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

Since you have no means to refute the HARD FACTUAL DATA you engage in puerile ad hom responses instead!

Sad!

 

I PROVIDED the LINK so that anyone who responds can INFORM themselves as to the rest of the information BEHIND the SUMMARY in the CHART!

It is DISINGENUOUS to accuse me something that I NEVER actually did!

But I do appreciate you taking the time to read the ENTIRE article.

However it is also disingenuous to accuse it of being "left leaning" when it provided a "good overall analysis" that included all sides.

Then we come to your bogus STRAWMAN allegation that I am "making claims" with "certainty"!

What I am doing is pointing out that the demographic TRENDS show that your IMPOTUS is LOSING millions of voters from his PRIMARY support base!

That is HAPPENING to BOTH SIDES in that NCW demographic however the DECLINE is more SIGNIFICANT for him because of the 2:1 ratio of his support. He is effectively losing TWO votes for each one that the Dems lose. The TRENDS demonstrate that in the remaining demographics that are GROWING the Dems have MAJORITY support which OFFSETS their losses in the NCW demographic.

So given that those TRENDS are ONGOING explain how your IMPOTUS is going to find MILLIONS of voters to make up for that DECLINE?

That is a LEGITIMATE question that not a single IMPOTUS supporter can answer.

 

May I offer you a trial in the Senate? Disingenuous claims are a bummer.

Anyway, that analysis had some good data in it, even if you are only cherry-picking the left-leaning parts you prefer.

....and you're still yelling.

 

Obviously you have no subject matter knowledge when it comes to TRENDS...or "yelling" for that matter!

Sad!

 

If you're talking just impeachment, I doubt it will have much effect on the November elections. People have their minds made up about Trump, for or against.. If the polls are right, we're only talking around 5-8% of Americans who's minds aren't set one way or the other. On impeachment you have a 47-47 tie nationwide, via party its 90% Democrats want removal, 90% Republicans against, independents split roughly 45-45. It's been this way within a point or two since the Democrats started talking impeachment during Mueller's investigation.

Now what would be the best results for the November elections? Going by history, I'd say the democrats win the presidency, the GOP retains the Senate and the democrats retain the house. History shows that when an election brings total control for one party, congress and the presidency, that party always takes their victory as a mandate, over reaches, passes legislation that most Americans don't want outside of that party's base, then two years hence, in 2022 in my example that party loses the House or is weaken enormously.

You seen that over reach in 2018 House results for the Republicans, in 2010 for the Democrats, in 1994 for the Democrats. Without 9-11, the democrats would have taken back the House in 2002, they did in 2006. Whichever party wins the presidency along with both chambers of congress, always over reaches.

The majority of Americans are to the left of the Republicans and to the right of the Democrats. Neither party understands that. I'll make the prediction that if the Democrats sweep in 2020, win the presidency and retake the senate along with keeping the house. They'll lose the House in 2022.

 

If the senate doesn't summarily dismiss and actually conducts a trial they have to let the house managers present their case and the have to hear the president's rebuttal (with or without outside witnesses) per the senate rules. The framers didn't drop the ball. They discussed extensively how to contain the impeachment process but could not come up with anything simple and straight forward befitting the constitution. So yes, they relied (but didn't necessarily assume) on the virtue of the congress. Their greatest concern was what is happening now and that is the use if impeachment to gain political power and destroy the concept of separation of powers. They were far more worried about a rogue House which is why they put the trial in the Senate as a check on a possible House without virtue.

The criteria for impeaching and removing a judge is far different than removing a president. All that is required is bad "behavior," far removed from high crimes and misdemeanors which meant an egregious wrong doing committed against the country and/or the people (clearly lacking in today's impeachment despite your claim) which can only be committed by a sitting president.

 

So your answer would be no, you don't understand what it means. Dodge, and your caps lock is stuck again. Try spraying some WD-40 on your keyboard, it should help.

 

Yet another FAILURE to respond duly noted FTR!

Sad!

 

You failed to answer my question. Your post was a non-sequitur.

 

I think that what determines the results of an election is much much more complex than simply having your mind made up. If that were the case, Democrats would have this won by a landslide. And they would have won just about every election in the last... 30 years or so.

 

I'm happy to hear that you believe that. And I agree that's how it should be. Unfortunately, Mitch McConnell disagrees.

That's nonsense! The right keeps making up this "greatest concern" argument. And changes it for convenience from debate to debate.

Their greatest concern was that they didn't want to be ruled by a Monarchy. Their second greatest concern was not being hanged by the British for not wanting to be ruled by a Monarchy. Given that their life was only the second concern, it's easy to infer what their third concern would be. Think! They were willing to give up their life, to not be subjects of a British Monarchy. Don't you think it's logical that their third concern would be not to form a local monarchy instead? I might be even trasposing the second and third, but the point is that this nonsense about their "greatest concern" being procedural matters is as silly as it gets. There can be no doubt that Trump's conduct is, in the extremely best of cases: improper. They would say: hold the trial... show the evidence... and let's see where the evidence leads!

 

No he does not disagree.

You are wrong on both counts. The biggest concern the framers had in writing the Constitution was how to contain impeachment by a rogue political motivated congress, especially the House. In fact the best that they came up with was to separate total impeachment and removal from the House, which they felt was most subject to strong emotional whims, by giving the Senate, then accountable only to state legislatures, the sole power to remove thereby putting some check on the House.

When they were writing the Constitution there was zero chance of being hung by the British and they well knew how to keep a monarchy out of the government. That did not concern them more than a twitch.

 

More if you usual nonsense. The house already has all the evidence they said they needed when they sent the Impeachment articles to the Senate sadly after ending their investigation they suddenly decided they needed more and want some one else to do it for them. Sadly as you were pointing out just a few weeks ago only the house may conduct an impeachment. Hence your current articles will be tried on the basis of the information the house managers are providing even now. Too damn bad it is woefully inadequate to convict anyone of anything let alone a sitting president you don't. But of course you are free to go back and try again and the Dems almost certainly will.

 

So you didn't listen to his "rules" presentation today...

As for them knowing how to keep a monarchy out of government. The famous story is everywhere. Including Neil Gorsuch's book.

For example, the day after McHenry and the other delegates signed the Constitution and officially adjourned—he recorded the following exchange:

“a lady asked Dr. Franklin

well Doctor what we got

a republic or a monarchy—

A republic replied the Doctor

if you can keep it.

The lady here aluded [sic] to was

Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia”​

 

They have all they evidence they needed to send it to the Senate. But Republicans said it's not enough. So Democrats respond: "You want more? We can get you more!"

The argument is idiotic. Any patriotic American wants to know if their President is a criminal. If Trump is not a criminal, they would welcome every piece of evidence they can get their hands on. The fact that they obstruct this is absolute sign that Trump is a crook. Even if not to Republican Senators. Even if not to Trump loyalists.... It is to the majority of the American People. There is already a majority that believes Trump is guilty according to polls. The Senate placing their partisanship above their patriotism only motivates them, and demotivates many who would vote for Trump.

 

Newsflash! The "MOCK" trial already happened in the house. This is payback and its never gonna end now. There will be impeachment attempts for EVERY president going forward for ANY party. Now you guys get to hang out in the shyt storm you all created

 

Well actually the house responded if you need more evidence hunt it up. And the Senate is telling them that's your job not ours and should have been done before you brought this weak crap over here.

 

Ironic PROJECTION duly noted FTR!

 

It was the GOP that created this "shyt storm" by impeaching Clinton for lying about a blowjob!

Your CRIMINAL IMPOTUS is being impeached for ACTUAL CRIMES instead!

 

Meh, you are making much ado about nothing. The American people are sick of democrats and their antics.

 

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

for the Senate Republicans to do Trump a favor and not fire him

that will be an easy win for dems, Trump running in 2020 will get the vote out for dems like nothing we have seen before

 

yeah right, calling fake news on that one, the Trump rallies are 100% filled with the cult of Trump (not counting the media)

 

don't blame us for your parties mistakes, Trump is all yours

 

Increasing numbers of Democrats and independents out between the mountains are joining that club according to surveys.

 

not hardly