the Left as much as i do from the Right? Is Everybody getting censored? Or is it that everybody Thinks they are being censored?
Again; So what? If You can’t get on FB, Twitter, or Google, then find someplace You can. Or create Your own. Which is exactly what You have done with all those conservative news and views outlets i listed.
Ohh but, but, but….. “They’re so Big and Powerful….. Somebody in Government needs to Control Them…” bellows the self-proclaimed “conservative.”
i’m sorry, Alexis. i have a hard time generating any sympathy for somebody who feels they are being censored on the Web. That is the environment in which we live; and those who learn how to adapt to and/or to modify that environment best, will not merely survive, but thrive.
It’s that good, olde-tyme Social Darwinism applied to the Cybersphere and Political Advocacy in Year III of The Age of Trump..
The Donald has spoken of creating his own News Network to combat all the “fake news” out there: TTTT, or Trump’s Truth Trumps Truth; and why not? Why don’t all You conservatives who feel so discriminated against do that, and one better: create Your own FB, Twitter, and Google?
What’s one more source of noise in a spectrum where the noise to information ratio grows almost exponentially daily?
A: Not going to go all the way down the rabbit hole on the rest because it takes us too far off topic. We can revisit on an appropriate topic.
Ehhhh; not going down what rabbit hole on the rest of what?
A: > “This is not merely a “populist revolt,†Alexis. This is a nativist, nationalist, racist, sexist, xenophobist, Christianist, wrapped-in-the-flag-carrying-a-bible patriotist, proto-neo-fascist revolt, my friend.”
A: That is very amusing that you use the word “nativist . As far as the statement as a whole, those words aren’t suitable for debate, they’re simple insults, and a wholesale mischaracterization of the movement.
i wasn’t inviting a debate. THAT is how i regard and define Trump, Trumpatismo, and Trumpatistas. i would also add “jingoist and neo-mercantilist/protectionist,” as well. If You take that as an insult to them or Yourself, i’m afraid that’s Your problem. i have nothing but utter, complete, and total contempt for Trump, his Religion, and his Fathfully Devoted.
If You are talking about somebody else that i am insulting, then to whom do You refer? Which politicians, foundations, think tanks, and media outlets are You talking about? To which groups of American citizen voters are You referring?
Ie, what “movement”?
And finally, besides “nativist,” to what other terms in my description of “the revolt” do You object, and Why?
Have a good one. ~ jeff
Which Democrat just tweeted this? “The United States has spent EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS fighting and policing in the Middle East. Thousands of our Great Soldiers have died or been badly wounded. Millions of people have died on the other side. GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE … IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY! We went to war under a false & now disproven premise, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.â€
@ Jeffrey
I’ll pick the one most coherent thing to respond to from your post. I don’t got time to deal with constant walls of text covering a dozen different topics.
>You have no problem with a Christian baker not selling cake to fags because it’s his business and he can sell or not sell to whoever he damn well pleases, right? Then why do You have a similar problem with FB, Twitter, and Google exercising the same Rights of Property and Ownership control?
I do have a problem with the latter, because the business models of FB, Twitter, and Google depend on a liability shield that is only available if they respect the First Amendment rights of their users. It’s called “common carrier” protections. If they lose this shield they are not viable businesses, and what they have done censorship-wise legally justifies removing the shield.
So they aren’t an equivalent to a baker who was minding their own business and didn’t make false promises, only to encounter someone who deliberately went out of their way to pick a target for a lawfare suit based on the target’s religion in what is essentially a conspiracy to deny their Constitutional rights.
Going to another baker to get your gay cake made is not an unreasonable ask. Building your own parallel communications infrastructure is.
A: I’ll pick the one most coherent thing to respond to from your post. I don’t got time to deal with constant walls of text covering a dozen different topics.
Heh. Well, You were the one who wrote: “Glad to see we have started to identify areas of agreement. Who know, identify enough and we might see that we have enough things in common to work productively together towards those ends.”
Just checking to see if there are any other “areas of agreement to work productively together towards.”
A: I do have a problem with the latter, because the business models of FB, Twitter, and Google depend on a liability shield that is only available if they respect the First Amendment rights of their users. It’s called “common carrier†protections. If they lose this shield they are not viable businesses, and what they have done censorship-wise legally justifies removing the shield.
Why ~ if they lose this “common carrier” protection ~ would they suddenly become “not viable businesses”? What would change? And how would it change how they would have to do business?
A: Going to another baker to get your gay cake made is not an unreasonable ask. Building your own parallel communications infrastructure is.
There was nothing before Facebook, Twitter, and Google that they replaced? There is nothing that has come along since FT&G that competes with, even replaces them?
Didn’t FT&G build their own parallel communications infrastructures?
So are You really saying that FT&G have no competition; that they are a protected monopoly, just like any other utility? Is that what You are saying?
Alexis Rose Bank writes, “This poll: 49D/40R/12I
Gallup party affiliation: 31D/29R/38I …â€
Alexis Rose Bank—I have seen your comments to this, and at least one more, blog topic. I want to say, “Welcome to ‘The Progressive Professor’!†I hope you will post even more comments.
In response to what I quoted: You are correct in that is important, when looking at polls, to look over the details—like with what you pointed out.
This blog topic is not totally separate from taking into consideration what may play out with the United States presidential election of 2020.
I have seen plenty of polls regarding the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries and with hypothetical general-election matchups of a possible Democratic nominee facing Republican incumbent U.S. president Donald Trump.
I look at polls, for details, to see if they jibe with some of the more recent history. Since 1992, the strongest margin in the U.S. Popular Vote was Bill Clinton, with re-election in 1996, with winning by +8.51 percentage points. The two Republican pickup winners, 2000 George W. Bush and 2016 Donald Trump, did not win the U.S. Popular Vote. Their margins were –0.51 and –2.09 percentage points. Had they won likewise Republican pickups of the U.S. Popular Vote, I estimate their popular-vote margins (whole-number estimate) would have been +2. (Since at least 1932, the pattern has been an average of +1 to +1.5—usually closer to the former—in net gains of states, with the national shift of the U.S. Popular Vote percentage-points margin, for a pickup winning Republican or Democrat.) Since 1992, the range of the number of carried states have been between 26 (a 2012 re-elected Barack Obama) and 32 (a 1992 first-term elected Clinton). The average has been 29 carried states. And, when looking toward an upcoming presidential election, if you want to figure the probable number of carried states—be it a prevailing Republican or Democrat—add +28 and +22 for a prevailing nominee or incumbent from Team Red or Team Blue. (That is, when they also win the U.S. Popular Vote. Having mentioned 2000 George W. Bush and 2016 Donald Trump’s U.S. Popular Vote margin would have been +2, well they both carried 30 states. Bush, with re-election in 2004, won by +2.46 and carried 31 states.) Winning Republicans have tended to win 9 electoral votes on average of each carried state. (2016 Trump won an average of 10.) Winning Democrats have tended to average 12 electoral votes on average of each carried state. (1992 Clinton won an average of 11. And 2008 Obama won an average of 13.)
A 2019 poll, looking toward the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries and the general election, which stood out was in June. It was from Quinnipiac University. I will provide the link here: https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us06112019_urox721.pdf/.
It stood out for me for what it reported on Joe Biden. I found it to be not convincing. There is at least one reason why. I wrote about this elsewhere. In the next paragraph is my reaction to a part of that poll.
* * *
In 2016, the national support from white voters were Trump +21. (That means, for 2016 losing Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, her margin with whites nationwide was –21 percentage points. Mitt Romney, the losing Republican nominee from 2012, carried whites nationally by +20.) This poll report has Trump winning whites nationally by only +1. That is a 20-point Democratic shift nationwide. (The last winning Democrat to nationally carry whites was 1964 Lyndon Johnson. He won the U.S. Popular Vote by +22.58 and carried 44 states, plus first-time-voting District of Columbia, and 486 electoral votes.) But, look at the poll numbers for blacks! In the 2008 Democratic pickup year for Barack Obama, he won blacks nationally by +91. (It was 95 percent for Obama to 4 percent for losing Republican John McCain.) With re-election in 2012, Obama nationally carried blacks by +87. (He went down to 93 percent to the 6 percent for Romney. Remember: Obama underperformed his second-term re-election compared to his first. Typically, presidents re-elected to a second term win with increased numbers including their electoral-vote scores. Obama went from 365 electoral votes, in 2008, to 332 in 2012.) In this report, with the combined percentages for the two-party vote typically between 97 to 99 percent (which was in the same range from 2004, 2008, and 2012), Biden polls nationwide with black support by +73. In 2016, with the presidency having flipped Republican (and the two-party vote combining for nearly 94 percent; Trump received 45.93 percent to the 48.02 percent for Hillary), losing Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton carried blacks nationally by +81. (She received 89 percent to the 8 percent for Trump.) And, among Hispanics, Obama won them nationally by +36 (in 2008) and +44 (in 2012). Hillary won them by +38 (in 2016). So, the quoted numbers of non-whites for Biden, with him also winning Hispanics by +25, are conspicuous underperformances of 2016 Hillary Clinton. Get this: For the gender vote, Biden takes Hillary’s national carriage of women, by +13, and wins them by +26 (a 2016-to-2020 national shift of +13), and he wins a Democratic pickup of men by +1 (following Hillary’s loss of –11, that would be a national shift of +12.) In terms of the racial demographics, Biden is a candidate for whites—even though whites are the first to get carried nationally by Republicans—while he underperforms with blacks and Hispanics, down by –8 and –13 points (from 2016 Hillary Clinton), while winning the U.S. Popular Vote, and with it a Democratic pickup of the presidency, by a landslide U.S. Popular Vote margin of +13. (Winning on that level, for a Democrat, would be carriage of an estimated 35 states.)
* * *
I found this poll to not be credible as for it specifically having related to Joe Biden for the general election. (I won’t mention anything more than this example.) The numbers do not jibe with historical voting pattern over the last several election cycles. But, if they were to become the result, this would mark a possible realignment of some important key demographics’ voting patterns. And, for anyone who truly bought into that poll, that person should recognize this. Due to all this, I ended up dismissing this June 2019 poll report by Quinnipiac University. Alexis Rose Bank writes, “This poll: 49D/40R/12I
Gallup party affiliation: 31D/29R/38I …â€
Alexis Rose Bank—I have seen your comments to this, and at least one more, blog topic. I want to say, “Welcome to ‘The Progressive Professor’!†I hope you will post even more comments.
In response to what I quoted: You are correct in that is important, when looking at polls, to look over the details—like with what you pointed out.
This blog topic is not totally separate from taking into consideration what may play out with the United States presidential election of 2020.
I have seen plenty of polls regarding the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries and with hypothetical general-election matchups of a possible Democratic nominee facing Republican incumbent U.S. president Donald Trump.
I look at polls, for details, to see if they jibe with some of the more recent history. Since 1992, the strongest margin in the U.S. Popular Vote was Bill Clinton, with re-election in 1996, with winning by +8.51 percentage points. The two Republican pickup winners, 2000 George W. Bush and 2016 Donald Trump, did not win the U.S. Popular Vote. Their margins were –0.51 and –2.09 percentage points. Had they won likewise Republican pickups of the U.S. Popular Vote, I estimate their popular-vote margins (whole-number estimate) would have been +2. (Since at least 1932, the pattern has been an average of +1 to +1.5—usually closer to the former—in net gains of states, with the national shift of the U.S. Popular Vote percentage-points margin, for a pickup winning Republican or Democrat.) Since 1992, the range of the number of carried states have been between 26 (a 2012 re-elected Barack Obama) and 32 (a 1992 first-term elected Clinton). The average has been 29 carried states. And, when looking toward an upcoming presidential election, if you want to figure the probable number of carried states—be it a prevailing Republican or Democrat—add +28 and +22 for a prevailing nominee or incumbent from Team Red or Team Blue. (That is, when they also win the U.S. Popular Vote. Having mentioned 2000 George W. Bush and 2016 Donald Trump’s U.S. Popular Vote margin would have been +2, well they both carried 30 states. Bush, with re-election in 2004, won by +2.46 and carried 31 states.) Winning Republicans have tended to win 9 electoral votes on average of each carried state. (2016 Trump won an average of 10.) Winning Democrats have tended to average 12 electoral votes on average of each carried state. (1992 Clinton won an average of 11. And 2008 Obama won an average of 13.)
A 2019 poll, looking toward the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries and the general election, which stood out was in June. It was from Quinnipiac University. I will provide the link here: https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us06112019_urox721.pdf/.
It stood out for me for what it reported on Joe Biden. I found it to be not convincing. There is at least one reason why. I wrote about this elsewhere. In the next paragraph is my reaction to a part of that poll.
* * *
In 2016, the national support from white voters were Trump +21. (That means, for 2016 losing Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, her margin with whites nationwide was –21 percentage points. Mitt Romney, the losing Republican nominee from 2012, carried whites nationally by +20.) This poll report has Trump winning whites nationally by only +1. That is a 20-point Democratic shift nationwide. (The last winning Democrat to nationally carry whites was 1964 Lyndon Johnson. He won the U.S. Popular Vote by +22.58 and carried 44 states, plus first-time-voting District of Columbia, and 486 electoral votes.) But, look at the poll numbers for blacks! In the 2008 Democratic pickup year for Barack Obama, he won blacks nationally by +91. (It was 95 percent for Obama to 4 percent for losing Republican John McCain.) With re-election in 2012, Obama nationally carried blacks by +87. (He went down to 93 percent to the 6 percent for Romney. Remember: Obama underperformed his second-term re-election compared to his first. Typically, presidents re-elected to a second term win with increased numbers including their electoral-vote scores. Obama went from 365 electoral votes, in 2008, to 332 in 2012.) In this report, with the combined percentages for the two-party vote typically between 97 to 99 percent (which was in the same range from 2004, 2008, and 2012), Biden polls nationwide with black support by +73. In 2016, with the presidency having flipped Republican (and the two-party vote combining for nearly 94 percent; Trump received 45.93 percent to the 48.02 percent for Hillary), losing Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton carried blacks nationally by +81. (She received 89 percent to the 8 percent for Trump.) And, among Hispanics, Obama won them nationally by +36 (in 2008) and +44 (in 2012). Hillary won them by +38 (in 2016). So, the quoted numbers of non-whites for Biden, with him also winning Hispanics by +25, are conspicuous underperformances of 2016 Hillary Clinton. Get this: For the gender vote, Biden takes Hillary’s national carriage of women, by +13, and wins them by +26 (a 2016-to-2020 national shift of +13), and he wins a Democratic pickup of men by +1 (following Hillary’s loss of –11, that would be a national shift of +12.) In terms of the racial demographics, Biden is a candidate for whites—even though whites are the first to get carried nationally by Republicans—while he underperforms with blacks and Hispanics, down by –8 and –13 points (from 2016 Hillary Clinton), while winning the U.S. Popular Vote, and with it a Democratic pickup of the presidency, by a landslide U.S. Popular Vote margin of +13. (Winning on that level, for a Democrat, would be carriage of an estimated 35 states.)
* * *
I found this poll to not be credible as for it specifically having related to Joe Biden for the general election. (I won’t mention anything more than this example.) The numbers do not jibe with historical voting pattern over the last several election cycles. But, if they were to become the result, this would mark a possible realignment of some important key demographics’ voting patterns. And, for anyone who truly bought into that poll, that person should recognize this. Due to all this, I ended up dismissing this June 2019 poll report by Quinnipiac University.
Alexis Rose Bank writes, “This poll: 49D/40R/12I
Gallup party affiliation: 31D/29R/38I …â€
Alexis Rose Bank—I have seen your comments to this, and at least one more, blog topic. I want to say, “Welcome to ‘The Progressive Professor’!†I hope you will post even more comments.
In response to what I quoted: You are correct in that is important, when looking at polls, to look over the details—like with what you pointed out.
This blog topic is not totally separate from taking into consideration what may play out with the United States presidential election of 2020.
I have seen plenty of polls regarding the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries and with hypothetical general-election matchups of a possible Democratic nominee facing Republican incumbent U.S. president Donald Trump.
I look at polls, for details, to see if they jibe with some of the more recent history. Since 1992, the strongest margin in the U.S. Popular Vote was Bill Clinton, with re-election in 1996, with winning by +8.51 percentage points. The two Republican pickup winners, 2000 George W. Bush and 2016 Donald Trump, did not win the U.S. Popular Vote. Their margins were –0.51 and –2.09 percentage points. Had they won likewise Republican pickups of the U.S. Popular Vote, I estimate their popular-vote margins (whole-number estimate) would have been +2. (Since at least 1932, the pattern has been an average of +1 to +1.5—usually closer to the former—in net gains of states, with the national shift of the U.S. Popular Vote percentage-points margin, for a pickup winning Republican or Democrat.) Since 1992, the range of the number of carried states have been between 26 (a 2012 re-elected Barack Obama) and 32 (a 1992 first-term elected Clinton). The average has been 29 carried states. And, when looking toward an upcoming presidential election, if you want to figure the probable number of carried states—be it a prevailing Republican or Democrat—add +28 and +22 for a prevailing nominee or incumbent from Team Red or Team Blue. (That is, when they also win the U.S. Popular Vote. Having mentioned 2000 George W. Bush and 2016 Donald Trump’s U.S. Popular Vote margin would have been +2, well they both carried 30 states. Bush, with re-election in 2004, won by +2.46 and carried 31 states.) Winning Republicans have tended to win 9 electoral votes on average of each carried state. (2016 Trump won an average of 10.) Winning Democrats have tended to average 12 electoral votes on average of each carried state. (1992 Clinton won an average of 11. And 2008 Obama won an average of 13.)
A 2019 poll, looking toward the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries and the general election, which stood out was in June. It was from Quinnipiac University. I will provide the link here: https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us06112019_urox721.pdf/.
It stood out for me for what it reported on Joe Biden. I found it to be not convincing. There is at least one reason why. I wrote about this elsewhere. In the next paragraph is my reaction to a part of that poll.
* * *
In 2016, the national support from white voters were Trump +21. (That means, for 2016 losing Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, her margin with whites nationwide was –21 percentage points. Mitt Romney, the losing Republican nominee from 2012, carried whites nationally by +20.) This poll report has Trump winning whites nationally by only +1. That is a 20-point Democratic shift nationwide. (The last winning Democrat to nationally carry whites was 1964 Lyndon Johnson. He won the U.S. Popular Vote by +22.58 and carried 44 states, plus first-time-voting District of Columbia, and 486 electoral votes.) But, look at the poll numbers for blacks! In the 2008 Democratic pickup year for Barack Obama, he won blacks nationally by +91. (It was 95 percent for Obama to 4 percent for losing Republican John McCain.) With re-election in 2012, Obama nationally carried blacks by +87. (He went down to 93 percent to the 6 percent for Romney. Remember: Obama underperformed his second-term re-election compared to his first. Typically, presidents re-elected to a second term win with increased numbers including their electoral-vote scores. Obama went from 365 electoral votes, in 2008, to 332 in 2012.) In this report, with the combined percentages for the two-party vote typically between 97 to 99 percent (which was in the same range from 2004, 2008, and 2012), Biden polls nationwide with black support by +73. In 2016, with the presidency having flipped Republican (and the two-party vote combining for nearly 94 percent; Trump received 45.93 percent to the 48.02 percent for Hillary), losing Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton carried blacks nationally by +81. (She received 89 percent to the 8 percent for Trump.) And, among Hispanics, Obama won them nationally by +36 (in 2008) and +44 (in 2012). Hillary won them by +38 (in 2016). So, the quoted numbers of non-whites for Biden, with him also winning Hispanics by +25, are conspicuous underperformances of 2016 Hillary Clinton. Get this: For the gender vote, Biden takes Hillary’s national carriage of women, by +13, and wins them by +26 (a 2016-to-2020 national shift of +13), and he wins a Democratic pickup of men by +1 (following Hillary’s loss of –11, that would be a national shift of +12.) In terms of the racial demographics, Biden is a candidate for whites—even though whites are the first to get carried nationally by Republicans—while he underperforms with blacks and Hispanics, down by –8 and –13 points (from 2016 Hillary Clinton), while winning the U.S. Popular Vote, and with it a Democratic pickup of the presidency, by a landslide U.S. Popular Vote margin of +13. (Winning on that level, for a Democrat, would be carriage of an estimated 35 states.)
* * *
I found this poll to not be credible as for it specifically having related to Joe Biden for the general election. (I won’t mention anything more than this example.) The numbers do not jibe with historical voting pattern over the last several election cycles. But, if they were to become the result, this would mark a possible realignment of some important key demographics’ voting patterns. And, for anyone who truly bought into that poll, that person should recognize this. Due to all this, I ended up dismissing this June 2019 poll report by Quinnipiac University.
@ jeffrey
> Why ~ if they lose this “common carrier†protection ~ would they suddenly become “not viable businesses� What would change? And how would it change how they would have to do business?
What would change is that they would then acquire liability for every crime planned or committed using their platforms, including things live livestreamed murders, gang hits, threats and so on. They would be a party to too many lawsuits and be crushed by legal costs and awards.
That’s why “common carrier” laws exist. So that if someone uses a phone to commit a crime it doesn’t put the phone company out of business. But to get that protection, you have to be consistent and even-handed. The phone company can’t pick and choose who to give service to based on what those people might use the phone to say.
@ D
Nice to make your acquaintance as well. I stumbled on this blog doing some research for a book on the Cantor-Brat primary I plan to write, saw the invite to a productive and rational conversation and figured I’d pitch in.
I’d really like to see a healthy two-party system, and that requires that both parties be viable. The Democratic Party is rapidly losing that status and isolating itself in a big way.
I hope by participating here maybe I can play a small role in talking them down from the ledge of prepubescent “transgenders” and eating babies, and maybe get a focus on what real people – not political activists – care about. Wages. Cost of living – especially housing, medical, and education. Basic law and order. Our deteriorating infrastructure. And so on.
Dems going down the “get Trump by any means necessary” route and hysterical bad faith rhetoric on a wide range of issues is not helping the country. They have the same representation crisis that the GOP had in 2014, where the leadership and its priorities bore little to no resemblance to the great masses of voters and their priorities.
@ D
Regarding polls and poll analysis… outside the Dem primary contest itself, any analysis of polls is extremely premature. The practice of polling in general is in pretty bad shape – I think only one major poll called the 2016 election correctly (IBD/TIPP), and that was taken mere days before the vote.
In the case of the 2020 general election, the outcome will depend entirely on the disposition of particular battleground states; the other states aren’t reasonably variable in how they will cast their electoral votes.
Battleground states right now are MN, WI, MI, PA, NC, FL, NH, CO, NV. Dems got beat so bad in Ohio that it’s not realistically on the list anymore, it’s now a GOP state. Reverse happened in VA, Dems locked it GOP is no longer competitive there.
So you can focus your research on those battlegrounds in order to get the best predictive model of actual outcome. This is why Trump is so focused on MN right now, he is convinced he can turn in GOP to increase the size of his electoral vote margin, and there is a strong indication that it is working.
If Dems are to win, they need to capture some states they didn’t capture last time – enough to overcome the difference. They’re going to have a real tough time because a lot of the biggest ones are in the Midwest and are shifting towards Trump because of his pro-manufacturing-sector policies.
Perhaps an extraordinary candidate could overcome this and put new variables in play, but the Democrats don’t have one and the future leadership bench is thin also thanks to the overreach of Obamacare that led to large GOP majorities in Congress for a few cycles. All that the Dems had left in leadership were core partisans, with all who had crossover and independent appeal finding their political careers cut short.
Alexis Rose Bank,
I have been posting here since 2011. (Ronald began his blog in 2008.) I don’t exactly recall how I discovered it. It may have been through a search engine.
I have posted comments on a lot of electoral-related information. Here are links which show you examples of what I have written and posted (in comments to past blog topics):
https://www.theprogressiveprofessor.com/?p=34829
https://www.theprogressiveprofessor.com/?p=37159
D has made so many contributions to this blog, and I am so thankful and have commended him multiple times.
He does not come up with preposterous or ridiculous statements as to say “social justice” comes from the “Communist Manifesto”, as a reason to reject it, which Alexis just stated.
I would suggest one think when writing comments on here, so it does not reflect badly on such commentator!
That’s because D is educated and knows that socialism does not mean communism.
You are correct, Former Republican. about D, who does not make wild, crazy accusations!
@Alexis
Thank You. i know nothing common carrier law, and need to do some learning.
But on the surface, that does not make sense: that a phone company has liability because a crime is planned [or in the case of, say, hacking, is actually committed] using their phone lines.
To me, that’s like somebody being held liable because somebody stole their car and used it to rob a gas station and then ran over and killed a pedestrian. Is the owner of that car to be charged and held liable as an accessory to armed robbery and vehicular homicide?
Maybe i’m missing something here.
The fact of the matter remains is that You conservatives can’t figure out how to survive and thrive without FB, Twit, and Goog, You probably deserve to go extinct.
@ Ronald
> “social justice†comes from the “Communist Manifestoâ€, as a reason to reject it, which Alexis just stated.
For the record, I did not so state.
I stated it was reason to associate “social justice” with the far left as opposed to the center left. As Marx is a traditional anchor in defining what far left is, it seems quite reasonable to refer to his work in this context.
My reason to reject social justice is basic set theory – 7th grade stuff – which proves that any possible non-redundant definition of the term “social justice”.inherently includes injustice.
Define J as the set of all just outcomes
Define J’ as the set of all outcomes for which the concept of justice is relevant and the outcome is not just – unjust outcomes.
Define S as the set of all socially just outcomes
1) If J = S, the concept of social justice is redundant; spare yourself the two syllables and pursue plain old justice.
2) If J S, there are three possible ways the two sets may interact.
A) S may be a superset of J, that is, include all just outcomes in its set. Because they are not equal sets, S must necessarily include outcomes from the J’ set of unjust outcomes. The difference between S and J can be defined entirely as a set of unjust outcomes, a subset of J’.
B) S may intersect with J. In this case, all points within S that are not part of J are still necessarily part of J’, as again there are no other points to choose from since J’ includes all outcomes relevant to the concept of justice that are not just, and only those outcomes. In addition, there is a subset of J – a set of just outcomes that are not included in S.
C) S and J may be entirely separate sets. In this case, the entire contents of S are unjust outcomes – S is 100% unjust.
In every non-redundant case, to demand S is to demand some subset of J’. As S = “social justice” and J’ = “injustice”, all non-redundant social justice is injustice.
Please take this to the mathematics department if you doubt my theorem. Social justice ideology is mathematically falsifiable, and this falsifies it.
Item 2 should read “if J does not equal S”. My comparison operator got eaten by an HTML parser.
@Alexis. Very neat and very interesting. Thank You for sharing that. It is definitely going to take some chewing.
@Alexis
i think i was too busy playing ball and chasing girls in 7th grade for too much Set Theory to take root, so let me ask You a couple of questions:
1. Does how one defines “plain old justice” and “social justice” impact Your proof? What distinguishes POJ and SJ? And who does the defining and distinguishing; and on what basis?
2. If You defined and clarified the difference between “redundant” vs “non-redundant” social justice, i must have missed it. Can You help me out on that?
3. What changes if ~ instead of S being a superset of J, it’s the other way around ~: that S is a subset of J? That “Social Justice” is a part of “Justice,” but not the only part? Is the situation then that some acts taken in the name of SJ aren’t in themselves automatically “Just,” but only so if they do not conflict or interfere with another type or subset of Justice? And just curious: Why did You not include S as a subset of J in Your possibilities of their interaction?
4. i am working on a paper that explores the difference between Human Rights, on the one hand, and Human Needs and Human Wants, on the other; and wonder if Your application of Set Theory to the question of Social Justice v Justice can be equally applied to Human Rights v Human Needs and Wants. i’m certainly going to play with it.
Have a great day. ~ jeff
@ Jeffrey Moebus
My apologies for missing this. Honest questions do deserve honest answers.
> 1. Does how one defines “plain old justice†and “social justice†impact Your proof? What distinguishes POJ and SJ? And who does the defining and distinguishing; and on what basis?
“Plain old justice” is the idealized concept of justice without any modifiers or alterations.
With regards to the definition of “social justice”… I am having the damnedest time pinning that down. Fortunately for the purposes of the set mathematics, it doesn’t need to be anything other than “something that is in some way different from that idealized concept of justice”.
> 2. If You defined and clarified the difference between “redundant†vs “non-redundant†social justice, i must have missed it. Can You help me out on that?
“Redundant” social justice is where the outcome is the same as would be the outcome for plain old justice. In these cases, since plain old justice serves just as well, there is no benefit to “social justice” – the outcome is the same and justice is done.
>3. What changes if ~ instead of S being a superset of J, it’s the other way around ~: that S is a subset of J? That “Social Justice†is a part of “Justice,†but not the only part? Is the situation then that some acts taken in the name of SJ aren’t in themselves automatically “Just,†but only so if they do not conflict or interfere with another type or subset of Justice? And just curious: Why did You not include S as a subset of J in Your possibilities of their interaction?
That is a good spot. Yes, S can be a subset of J, and we can represent this as S < J (S is less than J). All S outcomes are redundant to J outcomes in this case and it resolves to the same solution as point 1 of the theorem where S = J.
> 4. i am working on a paper that explores the difference between Human Rights, on the one hand, and Human Needs and Human Wants, on the other; and wonder if Your application of Set Theory to the question of Social Justice v Justice can be equally applied to Human Rights v Human Needs and Wants. i’m certainly going to play with it.
I don’t see why not. Represent each concept as a separate object, and name the areas where they overlap, or where one exists and another does not, and the area where none exist, and some interesting insights might pop out.
Limiting The Scope of Impeachment Makes No Sense When New Crimes Are Revealed Daily
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/10/12/limiting-the-scope-of-impeachment-makes-no-sense-when-new-crimes-are-revealed-daily/
Two weeks ago I argued that Democrats would be wiser to expand the impeachment probe to include all of Trump’s alleged crimes than to attempt to restrict the inquiry to the his phone call with Ukrainian president. That advice seemed unlikely to be heeded at the time, as leadership remained stubbornly insistent that frontline members would best be served by keeping the process simple and short, avoiding any possible negative political consequences from stretching the proceedings into an election year.
But circumstances have shifted rapidly in two significant ways. First, several new polls are showing majority support for an impeachment probe, including an eye-opening uptick in support among Republicans. There isn’t publicly available district-by-district data yet, but polling is also simply a snapshot in time: just as support for impeachment has markedly increased in the last few weeks, there is every reason to expect it will continue to increase as more evidence comes forward. We don’t know what the plateau will be, but it’s very unlikely that we have already reached it.
Second and more important, however, is the fact that new crimes are seemingly being revealed by the day if not by the hour. Just reading the news in the last 72 hours is like drinking from a firehose. The president’s own attorney, Rudy Giuliani, is under investigation has been conducting a shadow foreign policy with allegedly criminal accomplices, two of whom were nabbed trying to fly out of Dulles Airport with one-way tickets to Vienna, where Mr. Giuliani was allegedly also headed to meet them. There appears to have been a wide-ranging conspiracy to launder foreign money to Republican politicians in exchange for various shady favors–in addition to the central extortion of Ukrainian leadership by withholding Congressionally mandated aid in an attempt to fabricate dirt on one of Trump’s feared rivals for the presidency.
We still don’t know what inducements Turkish autocrat Erdogan offered Trump in exchange for being allowed free rein against our long-suffering allies the Kurds, including bombing U.S. forces without repercussions. There is a whole other scandal around Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, Saudi money and nuclear dealings, and Trump’s own publicly and proudly admitted use of our armed forces as paid mercenaries in the service of a journalist-murdering regime.
The scandals aren’t just embroiling Giuliani and the Trump family. Attorney General Barr is deeply implicated in much of the effort to illegally solicit foreign support in manufacturing a scandal against the president’s personal political opponents, as is Vice President Pence and Secretary of State Pompeo–all of whom are hemming, hawing and clamming up in response to questions.
All of this is coming out just in the last few days. It seems almost comical to set an arbitrary limit on the scope of high crimes and misdemeanors to include in an impeachment inquiry when additional wrongdoing is being revealed in a dizzying parabolic arc of scandal. The notion that the public will be able to understand the Ukraine affair because of its supposed simplicity is also falling apart: nothing about this affair is remaining simple as its layers begin to unsheathe like an onion.
At a broader level, though, it’s increasingly obvious that Trump is barreling toward an unprecedented constitutional crisis. Having already used specious legal reasoning to justify blockading all congressional subpoenas, he has threatened civil war and talked about his supposed loyal military support with all the subtlety of a gong. It seems only a matter of time before he begins to defy court orders as well.
In this context, curtailing an inquiry in an effort to possibly better protect a handful of Democrats in the most conservative districts is a form of cowardice. Republicans in the Senate will make the choices they will, but the gaze of history and the precedent set for future presidents lies with Democrats in the House. If they do not make clear that every one of these alleged crimes will carry a full accounting, a future president will be emboldened to commit them again.
The Coverup is Unraveling Quickly
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/10/13/the-coverup-is-unraveling-quickly/
Most days I remain convinced that Trump will survive until Election Day, protected by a corrupt Republican Senate and a Democratic House unwilling to exercise its full authorities in an effort to avert a political backlash and constitutional crisis. But as the news of the hamhanded coverups and conspiracies around Trump continue to spill out, one does begin to wonder sometimes if Trump will last the next month.
This, for instance, is truly remarkable:
The U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, intends to tell Congress this week that the content of a text message he wrote denying a quid pro quo with Ukraine was relayed to him directly by President Trump in a phone call, according to a person familiar with his testimony.
Sondland plans to tell lawmakers he has no knowledge of whether the president was telling him the truth at that moment. “It’s only true that the president said it, not that it was the truth,†said the person familiar with Sondland’s planned testimony, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic matters.
So it turns out that when Trump tweeted this:
I would love to send Ambassador Sondland, a really good man and great American, to testify, but unfortunately he would be testifying before a totally compromised kangaroo court, where Republican’s rights have been taken away, and true facts are not allowed out for the public….
….to see. Importantly, Ambassador Sondland’s tweet, which few report, stated, “I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind.†That says it ALL!
He was apparently quoting himself having told Sondland what to say. This is the sort of comical coverup one only engages in either under desperation or a belief that no public accounting of your crimes will ever be made under oath.
The internal tensions will be impossible for Trump and his allies to resolve, at least without precipitating a full-blown constitutional crisis. Either Trump successfully blockades all his deputies from testifying before Congress and/or going to the media, or he lets them all take the fall for his actions sequentially. Not all of them will go down quietly in the hopes of a pardon like Manafort and Flynn. Giuliani in particular is not known for quiet, self-effacing discipline.
It’s also becoming clear that Trump is lying about not knowing Lev Parnas, and that the connection to shady deals in the Ukraine is deeper than just the attempt to smear Joe Biden.
Meanwhile, the situation in Syria is deteriorating rapidly as well as Turkey seems to have intentionally launched strikes at U.S. forces to push us out with no public response from the president, a senior female Kurdish leader has been killed, and ISIS prisoners are escaping in the chaos.
The smart money still says that Trump survives until election day. Republicans have repeatedly shown that there is no bottom to what they will tolerate from their unexpected 2016 savior. And yet.