Correct. The House impeaches, the Senate fails to convict, Trump plays the victim, he wins in 2020. OTOH if we don’t impeach, yet, and he wins anyway, then impeach him, maybe with more Dems in the Senate.
Here’s a counterargument to what I’m suggesting: impeaching now communicates much-needed respect for the rule of law, and would give GOP Senators the opportunity to display even more blatantly how maggoty and putrescent their souls have become, which would lead to more flipped seats in 2020.
The counterargument is really the only choice. The Senate will no doubt fail to convict following the House impeaching, and Dolt-45 will no doubt play the victim after that. His winning as a result, though, is not a foregone conclusion. That’s especially true if the case for impeachment is strong and exposes yet more of his criminal and traitorous behaviour to GOP voters who aren’t part of the Know-Nothing 27%. If the House does not impeach before the election and the chances of that happening go to zero.
The question should no longer be one of if the House should impeach, but when. Pelosi and the Dem establishment are still stuck on “if”.
Unlike in a court of law, there’s no injunction against double jeopardy in presidential impeachments. Impeach him now, and if he should somehow win re-election, impeach him again. And again, if necessary.
Given that an impeachment can’t lead to removal from office before 2021 (at the earliest), I think Pelosi is dragging her feet on impeachment so that the movement can continue to build momentum. I think she wants the actual impeachment hearings to take place closer to the 2020 election. Her best case scenario (in terms of political impact) is for the impeachment hearings to be live and active during the late stages of the election. Those impeachment hearings will dominate the news cycle 24/7. They’ll be the best attack ads possible, and they’ll carry no additional cost for Dems or Dem supporters. Everyone can get camera time to take a whack at the president.
If they start impeachment now, they’ll certainly impeach him, the Senate will certainly fail to convict, and it will all be ancient history when the vote rolls around.
No. it means getting people who do not vote but can vote to vote. About 25% of the population that can vote voted for him. We don’t need those racist, sexist, assholes, because we have an entire group of people (about half the American population or so) who are entirely sick of the system that they’ve given up. We appeal to them, not to the people who are okay with concentration camps on the border or taking away women’s rights.
He certainly thinks that, and a lot of DNC politicians seem afraid of that.
But impeachment proceedings and investigations (of any sort) put evidence and the Administration’s actions in public view. In hard to deny ways. And every time that’s happened public opinion has shifted more in favor of investigations and impeachment. And the number of house members and prominent DNC members advocating it ticks up. They’ve even got a GOP guy pushing it now. So I think there’s very little reason to fear backlash unless they go off half cocked and do something baldly political.
The problem they’re in right now is that impeachment is not popular with the general public or within their caucus. You’ve got to continue shifting public opinion, but they’re being blocked from the primary thing that can do that. The Mueller report is functionally meaningless without its backing evidence. And other investigations and releases are being blocked by the subpoena fight. So there’s a lot of very frustrating, circular legal wrangling going on right now.
They’re definitely being very frustrating in their messaging and I don’t think they’re generally making enough noise. Trump’s claims of executive privlege are unprecedented in their scale, and an abuse of power in and of themselves. And the brass’s (including Pelosi’s) unwillingness to give clear statements on impeachment are rapidly entering pointlessness. Maybe that was a useful posture in the early offing but its become a crappy bit of horse race coverage for the media, and its antagonizing the Democratic base.
I personally don’t think its wise to pull the trigger before the subpoena problem starts to clear and they get at the Mueller documents, find a way to make people testify. But it’s going to be out of their hands before long. And its fairly obvious impeachment is in the offing. At a certain point its more embarrassing to deny it.
I think that recent polling and those leaks should put a nail on that coffin. When even their internal polls show the guy losing 60-40 to anyone its not clear that waving impeachment around is gonna meaningfully shift the thing. 80+% of GOP members already oppose impeachment and it still looks like his polls under perform his shitty, shitty approval ratings.
The bigger concern for me is a mishandled impeachment validating and feeding that horseshit.
I don’t think they’re stuck on “if”. I think they’re stuck on the don’t feed it part.
Made me think of this, which is alright by me!
Yes, thinking a win against him based on the polling was a sure thing worked so well in 2016. Why wouldn’t the same smug assumption work equally well a year before the 2020 election? Especially if the nominee turns out to be Biden.
You do remember that the primary purpose of impeachment is not to shift the election, right? It’s about Congress doing.its.bloody.job. when presented with a damning investigation into wrongdoing in the Executive Branch.
Wait, a moment ago Pelosi was a political grandmaster. Now she’s going to blow it with the investigation that Mueller handed her? Her fanbois really have to make up their minds (my view: if anyone can screw it up, Pelosi can, but she’ll have to make a real effort with the material provided).
As if all Russian interference and obstruction of justice and all the rest of the slime associated with this regime is now over and isn’t going to be discussed and debated again. The MAGgAts are still whingeing pre-emptively about Clinton’s e-mails any time a new Russia story pops up.
Polls last time were largely on point. Even predicting the popular vote pretty accurately. The broader media pushed the can’t lose idea, but a lot of people were out there outlining that Trump could take it and how. Its frankly insulting to describe the situation as people sitting back and thinking polling would take it, there was record turn out, a lot of people were out there working very hard. “Polls! Complacency” are as much of a bullshit answer on this as the “working class voter” line, and a fair bit of the sort of pat, horseshit coverage that let Trump fumble to a technical win. And continues to let him skate. Fact of the matter is a majority of Americans did not vote for the guy. A (increasingly large) majority do not support the guy. That means he has the push to get re-elected.
You might have missed that I was describing Trump’s obvious attempts to do that. Which he has been doing, openly, since he was elected. To the point where “don’t vote Democrat they only want to impeach” was a major campaign plank for him during the midterms.
Which didn’t work. And given recent polls that followed that actual voting doesn’t appear to be working any better currently.
Because that was about dismissing fears of a backlash against an impeachment. A situation I clearly said looks unlikely.
I get the moralistic take on it. But impeachment is not magic. The possibility exists that a sufficiently borked attempt will only validate Trump’s actions. Whether it impacts an election or not. Failing to consider that is not ok, and its not smart. You can’t meaningfully do the job, if you give no thought to how to do the job.
The consequences of doing it wrong are potentially much longer lived than next November, or Trump himself. And we’re talking about a group of people who haven’t been brought to even a moment’s introspection by any sign that they aren’t universally backed, or big stand on morals, or real world consequence they’ve faced. This is not a president, or a party, or a movement that will view impeachment as any reason to doubt, change or slow down. Unless it comes with consequences. Whether that is some one as powerful and privleged as Trump in prison. Or serious fallout during an election or three.
They were “presented” with a report. Essentially a memo summarizing the investigation you presume is damning. Fact of the matter no one outside the White House and the DOJ has seen the actual files and evidence. The report itself is functionally useless. Because impeachment is not a moral imperative wrist slap. Its a political process built around a legalistic frame work. And a report vaguely describing things you aren’t allowed to see or use in a legal proceeding isn’t worth much in a practical sense.
It might surprise you but just because you’ve ascribed a view to me does not mean I hold it.
I’ve been pretty consistent on the subject. That there are very good reasons not to impeach right now, just this second, last week, six months ago. That I see no reason to believe that the house is avoiding it, or not working towards it. There is nothing inconsistent in laying out why, and also laying out concerns about how it might be getting fucked up or acknowledging the possibility that I might be wrong.
Because like I said. Refusing to consider a negative outcome, or how it might come about is just shortsighted, wishful thinking. Slinging around “fanboi” doesn’t change that. It may surprise you but most people disagree with you right now. That’s why I linked you multiple articles covering 4 different polls on the subject. Even within people who (like myself!) support impeachment do not automatically 100% agree with you about when or how or over what. You are not right because you are ruder about it.
I think Donald Trump is bad, and must. Absolutely must. Be removed from power. I not only think he should be impeached, but think that he probably will be impeached. But I do not agree that it must be now, or that any possible approach to impeachment will by its nature be a solution. I also do not believe that removing Donald Trump is a solution. Whether by impeachment or through the election. I do not think that even one election will do that. So I am not interested in a hollow, political, show of Congress doing its job. Because that can only be meaningless. I am concerned about effects, and consequences. Maybe kicking off impeachment now gets them there faster. Maybe it doesn’t. But all the moral grandstanding in the world doesn’t make either the case. And just because you shout it louder does not mean you are smarter or better or more informed.
Its getting awful echo chambery in here.
And yet… why campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan? They’re a lock! That’s why people regard the 2016 Clinton campaign as disastrously incompetent and complacent.
The only people buying that are the Know-Nothings. They were about half of his voters in 2016. Write-offs.
It’s about more than morals. The Framers incorporated impeachment into the Constitution as a safeguard for the republic. Mueller, given who he is, said as much.
The redacted report is pretty damning, from what I’ve seen. Again, taking action on it is the job of Congress.
I’ve made it clear that timing is another issue. That’s why I talk about “when” being an open question. But not “if”. And Pelosi is still on “if”, for no good reason. If she said “we have the goods and we will impeach” there would be a lot more confidence that, maybe for once, the Dem establishment won’t pull defeat from the jaws of victory yet again.
This is kind of an offensive way to frame the response of some of us, as is the “fanboi” thing you threw at @Ryuthrowsstuff. Please chill.
Pelosi and Congress have jobs to do, not necessarily exactly the same job. Congress’s job is to impeach if they are convinced that there is a successful case against him; quite evidently they do not, not even the Democratic members. The Majority Leader’s job is not to convince her flock to rally impeach, it is first to make a decision about the issue, based both on her own political read of the situation (eg, what are the political ramifications?) and of her read of her caucus (eg, is it what her members want?) Then, if she decides that impeachment is the right decision and if that isn’t what her members seem to want, then (and only then) does it become her job to whip them.
In this case, she has neither pressure from a majority of her membership nor a personal political conviction of the value of impeachment, so her job is to do as she has been doing.
Now, for those who support impeachment, there are options. One can try to convince the majority of Democratic legislators, perhaps through calls and letters, to support it. One can try to convince Pelosi that it is a politically correct decision whatever her members think, perhaps by making her read BoingBoing. One can try to replace Pelosi as leader by someone who has made a different political calculation, and that would also be a good test of her political acumen, though personally I can’t think of anyone in position to beat her, an opinion based on looking at past attempts and not on being a fanboi.
For some of us, impeachment is not the big prize. Hobbling Trump for the next 2 years and removing him afterwards is the most important goal. Throwing his ass in jail would be great, but it won’t require impeachment if he loses the next election. (I come from Illinois, a state which happily throws governors into the hoosegow after they leave office.)
A good argument can be made that impeachment hearings today would help in the “hobbling” goal. I probably agree with that. However, Pelosi evidently doesn’t, and I’m not in a position to say that because she’s wrong and I’m right that she’s not doing her job by not favoring my opinions over hers. She and Mitch McConnell are currently the two most successful politicians in Washington, and until some young gunslinger bests them in a shootout there is no reason for either of them to elevate anyone’s opinion over their own.
I don’t know if you noticed. But those “write-offs” are fucking killing people.
And they’re not going to stop doing that because Trump has been impeached. Or stop voting in future elections. Or for down ballot offices. Or skewing GOP primaries towards the Roy Moores of the world. Or running for office. Or serving in the administrations of Republican politicians.
And I’m sure they had no thoughts as to whether it should be practical to accomplish that task.
Unless you do the job you have not done your job. And a safeguard that fails to make us safe isn’t really safeguarding us.
Coulda fooled me! You’re bending over backwards to shit on Hillary. Calling people names. And dismissively attacking some one you generally get along with because they attempted to discuss things like “why” and “when”.
I have. It’s part of the reason the Dem establishment should give up hope of appealing to the Know-Nothing 27%. But instead they continue to try and triangulate like it’s 1996.
They weren’t perfect, but it seems a well thought out tool under the circumstances they envisioned.
I’m not sure how else to interpret my saying “the question is no longer ‘if’ but ‘when’”. That acknowledges that the timing aspect (the “when”) is still open to question.
Saying that Clinton’s campaign was crappy and complacent is describing a fact. I don’t lay it soley on her as an individual, and never shared the DNC’s (unfair) delusion that she had the rock-star charisma of Obama or her husband. But more than that, a competent campaign would have considered the role the Electoral College plays in Presidential elections and followed up accordingly. It would also have treated the very existence of Il Douche’s candidacy as a true danger to the republic.
But that’s describing history. The Dems have to do better this time. What worked in the 1990s doesn’t work anymore.
“Fanboi” really describes an attitude. I use it to describe anyone who won’t acknowledge the flaws in the individuals or institutions he idolises (e.g. not recognising one of the most incompetent campaigns in modern history). I’ve said the same thing about BernieBros and Steve Jobs/Apple cultists for that matter.
Trusting in Nancy Pelosi is another one of those mug’s games – time served does not equal flawless judgement or keeping up with the new realities of politics, and I don’t see much point in tying myself in knots to prove otherwise. But if you want to I don’t see much point in debating it, so I’ll leave it there.
I understand the impulse and it may be optimal from short-term electoral perspective, but I can’t shake the feeling that openly choosing to write off a significant segment of the population is ultimately fatal to the long-term health of the body politic.
This is not to say one must craft policy that must appeal to all - neither possible nor desirable. But embracing the concept that a significant portion of the population is permanently the enemy is not healthy for any system.
Any healthy system of government must at least espouse the principle of governing for all the people, even if the reality doesn’t meet such a lofty goal. Aspirations are important.
Or at least so it appears from my informal survey of history.
I don’t concern myself over that anymore. Approx. 27% of any electorate is like this, unfortunately, and it’s guaranteed that at least one conservative party will give them all the attention they need without a liberal or progressive party having to betray its principles and waste resources better applied elsewhere to avoid hurting their feelings. That’s even more true in a non-parliamentary duopoly situation like the U.S.
That’s not to say that liberal and progressive parties should not govern on the Know-Nothings’ behalf once they’re in power. They just shouldn’t pander to them when they’re trying to get into power. Triangulation worked for a while when things were good, but we’re living in a very different country than we were in the 1990s.
This LOUD racist contingent of the population is fatal.
This sums it up quite well. Democratic leadership flatly does not want to impeach him. They’ve slow-walked their already slow-by-design plan of taking the administration to court when it refuses to honor subpoenas. Pledges to sue the administration over the president’s tax returns have so far been empty talk. Nobody says a thing when the president injects himself into requests that former staffers—people whom he no longer has any official capacity to compel to do anything—testify (psst, that’s also obstruction!). Even the blatantly obvious step of having Mueller testify before Congress has taken them months to commit to and schedule, when it should have been done the day it became clear that Barr wouldn’t release the full report.
Meanwhile, Pelosi and company are banking on the notion that the president is so self-evidently terrible, he’ll lose in 2020, and we can finally get back to business as usual. Y’know, the exact same thing they did in 2016, which worked out so well for everyone involved.
Absolutely agreed.
My point was about the attitude that they cannot possibly be persuaded. We are all very quick to attribute characteristics to every member of the opposition that are only deeply held by the most pernicious of them, with the others not really caring.
Embracing the attitude of “there exists irredeemables” can only lead to one final conclusion, and it’s not a pretty one.
At least for myself, writing off a significant segment of the population is more a way of absolving myself of my responsibility of talking with people whose attitudes are different from mine despite the help it might bring in getting better policy. It’s the intersection of my personal laziness with my brains desire to stereotype groups that I don’t interact with.
As an aside, oddly enough in studies, Republican supporters tend to be more accurate (although not terribly accurate) about how Democrat supporters would answer a survey than Democrats were capable of predicting what Republicans would answer.
Indeed. And certainly crafting a platform that has no appeal for racists is necessary and desirable. But I think you’d find much of Trump’s support simply doesn’t care about racism. The crossover between would-be Sanders voters and Trump voters was not zero.
And while not caring about racism is pretty large character flaw, I’d say it’s one that can be brought into the fold.
And since leaders have influence, I’d rather them following someone who encourages their better natures rather than a leader that is served by their basest fears.
My point is that we don’t need to appeal to them, because there are plenty of people who can vote, but don’t because they feel alienated.
If you have to do that by catering to racist views or not dismantling the racist system we live in, it’s a non-starter.
me too. If they won’t get on board with improving life in a variety of ways, that helps specific groups of people that aren’t JUST them, we can do it without them.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
