What will happen from the impeachment?

[Jolly_Penguin]

Keep the messaging and focus on "Trump Bad" and nothing else, and YOU WILL LOSE. This is the same guy was talking about grabbing women by the pussy, said he could shoot somebody in Times Square in broad daylight, tried a Muslim ban, etc, and enough people didn't come out to vote against him to stop him from being elected, because Hillary has nothing further to offer. "America's already great" won't cut it. You need to learn from 2016. People on the left need something to vote FOR.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Keep the messaging and focus on "Trump Bad" and nothing else, and YOU WILL LOSE.

Can you please say this one or two hundred more times? The first 500 times haven't sunk in yet.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Keep the messaging and focus on "Trump Bad" and nothing else, and YOU WILL LOSE.

Can you please say this one or two hundred more times? The first 500 times haven't sunk in yet.

Amazing isn't it? How many times must it be said for it to actually sink in?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Keep the messaging and focus on "Trump Bad" and nothing else, and YOU WILL LOSE.

Can you please say this one or two hundred more times? The first 500 times haven't sunk in yet.

Amazing isn't it? How many times must it be said for it to actually sink in?

For what to sink in?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Amazing isn't it? How many times must it be said for it to actually sink in?

For what to sink in?

I think we are supposed to just talk about Trump to win in 2020.

 

[laughing dog]

Or more evidence - enough so that voting to acquit is more dangerous to their seats than voting to convict.

You don't understand. More evidence is not going to sway the voters they are afraid of.

A lot more evidence might sway away other voters, and they need both.

Not really. And if you are paying attention, a majority of non-Republican voters are swayed already.

 

[laughing dog]

Keep the messaging and focus on "Trump Bad" and nothing else, and YOU WILL LOSE. This is the same guy was talking about grabbing women by the pussy, said he could shoot somebody in Times Square in broad daylight, tried a Muslim ban, etc, and enough people didn't come out to vote against him to stop him from being elected, because Hillary has nothing further to offer. "America's already great" won't cut it. You need to learn from 2016. People on the left need something to vote FOR.

If you are thinking that the reason last time that Trump won was that there were sufficient number of "leftists" who either did voted for Trump or did not vote HRC, then you understand even less about the USA than I thought.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Not really. And if you are paying attention, a majority of non-Republican voters are swayed already.

I mean Republican voters. There is a significant portion of Republican voters who would be swayed by a sufficient amount of evidence - not necessarily of evidence of what's being accused so far, but of other things.
As an example, if there were conclusive evidence including testimony and video recordings of Trump asking that evidence against Biden be planted, that would sway a lot of Republican voters.
In fact, if you take a look at the polls, there are some Republicans who think he should be impeached (and likely, removed, otherwise why should he be impeached). Republicans are not a monolithic block. There are different voters with different thresholds of tolerance for Trump's actions. Right now, demanding that Biden be investigated is justified in the eyes of some (or many) because they think there is a public interest in investigating corruption, but they would not accept planting evidence.

That said, the amount of evidence against Trump that would be required to persuade enough Republican senators is a lot more than what has been shown so far (again, I'm talking about evidence against him, not against him on this particular matter; more evidence that he demanded that Biden be investigated will not work). I think it's very unlikely that anything like that would happen. Whether he stays in power will depend on the next elections.

 

[barbos]

Please add "President Pelosi" option to the poll

 

[laughing dog]

Not really. And if you are paying attention, a majority of non-Republican voters are swayed already.

I mean Republican voters. There is a significant portion of Republican voters who would be swayed by a sufficient amount of evidence - not necessarily of evidence of what's being accused so far, but of other things.

On what evidence do you base the idea there are sufficient numbers of GOP voters who need more evidence?

If voters were really interested in rooting out corruption, Trump would have been impeached much early.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Not really. And if you are paying attention, a majority of non-Republican voters are swayed already.

I mean Republican voters. There is a significant portion of Republican voters who would be swayed by a sufficient amount of evidence - not necessarily of evidence of what's being accused so far, but of other things.

On what evidence do you base the idea there are sufficient numbers of GOP voters who need more evidence?

If voters were really interested in rooting out corruption, Trump would have been impeached much early.

First, Republican voters are human, so one should expect human behavior from them. That includes in general a bias towards their side (if they are always-Republican when they choose to vote), but not an invincible bias. They would need more evidence than what would be rationally required - how much more depends on the person.

Second, polls indicate that degree of support for the impeachment process changes over time, over all groups that are polled. Part of the changes very likely result from the evidence that is presented, including both the facts on the ground and the legal arguments based on them.

Third, Republican voters are not only people who always vote Republican if and when they vote. Rather - and this is apparent by looking at election results - there are plenty of people who change their votes from Democrat to Republican and from Republican to Democrat. These people would likely be classified as "independent", but plenty of them surely are also Republican voters (i.e., they voted Republican in the previous election). Now, you might consider that they are not in that case Republican voters by definition. But if so, then that's a matter of terminology and how one defines "Republican voters", but as long as they voted Republican in the previous election (for the Senate seat under consideration) and they might change their vote, they matter to Republican senators.

 

[laughing dog]

On what evidence do you base the idea there are sufficient numbers of GOP voters who need more evidence?

If voters were really interested in rooting out corruption, Trump would have been impeached much early.

First, Republican voters are human, so one should expect human behavior from them. That includes in general a bias towards their side (if they are always-Republican when they choose to vote), but not an invincible bias. They would need more evidence than what would be rationally required - how much more depends on the person.

Second, polls indicate that degree of support for the impeachment process changes over time, over all groups that are polled. Part of the changes very likely result from the evidence that is presented, including both the facts on the ground and the legal arguments based on them.

In other words, you have no real evidence. As far as the over time argument goes, as far as you know, it could simply be a matter of repetition.

Third, Republican voters are not only people who always vote Republican if and when they vote. Rather - and this is apparent by looking at election results - there are plenty of people who change their votes from Democrat to Republican and from Republican to Democrat. These people would likely be classified as "independent", but plenty of them surely are also Republican voters (i.e., they voted Republican in the previous election). Now, you might consider that they are not in that case Republican voters by definition. But if so, then that's a matter of terminology and how one defines "Republican voters", but as long as they voted Republican in the previous election (for the Senate seat under consideration) and they might change their vote, they matter to Republican senators.

The polls already indicate that independent voters are in favor of impeachment, yet that does not seem to move many Republican senators (at least in public).

Besides, the Republicans fear Trump's base because they have to get through a GOP primary. And primaries tend to have low overall turnouts but high fanatic turnout.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

In other words, you have no real evidence.

That is false, as already explained.

The polls already indicate that independent voters are in favor of impeachment, yet that does not seem to move many Republican senators (at least in public).

Actually, some polls indicate that more independents are in favor of impeachment than against it, whereas others indicate that there are more independent voters against impeachment than for it. In both cases, a signficant number remain undecided. Polls clearly show that numbers are not fixed. Source: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

Recent polls seem to show opposition to impeachment is slightly stronger than support for it among independents. For example:


https://www.vanityfair.com/news/201...ts-impeachment-push-could-alienate-key-voters
https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...-opposition-to-impeachment-among-independents

Besides, the Republicans fear Trump's base because they have to get through a GOP primary. And primaries tend to have low overall turnouts but high fanatic turnout.

True, and another reason why it's extremely difficult that Republican senators will change their minds. Again, a lot more evidence against Trump would be needed (not just evidence that he asked for an investigation on Biden in exchange for aid, but rather, things like planting evidence and the like).
Of course, if a senator will lose anyway if he votes against, he might just vote for it if he agrees (or just hates Trump), but far more evidence would be required, at least for nearly all Republican senators. A few are probably already convinced to vote against him, but very few.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That is false, as already explained.

Actually, some polls indicate that more independents are in favor of impeachment than against it, whereas others indicate that there are more independent voters against impeachment than for it. In both cases, a signficant number remain undecided. Polls clearly show that numbers are not fixed. Source: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

Recent polls seem to show opposition to impeachment is slightly stronger than support for it among independents. For example:


https://www.vanityfair.com/news/201...ts-impeachment-push-could-alienate-key-voters
https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...-opposition-to-impeachment-among-independents

Emerson's poll is out of whack. I saw another one that had Inds supporting impeachment 2 to 1, which itself was out of whack with what the polls are generally showing, a plurality of independents supporting impeachment.

True, and another reason why it's extremely difficult that Republican senators will change their minds.

Fear that removing Trump from office will cause Trump to retaliate and tell his supporters to boycott the election? There is already enough evidence of obstruction of justice (Mueller Report) and abuse of power (transcript) to remove this ass from office.

 

[laughing dog]

That is false, as already explained.

Actually, some polls indicate that more independents are in favor of impeachment than against it, whereas others indicate that there are more independent voters against impeachment than for it. In both cases, a signficant number remain undecided. Polls clearly show that numbers are not fixed. Source: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

Recent polls seem to show opposition to impeachment is slightly stronger than support for it among independents. For example:


https://www.vanityfair.com/news/201...ts-impeachment-push-could-alienate-key-voters
https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...-opposition-to-impeachment-among-independents

Besides, the Republicans fear Trump's base because they have to get through a GOP primary. And primaries tend to have low overall turnouts but high fanatic turnout.

True, and another reason why it's extremely difficult that Republican senators will change their minds. Again, a lot more evidence against Trump would be needed (not just evidence that he asked for an investigation on Biden in exchange for aid, but rather, things like planting evidence and the like).
Of course, if a senator will lose anyway if he votes against, he might just vote for it if he agrees (or just hates Trump), but far more evidence would be required, at least for nearly all Republican senators. A few are probably already convinced to vote against him, but very few.

You are free to promote your conjectures as conjectures, but there is no evidence that more evidence against Trump will do anything to change the minds of senators or a significant number of voters.

Republican senators who are afraid of Trump are afraid of his base defeating them in their primary.

It is very possible that the Dems strategy here is use the Republican votes against impeachment against those representatives and senators in the general election in the hopes of making significant gains in the House and Senate.

 

[Elixir]

When you say "far stronger", WTF are you talking about??? What would it take?

At this point, he does not appear to be at risk of removal. But of course, there are some things for which he would be removed (e.g., if he shot someone in the head on TV)

Uh... what evidence do you have that Trump's sycophants in Congress would flip and rat him out if he shot someone on TV? I get the feeling that most of his base would love it, and call it self defense because the villain he shot was a never trumper. It would help turnout in 2020.
I remind you that yesterday a Judge reaffirmed a basic Constitutional premise, ruling that a President is not a king.
Today, Trump is appealing that ruling!

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Uh... what evidence do you have that Trump's sycophants in Congress would flip and rat him out if he shot someone on TV?

If you're joking, fair enough. But seriously, if you actually believe he would not be removed for that, you are massively mistaken about the psychology of your opponents. This is of course an extremely common trait among people committed to an ideology and/or political cause, but there is not much I can do to help, just as laughing dog fails to see the evidence provided by the fact that Republican voters are human. Dehumanizing your opponents is not a good idea.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You are free to promote your conjectures as conjectures, but there is no evidence that more evidence against Trump will do anything to change the minds of senators or a significant number of voters.

I already provided conclusive evidence. Your dehumanization of your opponents is just a bad idea. They are human.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Emerson's poll is out of whack. I saw another one that had Inds supporting impeachment 2 to 1, which itself was out of whack with what the polls are generally showing, a plurality of independents supporting impeachment.

Emerson's poll may be out of whack in the numbers, but not in the trend. Also, the most recent YouGov poll shows a plurality against removal (which is what actually matters), even if also a plurality is in favor of impeachment. Regardless, any plurality here (one way or another) is a slim one, so let's say that a plurality support removal, the points I was making remain. It doesn't really make a significant difference in that context whether it's 40-35 for removal and the rest undecided, or 35-40 and the rest undecided (or similar numbers).

Fear that removing Trump from office will cause Trump to retaliate and tell his supporters to boycott the election? There is already enough evidence of obstruction of justice (Mueller Report) and abuse of power (transcript) to remove this ass from office.

No, more like fear that regardless of what Trump does, if he is removed a pro-Trump candidate accusing them of backstabbing would beat them in the primaries.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Some of them are not even bothering with legal arguments.
Look at the hypocrite coward Lindsay Graham whose argument now is that Trump is too incompetent to manage a quid pro quo.

But I do not think the "until" will ever happen. They will only vote if the risk is no greater than if they vote to acquit, and for that, much more evidence is needed.

They don't need more evidence - they need more backbone.

Or more evidence - enough so that voting to acquit is more dangerous to their seats than voting to convict.

All the evidence is simply fabricated by the Deep State, thus it doesn't matter. Thou shalt not attack God's agent here on Earth! (Never mind that he smells of sulfur.)