Not if they have strong evidence of wrong doing

"Their so-called evidence is just more FAKE NEWS!"--DJT, on the campaign trail in 2020, to wildly cheering crowds

He's going to say that about anything though. His base is going vote for him no matter what. Democrats just need to peel off just a few reasonable people.

That assumes both enough rational actors to make a difference and that said actors are actually paying attention, rather than just going by sound bites or random snippets.

Yeah, I think the tipping point for reasonable people was reached long ago, and whatever's left of Trump's base is relatively bulletproof in regards to any kind of news or scandal.

Just from what we know before today and including today, Nixon left office for much less.

Totally. Tho as folks have noted, the crucial difference appears to be that Nixon and his compatriots were all too competent in their criminal efforts, whereas everybody Trump enlisted in his ad hoc plans either ignored him or was mentally/ethically/genetically challenged enough to fuck up every attempt.

I may be mis remembering but I think your are right leaning. Does this's mean you will vote D in 2020 no matter what?

The way to beat Trump in 2020 is for the D's to get a candidate "middle America" will vote for and have the various factions of the left unify to beat Trump. Good luck with that based on the already early infighting with Dems I am seeing.

On one hand, I get that. On the other hand, there's something to be said about being on the right side of history and not allowing potential political blowback be the determining factor of whether to do something or not.

With impeachment, we're at the point where it's the right thing to do and I do think the more you isolate Trump's base from everyone else the better. Every single person in his base can go to the polls, but if you've made it difficult for the independents to vote for him and drive the progressives and moderates out to the polls as well then Trump still loses handily.

The Russia investigation was 12th out of 12 on what voters thought was most important at the midterm.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/244367/...migration.aspx

It's important to partisans, but not to the electorate in general. Spending the next 18 months on a failed impeachment while instead of attempting to fix (I have no expectation of success with a Turtle Senate) any of the other 11 things re-elects Donald Trump.

I'm actually incredibly frustrated at the irrational anger I see from so many Dems about impeachment. Before the report was released, people were hammering Pelosi's comments about why impeachment would be a good idea. Now Stoyer and Schiff are getting roasted from people I normally respect. And the comments are crazy. They say it doesn't make sense to impeach because it will be seen as partisan and then people are responding, "OH MY GOD SO YOU WONT INVESTIGATE THE REPORT AT ALL".

Nobody has said that! Not one single person has said there should be no congressional follow up on the report. But impeachment that would lead to a partisan vote in House and a failed partisan vote in the Senate would accomplish very little and could potentially backfire in a major way.

This could be my ignorance speaking, so please forgive me.

I remember when Trump won, I read and article about why he won. One of the points that I won't forgot, was the fact that he won Michigan with less votes than Romney got when he lost Michigan to Obama.

So where are those voters?

I am a Republican, but as I get older I am finding my views are changing quite a bit. I haven't voted for President in the last 3 elections because I felt like my vote didn't matter. I'm sure it won't matter in 2020 either, but I am really looking forward to voting for who ever is running against Trump even though Indiana most likely stays red.

Trump got more votes than Romney and McCain, but fewer votes than W in 2004. Part of that is due to Michigan having fewer people as it is declining in population. More people voted in 2016 than did in 2012.

Not quite. I have never voted Republican in my life and I generally bounce between democrats and libertarians in elections. I'm a libertarian according to isidewith.com

But preemptively taking impeachment off the table neuters the investigation. What's the point when you've already said you won't do anything about any potential crimes? Remember that Mueller didn't charge in part to the DOJ opinion that a sitting President can't be charged with a crime. Impeachment is the only way to hold a President accountable for crimes in office.

But the political concerns don't matter to me as much as holding a President accountable for ten instances of potential obstruction and a pattern of working with foreign actors to influence the election. Dem leaders are saying that there will be no potential for Trump to be held accountable for this. It says a President can do anything as long as they hold one chamber of congress. Maybe, eighteen months from now he'll lose the election isn't good for the future of the country.

precisely

I totally agree with this. If the President committed impeachable offenses then its the duty of the House to impeach, period and end of sentence. At some point, the only way away from things continuing to get worse if for somebody to do their duty and make good on their oath of office. I understand the political argument, but it's irrelevant here - not impeaching says the POTUS doing this stuff is acceptable.

But I guess I'm not seeing them preemptively taking impeachment off the table. The way I read the statements is that impeachment proceedings shouldn't start now and more information is needed before they would start.

If that's not taking impeachment off the table, I don't know what is. This is what I'm referring to - maybe you are talking about something else? Schiff said that 'a failed impeachment is not in the national interest' - meaning he's not supporting it without Senate Republicans folding, and you know darn well that isn't going to happen ahead of time. Regarding the 'more information' angle - what are they going to discover that Mueller didn't discover in two years?

I really don't see any other choice with the 400 pages or whatever of the report other than to make a decision based off that. Either you impeach based off it, or you say there isn't enough here. For a long time the line has been 'wait for Mueller's investigation to finish'. Well, it's finished. Having more investigations going over the same material that's been reported ad nauseum in the press and is now codified in the report is the same thing as deciding to do nothing. It's an excuse not to act. I think there are three options:

** Impeach
** Say he should be impeached but we don't want to pay the price of acquittal in the Senate (the Schiff etc. argument), the weasel response.
** No impeachment, in which case more congressional inquiries are a clear waste of everyone's time and money.

Hoyer said this:


That reads to me like he's taking it off the table. I get that the GOP will let Trump do whatever he wants, but that isn't a good enough reason, IMO, to take impeachment off of the table. An argument can be made that Mueller's report is a request for impeachment, and there's a lot of evidence for obstruction and a coordinated effort with the Russians and Wikileaks.

What I think is under all of this is a foolish Dem desire to run against Trump again. I think they see him as weak and the worst possible candidate for the GOP. But they thought that in 2016, too, and now in addition to his formidable skills as a campaigner, Trump knows how to undermine the election, knows he can get away with it, and can count on the DOJ to look the other way.

And we just got the tweet way ahead of schedule.

I’m with the Dem leadership on this, at least right now. The single most important thing for the country is to get this president out of office as soon as possible. Impeachment with a GOP controlled senate doesn’t do that. The 2020 election is the absolute earliest opportunity to remove him, so that becomes the only thing that matters.

Now, you can certainly make the case that passing on impeachment will hurt you politically. And the left wing is clearly going to go nuts, but they will have their say in the primary. I just don’t see many people sitting this election out in protest like last time.

At the end of the day this is a democratic government. The people have to decide. That should be a pretty strong message to run on for whoever the Dem candidate turns out to be.

I like the idea of censure as a starting point that's being floated by some.

But this would be true even if they impeach him and he gets acquitted in the Senate. I almost read your logic the other way. If they're thinking he's easy to beat, then go ahead and impeach him, because the fallout won't be enough to help him win. To me, they're acting more concerned about a possible Trump re-election.

Either way, I think at the very least you need to at least get Mueller in there to testify about his findings before you proceed with impeachment.

I guess part of my frustration is that the Dems won the day. The Barr press conference was a huge misfire that only served to reiterate how misleading his memo was. And now there's all this infighting because some Dems don't want to rush to impeachment right away. Maybe Hoyer never wants to impeach, but for the party as a whole I see nothing wrong with being more deliberate about the process, so it won't be seen as completely partisan.

You guys know that Trump supporters are sending memes around like this one: "Just think about how stupid the democrats are: They lost an election they rigged AND they lost an investigation they rigged."

You guys talk about how divisive Trump is, but the same opinion comes from the Trump supporters. The dems are dividing the country.

Trump will win the election again if the dems keep after him. That is absolutely the wrong play.

Will Trump even leave office if loses in 2020 or is convicted after an impeachment? I hope there's a plan B and C.

This. Along with Trump stating he was "fully exonerated" by the Senate over and over again. If he can't be removed from office by election, then you might as well just be ready for four more years. It is the only way he will be removed.

I think he'd leave office, but I do think he'd still run for the nomination (and probably win) even if convicted after impeachment.

If he loses in 2020, does he run again in 2024?

be hard to run from prison

Norms are fragile, and when they're broken with no consequences, they stay broken and encourage further erosion of norms. Watergate was the outlier, the other scandals we've had in the past fifty years have been largely consequence free for the perpetrators. Now we'll accept foreign meddling in our elections, Attorneys General that are little more than the President's personal lawyer, and an encouragement for Presidents to obstruct justice.

I'm not arguing for immediate impeachment hearings, but the investigation has to continue and impeachment can't be taken off the table. This is bigger than the 2020 elections, but even if that's the worry, there's little reason to be concerned. Trump won a very unlikely victory against a terribly flawed candidate and since then the demographics have moved away from him and his support has slightly fallen. If the Dems lose in 2020 it will have more to do with the candidate than any investigation into the President.

Hard to run when your brain is a pile of mush.

You guys understand that Trump supporters believe HRC and the Russians were working together and all those emails she destroyed was the proof. right?

If you have not figured that out, right or wrong, then I see why you are still calling for impeachment and Trump is a bad guy.

This is just going to drive more people out in 2020 to vote for Trump.

He will not be impeached. He will not be in prison.

Yep, you are right. There are some stupid motherfuckers out there. But the fear-mongering and bullshit isnt going to attract any new Republican voter retards for Trump. He's still drinking from a fixed reservoir of contaminated water.

I too agree that we should impeach. It should pass the House but doubtful the Senate will confirm. Regardless, its the right thing to do.

Impeachment process will keep it out there and although it won't shift the hardcore 38-45% (?), I have to believe it will shift the undecided.

The key risk to the Democrats if they become too "petty" in the impeachment process and that turns off the undecided. I do think this is a real possibility.

Nevertheless, the right thing to do is start and try to impeach.

Took the poll.

68% Republican
63% Constitution
60% Peace & Freedom
54% Democratic
50% Socialist
48% Libertarian
42% Green

My top candidates are

84% John Delaney (Dem) - who the heck is he? Have to start researching more
77% Andrew Yang (Dem)
75% John Kasich (Rep)
75% Cory Booker (Dem)
74% Feel the Burn (Indep)

Not sure how to interpret the results between Party & Candidates, seems contradictory (or maybe its the candidates themselves)

I like how when I finished filling out that isidewith.com survey I got a pop-up ad to join Kamala Harris' mailing list.

I do those surveys for fun sometimes (and to procrastinate), but I always feel a disconnect with the results. I don't want vote just on who has the most similar policy positions to me. I'm sure there's lots of people who hold similar opinions to me who would really suck at being president (including myself).

My values cross traditional party lines quite a bit so I'll disagree with any presidential candidate on a lot of stuff. But that's OK, it's so much more important to me to have person with the appropriate skill-sets, experience, background, and temperament for the job.

I know that there are a number of remarkably stupid people in this country. But I'm not sure what the strategy is to reach people who treat Infowars as real news. Just stand up for what you believe in, do what you think is right, and hope the votes go your way (or the map since we have a really dumb way of electing a President).

Is the right play for congressional democrats just to go full court press on the Russian election interference part? Just say over and over that they are the party fighting to safe guard our elections, hold all the hearings about the hacking and everything else that was outlined by Mueller. Point to the voter roll attacks and introduce legislation prohibiting the purges that are so popular in red states. Leave the republican to explain why that’s a bad idea. Leave Trump to explain why he didn’t contact the FBI when they approached his campaign. Force McConnell to explain why he refused a joint statement with Obama in 2016.

It certainly won’t have any effect on the 35% of the electorate that are with him no matter what, but it might help in carving off the portion needed. And it will be at least something to placate the base with if impeachment isn’t pursued. It kind of feels like getting Capone on tax evasion, but whatever works.

90% Tulsi Gabbard
88% Bernie Sanders
88% Elizabeth Warren
87% Kamala Harris
86% Beto
85% Kristin Gillibrand
84% Cory Booker
83% Julian Castro
83% Andrew Yang
83% Booty Man
81% Klobuchar
-------------------
68% Joe Delaney
67% Gary Johnson
57% Joe Biden
------------------
49% John Kasich
21% Trump

****

81% Socialist
73% Democratic
72% Green
---------------
49% Libertarian
-----------------
28% Peace and Freedom
25% Republican
20% Constitution

Not surprised by the parties result, though I thought Green would actually be ahead of Democratic. First time Bernie has actually been edged. I'll have to look at Tulsi some more.

83% Booty Man?

Yeah, I wonder about those sites sometime, who they may want to pump up or smack down. Gabbard, really? Wasn't there a story a while ago about her being the early Russian favorite as far as the Dems go? (And yeah, Booty Man?)

I've never heard of Booty Man before now, but I'm giving him strong consideration.

I dont think you want to characterize these Trump supporters as dumb asses and all the other things you are saying.

That is the arrogance that has them feeling its "us against them and Trump is for us."

The comments about those supporters on this board is what is driving them out to vote. And keeping this country divided.

Whatever you think of Trump, there is a large portion of this country that already felt crapped upon by the "elitists" and democrats. And Trump came in and spoke directly to them. And they bought in.

They are not going away. And throwing Biden up isnt the answer. Dems have a better chance with Sanders if he can rally the 18-25 crowd out to vote. Otherwise, he is re-elected.

Nah.

** Clinton was the most unpopular candidate the Dems have ever run. Most unpopular other than Trump that either party has ever run.

** Trump still lost the popular vote by 3%, and winning the electoral given that was quite unlikely.

** Trump is slightly less popular now.

All of which adds up to a virtual lock for any Democratic candidate better than Hillary to win. Any vaguely competent D candidate should win by a moderate margin. If the economy tanks, that changes to any candidate able to utter consecutive syllables without falling over.


I do fully agree with this though, and it's been amusing to me to watch people blame all manner of things for Trump's victory. The EC. The late shift by evangelicals. Turnout here there and everywhere. Wildly exaggerated if not flat made-up percentages of the country being racist/white nationalist. Etc. The biggest problem is that I think too many people still don't want to face the amount of people who badly, badly wanted Trump to be president. My state of Michigan had as much to do with it as anyone. People had more traditional choices in the GOP. LOTS of them. They were repeatedly and roundly rejected by the primary voters and then we all know what happened in the general. For the most part, I don't think the problem of Trump's populist support has been faced head-on by America - we don't know what to do with it and keep trying to fill that void with other excuses.

This is the thought process that cost them in 2016. Do not underestimate the silent majority. They vote in the right places to win the electoral college.

The whole point is they weren't the silent majority though. They did not vote as a majority. They voted as a minority, and that pattern has drastically changed since '16. See: the midterm results. If Republicans had been vaguely competitive in those areas in 2018, then you'd have a good point. But they weren't.

At that point Trump presented at least the suggestion of a wildcard. At this point he's failed his base in practically every measure and filled his own government with criminal elites. I don't necessarily disagree that self interest, soft feelings & the sting of being condescended to by someone they don't know is still more important to most of Trump's base, but that doesn't exactly fill me with sympathy or respect.

Every single time a discussion comes up like this you speak down to Dems the same way you accuse them of speaking down to the GOP.

You don't think the fact that we have a President openly attacking the left, calling anything he doesn't agree with fake news, and ignoring policy that the majority of the country is in favor of isn't the major division issue?


Just as there's a large majority of the country that feels crapped on by corporations.


They're not going away, but they're the minority. If his base made up a more significant portion of the country they wouldn't have lost the overall house vote by more than 8 points despite strong turnout.

Not acting like he's President over the electoral groups that tipped the election his way is going to lose him the 2020 election. You trashed Hillary on here for not paying enough attention to Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and PA yet Trump has ignored them for almost 2 and half years and his approval ratings in those states show it.

Trump is underwater in the swing states he needs. Tell me how running up the score in the bible belt, Mississippi, and Alabama is how he's getting reelected?