IMPEACHMENT WATCH 2019-2020 - flow of data

Unfortunately the polling industry no longer "self regulates" to that standard once it became politically and financially expedient to provide those paying for the polls the results that they wanted.

Nowadays it is only the "in house" polls that don't get released to the public that are accurate. What the public sees is what the various political interests want them to see.

And given that we now know that the polls all have a degree of bias one way or the other we have other organizations, such as 538 and RCP, that now WEIGHT the various pollsters and provide averages of the polls based on those weightings.

As @Statistikhengst has pointed out many times before the averages are normally the closest to reality of what the electorate is thinking given that it cancels out the biases and the wording inflections and the rest of the conniving that is modern politics.

 

Yepp. I think it is a very healthy process to assume that there is a certain amount of mathematical bias by every single pollster and in most cases, it's not deliberate. For this reason, I say "mathematical" bias. And historically, the aggregate of polls (the average) has been far closer to reality than most single polls. Yes, there are gold-standard polls that specialize in certain states and have built a fine reputation for themselves, meaning, their consistency has shown from year to year, but on the whole, the aggregate and how is moves as a sort of sinus-curve, now, that's the real game, right there.

Nice to hear from you.

-Stat

 

I noted about a week ago that I started recording the impeachment polling numbers, including about 25 internals (where applicable), HERE.

The newest development is that the current Politico / Morning Consult poll now includes three independent-from-each-other questions about impeachment:

1.) Do you support or oppose the current impeachment inquiry into President Trump?

2.) As you may know, the Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach the president. Once a president is impeached by the House of Representatives, the Senate has the sole power to legally try the president and, if convicted, remove the president from office. Would you support or oppose each of the following? The House of Representatives impeaching President Trump

3.) As you may know, the Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach the president. Once a president is impeached by the House of Representatives, the Senate has the sole power to legally try the president and, if convicted, remove the president from office. Would you support or oppose each of the following? The Senate removing President Trump from office

In all three cases, there is majority support for these things.

Here screenshots from the excel-data for all three questions, all applicable internal data. boxed in green is this poll and the MC poll from about one week earlier, for comparison purposes. There are some interesting surprises in the internal data:









You can see that the opinion among RV through all three polling questions is very consistent. It does seem that the second question (impeachment vote) tends to harden the fronts by a point or two, but considering possible margins of error for data-subsets, the info could just as well also be identical. The third question (conviction) causes a sharp change in some groups. For instance, in the South, which should be Trump stronghold, it's 48/42, +6 FOR conviction in the Senate. Now, when you compare Politico/MC to other premium pollsters, their internals tend to be flatter in both directions: where other pollsters who far greater margins for Democrats on an issue, that margin is generally considerably less in Politico/MC, but the same tends to also apply to Republican numbers on issues, so like I said, the values are somewhat flat. For instance, in approval/disapproval polling, most pollsters show 30/70 for Trump in Urban areas, but the impeachment numbers in Urban areas (all three questions) are much more moderate. That noted, roughly 40% of voters in RURAL areas (farms, villages) are for all three of these questions. That should be a point of huge worry for Trump. It means that his support in Rural America is softer than he thinks. Also, the Evangelical numbers FOR inquiry, impeachment vote and conviction have all ticked-upward, and outside of the margin of error.

Take a look at the numbers for yourself.

-Stat

 

It is probably that increasing rural 40% number that is causing concern for Senate Republicans up for election.

Recently I read an article where a farmer who was the local head of the RP in his area came out vocally against the BLOTUS to the point where he resigned from the GOP entirely. He was quite adamant that the BLOTUS needs to be removed from office and it is unlikely that he did this without good reason.

That rural uptick could be these farmers seeing the light after having to deal with the damage that the BLOTUS has done to their farms and incomes.

If this is true then GOP senators up for re-election could be caught between party loyalty and doing what is right for themselves and their voter base.

The Republican Senate may not be marching in lockstep and it would not surprise me in the least if Pelosi already knows this.

 

VCU Poll from Virginia:

Impeachment proceedings (Virginia only): 53 yes / 46 no, yes +7
Among men: 47/52, -5
Among women: 58/39, +19
Among independents: 57/40, +17
Gender gap: 24 points

 

Getting to the bottom of the foreign influence in the 2016 campaign is the subject of several active investigations. Trump had a duty to encourage Ukraine to cooperate and they are happy to do so.

No he isn't.

Giuliani-Style ‘Shadow’ Diplomacy: Par for the Course of U.S. History.

“In fact, presidents since George Washington have turned to individuals without formal government positions to pursue foreign policy interests and objectives. Private citizens, often acting as special envoys, have helped negotiate issues ranging from trade to war. While critics deride such efforts as ‘back-door,’ ‘secret,’ or ‘shadow’ undertakings, many presidents have found it useful to dispatch people they trust, who can think and operate outside the constraints of official channels in handling delicate matters.”​

 

​

1. While investigations can be initiated by someone who thinks there's evidence of wrongdoing by their opponents, the investigation itself must be done in a fact-driven, politically neutral way, to protect the rights of everyone involved. There have been several investigations already regarding foreign influence in the 2016 election. Those investigations were completed by several different U.S. government departments. All reached the same conclusion--that Russia was the most active foreign influence in that election. Trump never liked that conclusion. Trump didn't want to investigate which foreign countries tried to influence the 2016 election. Trump wanted the President of Ukraine to publicly claim there was evidence that Ukraine rather than Russia interfered in our 2016 election, & make it official that a new investigation aimed toward proving that would be initiated. Trump wanted to protect Putin & the Russians by transferring the blame over onto Ukraine-NOT find the truth.
2. Yes, Presidents have often used personal envoys to complete foreign missions outside the normal channels of diplomacy, but until Trump, they were always directed toward accomplishing some important goal for the country as a whole. Giuliani was (& still is) working for Trump as a private attorney, & his efforts are directed toward private, personal goals by & for Trump himself, & NOT THE NATION. That's the difference, & that's what makes the whole thing criminal. It's illegal to use the power of the Presidency for personal gain rather than serve the best needs of the country. Trump serves Trump & nothing else. He's a disgrace to the Presidency, & a despicable human being.

 

Why sure! Comey, Stzork, Page, Orr and McCabe!

Sure he did. That is why he reached out to the President of Ukraine and requested his cooperation in our ongoing investigation in keeping with our mutual assistance treaty.

You are fabricating, we have the transcript. We want information on Crowd-strike, the DNC server and the Biden's.

That's right.

Getting to the bottom of forreign influence in tthe 2016 election IS in the National Interest of the United Staes, though it may not be in the interests of the Democrats and the Obama Administration that may have orchestrated it.

No it isn't. Democrats are trying to obstruct the investigation, probably because they are behind the foreign influence in the 2016 election.

 

1. Why are the results of investigations by these professionals unacceptable for you. Is it because you'll only accept results that agree with your pre-determined outcome?
2. If you believe that, you're not listening to the news being reported daily. All the testimonies from all the State Dept agree, Trump was NOT trying to have a neutral investigation to find the truth. Trump was demanding that Ukraine remove the stain of the 2016 election interference by foreign nations from the back of his friend Putin. Even Mulvaney said as much in his famous news conference this past week. You're so wrapped up in Republican Trumpist propaganda, you're no longer willing to see the truth.
3. For Trumpists, the enemy is the domestic opposition. You guys never see that this nation survived & thrived for over 250 years, because both parties learned to work together. But since 1994, Republicans have progressively & maliciously worked to disembowel that process. The level of polarization now infecting our nation is a testament to your success. But you never take time to consider what might replace that which you so determinedly destroy. History is replete with examples of outcomes worse than the original. Trumpists need to learn to value their country more than their political party. ]
4. There have been investigations made independently by the Dept of Justice, Dept of State & the military. All concluded the same thing--that Russia was making major efforts to influence our elections, & successfully. All concluded that Russia was creating false impressions in the electorate, by spreading lies about Trump's opponent, & they were going to do it again in 2020. I agree that we must become aware of any malicious foreign influences in our elections, & work together to eliminate them. But three separate investigations have already agreed, Russia is the main culprit. Why should we ignore that danger just because our current President has a soft place in his heart for Putin?

 

Did Russia trick you into switching your vote from Hillary to Trump?

 

What professionals?

Give me a link to their recorded testimony or to a transcript of the testimony you are referring to.

No he didn't, he asked for their cooperation.

I think you fabricated that. Give the pull quote from the transcript that contains your claim about Putin.

Give me the pull quote from Mulvaney you are describing.

I've merely asked you for evidence to back up your wild assertions.

We aren't the ones that turned the entire domestic spying power of the United States against a rival political campaign.
We aren't the ones trying to obstruct Trump/Barr/Durham and Horowitz' search for the reasons such a travesty occurred.

We aren't the ones backing Antifa and BLM.
We aren't the ones using the federal government to spy on our political opponents while fixing the criminal investigation of the Democrat nominee.
We aren't the ones who refused to accept election results and are still trying to overturn the election.
We aren't the ones telling gross lies on the floor of the House about the phone call.
We aren't the ones holding secret hearings in the basement and then leaking bits and pieces to the fake news media in order to promote a false narrative.

We are determined to destroy the Dems misuse of the IC community to destroy a political opponent.
We are determined to destroy the Democrat majority that is misusing impeachment to try to obstruct an ongoing investigation into the Obama Administration's use of The Spy State against political opponents.
We are determined to remove from power those that misused their authority and positions in this vast Obama Administration scandal, and to hold them accountable where the law allows us to.

Given what your side has done and is doing, your self-righteousness is a joke.

The DOJ investigation is ongoing.

Give me links to the State Department and "military" investigation.

They never examined the server. The DNC refused to allow them. Instead they had a DNC and Hillary Campaign subcontractor, Crowd Strike, who was paid by the same folks who paid for the faked Steele report that was full of lies, examine the server. Crowd Strike is run by a Ukrainian Oligarch who has a history of believing Putin is behind everything. He even falsely claimed that Putin hacked an app that caused Ukrainian artillery to attack Ukrainian positions. He made the entire thing up. It never happened, the battle he says that it occurred in, never occurred, and losses that he claimed resulted, never happened. That's who claimed Russia hacked the DNC. And the FBI does not have custody of the servers, so Crowd Strike's wild claims will never stand up in Court. We are very much interested in anything Ukraine can tell us about Crowd Strike that would help clear up how Obama came to spy on the Trump campaign and we would love to examine the DNC servers. If Ukraine has them, we would very much like for them to make them available to the DOJ's investigation.

Wikileaks information wasn't lies. She did collide with the DNC to cheat in the Primaries.

We aren't the ones who freaked out when Trump requested Ukraine's cooperation in the ongoing investigation into foreign influence in the 2016 election. In fact, it appears one hell of a lot of it was arranged by the Obama Administration. And the frantic Democrat House is trying to obstruct the investigation by impeaching Trump for pursuing it.

You have yet to provide links to ANY of them.

 

The Dam's breaking!
The Walls are closing in!

CIA ‘rattled’ by DOJ inquiry into Russia investigation origins. Rattled? I’m expecting an earth-shattering kaboom before it’s all over.

CIA analysts are lawyering up.

The expanded DOJ review, which is being overseen by Attorney General William Barr and run by U.S. Attorney John Durham, has merely requested to speak with CIA analysts and they sprinted for lawyers.

President Trump granted Barr expansive powers for the inquiry.

"There’s a lot of unease at the CIA and disquiet about the notion of federal prosecutors going over and rooting in their files..."​

Those are OUR files.

They’re questioning what is the need for John Durham and his prosecutors to go over and talk to them about that
​

They want to assess their role in the illegal spying on Candidate and President Trump.

Durham wants to speak with former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Crapper

The impending declassification of Russia investigation documents will show an email exchange between Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey discussing the use of British ex-spy Christopher Steele's unverified dossier in the U.S. intelligence community's assessment on Russian interference in the 2016 election. Former South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy has seen the classified material, said this puts Brennan in jeopardy more than it does Comey.

 

No. But I'm not as malleable by propaganda as many American voters appear to be.