Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump

[Kirk Gallaway]

Jim says:  I did not think the votes were there,

Wow! that's profound Jim. In the last 3 months has anybody here said he thought the votes were there?

 

The results have turned out exactly as I thought they would. I would say my biggest regret is that when it became obvious that Bolton was willing to be turned in and be subpoenaed I don't know why the Democrats didn't pounce on it.

 

I'm not sympathetic to your despair Jim. Because for the last  3 years you've been stuck in a cycle of inactivity where all resistance to Trump is useless. and so you've  been playing  this little ninny political game between the 45 yard lines,  Petrified that any Democratic politician would raise his voice lest it bestir a backlash that would benefit Trump. So you didn't bestir yourself, retreated to your usual repetitive, tiring  staple backlog of tirades against Obama, HC, but with a twist , a more heated fear against the "gassy Schiff"  (which I'll give you was more creative than Trump's "shifty Schiff) or Pelosi or anybody who might be doing some heavy lifting. You predictably  bought some cheap seats, threw in the towel for the umpteenth time and now from your comments,  return to your usual state of depression, fear , and anxiety. "See? It's hopeless!!", says Jim!!! Gee, who could have predicted that? Certainly Jim's emotions throughout this have hardly been a barometer of anything, he was bedridden and depressed after the Sondland testimony, so it's foolish to think we can do anything to help..

 

And to to sustain his spirits,  fittingly Jim picked the most dismal poll. The polls I've seen show Trump up around 2%. But on the other hand, polls show 75% of the public think there should have been witnesses. So are we to assume that the public will just forget about that? In either case to get so regretful now, is sort of silly. We're really only in the second inning.

 

Jim says:   and the case was not strong enough to convert the Republicans in the numbers needed.

No, no, no let's make this clear Jim, you're on record as saying this case was not strong enough to convince Jim Di Eugenio.

 

And back to your obsession with the whistle blower?  Jim just can't make up his mind whose party's talking points he wants to use. He'll stand up for Trump's rights despite overwhelming evidence to the point of complete moral ambiguity, but is on a unseemly  crusade with Robert to expose a whistle blower. Certainly no one will ever accuse Jim as being for the little guy!

********

 

What will be the overall effect of the impeachment hearing on the 2020 election? Obviously it will have no effect on the vast majority who have already picked their sides. But I think it's an overall plus for the Democrats who historically have gone on record. And I think it's a plus for the undecided voter as well.

 

I think any real turnout of Democrats is poison to any hope of a Trump victory. And I think there's already no hope of a popular vote victory.

 

But the Democrats  could be on the verge of a demographic bubble. It's obvious the Republicans aren't.  When Bill Clinton got elected I had just reached my 40's  and I had at last thought my generation finally got some skin in the game. Ok, stupid me, but a lot of bay boomers thought that as well.

 

I've seen different studies as to what was the official year to start the millennial generation and I've heard  that most give the  dates as the early 80's meaning the oldest won't be quite 40 before the 2020 election. Outside of Buttigieg, there isn't a candidate whose a millennial, but there is a high number of Bernie supporters among millennials who do rightly recognize that Bernie has been true to his core values since the beginning and that is a smart test to apply.

With many facing  increased debt and struggling to get out of their parents house. You could make an argument whether what they want is what they should have. But they weren't much of a force in 2016, but their shear numbers means they will be a force in the future, but it's hard to say when.

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

36 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

With many facing  increased debt and struggling to get out of their parents house. You could make an argument whether what they want is what they should have. But they weren't much of a force in 2016, but their shear numbers means they will be a force in the future, but it's hard to say when. 

 

The turnout in Iowa was a disaster. I’m going to vote for Bernie on Super Tuesday but I’m depressed by his prospects.

After the Iowa debacle I think Bloomberg has the best shot. 

[Bob Ness]

2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The Romney vote to convict vindicated Pelosi’s strategy. There’s no way she could dispatch the House Sergeant At Arms to arrest Mulvaney. A long delay in the trial would have hardened the public’s view it was a purely partisan exercise.

Now we have a bi-partisan vote to convict, with much testimony and document leaks to come.

Pelosi played it beautifully.

The vast majority doesn't see it as bi-partisan even though it is technically. I don't agree she played it beautifully but agree it's worth seeing how it plays out.

It's Tyler Durden versus the Narrator in my view. Red Pill/Blue Pill. We're living with a new zeitgeist and the Dems are viewed as weak, which they are. I like to be optimistic and believe in the character of most people but that has been tested, for sure.

[Cliff Varnell]

39 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

The vast majority doesn't see it as bi-partisan even though it is technically. I don't agree she played it beautifully but agree it's worth seeing how it plays out.

It's Tyler Durden versus the Narrator in my view. Red Pill/Blue Pill. We're living with a new zeitgeist and the Dems are viewed as weak, which they are. I like to be optimistic and believe in the character of most people but that has been tested, for sure.

The Dems won the House in 2018 with a 9 million vote landslide.

They gathered enough evidence to impeach Trump and get the first Senator in history to cross the aisle to convict in an impeachment trial.

They prevented Trump from declaring vindication in his Super Bowl interview and his Softhe U speech — key Trump goals going into the Trial.

Trump expected to pick off at least one red state Dem — instead the Dems picked off a red-state Republican while holding strong.

Pelosi is the chess grand master.

 

[Bob Ness]

7 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The Dems won the House in 2018 with a 9 million vote landslide.

They gathered enough evidence to impeach Trump and get the first Senator in history to cross the aisle to convict in an impeachment trial.

They prevented Trump from declaring vindication in his Super Bowl interview and his Softhe U speech — key Trump goals going into the Trial.

Trump expected to pick off at least one red state Dem — instead the Dems picked off a red-state Republican while holding strong.

Pelosi is the chess grand master.

 

I certainly hope you're right Cliff.

[Ron Bulman]

20 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Trump topped himself.  He gave the Medal of Freedom award to Limbaugh during the SOTU.

He loves to do this kind of polarizing crap doesn't he?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/rush-limbaughs-medal-of-freedom-from-trump-draws-backlash/ar-BBZGydD?li=BBnbfcL

[Ron Bulman]

Because Limbaugh has been spewing racist homophobic, for starters, BS for so many years on a daily basis that divides Our Nation.  His selection tarnishes the award.  He Should have been marginalized by a responsible MSM decades ago.  Like the former democrat Chump.  A long way from the decorum of JFK and his time.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Ron Bulman

[Cliff Varnell]

52 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

I would take the other side of Cliffs prediction and give you 15 to 1. All day. 

Somebody ask Herr Wheeler what prediction I made — since he doesn’t read my posts...

[Douglas Caddy]

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-06/trump-fans-flooded-iowa-caucus-hotline-top-democrat-says

[James DiEugenio]

Nice one Doug. Sounds like the guy who sent the pipe bomb to CNN.

In my article about the Vince Foster case, I tried to show how this really bad situation got started, that is the polarization of the political process.  In my opinion, Trump was not going to be impeached, but I also think there should have been witnesses heard.  What prevented that from happening demonstrates what has happened in historical terms to the GOP.  

There used to be a moderate section of the Republican Party.  It was made up of people like Mark Hatfield, Jacob Javits, Charles Percy, Bob Packwood etc.  For all intents and purposes, they have disappeared.  But if they had not, witnesses would have been called.  This would not have been enough to impeach, but it would have made things really uncomfortable for Trump and the GOP.  If that had happened, I doubt if Trump would have gotten any boost.

 In historical terms, the three people most responsible for turning the GOP into a rightwing ideologue machine were Goldwater, Reagan and William F. Buckley.  They stay in power due to voter suppression and the  incompetence and corruption of the Democratic leadership.  The latter has only been highlighted through the rise of AOC.  My hope is that the AOC faction will eventually push out Pelosi and Schumer who, combined, are almost 150 years old.

Edited February 6, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[Cliff Varnell]

26 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Nice one Doug. Sounds like the guy who sent the pipe bomb to CNN.

In my article about the Vince Foster case, I tried to show how this really bad situation got started, that is the polarization of the political process.  In my opinion, Trump was not going to be impeached, but I also think there should have been witnesses heard.

 

Will someone inform former History teacher James DiEugenio that Trump WAS impeached.

The House has the sole power of impeachment. The Senate then has the responsibility to convict or acquit after impeachment.

Trump supporters are trying to claim that Trump was not impeached — another in a long series of whopping lies.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Cliff Varnell

[Joe Bauer]

	2016	GROUP	CLINTON	TRUMP
SEX	Men	48	41	52
	Women	52	54	41
RACE	White	70	37	57
	African-American	12	89	8
	Hispanic	11	66	28
	Asian	4	65	27
	Other	3	56	36
AGE	18-29	19	55	36
	30-44	25	51	41
	45-64	40	44	52
	65 & over	16	45	52
INCOME	<$50,000	36	53	41
	$50,000-$100,000	30	46	49
	$100,000 & over	34	47	47
UNION HOUSEHOLD	Yes	18	51	43
	No	82	46	48
PARTY	Democrat	37	89	8
	Republican	33	8	88
	Independent	31	42	46
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY	Liberal	26	84	10
	Moderate	39	52	40
	Conservative	35	16	81
MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES	Foreign policy	13	60	33
	Immigration	13	33	64
	Economy	52	52	41
	Terrorism	18	40	57

Sources:

“Exit Polls 2016.” CNN December 9, 2016. <http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president>.

Notes:

Exit poll results for 2016. Collected by Edison Research for the National Election Pool, a consortium of ABC News, the Associated Press, CBS News, CNN, Fox News and NBC News. The voter survey is based on questionnaires completed by 24,537 voters leaving 350 voting places throughout the United States on November 8, 2016, including 4,398 telephone interviews with early and absentee voters. “Don’t know” and “other” responses not included.

[James DiEugenio]

Kathy:

What is wrong with wanting to see new leadership in the Democratic party?  Especially when those two seem to me, along with Perez, rather unsatisfactory in their performance. Bernie is really old also, but I will vote for him. But if AOC is running, its a no brainer.

As per the performance?

I mean look at the Iowa debacle.

Speaking of which:  Is Biden done for?  

Sure looks it to me.  

 

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

I think Biden is just about done.  Not only did he finish fourth, but he will do the same in New Hampshire.

Plus, he simply does not have the money to really perform on Super Tuesday.

If anyone is interested, politically, I consider myself a Bobby Kennedy of 1968 Democrat.

Edited February 6, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[Joe Bauer]

Regards the 2016 presidential vote by groups chart above:

Actual numbers like this are so thought provoking.

So many questions.

Here is one:

Why would 28% of Hispanic/American voters ( a much higher number than I ever imagined ) vote for Trump?

Someone so obviously antithetically opposed and unsympathetic to the genesis of most of their direct familial experience of immigration into America?

One can assume that half of all Hispanics ( not just 1st and 2nd generation but probably even 3rd generation ) people in this country by 2016 arrived here illegally and/or were born from them here.

Fairly proven statistics run into the tens of millions.

Trump's 2016 campaign rhetoric in this area and toward these illegals was so overwhelmingly disparaging and inflamed with mostly angry toned anecdotes of violent criminal rapists, murderers, drug runners and pushers ... the worst of Mexico and other Central American countries.

Since such a huge percentage of Central American people living in America by 2016 shared this illegal entry heritage you would think that their dislike of their most disparaging critic ( Trump) would reflect in the voting booth even higher than around high 60's to 70% ( some voted for others.)

Yet, more than 1/4th of all Hispanic American voters voted for Trump in 2016?

I cannot grasp the mind set of these Hispanic Trump voters.

What benefit would they gain voting for Trump over Hillary Clinton and the much more immigration tolerant Democratic party?

I have some speculations:

Could it be that the more established Hispanic people of America are not as sympathetic towards the plight of their own fellow newer generation ethnic immigrants ( especially illegal ) as one would think?

Could it be that the Hispanic/Americans who are 2nd, 3rd or even 4th generation and who have had decades of successful assimilation and who have in many ways achieved prosperous parts of the American Dream after leaving great poverty in their Latin American homelands, now resent the never ending stream of new poverty escaping Latinos?

One can imagine a few reasons for this separation or even loss of shared ethnic heritage loyalty sympathy.

These millions of newly arriving poverty stricken illegal immigrants compete for established Hispanic/ American labor jobs with lower income acceptance?

The "I've got mine" mentality? Why keep letting in so many more of my desperate Latino brothers and sisters which only crowds out and threatens my own family's stake and opportunities? 

One could even imagine a cultural class dividing mentality " I don't want my now better off and more educated daughters hooking up with these new poverty stressed and poorly educated kids who have just arrived and go to school with them or are just living nearby?"

Is there now an economic and education elitism that is present to some degree with long term residency Hispanics versus these newly arriving illegals that trumps even cross shared cultural origin bonds?

I would like to hear some American Hispanic person's reasons for voting for Trump and the Republicans over the Democrats in the 2016 election. Their Latin American immigration policies were so clearly and easily understood with the Democratic party being much more liberal and sympathetic toward these voter's ethnic brethren.

And will these 28% of Hispanics vote for Trump again in 2020? Even after he called some of their shared poverty stricken homelands..."xxxx-hole" countries?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Joe Bauer