Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[Sam]

I think Emerson is using 2016 data for its weighting which is about the best available. None of those are double digit leads and most look to be w/i MoE. And it's a freaking YEAR out - which means these things aren't good for much besides scrap paper for the outhouse.

RCP averages for Oct-Dec prior to election year vs. final:

Obama/McCain: 1.75 vs. 7.9

Obama/Romney: 1.46 vs. 3.9

Clinton/Trump: 2.95 vs. 2.1

2008 was, of course, the year that the Great Recession became a massive issue over the summer -- good explanation for an outlier there.

Otherwise, we're looking at relatively small movement. Trump won the EC by <100,000 votes in a few states. Nothing saying that he can't do it again or even do better but he can't do it if he's outside of ~2 pts nationally.

So the Trump campaign, looking at -5 to Biden, would understand that as a problem, a threat to his 2020 chances.

--Sam

[Starlight]

Translation: Fake News is deceiving by omission, you're getting there Starlight.

The corporate-owned-media has always had an anti-left anti-progressive bias. This has been well known since Noam Chomsky wrote Manufacturing Consent in the 80s, in which he demonstrated how the rich corporations that ran the media operated to collectively to do propaganda that was anti-leftist, pro-rich, pro-war, and pro-government. He documented how this functioned in detail, and showed how the corporate media had acted collectively to lie the country into numerous wars and conflicts to the benefit of the rich and nobody else.

The problem remains today when big US media companies continue to have an anti-progressive bias (e.g. they hate Sanders and will typically not mention him in coverage), and meanwhile they bend over backwards to try to be 'fair' to lying right-wingers.

What's the superdelegate situation?

The rules have been changed so they don't get to vote in the first round of voting. They would only be relevant if nobody were to come out of the primaries with a majority, which would be historically fairly unusual.

[demi-conservative]

The corporate-owned-media has always had an anti-left anti-progressive bias. This has been well known since Noam Chomsky wrote Manufacturing Consent in the 80s, in which he demonstrated how the rich corporations that ran the media operated to collectively to do propaganda that was anti-leftist, pro-rich, pro-war, and pro-government. He documented how this functioned in detail, and showed how the corporate media had acted collectively to lie the country into numerous wars and conflicts to the benefit of the rich and nobody else.

The problem remains today when big US media companies continue to have an anti-progressive bias (e.g. they hate Sanders and will typically not mention him in coverage), and meanwhile they bend over backwards to try to be 'fair' to lying right-wingers.

If you thought in more than one dimension, you would realise that they also hate genuine right-wing thought, which is why they hate Trump and don't even pretend to be fair any more.

If you thought any further, you would realise that impacts the international coverage, which influences many Europeans to strongly dislike Trump since all they see about him is Fake News.

Any more further, and you would realise that opinion polls of foreigners who are largely ignorant of context and the actual situation areuseless.

A little bit further to you being an idiot for caring about opinion polls of foreigners.

The rules have been changed so they don't get to vote in the first round of voting. They would only be relevant if nobody were to come out of the primaries with a majority

So that's why they have such a large field.

[Mountain Man]

The corporate-owned-media has always had an anti-left anti-progressive bias.

[demi-conservative]

Meanwhile, the corporates have learnt to embrace the progressives, and vice versa.

[Teallaura]

RCP averages for Oct-Dec prior to election year vs. final:

Obama/McCain: 1.75 vs. 7.9

Obama/Romney: 1.46 vs. 3.9

Clinton/Trump: 2.95 vs. 2.1

2008 was, of course, the year that the Great Recession became a massive issue over the summer -- good explanation for an outlier there.

Otherwise, we're looking at relatively small movement. Trump won the EC by <100,000 votes in a few states. Nothing saying that he can't do it again or even do better but he can't do it if he's outside of ~2 pts nationally.

So the Trump campaign, looking at -5 to Biden, would understand that as a problem, a threat to his 2020 chances.

--Sam

All pre-2016. None of that tells me what they are using for their weighting basis. None are even written correctly unless they all show early leads to challengers in which case they would be reassuring, not concerning. Clinton's numbers are known to be suspect.


And unless Trump has no one who actually knows how to read polls AND he has suddenly developed an irrational fear of polls despite what happened in 2016 there's nothing here that should concern him. If he were concerned, why only Biden? Nah, this is stupid.

[JimL]

I actually like Yang. I don't agree with his basic income idea, but he is likeable and articulate and seems to be genuine and not a swamp creature like Biden, Warren and Sanders. Heck even Buttigeig is better than those three.

You obviously wouldn't know a corrupt swamp creature (trump) when you see one, Sparko.

[lilpixieofterror]

You obviously wouldn't know a corrupt swamp creature (trump) when you see one, Sparko.

Says the Clinton supporter.

[JimL]

I agree. Biden has dementia or similar. Anyone who's paying attention has noticed it (including donors and Obama) but for the moment the media seems hesitant to report it to the general public and so Biden's numbers are still high with people not paying attention. I sincerely hope Biden doesn't manage to totter across the line in the Dem primary, cos he'll sure face-plant immediately in the general.

Overall Sanders is looking well positioned to win both the primary and general. If I was a betting man, that's where my money would be going. It seems that behind the scenes Obama is panicking that Sanders is going to win so is trying to mobilize the donors to support Warren instead. But for the moment Warren seems to be losing to Sanders on all the metrics I've looked at.

Sanders and Warren are basically the same on the issues anyway, so I think either would be acceptable to Obama. Sanders already has an established loyal base though which gives him an advantage. I think Obama, who knows Warren well, and like myself, thinks it's time to put an intelligent woman in the White House. But I like Sanders an awful lot as well.

[JimL]

Says the Clinton supporter.

Well, like Sparko, you wouldn't know one when you see one.

[Tassman]

A) The Democrats should have included that in the Articles of Impeachment

The House did include it, under the heading of Abuse of Power as testified by seven witnesses.

2) If it's so compelling, why not transmit the AoI to the Senate?

To what end? The Senate leader has publicly stated that he intends to have as quick a trial possible in consultation with the defendant, i.e. Trump. In short, a political farce.

[Cow Poke]

The House did include it, under the heading of Abuse of Power as testified by seven witnesses.

And that's the very best they could do?

To what end? The Senate leader has publicly stated that he intends to have as quick a trial possible in consultation with the defendant, i.e. Trump. In short, a political farce.

So, the Senate saw the Democrats impeachment farce and decided to match it? Sounds fair.

[Tassman]

And that's the very best they could do?

Republican witnesses, confirmed a quid pro quo during impeachment testimonies. that's more than enough. There would have been more if Trump had not blocked other key witnesses - hence the 'Obstruction of Congress' article two.

So, the Senate saw the Democrats impeachment farce and decided to match it? Sounds fair.

The Senate under direction of Trump, the defendant, is obstructing the trial; does this sound fair to you?

[rogue06]

And that's the very best they could do?



So, the Senate saw the Democrats impeachment farce and decided to match it? Sounds fair.

00000000000000aab.jpg

[rogue06]

Republican witnesses, confirmed a quid pro quo during impeachment testimonies. that's more than enough. There would have been more if Trump had not blocked other key witnesses - hence the 'Obstruction of Congress' article two.



The Senate under direction of Trump, the defendant, is obstructing the trial; does this sound fair to you?

In reality they provided hearsay evidence that among a certain group there was unsubstantiated gossip that there was quid pro quo.