Politically, what would be the most beneficial outcome for Democrats for November?

May I suggest you look up the work 'projected'? You use it a lot, but I wonder if you actually know what it means.

 

Doing that would mean being in contradiction to every scrap of the overwhelming evidence brought to light to date.

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...s-think-the-evidence-supports-trumps-removal/

 

Yet the balance of Republicans vs Democrats among baby boomers has not changed significantly in 40 years. The generation who preceded has always been more conservative.

 

You pulled one chart out of a fairly large analysis by a left-leaning political think thank. ...and you are STILL yelling...

So, I just read the full report.

The overall analysis is pretty good, knowing that any analysis of the 2020 outcome this early in the game is largely speculative.

They are saying that, given a set of circumstances, Democrat would carry the Electoral College by as much as 334-204.

Given a different set of circumstances, Trump could carry the Electoral College by up to 323-215.

Nowhere in the analysis, does it suggest any certainty of anything, much less that Trump would lose 3.5 million voters simply because of demographic shifts in education levels and race makeup...as you have suggested multiple times here.

Anyway, good analysis if you enjoy dozens of "what if" scenarios.

https://www.americanprogress.org/is...ions/reports/2019/10/24/476315/path-270-2020/

 

It is so difficult, trying to reason in face of your superior intellect. I don’t know how I could ever get through life without the brilliance of conservatives to keep me on the straight and narrow, to guide me out my ignorance.

Who would have known, but the wise conservatives kept telling me that liberals are young and foolish, and as people grow older and wiser they become more and more conservative. I’m just not sure how becoming more and more deluded, more senile, more confused, makes one smarter. But you know how it goes. If a conservatives tells me, it has got to be true, their superior intellect and all.

I must be wrong when I look at the data which shows no such trend. Rather, the generation that preceded the Baby Boomers was more conservative than Baby Boomers and the one before that, even more conservative. Thus, as the elderly die off it is mostly conservatives who are dying off, with the newly elderly being noticeably more liberal than those who are dying off.

Conservatism is yesterday’s news. Liberalism is the road to the future. It is the way it has always been and the way it always will be.

 

RodB said: ↑
What if the Senate called the witnesses that the House wants and those witnesses blow the House's case to smithereens.

That is what I said. The Democrats would immediately make a perjury referral to DOJ. It is like what makes the argument that Trump ought to allow witnesses to prove his innocence so silly. It is impossible for Trump to prove his innocence with the Democrats.

 

Congratulations on posting something to support your view.

The link I posted is a little more current.

 

I highly doubt that. You do realize, someone would have to actually pay for all that 'free' stuff, right? And once given to the government via taxes, you really don't have control over how it is spent, or the rules to how it is applied.

According to this: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...ogical-gap-between-younger-older-generations/

The slide towards conservatism is more based on age, then generation. In all but the 18-35 group, the scales are weighted to the conservative side. I have a theory about that:

When under 35, people have discovered that they can vote themselves 'stuff', and they shouldn't have to pay for it. Responsibilities (Spouse, house, family) are not yet looming for the most part.

After 35, working hard to make ends meet, they have discovered that the 'stuff' actually costs money, their money, when they have better uses for it like spouse, house, family.

After 51, the hope of eventual retirement, sending the kids off to school or trade school, paying off the mortgage become painfully real. Why should they work their butts off to pay for someone else's 'stuff'?

After 71, the hard earned retirement needs to be supported, and some actually understand that the utopia of their youth doesn't pay the bills.

 

Bravo!

You're quite right of course, liberalism is the wave of the future and always will be...

 

I’m sure that all this “free stuff” resides mostly within Republicans rhetoric and not in reality. Most of what Democrats advocate is a reallocation of resources, not free stuff. For instance, if all the money spent on health insurance premiums were to be pooled together, we all could have better healthcare when we need it.

But then there are those really cool free things like roads and police officers to take away the bad guys. And that free really big, really advanced Army that we have. And those really cool Air Force jets we get to see fly over. And those really wonderful free parks and national forests we get to frolic in. And all of those free weather reports.

I'm in my sixties and I think that I have been becoming more liberal the older I get. What I sensed was wrong about conservative thought as a child, has become ever more evident the older I get, the more I learn, the more I know.


I would even go so far as to say a conservative is one who adheres to the traditional line. What was good enough for my grandfather is good enough for me. I’ve always had it better than my father and grandfather. In fact, growing up, I thought my conservative parents, and the conservative community they hung with, was so off base that I spent my childhood, studying, observing a better way to live, a better way to raise children.

I have lived an enjoyable life, as a liberal, full of liberal ideas, a nice liberal hedonistic lifestyle. I’m in better physical and mental shape than most people my age. I have what I need, and I’m not too worried about losing it.

To turn into a conservative, I would have to revert to what my dad and his generation were. What my brothers have become. No thanks.

 

In 1976, Carter won age 22-29 by a breakdown of 56% to 44%
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-1976

40 years later, in 2016, Trump won that same group of people now in their 60's by a margin of 52% to 45%
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2016

The question that I have, is what data are you looking at that misses this undeniable trend? The numbers basically flip flopped with the same group of people and you do not see a trend towards Republicans as this group of people has aged?

 

You are seeing the independents in the middle flipping.

 

Regardless of what spin you try to apply, you see an undeniable and seismic shift towards Republicans as people transition from their youthful idealism into their adult reality. Sorry if I have spoiled your bogus narrative. You would have gotten away with it too.....if not for them pesky facts. Who knew that you could go back and look at demographics from 1976? Rats!!!

 

I can see how truthful your assertions are by noting that most congressional Democrats, once they reach a little over 50 they begin to switch parties. Nancy Pelosi used to be a a raging liberal in her youth, and now she is congress’ most conservative member. Don’t you remember back when Moscow Mitch was a fun loving, joint toking liberal, until he figured he could be much more effective as a corrupt Republican.

Oh, and Jon Stewart. After all those years of skewering Republicans, and making all that money, he suddenly reverted to one of Trump’s most ardent supporters in his retirement.

 

So let me get this straight..... if you can prove that congressonal democrats do not change party's en masse, or that Jon Stewart did NOT turn into a Republican, therefore your claim about there not being a trend somehow becomes true regardless of the actual Demographic data as presented by the Roper Center for the 1976 and 2016 elections. LOL.

I think its cute how you are now trying to strawman your way out of this. Bless your little heart. You sure are trying. Nobody can deny that.

 

It would likely convince Democrats that the only possible formula to win would be Trump's way: cheating. And the Republic might survive a couple of administrations further while each Party tries to outcheat the other and Republicans blame Democrats for starting it (because they will erase from their minds the fact that it was Trump)... back and forth until eventually, a dictator will solve the problem by doing away with the Republic altogether.

If I'm to be honest, I'd have to say that I'm not completely sure that this would not happen even if Trump loses. Only way we can be 100% sure that it won't would be to remove him. Which would prove that the Constitution still works! Otherwise, it will prove that it's obsolete, and we need a new one. Preferably not one that includes a Monarch.

 

Extremely tiny, but one can hope that enough Republican Senators will suddenly grow a patriotic bone. It could happen! And I could win $300M in the lottery tomorrow too. Why not?

The only positive side is that, if he is not removed, the political backlash in November might be just enough to overcome Trump's cheating schemes.

 

Aside from hardcore political types like those of us that hang out in political chat rooms, the public by in large does not care. Literally. It hardly even rises to the level of being water cooler conversation. Megxit is much bigger. In the scenario where Democrats pull off the upset and get him removed, that clearly would have required them getting the public at large to be angry at Trump. They have failed. This thing is over, and there is nothing that logically indicates any sort of a "backlash" against Republicans coming in November. It is all wishful thinking. This wont fail because of Republican Senators....it will fail because the Democrats failed to get the public support necessary for such a drastic action, which is the same underlying reason that the Clinton impeachment failed miserably.

 

Sure they can. They can open the session, vote to dismiss all the charges, and go home... one hour tops. They don't even need more than simple majority to do that. And that's just one example of the moves McConnell could use.

So you were aware of that. No, they are not constitutionally required to do anything. The only thing the Constitution establilshes is that they need two thirds of the votes if they want to remove the President. Other than that, Senate has the sole power of trying impeachment. With a simple majority they can decide not to allow witnesses, or to not allow any evidence, ... anything whatsoever. The framers just assumed that the Senate would behave honestly. On this (lack of precision) they dropped the ball. But it's what we have.

I honestly have no clue why you believe that is of any relevance. As I said, Trump started abusing power since day 1. As a matter of fact, maybe even before that (there are cases of judges who were impeached and removed in part for things they did before they took office, so it wouldn't be a first). But what that has to do with this I have no idea.

If Democrats "hated" Trump or "loved" Hillary or "adored" Pence and wanted to make him President... I don't know how any of that would remove the fact that Trump is a criminal, has abused his power, and has done more than enough to warrant his removal.

 

That is certainly possible. The extreme left has already posited several Democracy ending ideas the next time a Democrat wins the White House (and gets power in both Houses) such as packing the Supreme Court with 50 or so new members, admitting DC and Puerto Rico as states, amnesty and citizenship for every illegal here, and there is a new one that was on the forum last week, about a Harvard proposal to break up Washington DC into 127 regions and admit them as states. If Trump wins again, those positions could move from extreme to mainstream Democratic thought.

 

True. But also a majority of the public won't bother to vote. Those who do will care in November. And what happens today remains in History forever. Imagine how it will look then, with a bit more hindsight: Republicans refuse to show the evidence, and then let him off the hook through a partisan vote.

There is no doubt in my mind that Democrats would have the elections in the pocket, if it weren't for the fact that, if Trump is not removed, we must factor in his ability to cheat. And that cannot be underestimated.

 

In hindsight, this will look incredibly petty on the part of Democrats. A desperate attempt to take down a President that they despise with every fiber of their being, regardless of the reality that there is not a legitimate reason to warrant impeachment. That is my 100% sincere belief, without one ounce of spin or equivocation.

Based on the too many to count threads from you to the contrary, I realize that you feel differently. Honestly, I am tired of discussing it, and I have no desire to go round and round again on our interpretation of events. The attempt at removal is going nowhere, which ultimately makes it a moot point. The national argument has been had, and official failure to remove is but a mere technicality waiting for the passage of a bit more time.There really is nothing more to discuss. You know my position, and I know yours. For that matter, the entire country already has their opinions set in stone as well. There is nobody left to try to sway.

 

Yeah a future with no future.

 

Your sarcasm is duly noted.

You left out some things, like the 'debt forgiveness' leading to 'free' higher education, for people who willingly accepted the education, and now decide they don't want to pay for it, wanting other taxpayers to pay for what is for personal monetary and social gain. After all, what society doesn't benefit from extra lawyers, financial advisors, stock traders, and weather forecasters? Money better spent would be two more years in the same school system, with a more focused curriculum.

A reallocation of resources. While I do not support the idea of our military going into other countries to attempt to change their culture, the military is necessary to not only defend out borders, but also those of our allies. A good example of that would be WWII. Do you think Europe would have been fine if the US hadn't helped with that? Well, apparently some think that could be done with a Piper Cub and a canister of laughing gas....

Health care. Your version and mine are two different things. Apparently, you want the government to be able to tell you no, and you don't have an alternative. I rather pay a bit more now, and keep my ability to decide not only who provides my healthcare, but when I receive it, and at what level of quality. If you want GOVcare, you are welcome to it. Just don't inflict it on me, and others who think as I do. The only reason for doing so would be rather obvious and blatant.

Your attempt at painting societal services in the 'free' column means you don't understand the difference between the societal pool, and socialism. But that's fine, not everybody does.