But suppose, in this country, there was a news network run by a species of animal who eats chickens…
I think the chances of Trump winning a second term are disturbingly high. This is based on my opinion that the Democrats couldn’t figure out how to beat hm the first time around, so unless they can really get their shit together, they’ll just run an insider candidate who pays lip service to all of the groups, but only actually does things in response to corporate interests. This will attract zero Republican voters (not that there was much chance of that anyway), and leave many Democrats at home and unmotivated to vote.
This is a disturbingly popular meme that I never understood.
The election was decided by fewer than 100000 votes across 3 states. And that was on the back of concentrated efforts by a foreign government to influence the election, incompetence or outright malfeasance by news media, incompetence or malfeasance by the FBI, and a candidate who despite being well qualified wasn’t a particularly exciting campaigner (though good enough to win more votes than any candidate in US history not named Barack Obama).
The Dems did figure out how to beat Trump and more or less did (to the tune of millions of votes). They didn’t figure out how to get around all the other stuff. It is beyond ridiculous to claim the combination of foreign attacks and poor and/or stupid behavior on the parts of the media and various parts of our state and national governments represents the Democratic Party not having its shit together.
Yes, they have to play with a handicap, but the blame for that handicap shouldn’t be placed on them. It’s almost pure victim blaming.
Let Trump beat Trump!
Can’t remember where I read it, but the Dems have stated they won’t impeach unless the Rs ask. So, the Rs can either put on the spectacle of standing behind a criminal, or turn on their own leader.
In terms of electoral strategy, the Dems only have to try to govern and let the Rs make asses if themselves.
I definitely agree about how today’s Republicans put party ahead of country. But Nixon, except for his paranoia, wasn’t nearly the danger to the country as Trump is. Trump denies climate change, Nixon started the EPA. Trump is destroying our reputation in the world, Nixon went to China. Nixon could get through his security briefings. And his corrupt cabinet looks pristine compared to Trump’s.
But Republicans then and now value their skin and their jobs more than either party or country. I’m sure they got the message from lots of pro-Trump Republicans losing safe seats in the 2018 election.
That’s a lot of post hoc analysis that looks at why the Democrats lost. The reality also has to consider that they lost to the worst and most incompetent candidate of my lifetime. Next time Trump will be the incumbent, and the Republicans will have had four more years of gerrymandering and voter suppression. Anything the Russians did in 2016 they’ll be able to do again. We know the Republicans don’t need a big margin to win, just a few more votes in the key places.
Don’t get me wrong, I really don’t want 4 more days of Trump, let alone four more years. I just have no trust in the Democrat’s ability to overcome those handicaps.
I’ll be voting for the yellow dog.
The only way I see it happening, and I’m not saying this is likely, is an Agnew-style deal where they offer a slap on the wrist in exchange for an immediate resignation.
Right, that’s the only way it will work - and Trump is going to have to realize for himself that he’s going to prison otherwise.
Nixon only did it after an intervention by a delegation of party elders who made him realize his only choice was how to leave, not whether, in the interest of the nation. But today’s GOP leadership is all in thrall to the same voter bloc that put Trump into office, with no noticeable love of country before party. So it may have to be Mueller himself who does it.
All of those handicaps your claiming, exception of incumbency (which I’ll get to later) are the same ones they faced in 2016 when the Dems came within a whisker of winning. But there are a few differences.
First presumably the Democrats won’t put up a candidate who has been the sole target of a 20+ year smear machine, and who has it suggested 2 weeks before the election that there is new evidence that she may have committed a felony.
In 2016 it was obvious that Clinton was going to win. This meant that Democrats realy didn’t need to bother voting for her. If you were an African American who felt that without a black person on the ballot, that they were being taken for granted, or a Bernieite who, partially based on Russian manipulation, felt that the Democratic party was silencing their views, that it made sense to not vote for Clinton (or even vote for Trump) to send the Dems a message. Since Clinton was going to win anyway it was safe to do so. Now that it is clear that Trump could actually win, I think the Dem’s have been shocked out of their complacency.
As for the Russians: Yes, they will continue to carry on the shenanigans, but unilike 2016 people are aware of their manipulations. With the Dems in the house, the next two years is going to be devoted entirely to putting a bright light on their activities. Facebook and twitter are going to have to make at least some effort to shut them out, internet denizens might be just a bit more skeptical, and the Russians themselves are going to have to be a bit more careful lest they further add to Trumps political problems. Yes, it might be only a small reduction in their effectiveness overall but it certainly won’t make things worse than they were in 2016.
Finally we come to the man himself. Yes, this time around he is going to be an incumbent. Normally this works in the candidates favor, as he would have a list of accomplishments he can point to to justify his continuing in office. In Trumps case its just the opposite. As a candidate in 2016 he could promise the world. I’ll drain the swamp; I’ll hire the best people; Mexico will pay for my wall; Coal jobs will come back; You’ll have the best healthcare; I’ll make yuge Trade deals; I’ll eliminate the National Debt etc.
With 4 years of evidence to the contrary behind him, it will be difficult for him to make these claims anymore. The only accomplishments Trump can crow about is two right wing Supreme court justices, a big tax break for the rich, and an economy that for the first year or two followed the upward trajectory seen for most of the Obama administration. If as some fear, a recession comes about then even that will be off the table. Meanwhile there will be two years of non-stop investigation into every nook and cranny of Trump’s business dealings. So while the Republican candidate of 2016 might have been “the worst and most incompetent candidate of your lifetime” The 2020 candidate will be even worse.
Another reason for optimism is the 2018 election, which was effectively a referendum on Trump with all of the voter suppression and Gerrymandering the Republicans could muster. If it was a presidential election, the would have won a fairly secure victory, and I see no reason for Trump to smell any better to voters after two more years.
Still, please go ahead and maintain your pessimism. It far better to go into 2020 with an unfounded feeling of dread than it is to go in with an unfounded feeling of complacency like we did in 2016.
I think you’re being naive. Any politician who’s been in politics long enough to run for president has been dealing with smears their whole career. As much from their own side as the opposition. Remember the tale of the new MP in the House of Commons speaking to an older colleague who said, “It’s good to see the enemy eye to eye”, and the latter said, “Oh no, my boy, they’re the opposition; your enemies are behind you.”
I’d say you were the one being naive.
Hillary Clinton hasn’t faced the normal type of smears but essentially been one of the few focuses of the Republican party for 20 years, even before she was formally a candidate for any office. After 10 years in the spotlight (most of which as POTUS even), even Barack Obama did not see the level of vitriol Hillary Clinton managed to accumulate or the same number of conspiracy theories. Some of that appears to be simple sexism. We’re seeing much of the same directed at Pelosi.
But, sure, she actually attracted about the same type of smear campaign and it just happened to stick better for no particular reason. :rolleyes:
If he committed high crimes and misdemeanors, then they should impeach him. We can’t allow the chief executive to skate by under a situation where it’s obvious that he committed impeachable acts.
How is impeaching him going to accomplish this over and beyond the hearings and investigations the Dems will conduct?
How I see that playing out: Articles of impeachment are brought up in the House. Nowhere near 2/3 of the Senate will vote in favor of declaring him guilty of anything. Trump skates by with no immediate consequences and the Dems now have a potentially embarrassing circus on their hands in which nothing of substance happens.
Sure, in the abstract, Congress is supposed to do its duty. But when the upper chamber refuses to do so, what, in the specific, is going to be accomplished?
It depends on the mood of the country. If we reach the point where a strong majority of the voters want him removed from office, then the Dems can force the Republican reps and senators to make a politically harmful vote that links them to a failing and unpopular president. But if its only the Democrats who substantially want him removed from office then doing so will just fall in to the same trap as the Republicans did when they tried to impeach Clinton.
Ahhhh, not so, my friend. Not so. Today women have more power than ever before. I think you’ll find in the 21st Century that carpet munching and even rim jobs are taking the place of some of those “institutional blowjobs”. 
These days it’s more woke to say, “the world is controlled entirely by oral sex acts.”
It’s up to the Senate on whether to convict. But impeachment is the House’s responsibility. They shouldn’t decide whether or not to impeach based on what they think the Senate may or may not do.
The things that Trump has done, if true, are very damning and clearly criminal. If all the Trump-related things that are likely to come out via Mueller’s report and/or the SDNY dealings with Cohen are true…if all of that is as damning on Trump as it’s likely to be…then, the House has a constitutional duty to impeach him for high crimes and misdemeanors. If they don’t, then they’re not doing the checks and balances that our founders envisioned.
The appetite for conviction by some Republican senators should not govern the House as they litigate their constitutional duties.
Those are the same people that require zero proof to think that Hillary should be locked up and Obama was born in… somewhere else. The smart fuckers.
Why not? The Constitution does not require they impeach. It certainly allows them to, but they are not compelled to.
The idea that checks and balances requires impeachment is ridiculous. Checks and balances means each branch has some kind of checks on the other branches in order to have a balanced government. It does not mean particular checks are compelled. What is does mean is that Congress has impeachment in its back pocket and should use it in the case it judges impeachment is the most effective and proper way to keep the Executive (or Judiciary) in check. If the legislature decides there are more effective (or at least less ineffective) ways to check the other branches, those should be employed instead.
I have no clue where this asinine idea even comes from. From the beginning, it was clear that Constitutional powers were meant to give flexibility to response, not act as a straitjacket on how government officials were to behave.
I think one of the gating factors against impeachment has always been whether Trump hurts the Party more than he helps it. The mid-terms elections are a very solid sign that Trump hurts the party. In 2020 the GOP is facing even more losses. Couple that with an economy that’s starting to face serious challenges, and I think you’ll have pressure from donors and lobbyists as well.Given impeachable offenses (and you could argue that we are there now, but let’s see how much worse it gets), the GOP might very well impeach/convict. Their chances are better with Pence.
As far as whether the country would be better with Pence then Trump, yes, of course. You can argue his politics all day long, but the man shows up, acts the part, and will be Presidential.
I believe the dominos have started to fall. Let’s see what comes next from Mueller.