The Battle In The Democratic Party Over Impeachment Vs. Democratic Goal Of Accomplishment Of Party Agenda

Ronald 49 Comments

The battle is in full swing now to move the House of Representatives toward impeachment hearings against Donald Trump.

But Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is still reluctant to move ahead, and it is causing a split within the Democratic caucus.

Donald Trump is refusing to cooperate in any fashion, including stonewalling any testimony by anyone connected to Trump, including by subpoena, and going to court to block any investigation of Trump tax returns.

Many Democrats are saying that the main emphasis of the Democratic Party should be to promote their agenda for the upcoming election, including dealing with Health Care, Global Warming, Environmental Protection, Education, the Minimum Wage, Civil Rights, and so much more.

The argument is that Donald Trump, even if impeached, will not be convicted by the Republican controlled US Senate, but the argument for doing what can be done is that it is needed to set a standard for future Presidents, so that never again, hopefully, will we have a lawless President on the level of a Donald Trump.

Despite Democratic desires to accomplish their legislative goals, the reality is that little actual legislation is possible as long as there is a divided Congress, where both parties control one chamber.

America is now, in many ways, in a greater crisis than we have had over the future of our Constitution and Bill of Rights since World War II, already seen as far greater than the Presidency of Richard Nixon. Then, many Republicans cooperated in doing what was essential to do, to get Nixon out of office, but sadly that is not the agenda now for a party which can only find one person, Congressman Justin Amash of Michigan, committed to impeachment and punishment for President Trump.

49 comments on “The Battle In The Democratic Party Over Impeachment Vs. Democratic Goal Of Accomplishment Of Party Agenda”

  1. D May 22, 2019 12:19 pm

    ‘We’ve Hit a New Low in Campaign Hit Pieces’

    Recent efforts to sandbag Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard are crude repeats of behaviors that helped elect Trump in 2016

    By Matt Taibbi (05.21.2019)
    https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/taibbi-tulsi-gabbard-bernie-sanders-trump-2020-838156/

    Last week, the Daily Beast ran this headline [https://www.thedailybeast.com/tulsi-gabbards-campaign-is-being-boosted-by-russophiles]: “Tulsi Gabbard’s Campaign Is Being Boosted by Putin Apologists”

    That was followed by the sub headline: “The Hawaii congresswoman is quickly becoming the top candidate for Democrats who think the Russian leader is misunderstood.”

    The Gabbard campaign has received 75,000 individual donations. This crazy Beast article is based on (maybe) three of them.

    The three names are professor Stephen Cohen, activist Sharon Tennison and someone using the name “Goofy Grapes,” who may or may not have once worked for comedian Lee Camp, currently employed by Russia Today.

    This vicious little article might have died a quiet death, except ABC’s George Stephanopoulos regurgitated it [https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/05/19/tulsi_gabbard_article_linking_me_to_putin_apologists_is_fake_news.html] in an interview with Gabbard days later. The [“This Week”] host put up the Beast headline in a question about whether or not Gabbard was “softer” on Putin than other candidates.

    Gabbard responded: “It’s unfortunate that you’re citing that article, George, because it’s a whole lot of fake news.”

    This in turn spurred another round of denunciations, this time in the form of articles finding fault not with the McCarthyite questioning, but with Gabbard’s answer. As Politico wrote: “’Fake news’ is a favorite phrase of President Donald Trump…”

    Soon CNN was writing a similar piece [https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/20/politics/tulsi-gabbard-fake-news-russia/index.html], saying Gabbard was using a term Trump used to “attack the credibility of negative coverage.” CNN even said Gabbard “did not specify what in the article was ‘fake,’” as if the deceptive and insidious nature of this kind of guilt-by-association report needs explaining.

    “Stephanopoulos shamelessly implied that because I oppose going to war with Russia, I’m not a loyal American, but a Putin puppet,” Gabbard told Rolling Stone. “It just shows what absurd lengths warmongers in the media will go, to try to destroy the reputation of anyone who dares oppose their warmongering.”

    Gabbard has had some “controversial” views [https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/16/18182114/tulsi-gabbard-2020-president-campaign-explained], having been raised in a conservative religious home, the daughter of a right-wing radio personality in Hawaii who once described homosexuality as “not normal” and “morally wrong.” She later wrote of a political conversion on issues like LGBT rights, but still angered Democrats in the Obama years by invoking an infamous Republican criticism, i.e. that the president refused to use the term “radical Islam.”

    Frankly, all the Democratic presidential candidates have controversial statements in their pasts, in some cases boatloads of them (see here, for example [http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/joe-biden-record-on-busing-incarceration-racial-justice-democratic-primary-2020-explained.html]). The difference with Gabbard is her most outspoken positions cross party orthodoxy on foreign policy, particularly on war – she is staunchly anti-intervention, informed by experience seeing a failed occupation in Iraq up close — and are therefore seen as disqualifying.
    She’s Exhibit A of a disturbing new media phenomenon that paints people with the wrong opinions as not merely “controversial,” but vehicles of foreign influence.

    “This is how they control self-serving politicians whose only concern is their career,” Gabbard says. “Unfortunately for them, I am a soldier — not a career politician.”

    A transparent hit piece came out as Gabbard was announcing her run. NBC reported [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/russia-s-propaganda-machine-discovers-2020-democratic-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-n964261?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma] “the Russian propaganda machine” is “now promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat.” The article among things was sourced to New Knowledge, a cyber-analysis firm claiming it had caught Russian “chatter” about Gabbard’s “usefulness.”

    This was after the New York Times did a piece outing New Knowledge as having faked exactly this kind of activity [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/alabama-senate-roy-jones-russia.html] in an Alabama Senate race between Democrat Doug Jones and Republican Roy Moore. In that incident, the paper got hold of a memo in which the firm admitted it had “orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet.”

    For NBC to use New Knowledge as a source after this was bad enough. The Daily Beast piece is something beyond, rhetorically. Even during the depths of War on Terror hysteria, we didn’t see Fox headlines stating: “JOHN KERRY: TOP CANDIDATE OF PEOPLE WHO THINK BIN LADEN IS MISUNDERSTOOD.”

    The tactic of making lists of thought criminals first reappeared a few years ago, when the shadowy PropOrNot group was profiled in the Washington Post [https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-propaganda-effort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-say/2016/11/24/793903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html?utm_term=.8ea061039459]. In this case, the definition of what the Daily Beast calls people pushing “the Russian government line” overlaps with views that are merely anti-interventionist or antiwar in general.

    “They smear anyone who is against regime change wars,” says Gabbard.

    This applies really to all of the people mentioned in the Beast piece, even Camp, whose inclusion is also ridiculous because it’s not 100% clear “Goofy Grapes” even has a connection to him (and if he does, are we in guilt-by-association-by-association land now?).

    Tennison belongs to a type I saw a lot of in Russia, i.e. people who grew up under the shadow of nuclear conflict and perceived bad relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union to be the world’s biggest threat to security. This was a big progressive craze in the Reagan/Bush years, when people like CNN founder Ted Turner were creating the “made for détente” [https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-03-18-sp-27099-story.html] Goodwill Games. Tennison has a long history of such “friendship” activities and is said to have brought AA to Russia.

    Re Cohen: if accepting a check from him is now a treasonous offense, a lot of Democrats [https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=Stephen+Cohen&page=3] are going to have to send money back. I’ve known Steve a long time and though we’ve had disagreements, outlets like The Beast have frequently villainized him for saying things any Russia expert would know are true, like that the U.S. did meddle in Russian affairs after the Soviet collapse (particularly in 1996).

    The other anti-interventionist candidate, Bernie Sanders, had his own gross press misadventure of late.

    Sanders joins Gabbard in having been tabbed [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-russian-effort-to-target-sanders-supporters–and-help-elect-trump/2019/04/11/741d7308-5576-11e9-8ef3-fbd41a2ce4d5_story.html?utm_term=.35a517ba116e] a Kremlin project countless times since 2016. The latest New York Times piece, about the “left-wing activism” [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/us/bernie-sanders-burlington-mayor.html?module=inline] of Sanders, hovers around this dreary foreign-subversion theme. The headline revelation was about a trip Sanders made to Managua in the eighties, where he may have attended a rally. The Times explains: “At the anniversary celebration, a wire report described a chant rising up: ‘Here, there, everywhere, the Yankee will die.’”

    In a subsequent interview with Times writer Sydney Ember, Sanders responded, when asked about this, “They were fighting against American — huh, huh — yes, what is your point?” He then noted he didn’t remember that particular chant.

    This is really silly gotcha journalism (especially since it’s not clear what language the chant was in). Ember asked Sanders if he would have “stayed at the rally” if he’d “heard that directly.” Elsewhere, she asked why Sanders once said the Soviets had a good public transportation system and free health care, and if he believed he had an “accurate” view of Nicaraguan leader Daniel Ortega.

    Sanders at first didn’t respond, then spoke and was short with the reporter, seeming exasperated [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/18/us/bernie-sanders.html] as he explained the context of decades of American interventions in Chile, Guatemala, Brazil and other South and Central American countries. He tried to explain that his “view” of Ortega was irrelevant because he was really protesting the policy of intervention, not supporting the foreign leader.

    The whole episode was a [“Back to the Future”] version of the same criticisms leveled at anyone who opposes regime change in Venezuela today — if you protest the policy, you’re not antiwar, you must support the targeted foreign leader.

    “This was not about Ortega,” Sanders said. “Do you understand?”

    His curt response inspired author and Times columnist Jill Filipovic to write that Sanders was “shockingly rude,” adding [https://mobile.twitter.com/JillFilipovic/status/1129728138550927360]: “We already have a president who attacks the press, condescends and refuses to answer questions he deems stupid.”

    Bernie Sanders is not Trump. Neither is Tulsi Gabbard, nor anyone else but Trump, for that matter. It’s a preposterous take. It’s worse than fake-news: It’s self-fulfilling news.

    In 2004, Howard Dean was asked repeatedly if he was “too left” or “too liberal” [https://fair.org/extra/target-dean/] in campaign stops. You would see lines like, “addressing concerns that he is too liberal [http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/08/05/dean.lkl/index.html] to be president…” in coverage. It was nearly a mandatory preamble to Dean stories.

    On the trail, I watched Dean take in these questions. Over time, you could almost hear his teeth grind at words like “left” or “liberal.” Eventually he did start to flip out.

    When he did, suddenly his “testy” demeanor and “combative,” “finger-thrusting” [https://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/25/us/dean-under-attack-revives-feisty-style.html] style earned write-ups of their own, culminating in the campaign-ending “Dean Scream” story. Reporters once reveled in the power to make or break candidates with these circular, quasi-invented narratives.

    These smear jobs don’t work the same way they once did. Trump in 2016 clearly used impatience with media tactics as part of his strategy. The more he brought trail reporters into stump speeches by calling us things like “bloodsuckers” [https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-media-ap-cnn-2015-11] (“enemy of the people” didn’t come until later), the better he did with crowds.

    Reporters refuse to see it, but the national media now lives on the unpopularity spectrum somewhere between botulism and congress. While some of that is undeserved, some of it isn’t. Voters especially resent being told who is and isn’t an acceptable choice, by a press corps increasingly seen as part of a corrupt and condescending political establishment.

    Stories like “Tulsi Gabbard Is the Top Candidate of Traitors” represent exactly the kind of thing people hate about the commercial press as an institution. This scarlet lettering backfired badly in 2016, but we’re doing more of it this time around, not less. Don’t be surprised if it ends badly again.

  2. Southern Liberal May 22, 2019 5:00 pm

    The Democrats Can’t Push Off Impeachment Much Longer

    https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/05/21/the-democrats-cant-push-off-impeachment-much-longer/

    Roll Call contacted 23 of the 24 Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee and asked them where they currently stand on impeachment. They ascertained Rep. Eric Swalwell of California’s opinion by looking at his Twitter feed. By their calculation, a majority of these lawmakers believe that impeachment may be necessary if Trump doesn’t comply with their requests for documents and witness testimony.

    Yet, few only a couple of exceptions, their responses are very on-message and carefully calibrated. They express extreme reluctance to talk about impeachment but refuse to take it off the table. They all seem to agree that Trump cannot defy them with impunity. Most of them are willing to say that impeachment might be forced on them if the administration continues on its current course. In this, they are following the lead of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

    As I’ve said, this is a politically savvy strategy but it might not be sustainable for long. The Democrats may need to shift into a different rhetorical scheme soon where they emphasize that simply opening an impeachment inquiry is not the same thing as making a decision to impeach the president. They’re going to want to have an open impeachment inquiry when they go to court because it will greatly bolster their position against the administration’s claim that their inquiries have “no legislative purpose.” The courts will be more inclined to back Congress’s unambiguous power of impeachment than their contested power to compel the Executive Branch to provide information.

    The decision point may come faster than congressional Democrats were expecting because the administration has just issued a major challenge to their oversight powers with a new legal opinion from the Department of Justice.

    ————–
    President Trump on Monday directed his former White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, to defy a congressional subpoena and skip a hearing scheduled for Tuesday, denying House Democrats testimony from one of the most important eyewitnesses to Mr. Trump’s attempts to obstruct the Russia investigation.
    The House Judiciary Committee had subpoenaed Mr. McGahn to appear. The White House, though, presented Mr. McGahn and the committee with a 15-page legal opinion from the Justice Department stating that “Congress may not constitutionally compel the president’s senior advisers to testify about their official duties.”
    “Because of this constitutional immunity, and in order to protect the prerogatives of the office of the presidency, the president has directed Mr. McGahn not to appear at the Committee’s scheduled hearing on Tuesday,” Pat A. Cipollone, the current White House counsel, wrote in a letter to the Judiciary Committee.
    ———–

    The next step would normally be to find Don McGahn in contempt and then take the case to a judge. They could conceivably lose that case if they don’t have a formal impeachment inquiry to point to as the rationale for needing McGahn’s testimony.

    I’ve suggested that they take a hard look at arresting McGahn and holding him over for a trial in the House, but this is mainly because it would defeat the stalling effect and tip the country straight to full constitutional crisis mode. I don’t expect the House Democrats to take my advice, especially after looking at how tepidly they responded to Roll Call.

    However, I also don’t believe they can avoid facing up to the realities I described for much longer. It’s good for them to position themselves as the most reluctant of prosecutors, but the window for positioning is rapidly closing. They are soon going to have to make hard decisions, whether they’re comfortable making them or not.

  3. Rustbelt Democrat May 23, 2019 4:57 pm

    People just aren’t interested in Tulsi Gabbard, otherwise she would be up higher in the polls.

  5. D May 23, 2019 8:59 pm

    Rustbelt Democrat writes, “People just aren’t interested in Tulsi Gabbard, otherwise she would be up higher in the polls.”

    Rustbelt Democrat—Was it you who wrote, here on “The Progressive Professor,” that policies are not an important consideration for who to vote the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination?

  6. Princess Leia May 24, 2019 9:54 am

    I second what Rustbelt said. Her polling number is 1%. Joe and Bernie are the top 2 in polling, both in double digits. Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris are the top 2 females in polling. Debate performances may change things. But that’s how things stand right now.

  10. D May 24, 2019 11:55 am

    Princess Leia writes, “Debate performances may change things.”

    Yes.

    That is what I am getting at.

    When Rustbelt Democrat writes, “People just aren’t interested in Tulsi Gabbard,” what is not being noted is that the political establishment—and that includes so-called journalists—are very interested in Tulsi Gabbard. They’re not leaving her alone. Why? Because she is a threat.

    When a candidate is not a threat to the establishment, they either leave that person alone or kiss up to that candidate. That has been obvious with the likes of 2020 Democratic presidential candidates like Pete Buttigieg and Beto O’Rourke.

    When a candidate is a threat to the establishment, they smear and run hit pieces, as has been happening against Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard.

    Here is a video interview, published to YouTube on January 21, 2019, between host Joe Rogan and guest “New York Times’s” Bari Weiss who, during the interview, explains as best she can why she figures Tulsi Gabbard is not acceptable. (In this long interview, this part begins at the mark of 2:30.)

  11. Rustbelt Democrat May 24, 2019 12:09 pm

    D, you still don’t get it and you probably will never get it. As Leia pointed out, she’s not catching on with voters and polling shows this. If voters liked her, she would be up higher than 1%. It has nothing to do with “establishment”, what ever the heck you mean by that.

  12. D May 24, 2019 1:44 pm

    Two upcoming videos…

    The first is Meghan McCain in a 2009 appearance on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher.” She demonstrates just how well-informed she is.

    https://youtu.be/nE0mKpShJSU

  13. D May 24, 2019 1:49 pm

    In the second video, published to YouTube, Meghan McCain goes after Tulsi Gabbard—in a way in which she hasn’t against corporate, establishment-preferred candidates (like Kamala Harris)—and shows us she [McCain] is a puppet for the corporate ownership or ABC’s “The View.”

    https://youtu.be/A5ySQDfsxhA

  14. D May 24, 2019 3:51 pm

    Rustbelt Democrat writes, “A hypothetical matchup shows both Biden and Bernie beating Trump.”

    Joe Biden would not unseat Donald Trump.

    No member of Congress who voted for the wars in Vietnam or Iraq was later elected president of the United States.

    No former United States vice president unseated an incumbent United States president.

    While 70 percent of the people support Medicare for All—with an actual majority 52 percent Republicans and an overwhelming 85 percent Democrats—opposing it is Joe Biden.

    There is more.

    Ronald, within the last 30 days, has posted about Joe Biden’s history.

    “[Joe Biden] also made judgments that are problematical, including being against school busing in Delaware; supporting the credit card industry in his state, and in so doing, undermining the ability of debtors to protect themselves by bankruptcy; his lack of protection of Anita Hill in the Clarence Thomas hearings in 1991, for which he continues to apologize but in an unsatisfactory manner; his support of an interventionist foreign policy in Iraq; his many gaffes, many of them harmless but still giving him a reputation for loose and thoughtless language; and his habit of being too touchy feely with women and girls, although never accused of sexual improprieties.

    “Biden also promoted tough crime and drug laws in the 1990s, which are now looked at as blunders that put too many African Americans in prison unjustifiably, and his leadership at different times of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee has been criticized. His ability to ‘cross the aisle’ and work with many Republicans is seen by some as a weakness, while others see it as a strength.

    “Biden is a centrist Democrat in 2019 at a time when many progressives are much further to the left than him, and one wonders if he could gain the support of those to his left if he wins the nomination, as he is perceived as too close to the traditional power centers of the party.”

    The word “centrist,” in current U.S. politics, means corporatist.

    Joe Biden will not be president of the United States.

  15. Former Republican May 24, 2019 3:54 pm

    Because she isn’t above 1% in legit polls, she is feared and a threat? Hahahahaha….that’s so hilarious.

  16. D May 24, 2019 4:12 pm

    Southern Liberal writes, “As this [‘Vox’] article explains, Tulsi Gabbard has had some controversial views regarding Islam and LGBT rights, which makes her not too well trusted by the [left].”

    “Rolling Stone’s” Matt Taibbi covered those “controversial views.”

    That “Vox” article, from January 17, 2019, highlights examples why it is the Democratic Party [Establishment] who oppose Tulsi Gabbard. (And “Vox,” like “Washington Post,” “Washington Monthly,” and “New York Times,” is part of the establishment.)

    The Democratic Party Establishment is not on the “left.” They are corporatists. They are economically right-wing. They are are pro-war. They are also pro-Deep State. (The actual left does not have love for the CIA.)

    Despite claims that the congresswoman from Hawaii #02 has a homophobic past, the United States has a homophobic past. We were not always an enlightened nation. Gabbard, like millions, was raised in such a household. But, what counts is that she did not stay that way. In fact, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) gives Tulsi Gabbard a score of “100.” Here is the link: https://www.hrc.org/your-elected-officials/profile?id=105 .

  18. D May 24, 2019 4:23 pm

    Former Republican writes,

    “Because [Tulsi Gabbard] isn’t above 1% in legit polls, she is feared and a threat? Hahahahaha….that’s so hilarious.”

    If you want to laugh, because you find it “hilarious,” take some time to laugh at Ronald.

    At “Can Joe Biden Overcome the Obstacle Course Awaiting Him in 2020?” [04.28.2019, https://www.theprogressiveprofessor.com/?p=36668%5D, Ronald wrote: “It is very encouraging that Joe Biden has had such a bump, but as we know, polls are notoriously unreliable, Pragmatic Progressive.”

    Former Republican—Go ahead and read very attentively “We’ve Hit a New Low in Campaign Hit Pieces,” by “Rolling Stone’s” Matt Taibbi. (It is the first comment, posted above.)

    I will look forward to a more thoughtful response from you.

  19. Rustbelt Democrat May 24, 2019 4:24 pm

    You may not like what Vox and those others you list have to say, but, they are respected, reliable, professional media sources. I’d much rather trust them than some YouTube show hardly nobody has even heard of.

  21. Rustbelt Democrat May 24, 2019 4:51 pm

    Re: the term “deep state’
    We’re not into conspiracy theories.

  22. D May 24, 2019 5:08 pm

    Rustbelt Democrat writes, “A Gallup poll in December [2018] found that 54% of Democrats want their party to be more moderate; a smaller number, 41%, want their party to be more liberal.”

    I am aware.

    This also means a party divide.

    The poll does not report voting-age groups: 18–29 (in the primaries, it is 17–29); 30–44; 45–64; and 65+. (Link: https://news.gallup.com/file/poll/245465/181212PartyIdeology.pdf .)

    It is highly likely, had the poll listed voting-age groups, the oldest would be for “moderate.”

    “Moderate,” in the current form of the Democratic Party, is corporatist. (From December 14, 2012, and one month after re-elected as the U.S.’s 44th president: “Obama: More Moderate Republican Than Socialist,” https://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/obama-considered-moderate-republican-1980s/story?id=17973080.) It is not progressive. It is not the actual left.

    Ask those participating in a poll questions on specific policies. You don’t get generalized, moderate-vs.-liberal answers. They answer on a given policy. One of those policy questions is Medicare for All. To have 85 percent Democrats and an outright majority 52 percent Republicans in support (https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/403248-poll-seventy-percent-of-americans-support-medicare-for-all)—and on an issue that is not a moderate solution—and you should question the legitimacy of polls of the nature reported by Gallup.

    What is also a problem, and why I mentioned party divide, is that the Democrats do not win elections without carriage of 18–29 voters. In 2004, John Kerry lost in the U.S. Popular Vote by –2.46 percentage points. (He received 48.27% to the 50.73% for re-elected Republican incumbent U.S. president George W. Bush.) The only one of those voting-age groups nationally carried by Kerry was people 18–29. He won them by +9. He had a good +11 points more support from them than his margin in the U.S. Popular Vote. Had he not 18–29 voters, nationwide, his carriage of 19 states, District of Columbia, and 246 electoral votes would have been plenty less.

    This was a problem for Hillary Clinton in 2016. In the Democratic presidential primaries, she didn’t reap even 30 percent of the 17–29 vote nationwide. (Her No. 1 voting-age group of support, with the opposite result, came from those 65+. In general elections, they are the first to vote for the Republicans.) Yes, the divide is generational. But, it is generational most likely due, in part, to different interests of these human beings. Interests certainly plays a role in the continued shaping of a U.S. political party.

    Some of this was covered, in a recent interview 45th Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell gave to MSNBC. A response to what Rendell said, including clips from that interview, are addressed in the following video.

    https://youtu.be/IdHVjEjvM3c

  23. D May 24, 2019 5:11 pm

    Rustbelt Democrats writes, “We’re not into conspiracy theories.”

    If you bought into Russiagate, you’re into conspiracy theories.

    (There is nothing wrong with recognizing a given conspiracy.)

  24. D May 24, 2019 5:18 pm

    Rustbelt Democrat writes, “You may not like what Vox and those others you list have to say, but, they are respected, reliable, professional media sources. I’d much rather trust them than some YouTube show hardly nobody has even heard of.”

    It’s not a matter of “have to say”; it’s a matter of their motivations. I recognize, especially when they push for Democratic nominations to go to corporatists, they are not in service of the best interests of the overwhelming majority of the people. And this goes for the nation itself.

    “Washington Post” and “New York Times”—two legendary, revered U.S. newspaper publications—were on board for the war in Iraq. They both support the endless wars. And if you look at their editorials, who they come from, such publications know very well they are not for the best interests for the overwhelming majority of the people and/or the nation.

    This is enough for me to know to not trust them.

  25. Princess Leia May 24, 2019 5:35 pm

    D – Answer this. If Trump is so innocent, then why does he act so guilty?

  26. Rustbelt Democrat May 24, 2019 6:13 pm

    The first section of the Mueller report details Russia’s efforts to upend the 2016 presidential campaign, and scrutinizes the many interactions between Trump associates and Russia.

    The second half tells how the president reacted to and fumed over the Russia probe, seeking to undermine it, curtail it, and even fire the special counsel himself.

    Mueller makes clear that part of the reason he couldn’t find a prosecutable conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia was because he was stymied by lies, obstruction, and evidence deleted by his investigative targets.

    Mueller points to Congress, not Barr, as the appropriate body to answer the question of obstruction.

    https://www.wired.com/story/mueller-report-trump-obstruction-of-justice-barr/

  27. Princess Leia May 24, 2019 6:17 pm

    Obstruction shows they have something to hide.

  32. D May 24, 2019 8:52 pm

    Princess Leia writes, “D — Answer this. If Trump is so innocent, then why does he act so guilty?”

    “Act guilty” of what?

    Is Trump acting guilty of winning the 2016 United States presidential election? How so? By having carried all the 2012 Republican/Mitt Romney states (24 worth 206 electoral votes) and having flipped six states and a congressional district (Top 10 populous states Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan; as well as Wisconsin, Iowa, and the 2nd Congressional District of Maine; worth +100 electoral votes; for an original electoral-vote score of 306)?

    Is Trump acting guilty of not having colluded with Russia to win the 2016 United States presidential election?

  33. Ronald May 24, 2019 9:05 pm

    D, you know how much I admire you and appreciate your contributions.

    But I must say I am not a believer that Donald Trump won the election fair and square, and I truly believe that the Mueller Report, if all made available, would demonstrate Russian Collusion, as there is so much evidence of that, and Russians have been indicted, and we will soon learn of their connections financially and otherwise with Donald Trump.

    I am surprised you are so certain that those close votes in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are so legitimate, when there are hints of switches of votes being easily accomplished, just like in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004.

    I do not think the GOP has won any election fairly since the first Bush won in 1988!

  34. Princess Leia May 24, 2019 9:07 pm

    Trump keeps trying his best to stop any and all investigations into him. He wouldn’t be doing that, if he’s not hiding something.

  35. Rustbelt Democrat May 24, 2019 9:10 pm

    That fake video of Pelosi is why I don’t trust getting news from alternative sources, especially social media.

  36. D May 24, 2019 11:48 pm

    Ronald writes, “I am surprised you [D] are so certain that those close votes in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are so legitimate, when there are hints of switches of votes being easily accomplished, just like in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004.”

    I have followed some of what has been written by Greg Palast. His interviews as well. What all of these examples have in common are elections in which the Democrats lost. And they were losses in which the elections were narrow wins for the Republicans. The first two—Elections 2000 and 2016—were pickup years. The other election cycle—in 2004—was a Republican hold in which the U.S. Popular Vote shifted GOP by +3 percentage points and involved three states, each with single-digit electoral votes, having switched their party support.

    What also happened, particularly in 2016, was all scheduled states carried for the same party for both U.S. President and U.S. Senate. Wisconsin has held the pattern since 1976. Republican incumbent Ron Johnson won re-election, over former Democratic U.S. senator and challenger Russ Feingold—making it the first time the GOP won in that state on both levels since 1980 as Ronald Reagan flipped Wisconsin while he unseated Jimmy Carter while Bob Kasten unseated Gaylord Nelson.

    There was also the fact that U.S. Popular Vote for U.S. President and U.S. House were less than five points in margins spread, a pattern since 2000, as the GOP won the House by +1.08. (See below information on adjusted margins for Donald Trump.)

    2000 was a Republican pickup year for George W. Bush. 2004 was re-election. 2000 was one in which Bush won all of Bob Dole’s 1996 states, which were 19 states and 159 electoral votes, and Bush won pickups in 11 states worth 112 electoral votes to prevail with 271 electoral votes. With the 2000 U.S. Census report having affected numerous states’ populations, Bush went into 2004 with an adjusted 278 electoral votes, from his 2000 map, and he lost New Hampshire while counter-flipping New Mexico and Iowa to finish with 31 states and 286 electoral votes.

    2016 was the next, and the most recent, presidential election which flipped the White House from the Democratic to Republican column. What 2016 Donald Trump had in common with 2000 George W. Bush was with failing to shift far enough raw-vote and percentage-points margins in the U.S. Popular Vote. But, as with Bush, they shifted in Trump’s and his party’s direction. A 2012 Mitt Romney lost in the U.S. Popular Vote by –3.86 points. (It was Mitt Romney 47.15% vs. re-elected Barack Obama 51.01%.) Romney carried 24 states (pickups with Indiana, North Carolina, and Nebraska #02) worth 206 electoral votes. This meant the 2016 Republicans, to win a pickup of the presidency, needed their nominee to win a net gain of +64 electoral votes. Trump reached. He had a national shift of 1.77 to lose in the popular vote by –2.09, and improvement over Romney’s –3.86. But he won pickups in six states—Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—plus Maine #02. He gained +100 electoral votes. Four of them came from Top 10 populous states worth +83 electoral votes, another example of explaining why and how Trump won. (The linked map illustrates why Trump did not win a Republican pickup of the U.S. Popular Vote. He needed to gain +3.87 percentage points. Those is red are where he reached. For where he did not reach, they are colored in blue. Note the electoral votes of all applicable. Link: .https://www.270towin.com/presidential_map_new/maps/QNQNN.png)

    If Donald Trump would have won a likewise 2016 Republican pickup of the U.S. Popular Vote, I estimate he would have taken Romney’s near 4-point loss and Trump would have won by +2. Why? Dating back to at least 1932 is this pattern: When the White House party switched, the pickup winning Republican or Democrat gained around +1, sometimes +1.5, states with each percentage point nationally shifted in the direction of the pickup winning party. (It is usually closer to +1 in net gains of states.) 2000 Republican pickup winner George W. Bush won a net gain of +1.37 states with each percentage point nationally shifted in his direction. With Nebraska #02, a third of that state’s vote, 2008 Democratic pickup winner Barack Obama won a net gain at least +1 to, perhaps, +1.2 or +1.25 states with each percentage point nationally shifted in his direction. So, with the Romney margin of –3.86, and Maine #02 about half that state’s vote, I figure 2016 Republican pickup winner Donald Trump’s popular-vote margin would have been between +2.15 to +2.64. (The election of 2016 did not align to these prior historical patterns.)

    The Rust Belt trio Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan—listed in that order because of their margins, +0.76, +0.72, and +0.22—ran, based on adjusted numbers, a good 1 or 2 points bluer than where Trump actually finished in these adjusted margins. To get them each to flip, Trump campaigned in pursuit of Rust Belt voters and their states. You know—it was a strategy. An electoral strategy.

    To win a 2016 Republican pickup of the presidency, the Trump campaign knew—should it prevail—Trump would start with Romney’s 206 electoral votes and, from there, determine where they had to win the on the map. The most obvious were bellwethers Ohio and Florida. 18 and 29 electoral votes. Cumulative 224 and 253 electoral votes. Polling during the general elections showed Iowa was easily flipping. Cumulative 259 electoral votes. Maine #02 was flippable. Cumulative 260 electoral votes. To reach 270, there was consideration of the old pattern to follow. Former bellwethers Nevada and New Mexico and/or the combo of 2008 and 2012 tipping point state Colorado and Virginia could have been next. Maximum potential of 293 electoral votes. Turned out, the four—which were 2008 Democratic pickups for Barack Obama—were not merely purple but trending blue and, by 2016, not flippable. (New Mexico was Hillary Clinton’s No. 14 best state, followed by No. 15 Virginia, No. 16 Colorado, and No. 18 Nevada. She carried 20 states.) So, that meant looking to the Rust Belt trio.

    Trump flipped Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan very much in part because he hit the numbers he needed in Ohio. It didn’t hurt they were gradually trending away from the Democrats. (A 2012 re-elected Obama carried Pennsylvania only +1.52 above his national margin. It was his No. 22 best-performed state. It took him 23 to reach his tipping point state for re-election.) The Rust Belt quartet’s combined 64 electoral votes, plus Romney’s 206, were enough to elect Trump. But flipping and carrying Ohio by over 400,000 votes was hitting the level of numbers Trump needed to also get Michigan—the bluest of these Rust Belts—to flip and carry. Their order: 1) Ohio; 2) Wisconsin; 3) Pennsylvania; 4) Michigan. A 2000 and 2004 George W. Bush could not get the other three, to carry as did Ohio, because Bush winning the Buckeye State at best by about 165,000 votes was not sufficient for Bush to also carry any or all of the other three.

    The 2012-to-2016 margins shift in the U.S. Popular Vote went from Obama +4.9 million to Hillary +2.8 million. A Democratic hold, yes, but an underperformance of –2.1 million. Between +1.6 to +1.7 million of that +2.1 million shift, for Trump, came from his pickups of Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. (They comprised 78 percent of that national 2012-to-2016 margins shift. I know the raw-vote margins in 2016 Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan may seem cliche. They were approximately +22,000, +47,000, and +11,000 for Trump. But that followed the 2012 Obama margins—each were 2008-to-2012 Democratic held—of +213,000, +309,000, and +449,000 raw votes. Their 2012-to-2016 Republican shifts were approximately +235,000, +356,000, and +460,000. Ohio shifted approximately +613,000.) In other words: Trump won Election 2016 through the Rust Belt. They—most critically Wisconsin (the tipping point state) followed by Pennsylvania and Michigan—decided Election 2016. They will—and I would say it with at least 95 percent certainty—do that again in 2020.

    * * * * * ELECTION 2020: SCENARIOS * * * * *

    If the Democratic nominee unseats Donald Trump—which, I figure, is what is wanted here at “The Progressive Professor”—I would estimate around a 6- to 8-point national shift for the Democrats. Carriage of 2016 Hillary Clinton’s 20 states, with their cumulative 232 electoral votes as a starting point, would come with a net gain between +6 to +8 states. Total 26 to 28 states. Between 12 and 13 electoral votes on average with each carried state. Electoral-vote score anywhere between the 330s to as high as the 380s. Here is an estimate (flipped states and a congressional district):

    21. Michigan (cumulative 248 electoral votes)
    22. Pennsylvania (cum. 268 electoral votes)
    23. Wisconsin (cum. 278 electoral votes—estimated tipping point state)
    24. Florida (cum. 307 electoral votes)
    — Nebraska #02 (cum. 308 electoral votes)
    25. Arizona (cum. 319 electoral votes)
    26. North Carolina (cum. 334 electoral votes)
    27. Georgia (cum. 350 electoral votes)

    States 28 to 30 would be, mentioned in their 2016 order, Ohio, Texas, and Iowa (with Maine #02). A trending change can shuffle their order and, for example, move Ohio to the back while pushing more up front Texas.

    Now, if Trump wins re-election: His 2016 map holds. But, because no one presidential election’s map was later duplicated, figure him to have potential gains of +3 percentage points in the U.S. Popular Vote (as experienced by 1996 Bill Clinton and 2004 George W. Bush), and with a net gain of two or three additional states (range since 1992 has been between 26 to 32 carried states):

    31. New Hampshire (cumulative 310 electoral votes)
    32. Maine [statewide] or Minnesota (cum. 312 or 320 electoral votes)
    33. Minnesota or Maine (cum. 322 electoral votes)

    This will be my last post for today [Friday, 05.24.2019]. I have a busy day tomorrow. But, if there are more comments calling for me to respond, I will try to get to however many during the weekend.

  38. D May 25, 2019 9:44 am

    Ronald,

    In further answering your question, another reason why Trump won that election—did not steal it—was because of a good number of counties he flipped. Several voted Republican for the first time since 1988 or earlier. In the Democratic pickup year of 2008, Barack Obama won several counties which flipped and carried Democratic first time in decades. A number of those counties held in the Democratic column for 2016 losing nominee Hillary Clinton. So, that is possibly dealing with a new, realigning voting pattern. Same quite possibly with those which flipped and carried Republican, in 2016, for the first time in decades. (This is pending future election cycles, especially 2020.)

    Although the lists of counties are not complete, I will mention them—from a few key states—in the next two paragraphs.

    As the 2008 Democratic presidential pickup winner, Barack Obama flipped a host of [pickup] states’ counties—not in the party’s column in decades—which also carried for his re-election in 2012. They also carried for Hillary Clinton, as she did not hold the presidency in the Democratic column, in 2016. Among them: Virginia’s Henrico [1948], Loudoun (Leesburg, 1964), and Prince William (Manassas, 1964); Colorado’s Arapahoe (Littleton, 1964), Jefferson (Golden, 1964), and Ouray (Ouray, 1964); Ohio’s Hamilton (Cincinnati, 1964); Nevada’s Washoe (Reno, 1964); and New Mexico’s Los Alamos (Los Alamos, 1964). This also happened with counties in a notable state which did not once carry for Obama: Texas’s Dallas (Dallas, 1964) and Harris (Houston, 1964).

    As the 2016 Republican presidential pickup winner, Donald Trump also flipped a host of [pickup] states’ counties not in the party’s column in decades. Among them: Wisconsin’s Kenosha (Kenosha, 1972) and Vernon (Viroque, 1984); Pennsylvania’s Erie (Erie, 1984), Luzerne (Wilkes–Barre, 1988), and Northampton (Easton, 1988); Michigan’s Isabella (Mount Pleasant, 1988) and Saginaw (Saginaw, 1984); Ohio’s Montgomery (Dayton, 1988), Portage (Ravenna, 1988), and Trumbull (Warren, 1972); Iowa’s Clinton (Clinton, 1984); Des Moines (Burlington, 1972), Dubuque (Dubuque, 1956), and Muscatine (Muscatine, 1984). This also happened with a county in a notable state which did not carry for Trump: Colorado’s Pueblo (Pueblo, 1972).

    Those counties in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan—and then when you also factor those in Ohio and Iowa—are more examples explaining why they flipped and carried for Trump.

  39. Southern Liberal May 25, 2019 6:50 pm

    2016 showed that we are in a cultural civil war. White, ignorant, rural people vs. urban, educated, diverse people.

  40. Princess Leia May 25, 2019 7:52 pm

    Trump’s convention speech told of a dark vision of America that I do not believe in. Hillary’s conventions speech told of an America I do believe in – hopeful, optimistic.

  41. Former Republican May 25, 2019 10:37 pm

    Millions of us feel the same way, Leia.

  43. Rustbelt Democrat May 28, 2019 5:04 pm

    Contrary to what Trump and his enablers want us to believe, the Trump-Russia investigation did not begin with the Steele dossier. Our allies’ intelligence services began warning the CIA about suspicious interactions between people connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents beginning in late 2015. The first warnings came from GCHQ, or British intelligence. But that was followed by reports from Germany, Estonia, Poland, and the Dutch-French intelligence service DGSE. The final straw, as documented in Mueller’s report, came when Australian intelligence reported that George Papadopoulos told one of their agents that the Russian government had access to “dirt” on Clinton that could help Trump’s campaign.

    All of these other intelligence agencies from other countries noticing suspicious interactions is one of the many reasons why I agree with the Professor and don’t believe that Trump won the election fair and square.

    Barr’s investigation of the investigation will alienate our allies and harm national security.

  46. Rustbelt Democrat May 28, 2019 5:30 pm

    Link needs to go with the first post only. Second post can be deleted. When fixed, this is how the first post should be formatted:

    Contrary to what Trump and his enablers want us to believe, the Trump-Russia investigation did not begin with the Steele dossier. Our allies’ intelligence services began warning the CIA about suspicious interactions between people connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents beginning in late 2015. The first warnings came from GCHQ, or British intelligence. But that was followed by reports from Germany, Estonia, Poland, and the Dutch-French intelligence service DGSE. The final straw, as documented in Mueller’s report, came when Australian intelligence reported that George Papadopoulos told one of their agents that the Russian government had access to “dirt” on Clinton that could help Trump’s campaign.

    All of these other intelligence agencies from other countries noticing suspicious interactions is one of the many reasons why I agree with the Professor and don’t believe that Trump won the election fair and square.

    Barr’s investigation of the investigation will alienate our allies and harm national security.

    https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/05/28/how-barrs-investigation-will-alienate-our-allies-and-harm-national-security/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.