Republicans took over the White House and both chambers of Congress in 2000.
So said 16 other candidates who ran against him in the Republican primaries and crooked Hillary in the general.
Not exactly true. Democrats won the popular vote for president and made gains in both chambers of congress.
2000 United States Senate elections - Wikipedia
2000 United States House of Representatives elections - Wikipedia
Trump isn't intelligent enough to lay a trap. Which is why the russians weighed in to help him.
But Democrats didn't gain the White House or either chamber of Congress. If that's how Republicans were "punished" for their impeachment of Clinton, I don't want to know what rewarding them looks like.
Fact is, the popular vote for president went for the Democrat and Democrats gained seats in both houses of congress. In other words, the Republican impeachment of Bill Clinton helped Democrats.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...4f3edf1351e_story.html?utm_term=.315f3e90e75b
Lessons For Democrats From Former President Clinton's Impeachment : NPR
If I remember correctly, you yourself started a thread worrying about the pitfalls of impeachment.
Good morning!I agree. The Democrats have the larger base and have had since FDR. Also 2016 was the most unique election we ever had. It was between the two most unwanted major party candidates in our history. 56% of all Americans viewed Hillary unfavorably or didn't like or want her, 60% viewed Trump unfavorably or didn't like or want him. That is the record for the highest unfavorable's going back to FDR. Goldwater in 1964 held the record for the highest unfavorable at 47% until Trump and Hillary came around. Barry can now rest in peace knowing he isn't the most unlike presidential candidate anymore.
Yes, turnout was an very important factor in 2016. The Democratic base had a six point advantage in numbers, but that shrunk to three among those who actually voted. Meaning the Republicans had the higher percentage turnout. Hillary's ho hum campaign and lack of campaign appearances, hitting the trail led to a lack of enthusiasm for the democratic base to turn out. Trump was always full of energy and that inspired his base. His supporters would go to the four corners of the earth for him, Hillary's, some wouldn't even go to the polls for her.
Strange as it might seem, the same thing occurred in 2000. The Democratic base had a 5 point electoral advantage, but only 3 when it came to actual turnout. The statue Gore didn't inspire either. If the Democratic base had turned out, Gore and Hillary would have both won.
I don't think the Democratic base will have that problem in 2020 regardless of whom is their nominee. Trump is a great motivator even if their candidate isn't. That was seen during the midterms. The Democratic base had only a three point party advantage in 2018 but come turnout, the democratic advantage increased to five points. It was the Republicans who stayed home more than the democrats.
And Trump voters aren't a growing demographic group. The share of whites with less than a 4-year degree — Trump's constituency — dropped by 3% from 2014 to 2018.
The article does state that the expected Trump turnout will also be high, but not Dem high. And a key point is made: Trump's core demo traditionally has a very high-turnout, even without Trump; the Dem core demos traditionally have a low turn-out rate. This implies the Dems have far more headroom to increased turnout. And this may have been seen, in 2018. I think I agree.turnout rates would likely go up for everybody. But:
Older white people already tend to vote at high rates, and they're close to their maximum turnout already.
By contrast, you'll see bigger turnout increases among young people, people of color, and low-income people — generally important constituencies for the Democratic Party — because they vote in lower numbers.
From 2014 to 2018, turnout among whites with a 4-year degree went up 17%, while non-white voters' turnout increased by 15%.
I don't know what to say, here. Trump clearly seems to be asking for it. It's getting kinda' hard not to oblige him.
It might be best to start the investigative hearings, and see where they go.
I say start with an official investigation into Presidential misconduct, which I believe is being voted upon in the House today. Then see how the political opinion turns as Trump's secrets come out. Take it from there, as it goes.Trump wants them to impeach for the same reason that the Democrats were giddy as Hell every time the idiot Republicans voted to overturn the ACA. It was nothing but symbolic votes that the GOP knew would go nowhere fast while Obama was in office. Trump wants the red meat to show his drooling fan base how mean everyone is to him.
Granted, impeachment would hurt him (even more) in the court of public opinion, but that damage has been done anyway, and the Democrats don't need to waste time on an impeachment process and vote that will die as soon as it gets to the Senate. The Republicans in the Senate have thrown in with Trump. They will not vote to remove him from office.
I think, as you said, the Democrats should investigate the Hell out of Trump. The investigations will damage Trump even further, and the Democrats won't look dumb.
Agreed, and well said.If Trump gets to decide whether or not to comply with subpoenas, our grand experiment in representative government is over.
There are those on this board who have declared that the president is not accountable to Congress. If the USSC agrees, that means the president can do whatever he wants whenever he wants.
There was a time when Washington politicians had shame (think Nixon). Nixon resigned when the leaders of his own party in the Senate went to the WH and advised him that he would not survive an impeachment trial. This will not happen today. Trump told us long ago that he could shoot someone and not lose any votes, that included the votes in the U.S. Senate. Whatever is right, whatever is wrong is irrelevant. All that matters is how does one get re-elected. Trump supporters will destroy any GOP member in their primary who dares oppose this president. His base does not care about law or justice.
Then I want Democrats to be "punished" in 2020 after impeaching trump by retaking the White House and both chambers of Congress.
[/B]Good morning!
I believe you may find this Axios article interesting, as it speaks to your last paragraph:
(Axios) The Democrats' 100-year flood
Not surprising in general, but to me surprising in specific quantity, the article claims Trump lost 3% of his core demographic in the past 4 years:
That's large enough to have a substantive effect upon the election, and I'm blow-away at the size of the number. It really illustrates the age differences in each party's base. It also seems to show that Trump might be reflecting a political aberration - a pause - in the steady changing of America's citizenry to those of minority and colour. I'm thinking this Trump stuff might be sort of a "last hurray" of sorts, of traditional American WASP male political dominance.
Then we have this:
The article does state that the expected Trump turnout will also be high, but not Dem high. And a key point is made: Trump's core demo traditionally has a very high-turnout, even without Trump; the Dem core demos traditionally have a low turn-out rate. This implies the Dems have far more headroom to increased turnout. And this may have been seen, in 2018. I think I agree.
So if we take the politics aside, we seem to see the general demographic characterizations seem to favor the Dems quite well. So what they would seem to need, is a highly charismatic candidate, similar to the Charisma Obama exhibited in 2008. If they do that, they seem to be in reasonable shape. These trends also would seem to show that perhaps tacking Left might be the way to go. And this last, is something I don't say very easily!
Thanks for the reply and link.I think we have arrived at the same conclusion using a different path, but totally agree on the bottom line. Where Trump hasn't lost any strength among his base or core supporters, he has lost support among independents which he really didn't have that much. For a lot of independents in 2016, they voted for the candidate they least wanted to lose, not win. But least wanted to lose. Independents were so turned off by both candidates, 12% of them opted to vote for a third party candidate they knew had no chance to win whether than choosing between Trump and Hillary. That 12% still dislike Trump, some 9 million voters who should or at least could be easy pickings for the Democrats if they nominate the right candidate.
The 60 and older group has steadily voted Republican from 1972 to the present with the exception of the Clinton era. Perot was probably a factor in Bill winning the older vote. For some reason as folks age, they seem to switch from Democrat to Republican. Younger voters 18-29 has been steadily Democratic from with the exception of 1984 and 1988 since 1976.
Exit Polls - Election Results 2008 - The New York Times
College grads seems to be voting republican with the exception of 2008 and 2016. Not a HS grad has been Democratic until 2016. It seems HS grad but no college seems to go with whichever candidate has the most charisma. Bill Clinton and Obama, GW had more than Gore and Kerry etc.
Scroll through the info. Interesting tid bits
In what way did he ask for impeachment? Let's keep it to stuff he's said or done since the Mueller Report came out.
Everyday he defies & obstructs Congressional investigations. Not just on select items, but in blanket fashion. He believes he is above Congressional oversight. And for this reason, I believe he deserves to be impeached & removed.How is Trump "asking for it" by not complying with abuse of power and trying to exert authority in areas in which they don't have any?
Thanks for the reply and link.
Your post brings-up an interesting point. Those Indies that didn't like Trump, but disliked Clinton more, still dislike Trump; perhaps even more! So yeah, this makes it incumbent upon the Dems to field a charismatic candidate.
BTW - That NYT database is phenomenal. Thanks again! :thumbs:
Thank you!For the 2012 and 2016 exit polls, they're here.
Presidential Race - 2012 Election Center - Elections & Politics from CNN.com
https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls
You might as well have 2018's, then you'll know what I'm referring to.
Exit Polls 2018
I think Trump's loss of support among independents shows up in the amount that want him to run again and those who do not among independents. Question 77. 28% of independents say yes, 49% say no. That's over a whopping 20 point difference.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/fs1r87zj1f/econTabReport.pdf
Again, lots of information. Just look at the top and find what questions asked and go there. Things like favorability, likeness and impeachment. I tend not to look at the two major parties, but at what independents think. After all, it is independents that usually decide national election.
Everyday he defies & obstructs Congressional investigations. Not just on select items, but in blanket fashion. He believes he is above Congressional oversight. And for this reason, I believe he deserves to be impeached & removed.
You're not following things here. Impeaching Trump helps Trump and the Republicans. I just proved that to you by what happened with Bill Clinton.
I agree with most of that, but there is a huge disconnect between the economy and Trump's overall job approval. RCP puts Trump's approval on the economy at 52.3%.
RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Trump Job Approval - Economy
But Trump's overall job approval at 42.6%.
RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Trump Job Approval
I've never seen that huge of a disparity. Usually if the economy is going good, a president's, any president job approval is at 50% or above. You can go back with any president when economic good times and find his overall job approval 50, 55 or even above 60%. When the economy sours, any president's overall job approval falls below 50%, sometimes into the 30%.
Presidential Job Approval Center
Reagan fell from a high of 67% overall job approval down to 35% when the economy didn't improve and had a horrible first midterm due to the bad economy. But over the next two years economy improved and Reagan shot up to 62% job approval and easily won reelection. One can say how folks viewed Ronnie was economic among other things. Trump has had a very good economy and has to yet reach 45% overall job approval. Something else is at work with Trump.
Obama had a 53% overall job approval in 2012 and won reelection.
G.W. Bush was at 55% he won reelection
Bill Clinton 58% he won reelection
G.H.W. Bush was at 40% over all job approval, he lost reelection
Reagan as I stated was at 62%
Carter was at 34% overall job approval and lost.
Ford at 45% job approval, lost.
And so on. Like with the economy you cited, one can relate that a president who's overall job approval is below 50% loses reelection, above 50% wins. With a 10 point difference between the economy and over all Job performance or approval, there's something else at work here. Something else comes into play.
I've always held it was his persona, his obnoxious personality, his unpresidential behavior. Trump is a very easy man to dislike because of that. I may be wrong, but I think it is Trump's character and behavior as president, his as seen by many independents, uncouth personality that has caused many independents to desert him. Not the economy or even Trump's stances on the issues and policy. But the man's persona. Time will tell.
Trump isn't intelligent enough to lay a trap. Which is why the russians weighed in to help him.
That's one point of view. But I think numbers back mine up. I could be wrong, but I think after 2 1/2 years this whole thing has got pretty tiresome to those who aren't in either the pro or anti Trump camps. Time will tell.
Nixon said the same thing, 'let's not quibble about obstruction of justice and abuse of power, we have important work to do.'
The problem with that argument is there are serious issues, that you choose to ignore, regarding Trump's possible illegal activities regarding his finances, his taxes and whether any financial arrangements impinge upon decisions he may make in his official capacity. Yet, Trump gets in the way of Congress getting requested info. That's why an impeachment committee is needed -- to prevent further denial of information. The judge ruling on financial information said it bluntly: “It is simply not fathomable,” the judge wrote, “that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct — past or present — even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry.”
By frustrating Congress' ability to get information, he is furthering obstruction of justice and abuse of power.
That's the crux of the issue.
Would you rather that Republicans hadn't taken control of the White House and both chambers of Congress after Clinton?
Republicans already had the House and the Senate before GWB won. You're implying that Republicans took control of the House and Senate in 2000. They already had both but lost seats in both due to the Clinton impeachment.
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?