Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 239: Saudi You Think You Can Dance?

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/MattFriedmanNJ/status/1176178333677232130

Mark this moment down in history as the turning point that led to Booker's historic comeback.
---

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-latest-iowa-poll-is-good-news-for-elizabeth-warren-and-tulsi-gabbard/

First A+ poll ranked by 538 to put Warren in the lead in Iowa (within margin or error still but trending nicely!).

Also...Gabbard is now somehow only one poll away from qualifying for the next debate. We're already at 11 (Steyer will be there) and Gabbard needs one more by October 1st to qualify. I have no clue what purpose it would possibly serve at this point, but at least she could dunk on Harris some more for our amusement.
---

xp1337 posted...

https://twitter.com/MattFriedmanNJ/status/1176178333677232130

Mark this moment down in history as the turning point that led to Booker's historic comeback.

If Biden fucks that question up and Booker gets within striking distance I could be convinced...!
---

Aside from the big news of Warren leading in Iowa, I think the next biggest story of that poll is how dire it is for Sanders. It's not even that he's at 11% there, the most damning thing is probably in the crosstabs, among those who said they caucused for Sanders in 2016, 25% say they will do so again. 32% say they will support Warren.
---

xp1337 posted...

https://twitter.com/MattFriedmanNJ/status/1176178333677232130

Mark this moment down in history as the turning point that led to Booker's historic comeback.

He needs to drop out, I can't support these lies

---

xp1337 posted...

Aside from the big news of Warren leading in Iowa, I think the next biggest story of that poll is how dire it is for Sanders. It's not even that he's at 11% there, the most damning thing is probably in the crosstabs, among those who said they caucused for Sanders in 2016, 25% say they will do so again. 32% say they will support Warren.

If Sanders tanks badly in Iowa and NH, I could see him dropping out early and Warren actually getting the nomination.
---

Well, IIRC he hasn't shown any weakness in NH yet. Unless you consider being in a bit of a deadlock with Biden and Warren there bad, but I don't think it is necessarily.
---

I can't really see Sanders dropping out

He was probably done after Super Tuesday last time (and definitely done after New York) but he clung on until the bitter end.

The nightmare scenario is one where they get to the convention and it's, say, 45% Biden, 30% Warren, 25% Sanders. Then some people will be arguing that it should be Biden because he got a clear plurality, and some will be arguing that it should be Warren because the progressive candidates got a majority (even if it isn't clear that all of the Bernie people would have had Warren as a second choice, or vice versa). Even more fun if the Sanders crowd does mental gymnastics to argue that it should be Bernie in this scenario!

(You could also have a similar scenario with Warren beating Biden and Harris, but not Biden and Harris combined. That one's seeming a lot less likely at the moment, though). In any case, something like that could end up with a lot of people staying home again which would be really bad.
---

xp1337 posted...

Aside from the big news of Warren leading in Iowa, I think the next biggest story of that poll is how dire it is for Sanders. It's not even that he's at 11% there, the most damning thing is probably in the crosstabs, among those who said they caucused for Sanders in 2016, 25% say they will do so again. 32% say they will support Warren.

... am i going crazy or is Sanders not even making the +55yo demo (bottoming out at Harris/Steyer at the MOE, 4%)
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I can't really see Sanders dropping out

He was probably done after Super Tuesday last time (and definitely done after New York) but he clung on until the bitter end.

The nightmare scenario is one where they get to the convention and it's, say, 45% Biden, 30% Warren, 25% Sanders. Then some people will be arguing that it should be Biden because he got a clear plurality, and some will be arguing that it should be Warren because the progressive candidates got a majority (even if it isn't clear that all of the Bernie people would have had Warren as a second choice, or vice versa). Even more fun if the Sanders crowd does mental gymnastics to argue that it should be Bernie in this scenario!

(You could also have a similar scenario with Warren beating Biden and Harris, but not Biden and Harris combined. That one's seeming a lot less likely at the moment, though). In any case, something like that could end up with a lot of people staying home again which would be really bad.

This is why the GOP uses winner take all by state. In this scenario in the GOP Biden would have 70+ and there would be no doubt.
---

Bernie and his fans deny reality way too much to accept defeat. It's part of their nature.

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Bernie and his fans deny reality way too much to accept defeat. It's part of their nature.

You should be grateful to us for keeping Hillary out of office!
---

Grimlyn posted...

xp1337 posted...

Aside from the big news of Warren leading in Iowa, I think the next biggest story of that poll is how dire it is for Sanders. It's not even that he's at 11% there, the most damning thing is probably in the crosstabs, among those who said they caucused for Sanders in 2016, 25% say they will do so again. 32% say they will support Warren.

... am i going crazy or is Sanders not even making the +55yo demo (bottoming out at Harris/Steyer at the MOE, 4%)

...I don't know, where do you have the detailed crosstabs? I can't find them and can only work off what the pollster is reporting in articles. I can't tell if they're still under embargo or what. Usually they have them available if they're out but I'm not seeing them yet either from the Des Moines Register or CNN. The Saturday release doesn't seem to show an age breakdown as far as I can see, it's only a simple 7 page release. The 2016 caucus thing was something they stated in an article.
---

by the sourcing link of the 538 report, anchor tagged on "new survey by Selzer and Co"

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2019/09/22/

iowa-poll-election-2020-iowa-caucus-elizabeth-warren

-joe-biden-bernie-sanders-democrat-candidates/2370015001/

remove the linebreaks
---

Maybe I just don't "get" it but the electability question results make no sense to me other than to illustrate how dumb that framing is for the primary. 74% say exciting new voters is more electable than pandering to the D base. 63% say finding common ground with Rs instead of moving to the left is more electable. Also should be a new generation of leader and take the high road against Trump.

So taking it all together we should be trying to excite the legions of non-voting, moderate millennials and zoomers? Bold strategy there, Iowa.

---

oh i see

They don't have a link to a text/pdf form like I'm accustomed to and my script blocking knocked out those interactive things. That's the article I was using.

and no you're not crazy about the 55+

Well, I think you may be wrong about "bottoming out" there, I don't think that 4% is just the baseline "everyone has this cuz MOE," otherwise everyone would be polling at 4% lol. I think it just means that Harris and Steyer legit were found to have 4% in the 55+ demo. That it's also the MoE is just a coincidence and means statistically it could be 0 (or 8!) too. Sanders would be at best 4% in that demo or could be polling even worse.
---

I mean yeah I just meant "bottoming out" as in end of what they're listing, which just so happened to be the same value as the MOE lol, since surely there's like +30% not displayed spread among who's left out
---

For the 55+ demo, its time for the urn
---

Ohhhh yessss, my Bidentaker!
---

In the interest of bipartisanship, let us all acknowledge the anniversary of one of the most maudlin, condescending, passive-aggressive, and utterly brilliant speeches in American political history:

https://watergate.info/1952/09/23/nixon-checkers-speech.html

---

what
the
fuck

https://twitter.com/peterbakernyt/status/1176216746165972992
---

Well, it's true. If a Republican did a tenth of what Hillary Clinton did, the Democrats would pass a law bringing back the electric chair just for that. If an ordinary citizen did it, they would probably get the electric chair without even the need for passing a new law.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Well, it's true. If a Republican did a tenth of what Hillary Clinton did, the Democrats would pass a law bringing back the electric chair just for that. If an ordinary citizen did it, they would probably get the electric chair without even the need for passing a new law.

Which was what, exactly.

Please be specific.

---

https://twitter.com/sam_vinograd/status/1176255886815313923

There doesn't need to be an investigation. Just what Trump has admitted and said publicly more than merits impeachment.
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Well, it's true. If a Republican did a tenth of what Hillary Clinton did, the Democrats would pass a law bringing back the electric chair just for that. If an ordinary citizen did it, they would probably get the electric chair without even the need for passing a new law.

Which was what, exactly.

Please be specific.

Insider Trading
Embezzlement
Bribery
Obstruction of Justice
Murder
Election Rigging
Contempt of Congress
Deleting 33,000 emails to cover up her misdeeds
---

Also, maybe most importantly, Lese Majeste - insulting the sovereign, which in this country is The People.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Insider Trading
Embezzlement
Bribery
Obstruction of Justice
Murder
Election Rigging
Contempt of Congress
Deleting 33,000 emails to cover up her misdeeds

That was not specific. Please try again.

Additionally the primary 'misdeed' relating to the emails was the fact that she was using her personal email for government business and failing to maintain backups, though in most every case she was corresponding with someone else's actual government issued email so the record exists from their half of the conversation. At the time she was doing it was not specifically against the rules. (now it is)

---

red sox 777 posted...

Well, it's true. If a Republican did a tenth of what Hillary Clinton did, the Democrats would pass a law bringing back the electric chair just for that. If an ordinary citizen did it, they would probably get the electric chair without even the need for passing a new law.

lol. If a Democrat did a tenth of what Trump has done, there'd be a second civil war.
---

Let's just focus on the very last one of Hillary's crimes - deleting 33,000 emails from her private server.

If any ordinary citizen did 1/10 as much - deleting 3,300 emails - they would be looking at a maximum sentence of thousands of years in prison.
---

Shit Im fucked then
---

Pelosi+impeachment developments:

https://twitter.com/heatherscope/status/1176286574662901761?s=21

Just condemnation would be weak as fuck. Gotta start impeachment.
---

I mean, if they're worried it will affect their 2020 chances you have literally 13+ months to provide evidence and sell the American people on that.

If you can't get that message across then how can you hope to get the message across for other issues?
---

https://twitter.com/ktumulty/status/1176301171541184514
---

Honestly, if the Ukraine shit on its own wasnt impeachable, straight-up blocking the whistleblower complaint from being delivered to Congress is.

It continues the clear-cut pattern that this President and his henchmen dont give a shit about oversight or the rule of law, and have no issue obstructing.
---

Pelosi knows what the outcome of impeachment will be - acquittal and reelection. I mean, this is why you guys hired her to be Speaker, no? To use her long experience and expertise in politics.
---

Trumps base is already 100% mobilized and diehard for him, he gains nothing by being impeached.

Its the disenfranchised voters who think Dems dont give a shit that need to be mobilized, and waffling on impeachment isnt gonna convince them.
---

I mean it's not Dems or Republicans that matter here, its independent voters. There's no "mobilizing the base" here, Dems will come out just like Republicans at the midterms.
---

Thats what I said.
---

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1176314685022494720

"Trump told U.S. budget officials to hold back military aid from Ukraine days before phone call with its president, officials say"
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Trumps base is already 100% mobilized and diehard for him, he gains nothing by being impeached.

Its the disenfranchised voters who think Dems dont give a shit that need to be mobilized, and waffling on impeachment isnt gonna convince them.

They will prove that they don't care about the real issues by pursuing an impeachment that fails and ends in acquittal.
---

It would also be just like Democrats to try to solve a political dispute by going to court. They really do need Pelosi to remind them which court they are going to.
---

More and more House members are coming out for impeachment

From what I've reading we might have hit critical mass:

https://twitter.com/mikedebonis/status/1176311748703457281
---

The other issue is that if the Dems impeach and lose the House in 2020, we can probably expect removal of the filibuster and reprisals - GOP wish list legislation that will be enacted to punish Democrats.
---

I've lost faith in Pelosi on messaging re: impeachment and have no idea wtf is going on there. I considered the idea that her objective is to basically go turnabout on the GOP and essentially make this Trump's Benghazi and just have the impeachment inquiry hearing go on nigh indefinitely without ever actually calling the floor vote. Which... I can see the political value in that but tbqh on the matter of history and principle that's not satisfactory to me.

All that said, I'll play devil's advocate here for a second and layout the best possible case I can see for not impeaching (again, keep in mind, this argument doesn't win me over) is to look at from the other end and ask yourself what you mean to achieve with impeachment. If your end goal is to remove Trump from office, impeachment won't get you there, the GOP Senate is complicit. If your end goal is to limit Trump's ability to flout the law/meddle in the election/etc. impeachment doesn't strip him of his powers or anything, he could still do all that (unless of course the Senate convicted but again complicit.)

At which point you're probably looking at making a statement that this behavior is not okay. ...But do you actually achieve that? Again, the Senate won't convict, so let's take a look at the worst case scenario - Senate acquits and Trump wins re-election. In this case, if anything, the norms have been completely destroyed so if anything you've backfired on your goal. (On the flip side, and more in line with my genuine thinking: If you don't impeach and Trump wins... you've basically conceded the ability to impeach at all.)

all that said

I don't buy into that argument. I think you have to have faith that you're right and the people are with you, impeach to make the statement that this **** is not acceptable, and when the GOP Senate votes to acquit you point to their complicity and take that into the election. You show the people you did everything you could but the GOP refused to act on the most blatant **** imaginable and that now it's up to them to do what the GOP refused to. It's the only way I think you have a chance of repairing things. The argument that "Well, you're ultimately relying on the election here anyway, so don't rock the boat/take the risk of impeachment you'll get that election anyway" just isn't good enough. Yes, if Trump wins re-election you're super ****ed on this path, but if he wins re-election we're super ****ed either way.

The only logical rationale to oppose impeachment at this juncture is if you believe it will hurt the chances of defeating Trump in 2020. I don't buy that argument but it's the only one that I think is understandable. But that's a pretty dismal place if you're there IMO.
---

xp1337 posted...

If your end goal is to limit Trump's ability to flout the law/meddle in the election/etc. impeachment doesn't strip him of his powers or anything, he could still do all that (unless of course the Senate convicted but again complicit.)

Well, you would think under an active impeachment investigation, Trump would try to tone that down a bit. It's possible he won't, but that makes him lean on the Senate more.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

xp1337 posted...

If your end goal is to limit Trump's ability to flout the law/meddle in the election/etc. impeachment doesn't strip him of his powers or anything, he could still do all that (unless of course the Senate convicted but again complicit.)

Well, you would think under an active impeachment investigation, Trump would try to tone that down a bit. It's possible he won't, but that makes him lean on the Senate more.

Well, the investigation is active right now! And again, I don't accept that argument I laid out, but it is a matter of fact that Trump won't be stripped of any power if you went through with an impeachment and even the trial. I do tend to agree with you though that it would probably cause him to rein it in temporarily out of self-interest. The devil's advocate would say that upon a Senate acquittal he'd be emboldened as one could argue he may have been with this Ukraine stuff after the Mueller report and testimony.

And while this should be low on anyone's reasons objectively, I do think impeachment would bother Trump regardless of the Senate result. He's all about ego and legacy and to put an asterisk of "one of 3 presidents impeached" would gnaw at him I believe. Which is petty on my part and not the real reason to be for impeachment but just a nice bonus.
---

xp1337 posted...

Well, the investigation is active right now!

I'm not 100% sure on this (and part of this is the dem's shitty messaging), but no, it isn't. The HJC voted on rules for it, and there are certainly ongoing related investigations, but the House itself has to launch a formal impeachment inquiry that should give them more official power to investigate.

And yeah a Senate acquittal would probably embolden him, but he's emboldened now with it off the table. And in the end he'd still be damaged in some way by the whole process, plus Senators would be on the record on supporting him.

---

I also wouldn't be entirely surprised if one or two GOP Senators actually voted for impeachment. If that does happen, his potential "totally exonerated" message gets even weaker.
---

I'm pro impeach.

But, damn, if people actually believe the Mueller Report was a "complete exoneration" then they are stupid enough to believe that an acquittal in the Senate is some kind of indication that no wrongdoing occurred.

Maybe I'm over estimating the ability of the average person to grasp the details of a given situation and Pelosi is correctly estimating them.



---