A slim majority of Americans, 51%, believe Trump’s actions were both wrong and he should be impeached and removed from office. But only 21% of Americans say they are following the hearings very closely.IN THE COMMENTS: Quayle asks the skeptical question "What was the survey question? Was it '....investigate a political rival...'? Or was it '...investigate potential or alleged illegal corruption....'?"
You can see how the question was asked, here. It's like the way I write polls for this blog. There's a set up question that's neutral: "When it comes to the recent impeachment hearings, which one of the following statements comes closest to your point of view?" Then the answers give an array of options:
President Trump’s actions were wrong and he should be impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate 51Now, was "wrong" the right word to use? You could have just asked if the President's actions were "impeachable," but I think separating the judgment about wrongness from the question of what Congress ought to do about it is good. There's no ability to say anything about the degree of wrongness other than through your opinion about what ought to be done.
President Trump’s actions were wrong and he should be impeached by the House but NOT removed from office by the Senate 6
President Trump’s actions were wrong, but he should NOT be impeached by the House or removed from office by the Senate 13
President Trump’s actions were NOT wrong 25
পোস্টগুলি
১৩৩টি মন্তব্য:
Investigating the swamp coup necessarily involves political opponents.
Outlaw that and then it's free if done overseas.
The media only presents testimony that sounds bad. Refuses to publish testimony that proves State Dept employees found nothing amiss with the July 25th call. That's why the procedure matters.
Democrats are not seeking facts. They are seeking a narrative.
State Dept employees saw nothing amiss with the July 25th call
When the poll question starts out with a strawman statement, it seems clearly to steer the responder to the correct response. Trump did not ask that Biden be investigated, hence the strawman nature of the question.
Democrats are not acting like those are the real numbers and as John Podesta’s leaked email showed, they have six ways from Sunday to cook a poll. One of the ways seen recently is to oversample college indoctrinated.
What was the survey question?
Was it “....investigate a political rival...”?
Or was it “...investigate potential or alleged illegal corruption....”?
The record of the call was classified by WH lawyer because nothing wrong with it. The call that is just one piece of the evidence against POTUS.
But only 21% of Americans say they are following the hearings very closely.
ABC's poll link says:
"Most Americans are following impeachment proceedings closely; about half feel the President should be removed from office"
Always Be Crappy.
The deal is that it's overseas so falls within the realm of the CIA, that uses the manufactured evidence to start domestic legal proceedings, hence the coup.
Investigate the overseas start and find the culprits. Surprise, they're political opponents.
The Democrats have complete air superiority regarding the press. Even Fox uses DNC approved phrases. Trump supporters are waging asymmetrical warfare via the web and talk radio. Polls are merely a reflection of the messages that get through.
Quid pro quo - it defines our lives. Do this for me, and I'll do this for you. Sell me that pair of shoes you have in the window, and I'll pay you the retail price. What's the big deal?
We are so stupid
Final days of Rome
So the Enemymedia runs headlines about Fake Polls they ordered up after the story had already been written.
You classify phone calls so that what's said can be said in confidence, does not have to be spun to political correctness. You don't have to clean it up for women.
I'd suspect that Trump checked with the Ukraine president that it's okay to release it, furthermore. So as not to ruin the assumption of confidence that the president has to maintain if he's going to talk to anybody.
If you click through to the poll itself, they only polled 506 people, and they don't reveal any of the demographic details of those polled, including partisan leanings. They just claim to have weighted the results based on census data, but we get to trust them on that. And no leftist news org has ever pushed skewed poll results to try to lend support for their personal political side........
I trust polls that are open and honest about their data and questions. With obfuscation and a small data sample, this poll proves absolutely nothing.
readering, Does your response feel intellectually satisfying to you?
506 people is plenty but there's selection bias, so they don't represent all people very well.
The polls are based not only on what question was asked, but how it was asked. For instance, if they had asked, "Do you think it's right for the President to request a foreign leader investigate possible interference in an American election by Americans working with foreign nationals?"
I think that would have an interesting poll number.
ABC has knowingly pushed a wrong question. There is no direct evidence of this claim. This is not a poll. This is another push. And this is very much a part of a coup going on in real time, with the media being a key part of it.
Might as well ask John Brennan to conduct this poll.
Trump is a lot of things, but he cannot be impeached for removing a US Ambassador. I don't care how sympathetic a witness she was. Even she had to admit that she heard nothing. Saw nothing. Just was miffed that she lost her job to a new boss. A job she clearly thought was a job for life and it was hers to keep as long as she wanted. Nice work if you can get it.
Since Vindman was apparently a loud mouthed loose cannon, per Taylor’s testimony, keeping him from leaking it without a chance to talk to Zelensky seems prudent to me. Especially given the way people leaked the transcript of a Trump call with Mexico’s leader.
But I guess I am wrong, and it only shows he is guilty.
"[If you'll wait until] after my election, I'll have more flexibility"
"and then we'll do some real quid-pro-quoing, if ya know what I mean, nudge, nudge, wink, wink"
This poll was sponsored by petitio principii.
Ha ha ha! Zelensky mentioned Burisma first.
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1195809590262272001
my bleeding heart mother ONLY gets what little information she gets, from TWO sources
NPR and PBS
anyone want to hazard a guess about how SHE thinks about this topic?
O
Sounds like the corporate media's dishonest messaging is winning. I hope the "progressives" are happy.
May I have a show of hands for people who believe anything from ABC News.
Craig: Sounds like the corporate media's dishonest messaging is winning. I hope the "progressives" are happy.
Hard to feel much sympathy for a population apparently so susceptible to truly moron-grade propaganda. Only problem is, I live here too.
A few things seem pretty straightforward.
1. Trump has no genuine interest in fighting corruption.
2. Trump's interest in Biden and the 'server' was politically motivated.
3. Trump put a hold on military aid that was only lifted after his administration got news of the whistle-blower's report.
4. Trump's people knew that this was going to be a problem.
Reasonable people can disagree on whether this is impeachable. It certainly deserves censure.
scroll down to the stats of the poll.
"A survey of the American general population (ages 18+)
Interview Dates: Nov 16-17, 2019
Number of interview, adults: 506"
506 people tell us what 400 million feel about Trump?
I'm certain democrats want to remove Trump form office, and most want it by any means.
If our government were interested in fighting corruption - Biden and Clinton family graft would be put under a real microscope.
70% of Americans want.... Great headline from George Clintonopolis' employer.
And it was Vindman who was holding up Zelensky’s visit, not Trump as some kind of extortion for a payoff.
https://twitter.com/JarradKushner/status/1196339225899098112
The record of the call was classified by WH lawyer because nothing wrong with it. The call that is just one piece of the evidence against POTUS.
Tim Morris testimony was finally released more than 2 weeks after it was taken. Any care to explain why secret testimony is not being released?
Tim Morris explained the call was perfect. His only concern was the possibility the call would be leaked...for political reasons. He wanted the call restricted to credentials of specific groups. The White House missunderstood the request and locked it up tight.
Tim Morris testimony, reveals he was warned about Vindman being untrustworthy. Fiona Hill was the source of that information. Morris is the final person that approves the official call memorandum. Morris explained the all edits requested by Vindman were approved. ALL edits requested by Vindman were approved.
What those set of facts expose? Vindman attempted to go back to the call and edit the call after the final approval, but his credentials were denies. BUT, ALL of Vindman's edits were approved. Why did he attempt to get back into the document?
This is all public source information. Some are so incurious, they refuse to read available information. Fearing more information will ruin their conclusions, as delivered by their intellectual superiors in the media.
Oooh... what will they think when they find out their government investigated Trump.
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
A few things seem pretty straightforward.
1. ARM has no genuine interest in presenting facts, instead relyng on fantasies
2. ARM's interest in Biden and the 'server' was politically motivated.
3. O'Bama's REFUSAL of military aid was only lifted after his party got voted out of office
4. ARM's people knew that this was going to be a problem.
fify!
Spike the Epstein story. Go with the bogus allegations against Kavanaugh.
That's ABC!
Always Buy Clinton.
70% of Americans want.... Great headline from George Clintonopolis' employer.
More than 70% of Americans wanted to know about Epstein.
ABC couldn’t care less.
I suppose this is supposed to give cover to those Republican Senators who would like to remove him from office. "Overwhelming public support for removal", etc.
Bribing politicians and public officials is illegal. Giving campaign contributions is legal but it has limits. Since the investment with the biggest rate of return is to buy politicians and other high-ranking government officials, there must be another way to go. Fortunately, there is. All you have to do is give big bucks jobs to the family members of the powerful. It could be a spouse, as in the case of Michelle Obama's $300K a year gig for the University of Chicago (which was not filled when they left for DC) or Biden's son getting over $50K a month gig for an energy company (with no background or knowledge of the industry) in a country where he can't even speak the language. Being related to the powerful can be very lucrative.
There are other ways for the powerful to prosper due to their positions. One way is to sell property or investments at wildly inflated prices. Harry Reid was a pro at this trick. Another is to indulge in insider trading based on knowledge they learn from their jobs in Congress (illegal for us, legal for them).
This whole Ukraine brouhaha is exposing the game. That's why Trump must be destroyed. This threatens the whole gravy train for the political class.
The call that is just one piece of the evidence against POTUS.
Any minute readering is going to list all the other "pieces of evidence."
Number #1 on that list is beating Hillary.
Skylark 7:15
Wow.
More news we won't find at The Clinton-Biden Ass-covering networks.
1. Trump has no genuine interest in fighting corruption.
Not impeachable. Also assumes facts not in evidence
2. Trump's interest in Biden and the 'server' was politically motivated.
Comey, DoJ, CIA, spent more that 3 years invesestigating the 2016 election. Surely POTUS has Article II powers to do the same.
3. Trump put a hold on military aid that was only lifted after his administration got news of the whistle-blower's report.
POTUS, in word and deed executed his Article II powers to use a treaty with the Ukraine to investigate corruption
4. Trump's people knew that this was going to be a problem.
"Some" White House personnel saw something that might be fodder for a political food fight.
21% are following closely, and 100% have a fully formed opinion.
"Trump has no genuine interest in fighting corruption."
I am constantly assured that the 3 million plus that went to Hunter Biden’s little firm from a company that was founded on corrupt self dealing in Ukraine’s corrupt government does not represent corruption.
"Trump's interest in Biden and the 'server' was politically motivated.”
Trump was the subject of political prosecution by Democrats and has zero rights to a defense. Or is only allowed a defense that has been approved by the Democrats.
Even Yovanovitch admitted that Ukraine had interfered in US elections, but in her opinion, that interference was not important and she told prosecutors not to prosecute the leaker, but that’s just because everything and anything that could be done to prevent Russian graft magnet Hillary from losing was justified.
Oh, just go ahead and tell me what to believe.
It's illegal to say the words "Biden" and "Clinton" when talking to the Ukraines.
So, we need to impeach the president for doing exactly what Hillary and the DNC did... digging up dirt on a political rival, i.e., Trump?
Remember the Russia collusion hoax and the Steele dossier?
It's legal for Democrats, but impeachable for Republicans?
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
A few things seem pretty straightforward.
No they don't, and you know it. What purpose do your lies serve? Do they help you get off when you wank?
This is standard procedure in 'consensus-seeking' technique: Make the opposition feel like outliers. We were told from day one that nobody, but nobody, supports Trump. Or, if Trump has any support at all, it's from uneducated, racist knuckle-draggers. We wouldn't want to be associated with them, would we? Nice try, ABC.
Trump is only allowed to defend himself in ways that Democrats approve!
If a line of questioning is irrelevant to the goal of convicting Trump, Schiff will disallow it, because to exonerate Trump is to sabotage the hearings.
Censure is a good option because it avoids the fair trial the Senate will allow while smearing Trump without allowing him a real chance to respond in terms of evidence.
Remember, this is about "abuse of power.” That’s why Democrats are out in swing districts focus grouping the most effective way to frame their little impeachment show.
Meanwhile Elizabeth Warren is going after the #BanCars vote, but don’t worry, she is a sweet little old lady!
After the 2016 election results, one would think that the major medis and Leftwing allies would be cautious in trying to interpret the significance of "soft" polling data.
One would be wrong though......
The Ukraine impeachment farce follows the Russian collusion hoax. At some point, reasonable minds call out the bullshit.
Big show of strength by Trump in LA governor race on Saturday.
"Big show of strength by Trump in LA governor race on Saturday.”
How did the rest of the Democrats do?
Ann Coulter said these NEW RULES mean El Chapo should have announced he was running for president then he'd have been immune from investigation.
BTW, bbkingfish, I know the answer, “wipeout."
Why is looking into corruption wrong??
wendybar honey, It’s not corruption when the Obama Administration does it... No matter how much money changes hands.
When did you decide that (PIPE IN ANSWER FROM Q2):
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2019-11/topline-abc-ipsos-impeachment-hearings-11182019.pdf
After the hearings in the House this past week: 21
After the news about Trump and Ukraine was first reported in September, but before the hearings this past week: 27
When the news about Trump and Ukraine was first reported in September: 19
Before that 32
So...
27% made up their minds before the hearing
19% made up their minds immediately upon hearing the news, and
drum roll, please!
32% made up their minds before the Ukraine "scandal" even came out!
One only has to view the recent spate of political cartoons, which voters can read quickly, to understand this new polling number.It seems folks have tweeter fatigue and are ready to tune them out.
"overwhelming"
506 people were interviewed.
democrat hack media word. "Overwhelming!"
We have a treaty with Ukraine to share information about corruption. Ignore for a moment the lack of evidence of him doing the thing they're building a narrative around, the thing they want to impeach him for is more of an obligation...
After the 2016 election results, one would think that the major medis and Leftwing allies would be cautious in trying to interpret the significance of "soft" polling data.
Some of this may be related to the collapse of the economic model of newspapers. Craig's List took their classified ads. What do they have ? A dedicated small group of zealots who need constant dopamine surges. "We have always been at war with Eastasia." Ditto for online "social media" which needs clicks to sell stuff. How do you get someone to click on an ad ? CNN has had a dearth of missing airplanes for a while so they do what they can to get attention.
To a significant degree, the Trump presidency was a creation of the media. He was good material and they thought he had no chance, so they pushed the coverage as harmless fun. When he actually won, they were outraged. Some of it is leftist politics as the Leisure Class self image is leftist. Not in real life, of course. Those people have doormen and armed guards to keep the trash away. It is another dopamine rush to advocate policies that don't affect your own life but make you feel virtuous.
I'd guess that 70-90% of loyal democratics would find Trump guilty of a crime...
Crime = fill in the blank.
Reasonable people can disagree on whether this is impeachable. It certainly deserves censure.
So this is the progressive's new fallback position now the Schiff show is bombing.
RETREAT!!
Notice the question doesn't prompt "Hunter Biden" as the subject of investigation, but instead of some hypothetical "politcal rival".
Fundamentally, the question's hypothetical phrasing essentially conflates the distinction between probably cause to investigate and malicious prosecution.
Think that might influence the results?
"Political rival"?
Who is Trump now, Rocky Raccoon?
Gideon checked out, and he left it, no doubt, to help with good Rocky's revival
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
A few things seem pretty straightforward.
1. Trump has no genuine interest in fighting corruption.
[snip]
I cut there because it's far enough. Since I can never figure out if you're sincere or not, I'll give you credit for sincerity here.
"Seems pretty straightforward" is the introduction to a list of undisputed facts. Trump's genuine interests are known only to Trump. They are not "facts" that can frame a discussion.
You are welcome to argue that Trump has no genuine interest in [whatever], but you cannot argue that what is in Trump's heart is "pretty straightforward."
Your posting style undermines your arguments.
Have to hand it to the narrative creators, I'm almost convinced they might be able to pull this one off and convince a group of Congress critters to believe the shit they're shoveling...
The big evidence to the contrary: financial markets get very jittery over uncertainty but there's little reaction. They don't seem to be reflecting the probability of a successful coup.
Skylark said...
wendybar honey, It’s not corruption when the Obama Administration does it... No matter how much money changes hands.
11/18/19, 7:59 AM
It seems corruption runs deeply in the both parties, (hence...Nevertrumpers) and they are pissed that a non politician comes in and blows their schemes RIGHT out of the water. They need to impeach him so they can continue to get rich off stupid Americans(Jonathan Gruber) who think the Politicians work for them.
Of course there's a poll to explain everything, even after November 2016 did so much for the polling industry's cred.
Horowitz must really, really be getting close to issuing his findings....
When I see these polls I think of those bits comedians like Jay Leno do where they ask people in the street basic civics questions. I'm not sure they could sample a group where 70% of people even know who the current President is...
tim maguire said...
I cut there because it's far enough. Since I can never figure out if you're sincere or not, I'll give you credit for sincerity here.
Spoiler alert: ARM is the lying Wormtongue epitome of insincerity. He is relentless. He is a Terminator of duplicity-he WILL NOT STOP until you are deceived.
I was genuinely angered after Trump was sworn in, that he and his feckless DOJ under Jeff Sessions, did nothing to root out the corrupt deep state. The snakes were not removed.
I was also irritated that nothing ever became of a Secretary of State who set up and used a Private Server to run offical state business in secret - was never brought to justice.
Had any R set up and used a Private Server in the same exact scenario - jail time would be a given.
Thats why sallie yates set the tripwire with the info they gathered from james baker leaked to ignatius,
Tim maguire said...
Trump's genuine interests are known only to Trump.
But they can, as any behavioral psychologist will tell you, be reasonably inferred from his behavior.
Then they had their man rosenstein apppointed to hire mueller,
be reasonably inferred from his behavior.
Inferences are not evidence. They're guesses. Wishes, in the case of Trump.
The key is only 21% are following it. The respondents know nothing and aren't interested. Fine. Dump Trump. Now, go away.
Yates circulated the logan act narrative to take out general flynn.
"But they can, as any behavioral psychologist will tell you, be reasonably inferred from his behavior. “
LOL. Not by people like yourself or the Democrats on the committee who have been his political enemies for three years. The only way to “reasonably infer” his motives would be to look at all of the information, which Schiff is preventing at all costs.
The problem with the opinion polls is one can skew the answer simply by oversampling D's or R's. You can also skew it by asking "likely voters" vs. "the General public".
The USA doesn't represent a homogeneous universe for sampling purposes and your subsets have to match the USA sample universe exactly or you get a bad poll. Plus, as stated above, people are stupid and don't know anything about the subject at hand.
"It seems corruption runs deeply in the both parties,”
Yes, but it only counts one way. Graft going to Democrats is just “greasing the wheels of justice"
R/V get’s his analysis from cartoons. That explains a lot.
President Trump’s actions were wrong
In order to answer the question I need actions defined. Usually the media uses a weasel words catch-all like 'Ukraine scandal' to which you're supposed to ascribe nefariousness. But which actions exactly?
as any behavioral psychologist will tell you
Experts say...
A big danger is large numbers get their news from the headlines, snippets on TV, and network news casts. Even worse, you have to WORK to get the truth, otherwise, all you is the MSM-DNC propaganda line. How many dumb independents think Trump did something very, very bad in the Ukraine based on what they've skimmed and half-read? How many were surprised when Mueller didn't hang Trump over Russian Collusion?
I bet the MSM-DNC lies are costing Trump at least 5-10 approval points.
This poll is probably similar to the 97% of scientists on AGW.
Polls on voting are often wrong, but they're usually much more accurate than opinion polls. Reason? You asking people a simple Yes or No question about what they will do. Asking someone's opinion on matter X, is a crapshoot. How much do they know or care about the matter at hand? How did you phrase the question, etc.
Also, we have massive historical records on who votes R or D. Makes it easy to identify who is R or D for sampling. With opinions, not. Easy to manipulate. What if I make sure my sample is the right percentage in terms of race/gender, but i get all my "White" respondents from a Jewish Neighborhoods, and all my "Hispanics" from a Cuban ones? Result a wacky poll.
LOL - ABC Poll? Ha, ha, ha
In order to reasonably infer Trump’s state of mind, you need to look at the FACT that Ukraine leaked dirt to the DNC that they saved for political effect and published in the New York Times in August of 2016. You have to look at reporting from Politico, The Hill, and The Nation, of all places about Ukrainian interference.
You are Donald Trump and you read these press reports about Ukraine funny business in 2016, it’s reasonable to wonder if you should be sending these people money.
I wonder how the poll would go if it were asked: Given that Ukraine interfered in 2016, and given that Trump is not the one who brought up Biden’s corruption in the call, rather Zelensky did, which is also true, should he be impeached and removed for it?
This poll is just instrumentation fo the narrative pushers in the DNC MSM machine. Remember how that writer got fired from the WaPo for being discovered giving a talk about using polls to push the Democrat agenda? Good times, she wouldn’t be fired today for that. She is probably working someplace else in the media.
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
Tim maguire said...
Trump's genuine interests are known only to Trump.
But they can, as any behavioral psychologist will tell you, be reasonably inferred from his behavior.
"reasonably inferred"?! The phrase was "pretty straightforward."
Thank you for resolving my wonderment about whether you are posting in good faith. I will wonder no more.
If he has never shown any interest in rooting out corruption in foreign countries previously, and was in fact unusually comfortable with some particularly rotten ones, then it is pretty straightforward to infer that he has little interest in the topic. You would have to be dumber than a rock to think otherwise.
When I got a graduate degree in health policy, after I retired from practice, I took a course in opinion polling.
One big issue is how the questions are constructed. This poll is a good example of how to get a specific answer you want,
Especially with lower income or status pollees, you will get the answer to polled person thinks you want. To get an honest answer, you ask either a neutral question or ask the question twice with bias each way,.
I doubt most of those polled know who Hunter Biden is. An alternate attempt at getting a valid result would be to ask about "the son of a political rival" since it was not Joe Biden on the board of Burisma. It's an obvious push poll.
You would have to be dumber than a rock to think otherwise.
Very persuasive, ARM. I sometimes wonder if you are a bot,
0% can explain what was wrong about it.
We're scheduled to have a vote on whether Trump should be president less than twelve months from now.
This is just a innovative if sinister form of campaigning by the Democrat/media party.
By the way, I'm still waiting to hear why Biden's kid got millions from Ukraine and China despite having no visible value-add apart from the pipeline to influence U.S. policy through his dad. Which would actually seem to be kind of a big deal. More important than whether some career bureaucrat at State had her feelings hurt by mean old Trump.
Never trust public polls in America. (Only trust secret polls that campaigns and groups use to drive their behavior. Sometimes you can infer what the poll suggests from behavior.) There are too many ways and motives for juicing them.
The Ukraine and the United States have a diplomatic relationship. It was signed in the 1990s under President Bill Clinton. Trump knew of the Biden’s wrongdoings. He had an obligation to bring it to Zelensky’s attention. If he didn’t, he’d be in violation of the bilateral agreement.
And Trump, having sworn to uphold the Constitution and it's laws, is quite within his authority to tell other countries of possible wrongdoing so the other counties can undertake investigations and if wrong doing is found, arrest the violators and try them in their courts.
It does not matter if the ones under suspicion are running for president. To allow those running for office to have a free pass to wrong doing would just open the doors to more corruption.
Trump has done NOTHING WRONG.
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...If he has never shown any interest in rooting out corruption in foreign countries previously, and was in fact unusually comfortable with some particularly rotten ones, then it is pretty straightforward to infer that he has little interest in the topic.
Well, at least I got you back on topic. Nice try, though.
You can infer that someone is not interested in something he has shown no interest in. "Straightforward" depends on the larger context, but ok.
Your argument still has a big inconsistency right smack in the center of it--you claim that Trump has no interest because he has shown no interest. You then claim that the interest he is showing is disingenuous because he has no interest.
Perhaps there is someone else here who is smarter than a rock who can explain to you why that doesn't add up.
"When it comes to the recent impeachment hearings, which one of the following statements comes closest to your point of view?"
The high numbers of people saying "wrong" compared to the low numbers of people say they are following it is I think due to the use of "impeachment" which implies some kind of wrong doing.
Try on these others for size. By using a word for a process that assumes some kind of wrong doing by somebody, they are going to get a lot of uniformed people to agree that some kind of wrong action happened somewhere:
"When it comes to the recent indictment, which one of the following statements comes closest to your point of view?"
"When it comes to the recent wrongful death lawsuit, which one of the following statements comes closest to your point of view?"
"When it comes to the recent criminal trial, which one of the following statements comes closest to your point of view?"
"You would have to be dumber than a rock to think otherwise.”
You are the one with the avatar of a head carved out of rock. You would actually have to be dumber than a rock to think that Ukraine didn’t interfere in the election on behalf of Hillary. You would have to be dumber than a rock to think that if the facts of Ukrainian election interference were as widely presented in the DNC/MSM as the DNC talking points, that this whole thing would blow up in Schiff's face quicker than a teenage blowjob.
then it is pretty straightforward to infer that he has little interest in the topic.
Someone else brought it up during a diplomatic phone call, where the proper tone was congeniality. Also, we have a treaty to cooperate on the thing what was brought up.
...and oh, it's illegal because following future partisan actors will determine that thing you talked about is illegal and really really illegal because you can never do that thing if someone who definitely, definitely isn't involved has declared their candidacy for President.
I don't think the ABS Poll question is as neutral as Prof. Althouse implies. Polling, or use of surveys in general, is an art, widely used in social science and subject to methodological criticism even when done by experts after long, considered development of survey items.
Use of the word "wrong" subtly frames the response. They could have asked if Trump's behavior was "right," instead of whether it was "wrong." There are other ways they could have made it more neutral. They could have asked people what they thought Trump had done.
Finally, we don't know how the sample was chosen.
I don't take the survey results at face value.
I'm curious, although I don't know how you would construct a reliable poll on this point, as to what people actually think Trump did. Schiff's mendacious formulation is that Trump asked the Ukraine to make up fake documents:
And I’m going to say this only seven times so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand. Lots of it. On this and on that. (emphasis added)
That's uh, a lie. But I think a lot of people actually believe Schiff's lie. If that were what Trump actually asked, it would be a lot more wrong than what he did ask.
There's also been a messaging emphasis in media on there being "no evidence" of impropriety by Biden or his son, even though that's obviously ridiculous. Hunter Biden being hired by Burisma is exactly the kind of conduct that J.P. Morgan and Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank got in trouble for just with US politicians rather than Chinese politicians. It's not conclusive evidence of criminality, to be sure, but it's at minimum a glaring yellow flag that warrants investigation. It's evidence, just like Biden boasting about withholding US aid to get a prosecutor fired. It's just not dispositive. How you view Hunter Biden's service on the Burisma board and Biden's interference in the Ukraine is going to have a significant impact on how you view the demand for investigation.
Blogger narciso said...
“Yates circulated the logan act narrative to take out general Flynn”
While possibly true, I think that it was used internally a little earlier, in the summer ad fall of 2016, with the bouncing back and forth they did between National Security and criminal investigations of Carter Page and George Popadopolas.
It, BTW, smells of Lawfare. No proof of their involvement though. But in a side note, the execrable Brandon Van Grac, the Mueller prosecutor who repeatedly lied to Judge Sullivan in the Flynn case (most recently and egregiously about Peter Strzok’s 302s that had been modified with edits from McCabe’s attorney, Lisa Page, that effectively added the bases for two of the charges against Flynn out of thin air, weeks after FBI rules require that 302s to have been filed. Latest is that the prosecutors just admitted that they had had the authors of 302s reversed for the last two years, which should have been impossible if they had actually queried the FBI’s Sentinel System, as they had represented to Sullivan) has moved to head the FARA investigation team at the SDNY, conveniently just in time, to investigate Trump’s lawyer, Rudi Guliani for failing to properly register as a foreign agent.
Its definitely true, now fusion was disseninating their product probably from nellie ohr a year before (lee smith spells it out, clearly)
“But in a side note, the execrable Brandon Van Grac, the Mueller prosecutor who repeatedly lied to Judge Sullivan in the Flynn case...”
As a side note, look at the following URL then look where it actually links to.
From DuckDuckGo search results:
Why Is This Mueller Alumnus in Charge of the Justice ...
https://ussanews.com/News1/2019/10/29/why-is-this-mueller-alumnus-in-charge-of-the-justice-departments-fara-unit/
Oct 29, 2019 Flynn's attorney also accused Van Grack's team of attempting to coerce Flynn into lying, threatening to prosecute Flynn's son, and hiding and even destroying evidence. Thus, Van Grack brings all of that baggage into any new FARA prosecution which makes him less effective at catching real criminals posing real security threats to the ...
If you actually click on that URL, instead of finding a article about Van Grack moving to head the SDNY FARA unit, as you would expect to see from the URL, instead you get an article titled “Should Yellowstone Nat’l Park Install Environmentally Harmful Wi-Fi at the Expense of Wildlife and Nature? Public Comments Due This Month”. It appears to me that the hack was at the USAnews.com website.
I'd like to see a neutral presentation of the question with this array of answers:
A) President Trump is right to want to have corruption investigated, and the people behind the impeachment effort are worried their corruption will be uncovered
B) President Trump is right to want to have corruption investigated, and the people behind the impeachment effort care less about doing the right thing than seeking political advantage
C) President Trump is right to want to have corruption investigated, and the people behind the impeachment effort are worried their corruption will be uncovered and / or care less about doing the right thing than seeking political advantage
D) President Trump did something wrong
They don't reveal the weighting by party (D, R, I). That's usually the way these polls get twisted.
Before a poll is taken, a quick quiz should be given to determine if the subjects know anything at all about the issue. Better yet, ask them to explain it.
"But they can, as any behavioral psychologist will tell you, be reasonably inferred from his behavior. “
Psychologists.... sure.
Yeah, that explains the 25th Amendment turd in a punch bowl from a few months back.
How did that work out for you.
But they can, as any behavioral psychologist will tell you, be reasonably inferred from his behavior.
For example, the constant quoting of neocon pieces of shit implies that you’re a neocon piece of shit. Like that?
Is there a "political opponent" exception to the oath of office that the laws be faithfully executed?
Ms. Althouse, you are usually more perceptive than this. The question isn't neutral at all, nor are the setup and the control questions. That the hearings are about impeachment suggests right at the beginning that the conduct of Trump was "wrong".
Also, asking whether or not the polled person thinks Trump's conduct is "wrong", yes or no, has already framed the issued negatively against Trump. Let me illustrate this point- the question could have also been written this way:
Do you think Trump's actions were right- yes or no?
In a perfect world, the answers should be the same to the two questions, right? However, there is abundant evidence from psychological studies that people can easily infer the beliefs of the people asking the questions by how they construct the question. In short, in this case, it is the choice of the word "wrong" instead of "right" that clues one into the opinion about the matter of the pollster.
Also, the poll tries very mightily to make you believe that 58% of the sample have followed the impeachment "closely". I find this extremely unlikely to be true, and the pollster made no actual attempt to control for lying about such a thing in any case. When you ask a question like this, no one likes to admit that they are uninformed about whatever it is you are polling about, especially a topic like impeachment of the President. In other words, the 42% who claimed to not be following it closely at all are almost surely not lying about it, while we don't know about the 58%. However, the pollster could have easily just had some control questions asking about specific details of the impeachment that would have weeded out the liars and those exaggerating about their involvment. For example, political pollsters polling elections, often, if they are interested in getting the opinions of likely voters about who they will vote for President, will ask for whom you voted in some previous race, and often some non-headline race that was run in the same election, such as House race- likely voters are far more likely to know their Representative than a non-voter. I think it likely the 58% are just the number that knows there are impeachment hearings going on, and thus consider that "closely following", but that less than half that number could even tell you what it is about.
Finally, the thing missing from this is all the context- especially, the details about what Hunter Biden and Joe Biden actually are on record of having done, and I am not even talking about the inferences one can make about Joe Biden's actions. The media have relentlessly been telling people that the Bidens definitely did nothing wrong, or that there is no evidence of wrong-doing on their part; but, can you imagine that if the question had given those factual details about the Bidens in the setup and then asked the question about whether or not what Trump "did" was "wrong"- do you not think that would have greatly moved the needle the other way?
I basically distrust any pollster who doesn't at least try to make sure he is polling knowledgeable people, and I trust one even less who can't figure out a truly neutral way to ask the question. At the end of the this process, the Senate, if the Democrats move to actually impeach, will deliver a verdict, and it is that verdict that will actually shape the opinions of next years' voters. If the Senate acquits, expect to see another Ipsos poll that asks a question like this- The Republican controlled Senate acquitted President Trump after he was impeached for coercing the Ukrainian government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden. Do you think the Senate was wrong- yes or no?. By all accounts of today's poll, that would be a neutral question, too.
And, what I didn't mention- there are no demographics revealed in the poll- only the claim that they tried to ensure it was a representative sample. When the demographics aren't revealed along with the weightings, then that is just one more reason to distrust the pollster. There is no good reason to hide the raw data outside the sample size.
investigating government corruption isn't wrong. In fact, it's part of the President's job.
tim maguire said...
27% made up their minds before the hearing
19% made up their minds immediately upon hearing the news, and
drum roll, please!
32% made up their minds before the Ukraine "scandal" even came out!
Beria's pipe dreams, right there.
and what are people basing their opinions on? the political reporting of the leftist anti-Trump media, of course! They lie and spin and repeat Democrat talking points as if they're actual facts or evidence and then take a poll that reflects that their propaganda is working. The poll is bullshit because the "news" is bullshit.
"But only 21% of Americans say they are following the hearings very closely."
ABC's poll link says:
"Most Americans are following impeachment proceedings closely; about half feel the President should be removed from office"
Always Be Crappy.
ABC is correct -- note that they did not use the word "very". From the poll:
How closely have you been following the hearings in the House of Representatives about whether or not President Trump should be impeached for his actions related to Ukraine?
Very closely 21
Somewhat closely 37
Not so closely 24
Not closely at all 18
Skipped-
Total closely (Net) 58
Total not closely (Net) 42
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2019-11/topline-abc-ipsos-impeachment-hearings-11182019.pdf
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...If he has never shown any interest in rooting out corruption in foreign countries previously, and was in fact unusually comfortable with some particularly rotten ones, then it is pretty straightforward to infer that he has little interest in the topic.
I'll give you that. Trump hasn't shown much interest I rooting out corruption in foreign countries. But, Hunter Biden/Burisma is about rooting out corruption in the U.S. government. And I think he has shown interest in cleaning up the snake pit that, unfortunately, is the permanent bureaucracy of our country.
well he has allied with the Brexit movement, and given support to many anti eu movements, the eu being the hive of progressivism,
I think its wrong (or misleading) that the survey did not provide a specific action when asking if it was wrong. Of course, it would have been difficult to qualify that "if the alleged action [fill in the bank] occurred." The way the question was worded pretty much validates the impeachment proceedings.
"For example, the constant quoting of neocon pieces of shit implies that you’re a neocon piece of shit. Like that?”
Best comment of the day.
"An overwhelming 70% of Americans think President Donald Trump's request to a foreign leader to investigate his political rival was wrong."
When then it's a damn good thing that's not what he did, isn't it?
Again, it's really too bad we don't have a transcript of the call so we could actually read what was said.
Sigh.
One only has to view the recent spate of political cartoons...
At long last, we have the source of R/V's keen political insight.
Beach Brutus said...
Is there a "political opponent" exception to the oath of office that the laws be faithfully executed?
--
Q: Should VP Joe Biden's conflict of interest and admitted strong-arming of investigations in Ukraine be immune from oversight because he's now running for President?
American nitwits are so acclimated to Democrat corruption and grifting that they think it is wrong for Trump to ask that it be investigated? The country deserves to go down the Stalinist sinkhole.
"When then it's a damn good thing that's not what he did, isn't it?”
I know, right? It’s crazy.
Think of all the trouble Epstein could have avoided, including his death, if he had just announced he was seeking the Democrat nomination for President.
Do you think Trump's actions were right- yes or no?
In a perfect world, the answers should be the same to the two questions, right? However, there is abundant evidence from psychological studies that people can easily infer the beliefs of the people asking the questions by how they construct the question.
This is what is taught in every survey course I know of. When dealing with a low information subject, the recommendation is to ask the question w=twice with the opposite suggestions. Then you average the response.
The problem with polls on Trump is that you start off with 50% of the people unwilling to say that Trump is ever innocent of anything. You could make up a crime he clearly never did, and be guaranteed to get at least 60% saying he did it anyway. 50% are incapable of saying otherwise and at least 10% more are uninformed or confused enough to agree. If you asked whether Trump should be impeached for having sex with minors on Epstein's island, you would probably get at least 70% to agree, even though it never happened. Can you imagine anything negative on Trump getting less than 50%?
"Think of all the trouble Epstein could have avoided, including his death, if he had just announced he was seeking the Democrat nomination for President."
Trump got the Dems to defend MS13, and ISIS, so Epstein would be a slam dunk.
"Can you imagine anything negative on Trump getting less than 50%?"
Sorry for the typo. That should have been "garnering less than 50%?"
Frankly, I'm underwhelmed.
I, for one, do not long for the days when our president garnered (yes, I typed it and I meant to do so), garnered, I say, the approval of the world by letting everything everywhere go to hell in a handbasket. Soviet naval base in the Med? Sure, why not? Iranians agreeing to not announce they have a working ICBM for 10 years, free to work on it? Sure, why not? Libya, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Turkey, etc., down the drain and sending demographically significant numbers to change Europe for generations? Sure, why not?
Let Trump be hated, reviled, denounced again and again. He's doing more right than whatever wrongs he is being falsely accused of performing.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন