Displaying 451 To 480 Of 19,504 Comments Is the Insistence of Moderate Dems to Win Back Trump Voters…a Racial Thing? You’re setting out a big condition though that I don’t think is probable. It’s buying into the pessimistic/Republican talking points to say that Democrats/anti-Trump voters would vote for Trump if the Dem candidate is “too liberal”. Really? Would Dems vote against a candidate who shares probably 80% – 90% of their opinions in order to vote for a candidate they despise and who they see as destroying America? I just don’t buy it. What is most likely is that the Dem candidate will be one of the top 4 candidates right now, Biden, Warren, Harris or Bernie…but Bernie is declining and has a proven ceiling of support, I don’t believe he will be able to beat any of the other 3. Then will moderate Dem voters flock to Trump if Warren is the nom? If Harris is the nom? Don’t see it happening. But I can see Biden running into the same discouraged, unmotivated youth and black voters who see another middle of the road establishment Dem who doesn’t excite them enough to go out and vote…and turnout going down again, setting up another popular win nationally but an electoral loss. And as we always see, after the primaries, the Dem nom will likely tack more to the middle to reassure moderates and independents. So if for example, Warren wins, don’t be surprised to see her compromise with moderate voter’s views on allowing the option to keep private insurance (though she knows that for-profit insurance won’t be able to compete with non-profit that doesn’t have to siphon out healthcare money for profits and stockholders). Hillary did not inspire, I wish she had. Her vote totals were below Obama’s. So using her underperforming numbers, especially in this time of strong anti-Trump motivated voters, I think it is being very conservative to say that whoever the 2020 Dem nom is will likely achieve a minimum of Hillary numbers. Look at the 2018 numbers when we had no presidential election, the Dem base is far more motivated today than in 2016. A motivating “outsider” candidate could increase that motivation, another uninspiring, establishment, moderate candidate could smother some of that energy. Remember, we are in the Dem primary, most candidates are vying to excite the base and display their vision to win the primary. We’ve been through this many times, once the game changes to the General Election, whoever wins will doubtlessly soften the most ambitious plans including on health care, to appeal to the most voters (without abandoning their visions). That said, a majority of Americans (including moderates) support Medicare for All:
The YouGov/Progressive Change Institute poll (pdf) first asked voters straightforwardly whether they support or oppose “a ‘Medicare for All’ healthcare system, where all Americans would get their health insurance from the government.” Fifty-one percent of respondents said they support Medicare for All and 38 percent said they oppose it. If the nom was to be Warren for example, I don’t think she’d abandon her vision for Medicare For All but I could imagine her adding a transition period that accommodated those wanting to keep their insurance company and being able to grandfather that in if they really wanted. It’s an easy pivot without compromising her ultimate goal. While I’d agree Clinton was conservative (Welfare to Work, NAFTA, repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, etc…Mr. Triangulation), I don’t agree that Carter and Obama are accurately classified as moderates. Moderates believe in incremental change but the ACA, while based on a Repub plan, was expanding a very liberal agenda of universal healthcare. Supporting Gay Marriage, equal pay for women, etc. In fact, a number of polls show that most Americans even saw Obama as “too liberal”: https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/02/24/poll-obama-too-liberal Jimmy Carter championed human rights around the world, took the Middle East peace process into his hands and hosted and worked to cement the Camp David accords, promoted alternative energy and even had solar panels installed on the roof of the White House. He had more moderate/conservative positions on other things but he can’t be fairly squeezed into the mold of being a moderate. Bottom line, my proposition stands that only “outsiders” win presidential elections for the Dems, not Dem establishment moderates like Hillary, Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale, Humphrey, etc.. And I do think Hillary’s numbers are a legit base to look at for the 2020 Dem nominee to expect and build on because they represent a down year for a Dem candidate. A Dem shouldn’t start out expecting Obama numbers but seeing numbers from a campaign that we’re below previous years and barely lost does not seem unrealistic to me. Start with a lower estimate as 2016’s number turned out to be, build on that and victory may not be so far away. » Posted By AdLib On August 4, 2019 @ 12:29 pm Just plain wrong. If you were correct, Trump would have had over 50% of the popular vote but he lost the popular vote to Hillary by almost 3%. Trump ended up with 46.09% of the vote and not all of that was white without college degree vote. But let’s say what you said wasn’t incorrect… 46.09% < 50%
Simple math.
» Posted By AdLib On August 4, 2019 @ 11:25 am Yes, Jimmy Carter had charisma and engendered a great deal of affection from the American people when he ran for president. How else would an unknown peanut farming Governor from Georgia win the presidency? As I mentioned below, Hillary had a bigger and more stable lead over Obama at this point in the 2008 primary so if we were back then, you would be claiming Hillary has it in the bag against Obama and your claim would have been proven to be as incorrect as I think this claim will prove to be in 2020 as well. BTW, Hillary’s lead at this point in 2016 against Bernie Sanders was as high as 35%. By primary time, she had lost much of that, in a virtual tie with him at some points. Knowing history helps, maybe graphics will help illustrate the truth about early leads evaporating as the primary goes on. Here are graphs of polling from 2012 and 2016, see if you notice a pattern for the front runner as time goes by: » Posted By AdLib On August 3, 2019 @ 9:26 pm Elections aren’t held by national votes and the first caucus isn’t until February 2020. At this point in the 2008 race, Hillary had a national lead of 21% in a Gallup poll over Barack Obama and we all know how that turned out. Biden like Hillary in 2008, began with the highest name recognition in the primaries and both of their early leads reflected that. Biden however has a smaller lead than Hillary had over Obama and after the first debates and Biden’s sudden drop in the polls, it shows just how fragile that lead actually is. Biden is a weak front runner and there will be many months and opportunities for other candidates to become more well known and attract more voters to their campaigns. Biden does not have a majority in polls and Warren is popular with supporters of other candidates so once the primary thins out, where will the other candidates’ voters go? If it comes down to Warren and Biden, where do Kamala’s voters go? Buttigieg’s? Bernie’s? If these voters wanted the older white male moderate establishment candidate, why are they not supporting him now? Whereas, many voters supporting the other candidates who are newer faces like Warren, have Warren as a second choice. Warren has momentum and is as close as 6% away from Biden right now in recent polling, much closer than Obama was to Hillary at this point. Putting all eggs in the Biden basket now because he leads in this less reflective period, early in the primary and not already holding a majority of Dem voters, would be quite a gamble. » Posted By AdLib On August 3, 2019 @ 9:00 pm Jimmy Carter was not a moderate, he was liberal. Bill Clinton was conservative. But as I’ve mentioned, like Obama, they were “surprise candidates”, none of them were establishment candidates, they were new to most Americans when they ran and represented change, even if in Clinton’s case it was change to a more conservative direction. Also, all had a charisma that enthused voters. There’s no way to put Biden or any of the other moderates into that category of winners. » Posted By AdLib On August 3, 2019 @ 12:55 pm You say you like numbers Jake so look at the numbers I provided in my post proving that it is not moderate white voters who win presidential elections for Dem presidents and Murph’s numbers below which clearly demonstrate that the majority of white voters do not vote Democratic. Again, this is not to say that votes from moderates, socialists, or any political demographic should not be invited and welcomed by the Dem nominee. It is only a simple mathematic fact that it was not moderate white voters who helped Obama get elected and they certainly didn’t get Hillary elected despite her focus on them instead of minority and youth voters in the swing states. One can present an affirmative without the opposite being inferred. It will be the youth, women and POC voters who will win this election for the Dem if they are enthused to turn out. That doesn’t mean that moderate voters aren’t valuable to the Dem’s election. A game plan for the Dem for winning the 2020 election can’t run through trying to gratify white voters, Trump owns that lane. Numerically, Dems can’t win without high turnout by younger voters and people of color. It’s that simple. There is no proof that a moderate candidate can generate the necessary enthusiasm a Dem will need to get those demographics out and win. However, there is proof that moderate candidates lose because they can’t energize those voters. So do we just want moderate voters to feel good as Trump gets 4 more years to destroy the country or should we look to moderates to be team players and support the strategy that will defeat Trump and put a Dem in the WH? » Posted By AdLib On August 3, 2019 @ 12:51 pm These are very enlightening numbers, thanks for them. It illustrates where we are today, the diminishing majority white vote has been swinging more and more conservative (and racist). There remains a minority of white voters nationally who vote Democrat but the truth and good news is that non-white voters are gaining in share and are strongly Democratic voters. We may be in the last throes of the fearful white majority trying to legislate their continued dominance of non-whites but it is slipping out of their reach. Who knows, if Dems can pull of a big victory in 2020, if the institutional racism and voter suppression can be addressed by a unified Dem government and if the Census redistricting in 2020 can fix some of the inequity in gerrymandering, Repubs could be down for the count until they mend their ways. » Posted By AdLib On August 3, 2019 @ 12:34 pm Thanks pal! » Posted By AdLib On August 3, 2019 @ 12:27 pm It’s too bad those numbers don’t include 2012 because that would illustrate even more than these numbers reflect, when it comes to how youth and black turnout made the difference in re-electing Pres. Obama. To be clear, I am not saying that Dems should ignore the moderates, it is important for the sake of state government control and control of Congress that Dems are active in all 50 states and that candidates in those states reflect the sensibilities of a majority of voters. What I am pointing out in I think a very simple and intuitive way, is that when it comes to winning the presidency, the path of failure for Democrats has been to go with the “safe” or moderate candidate. History is clear that only the “surprise” candidates, the out of the ordinary Dem candidates for the presidency, win. The math in my post is pretty straightforward. All a Dem has to do is get Hillary’s numbers in MI, WI and PA plus 1% more and the Democrat wins the presidency. Obama got that and more by energizing the youth and African American vote, the 2020 nominee could too. If we know what worked the last time and the time before that, with Pres. Obama, doesn’t it make the most sense to use the same formula that has worked as opposed to a formula that has repeatedly failed for Dems? I know it’s not desirable for voters to feel less politically important. Californians have had to feel that way for the majority of presidential elections yet we carry on. California represents over 10% of the entire US population, nearly 40 million people and yet we have had to be on the sidelines as 4 states with populations as low as 1.3 million get the most candidate attention and pandering and decide who stays in the primary before we even vote. Is it frustrating that the voters and their political preferences in the biggest state in the nation have been virtually ignored in presidential elections? Of course but it is a matter of practicality that the states and voters that will make a difference in electing a Dem president get greater attention because that’s the end result most Californians want (finally we have moved our primary elections up so that our primaries aren’t as irrelevant to the selection of the presidential nominees). Presidential candidates still won’t be spending a lot of time in CA in the General Election to stump for votes (for contributions, yes) because CA is a safe Dem voting state. So should Californians demand that candidates spend more time here and pitching to our positions on issues than in the swing states that will decide the presidency? Absolutely not. I think Americans of conscience should be willing to be team players and if the most pragmatic path for Dems winning and Trump losing is having a Progressive candidate, which I think past history and current numbers support, we should all support that. Progressives can share how they have had to take one for the team in most presidential elections including the most recent and important one in our lifetimes in 2016. They’ve supported and voted for moderate candidates that may have stood against some things they believe in strongly but most accepted that because they support the Democratic Party and saw the Republican alternative as unacceptable. Consider how negatively we look at those Progressives or Indies who voted 3rd Party or stayed home out of purity, because the Dem candidate wasn’t their pick and didn’t speak fully to their political views. They helped elect Trump. Why would it be any different for moderates? If moderates chose not to vote for whoever the Dem nom is because they felt their moderate views weren’t represented enough, wouldn’t they be and be seen just the same as the purists who sacrificed the welfare of the country for their own selfish reasons? Because we have this terrible Electoral College system, most of the country really doesn’t matter in electing a president because their state is already in the blue or red column. CA is not going to be a win for Trump. MO is not going to be a win for the Dem Nominee. Should the Dem nominee be a moderate who can appeal to the minority of Dem voters in states that will go to Trump anyway? I think that would be a serious mistake. I think the best decisions are made by accepting the reality of a situation and focusing best efforts on the most advantageous use of resources. There are only a handful of states that decide presidential elections. So for the presidential campaign only, not state and local elections which should all be engaged by Dems, the nominee and campaign should be focused on what will win in those swing states…and what has been proven to win. The priority for me is ending Trump and putting a Dem in the WH. And I made the case in my post why a Progressive stands the best chance of making that happen by winning those 3 swing states. It doesn’t mean they don’t spend some time courting moderates in states that they won’t win but that, as folks in many other states that are solidly in one camp or another accept, that the good of the many should come first before the gratification of the one. As I described in my post, there is no evidence in recent history that a Democratic establishment moderate can win the presidency. Why would we want to go down that path again that’s littered with failure at such an existential moment for our democracy? There is evidence though that a candidate who is a fresh face and represents change, as ALL of the winning Democratic Presidents in the last 40 years have, is the most likely path for success. Many voters have had to live with voting for a Dem presidential nominee who didn’t reach out to them as they would have liked. Hillary Clinton was not my choice of candidate, she started her campaign attacking Progressivism…and even Obama! Hillary ran the kind of campaign you’re describing, she was more focused on winning over moderates than energizing Progressives, the youth and voters of color. She lost for many reasons but despite everything, had she campaigned to drive youth and minority turnout in those three swing states (she didn’t campaign at all in these states) to squeeze out just .03% more voters for her in MI and .08% more in WI and PA, she would be president today. When we also consider the prospects of the Dem investing resources in potential purple states, including Arizona and mind-bogglingly, Texas, instead of wasting resources in CA, MO, and other states not in play, Trump could be knocked back on his heels having to defend Repub states while turnout by Progressives, youth and minorities could be whipped up in the swing states by a Progressive Dem, a win of epic proportion could be realized. Again, this isn’t a diss of moderates, it is a mercenary and pragmatic strategy to do what needs to be done to win those three swing states that will assure a Dem victory in 2020. And isn’t that what Progressive, moderate and even conservative Dems and Indies want? » Posted By AdLib On August 3, 2019 @ 11:53 am I do think that the Dem Nominee needs to have a clear vision and specific policies to address the many problems facing Americans and the country. So yes, an economic plan that will work to even the scales on economic injustice, fixing and improving healthcare, repairing infrastructure, stopping the wealthy and corporations from stealing more money and power, improving education, stabilizing South America and fixing immigration… It’s a long list but I think someone who has specific initiatives to address what most Americans are struggling with will do well. But charisma matters too, we need a candidate who will excite voters with the possibility of change. This is part of the reason why I’m concerned if Biden becomes the nominee. Another old, white, establishment moderate like all the ones who have come before and disappointed the public is not going to generate the needed enthusiasm. At this point, of all the candidates, I think Elizabeth Warren comes closest to touching all those bases. Other candidates may rise to the occasion too but so far, she seems to be doing it best. » Posted By AdLib On August 2, 2019 @ 6:53 pm The Mueller Hearing? Your Response…. I’m a bit confused by your comment, Murph. Trump has had the same resolute base of around 40% since 2016, that hasn’t changed. It’s not a start, it’s a destination. Trump has never polled at or above 50% (aside from the propagandized Rasmussen polls where he’s winning everywhere!). Here is the most recent national polling on Trump vs. Dems by NBC/WSJ: Sunday, July 14 – General Election: Trump vs. Biden – Biden 51, Trump 42 – Biden +9 First, note that Trump consistently polls between 42%-44% against all these Dem candidates, his cult base plus a couple of points of less devoted voters. He does not have room to grow because they’re not churning out more people with enough moral deficits to support him. The indies are not available for Trump, the majority opposes him. The women vote isn’t, the minority vote isn’t. There is no potential for Trump to attract the additional 6% minimum he needs to win. Where would it come from? As to Dems having a harder time in 2020 to hold The House because Trump was on the ballot, he was essentially on the ballot and campaigning hard in 2018, howling about the killer caravans coming to invade us at the border and rallied his voters in campaign events across the country, that he was symbolically on the ballot in 2018 and that they needed to get out and vote for Repubs because doing so was voting for him. Don’t overlook that Trump being on the ballot will also be a big GOTV motivation for those who oppose him and want a return to sanity. His voters have been frothing at the mouth since 2016, they don’t need any more reasons to go vote but Trump has dredged up all the cultists he can. Have you met many undecided Repubs who aren’t sure they know Trump well enough to support him yet? I think this is a bit of fiction, Trump wants to believe there are Trump cultists out there somewhere that aren’t already going to vote for him but history says he’s squeezed all the juice out of that lemon that’s there. Yes, Dems have to do well in red states to take back The Senate but they did very well in red states in 2018, even if they didn’t win all the Senate races then that they needed. But again, as we saw in 2018 in red states like Arizona, Kansas, Alabama and Montana, Dems can win big seats in red states in the Trump era. It will be a challenge for Dems to win back control of The Senate but it is possible (especially if some of the Dem candidates for president who would make great Senate candidates drop out and campaign for Senate). As for Trump, his negatives will go up, not down, as he continues his campaign strategies of being an immature bully, a destroyer of families, an ally of Russia over the US, a misogynist, a racist and a criminal. The Repubs had been hammering Hillary for decades so she may have had negatives rivaling Trump but whoever the Dem nom is, won’t have that deficit Trump exploited in 2016. And Trump has lost the “outsider” and “I’m not a politician” labels as an incumbent. He has lost the voters who said, “Maybe he’ll make things better” and “We should try someone new”. He can’t run on a “change” platform which was big for him. He’s lost many of his most effective aspects that brought over voters feeling it was a choice of the better of two evils. Whoever the Dem nom is, despite the mud Trump and the GOP throws at him/her, that nom WILL be able to run on “change” and will be able to run as the “outsider” because Trump is now the “insider”. Can Trump even reach his numbers from 2016? Doubtful, too many have left him. Will there be multiple independent candidates who could siphon off enough votes from the Dem nom to hand Trump a narrow win as in 2016? Doubtful, the energy and urgency behind replacing Trump is much higher now and will be much more powerful in voters decision making on voting Dem or throwing away their vote on Howard Schultz (who I bet won’t run in the end, like most of the wealthy, I think he’ll be too scared of looking like a loser…and the public reaction to his announcement was so negative). 2016 was a perfect storm. Both candidates began with high negatives, Russian attacks on our election were not known about by most voters, Jim Comey won’t be able to re-open any case against the Dem nom just days before the election and Trump is no longer the whimsical outsider celebrity that some people were willing to take a chance on. Trump is headed for losing in 2020, let’s just hope the Dems don’t figure out a way to sabotage their probable win…as they have many times in the past. » Posted By AdLib On July 25, 2019 @ 11:54 pm Exactly Murph, Pelosi has pushed this so far past a reasonable time frame for an impeachment inquiry that it would take remarkable efforts to hold and complete the inquiry and vote on articles of impeachment by next Summer when it would be important to be done so it is not going on during the General Election campaign period. This has been Pelosi’s game from the beginning and it is no coincidence that as the window for holding impeachment hearings is closing up, Pelosi is now suddenly offering Dems more freedom to support it. Pelosi is running a game on Progressives and those who want to see The House put duty first and party second. Whether it’s a Repub or Dem, I do not like being played and Pelosi has been playing the country to enforce her political strategy over the insistence of many in her party to impeach Trump. I don’t know where we go from here but I saw more Dems in The House come out today to support impeachment. Is it part of Pelosi’s game? Can momentum build and The House hold impeachment hearings that end by next Summer? I don’t know. What is clear now after Mueller’s testimony is that Trump has been proven to be a criminal and Pelosi is just throwing hearings at the public like throwing them bones, to appear to be going after Trump without really going after Trump. You tell me, do we really need more hearings to prove anything more than the Mueller Report already lays out clearly, to have a legit and convincing case for impeachment? Of course not. We don’t need hearings that aren’t under the auspices of impeachment because those hearings will contain all the testimony and evidence necessary to prove Trump is a criminal to the country. Whether or not Repubs in The Senate refuse to act against Trump’s ongoing criminality, that image of him will be the most proven and prominent in the country and people will know that voting for Trump is voting to keep a criminal in the WH. That is very worthwhile, even if The Senate can’t get a 2/3 vote to remove Trump. And for those saying that Trump will look exonerated if Repubs refuse to vote to remove him, that is painfully tunnelvisioned, ignoring the year of hearings that have nailed Trump all that time for being criminal. And failing to get a 2/3 vote does not mean “innocent”, it just means that some Repubs voted politically without concern for the crimes Trump has and is committing.There could be a majority vote in The Senate to remove Trump or at least a tie vote or close to it. That will not scream “exoneration”. I think it will be a political liability for the Repubs, trying to keep a proven criminal in the WH because he’s in their party. To sum up, Pelosi has been succeeding in stalling an impeachment query by Dems in The House and may be succeeding in sabotaging the timing so it can’t be done. But this isn’t over yet and each day will only increase the pressure for Dems to do something more than beat their chests about how criminal Trump is while refusing to do the one thing they can to stop his crime spree or at least critically damage his re-election chances. » Posted By AdLib On July 25, 2019 @ 11:12 pm Couldn’t agree more, Kalima! Congress has the benefit of a 2 year investigation by top professional prosecutors and investigators that concluded Trump committed crimes and Mueller has said this in his diplomatic way. Dems are also undermining the rule of law if they decide it’s to their political advantage not to fulfill their constitutional duty of impeachment. It’s been many years since I saw the Dem Party as the bumblers who could steal defeat from the jaws of victory but it’s sure looking more like that now with the political cowardice on impeaching a criminal in the WH. » Posted By AdLib On July 25, 2019 @ 11:23 am We’ve seen what Hope Hicks did, as one of the only Trump people to testify recently. She refused to answer questions, even where her desk was located in the office. Why would anyone expect anything other than this if a court did force other Trump people to testify? So we are waiting months for courts to order Trumpers to attend hearings in Congress where they will refuse to answer questions and more complaints will then need to be filed by Congress and take more months to go through. The 2020 election could conceivably take place before all these cases are decided in court. Which I think Pelosi is more than a little aware of. » Posted By AdLib On July 25, 2019 @ 11:17 am Impeachment will suck the oxygen out of Congress, it will become the one big story that goes on for many months. And I would argue that it’s not bad news, it’s good news. Trump’s criminality will be front and center day after day throughout the media for months. It will absolutely convince some people who are less informed to oppose Trump’s re-election or at least be less enthusiastic about going out to vote for him. This manufactured fear Dems have that they will look “political” for impeaching Trump is as foolish as it sounds. Did Repubs worry that they would lose the 2016 election by holding years of hearings against Hillary Clinton on her emails and of course, Benghazi? If they could have impeached Obama for wearing a tan suit, they would have. The difference between Repubs and Dems is that they see the strong use and abuse of power as self-justifying. Dems seem fearful about using power because they worry about how they’ll screw it up and end up hurting themselves. I hope we end up with a Dem nom who will be confident about wanting to use power to stop bad people and help the good people in this country. Fear of using power is giving it up. » Posted By AdLib On July 25, 2019 @ 11:13 am The issue with that is that is Congress is leaving for a long break now and by the time they come back, campaigning for the 2020 will be about to begin, Dems won’t want to be kept off the campaign trail for their own re-election to preside over impeachment hearings instead. There won’t be any impeachment inquiry or impeachment hearings unless the outcry from the public becomes too overwhelming to be denied…and while a possibility, it seems unlikely if that’s expected to happen before an impeachment inquiry begins. Nancy Pelosi believes impeachment would put the more moderate and conservative Dems who helped give Dems the majority in 2018, at greater risk of losing their re-elections in 2020 and could cause them to lose the majority in The House. So she has decided on this trade off as a better course. I disagree, I think Dems in The House need to recognize that by preferring political strategy over their Constitutional duty, they are injuring themselves with their own party and displaying a reputation of putting politics above duty. They are also de facto allowing Trump to continue committing crimes in office and helping to set the precedent of criminal presidents as a norm and that they are above the law. Dems have a 400 page Mueller report representing 2 years of investigating Trump, with a mountain of testimony, evidence and conclusions from top prosecutors that Trump committed crimes. What more evidence is needed? Trump has also been declared as an unindicted co-conspirator in the crimes associated with the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels (and the evidence was sufficient to convict Michael Cohen). The evidence of Trump’s criminality is already in the hands of The House, it is overwhelming and sufficient. You only need one proven crime to convict someone in court, why is Pelosi’s response to Trumpbeing proven to have committed at least 11 crimes (the 10 in the Mueller report and the one from the Stormy Daniels hush money) that “we need the strongest case”? What is the magic number that would finally trigger Pelosi to support impeachment (I don’t think there is one). In fact, The House doesn’t even need to prove a crime to successfully impeach a president, his conduct alone is sufficient cause and we already have Trump on that too. Since in reality, Dems are not lacking for evidence of Trump’s multiple crimes, it seems to me that the “we want the strongest case first” meme that Pelosi and her colleagues have been pushing is just a stall tactic to delay any attempt at impeachment until it’s too late to begin it. Remember, Pelosi has also said that she would not support impeachment as long as she doesn’t see a 2/3 vote in The Senate to remove Trump. And she has also claimed that unless public opinion on impeachment is strongly favoring it, she won’t support beginning it. So Pelosi has thrown multiple obstacles in the way of impeachment, one of them is a constant moving of goalposts (until they have built “the strongest case” which has no finish line) and the other 2 are insurmountable before an impeachment inquiry begins. It is that inquiry that can shift public opinion and create the needed concerns from Repubs in the Senate about their re-election if they protect Trump. It’s backwards, the support for impeaching Trump will come from the publicity of his crimes being exposed in an impeachment inquiry, it can’t happen before Trump’s criminality is publicized. To me, this seems like a policeman saying “I’ll only arrest a criminal if he commits over a dozen crimes and if I can get a judge to assure me beforehand that he’ll be convicted.” As Dem leadership allegedly waits to have a longer and longer list of crimes and evidence against Trump (with no commitment that any amount will be sufficient), Trump is laying waste to our society and democracy. In this way, Dems are enabling the destruction of our democracy because they are afraid they’ll lose the political power they currently have if they try to stop him. And all they have is hope that Dems win in 2020 and keep The House, gain The Senate and win the presidency. But what if Trump wins re-election in 2020? What if despite Pelosi’s political strategy on impeachment, Dems still lose The House in 2020 and no longer have the power to impeach Trump? This support for political strategy over protecting our democracy could instead lead to a nightmare scenario in 2020 that would cement Trumpism in the US and autocracy into the country. These are very high stakes and I think Dems are risking far too much on a political bet. So IMO, Dems need to use the power they have today to start an impeachment inquiry immediately and fight as hard as they can to protect our country and the people from the madman in the WH while they can. » Posted By AdLib On July 25, 2019 @ 11:05 am True, it’s now clear that Barr has no ethics or morality so he could just as easily try to meddle in this case and protect the other unknown pedophiles, probably including Trump and Dershowitz. But something tells me that when it comes to helping to protect pedophiles, the career people in the SDNY and DoJ will leak what they need to in order to make sure Barr and the pedophiles are nailed. » Posted By AdLib On July 23, 2019 @ 1:14 pm Trump is attracted to slime, whether traitors to the U.S., crooks or pedophiles. Judge a person by who they surround themselves with, it’s a reflection of who they are and that was never truer than with Trump. » Posted By AdLib On July 23, 2019 @ 1:10 pm What’s hard to accept, for me too, is that the GOP is now essentially a fascist organization. There is one Grand Dragon to whom all in the GOP bow and swear loyalty to. There is no conscience or principles influencing any decisions anymore in the GOP, it is a cult where all that matters is allegiance to Dear Leader and paying off the wealthy and religious extremists who will get the votes out for them to continue in power. It isn’t a party anymore, it is a personality cult that requires absolute fealty. » Posted By AdLib On July 23, 2019 @ 1:08 pm The Feds have more than enough physical evidence, data and victims testifying to bury Epstein, there is no need to grant immunity to anyone involved in this disgusting operation just to get testimony against Epstein. Everyone involved needs to be tried and imprisoned. » Posted By AdLib On July 18, 2019 @ 6:11 pm The fact that open and hateful racism is seen in 2019 as a viable campaign strategy for the GOP and Trump is simply disgusting. There literally is no bottom for Trump and the GOP, Trump could indeed shoot minorities on 5th Avenue and Repub pols would defend him as Repub voters cheered him. This is sick, we have a mentally ill sociopath and racist in power but what’s scarier are the 40% of Americans who love it. And the spineless Repub pols who have nothing or little to say about this madman tearing down our country while accusing those he spews his racism at of doing the very thing he is doing. It is hard for me to believe that women, African Americans, Latinos, LGBTQ and every other American that has been attacked by Trump or offended by his disgusting behavior, won’t be very energized to go out in Nov 2020 and make sure Trump is defeated and thrown out of power. As for the mass of racists supporting Trump and the GOP, instead of Biden and Pelosi and others in the Dem Establishment wanting Dems to try and woo over these racists to vote Dem, supporters of racists should be pragmatically viewed as adversaries, not potential allies and energies should be directed at growing turnout of people with consciences and who are under threat by Trump…who are also not racists. Which is a far bigger swath of voters than Trump voters who claim to be “swing voters”. » Posted By AdLib On July 16, 2019 @ 4:04 pm “Go Back to Where You Came From…” Well said, Mike. What gets me is that some in the press think they are being “fair” by presenting Trump’s and his cronies’ justifications for an obviously racist statement, as reasonable alternatives. I have no doubt that if that fabled Apprentice tape came out with Trump using the N-word, he and his toadies would be saying the same things excusing it and Trump as “not having a racist bone in his body”. The press is supposed to provide facts and truths to the public, not give propaganda from one side the same weight as truth from the other side. The obviously-phony facade that Trump and Repubs hid behind has been torn off now, there is no question anymore about Trump being a racist and Repubs enabling and supporting his (and their) racism. The 2020 elections have been described as a battle for the soul of the country by Biden. While he’s not my preference for the nom, that sensibility seems to be quite accurate. Those who believe in what America has stood for at its best had better work hard and be aggressive in GOTV in 2020 because four more years of Trump will drag America so deeply into the gutter of racism and moral decay, some damage may not be reversible. » Posted By AdLib On July 16, 2019 @ 3:51 pm The rule of law and justice in America has been undermined so terribly by the wealthy never seeming to pay for their crimes, whether defrauding the world and crashing the global economies or operating a child rape industry. I do think that Epstein being put in prison for life could help repair some of that damage and if Trump is defeated in 2020, pursuing Trump for his crimes would be a big affirmation for the rule of law in America. I don’t think Dems would support any attempt at imprisoning Trump but I would hope they would support his being sanctioned and losing most, if not all of his wealth if he’s found guilty of financial crimes. I can’t think of a more painful sentence for Trump to serve than to lose his criminal empire and have no one willing to lend him a penny. » Posted By AdLib On July 16, 2019 @ 4:40 pm They Say The Economy Is Booming, But For Who? History is very clear in proving that “trickle down” is a fraud, that tax cuts for the wealthy don’t end up increasing the incomes of the working class and that government revenue decreases sharply and deficits skyrocket when the wealthy pay a smaller percentage in taxes. As many Dems have mentioned, unemployment may be low now but how many people are working 2 jobs to get by? How many people are increasingly getting buried in debt? How many fewer people are able to afford college, houses and cars? The sad thing is, we’ve gone through a series of technology booms, where the wealthy have gotten so much wealthier but not 99% of Americans. And this has been the best of economic times, it can only go downhill from here. Meanwhile, the study came out that almost 40% of Americans couldn’t cover a $400 emergency. And half of older Americans have nothing in retirement savings. There is a social time bomb ticking and when the economy eventually goes into recession, as it must, that bomb could go off. The current system is not sustainable and either the US economy declines into a less literal form of mass servitude (imagine how poorly people will be paid in a recession when these low paying jobs are more scarce). And what will happen to that 50% of older Americans as they get too old or too ill to work? Not to mention, Trump, The Kochs and the rest of the GOP wants to slash Social Security, Medicare and every other safety net. It couldn’t be more urgent for Dems to take back control of government in 2020. Economic issues need to be addressed before they explode and in a divisive country that Trump has whipped up, desperation could lead to some really terrible scenarios. History is looking to us to rescue this country from the disaster Trump is steering it towards and we need to rise to that moment. » Posted By AdLib On July 16, 2019 @ 4:24 pm Is Appealing To The White Working Class Identity Politics? Once again, you are very confused, Jake. Kesmarn is a very experienced RN who lives in the US and not in Japan. Kalima lives in Japan. Both are extremely knowledgeable about the US, politics and many other topics and no one here questions their credibility because they don’t get easily confused, they don’t pretend to know what they don’t know, they don’t offer unsubstantiated or incorrect “facts” nor have I ever seen them fabricate claims about having relatives in every field of work or country as needed to try and argue why they would know better than people who have more insight and experience than they do on an issue. I believe in coincidence but if one person after another expresses that they find the same person lacking in credibility, that person may want to reflect on why that is and how that could be addressed. » Posted By AdLib On July 29, 2019 @ 7:39 pm Journalists have a variety of ways to determine when someone is being forthright. Here are a few of them: 1. Is a person consistent in their assertions or do they keep changing their stories? 2. Is a person directly responsive to questions or do they dissemble with false statements or by changing the focus of a line of inquiry? 3. Are a person’s statements repeatedly disputed by multiple sources and people? 4. Does a person make substantial assertions without providing backup from well-established, respected and legitimate sources? 5. Is a person’s response to having made inaccurate statements to concede a mistake or cover up, justify, change the subject of the conversation or make identical accusations towards those who identified their inaccuracies? It is also informative when multiple people who interact with the same individual come to the same conclusions that the person is often not forthright in his/her claims. We build our own reputations day by day, in the way we conduct ourselves. Being perceived as someone who is trustworthy or untrustworthy is the cumulative effect of one’s behavior. Such perceptions can’t be changed by one’s insistence that the perception of untrustworthiness is wrong but only by evidencing over a period of time that one’s conduct reflects trustworthiness. » Posted By AdLib On July 26, 2019 @ 12:53 pm Your comments often state falsehoods as facts, cherry pick only links that support those falsehoods and contradict themselves. In my experience, this is not how someone who wants to have an honest conversation operates. I am fine with Repubs freely and genuinely expressing their views and debating issues with them, it’s actually a good thing all the way around. But when someone isn’t forthright about who they are or their approach to conversations, it borders on trolling. » Posted By AdLib On July 25, 2019 @ 12:12 pm You offered a trivial unknown lobbying group as backup for your disproven statements. BTW, I found a financial report for them and in 2015 their gross income was $7,190 and in 2014 it was $8,827. Do you really think that’s a better funded, more substantial and reliable source than Forbes? Meanwhile, you again mix apples and oranges to deflect from how your claims were untrue. Your disproven claim about the majority of people being insured by non-profits is not proven correct by offering a completely different assertion that, “about 63% of U.S. health plans with over 100,000 enrollees are nonprofit.” That is a non-sequitur, even if that was true though I doubt it is, it doesn’t contradict Forbes’ list of for-profit insurers proving most Americans are in for-profit plans. You can keep hammering a square peg into a round hole but it will never fit. Truth is so much easier. » Posted By AdLib On July 24, 2019 @ 5:57 pm The advice folks usually give when someone’s dug a big hole for themselves is to stop digging. It really is good advice. You first claim about the present, “Also note that less than 10% of folk in the US are not covered by health insurance” then you provide a link to old data from 2017 which of course doesn’t reflect the big upswing in uninsured over the past two years of Trump. It’s like if I claimed that it’s a fact that Barack Obama is currently president and providing a link to an article from 2016 to prove it’s true. What you represented as true in 2019 is actually not true. I don’t know what one would hope to gain by constantly making untrue assertions but what readers usually learn from it is to be far more skeptical of any of their claims in the future. IOW, if one were to come to a conclusion after researching the facts instead of doing it backwards and adopting an opinion first than trying to justify it with faulty or outdated data, one might find themselves appearing more credible. » Posted By AdLib On July 24, 2019 @ 5:41 pm TOCB – Every time I check out a claim by Jake321 on what he says is a fact, it turns out to be false. Based on this, I don’t have confidence in any of his claims, including his claim about being a health insurance lobbyist. How could a lobbyist have made such a false claim that most health insurance is with non-profits when that is an outright falsehood? Here are the real facts, a list of the top health insurance companies in number of patients and revenue, from Forbes (a slightly more legit source than Jake): https://planetpov.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Americas-largest-health-insurers-in-2018.png https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/payer-issues/america-s-largest-health-insurers-in-2018.html It’s always the ones who go out of their way to claim how highly they value facts that turn out to be the most averse to them. » Posted By AdLib On July 23, 2019 @ 4:16 pmComments Posted By AdLib
Trump vs. Warren – Warren 48, Trump 43 – Warren +5
Trump vs. Sanders – Sanders 50, Trump 43 – Sanders +7
Trump vs. Harris – Harris 45, Trump 44 – Harris +1
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats
