As days have passed since the release of the Mueller report, the public and Democratic support for impeachment has risen but still faces strong opposition from some Democratic politicians and some Democratic voters who worry that impeaching Trump could help Trump in the 2020 elections and sour voters on Democrats.
For Democrats who are anti-impeachment, it seems safer and ultimately effective to avoid the unknown blowback from impeachment and keep the dynamics that are currently in place, where Trump is now at around 39% support and most Democrats running for the nomination are favored to beat Trump.
However, there are two flaws in that proposition. First of all, dynamics are constantly changing in election campaigns, harmful revelations strategically released about a candidate and mud slinging are the norm. Candidates can say something or have said something in the past that suddenly arises to haunt them in their campaign. And sometimes the opposing candidate, especially with the powers of the White House in his hands, can manipulate events to boost himself and cut the legs out from under his opponent.
The bottom line is, things change. Just because the current slice of time is favorable to Democrats, that doesn’t mean that trying to avoid doing anything that could change things will work out favorably.
And an even more instructive lesson in life is that doing something or nothing out of fear only allows bad things to flourish.
Democrats opposing impeachment also point to the impeachment of Bill Clinton and his subsequent rise in the polls during that to point out their concerns of how it could help Trump. This is partnered with the concern that if The House impeached Trump but Republicans continue to protect him in The Senate and don’t vote to remove him, that Trump will look vindicated and garner greater support. Some have said, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, what’s the point of impeaching if the Senate won’t support it?
Lastly, Democrats who don’t support impeachment essentially express that as long as Trump is removed in the 2020 elections, the hoped-for results in impeaching him would come about anyway so it’s not an abdication of constitutional responsibility, just a smarter path to it.
Here are the counter-arguments I offer to fellow Democrats leaning against impeachment.
SEVEN REASONS TO IMPEACH DONALD TRUMP
1. Political strategy is not a reason to ignore constitutional responsibility.
Article II, Section 4 of The Constitution of the United States of America:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
As responsibilities and assignments of power are reflected in The Constitution, this section uses the word “shall”. Not “can” or “could”, it requires Congress to act. The Founders indisputably intended for Congress to be the check, balance and cop on the beat when it came to The President.
If a policeman witnessed The Chief of Police commit a heinous crime, would we see it as responsible if he decides not to arrest or help convict him but simply assure others that he will compete against him to hopefully take his office away sometime in the future? Is that what the law allows or intends? Or would the policeman be in trouble for rationalizing away his legal duty?
Let’s be clear, The Congress is imbued with the responsibility of law enforcement by having impeachment powers. Only they can “arrest” a criminal president. It is not an option, it is a constitutional duty, to be exercised on behalf of the Americans people. Morphing the responsibility of impeachment into the end results of the next election is not what The Founders instructed Congress to do in such a serious situation.
2. Democrats need to display respect for The Constitution and their powers under it.
Nothing would make Trump happier than for Democrats in Congress to give up portions of their constitutional power over him. Or to see Democrats validate that The Constitution’s laws are optional. Refusing to impeach when Mueller’s report documents multiple criminal acts of obstruction of justice by Trump, is ripping up authority and power from the Constitution.
In light of the GOP under Trump standing for lies, deceit, prejudice, anti-American and criminal acts, the Democrats should retain the high moral ground and put ethics above political maneuvering. Country first, before party. Democrats have hurled that sentiment at Republicans for years, it’s time they put their impeachment power where their mouths and constitution are.
3. An impeachment is an investigation, it does not require the removal of a president to be worthwhile.
A frequent argument against impeachment is that Republicans in The Senate won’t allow a 2/3 vote for removal of Trump to succeed so what’s the point of starting impeachment? With that logic, why prosecute any criminals who commit racist crimes in communities where many people are racists? Law enforcement shouldn’t be conditional, based solely on the assumed outcome of a trial. It’s about doing the right thing regardless of the eventual outcome.
The first misunderstanding in this proposition is that impeachment is a predetermined decision of guilt that fails if a conviction isn’t won. Impeachment begins in The House as an investigation, held very publicly so the nation knows what crimes are being alleged against a president (or other government official) and the evidence and defense involved.
Impeachment hearings DO NOT require that The House votes to impeach a president. They could hold such hearings then fail to get enough votes to impeach or end the impeachment hearings before completion if it appears moot.
4. Nixon’s polling was better than Trump’s when the Watergate hearings began
Democrats who are concerned say that a majority of the public needs to be brought along first before even considering impeachment. This seems upside-down. What will move public opinion towards supporting impeachment is the public broadcast and investigation of the crimes Trump has committed, including obstruction of justice.
The Mueller Report came out, redacted as it was, yet still described the grounds for many crimes that would likely have been charged if Trump wasn’t in the White House. The public did register that and disapproval of Trump rose while approval declined. This is the proof in the pudding. As more public revelations condemning Trump’s criminal behavior come out, the public moves against him.
Democrats should know that in an impeachment hearing, all the evidence and testimony that would come out and inundate the public will be very negative for Trump and affirm the legitimacy and necessity of impeachment hearings. We know this because we have the public response to the Mueller Report confirming this. Trump could not be declared exonerated on committing crimes by a two year investigation, impeachment hearings won’t contradict that, just strengthen it.
And as hearings provide a more conducive, entertaining method of the public learning details about Trump and his crimes, as opposed to Mueller’s report which few in the public have read fully, the public would be better brought along to support impeachment. It’s very difficult to imagine how impeachment hearings would lead to less support when we know the facts are more damning than most people know.
Here is a graphic which illustrates not only how Nixon was more popular than Trump when the Watergate hearings began but how impeachment gained support with Americans as the case against Nixon was televised.
Just weeks before the Watergate hearings began on May 17th, 1973, Nixon still stood at a 48% approval rating with only 40% disapproval. In contrast, with it being weeks before The House begins non-impeachment Watergate-style hearings, Trump is at 39.9% approval and 53.9% disapproval. So does anyone think televised hearings will make those numbers turn more favorable for Trump?
And here’s an interesting nugget from Gallup polling that year:
Yet, despite the increasingly negative views of Nixon at that time, most Americans continued to reject the notion that Nixon should leave office, according to Gallup. Just 26% thought he should be impeached and forced to resign, while 61% did not.
Now a nugget from an ABC News/WAPO poll from just last week:
Overall, a majority of Americans oppose impeachment with only 37 percent saying they favor starting the process and 56 percent saying they oppose the idea. Unsurprisingly, support for impeaching President Trump is divided along partisan lines.
You see where I’m going here. Nixon had higher approval numbers and impeachment of him was less popular than it is in the case with Trump. With a provably criminal president, televised exposure of the case against him is exactly how the public support for impeachment grows, it is self-justifying.
5. Donald Trump is not Bill Clinton.
Some Democrats express that they worry that Trump could receive the same popularity bump that Bill Clinton received when he was impeached. With all due respect, such a proposition is devoid of historical context and it is a bit surprising that some Democrats would so easily equate Clinton with Trump.
Here’s a poll taken just after The House filed articles of impeachment against Clinton which also shows polling just before that:
Interviews with 852 adult Americans were conducted December 19-20 [1998], after the House of Representatives voted to impeach Clinton.
Do you approve of the way Bill Clinton is handling his job as president?
Now Dec. 15-16
Approve 73% 63%
Disapprove 25% 33%Should your senators vote to remove Clinton from office?
Yes 29%
No 68%
Bill Clinton did experience a positive bump in the polls after being impeached but that was in line with a wide majority of the public already favoring him before impeachment and not supporting impeachment for lying about having an affair, something that most Americans appeared to regard as inconsequential to his effectively fulfilling the duties of president.
As mentioned in the previous paragraph, Trump’s approval/disapproval stands as of four days ago at 39.9% approval and 53.9% disapproval while impeachment of Trump is supported by 37% and opposed by 56%. These are worse numbers than Nixon’s and far worse than Clinton’s yet both of them were impeached. Clearly, Trump is not Clinton and it is truly inconceivable of any but his loyal Kool-Aid drinkers having sympathy for Trump if he was impeached and exposed as having allied with an enemy country to corrupt this and probably 2020’s election, committed financial crimes and obstructed justice.
6. Even if Trump is not removed, impeachment hearings would damage him and the GOP even more in 2020
Democrats only control the House so seeing how slavish Republicans have been, it’s unlikely to think two-thirds of The Senate would vote to remove Trump if the House has impeached him. However, having all of Trump’s dirty, criminal laundry aired in televised, must-watch impeachment hearings in The House, will leave Trump even more damaged and unpopular in the 2020 elections. So if The House impeaches him and the voters are the ones who remove him after seeing those hearings, the impeachment hearings work in removing him de facto.
Add to this, Republicans in Congress will be forced to vote in The House and The Senate on impeaching and removing Trump. As public opinion of Trump craters, the cultish Republicans trying to defend him will then also be damaged in the 2020 elections. They will be hammered by Democratic opponents as being the lap-dogs who abandoned their oath to protect our country to protect a criminal instead purely for reasons of power and getting re-election.
7. Trump could win re-election anyway
As Billy Crystal said in his impression of Edward G. Robinson in The Ten Commandments, “Myah, where’s your messiah now, Moses?”
If Democrats were to shrug off their constitutionally-mandated responsibility of impeachment of a criminal president due to political expediency, because they simply thought it was in their best political interests to put all their eggs in the basket of the 2020 election results, our constitution would be severely damaged as would their credibility to exercise other constitutional power over an even more emboldened criminal president.
Trump is trying to tear up the constitutional power of Congress to exercise oversight of government. He has given aid and comfort to adversarial countries and dictators, even those who have attacked our elections and assassinated one of our journalists. He has obstructed justice at every turn, firing those trying to keep America under the rule of law while demeaning and portraying our entire intelligence community as enemies. He has lied and deceived the people over 10,000 times. He has aggressively supported racism, bigotry and the abuse of non-white immigrants.
If Democrats in Congress can rationalize how this and even more despicable behavior of a president should not trigger impeachment because of the political risk, what madness would await the country in a second Trump term when he would feel emboldened to commit any horrible act without fear of consequence?
Impeachment is a necessary tool to prevent a corrupt autocrat who wields power over this country, from taking even worse actions in the future, whether it’s Trump or a future president. If there are no boundaries now, there may not be any left in the future when they’re even more desperately needed.
Country before re-election. Our democracy can’t be gambled with, hoping an election that won’t occur for 19 months will resolve an urgent threat to this nation. And if dereliction of duty to our constitution doesn’t deliver the presidency to Democrats…will any one of them be able to face the prospect of a fearless, unleashed Trump in power until 2024 with the words, “We did everything we could to prevent this”?
I am for impeaching the current occupant of the White House based upon the Mueller Report and his press conference. I do not believe that this will rile up his base because they’re 100% supportive of him. He also has the highest approval ratings of Republicans. An impeachment inquiry should start immediately. They should also conduct public hearings.
Independents and Democrats make up a larger percentage of the electorate than Republicans. The only way that this could truly back fire if the Democrats cannot pull enough of their own electorate and Independents to win in 2020. If that is the case, the Democrats have failed the people and don’t understand how to win the Electoral College.
I have been against impeachment, much for the same reasons that Pelosi has been against it. I understand what she is saying about how he has been trying to “goad,” the Democrats into it. I still think that’s true, but maybe we should just give him what he wants before he burns the place down.
I have trouble getting enthusiastic about anything unless it gets him out of the White House and I do not relish the thought of Mike Pence taking his place.
Congress has to do their job, it would be irresponsible for them not to impeach. I have no doubt that they would the vote in the House. As far as the Senate, it is something to be laid at their feet and I hope that it is. He isn’t Bill Clinton, nor is he even Richard Nixon; they both had enough respect for the office to continue to do their jobs.
Trump has never done his job. I don’t think he even knows what his job is and if he did, I’m sure it wouldn’t suit him.
Warren made a succinct and intense case for opening and impeachment inquiry at her town hall. 1) We were attacked by Russia and their goal was to help elect Trump; 2) Trump welcomed the help; 3) TrumpCo did everything they could to obstruct the investigation into the attack.
Great writing, points well taken. I’m of the camp to impeach if not for just the result but for getting these folks who’ve so far been able to steer clear of public scrutiny in the form of televised hearings, on the stage and under oath. Hicks, McGahn, Don Jr., Ivanka, Kelly, Sanders, Conway and oh so much more. People will call it sensationalist TV, but, they’ll watch while whining about it. And we all know the force of the visuals, it’s reach and sway is worldly. So yep, impeach Barr AND tRump.
I agree. Barr can be impeached and even prosecuted. I am not too thrilled with Rosenstein, either. I would prefer to expand that FBI investigation and find out why the FBI supported that Benghazi crap after it became clear, there was little to investigate. Maybe we could find out why it’s okay for team Trump to use their private email in the same way Hillary did.
I would like to know why Gowdy was allowed to maintain his seat on the Ethics Committee after he tampered with evidence.
I would love to know how mich Russian money McConnell continues to take. Trump is not the only problem, by a long shot. He has not done any of this alone.
Here’s the Nate Silver interactive model from 2016. It’s still working but the basic data has not been updated yet. Fun to play with. First test is to input the actual 2016 vote by demographic and see how close the results match the election outcome. Then look for what we might do and what the Trumpites might do as a rough first take on 2020.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/
In Feb 1974, when The House began impeachment, Nixon’s polling was 44% for impeachment, 43% against it. We all know how that impeachment snowballed support for it after the televised hearings into Nixon’s crimes to where a vast majority including Republicans supported Nixon’s impeachment so he resigned instead of facing
The latest poll shows that the numbers for impeaching Trump are rising, up 4 points in the last month. Trump’s numbers right now are nearing Nixon’s when his impeachment started. 41% now support impeachment of Trump, 54% do not.
Poll: Support for impeaching Trump rises to 41 percent
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/446511-poll-support-for-impeaching-trump-rises-to-41-percent
So…
44% of Americans supported Nixon’s impeachment = Nixon’s impeachment began
41% of Americans now support Trump’s impeachment and the number is rising.
Since Nancy Pelosi and other Dem leaders are using sufficient public support as an obstacle to their supporting impeachment I would ask, would public support equal to or more than that for Nixon’s impeachment be sufficient? If not, wouldn’t this seem to be a false threshold to block their constitutional duty of impeachment for calculated political interests?
The Shall be removed only applies if the President is Impeached and impeachment is a two-part process. The Senate won’t vote to impeach or convict. The constitution does not say we Shall Impeach. It says that if the President is impeached fully the President shall be removed from office. That is my first point and I will continue to read the other 6 reasons for impeachment. But saying that it says that the Congress shall impeach is getting it backward. You have to impeach before you have to remove the president. That is what the word Shall is talking about.
Actually, there is no “if”, here is what it says in The Constitution.
Article II, Section 4 of The Constitution of the United States of America:
It is explaining the entire process and powers that Congress has. “Shall” confirms the punishment of the impeachment process but interpreting the Constitution means viewing an entire sentence for its construction to get its intended meaning.
The sentence presents Impeachment as an expected action if a president commits crimes and mandates removal as the only penalty if convicted.
It’s important to recognize that Impeachment is a single process that begins with hearings then, if voted by The House after hearings, proceeds to trial in The Senate and is then decided by them with a 2/3 vote needed to convict. So the removal of a president is just as much a part of impeachment as starting impeachment hearings. It is one process that includes all these phases.
The Founders gave Congress this power expressly with the intent that if anyone who was unfit for the Presidency and/or a criminal somehow got in, they would be removed.
It is like giving police the power to arrest a citizen for committing a crime, the reason they are given that power is to use it in all possible instances of a crime being committed.
If for example, police witnessed a citizen committing a violent crime, would police be able to decide for their own reasons whether or not they would arrest that person and help bring him to trial? Or are they given the power they have precisely to use it without discrimination, whenever a crime has been committed?
My point in that section of my article is that The Founders intended for Congress to use impeachment on a criminal presidency when and if it ever occurred. They would never have given it to Congress if they expected it would be put aside for political calculations when a president committed high crimes and misdemeanors.
They had just fought a devastating and bloody war to escape the rule of a corrupt King George and wanted to insure that the US would never be held captive to a corrupt leader in the future. I don’t think anyone would argue that they felt that it would be fine to let a criminal president continue to dominate the country for as many years as it took to have another election. If they did, they would never have given the power of impeachment to Congress.
It’s like installing a fire alarm to be pulled whenever there’s a fire, that’s what The Founders intended on impeachment. There is a blazing fire in our democracy right now, Mueller’s report documents it, so it is Congress’ duty to fulfill their oath of office to the Constitution and pull the fire alarm to protect the country.
And there is just one really really good reason not to Impeach at this time. It will likely gain us no votes and will more than likely gain Trump lots of votes. It will very likely help Trump and the Republicans win. If they do, kiss all those fine basic principles goodbye.
Look where we are after only two and a half years with Trump and him now accelerating his consolidation of power with attacks on all our basic institutions. Obviously with a clear goal to have sovereign immunity and rule as a king, emperor or dictator. Nothing is worth the risk of him remaining in office for several more years. NOTHING. Unless it can be absolutely shown that Impeachment will get him out or cost him the election (or a stroke or heart attack) the risk is not worth it.
But the indications are the opposite. The mass of the voters don’t want what they see as the distraction of Impeachment. They know that it will suck up all the political oxogen. Near nothing else will be done. No bread and butter issues will be dealt with. The beacon will not be brought home. It will totally eclipse our other issues and totally absorb our candidates in the Primaries and then in the General.
It will not motivate more of our base to vote but will motivate the Trumpites. And it won’t just be the voting Trumpites who feel an existential threat against their God-Emperor but more importantly all the ones who usually don’t vote but will. They know this is their last hurrah demographically and they love that their middle finger occupies the White House. They will likely swarm out of the rotten woodwork to counter what they will see as a Deep State Coup aimed at chopping off their middle fingers which they are quite attached to. They will have the motivation of a cornered animal given the demographics. And by the numbers, there are some 15 million of these potential voting Trumpites and they are concentrated in the swing Electoral College States.
Also, it is getting clearer all the time that the folk are getting sick and tired of all the drama and excitement. They want to take a rest for awhile. Why the hell do you think comfy cuddly Unky Joe is doing so well? Note, virtually all the added support he got on announcing his run came from the supposed hot to fight the great Progressive fight of the Bernie supporters. Half of the Bernie supporters also want a rest. Got that? And Impeachment offers anything but a rest.
Now, if say, it gets to a place where Trump plays Andrew Jackson and tells the courts up to and including the SCOTUS to “F” themselves, things could change. Lots of Republicans and a majority of the public might finally just say enough is enough. Impeach and maybe even remove the SOB, one way or another, to try to get some peace and quite.
But at this time, jumping off the cliff on principle isn’t too appealing to me…and thankfully, that is how Pelosi and the overwhelming majority of Dems in Congress see it. This is very much in keeping with how the bulk of the great middle who usually determine the election see it…
I am still looking for folks who oppose impeachment to explain how or why Trump gains voters from a process that will demonstrate what a terrible criminal he is.
Why do you think a majority of voters who already say they’ll never vote for Trump would suddenly fall in love with him because he’s proven in wall-to-wall tv coverage for months to be a criminal but Repubs in The Senate won’t hold him responsible.
Poll: 55 percent say they won’t vote for Trump in 2020
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/441103-poll-55-say-they-wouldnt-vote-for-trump-in-2020
I tried to explain that. Motivation. There is no indication that going for Impeachment will motivate anyone to get out and vote for us who wouldn’t already vote for us. It is quite different for the Trumpites. The ones who normally vote will feel especially under the gun and will for sure get out to vote for Trump. But more important, there are a potential 15 million Trumpites who normally don’t vote who will feel under existential attack and have a great enough motivation to actually vote this time. We have no such pool of potential usual non-voters who would be motivated to vote because of an Impeachment attempt that will fail to remove Trump.
There is no indication that there is any more major dirt at this time than Mueller has already uncovered. It will be mostly redundant and legalese. It will not turn one Trumpite against Trump. If Mueller has not moved the middle, at this point without a smoking gun and a serious criminal indictment, no reason to think many undecided folk will based on all this drama vote for us and not Trump. The greater likelihood is they will be fed up and exhausted by it all and pissed that a failed Impeachment was a major distraction from the issues they most cared about like Universal Healthcare. They might not vote for Trump because of this but might vote for Republicans for Congress, etc. and just not vote for our Prez candidate. Or not vote at all.
But all said, it is the Trumpites in the rotten woodwork who have a great potential to swarm, especially in the swing states, because of Impeachment that most concerns me. Also the backlash Impeachment will generate from the middle who see it as just a great distraction from what they see as their day to day concerns.
However, if Trump bucks the courts as his hero Jackson did, Impeachment would not seem as much of a coup by the Trumpites nor as an irrelevant distraction by the middle. Yet by then it would be near election time and that will be seen as the way to get him out, NOT Impeachment…
If a large enough number of those who support Democrats don’t vote, because of a lack of motivation or frustration with a weak Democratic leadership, Trump is more likely to win, regardless of what your numbers say. IF (BIG IF) Trump actually won in 2016, it wasn’t because of the so-called white working class (who are not a part of identity politics. lol) who voted for Trump, but because of the majority of the 40% of eligible voters who did not vote at all. THAT is the group Democrats need to go after, and I bet you a fat man, they support impeaching Trump and impeaching Trump is likely to motivate them to vote.
And as I tried to point out to you several times before, by far the largest part of those non-voters who might be motivated to vote are Whites without a college degree who tend to be in the swing Electoral College States. The very core of Trump’s Trumpite support base. Kick the rotten woodwork too hard and they will swarm…
Again, that is not supported by the document you provided and what you’re saying now is very different than the 25 million to zero margin you claimed for Trump previously.
Where are you getting this new claim from, that whites without a college degree are more likely voters in swing states in 2020? That is not in this document.
As for those swing states, follow the link below to Real Clear Politics to see, as I mentioned to TOCB above, polling that shows that Trump is very much underwater in nearly all swing states right now including MI, WI, NC, PA, MI and NH:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/
Even with the bigger share of non-voters that you claim he could get, his deficits in these states are looking too large to overcome (and he won’t have Repub governors to help him out with suppressing voters and more).
And one thing that many people don’t recognize is that many non-voters live in states that are either solid Red or Blue. So their votes won’t make any difference if they’re Republicans in TX, AL, MO, etc. Deduct all these potential Trump voters from Red states and there’s not many left over to make any kind of difference.
It would be best if you didn’t misquote me. I never said it was 25 million for Trump and zero for us. Or 15 million for Trump and zero for us. Or any such thing. The point is that Trump has a much larger single potential core pool to draw on than we do. And for various reasons they are easier for him to get than for us.
The three Rust Belt Swing States that gave Trump the White House all have way higher than average non-Hispanic White populations than the national average of 63%. Their average is about 79% with a range of about 76% to 81%. They also all have a higher percent of those without a college degree than the national average. Thus they have a lot of potential core Trumpites, way more than our pool of potential core voters. (The Census, Google and a little arithmetic are your friends.)
I like the early State polls also. They show Unky Joe besting Trump better than the other Dem candidates in most all cases. But note in many of those cases they have an undecided greater than Biden’s margin over Trump or don’t indicate what the undecided is. And do remember that one of the worst mistakes in combat is underestimating your enemy and overestimating your strength…
Jake, I quoted your comments to show what it was that left me with the impressions I had, was trying to make sure I wasn’t misquoting you.
Since you said half of 50 million non-voters would be in Trump’s camp, the math equaled 25 million which is what I was referring to. Anyway, best to let that be.
I still don’t see the numbers as you describe them but I do agree that it is wise not to underestimate your opponent.
The thing about undecided voters is that the majority usually swings to the challenger and not the incumbent because such voters have seen 4 years of the incumbent and just the fact that they’re undecided means they aren’t won over by the performance of the incumbent…most usually end up voting for “the new thing” because they’re not won over by the incumbent.
The early state polls also appear to reflect the dynamics of the 2018 election so that means public opinion in the swing states is continuing to be somewhat solid in favoring Dems. Again, never count your chickens until their hatched but this bodes well for Dems and reflects that Trump has really lost the majority of voters in those states.
Would impeachment make them change their mind? IMO, that is highly doubtful, minds aren’t really being changed no matter what horrible things about Trump are exposed or how much he cries victimhood and tries to instill fear.
Remember the extremes he went to before the 2018 election, even forcing the military to the border and howling that we were being invaded by the brown hordes of rapists and murderers? And the result was the biggest Dem win in history.
I think people have made their minds up on Trump and whatever happens, they’re not going to change much and a solid majority is pretty much locked in opposing him. So the concern that impeachment would stampede voters over to Trump’s side if Senate Repubs protect him from removal, as they have been doing anyway, seems exaggerated to me.
Yep, looking more positive for us and unless Trump gets potential voters who are already on his side to actually vote, we have a chance of winning with a calm centered known comfortable candidate. On the plus side, Biden beats Trump by 4 points in the latest Texas poll but noteworthy is Trump beats all the other Dem hopefuls. On the down side, in another recent poll 54% think Trump will win even though the RCP average shows Trump with only a 44% approval. Go figure…
Jake, keep in mind that the overwhelming majority have not read the Mueller’s report. It turns out that long written legal documents are not the most digestible vehicle for for illuminating the facts. So it is possible that the political TV spectacle that would be those hearings could have an effect on the so-called middle.
I agree it’s a risk. Depends on how skillful the Dems are in presenting the case, how much would break thru the partisan media fog, and finally, if that great middle really cares.
If you had ham, you could have ham and eggs. If you had eggs. It’s not worth the risk. And the bulk of the public do not want an Impeachment fight that will suck up all the political oxygen for the next year or so with near zero chance of him being removed by the Republican Senate. And Trump has a larger potentially more motivated non-voting core base than we do who will more likely swarm to the polls than our usually non-voting folk. It can change. But Pelosi has it correct for now…
Other than being Bah Humbug Jake at Yabberz, I was the Numbers Guy. So here’s a PS by the numbers.
About 55% also didn’t vote for Trump in 2016 and last I checked he’s unfortunately Prez. Also, less than a third of those who are at this point against Trump are saying they definitely will vote for the Dem. About two-thirds say it will depend on the Dem candidate. Oh, about half of voters say the Mueller Report doesn’t matter to them in terms of how they plan to vote. Two-thirds to three-quarters say other hot issues WILL effect how they vote.
Others recent polls have found that most don’t want Trump Impeached and removed. About two-thirds want to close the book on the Mueller Report and move on. Even among likely Dem voters only about a quarter list Impeachment as their top issue.
Now all this is among the usual folk who usually vote. The extra concern is that Trump’s core demographic is solidly behind him and by the numbers there are twice as many of them who usually don’t vote but may with the right motivation than any of our core base groups. And as I mentioned elsewhere, these potential Trumpite voters tend to be in the swing Electoral College States.
Hey, I want the SOB out as much as anyone. But until the numbers indicate how Impeachment clearly helps us win in 2020 and how it won’t be a kicking of the rotten woodwork, best to NOT start it and start putting our bread and butter issues out there way more…
Cool Jake, I like numbers people and discussing numbers.
I would say that the 55% number you’re using from the poll against the 2016 election results isn’t complete.
Here’s a graphic of the numbers from the poll I mentioned above:
So only 28% say they would definitely vote for Trump and 14% say they would consider it.
Naturally, that entire 14% won’t all decide to go his way but for argument’s sake, let’s say a miracle happens and Trump gets all the undecided. It comes to a total of 42%. Trump can’t win even with that huge gift of all possible Undecideds that could go his way.
As you know, Trump won electorally by only about 40k votes in the Rust Belt states when he had 46% in the polls. A more realistic projection from this poll would put him below 40%. Impossible to win with that.
So my point is that at least these poll numbers support that even if Trump moved most of the undecided who could vote for him into his camp because the Senate Repubs block impeachment removal on wholly political grounds, after Trump has been beaten up in the media for months through televised impeachment hearings and exposed as a complete criminal in constant media reports, he still would only end up with 42% at most and more likely in the high 30%s.
What I think some folks are missing is that many indie voters who are moderate and went for Trump hoping he would be better than he turned out, have left him for good.
Trump’s ceiling as polling over the past 2 years since has shown is very limited and solid. He can’t get out of the mid 40%s in approval, which is his ceiling, while his average approval is this same low 40%s the latest poll reflects.
This big pool of voters that Den leadership fears impeachment could push towards Trump and help him win in 2020…just doesn’t exist.
Well, not quite. That 55 is very weak since only about a third of them say they will vote for the Dem regardless. About two-thirds say it will depend on the Dem nominee. So by the numbers of this poll the Dems have only about 15% of the electorate nailed as of now. Also note that Trump won with about the same percent of the electorate he still has. It was close but he won. So that’s not a convincing numbers argument.
We have no idea how a protracted and extremely divisive Impeachment process will effect the already fatigued electorate in the middle. Especially since it will put all our winning bread and butter issues on the back burner. The other factor that the current poll doesn’t evaluate is strength of motivation. It’s hard to see how Impeachment motivates voters for us more than voters for Trump.
And as the numbers guy, I disagree about the potential for new voters. As of now, Trump has a potential pool of 15 million from his core demographic to draw on. We have no similar large solid base demographic to draw on. And for various reasons, it will be easier for him to get some of these new voters than it will be for us to get new voters. And again, his potential voters are largely in the swing states. Ours are note.
I went through this last time were my numbers showed Trump with a good chance to win (check with Murph about this) but I didn’t believe the numbers and got browbeat into accepting the narrative that Clinton would walk away with it so no reason to do much in the key Rust Belt States. I won’t make the same mistake again. With the numbers still not good for us and with the potential greater for Trump than for us, the great risks of Impeachment compared to the possible rewards are not worth it…unless the numbers change…
You made some good points about what was in the article, Jake.
Let’s build on that. There are more than 238 million eligible voters in the US. 58.1% of them voted in the 2016 election, meaning 138.5 million. Leaving around 100 million people who didn’t vote but could have. You’re saying that Trump has 15 million of that to draw on, that would leave 85 million for Dems to draw on. So this proposal doesn’t work in Trump’s favor nor does it support the proposition, which I don’t follow, that Dems have no voters to draw on. If only 58.1% of eligible voters voted, that applies to Dem voters too, tens of millions of them are out there as well for them to draw on.
Also, while 2/3 of those polled were conditional about their voting for the Dem nominee based on who it is, it wouldn’t be sensible to translate that literally into the Dem nominee potentially only getting 14% of the vote, that claim is more about hesitating to fully commit until more is known about the candidates and eventual nominee. Reality and history underline that those who don’t vote for one party’s nominee, vote for the other party’s nominee for the most part. Yes, there will a percentage of voters who vote 3rd party but especially understanding the stakes of the election and there being no momentum this upcoming cycle for independent candidates, it’s likely to be less than the 4.9% that voted 3rd party in 2016. But those voters are losses for both parties so it just reduces the vote totals for Trump and the Dems, it doesn’t pull entirely from one side or the other.
So, the most intuitive view of the poll speaks best for it. If 55% of Americans say they will never vote for Trump and only 28% say they definitely will, the Dem opposing Trump is twice as likely to win than Trump is and the pool of voters Trump has to draw on if his cries of victimhood and exoneration after an impeachment where Republican Senators refuse to remove him, is far too small to make up that difference.
Well, not quite. I looked at the details from various sources about that 100 million. For many reasons half of them might possibly be gotten to vote and about half are hopeless. So at best, the actual potential pool is more like 50 million. I then looked at the different voting demographics and what proportion voted for Trump vs. Clinton as well as what percent of the particular demographic votes. Then also looked at where they were. Overall, at first blush, roughly about half the total potential voters are Trumpites and half are Dems. But almost two-thirds of Trump’s potential is concentrated in his very core demographic, Whites without a college degree, some 15 million. We have no similar core demographic that even has half the potential of these potential core Trumpites.
So here are the reasons Trump’s potential is so much more valuable than ours. First, as indicated they are concentrated which makes attracting them much easier than going after our diverse groups with diverse interests. Second, the Trump core demographic has one of the lowest usual turnout rates and ours have generally higher turnout rates. Which means on average we are already getting our folk to the polls. So if we can motivate 5% more of our potential voters to vote from any demographic it has a much lower impact than if Trump motivates 5% more. He gets a bigger bang for his buck. 5% of 50% who don’t now vote is greater than 5% of 30% who now don’t vote, for example. And generally, it is easier to get those extra voters from a larger potential margin than a tighter one.
Further, those potential Trumpite voters tend to be in the swing Rust Belt States. Ours are all over the place. Finally, motivation is key to getting those potential voters to actually vote. Trump’s core demographic feel that they are in an existential situation. And they are. This to them is their last hurrah. And hopefully it will be. They perceived themselves as the dominant population now slated to minority status. They felt neglected and put upon. They feel that Trump is their last hope. They feel like cornered animals. This can be used by Trump as a great motivator. I don’t think most of our groups have any similarly strong motivator. And obviously, Impeachment which the core Trumpites will see as a Coup attempt plays right into this.
What I tried to point out about the poll is how internally contradictory it is. Again, 55% said they won’t vote for Trump but only 29% of them said they would vote for a Dem regardless. I was just making a point about the poll, not the likely reality. Sure, regardless of who the Dem is more than 16% will vote for whomever the Dem is. However, this puts the 55% in question. It means that without the right candidate, that 55% are not all voting for the Dem. They might just not vote. Or it raises the potential for third party candidates if the Dems
nominate someone who is not a consensus candidate with
appeal to the middle. Luckily we have one at this time but
much can still happen and the
Dems have “F’ed” it before…
The numbers offered in this comment conflict with numbers offered in your previous comment and as part of the explanation, there is also what seems to be an arbitrary opinion used to reduce the number of potential voters that are factually documented to exist.
Its quite confusing and unclear where you are getting these differing sets of numbers from. You are not providing any links to validate these numbers so it’s hard to confirm them.
In a previous comment, you claimed that in 2020, there are 15 million additional potential voters for Trump and zero for Dems. Then in the latest comment, you claim that there are 25 million potential voters for Trump and still zero for Dems…despite there being 100 million eligible voters who didn’t vote in 2016.
Just common sense-wise, if 100 million more Americans have the potential to vote in 2020, one would recognize that the split of them between Trump and the eventual Dem nominee wouldn’t end up at 25 million to zero.
To arrive at these numbers, you claim that only half of the 100 million eligible voters would actually vote and the other half are hopeless but there is no link from any credible source to show this is anything more than arbitrary opinion.
I am big on numbers as you are which is why I provide links to credible sources that validate any claims I might make on numbers. It would help me and I would think, other readers, if you would provide links to objective, credible sources that support the numbers that you are offering.
I’m sorry for my shorthand way of summarizing the research I’ve done. Got into the habit after five years at Yabberz of not linking to much of the detailed data. Since near never was the summary I gave successfully challenged, my numbers summaries and conclusions were usually taken at face value. Guess I’ll have to earn that position here over time. Anyway, don’t have the time at this point to do a footnoted research paper on the voter potentials. But the major issue you raised about a 50 million total realistic potential vs. the 100 million can be found in one of the many voter studies the US Census does:
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2018/demo/P20-582.pdf
Check Table 4 and the narrative around it. Most of the other figures I used come from this and other such studies plus simple calculations. Sorry again that I don’t have the time right now to get into the detailed derivations. But do note, I never said the Dems had zero potential. In fact, in my last post I made it clear that I was making a comment about the relative size of the potential for Trump vs. the Dems. And most important, how Trump for many reasons has a better chance of tapping his large core potential voter base than we have tapping ours.
I will try to give more links and citations in the future until I’ve established my numbers credentials here as I did at Yabberz. Oh, for the 2016 election I did a similar analysis that showed how Trump had a good chance at winning (check Murph about this). It was easier then since Nate Silver @ 538 had an interactive model that included many of the factors I’ve used this time. If he does this again, I’ll check my rough projections with it.
Jake, I did look at the table you linked to and thanks for that. However, you aren’t totaling the numbers properly to represent disinterested voters which you claimed were 50% of the 100 million who didn’t vote. You took the grand totals of non-voters that include many other voters who didn’t vote or register for a variety of other reasons, many of whom may indeed vote in 2020.
Here’s the table (you can click on it to see it full screen):
In the Registered Non-Voters, only 2.92% said they didn’t vote because they weren’t interested. In Non-Registered Voters, there is 13.635% under “Not interested in the election/not involved in politics”. That description undercuts the total for the purposes you’re trying to apply it because some of the voters who were not interested in the 2016 election may be interested in the 2020 election.
Even if I gave you all of the voters in both those categories, despite the issues with the second one, that’s only a maximum of 16.555% who could be classified as eligible to vote but not interested in voting. That amount does not even total to half of the 50% you claimed. And how that could be calculated out to support your claim that Trump then has a potential of support from 25 million of the 100 million non-voters in 2016 but the Democrat will have 0%, is beyond any logic I can see.
Of course, all members are free to express themselves on issues however they wish, if they want to post links or not, it’s a personal choice, it’s not necessary.
I’ve been blogging for a long time too and I never assume that anyone should believe what I claim as being facts just because I’ve been doing this for many years. When I’m reading anyone’s comment, I don’t see claims as equal to truth. Without objective proof, they are just someone’s claims.
At The Planet, most folks have adopted this as the norm. In comments and posts, to make a point, links to objective sources that validate that point are included out of respect for the reader.
I apply the same legitimacy of skepticism to myself, when I post or comment, I always provide links because I want readers to be able to see that what I’m describing as true is verified from an objective source.
If you go back up to read my post, you will find links, quotes, graphs and other material from objective sources included to provide confirmation of what I represent as facts. This is what newspapers and journalists do, not because they’re not trustworthy or haven’t been writing for a long time but because they see it as incumbent on them in every story they write, to show their work and the facts that they are basing their article on.
There have been times when what I thought was true turned out to be contradicted by the evidence I found. If the truth is what’s being sought, then facts from and links to objective sources empower the truth of a claim. That’s what matters to me when I write comments and posts. Show me the proof then we’ll see, that’s how I read posts and comments.
And so far in this instance, I don’t think the evidence you provided supports your proposition but I’m always open to exploring it further.
First I’m over estimating. Then I’m under estimating. And I never said Trump would get all the 15 million but that his potential to draw from was out of a core potential of 15 million. We have a similar range of likelihood of non-voters who might vote as you indicated. Some of the non-voters are more likely to vote than others given the circumstances. And about half of ALL the some 100 million non-voters are hopeless. The about 50 million shown in Table 4 that I cited are included because there is at least a modicum of hope they might to a greater or less extent actually vote under the right conditions. However, the potential from any of our core demographics is not half of the single core pool Trump has. And again, I NEVER said we have zero potential. And again, by the numbers, Trump has a larger single core pool to draw from. They will be easier for several reasons for him to get. And they are strategically located in the swing Electoral College States. We can test my rough analysis when Nate Silver updates his interactive State based voter model. It sure seemed an accurate predictor last time, at least when I assumed Trump got a marginally getter call on his core demographic than we got on ours.
Jake, being critical of someone for pointing out an inconsistency with numbers doesn’t make them look inconsistent.
So you understand where I’m coming from, here are the statements you made that left me confused with what you were proposing and believing that your numbers were inconsistent, including expressing that Trump could gain up to 15 million voters while Dems had no similar potential to gain votes from 2016 non-voters:
The last quote makes that assumption that 50% of non-voters in 2016 are disinterested in voting though the chart you linked to shows only a maximum of 16.5% (but likely less). It also says half of 50 million non-voters would be potential voters for Trump, that would be 25 million, not 15 million.
With the inconsistencies I saw, the breakdowns of the split that followed and the percentage that are Trump voters didn’t make sense.
I also don’t follow how Dems have less potential to gain non-voter support when you say that 50 million non-voters are split equally between Trump and Dems. Then you propose that because Trump’s potential voters are his core demo, mostly white non-college, they total up to number far more potential voters than voters who aren’t all in the same demo who support Dems. But it’s still 25 million on each side. So I don’t follow that rationale.
We should probably move on from this topic but the reason I’ve been so active in countering this proposition is that I believe that too many folks are constructing nightmare scenarios without justification so as to justify Dems not impeaching Trump.
My view of course is that Trump should not be allowed by Dems to continue destroying our democracy because of unfounded concerns about how Trump would be helped if Dems do their constitutional duty and more broadly expose him as a criminal in impeachment hearings.
Seems you misunderstand what I said. And part of that is my fault for not being clearer. First, the 50 million instead of the 100 million is from the GROSS potential shown in the summary Table and other more detailed Census studies which in effect make a difference between those with some possible potential and those without it or totally unknown. Of course, that potential varies from say registered voters just out of town or sick and those who are just sick and tired of politics but still aware enough to maybe in some rare circumstances actually get out to vote.
Among that gross potential using the Census studies and other voting patterns by demographic I calculated that this gross pool of potential voters split roughly in half. As part of this analysis I looked at where the total potential for each side was by demographic. By far the largest demographic was Whites without a college degree, Trump’s core demographic. Then I divided each demographic by their vote percent in 2016. This gave percent for Trump vs. Dem for each. This yielded gross potential for each with by far the highest for Trump’s core demographic of white without a college degree of about 15 million. There is no single core Dem demographic with more than about 7 million. Note that in all demographics there were both Trump and Dems with varying percentages. So the remaining 10 million gross for Trump were spread around other demographics but with a very significant and focused core group that matched his most fervent actual voters. Our 25 million were all over the place with no dominant core group. And each with its own varying and even competing interests. Thus we have nothing like Trump’s dominant and attuned gross core potential.
And I never intended to even imply that Trump or the Dems could actually get all of their gross potential. Just that Trump had a much larger single focused core demographic to draw from than we have. And one that happens to feel a serious existential threat that can be used to motivate them to vote.
I also reinforced the analysis by noting that the very large core Trump demographic tends to vote at a lower rate than most all our diverse demographics who tend to vote already at a higher rate. This gives Trump a greater margin to draw from. So it is easier to increase from say 50% to 60% than from 70% to 80%. Or in proportional terms, from say 50% to 60% than from 70% to 84%.
Then I gave you the data on why Trump’s core potential voter demographic is way stronger than ours in the key Rust Belt Swing States. There are no current swing states were our demographics are similarly dominant. Hope this helped.
If you missed it, the only way to stop Trump from being Trump is to get rid of Trump. Even you know that Impeachment itself can’t do that. Only an election, God, or Skull & Bones can do that. An extended Impeachment process won’t influence God much unless it gives Trump a stroke or heart attack. And Skull & Bones would have acted by now if they were going to act. However, if events aside from Impeachment seriously endanger our national security because of Trump they still might act as a last ditch effort to save the country in their eyes. That leaves the election and a judgment as to whether an extended, divisive, dominating Impeachment process with no hope for Trump’s removal will get us more votes than it gets Trump.
By my numbers, he has a better shot at it than we do. And obviously, that is how Pelosi and the bulk of the Dems in Congress at present see it.
Jake and I have had this discussion ad nauseam on Yabberz, and his numbers don’t make any sense to me either. Trump and republicans agree with him though, and Pelosi must agree with him as well. I just heard Trump say he has a 94% approval rating among republicans. Of course, the highest in history. It doesn’t matter if Trump has a 100% approval rating with a shrinking base. What Pelosi and Jake are falling for is the unlikely likelihood that an impeached president who was not removed from office by an unprincipled Senate with have a large enough base plus whatever Independents he can get, to re-elect him. Daffy Duck would beat Trump in 2020. The only thing the country has to worry about is the integrity of the voting system(s). If ballots can be changed, I expect they will be changed. I am not convinced that Trump legally won even the electoral votes in 2016, but they were not audited to ascertain if he did or did not. Like the sheeple Americans are, we just accepted as fact, what we were told, i.e., there is no evidence that votes were changed. I will let you in on a little secret. Oftentimes, if you don’t look for evidence, you won’t find any. People who support the Democratic Party want the Democratic controlled House of Representatives to impeach Trump, regardless of what the republican controlled Senate does. If that is not “worth it” to Pelosi or any other incumbent Democrat, they should be voted out in the primaries.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/more-than-two-dozen-liberal-groups-voice-frustration-with-pelosi-urge-impeachment-proceedings-against-trump/ar-AACno7j?ocid=spartandhp
Many good points, TOCB, beginning with the big picture on why Trump’s approval in the GOP is so high. The GOP is like a coffee percolator that has been left on too long, much of what it contains has evaporated and what’s left is just the dregs.
Is it surprising that most sensible Republicans have mostly fled the GOP because of Trump and what’s left are the Trumpers so his approval is in the 90%s. In this circumstance, how could it not be?
I think Pelosi may be operating with a different motivation than those who genuinely are concerned (even if it is an unfounded concern) that impeaching Trump without removing him would help get him re-elected.
Remember, Pelosi also promised in 2006, before she won the Speakership the first time, that she wouldn’t attempt to impeach Bush for his crimes. Pelosi is an opponent of impeachment in apparently all cases. It uproots the status quo and my thought is that Pelosi likes the status quo because in it, she is Speaker and Dems are favored to take the WH and even retake all of Congress. She doesn’t want to rock the boat because it seems to be on course. I do understand it but I don’t agree with it, she is shirking her constitutional duty and the damage she’s allowing to continue by blocking impeachment could be far more profound and difficult to fix in some cases, in the future.
When one considers that the GOP has embraced the Russians who corrupted our election, along with the Repub embrace of voter suppression, gerrymandering, etc., it is clear that the GOP has also embraced corrupting elections as a necessity for them to hold onto and gain more power.
Of course, such suppression of the majority of the public never ends well for the suppressors but no one wants it to get that far. We may be out of luck in some swing states under Republican control when it comes to open and fair elections but there were results in 2018 that helped minimize that.
Dems winning the governorships in MI, WI, PA, MN, NC and even KS helps reduce the number of states where Republicans can sabotage the fairness of elections. And the win of the Senate seat in AZ and House success in most states bodes better for Dems.
And the Russian strategy for manipulating our elections won’t be new to us, many more will be on the lookout for and battle back against it as it rears its ugly head on social media.
As is public knowledge, Trump barely squeaked by a win in the Electoral College with 46% of the vote, in a year when Trump was New Coke and an outsider. Since then, many swing voters who tried Trump out but found out he was awful, have left him. Trump no longer can run as not being a politician and being an outsider who will “drain the swamp” (at least to those who aren’t his cult followers). So Trump now is on track to only pull in around 42% of the vote.
If Dems turn out like they did in 2018, that percentage could be even lower for Trump. The Dems are clearly in the best position to win even with election meddling by Repubs and Russia and others. He’s greatly under water in MI, WI, NC, PA, MI, NH and elsewhere (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/)…and he doesn’t have stooges as Govs in these states to help prevent his losses there.
Trump will lose in the end and impeaching him only damages him more, it doesn’t help him to be exposed day after day in televised hearings as a criminal who’s been lying that he wasn’t, no matter the outcome in the Senate.
First, the target group are neither the Trumpets nor the Resistance, but the great middle. The danger is that Trump can very easily spin impeachment as a continuation of Dem effort to “get Trump” no matter what. Easily. And impeachment hearings can muddy the waters, especially with RWM spinning what is viewed to support that narrative. So the bet on impeachment is that hearings will break thru that “fog.”
I remember being puzzled in 2016 how Trump could break every norm, deriding John McCain, mocking that disabled reporter, Access Hollywood, all the things that should have destroyed his candidacy, yet he would always bounce back within a couple of news cycles. It left me with the feeling that the public was not what I thought it was, did not think the way I had always assumed. And now I realize that a large part of it was that they are not looking at the same facts and analysis.
The danger of impeachment hearings that do not clearly and successfully make the case is not that those 55% who say they would never vote for Trump (whatever that is worth from this far out) will change their minds, but that they lump the Dems into the “those people in Washington” and do not turn out to vote at all. Because Trump cannot win on his base alone, he must also supprss the vote of the opposition. If the Dems cannot find a way to show that Trump committed obvious and serious crimes, impeachment could indeed backfire.
As you know, I am torn. The case for impeachment hearings are, I think, obvious. We have already ceded so much of the rule of law, in this case, the concept of checks and balances that is at the heart of our form of government, that we need to take a stand somewhere.
But these times are different from those of Nixon, the environment much more tribal, the available contradictory “facts” too confusing and disorienting. And I’m not sure anymore how many people would actually care if Trump did shoot somebody in broad daylight on Main Street.
Holding impeachment hearings would absolutely have some impact on the elections. But so might not holding them. It would certainly take away the argument of a lawless presidency by relegating such rhetoric in the minds of many to the “same-ole-same-ole.”
Mueller paints a picture of Trumps lawlessness, which is just an extension of his character. I think the issue of his character is what distinguishes him from other Presidents and, although the bread and butter issues are certainly determinative, for me, his character is whats disqualifies him from that office. If we cannot shine a giant spotlight on that character and how it has harmed our system of governance and our values, we are going to be left with bread and butter, and I do not think that’s as much a slam dunk as we would like to think.
misapope, here’s a central reason why I don’t believe that Trump once again whining out his paranoid fantasy of being persecuted if his party blocks his removal under impeachment:
Poll: 65 percent of Americans say Trump is not honest
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/432698-poll-65-percent-americans-say-trump-is-not-honest
The logic seems straightforward to me, if a tree falls in a forest and claims that a Democratic witch hunt tried to impeach it but failed because his allies protected him as they vowed they would before impeachment was started and nobody is there to believe it, did it really convince anyone?
If a vast majority of Americans see Trump as a liar, why would they suddenly believe him and support him just because he lies again?
The safety net for Dems starting an impeachment inquiry is that they can use televised broadcasts to prove that the evidence proves what Mueller said it did, that Trump can’t be found not guilty of obstruction of justice…or in layman’s terms, he can be proven guilty through the Mueller report and evidence. And if they state that they are fulfilling their constitutional duty, it reflects they are acting on principle and as required in our democracy. Of course the RW pundits and Trump can howl that it’s all partisan but they will do that no matter how convincing the evidence is (as they have on Mueller and his report).
Dems have a moral high gorund to stand on if they do impeach, they don’t have that if they choose not to impeach because their priority is winning the 2020 election. One is following their oath of office, the other is self-interest. And that could discourage many independent voters and core Democrats about the party as 2020 approaches. And if Trump was re-elected and the Dems were to lose The House in 2020 after refusing to impeach? The party would tear itself apart.
They need to make sure they’re on the right side of history and doing nothing would portray them very badly.
Supporting impeachment is not to say Dems shouldn’t be prepared for a full blown PR campaign to counter to the expected propaganda by Trump and the RW about impeachment, that would be a wise thing for them to do. They can walk and chew gum and do so on principle, that sure seems like the right thing to do IMO.
Interesting poll which actually asked about Impeachment. The question was should Congress start an Impeachment process, it didn’t ask whether he should be Impeached and removed. The key Independent block in the middle were 60% to 30% against even starting Impeachment. And they know all about what a liar he is and how bad in other ways he is and 57% have an unfavorable opinion of him. But still, a BIG NO to even considering Impeachment. Whites without a college degree are 70% to 26% against considering Impeachment. This is even greater than Trump took that demographic in the election. Oh, and this is by far the largest single demographic in voter terms with 44% of the total vote count in 2016. Our three top demographics together come to only 33% of the total vote (Millennials with 13%, Blacks and Hispanics with only 10% each).
https://www.people-press.org/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/2-12-2/
As an aside, from that poll it seems all the bad things about Trump have been seen as bad going way back. Amazingly, all his spending over two years confirming things about himself hasn’t much changed people’s opinions of him one way or another. He was a congenital liar from day one and before. He has remained a congenital liar all along. And most knew this from day one. I don’t expect some great epiphany among the votes with or without Impeachment. Trump was what he is and is what he is and most knew from the get go that Trump is Trump. How proving the obvious as the prime obsession of the House for more than a year will gain us more votes kind of escapes me…we should only do things that will gain us votes without motivating Trumpites to swarm so we can actually beat the SOB in 2020.
There are many polls, numbers and facts. It’s not always easy to know which are the most relevant and what they actually indicate.
Very true. About the best is the RCP average of the major recent polls. They called the 2016 Popular Vote pretty closely for Clinton but mattered not in terms of the Electoral College since the actual results and the polls were so close they were within the margin of error…it was the narratives, talking heads and bookies who got it dead wrong…
Leaders are supposed to lead. The public then follows. Look at the numbers when the Watergate Hearings began. Nixon’s favorables were higher than his negatives, a majority of Americans did not favor impeachment.
What you’re missing is that support for impeachment doesn’t start before impeachment begins, it comes during impeachment, when the public learns of the crimes the president has committed.
I would bet 99% of Americans haven’t read the Mueller Report. Many have heard propaganda from Trump and Fox News that has confused them.
What Dems should do is start an impeachment inquiry that is televised and shares the info and testimony that proves Trump committed crimes. The Mueller Report provides all of this already. Once informed, the public will follow and a majority will support impeachment as it continues.
Should Obama have not passed the ACA? A majority was against that too and stayed opposed to it until recent years. Now a majority of Americans feel very strongly that it must stay the law of the land.
This is what leadership is, not being a slave to polls but understanding what the people want and leading them to it even when they’re not sure you’re taking them in the right direction.
Some leaders lead the troops to victory. And some leaders lead the folk over a cliff. At this point, Pelosi has a pretty good record of not going over cliffs. Also, having spent a very long time active on the Left, I’m generally leery of those who see themselves as the Vanguard of the People. And as I mentioned, the numbers as I saw them were correct last time and the narratives I got browbeat into believing were not. Will not make the same mistake again. But it is early yet and the numbers can change, including any indication more exposure of the Mueller details make a difference. They will be out before there is any formal move for Impeachment I believe. If your assumptions start showing up in the numbers as I see them, plenty of time to chance my mind…and the same for Pelosi. Oh, we’ll see how the Old Pro Joe deals with this. So far he’s with the bulk of the Dems in Congress and the bulk of the voters.
Yes but leaders are supposed to lead. That is their job. When they claim they can’t lead because they need to be led, they’re not being leaders. De facto.
Following popular opinion of the moment as an excuse to abandon constitutional duties will not be looked back on as a proud moment in American history.
Principles are not based on polling. In fact, it’s just the opposite. If someone is conditional about their principles, based on what’s popular at a moment in time, they make many terrible things possible.
Great leaders like Lincoln, FDR, MLK and others led with their principles despite a lack of popular support and they are known as some of our greatest leaders.
I can’t think of one leader we regard as great who didn’t act on principle until a majority changed to support it. I simply don’t think that’s the way great leadership works.
Pelosi is sure leading on this. You just don’t like where she is leading. And note there have been some really great not so nice leaders like Stalin, Pol Pot, Henry the VIII, Mussolini, Genghis Khan, Castro, Oliver Cromwell, even Hitler, etc. So leadership in and of itself doesn’t assure a good result depending on the eyes of the beholder…
Numbers can be treacherous. You need to ensure that you are looking at the most relevant info. We would like to think that the fact that people think Trump is dishonest means that they would support impeachment. Perhaps that was true pre-Trump, but I think it is less true now. Cannot tell you how many Trump supporters have told me that they know he is not a good human being, but they like his policies on, blah, blah blah…
Not everybody is judging him as we do. It is not a slam dunk.
In addition, Trump and his allies have been extremely successful in muddying the waters so that many voters just lump it all into the category of they-all-do-it or all-politicians-lie. There are many rationalizations, a fact which is in itself rather fascinating.
I have 2 fears. The first is that because of the media environment, which offers a menu of different realities to a public hungry for confirmation of their own world views. So it is hard to guarantee that any particular message will get through to enough people.
The other, more demoralizing fear is what I expressed in an earlier article in which I quoted Springstein:
“When the truth is spoken and it don’t make no difference
something in your heart goes cold.”
I am afraid of how cold our (the American people collectively) hearts might have grown. My measuring stick is in 2020 what it was in 2016, a landslide against Trump. Not eking out a 2 or 3 percentage point victory, although that would accomplish the primary purpose, But a slim victory would indicate to me that there are major problems in this country of which Trump in only a symptom, and which will continue after he has gone.
I agree with you that impeachment hearings could end up being to Dem advantage, but I’m not going to be overconfident about it. It’s a risk.
Like anything, depending on how you use something, it can be useful or dangerous. Numbers aren’t inherently treachorous, we rely on them in most aspects of our daily life.
What makes a difference is whether numbers are accurate and if they are viewed in context. It would be a mistake to reinterpret that 65% who see Trump as a liar and apply that entire amount to another question such as the percent of people who would support starting impeachment.
My point though is on the concern that I find unsupported, that if an impeachment went all the way to trial in The Senate, after months of House hearings that laid out daily on wall-to-wall tv coverage that Trump was indeed a criminal who broke laws at least in obstructing justice, that it could help Trump if the Republicans in the Senate refused to remove him.
My proposition is that there may not be a majority supporting the beginning of impeachment but as with Nixon, once the televised hearings expose Trump’s criminality, a majority will end up supporting impeachment (even if they don’t support removal).
We all know that the Repubs in The Senate wouldn’t vote to remove Trump from office if he was murdering immigrant children in public (oh wait, he is!) so when they act as we all know they will, to refuse to convict and remove him, they’d just be acting as everyone now suspects.
Then Trump would do just what he did when the Mueller Report was released, claim he’s been vindicated, that it’s all been a witch hunt by hateful Dems and that poor widdle Donald is just a victim.
When he played this propaganda act after the Mueller report, his numbers actually went down because…most Americans don’t believe him.
Why would this nearly identical victimhood act be any different if used after impeachment? We’ve already seen the same thing fail just a month ago.
The dynamic here is that the only way an impeachment could help Trump is if people would believe his howling about being persecuted. We just had a test run of that and it didn’t work because most Americans know Trump is a liar and a con man.
So for these reasons, I find the concern that impeachment somehow could help Trump as just an unfounded, unsupported fear and between giving into that and acting on principle and following the constitutional duty Congress is charged with, I pick the latter.
I agree with your bottom line, that the Dems should go for impeachment, although my reasons are more “rule of law” philosophical (a luxury of not being in a position to make decisions or bear consequences as is Pelosi) and is very mindful of the risks (after the trauma of 2016).
In 2016, we saw Trump survive one campaign-destroying “gaff” after another. We paid little attention to the fact that although his ratings would drop after each of those, they would recover with a week or 2. Looking back, that was our clue that the political landscape was no longer what we had grown accustomed to. Not everybody interpreted those event as we did, and not everybody prioritized the character that those gaffs exposed as we did.
Despite other relevant factors, e.g., Hillary and her campaign, and Russian manipulation, I do not think his election was so much an aberration as a declaration that we have entered a different stage in our history, one characterized by tribalism, a clash of cultures, experiences, and perceptions. We no longer work from a shared set of facts or respond to facts in the same way when we do agree upon them.
I think you and I come from a time where the Truth was something objective and led to inevitable outcomes. The mindset was to find the truth and expose it. That was enough. From that point on, the results were inexorable.
I am not even talking about the “fog of war” that will be the actual experience of any Trump impeachment hearings. We imagine that it will be like the Watergate hearings, which is our vision of what impeachment hearings of Trump would look and feel like. It began in a partisan environment, but one in which the rule of law, truth and facts, and a common regard for our institutions were still intact, and so those principles are what allowed that process to yield the result that it did.
But this is a different world. We know that Trump and the GOP will manipulate those images to their advantage, and our bifurcated media (is “multifurcated” a word?) will present completely different versions and interpretations of what we are seeing, and those will be consumed by the various tribes hungry for confirmation and validation.
It will not be an easy task for the Dems to break thru. They will have to demonstrate that they are motivated purely by the desire to preserve the rule of law, even as it is pretty obvious that they are also motivated by a desire to remove him from office because they do not approve of him or his policies. The 2 motivations are not mutually exclusive, but they can produce behaviors and actions that are identical and therefore hard to distinguish in the minds of the public. This makes those behaviors and actions easily “spinnable.” That is why I always caution that if the Dems proceed with hearings, they must be skillful.
But apart from those considerations, because of my specific interests when analyzing these events and processes, I wonder if the facts will actually matter, if they will be enough. Over and over again, I have run into the attitude that Trump might be a bad person but we support him anyway. It seems that there are many who are determined to separate his character and perhaps even criminality out from their evaluation from what he has accomplished.
They are looking at a different narrative from us. Where we see chaos and destruction, they see change and the inevitable reaction of the Establishment against that change. To them, Trump is an instrument for “good,” although I have yet to hear a clear or realistic explanation of what that good will look like. But my understanding is irrelevant. That is part of the landscape we are in. I wish there were polls that delved into those attitudes more deeply. Bottom line is that that narrative provides a framework imposes a different set of priorities and interpretations to events.
So will hearings prove to be harmful or helpful to our cause? I do not know. I do not think anyone really knows. It’s a risk, a calculation. There are facts and figures to look at, but if the assumptions are wrong, the interpretations will likewise suffer. From the comfort of my own irrelevance, I still maintain that impeachment is the right thing to do, yet I understand Pelosi’s caution. But as time goes on, that caution is in danger of becoming fatal mistake.
I look to 2020 to give us a real reading of where this country is at, how far we have moved from whom we used to assume we were, and what the prospects are that we escape from this national trauma relatively unscathed.
I have opposed impeachment, for many of the reasons that Pelosi has mentioned. To put it simply, Trump completely expects the Senate to acquit him of all charges. Once acquitted, I am sure he will call himself a victim of angry Democrats. It is hard to forget the indignant rhetoric of the right for the three and a half weeks between Barr’s non summary and the release of the redacted version of Mueller’s report. People tend to believe what they want, if presented with a choice.
Never the less, with each stone uncovered another crime / manipulation / twisted betrayal to American values is revealed. Unlike Bill Clinton or even Richard Nixon; Trump has chosen to use the investigation as an excuse to not do his job. Any suffering for lack of proper governance to be blamed on Democrats.
Enough is Enough. He must be impeached and the Senate Republicans who continue to support his behavior must be forced to be held respnsible their own complicity.
In a perfect world, Nancy Pelosi would get her way and he would be doing prison time. Sadly, it is not a perfect world.
I don’t agree with your interpretation of the Constitutional clause. The “shall” refers to conviction. I don’t see any requirement to impeach and convict if a President is guilty of any of the indicated offenses (and “high crimes and misdemeanors” is a very general phrase that could be construed many different ways). So I don’t think the Constitutional language at all indicates that the Congress should not consider the feasibility of removal and the political consequences of using the impeachment process. Starting an impeachment process is never required by the Constitution.
I know of no solid evidence at this time that the President has committed treason or bribery in office. High crimes and misdemeanors means whatever a majority of the House and 2/3 of the Senate believe it means. Currently, it is clear that nowhere near 2/3 of the Senate, and probably not even a majority, considers the President’s misdeeds to be “high crimes and misdemeanors.” This makes Speaker Pelosi’s position that moving forward with impeachment at this time would not make sense, but the Congress should be prepared to move forward with it should additional evidence make removal from office a reasonable possibility.
The normal Congressional investigation process can and is being used to find out more information on the President’s misdeeds. This is a much less disruptive process for that purpose than the impeachment process. If that process uncovers evidence which could result in bipartisan support for impeachment and removal, the impeachment process could be started.
We are over half way through the current Presidential term. The impeachment process takes a long time, and probably could not be completed until the President had no more than a few months left in office. This would seem to make removal by denying reelection more practical than an impeachment process which seem unlikely to result in removal at this time and will inflame Trump’s constituency and possibly increase his chances to be re-elected.
Hi Bill, welcome to The Planet!
In general, I agree with you that the first step for The House should be an investigation into the crimes Trump appears to have committed (though I’d argue that at the least, obstruction of justice, an impeachable offense, has been very clearly and publicly evidenced).
As we’re seeing though, due to Trump and his cronies violating The Constitution and refusing to provide documents, testimony and witnesses, by not having the greater powers under impeachment, The House could be sidelined into court battles through the 2020 elections and never truly be able to investigate Trump’s crimes through regular hearings.
The impeachment process gives The House greater powers to gain documents and testimony and may be needed if hearings can be crushed by Trump.
I think Nancy Pelosi’s repeated assurances that impeachment won’t happen unless 2/3 of the Senate are already onboard with it are wrong-headed. First, the fear of being impeached could keep Trump more in check. Secondly, I don’t think any impeachment hearings ever started with 2/3 of The Senate already expressing their support to remove the president. Third, the power of public impeachment hearings, where regular Americans can watch and discover the truths about Trump really having committed crimes, is exactly how you can get to having 2/3 of The Senate agree to remove a president.
What makes a removal vote in The Senate possible is one thing, public opinion. No party would willingly vote out their own president unless they felt they had no other choice…or lose re-election. The only thing that would jeopardize their re-election is if their voters want a criminal president removed and they refuse to follow the will of their voters.
Yes, it would be ideal if 2/3 of everyone in Congress could agree before an impeachment that a president should be removed but without going through the process, it’s not really possible.
Instead of the fear that impeachment of Trump would give him Bill Clinton’s poll bounce, maybe Dems should consider that Trump is more like Nixon and a public impeachment hearing that lays out Trump’s criminal behavior would be more damaging to Trump’s polls as it was for Nixon, creating an election safeguard if 2/3 of The Senate didn’t vote to remove despite solid proof of crimes and a strong majority of Americans supporting it.
My grandfather had a saying, “Sometimes you’re so smart, you outsmart yourself.” I am concerned that the mistaken political calculations of Dems could once again be their downfall.
What if Trump wins re-election (or at least a manipulation of voters and voting results re-elects him)? What if Democrats also lose The House in 2020 for the same reasons? In this scenario, there is no one to stop a newly emboldened and politically protected Trump from committing unimaginably greater crimes and abuses.
The Democrats only have power at this moment in time. If they’re not willing to use it now against Trump, they may never have another chance. I think gambling on just winning in 2020 instead of using their constitutional duty and powers to impeach as The Founders intended, to prove to the public that Trump is indeed a criminal abusing the greatest power in the country and at least try their best to stop him, would be a profound mistake.
Also, this article just came out today:
https://wapo.st/2vHCnT6
All of these professional prosecutors believe there’s sufficient evidence to go to trial against Trump for committing a crime, I think that’s more than enough for The House to be justified and required to begin impeachment hearings against Trump (though I’m fine if they begin with regular hearings as long as they’re not blocked by Trump’s refusals to cooperate…then they need the powers to compel testimony and production of documents that impeachment gives them).
AdLib, the number of those former Federal Prosecutors who signed the statement regarding the obstruction of justice charges (and that fact that anyone but Trump would have been charged) has now grown to over 600, according to the PBS NewsHour — as of about half an hour ago.
An attorney who had worked on the Clinton impeachment case was among them. When he was asked why he signed on, his answer was: “I believe in the rule of law.”
That is amazing, Kes! We are going to need at least some version of a rising up against Trump’s attempt to let crime prevail in our democracy and these prosecutors are people Americans can rally around.
ANYONE with an ounce of integrity and prudence and is paying attention, can see that Trump committed treason and that the republican party aided and abetted him in doing so. You are correct that the Senate is unlikely to convict and remove Trump from office. That is a foregone conclusion. Not because there are no justifiable reasons, but because republicans would not convict him if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue, as evidenced by the FACT that in spite of evidence that MBS had Khashoggi killed, Trump and his minions are making excuses for him. The republican Senate knows this, but they don’t care.
A brief reply.
Much of what you say is true in principal. Here is my concern. Will the public pay attention to what is actually going on? Much of your argument depends on the public being aware of what is happening, viewing it objectively, weighing its import and drawing a conclusion that is evidence based.
I do not see that happening. For many reasons.
It is based on my belief that I want the Congress and various judiciary entities to probe and to act on each probe and not create a massive diversion that Trump will use very effectively to rouse his base, frustrate his foes and confuse those in the muddled middle.
Take this:
President Trump’s approval rating reached its highest level since April 2017 in a new CNN poll released Wednesday. The poll found 43% approved of the way Trump is handling his job as president. The new tally is one point lower than his 44% approval rating two years ago. Those who approve strongly of the way Trump is handling his job hit an all-time high of 35% in the CNN poll.
I think the only thing taking him down is concerted, full throttle, frontal assault.
Will the public pay attention to an event that would be historic, could change the political leadership of the country, would be must-watch tv, would be covered every day in the news media, Twitter, Facebook, talk shows, and that Trump would be tweeting about like a madman?
I’d say yes.
As to comprehending and drawing a conclusion on it, the American people have done so in every previous impeachment. I think of course they would, especially in the most grievous impeachment ever held.
I don’t think it will convince the 37%-40% or so of people who have supported Trump along the way but they don’t matter when compared to the 53%-60% of people who would only become more convinced that Trump has to go.
Looking at this from the other direction, if you don’t think that the impeachment of a president would attract the attention of the public, why would simple congressional hearings get their attention or accomplish anything?
I think that the approach you mention could create a troubling scenario if Trump won re-election. With Congress having voluntarily abandoned the power of the impeachment, I would be concerned that Trump would pursue fully authoritarian power over the country and with his judges in place, be essentially unstoppable. I don’t think more hearings would matter at that point.
As I said at the end of my post, don’t we want to do everything we possibly can to prevent that scenario? And giving up more constitutional power with Trump already trying to destroy checks and balances doesn’t seem like a good path to head down.
Playing it safe is not a proven strategy for winning power. Those who are audacious are the ones who more often prevail and as much as I detest Trump, he’s proven that.
The Problem is we don’t have a Trumplike person running for President. How do you out Fox a fox? He been one step ahead like the Mueller report announcing he was exonerated before anyone got to see any of it. His constant saying Democrats and their witch hunt. He had eight years before he was elected to go after O’Bama trying to lie about where he was born or how he would make better decisions. He also went after Hillary with his witch hunt. Her Foundation and his was the one Fraudulent, her connection to Russia compared to his, her use of private email and look at him, family, even his best of the best.
He is a criminal making a criminals out of anyone or any business that gets in his way.
Besides impeachment the only hope is the economy tanking maybe.
I have spent this last week traveling through Pennsylvania Ohio Indiana sand Kentucky. One Trump sign in PA . Trump flag , 2020 Trump hat in one car and one Trump sticker on a car in Kentucky. I expected more. I do know from talking to family in Kentucky they are happy with the economy , don’t like Pelosi and think the Mexicans are taking their benefits.
I was hoping Bloomberg would jump in to run for President.
The theme of the Campaign will be “Enough Already!!!” The folk are sick and tired of all the drama and excitement. They what a rest for awhile. They want a comfy, cuddly Unky, a known quantity, an adult, in the White House to replace the Enfant Terrible Drama Queen stinking up the place today. And right on time along comes our Unky Joe…and the folk sure as hell don’t want the 24/7/365 excitement and divisiveness of Impeachment no matter how justified it is…