When Nixon was caught, both parties forced him to resign. I do not see that kind of bipartisan effort moving forward today, no matter what we learn about all the illegal things Trump has done. And, if by some weird twist he is shown to somehow be innocent, the story would stay the same. Partisanship will still reign the day.
At what point should we, the people, put aside partisan politics and just do what is right for the country?
...what is right for the country?
When Nixon was caught, both parties forced him to resign. I do not see that kind of bipartisan effort moving forward today, no matter what we learn about all the illegal things Trump has done. And, if by some weird twist he is shown to somehow be innocent, the story would stay the same. Partisanship will still reign the day.
At what point should we, the people, put aside partisan politics and just do what is right for the country?
When Nixon was caught, both parties forced him to resign. I do not see that kind of bipartisan effort moving forward today, no matter what we learn about all the illegal things Trump has done. And, if by some weird twist he is shown to somehow be innocent, the story would stay the same. Partisanship will still reign the day.
At what point should we, the people, put aside partisan politics and just do what is right for the country?
We really don't know if Trump has done anything illegal. It is all assumptions. We know most Democrats hate the heck out of Trump and want him destroyed. That they have been trying to do this since the day after the election. We also know most Republicans love him. Your reference to Nixon, half of all Republicans thought he was railroaded out of office back in 1974. In 1974 Republicans only had 42 senators while the Democrats had 58. The Democrats held a 243-192 advantage in the house. Impeachment was a sure thing in the House, all it took was the defection of 9 Republican senators to vote guilty to reach the magic number of 67. Much easier to reach the 2/3rd number needed in the senate. Today it would require 20 GOP senate defections instead of 9. Even in 1974 I doubt back then the Democrats could have got 20 Republican senators to desert Nixon.
Also back in 1974, both political parties had their liberal and conservative wings. There wasn't the stark left/right or liberal/conservative divisions as today. The Republicans were big in the Northeast, the liberal Rockefeller Republicans, the Democrats had their solid conservative south. Straight party line votes never happened back then. There wasn't a huge cry for impeachment coming from the Democrats either right up to the day Nixon resigned. I think most Americans knew impeachment was a real possibility, but no huge outcry.
With both major political parties in armed camps over Trump, it might be a good idea to find out what independents think. After all they now make up 40-43% of the electorate today depending on the poll. Party breakdown is also different today than in 1974. In 1974 Democrats made up 44% of the electorate to the Republicans 24% with 31% being independents.
Trends in Party Identification, 1939-2014 | Pew Research Center
today it is 31% Democrats, 28% Republicans and 39% independents. The Democrats held a huge 20 point advantage over Republicans in 1974 vs. only 3 points today. Today it is a much more even fight both in numbers of party affiliation and in the senate where the trial would take place. Different make up of the political parties also. Both have become much more ideological and yes, highly more partisan.
But what do independents think of Mueller's investigation that the democrats put so much stock in? Question 21, Witch hunt or legitimate investigation. Do you think the FBI investigation of President Trump is a witch hunt or a legitimate investigation?
39% of independents state legit, 36% say witch hunt. Fairly even split. 24% answer not sure, undecided or just don't care.
You also have the very partisan numbers on job approval of Trump also. 8% of Democrats approve, 88% disapprove. With republicans it's 86% approve, 10% disapprove. Is approval of Trump and whether the Mueller investigation is legit or a witch hunt, purely, 100% partisan? Look at independents, 41% approve of Trump, 46% disapprove. Question 50 Trump Job Approval. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as President? Again an almost fairly even split among the less to non-partisan, the non-affiliated.
It seems to me that this whole thing is partisanship driven. Opinion of trump is partisan based, witch hunt or legit, partisan based. Impeachment, partisan based. Heck, in today's political environment, everything is partisan based. Neither party puts country first, let's be honest about that.
Whether or not Trump committed a crime, an impeachable crime, we have to wait on Mueller's final report to be sure one way or the other. For impeachment to work, you have to have a good sized majority of independents for it. Especially in today's ultra high partisan political environment. If impeachment looks like a partisan political vendetta against Trump without hard proof that convinces independents of his guilt. Impeachment could make trump look like the victim, provoke sympathy for him, backfire big time on the democrats. Beware what you ask for, you might get it. Especially if independents aren't on board.
I saw the thread title, then I saw who created it. I thought, "maybe he's going to turn over a new leaf."When Nixon was caught, both parties forced him to resign. I do not see that kind of bipartisan effort moving forward today, no matter what we learn about all the illegal things Trump has done. And, if by some weird twist he is shown to somehow be innocent, the story would stay the same. Partisanship will still reign the day.
At what point should we, the people, put aside partisan politics and just do what is right for the country?
One fine analysis, as always.
May I add...
Clinton Democrats play a huge role in this. They had their eyes set on the prize, it being another Clinton in the WH, and a woman at that.
This division is observed world wide. Many deals that could benefit the American citizens are not being made, simply because all the key players are waiting this out, awaiting the results of the investigation. That I blame Democrats for.
When Nixon was caught, both parties forced him to resign. I do not see that kind of bipartisan effort moving forward today, no matter what we learn about all the illegal things Trump has done. And, if by some weird twist he is shown to somehow be innocent, the story would stay the same. Partisanship will still reign the day.
At what point should we, the people, put aside partisan politics and just do what is right for the country?
We really don't know if Trump has done anything illegal. It is all assumptions. We know most Democrats hate the heck out of Trump and want him destroyed. That they have been trying to do this since the day after the election. We also know most Republicans love him. Your reference to Nixon, half of all Republicans thought he was railroaded out of office back in 1974. In 1974 Republicans only had 42 senators while the Democrats had 58. The Democrats held a 243-192 advantage in the house. Impeachment was a sure thing in the House, all it took was the defection of 9 Republican senators to vote guilty to reach the magic number of 67. Much easier to reach the 2/3rd number needed in the senate. Today it would require 20 GOP senate defections instead of 9. Even in 1974 I doubt back then the Democrats could have got 20 Republican senators to desert Nixon.
Also back in 1974, both political parties had their liberal and conservative wings. There wasn't the stark left/right or liberal/conservative divisions as today. The Republicans were big in the Northeast, the liberal Rockefeller Republicans, the Democrats had their solid conservative south. Straight party line votes never happened back then. There wasn't a huge cry for impeachment coming from the Democrats either right up to the day Nixon resigned. I think most Americans knew impeachment was a real possibility, but no huge outcry.
With both major political parties in armed camps over Trump, it might be a good idea to find out what independents think. After all they now make up 40-43% of the electorate today depending on the poll. Party breakdown is also different today than in 1974. In 1974 Democrats made up 44% of the electorate to the Republicans 24% with 31% being independents.
Trends in Party Identification, 1939-2014 | Pew Research Center
today it is 31% Democrats, 28% Republicans and 39% independents. The Democrats held a huge 20 point advantage over Republicans in 1974 vs. only 3 points today. Today it is a much more even fight both in numbers of party affiliation and in the senate where the trial would take place. Different make up of the political parties also. Both have become much more ideological and yes, highly more partisan.
But what do independents think of Mueller's investigation that the democrats put so much stock in? Question 21, Witch hunt or legitimate investigation. Do you think the FBI investigation of President Trump is a witch hunt or a legitimate investigation?
39% of independents state legit, 36% say witch hunt. Fairly even split. 24% answer not sure, undecided or just don't care.
You also have the very partisan numbers on job approval of Trump also. 8% of Democrats approve, 88% disapprove. With republicans it's 86% approve, 10% disapprove. Is approval of Trump and whether the Mueller investigation is legit or a witch hunt, purely, 100% partisan? Look at independents, 41% approve of Trump, 46% disapprove. Question 50 Trump Job Approval. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as President? Again an almost fairly even split among the less to non-partisan, the non-affiliated.
It seems to me that this whole thing is partisanship driven. Opinion of trump is partisan based, witch hunt or legit, partisan based. Impeachment, partisan based. Heck, in today's political environment, everything is partisan based. Neither party puts country first, let's be honest about that.
Whether or not Trump committed a crime, an impeachable crime, we have to wait on Mueller's final report to be sure one way or the other. For impeachment to work, you have to have a good sized majority of independents for it. Especially in today's ultra high partisan political environment. If impeachment looks like a partisan political vendetta against Trump without hard proof that convinces independents of his guilt. Impeachment could make trump look like the victim, provoke sympathy for him, backfire big time on the democrats. Beware what you ask for, you might get it. Especially if independents aren't on board.
The one thing I'll never be able to figure out is why Hillary ran in the first if she wasn't willing to work at getting elected. She was lazy. She let Trump both out work and out campaign her by a huge number. 116 campaign visits/stops for Trump between 1 Sep 2016 through 8 Nov 2016 to Hillary's 71. That's a huge 45 more Campaign visits/stops for Trump. This difference was stark in Wisconsin, five visits/stops for Trump, none, zero, for Hillary. Michigan six for Trump, one for Hillary. Did she think she had those two states in the bag? That she could ignore them and have them still vote for her?
Hillary due to her laziness lost the election. Trump didn't win it, Hillary gave it to him. Yet none of Hillary's supporters will ever acknowledge that fact. They'll blame Russia, Comey, Fox News, everything and every one else other than lazy Hillary. Then there was her very inept campaign strategy, the jury rigging of the democratic primaries in her favor among numerous other things that tell me she wasn't serious about running for president.
Good point on the worldwide divisions, not only here, but this whole left/right thing is coming to a head.
The one thing I'll never be able to figure out is why Hillary ran in the first if she wasn't willing to work at getting elected. She was lazy. She let Trump both out work and out campaign her by a huge number. 116 campaign visits/stops for Trump between 1 Sep 2016 through 8 Nov 2016 to Hillary's 71. That's a huge 45 more Campaign visits/stops for Trump. This difference was stark in Wisconsin, five visits/stops for Trump, none, zero, for Hillary. Michigan six for Trump, one for Hillary. Did she think she had those two states in the bag? That she could ignore them and have them still vote for her?
Hillary due to her laziness lost the election. Trump didn't win it, Hillary gave it to him. Yet none of Hillary's supporters will ever acknowledge that fact. They'll blame Russia, Comey, Fox News, everything and every one else other than lazy Hillary. Then there was her very inept campaign strategy, the jury rigging of the democratic primaries in her favor among numerous other things that tell me she wasn't serious about running for president.
Good point on the worldwide divisions, not only here, but this whole left/right thing is coming to a head.
There was no reason to work hard. The election was in the bag for Hillary. There was no way she could lose. And, it was her turn. She was the anointed one. All she had to do was sit back and watch the Donald make a fool out of himself. Ironically, that is kind of why Senior Bush lost to Bill Clinton, Geoge H sat back and laughed while Bill Clinton was stumping for votes playing the sax on MTV for God's sake. That's not how you win elections.
I'm not so sure it was laziness. I think it was health related.
I'm not so sure it was laziness. I think it was health related.
When Nixon was caught, both parties forced him to resign. I do not see that kind of bipartisan effort moving forward today, no matter what we learn about all the illegal things Trump has done. And, if by some weird twist he is shown to somehow be innocent, the story would stay the same. Partisanship will still reign the day.
At what point should we, the people, put aside partisan politics and just do what is right for the country?
I also wondered if her lack of energy, campaigning like she should have wasn't health related. She did run one of the most ho hum campaigns I ever seen.
Outside of Nate Silver who gave Trump a 30% chance of winning over Hillary, I don't remember any other political pundit that gave Trump a chance. When it came to G.H.W. Bush, I had the impression that he didn't care if he won or lost until about two weeks prior to the election. Then it was way too late to get serious and beginning working at winning. The first Bush and Hillary Clinton ran two of the most inept campaigns I have ever seen.
You're putting paetisanship ahead of country, so the irony is over flowing in this thread, already. :lamo
Not surprisingly, you obviously only read what you wanted to.
I think that the Dem party and Bernie did a lot to constrain her campaign. She had to satisfy both ends of her party. I think that Bernie Sanders and his group did more to lose the election for Hillary than either Trump or the Russians. Instead of never Trump, it was never Hillary as they believed she cheated Bernie out of being the Dem candidate for President.
Yeah. I never really believed that the read my lips pledge thing was something he could not overcome. This may have been the birthplace of voters coming to the conclusion that they were sick and tired of the same ole politics as usual. Bill Clinton ran a campaign getting in touch with the people right down to playing his sax on MTV while George H looked on at all of this laughing that this guy with a bunch of charisma just didn't know anything about running a political campaign. Bush seemed to believe right up to the end that voters would dismiss all of that nonsense and he would be the ultimate victor.
The one thing I'll never be able to figure out is why Hillary ran in the first if she wasn't willing to work at getting elected. She was lazy. She let Trump both out work and out campaign her by a huge number. 116 campaign visits/stops for Trump between 1 Sep 2016 through 8 Nov 2016 to Hillary's 71. That's a huge 45 more Campaign visits/stops for Trump. This difference was stark in Wisconsin, five visits/stops for Trump, none, zero, for Hillary. Michigan six for Trump, one for Hillary. Did she think she had those two states in the bag? That she could ignore them and have them still vote for her?
Hillary due to her laziness lost the election. Trump didn't win it, Hillary gave it to him. Yet none of Hillary's supporters will ever acknowledge that fact. They'll blame Russia, Comey, Fox News, everything and every one else other than lazy Hillary. Then there was her very inept campaign strategy, the jury rigging of the democratic primaries in her favor among numerous other things that tell me she wasn't serious about running for president.
Good point on the worldwide divisions, not only here, but this whole left/right thing is coming to a head.
Hillary wasn't lazy. My guess is that, after she was made to/ handed the nomination to Obama, she was promised a "next time it is yours".
Yeah, it's not like a black person could win honest. Someone gave it to him. That's not racist, right?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?