Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Impeachment Odds: Place Your Bets

Impeachment Odds: Place Your Bets (Page 3)
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2019, 07:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
If we accept this premise, then an elected politician can do whatever they choose until the next election. Sell out the country, cheat on their wife/husband, shoot pedestrians on Wall Street, rob liquor stores, swipe people's medical insurance. A free pass for a few years of crime - whatever rocks their boat. There has to be a way to remove a bad apple, or someone will be above the law. No one is supposed to be - we don't have kings.
IIUC, turtle is including who was elected to Congress in 2016.

In other words, Trump was able to get away with whatever only because the country decided to pair him with a Congress who would let him get away with whatever.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2019, 12:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Right or wrong, the Founding Fathers never wanted impeachment to be a partisan tool just to get rid of political opponents.
That's not correct: The Founding Fathers did not want impeachment to be bipartisan, because they did not want political parties to be a thing in the political process. They imagined competition between the branches, each striving to maximize its influence. In reality, political parties are fighting across the branches of government, and have been since the beginning of the USA. In short, this is a design flaw of the US Constitution. Apart from George Washington, all other Presidents belonged to a political party.

Besides, so many things are different now. Initially, members of the electoral college had two votes, and the person with the most votes would become President and the person with the second-most votes Vice President. These people needed not be of the same party, and were rivals for the big seat.
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
The ballot is where these things need to be decided.
The whole point of impeachment is to give the legislative branch, which is democratically legitimized by the public as well, a tool to remove the President and other higher officials from office. If the Founding Fathers thought this to be illegitimate, they wouldn't have included a mechanism to remove the President. Any modern democracy I am aware of has a way to remove a president or prime minister from office.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2019, 12:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
IIUC, turtle is including who was elected to Congress in 2016.

In other words, Trump was able to get away with whatever only because the country decided to pair him with a Congress who would let him get away with whatever.
Sure. But there was another election in 2018, and the consensus of the electorate has changed, which is represented by the new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2019, 01:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Sure. But there was another election in 2018, and the consensus of the electorate has changed, which is represented by the new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives.
Oh, absolutely. I’m only addressing the following claim:

“If we accept this premise, then an elected politician can do whatever they choose until the next election.”

This was only the case in 2016 because of who was elected to Congress in 2016. The electorate chose a Congress who would give the Executive a free pass. The electorate didn’t need to do that, and if they hadn’t, Trump would have faced consequences before the 2018 election.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2019, 01:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Oh, absolutely. I’m only addressing the following claim:
Ah, ok. Agreed.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2019, 10:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Again, to what end ?
The senate will not let Trump go down.

Right or wrong, the Founding Fathers never wanted impeachment to be a partisan tool just to get rid of political opponents.
The effort has to be bi-partisan to be successful.

The ballot is where these things need to be decided.

-t
To a sane observer, its not being used as a partisan tool. Trump was never fit for office in the first place but the transcripts and witnesses of the call are overwhelming that he broke the rules. The partisan nonsense at play is people like you denying it.

Maybe if they impeach him a dozen times public opinion will turn enough to swing the Senate. We know they are all spineless and self-serving, they protect Trump to protect themselves, as soon as he becomes toxic to their interests they'll abandon him in droves.
Even if that doesn't happen, maybe repeated impeachments will change the result at the ballot. Ramming home a simple message seems to be what get GOP voters after all. 12 months of solid "Trump is officially a criminal" will work like 30 years of Crooked Hillary did.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2019, 09:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
To a sane observer, its not being used as a partisan tool.
Muahaha

What's YOUR definition of partisan ?
Not a SINGLE Republican voted in favor of the House impeachment.

How exactly is this effort bi-partisan ?

-t
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2019, 10:00 PM
 
So now you're trying to frame it like you were criticising the Republicans for being partisan by not voting in favour? Thats not how it reads when you use the phrase "partisan tool". The implication there is that they are only trying to impeach him because he's Republican and not because he breaks laws and actually deserves to be impeached. Which of course, he obviously does.The house is doing what it can do under the circumstances. History will eventually condemn the GOP of this era for the shower of assholes it is.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2019, 12:28 AM
 
Again, he has NOT broken the law according to any criminal conviction.
Trump is certainly not a very moral and upright person, but his scumbaggery is not enough to get him positively impeached, precisely because it doesn’t rise above partisan support.

-t
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2019, 08:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Again, he has NOT broken the law according to any criminal conviction.
Trump is certainly not a very moral and upright person, but his scumbaggery is not enough to get him positively impeached, precisely because it doesn’t rise above partisan support.

-t
What do you think Trump could do that would get the republican party to turn on him?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2019, 08:40 AM
 
Shot someone on Fifth Avenue.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2019, 10:36 AM
 
Apparently President Laws-Don't-Apply-To-Me has tweeted-out the (supposed) name of the whistle-blower, blatantly in violation of federal law. In any case, impeachment does not require any laws being broken.
When I want your opinion,-
I'll read it in your entrails
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2019, 10:55 AM
 
Someone else published the name first, he just repeated it. He's not the one that leaked it.
     
andi*pandi  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2019, 11:48 AM
 
yes, but amplification...
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2019, 11:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
What do you think Trump could do that would get the republican party to turn on him?
To be honest, I'm not sure.

They don't have much options, because the voter base despises the typical tun-of-the-mill Republicans.
After that many years of screwing the middle class and the flyover states, they don't trust your normal politician.
The bad side-effect is that someone that gains their trust can essentially do whatever they want - for a while.

-t
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2019, 11:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
Apparently President Laws-Don't-Apply-To-Me has tweeted-out the (supposed) name of the whistle-blower, blatantly in violation of federal law. In any case, impeachment does not require any laws being broken.
Oh stop the fake outrage.

The name has been the worst-kept secret of 2019.
EVERYBODY, including my pet turtle knew his identity.

-t
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2019, 01:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
yes, but amplification...
Isn't illegal. Shitty, sure.

Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
To be honest, I'm not sure.

They don't have much options, because the voter base despises the typical tun-of-the-mill Republicans.
After that many years of screwing the middle class and the flyover states, they don't trust your normal politician.
The bad side-effect is that someone that gains their trust can essentially do whatever they want - for a while.

-t
If we saw a 2008-level economy crash right now, would Trump's base turn on him? They've been more than happy to give him credit for the economy since election day, and by now he's had enough time to enact policies that could have real effects.

How do you feel about the current level of national debt and its increases since Trump took office? I get the impression that we don't really know how high it can go until we get there.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2019, 02:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
If we saw a 2008-level economy crash right now, would Trump's base turn on him? They've been more than happy to give him credit for the economy since election day, and by now he's had enough time to enact policies that could have real effects.

How do you feel about the current level of national debt and its increases since Trump took office? I get the impression that we don't really know how high it can go until we get there.
From a fiscal conservative perspective, Trump has been a disaster.
It’s sad that his view on debt-fueled spending is actually very close to a typical Democratic position.

The economy isn’t strong, it’s on money-steroid life support.
But the average Trump voter doesn’t understand this. (Neither does the avg. Democrat - they believe in Santa Socialism Claus.)

There are a few things Trump is doing right - unwittingly, his inefficiencies lead to less burdensome regulation. An inefficient politician just doesn’t f$&@ things up as badly as an “efficient” politician.

Would the voters turn on him if there was a 2007 style market dislocation ?
Not sure. Let’s not forget how the Democrats bailed out big banks in the aftermath of the financial crisis, and let all the banksters get off free. Not a single criminal conviction.
That SHOULD make people mad. I don’t know what Trump would do in the same situation. Obama and Holder were just bending over.

-t
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2019, 03:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
Apparently President Laws-Don't-Apply-To-Me has tweeted-out the (supposed) name of the whistle-blower, blatantly in violation of federal law. In any case, impeachment does not require any laws being broken.
Just to make my case how well known the whistleblower's identity is.

Google his name and "whistleblower", and you get 169,000(!!!!) results.

-t
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2019, 07:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Again, he has NOT broken the law according to any criminal conviction.
Trump is certainly not a very moral and upright person, but his scumbaggery is not enough to get him positively impeached, precisely because it doesn’t rise above partisan support.

-t
Nothing does for Republicans.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2020, 10:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Holy shit! Good to see your name again, sir!
Likewise! If you also discuss politics on Twitter, let me know your handle. With the limited time I spend discussing politics, Twitter is usually my go-to.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2020, 12:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
From a fiscal conservative perspective, Trump has been a disaster.
It’s sad that his view on debt-fueled spending is actually very close to a typical Democratic position.
I don't think so, because it is important to see what the money the debt is incurred on is spent for. The reason for the Trump Administration's ginormous deficit is that they have been giving tax breaks to corporations and the rich. The caricature Democrats would spend money on the state, social programs and the like. Equating the two doesn't make sense.
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
The economy isn’t strong, it’s on money-steroid life support.
Agreed.
I wouldn't be surprised for that to change after the 2020 election.
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
But the average Trump voter doesn’t understand this.
I think Trump tapped into something real, because part of his appeal to voters in 2016 was his claim that things aren't working out for people economically. He got a lot of if wrong, such as his focus on coal and “foreign” car companies (with plants in South Carolina). So I think the “average” Trump voter understand the problem and I think thinks that Trump is addressing it. But Trump hasn't done anything positive in that respect. The Administration's bailouts to farmers were larger than the bailouts to Detroit's Big Three car companies in the 2008 financial crisis.

Ditto for Trump's advertised foreign policy: he, just like his two immediate predecessors, have promised less involvement abroad (“A humble foreign policy”, “Withdraw from Afghanistan”), although Trump's record here is not good (just like Obama didn't fulfill his campaign promise, not to speak of Bush II).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
andi*pandi  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2020, 06:36 PM
 
^truth. People believe what they want to to make themselves feel better.

With Mitt, Susan, and Lisa M tentatively leading the GOP, it's possible they may actually call witnesses in this trial. Mitch doesn't think he has the votes to stop it, anyhow.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2020, 08:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
^truth. People believe what they want to to make themselves feel better.
Plus, politics has become a sport where you root for one team, the actual content doesn't matter.

Just imagine the GOP's reaction to a Democratic president opposed free trade by erecting trade barriers and canceled trade agreements that have been negotiated over many, many years with two big trade blocks. Now that seems to have become GOP orthodoxy.

Or if the lawyer for a Democratic President would have claimed that a President can use the power of his office as he sees fit to further his re-election chances, because it suffices that they believe their re-election is in the interest of the country.
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
With Mitt, Susan, and Lisa M tentatively leading the GOP, it's possible they may actually call witnesses in this trial. Mitch doesn't think he has the votes to stop it, anyhow.
I wouldn't put too much stock into them. What's there to think about? It is supposed to be a trial, of course there will be evidence and witnesses. If a witness backfires for one side, that's their problem.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Jan 30, 2020 at 10:12 PM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2020, 12:14 AM
 
There will never be witnesses. Period. Mitch has his marching orders; Wrap it up with an acquittal before the State of the Union.
When I want your opinion,-
I'll read it in your entrails
     
andi*pandi  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2020, 06:22 PM
 
I feel a bit like I've been "charlie brown and the football"d over here.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2020, 07:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
I feel a bit like I've been "charlie brown and the football"d over here.
Uhm, to stay with your analogy, there never was a football.

-t
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2020, 07:45 PM
 
Yeah... I’ve been kind of staying out, but nothing ever gave me the slightest impression something would come of it.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2020, 08:19 PM
 
It was always a given nothing was going to happen in the Senate. Mitch pretty mich said so. Doesn’t mean there was nothing there. As the man once said, he could shoot someone in the middle of fifth avenue and nothing would be done.
When I want your opinion,-
I'll read it in your entrails
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2020, 08:52 PM
 
Oh, yeah... I meant strictly that it wasn’t going flip the needed 2/3rds.
     
andi*pandi  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2020, 09:59 PM
 
I was mainly referring to susan and lisa acting like they were going to hold the football, then pulling it away at the last minute like lucy.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2020, 01:16 AM
 
Again, I wasn’t paying attention, but if it’s business as usual, the whole thing is a sham.

Neither Susan or Lisa or actually wanted the Republicans to lose those votes. They only wanted it look that way, because it’s a great lie to tell independents in their respective states.

The Republican theory on senatorial governance right now is “win all the votes, all the time”. I’d bet Susan and Lisa like this setup, because... who wouldn’t? Sounds like a sweet deal to me. I highly doubt either have any interest in rocking the boat.

However, for any given vote, two senators can pretend they do if the (probably legal) bribe to Mitch is good enough.


Edit: “bribe” should have been “quid pro quo”.
( Last edited by subego; Feb 1, 2020 at 01:47 PM. )
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2020, 03:39 AM
 
I don't expect a real trial on the issues. It's clearly party loyalty first.

Sad state of affairs - we've come to expect corruption, and are not surprised by that outcome. But I fail to see what we can do until the next election. Revolution is unattractive - I have life and job to attend to each day. Most everyone else does too.

It's yet another consequence of income inequality - few of us can afford to take days off, even to attend political protests. Much less take months off, to campaign for someone with sympathetic views. So the money ordinary citizens don't have go to politicians who perpetuate the current economic state, and we have neither time nor money to oppose the cash infusion.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2020, 01:40 PM
 
I’m not sure I’d call this corruption so much as gaming a crummy system. It’s close to impossible to resist doing, so I cut people slack on it.

Another example is voter suppression. If the system lets the party in power write the election rules, of course the party in power is going to write them in their own favor, to the detriment of their opponents.

Even though Illinois screws everything else up, one of the few things we do right is our election boards are non-partisan by law.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2020, 11:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Yeah... I’ve been kind of staying out, but nothing ever gave me the slightest impression something would come of it.
I think that very much depends on what your goals are: IMHO a sensible goal is to make all the information part of the public record and follow the procedures. The GOP should have listened to all the evidence and brought their best defenses in light of all information.

Moreover, the vote on not allowing witnesses and to vote against impeachment will be something that I am sure will be part of every obituary when the day comes. (I'm not being facetious, I'm serious.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2020, 12:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
IMHO a sensible goal
The only sensible goal in politics is the one that gets votes on Election Day.

Full hearings would help the Republicans get votes how?
     
andi*pandi  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2020, 05:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The only sensible goal in politics is the one that gets votes on Election Day.

Full hearings would help the Republicans get votes how?
While it might hurt them with the full-strength Trumpites, having a fair process would appeal to the centrists and the formerly reasonable Republicans. The people who might be so grossed out by the miscarriage of justice, that they'd hold their nose and vote Democratic.

Oreo, I actually read an article recently that pointed out the obituaries of those who voted for/against the Nixon impeachment. It defined their legacy for certain.

https://www.justsecurity.org/68154/l...s-impeachment/
( Last edited by andi*pandi; Feb 2, 2020 at 06:22 PM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2020, 10:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The only sensible goal in politics is the one that gets votes on Election Day.
I don't agree with that. Not least do I want to vote for politicians who do the right thing in difficult times, even if it is not popular.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Full hearings would help the Republicans get votes how?
This is short term thinking. As I wrote above, their votes against witnesses and against impeachment will follow all GOP senators to their obituary, literally. If you want to change minds, you have to think and be willing to work long-term.

Look at Bernie Sanders: he lost a lot of votes on issues that are important to him over his career. And this may give him the Democratic nomination, because he is authentic. He isn't in favor of a single payer health care system, because it is the fad du jour, he was for that when it was exceedingly unpopular. I think for a lot of voters trying to hold people to account in the correct way is something they expect in politicians.

Another example I can think of is the Green party in Germany: they were literally founded on the desire for humans to live more sustainably, to abolish nuclear power, to fight climate change and to have more equality in society (e. g. emancipation of women, equal rights for gay couples, etc.). These stances have become more and more mainstream, and their policies find a lot of appeal amongst more conservative minded voters. (Indeed, when the Green party was founded, there was quite a strong conservative strand within the party.) But they “lost” on these issues for two decades, got in power and made sure important legislation got one, fell out of power and currently they are very high up in the polls.

The long-term strategy is all the more important, because Donald Trump is, at the end of the day, a symptom of a malaise of the US political system, but he is not the cause. Fighting symptoms is important, too, but the main thrust should be fighting the causes.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2020, 10:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Oreo, I actually read an article recently that pointed out the obituaries of those who voted for/against the Nixon impeachment. It defined their legacy for certain.

https://www.justsecurity.org/68154/l...s-impeachment/
I'm not surprised. Of course, you may argue it no longer matters, because if you are dead, your political career is dead. But it still shows that society has agreed that wanting to vote against Nixon's impeachment is seen as a failure now by broad swaths of society. On a historical scale, nobody will care about supposedly smart arguments for why “Democrats should have investigated more thoroughly in the House”.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2020, 09:37 AM
 
I want to make sure I’m understanding the claim properly.


History will view the politicians who supported Nixon at the end of this graph...




The same as the politicians who supported Trump at the end of this one?

( Last edited by subego; Feb 4, 2020 at 12:34 PM. )
     
andi*pandi  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2020, 06:04 PM
 
flip that.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2020, 07:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I want to make sure I’m understanding the claim properly.

History will view the politicians who supported Nixon at the end of this graph...
No, that’s not what I am saying.

Politicians are not judged by their last popularity poll. Have a look how some people came around by, say, Reagan’s foreign policy approach towards the USSR. The reason they came around is how the Cold War played out in the end, which is not reflected in the polls at the time. Or think of how votes voted against the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan are viewed today.

The full effect of Trump’s foreign policy won’t be felt for quite some time. Or if the growth of the American economy tapers off, because the testosterone shot fueled by the giant, debt-financed tax break wears off. Once Americans feel it, it will be irreversible, and it will be part of his legacy. That won’t be reflected in any poll at the time he is in office.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2020, 08:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
flip that.
Meaning what? I don’t understand.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2020, 09:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
No, that’s not what I am saying.

Politicians are not judged by their last popularity poll. Have a look how some people came around by, say, Reagan’s foreign policy approach towards the USSR. The reason they came around is how the Cold War played out in the end, which is not reflected in the polls at the time. Or think of how votes voted against the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan are viewed today.

The full effect of Trump’s foreign policy won’t be felt for quite some time. Or if the growth of the American economy tapers off, because the testosterone shot fueled by the giant, debt-financed tax break wears off. Once Americans feel it, it will be irreversible, and it will be part of his legacy. That won’t be reflected in any poll at the time he is in office.
We’re not talking about either of those things. We’re talking about Senators deciding not to call witnesses against the President.

Whether that’s a good idea or career suicide is reflected by the President’s popularity poll at that precise moment, which I note for all intents and purposes is at its peak, despite being impeached.

The House reps who had their vote follow them to the grave with Nixon supported him when he was 40% off-peak... and Nixon hadn’t even been impeached.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2020, 10:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
We’re not talking about either of those things. We’re talking about Senators deciding not to call witnesses against the President.
I am talking about those things. Trump is only the third President to be impeached, so historically, the behavior of Congress people matters. From the historical point of view, I think this is of similar singular importance as e. g. the vote for or against the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Whether that’s a good idea or career suicide is reflected by the President’s popularity poll at that precise moment, which I note for all intents and purposes is at its peak, despite being impeached.
Our exchange started with my prediction that GOP Congress people will be judged negatively by their behavior in Trump's impeachment proceedings in the long term and after their career is over. You are talking about whether this is good or bad in the next election — which is short term. Apples and bowling balls.

I don't know whether you remember the TV show SeaQuest. I remember one episode where one of the captains (don't remember which one) had a photo of President Powell in his office. In an alternate university, I could have imagined a GOP nominating Powell, a highly decorated, very successful former general to be the candidate and he would have had a good chance to become President. What had happened? A single speech in front of the UN was enough. If Powell had resigned instead of giving that speech, I think there would've been a good chance his career could have continued after the end of George W. Bush's presidency. Ditto for Condolezza Rice: a very, very smart woman, but her support of Bush 2's policies killed her career (although in her case, there wasn't “a moment” that killed her career).

When the conservative movement re-invents itself post Trump (in whatever form that may be), they will disavow Trumpists. This could happen sooner if Trump decisively loses the next election or later.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The House reps who had their vote follow them to the grave with Nixon supported him when he was 40% off-peak... and Nixon hadn’t even been impeached.
Nixon's impeachment proceedings were very different from Trump's: it started in his first term and he had a landslide victory for his second term. Just looking at Nixon's popularity at the tail end of his presidency is premature is misleading.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2020, 01:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Just looking at Nixon's popularity at the tail end of his presidency is premature is misleading.
I’m looking at the point on each graph where the votes in question took place. In both cases, it’s at the end of the graph.

The Representatives who supported Nixon cast their vote when his approval rating was 40% off-peak at 25%.

The Senators who supported Trump did so when his approval rating was at-peak with 43%... after he’s been impeached. Nixon was never impeached.

One of these is a scenario where the electorate will support running the president out on a rail, the other is not. History will look upon them differently because of that.


Edit: “misleading” is a cheap shot.
( Last edited by subego; Feb 5, 2020 at 02:20 AM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2020, 04:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Nixon was never impeached.
For our discussion this is a distinction without difference. Yes, we should more properly say that “former GOP House members who would have voted against impeachment …”, but I think my argument is fair: this time was a historic moment, and because nowadays the verdict on Nixon is quite clear, Congress people who would have voted against impeaching Nixon or against convicting him in the Senate had a permanent stain on their record.

Since this was way before I was born, I don't know enough to argue whether this has had a direct effect on at least some members of Congress with said stain, but at the very least that moment was noteworthy enough to be mentioned in their obituary. Ouch.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The Senators who supported Trump did so when his approval rating was at-peak with 43%... after he’s been impeached.
You are only looking at Trump's fate here and forgetting that I am also including the Republicans who (with two exceptions in the Senate) were blocking even attempts to hold a proper trial. Congress people had to go on record (and still have to when it comes to voting on convicting Trump), and this will be used against them in the next election. McConnell is currently the most unpopular senator unpopular. Several senate races seem quite tight, and the GOP's behavior in the impeachment investigation and trial was very unpopular with independents.

And while you can argue that this is mere speculation, there is at least one case where that Congress person's vote against impeachment did have a direct effect: Representative Jeff Van Drew switched parties, because he feared he would not have been re-elected.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Edit: “misleading” is a cheap shot.
I think you misread what I wrote. This wasn't a personal attack, I was just pointing out that looking at the end of the graph, i. e. after Nixon's popularity had tanked, was misleading. I was not claiming that you were trying to mislead me or others.

PS What about the other examples of long-term consequences that I mentioned in my earlier post?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2020, 01:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
For our discussion this is a distinction without difference.
Then the distinction I’m making isn’t clear.

Nixon’s ship was sunk before the vote to hold impeachment proceedings began. If I had to guess, were Nixon to have been impeached, by the end of the process, his popularity would have gone lower.

No one here needed to make that guess. Trump was impeached and it had zero effect on his popularity. In fact his popularity after impeachment is for all intents and purposes his highest ever.


Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
You are only looking at Trump's fate here and forgetting that I am also including the Republicans who (with two exceptions in the Senate) were blocking even attempts to hold a proper trial.
What?

“The Senators who supported Trump” are the literal subject of the sentence you quoted. How am I forgetting them? Trump’s fate fits in by virtue of it being the reason those senators supported him. You can’t spike a president at peak popularity. The electorate won’t stand for it.


As for the examples. I’m not seeing it at all. Has the Iraq vote dogged Biden? Reid? Kerry? Schumer? It messed with Hillary a bit, but it’ll rate no more than a footnote in her obit.

Afghanistan passed 98-0 and 420-1. This vote has dogged no one.

Powell isn’t President because he didn’t have a window. His speech had very little to do with it. Anyone who followed the aftermath of that speech knows the White House railroaded him.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:55 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,