Patterico's Pontifications

11/26/2019

Democratic Congresswoman Changes Mind On Impeachment (UPDATE ADDED)

Filed under: General — Dana @ 9:08 am



[guest post by Dana]

A quick little post here, involving a bit of that was then, this is now from Democratic Congresswoman Brenda Lawrence, who represents a very blue district:

Over the summer, Congresswoman Brenda Lawrence fully backed the move to impeach President Trump, but the Detroit-area Democrat said over the weekend that she has since changed her mind.

“I feel we should begin that process,” Lawrence told CNN on June 12. “If we impeach him, he is still sitting in the White House because the Senate must act.”

“Our democracy is bigger than Donald Trump, and we need to act,” added the congresswoman, who since 2015 has represented Michigan’s 14th District, which includes eastern Detroit.

Now, however, Lawrence said she sees things differently.

“You can censure, you don’t have to remove the president,” Lawrence said Sunday on No BS News Hour with Charlie LeDuff. “Sitting here, knowing how divided this country is, I don’t see the value of kicking him out of office, but I do see the value of putting down a marker saying his behavior is not acceptable.”

“I’ll be g-damned,” the host said at one point in response to Lawrence’s remarks. “To hear you say, and you are a Democrat, and you are a liberal minded person; I know you don’t like Trump For the betterment of all of us, in an election year, it’s unwise to tear him from the chair. Is that how you think?”

“Yeah,” Lawrence responded.

At this point in time, Nancy Pelosi remains mum on whether censuring Trump will be an available option. Regardless, Lawrence’s flip on this has got to be the last thing that Pelosi wants the public to hear coming from her side of the aisle.

With that, CNN is reporting that, since the impeachment hearings began, not much has changed:

Half of Americans say Trump should be impeached and removed from office, 43% say he should not. Neither figure has changed since October, with support for impeachment remaining at its highest level thus far in CNN polling. The partisan divide over the President persists as well, with roughly 80 points between Democratic support for Trump’s removal and Republican support for it.

Independents are closely divided on the question, 47% in favor, 45% opposed. Opinions on both sides are deeply held, with about 9 in 10 on either side saying they feel strongly in favor or against it.

The President’s approval rating has also held about even since October: 42% say they approve, 54% disapprove.

Although views on impeachment and removal have not moved, the poll finds that 53% say Trump improperly used his office to gain political advantage, up from 49% who said the same in October. More, 56%, say the President’s efforts to get Ukraine to launch investigations into the Biden family, a Ukrainian energy company and the 2016 election were more to benefit himself politically than to fight Ukrainian corruption.

The public is about evenly divided over whether there is enough evidence now for the House to vote to impeach the President and send him to trial before the Senate (48% say yes, 47% say no). And a narrow majority (52%) say the Democrats have exercised their constitutional powers properly during the impeachment inquiry, 40% say they have abused their constitutional powers.

This is isn’t the only poll that’s found things unchanged.

UPDATE: New Quinnipiac poll:

While 40 percent of all registered voters approve of the job President Trump is doing, 54 percent disapprove. This compares to a 38 – 58 percent approval rating in an October 23 poll, and falls within the range of where his job approval rating has been over about the last two years.

…While 45 percent of American voters think President Trump should be impeached and removed from office, 48 percent don’t think he should be. In an October 23 poll, 48 percent thought he should be impeached and removed and 46 percent didn’t think so.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

62 Responses to “Democratic Congresswoman Changes Mind On Impeachment (UPDATE ADDED)”

  1. Good morning.

    Dana (cb74ca)

  2. It should be noted: on 11/23/2011 — roughly the same point in his first term — Obama’s approval rating at Gallup was 41% approve, 51% disapprove. Much is made of Trump’s polling numbers but they are not the outliers that people seem to think.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  3. Obama’s approval ratings were negative most of his Presidency. He started off with goodwill, then went negative 2010-11 and going positive only late in 2012 in time for re-election. Then back down into the 40s until 2016.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  4. She’s already flipped back. Clearly the Party can’t have people stepping out of line.

    Edoc118 (7edcb4)

  5. If Pelosi holds an impeachment vote and it fails, she’s toast.

    OTOH, all those freshman Democrats in reddish seats, who won on a Trump-dissatisfaction vote are going to have some ‘splaining to do. It seems likely that impeachment will cost Pelosi her job, one way or the other.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  6. Impeachment without removal is a form of censure. Only two other presidents in our history have hit that level of disapproval, and that “impeached” label is attached to both of them forever.

    Paul Montagu (00daa1)

  7. 3. Kevin M (19357e) — 11/26/2019 @ 9:33 am

    Obama’s approval ratings were negative most of his Presidency. He started off with goodwill, then went negative 2010-11 and going positive only late in 2012 in time for re-election. Then back down into the 40s until 2016.

    Opinion probably didn’t really change.

    When not close to an election, people take the question of how good a job the president is doing as referring to the things most prominent in the news in he last six weeks, and for a lot of that time it was Obamacare, and there were other things that went on worth criticizing; near an election, it’s an evaluation of the previous three or four years, and is taken to refer to more fundamental things, like keeping the peace and avoiding a recession.

    Sammy Finkelman (1a8726)

  8. Jack Holmes
    @jackholmes0
    In a world without press briefings, the White House press corps has mostly accepted a system of ritual abuse, where they are forced to ask the world’s most powerful man questions over the roar of a helicopter engine.
    _ _

    Stephen Miller
    @redsteeze
    The last guy tried to use his justice department to charge journalists as co-conspirators while also wire tapping our phones, but Trump makes us stand outside and shout over a helicopter.
    __ _

    Joe Blow
    @josephblosef
    It’s cool if you spy on us and hack our computers but my god, helicopter noise?! You animal
    __

    Barrett Wiedeman
    @barrettwiedemen
    ·
    Press: After doing everything we can for three years to destroy this President, how DARE he take our questions outside next to a helicopter.

    _

    harkin (337580)

  9. The President’s approval rating has also held about even since October: 42% say they approve, 54% disapprove.

    We care what people think unless it’s an election.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  10. “You can censure, you don’t have to remove the president,” Lawrence said Sunday on No BS News Hour with Charlie LeDuff.

    Isn’t this what Rush Limbaugh said?

    https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2019/11/25/is-pelosi-looking-for-a-way-out

    RUSH: I have so many people asking me, “Rush, is this stuff I’m hearing true? That Pelosi may be looking for a way out of actually having an impeachment vote?” Folks, I’ve got three stories about this, including polling data from the anointed one, Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com, which indicates that support for impeachment is plummeting, and it dropped as the Schiff show was ongoing…

    …e polling data is ancillary, but it may be causing the cold feet. There’s lots of stories of actual Democrats telling liberal Drive-By Media that they are very worried about this…

    …Just to review, “Washington Post: We’re Hearing Behind The Scenes That More House Dems Are Getting ‘Cold Feet’ About Impeachment.” The phrase of the day, says the Washington Post reporter, over the weekend was “cold feet.”

    Politico says that vulnerable Democrats, moderates who won election in 2018 in Trump districts, are watching in horror as Trump spends $8 million worth of ads attacking Democrats and impeachment in their home districts..

    So how could Pelosi do this? …She could go on TV, call a press conference and tell a bunch of lies about how successful the hearings were. That we’ve got all of this evidence of bribery and extortion and praise to the hilt all of the civil servant left-wing liberal Democrat witnesses, extol their virtues to no end, praise them to the hilt, praise them by name, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman — O say can you see — Fiona Hill, Bill Taylor, George Kent, name ’em. Yovanovitch.

    And then say that even if she were to get every Democrat in the House voting, the problem is that the process then goes to the Senate where the corrupt Republicans are in charge, where the Republican Party is going to not listen. This is Pelosi speaking, I’m making up the words, but this would be her message. The Republican Party will openly defy the wishes and will of the American people as represented in the vote to impeach in the House of Representatives.

    And in the trial, the Republicans will be able to call witnesses who will be able to distort and confuse and get away with it because the partisan Republicans who will do anything to protect Trump will be running the trial. And she can continue to set it up as whatever happens in the Senate will be illegitimate because of Republican partisanship, and then present that as the greatest problem facing America. Republican partisanship, Republican defense of Donald Trump. The Republicans’ refusal to stand up for the Constitution.

    I mean, just ladle it on the Republicans and don’t stop. And then tell her wacko, crazed base a truth, that the inherent problem of going to the Senate is that because of the partisanship of the evil Republicans, this president, who we have proven has violated his oath of office will be acquitted because of Republican partisanship, because Republicans will ignore the evidence just like they did with Kavanaugh. They will see to it that this president is protected.

    And then she says, ladies and gentlemen, the last thing we want, the last thing this country needs, the last thing this country can put up with and tolerate is this president being acquitted. That would be an outrage to the Constitution. That would be an outrage to the American people. I simply will not participate in a process that ends with this president, who is as guilty as any president has ever been, I will not be part of a process that finds him not guilty. I simply cannot do that to America.

    And because of the partisan Republicans, because of the mean-spirited Republicans, because of racist, bigoted, sexist homophobic Republicans — just really ladle it on — this president will be found not guilty, and that is something our country cannot withstand. And I, your speaker, will not put this country through that. Even on the day, she could say, even on those days where we care about God, God knows the president is guilty. But the Republicans who also know he’s guilty will do everything they can to shield and protect him because he has corrupted them like he has our great country.

    Now, would something like that fly with her wacko base? That’s a tough call. ‘Cause her wacko base, they want Trump in jail. They want him shot at dawn. They want the absolute worst that they could imagine happening. So Pelosi’s chore, if there’s anything to this, backing off on it, polling data showing less and less support, she doesn’t have enough votes — remember she’s got 218 votes, but she doesn’t have 220…
    ..There’s another thing she could add. Because of the archaic old-fashioned rules of the Senate which will be enforced by the bigoted leader, Mitch McConnell, our great Democrat presidential candidates from the Senate will not be able to campaign during a trial. And the bigoted leader of the Republicans, Senator McConnell, has promised a six-week trial, and so our courageous Democrat presidential candidates would not be able to join the campaign trail during the precious early days of the primary season because they must stay in the Senate during the trial. I will not handicap my precious Democrat presidential candidates by making sure they can’t campaign.

    My point is she’s got some avenues she could go down if there is anything to this not having a vote. And if she doesn’t have a vote, then Schiff, you know, they might have to drag him off a ledge somewhere if there isn’t a vote, either.

    Sammy Finkelman (1a8726)

  11. I realize that I’m a person of a suspicious mind, but if he got kicked out of office, all the scandal would go away. Pence is boring. I do wonder if some have made the political calculation that their chances are better they keep letting Trump dig his hole deeper.

    @9 Er. You do realize that technically speaking, what “the people” thought was that Clinton should be President?

    Nic (896fdf)

  12. 1. Lick finger.
    2. Raise finger to the wind.
    3. Feel which side is cold.
    4. That’s the way the wind blows.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  13. Yes, conservative Republicans only have themselves to blame for this current absurdity and it has come back to bite them in the azz. Thank Newt Gingrich and his posse for weaponizing impeachment back in the day in desperation because of the failure to persuade and deliver. It has become a caricature of intent for every side now; like threatening thermonuclear war every month.

    Only four of these dramas in nearly 250 years– three in the past 45. It’s nuts; it’s immature, too– and the adults driving nails and school buses outside the Beltway know it and are sick of it. Politics is the art of compromise, not endless my-way-or-the-highway-sieges of the Alamo. Little wonder fewer and fewer people self-identify as members of these major parties. If you send money to either one, you’re a loon or just a sucker.

    Damn it, do your jobs: compromise, censure the sunnuvabitch, like you should have the day after Helsinki, and get on with the business of the people.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  14. What happens if Rudi, Bolton, or Mulvaney conclude that the President is willing to sacrifice them and tie him more closely to Putin in this Ukranian mess?

    John B Boddie (0fa0b7)

  15. We have to consider all the ramifications, as another commented suggested yesterday. What if Trump is removed and One Direction gets together again?

    nk (dbc370)

  16. #13: Clinton’s impeachment began with a widespread disgust with Bill Clinton’s behavior with an intern. As the process developed, things changed. The GOP base became invested in impeachment and the Democrat base became invested in Bill Clinton. Liberals who were saying “Clinton should resign” when the news broke had become convinced that they had to support Clinton to oppose Gingrich.

    So, by the time that the actual impeachment happened, everything had shifted, Gingrich et al had no choice but to go forward but the popular mood was no longer with them, thanks to a liberal press.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  17. This time, it is the liberal press spearheading the drive to impeach.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  18. @16/@17. The “press” isn’t spearheading anything; they’re generating content; 99.9% of which is opinion for clicks and TeeVee eyeballs to entertain you.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  19. White House Invited to Participate in Impeachment Hearing Next Week

    The House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday invited President Trump’s legal team to participate in its first public impeachment hearing next week, when lawmakers plan to convene a panel of constitutional scholars to inform the panel’s debate over whether the president’s actions amount to “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

    The Judiciary Committee scheduled the hearing, “The Impeachment Inquiry into President Donald J. Trump: Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment,” for Dec. 4. Democratic officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of a formal announcement, did not say who the panel will invite as witnesses, but they said it would feature legal experts who could speak about constitutional precedent and the history of impeachment.
    …….

    Rip Murdock (ff876c)

  20. It only takes one rogue cow to start a stampede.

    Russell (453b75)

  21. It may be something to do with Emerson and Rasmussen polls showing Trump’s approval with Black voters rising up to 34%.

    If it was just Rasmussen, I’d discount the polls, but Emerson coming up with the same number is interesting.

    Xmas (eafb47)

  22. I distinctly remember right after Clinton gave his “I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky” denial.

    There was a panel of talking heads, left and right, afterward and they all agreed with the assertion “If he’s lying, he’s gone.”

    But when it turned out, after months of further denials, and slander aimed at the Independent Counsel, that he was, in fact, lying, somehow the goalposts had moved.

    Dave (fcd131)

  23. Breaking news after democrats in her district are standing in line to primary her she has changed back to voting for impeachment! Democrats are now like republican tea party and will primary anyone who strays from the party line.

    asset (b71b38)

  24. ”but they said it would feature legal experts who could speak about constitutional precedent and the history of impeachment.”
    Rip Murdock (ff876c) — 11/26/2019 @ 11:27 am

    I‘m not sure the Fonz on skis counts as a legal expert.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  25. #6

    Impeachment without removal is a form of censure. Only two other presidents in our history have hit that level of disapproval, and that “impeached” label is attached to both of them forever.

    Paul Montagu (00daa1) — 11/26/2019 @ 9:45 am

    Not sure I agree with that.

    Because with impeachment, GOP Senate gets a chance to cross-examine the Democrat’s position and to muddy the waters up more that would highlight the partisan efforts by democrats. Frankly, Trump will spin this as total exoneration and wear this as a badge of honor.

    With Censure, Trump won’t get that same chance.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  26. Only two other presidents in our history have hit that level of disapproval, and that “impeached” label is attached to both of them forever.

    It’s interesting that the REASON they wanted to get rid of Andrew Johnson (he was weak on Reconstruction) was much different than the charge (he dared to fire a cabinet member after Congress told him he couldn’t). That the charge was utter BS (he was within his rights) didn’t seem to matter.

    Compare this to today, where the charge (whatever) is also disjoint from the reason (“unfit”).

    Kevin M (19357e)

  27. #14: Good luck tying Bolton to the Ruskies.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  28. The “press” isn’t spearheading anything; they’re generating content;

    Sure, but all the “content” falls one way. Just chance, I guess.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  29. “high crimes and misdemeanors”

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misdemeanor-word-history-not-always-a-crime

    Among words that name crimes, misdemeanor gets off easy. Today it officially designates a minor legal offense, but in the past it had meanings that could refer either to very major acts or things not even punishable by law.

    Misdemeanor comes from demeanor, which means “behavior toward others” or “outward manner” (as in “his quiet demeanor”). Demeanor derives from the verb demean, which means “to conduct or behave (oneself) usually in a proper manner”—not to be confused with the other and much more common verb demean that means “to lower in character, status, or reputation” (as in “I won’t demean myself by working for so little money” or “Don’t demean the hard work they’ve done”). These two verbs are spelled the same way but come from different roots: the former comes from the French verb mener (“to lead,” “to drive”) and ultimately from the Latin minare (“to drive”). Demean meaning “to degrade” or “to debase” comes from the adjective mean, which originally meant “humble” or “inferior in rank,” hence, this demean means “to make humble” or “to make lower.”

    So, because it developed from the verb that means “to conduct or behave (oneself),” misdemeanor literally means “bad behavior toward others.”

    The article goes on to describe how “misdemeanor” has become a legal term but that before the 19th century it was a vague term regarding misbehavior.

    Does anyone really argue that Trump is innocent of misbehavior?

    Kevin M (19357e)

  30. Why this weird idea that Pelosi is some sort of moderate and is “The only adult in the Democratic room”? That’s all just wishful thinking. OF COURSE, impeaching trump is insane. OF COURSE, it will accomplish nothing. OF COURSE, its against all prior precedent and Congressional Tradition.

    But so what? The D’s only care about one thing – does it help them. And they think by impeaching Trump it helps them. They know Trump isn’t going anywhere – but they want to damage him and stop him from doing anything positive legislatively.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  31. #25: and in fact when impeachment was discussed in the 1787 Convention, Franklin poined out that, in its absence the only way to remove an Executive was by assassination, which not only did not allow a trial but had a harsher sentence. Part of the idea was to allow a trial and the possibility of exoneration.

    I believe that a member of the armed forces can accept a summary punishment or insist on a court martial for similar reasons. I wonder if the President can demand a trial — everyone else can.

    Only one president (Jackson) has been censured, and the censure was expunged after Congress changed hands.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  32. Why this weird idea that Pelosi is some sort of moderate

    There are no moderates in either party in Congress. It’s bimodal. But Pelosi is noticeably closer to the center than the bulk of her party.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  33. Notice that Conservative Inc. and the Bulwark Boys are A-OK with impeaching a President with made up “Crimes” on a completely partisan basis. I thought all their big, intellectual conservatism, with its “What would Edmund Burke do”? underpinnings would make them angry at this abuse of Congressional Power.

    It seems the only thing that get Conservative Inc. angry is: Trump, Right wingers, and a late paycheck from their corporate masters.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  34. UPDATE:

    While 40 percent of all registered voters approve of the job President Trump is doing, 54 percent disapprove. This compares to a 38 – 58 percent approval rating in an October 23 poll, and falls within the range of where his job approval rating has been over about the last two years.

    …While 45 percent of American voters think President Trump should be impeached and removed from office, 48 percent don’t think he should be. In an October 23 poll, 48 percent thought he should be impeached and removed and 46 percent didn’t think so.

    Dana (cb74ca)

  35. I believe that a member of the armed forces can accept a summary punishment or insist on a court martial for similar reasons. I wonder if the President can demand a trial — everyone else can.

    How many war criminals do you need to pardon before you become one?

    Dave (f06598)

  36. @34. The polls said he wouldn’t win, either– right up to the night he won.

    They’re all over the lot– and these days, given the every-increasing value of information, good and bad, people just lie to pollsters. What’s in it for a person polled to cough up any data– truthful or otherwise- for free?

    Poll me?

    Pay me.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  37. How many war criminals do you need to pardon before you become one?

    Dave (f06598) — 11/26/2019 @ 2:09 pm

    Who are war criminals and what were their crimes?

    NJRob (7f0cc5)

  38. @35. Where do you start and stop this nuttiness? Weaponizing impeachment has become the lazy-azzed politicians solution to everything.

    Adams was unlikable sort; shudda impeached him; Johnson was unlikable, too- he was impeached; Grant was a drunk and surrounded by corruption; shudda been impeached. Taft was a burden to himself and every government bought chair he sat in: shudda impeached him; Wilson was from New Jersey- that alone rates impeachment; Hoover was dour and depressing: shudda impeached him. FDR knew about the concentration camps in Europe, interred American citizens and wore leg irons: shudda impeached him; Truman was a foulmouthed sunnuvabee, a bad role model for the young an nuked Japan: shudda impeached him; Ike ruined the Oval Office floor with his golf spikes-shudda impeached the putz; LBJ knew the war was a losing proposition w/PP in hand yet still sent tens of thousands of people to their deaths; shudda impeached him; Before Watergate, there was the Nixon-Chennault Affair that was outright treason; shudda impeached him in 1969; Reagan traded arms for hostages,dyed his hair, wore glasses and made lousy movies; shudda impeached him. Pappy Bush lied about taxes: shudda been impeached; Clinton lied about sex- he was impeached; Dubya lied about WMD- shudda been impeached; Obama drew a red line, ignored it and lied about ‘keeping your doctor;’- shudda been impeached. Now Trump is getting a thumping.

    First dibs– Bloomberg is trying to buy the office; if he does: impeach him.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  39. @37

    Trump grants clemency to troops in three controversial war crimes cases

    President Donald Trump on Friday granted clemency to three controversial military figures embroiled in charges of war crimes, arguing the moves will give troops “the confidence to fight” without worrying about potential legal overreach.

    Army 1st Lt. Clint Lorance, convicted of second degree murder in the death of two Afghans, was given a full pardon from president for the crimes. Army Maj. Mathew Golsteyn, who faced murder charges next year for a similar crime, was also given a full pardon for those alleged offenses.

    Special Warfare Operator Chief Edward Gallagher, who earlier this fall was acquitted of a string of alleged war crimes, had his rank restored to Chief Petty Officer by the president.
    ….
    While Gallagher was acquitted of murder and obstruction of justice charges in July, a panel of his peers recommended he be reduced in grade for posing with the body of a detainee, a crime he never denied.

    Lorance’s case dates back to a 2012 deployment to Afghanistan, when he ordered his soldiers to fire on three unarmed men riding a motorcycle near their patrol. Members of his platoon testified against him at a court-martial trial, describing Lorance as over-zealous and the Afghans as posing no real threat.

    He was sentenced to 19 years in prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. In recent years, Lorance and his family had waged a long campaign against his sentence, and found a receptive ear in Trump.

    Golsteyn’s case had not yet been decided. He was scheduled for a December trial on charges he murdered an alleged Taliban bomb maker, and burned his remains in a trash pit during a 2010 deployment with 3rd Special Forces Group. Trump’s action effectively puts an end to that legal case before any verdicts were rendered. ….

    Rip Murdock (ff876c)

  40. How many war criminals do you need to pardon before you become one?

    How many murderers do have to pardon before you become one?

    Asking for Obama.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  41. 36. DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/26/2019 @ 2:10 pm

    people just lie to pollsters.

    Very few people nowadays anwer polls when randomly called – less than 10%.

    https://www.pewresearch.org/methods/2017/05/15/what-low-response-rates-mean-for-telephone-surveys

    It had dropped to 36% by 1997 reached 25% by 2003, 15% in 2009 and was at 9% by 2012. And thats for live interviewers. Robo polls get less. This all probably has something to dowith the nuber of and type of calls people get.

    The people who answer questions are different from the people who don’t. Or they are different when it comes to political opinion. More of them lean Democrat for one thing. More of them are the sort of people who volunteer.

    The numbers need to be adjusted or weighed, and that is an art, not a science.

    The results get weighed according to how they answer other questions with known statistics, often demographic, (age sex and race) but that’s not enough.

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-the-polling-industry-in-stasis-or-in-crisis (Aug 24, 2014)`

    How can a poll come close to the outcome when so few people respond to it? One way is through extremely heavy demographic weighting. Some of these polls are more like polling-flavored statistical models than true surveys of public opinion. But when the assumptions in the model are wrong, the results can turn bad in a hurry. (To take one example, the automated polling firm Rasmussen Reports got fairly good results from 2004 through 2008, but has been extremely inaccurate since.) Furthermore, demographic weighting is an insufficient remedy for the failure to include cellphone-only voters, who differ from landline respondents in ways that go beyond easily identified demographic categories.

    Another tactic is for a pollster to copy off its neighbors. As my colleague Harry Enten described earlier this month, and as other researchers have found, robopolls and other polls that take methodological shortcuts show better results when there are also traditional, live-interviewer polls surveying the same races. The cheap polls may “herd” off stronger polls, tweaking their results to match them. This can make them superficially more accurate, but they add little value. Where there are better polls available, the cheap poll duplicates the results already in hand. Where there aren’t, the cheap poll may stray far from an accurate and representative sample of the race.

    Boldface mine. What they’re tweaking is their model.

    This hapepns with econoic and climate models that are fotted to past data, and wth stock market models.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  42. The only opinions and votes that count are our 100 senators.

    dunce (4848a5)

  43. 43. They have to, in the long run, answer to the public.

    Sammy Finkelman (1a8726)

  44. I think at this point elections should just be abandoned, and the supreme court run the country.

    And by supreme court, of course I mean Patterico. Reagan was wrong, the people can’t be trusted to get it right.

    lee (f8d029)

  45. And again, Trump’s approval rating has been almost point-for-point with Obama’s at the same time in his term. I really don’t understand why people keep bringing his tepid approval numbers up as if they were some kind of outliers.

    OK, maybe I do understand.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  46. How many war criminals do you need to pardon before you become one?

    How many drug dealers and embezzlers do you need to pardon before you become one? Whatever Trump’s misdeeds with the pardon power, they aren’t unique.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  47. You cannot become a murderer, drug dealer or embezzler by pardoning someone who committed those crimes.

    But shielding enough war criminals from accountability could make you a war criminal.

    Dave (fcd131)

  48. You might as well say that you can become a war criminal by being an attorney for war criminals.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  49. If the attorney procures or induces unlawful command influence, why not?

    nk (dbc370)

  50. This sh!t that the orange is doing is expressly forbidden by the USCOMJ. But who is going to challenge it and where? If he were doing it against the defendants, they could raise it in their court martial. Here, it could only be handled by way of impeachment and criminal indictment after he leaves office. Rotsa ruck with that.

    nk (dbc370)

  51. *USCMJ*

    nk (dbc370)

  52. Compare this to today, where the charge (whatever) is also disjoint from the reason (“unfit”).

    Let’s not forget the impeachment between Johnson and Trump, which is Clinton. Republicans were looking for all kinds of ways to impeach him because he was such a lying sleazebag, and then the Lewinsky Unpleasantness fell into their laps.

    Paul Montagu (00daa1)

  53. With Censure, Trump won’t get that same chance.

    Without Googling, do you know how many presidents have been censured and why? With impeachment, the history is much more known, right?

    Paul Montagu (00daa1)

  54. Yes, as I mentioned it before. Andrew Jackson was censured for shutting down the central bank. It was later expunged. I think it was by the Senate.

    There have been other attempts, and other reprimands that did not amount to a formal censure.

    (and now that I look it up)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censure_in_the_United_States

    Kevin M (19357e)

  55. If the attorney procures or induces unlawful command influence, why not?

    A pardon is never “unlawful” command influence. It’s a plenary power.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  56. OTOH, it could be claimed that the US has failed to prosecute war crimes due to the pardon(s) and that those pardoned could be tried in another venue.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  57. And…

    under the bus goes Rudy:

    I didn’t direct Rudy’s work in Ukraine, Trump claims

    Allahpundit wryly observes:

    Literally no one believes this. Even MAGA commentators who have to pretend to believe it will do so only half-heartedly, given how preposterous it is.

    Meanwhile, in the real world, his “transcript” of the infamous Zelensky call still reads:

    “Rudy very much knows what’s happening.”

    Dave (1bb933)

  58. I question her sincerity but if I thought she was sincere and not merely pragmatic I’d be pretty impressed. I watched the Clinton impeachment and still find it the stupidest thing in US politics I’ve ever seen, and the country’s attention was diverted from more important matters. It made me re-think Nixon.

    I can’t see the upside of impeaching a president with less than a year before an election when he can’t pass any legislation without the Dems agreeing. I have a bit of self-interest here since I’ve been happy with Trump’s judicial appointments so who knows how much that colors my comments? But still, even if her change of heart is for the wrong reasons, as I think is more likely, I agree with her position. How odd.

    Lazlo Toth (cbb623)

  59. I didn’t direct Rudy’s work in Ukraine, Trump claims

    Something Rudy’s attorney could argue is exculpatory.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  60. I can’t see the upside of impeaching a president with less than a year before an election when he can’t pass any legislation without the Dems agreeing.

    It’s counting coup, and red meat for your partisans. And since the partisans are DEMANDING red meat, you’d better toss them some.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  61. 39. While Gallagher was acquitted of murder and obstruction of justice charges in July, a panel of his peers recommended he be reduced in grade for posing with the body of a detainee, a crime he never denied.</em

    That panel of peers is convened at the discretion of the commanding officer/s. It is fully optional. Since, we know the prosecution was corrupt, and the brass involved in this show trial are suspect, a safe assumption is the panel of peers was under threat to "do the right thing."

    iowan2 (9c8856)

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2847 secs.