Gallup.
Let me repeat my position on the relationship between impeachment and polls: There should be a supermajority to impeach — two thirds, the same as the Constitution requires for the Senate vote. It's an extraordinary step, and it should not be taken without overwhelming support from the people. It's not another way to take a vote on the President. I voted against Trump in 2016, but I accept the choice we made as a group on that formal occasion.
Posts
157 comments:
As Meade and Althouse have noted, public support for impeachment should be at least 66% for impeachment.
@Dave Begley
You wrote that comment as I was adding that last paragraph to the post (before you read it).
Thanks for remembering what I wanted to remind people of!
Continue that stampede over and off the cliff, Democrats.
Stated in reverse : Over 34% oppose impeachment
This is what makes Althouse great to spend time with.
- Krumhorn
A person must be steeped in blind Trump-hate to buy what the democrats are selling.
Adam Schitt is a liar.
The whistle-blower is a partisan leaker and a hack who coordinated the whole thing with Adam Schitt.
We all know not everyone loves Trump. Lots of folks don't even like him. This is not about like or love of Trump. What the D's are doing is so atrocious and vile, it, I hope, is forcing normal non-leftwing citizens to see the horror show that IS the democratic party.
In the Army, ounces equal pounds and pounds equal pain.
With approval, inches equal yards and yards equal yuuuuuuuuuge.
Like most sports, politics is a game of inches.
The Democrats routinely hold super majorities in both houses of the California legislature. What stops them from impeaching everyone in sight?
"and it should not be taken without overwhelming support from the people"
And if anything s/b bipartisan it's the very act of impeachment since impeachment is a blunt force directed at the people's most recent exercise of choice (an election).
"Trump approval inches up."
That's what she said!
Spiros said...
The Democrats routinely hold super majorities in both houses of the California legislature. What stops them from impeaching everyone in sight?
___________&&&&&&&&&&&&&&===========
lack of non-Dem targets - maybe ; don't'cha think
Impeaching Trump is the way to get more Trump!
At this point the country is in a civil war.
They will never accept rising wages, low unemployment, ending wars.
It is the peace and prosperity that they oppose. You all need to understand they hate you and they mean you harm. They openly say they want to replace you with poor people from Central America.
They are still running with this sham because they think they can get away with it. They haven't faced consequences yet.
If they don't they will just keep coming back until they win.
Once again the Democrats scheme to disenfranchise American voters.
remember the olden days? back in 2016?
When some asked Trump if he'd abide by the results of the Election? And he said: We'll see?
AND IT WAS AN OUTRAGE!!!
NPR had a 44 hour long special report,
about how "THE MOST CRUCIAL PART OF DEMOCRACY" is accepting how the voters voted
The ENTIRE media went on and on (and on and on (and on and on)) about how ALL people MUST accept the results at the voting place; or democracy DIES!
Then, Trump won; and became President (elect) Trump. And it All Changed
Suddenly, it was Not My president! And it was "Let's Impeach the Bastard!""
I guess, in the immortal words of S.E. Hinton; That was THEN, This is NOW
The Democrats routinely hold super majorities in both houses of the California legislature. What stops them from impeaching everyone in sight?
There are no Republicans in office in California to impeach.
I keep imagining a stripper in Vegas at the Crazy Horse named Ima Peach Mint. Boy can she dip! And dip. And dip! Look at how she grind those polls! She can get a rise out of you, but only if you pay extra for the DemPerignon in the champagne room!
Hillary won the popular vote in CA - which means that Trump stole the election.
Buy the Schitt, folks. It's what for sale.
What do you suppose was the level of public support for the impeachments of Johnson and Clinton? I think once you're at 2/3 in favor of removal, the pressures and risks of a Senate trial become too great for most people.
In Trump's case, you have an unusually defiant President and an unusually deranged "resistance" effort that has been going on for three years. The public is evenly split and increasingly dug in on what's really going on. It's either (1) a slowmo coup launched by the Deep State bureaucracy and their Democratic allies against an elected President or (2) the saving of the Republic from a dangerous, treasonous President.
What I predict will happen is the entire effort will fizzle out by late Spring because Democrats will want to refocus the public's attention on their nominee. But Trump will be reelected. And Democrats will continue scheming on how to undermine him and cast doubt on his legitimacy. Still, it's a better outcome than the alternative, which would be Trump's removal. Republicans would rightly view it as a naked power grab and the undoing of an election.
Trump is an inch worm, inching to victory.
That’s some weak lemonade Gallup is selling...
This thing, TDS and its associate pathologies, is a national hysteria. It affects one segment of the population that seems to be more susceptible. The day care hysteria began in Los Angeles in Manhattan Beach, a sort of ground zero for CA Trump hate. The legislation authored by Al Gore was some of the fuel as it funded research on child abuse.
To refresh memories
Then we had "Recovered Memories" hysteria which was fueled by the same people who think Goldwater and Trump are crazy. It raged for years and began in most instances with college age children, especially girls with eating disorders.
It was only stopped after malpractice insurance companies stopped covering recovered memories "therapy." That occurred after a father whose family was destroyed won a malpractice lawsuit.
Will Democrats recover sanity after losing the election ? Looking at the leftists here, I wonder.
then according to the Democrats you're against Democracy.
If the mainstream media honestly reported the news, public support for impeachment would be reserved for the Yellow Dog Democrats, leftist totalitarians and TDS sufferers out there. My guess is that is just over 40% of the population.
There is a lot of hysteria and pent-up rage over Trump's election. Impeachment serves as a safety valve that releases pressure. I think it's a good thing.
But I'd like to make an unrelated point. Obama was a better politician. Remember the bank bailouts???? Remember how furious everyone was. Those thieving bastards were bailed out despite their bastard behavior!!! OBAMA did this while ordinary people went bankrupt and lost their homes. But Obama silenced his critics with the stimulus. Everybody got cash and was happy. How has Trump silenced his critics? He hasn't...
Consider how the Democrats felt after Trump made serious inroads into their core constituency of the middle class, workers and unions? (Pelosi was traumatized.) But did Trump act Presidential? Did he bind up the wounds of the Nation. Nope.
Trump kept acting like a buffoon. No compromise. He wouldn't work with the other side. Just non stop provocation. And his stupid, stupid tweets. And then Trump gave them Kavanaugh. Protesters were literally clawing at the Supreme Court's doors. Trump has continued this bullsh*t for years and he finally got impeached...
It good to know we can now impeach a President for blocking his administration from testifying that were subpoenaed!!! Don't forget Eric Holder refusing to turn over subpoenaed documents in Fast and Furious SCANDAL....https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/07/15/white-house-political-director-refuses-to-testify/12710171/
gilbar said: I guess, in the immortal words of S.E. Hinton; That was THEN, This is NOW
She was my FAVORITE author as a teen!!! Loved her books!
It is the peace and prosperity that they oppose. You all need to understand they hate you and they mean you harm. They openly say they want to replace you with poor people from Central America.
Michael Anton has a nice summary of what this is all about.
Not what the crazies on the left think but what it is really about.
Hey Spiros, if you can stipulate a SINGLE offer of "compromise" that Dems offered to Trump in the last 3 years that wasn't effectively 100% capitulation, I'll eat my shorts.
Trump offered compromises. Democrats screamed at the sky, every time. Trump doesn't bother anymore. Who can blame him now?
Trump kept acting like a buffoon. No compromise.
You mean back down like Romney. Got it.
I don't even agree that public support should be at supermajority-level before you start a process requiring supermajority approval.
But if they proceed without it, either a significant number of them should expect to lose their jobs for it, and should be willing to say it was worth it; or they'd better hope to persuade people from an even split into the supermajority range.
This I think the Dems actually expected to do. Instead they watch the needle not move, or move in the other direction; and the very press that has held a 2.5-year fire sale on their credibility asks why we don't believe in them, these suffering saints who protect our democracy from dying in darkness.
>He wouldn't work with the other side. Just non stop provocation.
Interesting reading the hypocrisy.
Obama was actually more partisan than Trump. Trump is more focused on what works, and if the Democrats had been smarter, they would have worked with him and gotten a huge amount in return. Instead, they did this resistance BS and have fought Trump on everything since before he was elected.
What sets Trump apart from previous GOP Presidents, is he counter attacks, and will not allow himself to be taken advantage of. He uses the same type of unfair Alinsky Tactics pioneered by the Left, against them.
no he silenced his critics using the irs osha, threatening legal action against tea party, organizing a lynch mob, against those who dared challenge his dictat, painting one ig as senile re the americaworks program, conveniently having no ig at state, for the first four years,
What price, Althouse-wise, will the Democrats pay for flouting this principle?
Weren't the polls also saying that Clinton, not Trump, was gonna be our President? How'd that work out?
*rolls eyes*
Demanding that "there should be a supermajority" in the polls in order to do anything is friggin' idiotic and very shallow thinking....but I reckon that is the type of nonsense which drives people to the Amazon portal, eh?
Althouse -- I wish more of our fellow Americans were like you.
Bleh said... It's either
(1) a slowmo coup launched by the Deep State bureaucracy and their Democratic allies against an elected President
or
(2) the saving of the Republic from a dangerous, treasonous President.
If you look at it; both sides are calling it the Exact Same Thing:
An Overthrow, of the Elected Government of The United States
The only difference is; one side says their coup is justified, the other says it's not.
Both sides are agreeing that it is outside the norms of peaceful society
Both sides are agreeing that it is WAR
It's just that (not surprisingly) the side starting the war says... They HAD To
so eric holder equipped the cartels (both Sinaloa and zetas) with automatic weapons, Obama waged an unsanctioned war on Libya, that they are only now recovering from, his part in the sham prosecution in Sanford, the incendiary language that set Baltimore and ferguson aflame,
some bird brained dodo said.... in order to do anything
Ummm, I realize that you're Not the smartest bird in the nest; but No One was saying
a supermajority to do ANYTHING, Our Beloved Professor Althouse said: a Supermajority to do THIS
I don't recall "Against Trump" being one of the options. Did you write that in?
purplepenguin: "Demanding that "there should be a supermajority" in the polls in order to do anything is friggin' idiotic and very shallow thinking....but I reckon that is the type of nonsense which drives people to the Amazon portal, eh?"
Hmmmmmm, whom to listen to, whom to listen to? Brilliant Founding Fathers or dummy who can barely dress himself/herself/xerself?
You know, its a close call, but I'll go with the Founding Fathers who specifically rejected the idea of a parliamentary "no confidence" partisan vote.
Thoughts and prayers for purplepenguin.
But for the Arab oil embargo, Nixon wouldn't have resigned, and wouldn't have been convicted by the Senate either. That is the history people don't seem to remember about 1973-74- the oil embargo that ran from October 1973 to the end of March 1974 set into motion economic circumstances that undid Nixon's popular support.
What the Democrats really needed here is a recession- without that the impeachment is doomed to failed and actually backfire- the same applied in 1998-1999. The Democrats would have impeached George W. Bush in 2007 if the economy hadn't been in the housing boom- by the time the economy went into recession, the election was just two months away.
Basically, today's Democrats have gone batshit crazy, and are making one political error after the other. The main reason, I think, is that they really still think the media at their backs have actual credibility and influence- they don't- the scales on the eyes have fallen away in the last 3 years from the most important segments of the electorate.
"his part in the sham prosecution in Sanford, the incendiary language that set Baltimore and ferguson aflame,"
If Obama had a legacy, it would look like Jussie Smollett.
chilly willy, missing the boat, again, like kevin kline in a fish called wanda,
inches
Impeachment is Viagra to Trump’s poll numbers.
I hope Trump pardons Manafort today just to piss off the Democrats more than they are already pissed off. (and Roger Stone too)
Are these the same pollsters who said the UK election would be close?
Stock market renders verdict on democrats sham impeachment and reaches another record high.
Thanks Dems!!
See you in November!
"No One was saying a supermajority to do ANYTHING"
You sound mad - you should go watch a movie with a friend or something.
I didn't say "ANYTHING", I said "anything"...which includes "impeachment".
Do you agree with your beloved Professor that polls should be a required part of the impeachment process? Or instead of discussing the issue are you gonna continue to deflect & twist this into yet another personal attack on moi?
it's more like that classic dr. who episode, robot, where the beam weapon made him larger,
The other day, Althouse, you parsed the public opinion polls on the Nixon impeachment.
When the impeachment of Nixon began, public opinion polling "for impeachment" was barely into the low 40's. When the Senate Judiciary (Sam Ervin/Howard Baker) Committee hearings began, impeachment support had been in the teens. Support for Nixon's impeachment didn't get above 50% until barely two weeks before he resigned.
You, Althouse, suggested that support for Nixon's impeachment got to 57% by the time he resigned, and that much is true. But that is how late that the support got there. And the reason why it got there is because at long last all of the Nixon tapes were finally exposed. Nixon didn't stonewall Congress like Trump is. And yet "Obstruction of Congress" had been one of the impeachment counts that had been approved out of the House Judiciary Committee (Peter Rodino) and which would have been passed out of the House if there had been a vote.
Kevin: "Are these the same pollsters who said the UK election would be close?"
Yes.
And that Hillary had a 99.99% chance of winning.
And that it would take a "magic wand" for Trump to deliver on his economic promises.
You know, sort of like slightly more competent LLR-lefty Chucks.
You can’t require a supermajority to remove Hitler.
It should take 3 votes at most in the Senate.
Demanding that "there should be a supermajority" in the polls in order to do anything is friggin' idiotic and very shallow thinking...
Of course, Althouse (and her handsome husband) are by no means advocating such a position. They are merely articulating what should be blindingly obvious: Impeachment is such a drastic step that it should ONLY be used when it is crystal clear that the President engaged in conduct serious enough to warrant such a step. One of the ways to know that a case warrants impeachment is when there is overwhelming bipartisan public support for removing the President.
By analogy, impeachment is a lot like chemotherapy. The side-effects of chemotherapy are so severe it should only be used when it is crystal clear the patient has a cancer that imperils the patient's life. You don't use chemo to treat the common cold. Nor do you use it 'just in case'. You reserve it for very severe cases. Impeachment is similar in that it should only be used when it is crystal clear the case justifies such a severe measure.
The Dems who’ve sweated and gone over the evidence time and again have no idea why not a single Republican will vote aye.
It’s inconceivable!
The bottom line is that, Yes, the House has the authority to impeach a President -- despite frivolous and specious grounds.
So, we just have to zen with it.
Trump will take a temporary hit -- as all the newspapers and cable news will go orgasmic with IMPEACHMENT with every headline. That's life.
But then, Cocaine Mitch needs to shut down this nonsense in the Senate.
And, then, Trump has to dig deep and fight even harder to get a smashing Boris Johnson type win in 2020 to shut these bastards and coup plotters up.
and they missed the last three elections, in Israel by about a 5% margin,
Although I don't expect an answer from Althouse I wonder if this impeachment insanity has swayed her thoughts about whom she is going to vote for next November. Also if she had a crystal ball back in November 2016 and knowing what she knows now would she have voted differently?
Could someone please explain how the Founding Fathers said polling data from the general public should be used in order to determine if an impeachment case goes forward...'cause it appears that Drago is making-up shit out of thin air again - just like how he insisted that nobody ever laughed while watching a circus freakshow, or his childish taunts about the clothes people wear, or his repeated claims that I said Kavanaugh raped over 400 women....the list goes on&on.
I'd ask him to provide some sort of link or proof to back up what he is saying but he has a long history of refusing to do so...so maybe someone else knows that the frick he is talking about now regarding polling data and Founding Fathers? If so, please elaborate.
Drago said...
Kevin: "Are these the same pollsters who said the UK election would be close?"
Yes.
And that Hillary had a 99.99% chance of winning.
Deliberately mendacious fucking garbage.
On the eve of the 2016 election, NYT said Trump definitely had a chance of winning, but that Clinton's likelihood of winning was 85%.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html
It was based on national polling; the RCP average of polls by the time of the election was Clinton 46.8% to Trump 43.6%. (Clinton +3.2)
The final election results were Clinton 48.2% to Trump 43.6% (Clinton +2.1)
In other words, no on predicted a "99.99 % chance" of Clinton winning. The national polls were pretty good; well within their margin of error. And the Trump victory was built on an incredibly fortunate "inside straight" of some of the narrowest margins in history, in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
Final Results -- -- -- 48.2 46.1 Clinton +2.1
RCP Average 11/1 - 11/7 -- -- 46.8 43.6 Clinton +3.2
purplepenguin (who did not know and refused to believe LLR-lefty Chuck had been banned from Althouse): "I'd ask him to provide some sort of link or proof to back up what he is saying but he has a long history of refusing to do so...so maybe someone else knows that the frick he is talking about now regarding polling data and Founding Fathers? If so, please elaborate."
LOLOLOLOL
purplepenguin thinks the 2/3rds majority vote required in the Senate to remove an impeached President does not indicate the Founding Fathers intended for there to be a broad consensus in favor of that most radical of steps: removal of a duly elected President.
Thanks for playing purple!! As always, you never fail to fail.
Don't worry purplepenguin!
As soon as this impeachment is discarded out of hand, I'm quite sure your pals on the marxist side will immediately turn to brand new accusations!!!
Hurrah!
Hope springs eternal on the moron lefty impeachment side, so you've got that going for you....which is nice.
I remind people of these stats:
1973- Unemployment=4.9%, GDP growth rate=plus5.6%, inflation rate=8.7%.
1974- Unemployment=7.2%, GDP growth rate=minus0.5%, inflation rate=12.3%.
It was that change in economic factors that explains the change in popular support for Nixon's continued presidency, and you are just foolish for thinking otherwise, Chuck. Nothing is going to move the polls on impeachment in Chuck's desired direction other than a recession between now and next November- nothing.
Like walking across a steep roof while wearing cross country skis or using a live beehive as a tetherball, impeaching a popular president is legal... but stupid. But they're clearly fully committed to their course, nothing will disuade them at this point.
"purplepenguin thinks the 2/3rds majority vote required in the Senate to remove an impeached President does not indicate the Founding Fathers intended for there to be a broad consensus in favor of that most radical of steps: removal of a duly elected President."
That's not what I said at all - we (as in Althouse herself, and myself as well) are talking about a supermajority in the polls, not the Senate. The fact that you got this so wrong is another example of why I doubt so much of the other stuff you spew.
And I ask you yet again - if Chuck is banned then why are his posts still here? Why are you constantly addressing him?
A situation so grave that Orange Man could only be rendered in grayscale.
I do not think a super-majority among the public is required and certainly not based on partisan polls - and what other kind is there?
But an impeachment should not be based on mere disagreement over policy - that is for the voters to decide in the regular elections - but a more or less bi-partisan outrage over some action offensive to the basic structure of our government - "This cannot stand" - say the President as the Chief Magistrate of the nation committing flagrant perjury in a U.S. court for his personal interests.
But in Clinton's case, even that was not considered sufficient to justify removing him from office, especially so close to the next election.
It i a political judgment, not a judicial trial.
@Chuck
Actually Nixon was charged with obstruction of JUSTICE and CONTEMPT of Congress, along with abuse of power.
"That's not what I said at all - we (as in Althouse herself, and myself as well) are talking about a supermajority in the polls, not the Senate. The fact that you got this so wrong is another example of why I doubt so much of the other stuff you spew."
You are ignoring political reality. You won't have a prayer of getting 2/3s of the Senate without at least a 20% majority in public opinion. These things don't happen in a vacuum.
Oh, and Chuck and other banned posters just wear down the hosts of the blog. His comments disappear every time moderation in force, and reappear when it is lifted. He has been asked multiple times to not post here, but continues anyway, they just don't waste time deleting his comments after he posts them, which is practical in my opinion, but doesn't change the fact that the hosts don't want him here.
Yancey Ward said...
...
It was that change in economic factors that explains the change in popular support for Nixon's continued presidency, and you are just foolish for thinking otherwise, Chuck. Nothing is going to move the polls on impeachment in Chuck's desired direction other than a recession between now and next November- nothing.
The public polling on the Nixon impeachment shifted dramatically, almost overnight, after the "smoking gun" tape became public just two weeks before Nixon resigned. 90 days before Nixon resigned, the public polling was pretty much where Trump's impeachment polling is right now.
Some beautiful, readable evidence of that right here:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/it-took-a-long-time-for-republicans-to-abandon-nixon/
Chris Lopes said...
@Chuck
Actually Nixon was charged with obstruction of JUSTICE and CONTEMPT of Congress, along with abuse of power.
Yes, that's right. Thank you.
Remarkably similar to how the current articles of impeachment are framed.
"He has been asked multiple times to not post here"
Link, please.
"I voted against Trump in 2016, but I accept the choice we made as a group on that formal occasion."
Althouse was a Wisconsin elector? Wow, I did not not know that. I am in awe. Wait, all the Wisconsin electors voted for Trump. Althouse could not have voted against Trump on that formal occasion.
"There should be a supermajority to impeach."
So it's a Constitutional defect, like the Electoral College. I agree, we should fix both defects.
But if we are asked to accept the results of the Constitution as it is, those asking should also accept that only a simple majority in the House is necessary to impeach. That's the choice we are making as a group through our elected representatives.
Without the change in economic circumstances, Chuck, the tapes would not have mattered to Nixon's voters- the change gave them no reason to support Nixon. You can continue to deny this, if you want, but you are just being foolish. But continue, I don't give a shit any longer- the proof will be what happens in the Senate, and after the Senate exonerates Trump, you will be back here with the next prediction about Trump's demise that we will then ridicule. You are predictable that way.
But I will offer you another bet, Chuck. If the Senate does convict and remove Trump before the next election, I will buy you $500 of whatever gin you desire, and if they don't, you never comment on Althouse again. Deal?
@Yancy
You claimed that Chuck is banned from this blog, yet you call him out by name...even in threads which he isn't taking part in.
Our hostess has requested that we not talk about the commentators whom she has banned from here, so why do you constantly do so?
"purplepenquin said...
Demanding that "there should be a supermajority" in the polls in order to do anything is friggin' idiotic and very shallow thinking....but I reckon that is the type of nonsense which drives people to the Amazon portal, eh?"
Hey Act 10 miracle survivor PP stopped in to the blog again. Sadly, she/he doesn't have much to add.
For PurplePenguin:
Meade said: Chuck, you've been asked to leave
Meade said: Chuck, you've been asked to leave
Pueple, "Demanding that "there should be a supermajority" in the polls in order to do anything is friggin' idiotic and very shallow thinking....but I reckon that is the type of nonsense which drives people to the Amazon portal, eh?"
Althouse's opinion is grounded in the constitution; which she taught for decades at a top law school.
Yeah, Ann's an idiot and a shallow thinker. /sarc
it's much like when dormammu tries to vanquish dr. strange,
PP, I rarely call Chuck out on anything other than a comment he has made, but, yes, occasionally I will make a comment hoping to lure him out from under his rock so I can't beat on him.
Gloating about making it illegal for safety rules to be contractually enforced on non-OSHA work-sites is a weird flex to be making...especially when the subject isn't even being discussed in this thread and almost a decade has passed since the law was enacted.
LLar-lefty Chuck: "Remarkably similar to how the current articles of impeachment are framed."
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Not similar in the slightest.
Other than that, spot on Fake Conservative boy!
Seriously, is it even possible for you to be a bigger Adam Schiff suck up?
(Spoiler: Nope)
And the Trump victory was built on an incredibly fortunate "inside straight" of some of the narrowest margins in history, in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
Where he had campiagned and Hillaryt had not.
My sympathy, Chuck. Now go away and meditate. The UK election would be a good topic for your meditation.
ah civility,
https://amgreatness.com/2019/12/17/pro-trump-women-verbally-harassed-navy-seal-assaulted-by-unhinged-dems-at-swanky-dc-hotel/
not too bright, Ann, if you voted for Felonia von Pansuit
Blogger Chuck said...@12/18/19, 12:10 PM"...It was based on national polling; the RCP average of polls by the time of the election was Clinton 46.8% to Trump 43.6%. (Clinton +3.2)..." "...The final election results were Clinton 48.2% to Trump 43.6% (Clinton +2.1)..." "...Final Results -- -- -- 48.2 46.1 Clinton +2.1..." "...RCP Average 11/1 - 11/7 -- -- 46.8 43.6 Clinton +3.2..."
Sorry Chuck and all you Einstein's who think they know anything about polls. Firstly, the "...RCP average..." is pure junk - why do you believe that, since it is a continuous reach back in time with this poll[s] that is mirrors accuracy? If fact, your example exhibits the opposite of actual results - forget about margin of error garbage.
Secondarily, the margin of error is meaningless? Please notice that all of your numbers do not total to 100% even when you include the "...margin of error..." Only Electoral College counts and anyone stating that such a change in the Constitution will be forthcoming is delusional and smoking something strange. Do you actually believe smaller states, including Wisconsin[5 million population - approximate] will agree to such a change? Then you don't know anything as to why the states agreed to this compact. The States will never allow this change in the Electoral College. BTW, polls a pure junk, because they always avoid the 'Elephant in the room' - what do 3rd party candidates do to the results of the front-runners.
The UK election should tell the Democrats everything they need to know about what to do today, but they won't listen. Labour and the LibDims, with the aid of NeverJohnson Tories, abused and violated one political norm after another from last July until late October, in an attempt to damage Johnson's chances at the ballot box. They did this with most of the UK media at their backs supporting Remain, and yet Johnson crushed them at the ballot box. The same thing is going to happen next November unless there is a recession, or the Democrats find a way to behave sanely and ethically. Today may be the last chance to get off the cliff.
LLR-lefty Chuck is still incredibly bitter over the 2016 election results: House/Senate/White House all republican.
LLR-lefty Chuck called that result a "disaster".
His word, literally.
Of course, after 2 straight years of defending obama and every other dem and lefty media personality, LLR-lefty Chuck was much happier, giddy even, when the dems took back the House in 2018.
Just the thought of Nancy as Speaker gave LLR-lefty Chuck joy, so the dems failure in this latest joke ploy is driving our Chuck to distraction.
@Yancy
Is this Althouse's blog or Meade's?
@Dave Begley
Please show where in the Constitution it suggests we should use polling data as a requirement for impeachment (or anything at all) and then your point about this particular opinion of hers being "grounded" there would make sense.
PP, I almost wrote that you would claim Meade wasn't the authority. Too fucking funny.
As for using the polls, like I wrote above- you are ignoring reality, and continue to do so.
@Drago
You've repeatedly claimed that Chuck is banned from this blog, yet you constantly call him out by name...even in threads which he isn't taking part in.
Our hostess has requested that we not talk about the commentators whom she has banned from here, so why do you continue do so?
hstad: "Sorry Chuck and all you Einstein's who think they know anything about polls. Firstly, the "...RCP average..." is pure junk -..."
You are wasting your time.
This has all been explained to the lefties like LLR-lefty Chuck a hundred times.
However, because Chuck hasnt heard it on Maddows show or read it at Media Mattters he simply does not accept it.
Purplepenguin: "You've repeatedly claimed that Chuck is banned from this blog,...."
Drago pounces!!
No dummmy, LLR-lefty Chuck was banned by Althouse and Meade. Links provided upthread.
But you just go right on pretending this is some unknowable mystery!!
LOL
"purplepenquin said...
Gloating about making it illegal for safety rules to be contractually enforced on non-OSHA work-sites is a weird flex to be making...especially when the subject isn't even being discussed in this thread and almost a decade has passed since the law was enacted."
I'm just pointing out that all your pissing and moaning about how unsafe Act 10 was for you all it didn't amount to anything. Like most lefty predictions it was all bullshit.
Yancey Ward said...
But I will offer you another bet, Chuck. If the Senate does convict and remove Trump before the next election, I will buy you $500 of whatever gin you desire, and if they don't, you never comment on Althouse again. Deal?
Hell no!
I was just now looking for another old Althouse comments page where I had cited the Scott Adams quote, "I no longer care about the fucking law." I found it, and scrolling down the page (a really great, vintage page of comments) I found one (among many) from me where I stated that I hoped that someday Trump would be removed from office but that I doubted it would ever happen. That was on April 25 of 2018. More than a year and a half ago.
The critical difference, between hoping and predicting.
"Such a fine line, between stupid and clever." (David St. Hubbins of Spinal Tap.)
Here's that old Althouse comments page:
https://althouse.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-plot-against-scott-adams.html
"PP, I almost wrote that you would claim Meade wasn't the authority"
I didn't claim anything at all - was asking a question. A question which you totally dodged.
"As for using the polls, like I wrote above- you are ignoring reality"
The polls say Clinton won the election - are you saying I am ignoring realty when I point out Trump is our President?
Polls can be accidentally flawed and/or intentionally manipulated - which is why I think it is a ditzy idea to make 'em a requirement for anything at all, especially impeachment.
Curious George: "I'm just pointing out that all your pissing and moaning about how unsafe Act 10 was for you all it didn't amount to anything. Like most lefty predictions it was all bullshit."
Remember how Net Neutrality rulings, keystone pipeline and repeal of the obamacare mandate were all going to kill us all?
"LLR-lefty Chuck was banned by Althouse"
Link, please
If that is true, are you aware that our hostess has requested that we not talk about the commentators whom she has banned from here? If so, then why do you continue do so?
I like reading Chuck's comments.
LLR-lefty Chuck: "The critical difference, between hoping and predicting.
"Such a fine line, between stupid and clever." (David St. Hubbins of Spinal Tap.)"
Would now be a good time to replay LLR-lefty Chuck's prediction of a hillary landslide AND his diparagement of Brexit's chances?
LOL
Purple: "If that is true, are you aware that our hostess has requested that we not talk about the commentators whom she has banned from here? If so, then why do you continue do so?"
Still awaiting purple's first post requesting LLR-lefty Chuck abide by the request of the blog owners to cease posting.
Lets see what comes next....
BTW, the biggest poll movement on impeachment is a 13% decline by Democrats in support. I mean our resident dullards don't see it, but some do.
PP,
As I wrote days ago, weeks ago- under moderation, Chuck's comments disappear- completely. So, will just wait until the next moderation cycle to point that out to you, though I am guessing your comments disappear, too.
Curious George: "BTW, the biggest poll movement on impeachment is a 13% decline by Democrats in support. I mean our resident dullards don't see it, but some do."
When 13% more of LLR-lefty Chuck's fellow democrats run away from this hoax impeachment you'd think he'd get a clue.
But nope.
Well, as always, LLR-lefty Chuck has lots of fellow lefties here with whom he can commiserate.
"I'm just pointing out that all your pissing and moaning about how unsafe Act 10 was for you all it didn't amount to anything. Like most lefty predictions it was all bullshit."
It isn't bullshit at all - Act10 truly did make it illegal for safety-related rules to be included in labor contracts with city/county/state entities. It is also true that those job-sites are exempt from OSHA oversight. That isn't some prediction I was making, rather it is a cold hard fact of what the law actually did/does.
For real - this is a really weird flex for you to be making, repeatedly & years after the law was passed. But then again, seeing how ya laughed at the video of workers being killed on the job shows you ain't quite right in the head (or heart?) anyways, and I reckon this passes as normal behavior among your crowd.
@Althouse
Is Chuck banned from posting on your blog? A couple different people (or one person with a couple different logins?) keep insisting that you banned him, yet they are unable to show us where you did so.
Could you please clear this up? Thank you.
Question for the commentariat:
How many states did Trump win in 2016 in which the consensus of the state level polling had him losing?
How many states did Hillary Clinton win in which the consensus of the state level polling had her losing?
I will point you here if you don't want to guess the answer.
Secondary questions:
In how many states did Trump over-perform his predicted % from the state level polling?
In how many states did Clinton over-perform her predicted % from the state level polling?
The answers to these questions will reveal how bad the 2016 election polling was.
Has Chuck selected a special lotion for his impeachment ‘celebration’ this afternoon?
Penguin:
The fact that you casually dismiss Meade's direct statements as a moderator of this blog that Chuck has been banned proves that you're not arguing in good faith. At all. Not that that wasn't already apparent from your political arguments.
Purple penguin exemplifies the kind of bad faith attempt to undermine the blog that Althouse puts moderation on for.
Blogger again. FFS.
Qwinn: "Penguin:
The fact that you casually dismiss Meade's direct statements as a moderator of this blog that Chuck has been banned proves that you're not arguing in good faith."
Clearly posting in bad faith was one of several reasons made explicit by Meade for banning LLR-lefty Chuck from this blog, despite purplepenguin pretending that never happened.
Goal posts seemed to have moved - used to be Althouse banned him,, now its "Meade pointed out that he was asked to leave/ The two ain't quite the same.
Ain't bad faith on my part at all. I know he is her husband - but thought this was her blog rather than their blog.
I really wish she would clear it up herself and simple say if Chuck is banned from posting here or not. She made it crystal clear with a couple others that I aware of, so why not this one?
But Obama silenced his critics with the stimulus.
Good lord.
The stimulus enraged his critics because it was nothing but a 787-billion dollar payoff to his supporters.
No wonder you people are insane. You can't even get the basics correct.
Impeachment is such a drastic step that it should ONLY be used when it is crystal clear that the President engaged in conduct serious enough to warrant such a step.
Nope. According to the left it should be used as a safety valve because they can't stop throwing a temper tantrum after losing an election.
purplepenquin: "Goal posts seemed to have moved - used to be Althouse banned him,, now its "Meade pointed out that he was asked to leave/ The two ain't quite the same."
Thank you for quadrupling down.
Your indefatigable efforts on LLR-lefty Chuck's behalf come more into focus with that.
Very helpful.
This may make sense as a political standard for removal after trial. It is problematic as a standard for the House voting articles of impeachment for trial in the Senate. Indeed, it would have barred such a vote in Nixon's case.
Even as a standard for voting removal from office, it ignores the possibility that after trial in the Senate 2/3 of the Senators may have expertise or knowledge of the evidence or of the national interest that would justify removal even when 2/3 of the voters would not do so. It also ignores the fact that the Senate is non majoritarian by design. What if, for example, 2/3 of the Senate, representing states constituting much less than 2/3 of the voting population support removal in public polls. Is that outcome outside the constitutional scheme? I doubt the framers would have thought so.
TYPOS CORRECTED
This may make sense as a political standard for removal after trial. It is problematic as a standard for the House voting articles of impeachment for trial in the Senate. Indeed, it would have barred such a vote in Nixon's case.
Even as a standard for voting removal from office, it ignores the possibility that after trial in the Senate 2/3 of the Senators may have expertise or knowledge of the evidence or of the national interest that would justify removal even when 2/3 of the voters would not agree. It also ignores the fact that the Senate is non majoritarian by design. What if, for example, 2/3 of the Senate, representing states constituting much less than 2/3 of the national voting population, votes for removal even though less than 2/3 of the national voting population supports removal in national polls. Is that outcome outside the constitutional scheme? I doubt the framers would have thought so.
Politics is war by other means. And Trump’s Q Team has been attacking the DC Deep State like Patton’s Third Army attacked the Wehrmacht. That Last days of hitler clip was no joke. In the end, like Adolph wanted the Germans destroyed for failing him, Pelosi wants the Dems destroyed for failing her. And destroyed they will be.
"It's not another way to take a vote on the President."
OK. So since the Dems are hell-bent on doing what you say is wrong, are you enraged by their conduct or just flummoxed?
If in fact you think this is an attack on our very system, will you resolve to oppose the bastards responsible for the attempted destruction?
it's what fits on the cue card, now this resembles the start of the 20 years of lawfare that Berlusconi was subjected to,
Trump’s Q Team has been attacking the DC Deep State like Patton’s Third Army attacked the Wehrmacht. That Last days of hitler clip was no joke.
Up to and including defunding Planned Parenthood Federation and closing abortion chambers. Positive developments. Another reason for progressive liberals and good Americans to jump the Ass.
I'll believe that the Deep State has been under any kind of real attack when even one of the bastards goes to jail and doesn't get Epsteined.
Nobody's mentioned this, but that picture is actually a nice portrait of Trump. He doesn't look angry, mocking, crazy, or mischievous. (Or orange, because it's in B/W.)
It would be a good starting point for a larger version on Mt. Rushmore.
yes that's a reasonable good picture, they think by greying it makes it negative:
https://www.weaselzippers.us/439980-dem-rep-if-we-dont-impeach-trump-we-will-live-in-a-dictatorship/
Impeach Him If You Like, but for the Love of God, Stop Pretending You Care about the Constitution
I keep seeing 67% support is necessary, but that's not it. You need 10 states to flip to the pro-impeachment side. I don't give a rat's ass how many more California dumbasses you can pile into the clown car. You need to get a solid majority in Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania ... and it ain't there and it ain't going to be there.
"I voted against Trump in 2016, but I accept the choice we made as a group on that formal occasion."
Besides, your vote was a poor one, as evidenced by the results. Results are something people outside of academia consider important. You might have to be on the outside for another 30 years before your voting gets better. I hope you are still voting and blogging then.
1 inch on a letter sized piece of paper (portrait) is 9.09%. That's a pretty good inch up.
TDS is a terrible thing, it will eventually destroy every brain cell... http://patterico.com/2019/12/18/the-house-should-impeach-donald-trump/
When you only have a hammer, sad isnt it, also mouth breathers like dave 1.0 and the other guy.
I haven't dropped by Patterico's site in years. It's not even bookmarked anymore. His TDS is a damn shame...I used to drop in there multiple times a day.
Gahrie said...
I haven't dropped by Patterico's site in years. It's not even bookmarked anymore. His TDS is a damn shame...I used to drop in there multiple times a day.
I did, too. I even knew him personally through Cathy Seipp. We went to her funeral together.
Patterico placed narciso and I in moderation same time/same day for not much at all a few months ago and I figured that's it, I'm done.
He offered an olive branch the same day the IG report came out, but I have no interest, I learn nothing there.
Ditto, lman, after shipwrecked left i should have taken the hint.
So a corrective dusted off and carried out just three times in 230 years is too drastic for you? Wow. If anything, the bar for impeachment is not low enough for the remedy to be effective - Johnson should have definitely been convicted and removed. And like our minority, you too are neglecting the problem of addressing a president who cheats elections. Relying on elections alone to sort things out every two to four years isn't often enough if the guy interferes in them with foreign intrigue and assistance, as Trump does.
Without impeachment there is simply no better way to oversee an out-of-control chief, which is what all these proponents of the so-called unitary executive do not account for or care about. All we hear from the right is how over-powerful the government becomes, and yet here they are falling on bended knee to fearfully align with the most overbearing president in history. The fact that we're not a parliamentary system already makes our executive way too prone to tyranny.
The 20th century ushered in the imperial presidency and there's simply no going back. This country is simply too powerful, too consequential, and its 300 million+ population too large to let an executive go that unchecked. If it weren't for impeachment and the precise formulary for activating it, we would have turned into a tyranny long ago.
Anyway, that's my reasoning. Do you have any factual, rational basis to back up yours? Or is the whole affair just somehow that much more distressing to you than the appalling and horrifying Trump presidency itself? He is not a unifier - and the fact that he doesn't get that is precisely the problem. Don't be seduced into defanging the legislature as a way to attain the unity mirage.
Just think of all the longtime commenters who’ve left for good. Too numerous to count.
But according to Patterico, the fault is with all of us, not him.
"elections alone to sort things out every two to four years isn't often enough if the guy interferes in them with foreign intrigue and assistance, as Trump does."
Ah..notwithstanding "more flexibility after election"/elections are impervious, go get votes Obama.
(Don't believe your lyin' ears, read between the lines)
“Well, son of a bitch, he got fired"
Intriguing...
Ah..notwithstanding "more flexibility after election"/elections are impervious, go get votes Obama.
Anyone not capable of understanding the reality of a politician having more flexibility after an election than before, or the difference between that and illegally soliciting foreign help to win them is really too dumb to vote. Or at least too dumb to vote for anyone other than the Old White Sausage Party.
Enjoy them old white sausages!
FISA app, doctored.
Intrigue!
Awesome you actually defend that hot mic moment.
Do what you do!
I see the Ritmo infection has spread.
Vaccination anyone?
Enjoy that old white Biden sausage, Ritmo.
Jd was one of the first, to get a clue,
You might need an wildfire protocol.
“I apologized to Corn Pop for calling him Esther Williams, I says ‘hey Corn Pop, I apologize for calling you Esther, I shouldn’t have done that, here’s my apology chain’.”
—- Slow Joe Biden
“Anyone not capable of understanding the reality of a politician having more flexibility after an election than before...”
He bent over for Vlad the Impaler, the dumb sonuva bitch.
Come on, Mike. Be respectful.
And why so angry? I thought things are otherwise going peachy for the Old White Sausage Party.
Your party is the future. Or at least the future of the nursing home.
Hey, the guy is driving out everyone who's not a sycophant swearing loyalty to King Orange. What could go wrong with that?
"I really wish she would clear it up herself and simple say if Chuck is banned from posting here or not. She made it crystal clear with a couple others that I aware of, so why not this one? "
I know this is hard for you to believe but she isn't answerable to you. If you're lucky Meade will show up and tell you that if you don't like it, leave. As for Chuck. You missed a lot of drama. He's a liar and smear merchant. He like ritmo adds nothing to the debate
PP said,
"I really wish she would clear it up herself and simple say if Chuck is banned from posting here or not. She made it crystal clear with a couple others that I aware of, so why not this one?"
She's not answerable to you. You might as well ask for toasted ice.
Drago,
"Remember how Net Neutrality rulings, keystone pipeline and repeal of the obamacare mandate were all going to kill us all?"
I'm not yet tired of winning, but the dying part gets old, doesn't it?
On the other hand we must all be getting pretty good at dying by now, and it is nice to find out it doesn't affect one's activities in the slightest. Kind of reminds me of that wonderful quote from Chomsky (of all people): "I was on Nixon's Enemies List. What's the big deal? They never even audited my taxes!"
Post a Comment