What’s at Stake for Dems After Election 2020

[Hoosier_Hack]

Let’s see if any of these items register with the far left/Dems. I mention this because leading up to 2016 Election, you guys routinely scoffed at what was being said would take place. I’m wondering if some lessons have been learned:

The Dems will:
Lose the House
Lose Pelosi, Boxer, Schumer, Nadler
Usher in Socialist friendly leadership
Another Conservative Supreme Court Justice named
The final 40 or so Judicial Vacancies remaining at that time will be Conservative.
A run at Roe vs Wade
Americans will know the media is just the marketing arm of the DNC.
A Wall will be started/Completed
Investigations will be launched into Biden
Out of office prosecution of players in Obama admin that ignored Congress


Just a few things off the top of my head.... I don’t know the legal standing for the last thought but I’m sure it’ll be corrected if not legally possible.

 

[Ohio Guy]

What were democrats scoffing at leading up to the 2016 election? By most accounts, even Trump was surprised he won the presidency in 2016.

If you want to claim that some prognosticators/pollsters got it wrong, have at it. If you're suggesting any serious person was predicting Trump would win as far as a year out (kind of like what you're doing here) I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Harry Hondo]

Let’s see if any of these items register with the far left/Dems. I mention this because leading up to 2016 Election, you guys routinely scoffed at what was being said would take place. I’m wondering if some lessons have been learned:

The Dems will:
Lose the House
Lose Pelosi, Boxer, Schumer, Nadler
Usher in Socialist friendly leadership
Another Conservative Supreme Court Justice named
The final 40 or so Judicial Vacancies remaining at that time will be Conservative.
A run at Roe vs Wade
Americans will know the media is just the marketing arm of the DNC.
A Wall will be started/Completed
Investigations will be launched into Biden
Out of office prosecution of players in Obama admin that ignored Congress


Just a few things off the top of my head.... I don’t know the legal standing for the last thought but I’m sure it’ll be corrected if not legally possible.

Let’s see, we had a 2018 election knowing very well going in that if the Dems retook the House then it was likely that they’d seek impeachment. Now, hack, what happened? It was the largest election in years with over 50% of eligible voters voting and the Dems won BIG and retook the House. The will of the people spoke loud and clear that they wanted the Dems to keep Trump in check.

Your guys on the right keep talking about 2016 and it was the will of the people to elect Trump, but mysteriously they forget to mention the people in 2018 and what they wanted.

 

[Cream&Crimson]

You know, it's hard to say what's going to happen. The nation is divided. The 2020 election is hard to predict but it's plausible to believe that the Pubs will turn out and re-elect tRump, and perhaps even pick up seats in Congress. This may not end well for Dems. It will all come down to turnout. Everyone is dug in. No one is going to change their minds at this point.

 

[mainway_toys]

Let’s see if any of these items register with the far left/Dems. I mention this because leading up to 2016 Election, you guys routinely scoffed at what was being said would take place. I’m wondering if some lessons have been learned:

The Dems will:
Lose the House
Lose Pelosi, Boxer, Schumer, Nadler
Usher in Socialist friendly leadership
Another Conservative Supreme Court Justice named
The final 40 or so Judicial Vacancies remaining at that time will be Conservative.
A run at Roe vs Wade
Americans will know the media is just the marketing arm of the DNC.
A Wall will be started/Completed
Investigations will be launched into Biden
Out of office prosecution of players in Obama admin that ignored Congress


Just a few things off the top of my head.... I don’t know the legal standing for the last thought but I’m sure it’ll be corrected if not legally possible.

So basically, the 50+% of the population who opposes the fascist dictator will become slaves to the 40% who support him?

That sounds to me like a recipe for civil war.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

Let’s see, we had a 2018 election knowing very well going in that if the Dems retook the House then it was likely that they’d seek impeachment. Now, hack, what happened? It was the largest election in years with over 50% of eligible voters voting and the Dems won BIG and retook the House. The will of the people spoke loud and clear that they wanted the Dems to keep Trump in check.

Your guys on the right keep talking about 2016 and it was the will of the people to elect Trump, but mysteriously they forget to mention the people in 2018 and what they wanted.

Kinda funny how no one thinks there was interference in 2018.... you guys benefited from many things in 2018. That is fine. But I think you jumped the shark tonight. The last hurrah. The Senate will kick it out and you guys will cry for another 4 years.

 

[twenty02]

The great thing is we get to vote every 2-4 years to settle this once and for all.....

Until roughly a week later, than we can start a new debate about what went wrong/ right.... and on we go.....

 

[mainway_toys]

Kinda funny how no one thinks there was interference in 2018.... you guys benefited from many things in 2018. That is fine. But I think you jumped the shark tonight. The last hurrah. The Senate will kick it out and you guys will cry for another 4 years.

If Dems wanted foreign interference, they'd be talking to China, Europe, Iran... basically the vast majority of the civilized world. Why just a small fry like Ukraine?

 

[bawlmer]

Let’s see if any of these items register with the far left/Dems. I mention this because leading up to 2016 Election, you guys routinely scoffed at what was being said would take place. I’m wondering if some lessons have been learned:

The Dems will:
Lose the House
Lose Pelosi, Boxer, Schumer, Nadler
Usher in Socialist friendly leadership
Another Conservative Supreme Court Justice named
The final 40 or so Judicial Vacancies remaining at that time will be Conservative.
A run at Roe vs Wade
Americans will know the media is just the marketing arm of the DNC.
A Wall will be started/Completed
Investigations will be launched into Biden
Out of office prosecution of players in Obama admin that ignored Congress


Just a few things off the top of my head.... I don’t know the legal standing for the last thought but I’m sure it’ll be corrected if not legally possible.

There's a saying about not putting all your eggs in one basket (aka, Trump).

 

[hoot1]

The Pubs keep reminding us that the House Democrats are trying eradicate the 2016 presidential election results by impeaching Trump.

What they fail to mention is the 2018 House elections which saw Democrats defeat Republicans by 8 million votes (58 million to 50 million). So We The People set the stage for a possible impeachment in 2018. The final act, once the stage was set, being Trump's ill advised dealings with Ukraine. Dealings which a reasonable person might conclude represent impeachable conduct.

 

[HillzHoozier]

a reasonable person might conclude represent impeachable conduct.

Isn't it also possible in your estimation that a reasonable person might conclude Trump's phone conversation with Zelenski contained nothing impeachable?

 

[iubud]

So basically, the 50+% of the population who opposes the fascist dictator will become slaves to the 40% who support him?

That sounds to me like a recipe for civil war.

Be careful starting your Civil War. We know which side will be better armed.

 

[baileyiu]

Isn't it also possible in your estimation that a reasonable person might conclude Trump's phone conversation with Zelenski contained nothing impeachable?

NO! We heard many witnesses to what Trump said. Since there was missing parts to the phone conversation released a reasonable person would conclude that NONE of it would be favorable to trump.
No pub defend trump & his actions - they just made accusatory statements about the Dems & their actions of impeachment.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

Be careful starting your Civil War. We know which side will be better armed.

Shhhhhh.........

 

[hoot1]

Isn't it also possible in your estimation that a reasonable person might conclude Trump's phone conversation with Zelenski contained nothing impeachable?

Yes.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

NO! We heard many witnesses to what Trump said. Since there was missing parts to the phone conversation released a reasonable person would conclude that NONE of it would be favorable to trump.
No pub defend trump & his actions - they just made accusatory statements about the Dems & their actions of impeachment.

No one testified who heard the actual conversation....

 

[bawlmer]

Isn't it also possible in your estimation that a reasonable person might conclude Trump's phone conversation with Zelenski contained nothing impeachable?

As long as the test of reason is acknowledging a quid pro quo, a reasonable person could argue whether the phone call (and all related activities pre and post) was impeachable.

But reasoning with someone who says no quid pro quo inferred during the call is a waste of time.

 

[hoot1]

Isn't it also possible in your estimation that a reasonable person might conclude Trump's phone conversation with Zelenski contained nothing impeachable?

When votes almost completely follow party lines, it does make a person wonder if reason has been cast aside.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

When votes almost completely follow party lines, it does make a person wonder if reason has been cast aside.

True....and it isn’t a big leap. Particularly when two cross over votes, a present vote, then a party switch takes place all on one side of the aisle. Now we don’t know if the impeachment will be delivered to the Senate..... sure it makes a person wonder

 

[baileyiu]

True....and it isn’t a big leap. Particularly when two cross over votes, a present vote, then a party switch takes place all on one side of the aisle. Now we don’t know if the impeachment will be delivered to the Senate..... sure it makes a person wonder

What really makes one wonder is when the leader of the Senate says there isn’t anything the Democrats could present that could make him change his mind and that he is in constant contact with the accused on how to handle the impeachment vote!

 

[i'vegotwinners]

if the DNC and the DNC media manage to install another Dino as the prez candidate for 2020, look for mass defections from the progressives, and a Trump landslide.

also look for the emergence of a stronger third party, which will really hurt the DNC as it now has become. (a pro choice branch of the GOP).

 

[Bill4411]

I’m always kind of amused whenever I would hear a Pub bringing up the Dems trying to overturn the will of the 63 million citizens that put Trump in office when there were 66 million that voted against him. I would think they would drop that line from their conversations but for whatever reason the Dems never call them on it.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

I’m always kind of amused whenever I would hear a Pub bringing up the Dems trying to overturn the will of the 63 million citizens that put Trump in office when there were 66 million that voted against him. I would think they would drop that line from their conversations but for whatever reason the Dems never call them on it.

It is a fact that was the breakdown of the popular vote. No doubt. But what your side fails to admit is that the campaigns are ran based on electoral votes. For instance, Trump didn’t campaign at all in California. Do you not think he would have done better vote wise in the state if he did? I’m not saying he would have won the state but certainly he wouldn’t have lost by 4,000,000 votes in California if he did.

I think it is apples and oranges. Look, it was a close race. But to hold the popular vote out there as some kind of “proof” that people were duped is rediculous because both candidates are campaigning based on electoral votes. Trump knew it didn’t matter if he lost by 6,000,000 in California or 500,000, it had the same effect on the outcome so he focused elsewhere. Hillary did the same. She ignored Michigan...MICHIGAN.... that was a bad decision. The extra votes in California didn’t help in Michigan and they didn’t hurt Trump...

That is why at least to me, it isn’t worth arguing....

 

[baileyiu]

It is a fact that was the breakdown of the popular vote. No doubt. But what your side fails to admit is that the campaigns are ran based on electoral votes. For instance, Trump didn’t campaign at all in California. Do you not think he would have done better vote wise in the state if he did? I’m not saying he would have won the state but certainly he wouldn’t have lost by 4,000,000 votes in California if he did.

I think it is apples and oranges. Look, it was a close race. But to hold the popular vote out there as some kind of “proof” that people were duped is rediculous because both candidates are campaigning based on electoral votes. Trump knew it didn’t matter if he lost by 6,000,000 in California or 500,000, it had the same effect on the outcome so he focused elsewhere. Hillary did the same. She ignored Michigan...MICHIGAN.... that was a bad decision. The extra votes in California didn’t help in Michigan and they didn’t hurt Trump...

That is why at least to me, it isn’t worth arguing....

Agreed, it’s not worth arguing & the pubs should drop their ridiculous statement! It’s not about the 2016 Election!

 

[mainway_toys]

Be careful starting your Civil War. We know which side will be better armed.

This is the 21st century. Modern warfare doesn't require guns.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

It is a fact that was the breakdown of the popular vote. No doubt. But what your side fails to admit is that the campaigns are ran based on electoral votes. For instance, Trump didn’t campaign at all in California. Do you not think he would have done better vote wise in the state if he did? I’m not saying he would have won the state but certainly he wouldn’t have lost by 4,000,000 votes in California if he did.

I think it is apples and oranges. Look, it was a close race. But to hold the popular vote out there as some kind of “proof” that people were duped is rediculous because both candidates are campaigning based on electoral votes. Trump knew it didn’t matter if he lost by 6,000,000 in California or 500,000, it had the same effect on the outcome so he focused elsewhere. Hillary did the same. She ignored Michigan...MICHIGAN.... that was a bad decision. The extra votes in California didn’t help in Michigan and they didn’t hurt Trump...

That is why at least to me, it isn’t worth arguing....

reality is, the only purpose the electoral college serves, is to invalidate the will of the people.

that was true as of our nation's founding, where some with very disproportionate voting shares relative to their numbers at the time, leveraged that disproportionate voting share into 250 yrs and counting of grossly disproportionate per capita political power, and are still leveraging it today.

the disproportionate representation wasn't something the founders put in because they thought it best..

they put it in, because they were extorted to by those with the disproportionate power at the time.

 

[Cream&Crimson]

It is a fact that was the breakdown of the popular vote. No doubt. But what your side fails to admit is that the campaigns are ran based on electoral votes. For instance, Trump didn’t campaign at all in California. Do you not think he would have done better vote wise in the state if he did? I’m not saying he would have won the state but certainly he wouldn’t have lost by 4,000,000 votes in California if he did.

I think it is apples and oranges. Look, it was a close race. But to hold the popular vote out there as some kind of “proof” that people were duped is rediculous because both candidates are campaigning based on electoral votes. Trump knew it didn’t matter if he lost by 6,000,000 in California or 500,000, it had the same effect on the outcome so he focused elsewhere. Hillary did the same. She ignored Michigan...MICHIGAN.... that was a bad decision. The extra votes in California didn’t help in Michigan and they didn’t hurt Trump...

That is why at least to me, it isn’t worth arguing....

Highly Republican-gerrymandered electoral votes, let's not forget.

 

[Digressions]

No one testified who heard the actual conversation....

At least three people who were listening to the phone call testified in the public hearings. The rest followed the WH orders not to testify.

At least two people testified that were part of trying to convince the Ukrainians to announce investigations in order to secure the WH meeting and aid. They were not on the phone call. They didn't need to be, because they were working on the "quid pro quo" for months.

The phone call was only important because it established that the President was directly involved and that Rudy and/or others weren't just going rogue.(Which incidentally, he told them to talk to Rudy and Barr...that's not disputed.) The importance of the call was also diminished, by the President announcing what he wanted from the Ukrainians- to the press- on the WH lawn.

The President's ignorance and shamelessness do not excuse his guilt. Which, coincidentally, is the same way I'm starting to feel about his supporters. I understand the average Joe not knowing all the details, but the Congressmen and Senators do know. And the fact that they defend the President, because of the average American's ignorance, is in itself a crime- at least in a non legal sense. One way or another we should all feel shame.

 

[Digressions]

No one testified who heard the actual conversation....

And what are you going to say when Joe Biden says, "China, if you're listening, if you can find some dirt on Donald Trump that helps me defeat him in 2020, I'll lower all those tariffs." Can you see why this might be a problem?

 

[i'vegotwinners]

And what are you going to say when Joe Biden says, "China, if you're listening, if you can find some dirt on Donald Trump that helps me defeat him in 2020, I'll lower all those tariffs." Can you see why this might be a problem?

what makes you so sure Biden hasn't already worked China and Ukraine. (and who knows who else).

not as a quid pro quo for policy or access mind you, God forbid no, but just as a personal favor of course.

fact is, the Dems have had to compromise their case against Trump, and still are, to protect Biden's own corruption. (legal or not).

 

[cosmickid]

Let’s see if any of these items register with the far left/Dems. I mention this because leading up to 2016 Election, you guys routinely scoffed at what was being said would take place. I’m wondering if some lessons have been learned:

The Dems will:
Lose the House
Lose Pelosi, Boxer, Schumer, Nadler



Just a few things off the top of my head.... I don’t know the legal standing for the last thought but I’m sure it’ll be corrected if not legally possible.

It is a fact that was the breakdown of the popular vote. No doubt. But what your side fails to admit is that the campaigns are ran based on electoral votes. For instance, Trump didn’t campaign at all in California. Do you not think he would have done better vote wise in the state if he did? I’m not saying he would have won the state but certainly he wouldn’t have lost by 4,000,000 votes in California if he did.

I think it is apples and oranges. Look, it was a close race. But to hold the popular vote out there as some kind of “proof” that people were duped is rediculous because both candidates are campaigning based on electoral votes. Trump knew it didn’t matter if he lost by 6,000,000 in California or 500,000, it had the same effect on the outcome so he focused elsewhere. Hillary did the same. She ignored Michigan...MICHIGAN.... that was a bad decision. The extra votes in California didn’t help in Michigan and they didn’t hurt Trump...

That is why at least to me, it isn’t worth arguing....

Just a few thoughts...

From your OP...

"The Dems will:
Lose the House
Lose Pelosi, Boxer, Schumer, Nadler"

Neither of those is going to happen unless there is a perfect storm of pro-Trump sentiment and his numbers rise significantly above the 45% approval rating that has essentially marked his Presidency, And he's far too polarizing for that to happen...

The Pubs are NOT going to recapture the House and reverse the vote of 2018. Here are the popular vote stats in 2018...

Total Democratic Votes: 60,727,598 (53.4%)
Total Republican Votes: 50,983,895 (44.8%)
Total Other Votes: 1,967,161 (1.7%)
Democrat Margin: 8.6%
Swing vs. 2016 Presidential: D+6.5%

A lot of those votes came in states that originally went for Trump in 2016 (and likely will again), but they illustrate the difficulty of Pubs reversing the trend even in "ruby red" states. Those margins were the highest for Dems in any midterm election going back to the first post-Watergate election in 1974 when the margin was 8.7%.

Numbers like that are why "vulnerable House Dems" still voted overwhelmingly for Impeachment. A lot of "swing districts" originally swung to Trump in 2016 because of factors like antipathy towards HRC, and general apathy among the Dem portion of those districts. But those voters showed out in force in 2018 and showed that anti-Trump sentiment is a powerful force, despite what Fox News might say otherwise.

Are we supposed to believe that a significant portion of the 60 Million that voted Dem to have a check on and express disgust with Trump is now going to reverse themselves and vote for pro-Trump allies? Are they going to somehow vote against the Dems that they voted for because of some alleged anti-Impeachment sentiment?

The numbers say otherwise. Clinton rode a wave of anti-Impeachment sentiment to a 73% approval rating, while numbers for Trump on Impeachment are (at best for him) around 50-50, and no reputable polling shows him reaching anywhere near that level on the job approval scale. Trump has a loyal cadre of supporters, but NBC/Wall Street Journal polling suggests anti-Trump sentiment is higher among people who declare with certainty that they will or will not vote for Trump in 2020. The Nov poll showed 46% definite no,34% definite yes and 17% persuadable, depending on the Dem nominee. And the numbers hold in swing states as well, as the polling in those 11 states yielded the same results...

While those numbers don't spell certain defeat for Trump (because of the EC) they do speak to the difficulties the GOP faces in trying to reclaim a House majority. And on top of all that, is the high number of GOP incumbents who are retiring prior to 2020- I believe it stands at 22, with Meadows' announcement in NC last week. This is very similar to the run-up to 2018 when a number of Incumbent, but vulnerable House Pubs retired and the GOP lost a great deal of the power of incumbency. The GOP doesn't have to just take back seats they lost, but they also have to defend their own vulnerable seats, like a Will Hurd in Texas for example.

As to the nonsense you posted about the popular vote, did Presidential campaigning just discover the EC in 2016? Is Trump the only GOP candidate to lose California? I mean he LOST the popular vote by an amount unrivalled in over 200 yrs, and you want to claim it was because he didn't campaign in California?

On top of outright LOSING the popular vote in 2016, there were also nearly 8 MILLION votes cast for 3rd party candidates, and I'd say the majority of those folks were people who would have voted for a Dem, except for HRC. The midterm numbers sort of point to that, esp how certain House Dem candidates outperformed HRC in their own districts, even in states she carried in 2016.

And it may shock you to know that the GOP also lost the Senate by popular vote in 2018. The Pubs picked up 2 seats from the Dems but that was wins in states (IN, MO) that Trump carried in 2016. Dem Senate candidates overall totalled 12 Million more votes than GOP candidates. Part of that was due to the logistics of the 2018 Senate races, and the fact that the GOP only had 9 seats up for re-election and none were particularly vulnerable.

The landscape shifts a bit in 2020, and the main reason Moscow Mitch is not going to be able to just completely rubber stamp Team Trump's approach to a Senate trial is that the GOP Senate majority is a tad fragile heading into 2020. Moderates like Collins and Gardner are in trouble in Blue states, and others like Ernst and McSally face tough challenges themselves in states where Trump is no sure bet like Iowa and AZ respectively.

I'm not sure you can point to a single Dem Senate incumbent who faces much of a challenge in 2020- they took their lumps in 2018. So the 2020 Senate battle will be a referendum on GOP Senators from states where Trump is NOT popular. That is why Impeachment may prove much more of an issue for anti-Trump voters than Trump supporters and why Mitch has to watch his step with regards to how much he tows the WH line. Some Trump supporters who attend rallies and rail about Impeachment are angry, but no polling suggests they are anywhere near the numbers necessary to create a wave of pro-Trump support. Basically people in the House voted the consensus of their districts, on both sides of the aisle. To suggest ANY of Schumer, Nadler, Pelosi or Boxer is going to lose to a Pub in 2020 is beyond ludicrous...

 

[cosmickid]

No one testified who heard the actual conversation....

There are several witnesses who supposedly could "exonerate" Trump- primarily Bolton and Mulvaney. That would lead you to believe that Team Trump would be arguing vociferously for them to testify. Instead, it is the Dems that are calling for both of these and others to testify, while Trump supporters seek to muddy the waters by calling peripherally irrelevant people like the Bidens...

There is NO CASE vs Joe Biden, Bolton and Mulvaney could provide "exonerating" testimony and yet Trump wants Biden to testify and won't allow Bolton, Mulvaney or others to even appear before the Senate. What does that say to you, or if not you to at least someone with a modicum of objectivity?

What do they think they are going to badger Biden into saying? That he bribed the people in PG Shokin's office to refuse to cooperate with the Brit case vs Zlochevsky in 2015, that he somehow blackmailed AMB Pyatt into giving a speech in Sept 2015 attacking corruption in Shokin's office and demanding reform, or that he did the same and coerced a bi-partisan delegation of US Senators (led by Dem Brown and fellow Buckeye GOP Portman) to send a letter to the Ukrainian Parliament in Feb 2016 again expressing US disapproval of Shokin and corruption in his office?

All of these events are Historical Facts, firmly on the record and lay waste to any BS claim by Trump that Biden fired a "good prosecutor" to keep him from doing his job. Consequently, there is NO justification for any of Trump's moves in Ukraine from sabotaging and savaging AMB Yovanovitch to implying on the call to Zelensky that "we" wanted an investigation into the Bidens or crowdstrike.

He basically held up aid to Zelensky in order to force Ukraine to "investigate" debunked conspiracy theories, promoted by Putin with NO Basis in reality. And let's not underplay the role that a controversial WH meeting with pro-Putin and rabidly anti-Ukrainian strongman Orban just 10 days before the Zelensky call played into feeding Trump's anti-Ukraine paranoia. Trump already held a grudge against Ukraine over Manafort, and Orban basically reinforced Putin's position because Hungary, like Russia has territorial disputes with Ukraine.

Trump LOVES Nationalist strongmen, and Putin and Orban are the 2 biggest in Europe, possibly the world at this point in time. It would make more sense to have Putin and Orban testify about what they discussed with Trump, than to have either Hunter or Joe Biden appear to be grilled by Trump supporters. Certainly would provide far more insight into Trump's actions towards Ukraine...

 

[cosmickid]

reality is, the only purpose the electoral college serves, is to invalidate the will of the people.

that was true as of our nation's founding, where some with very disproportionate voting shares relative to their numbers at the time, leveraged that disproportionate voting share into 250 yrs and counting of grossly disproportionate per capita political power, and are still leveraging it today.

the disproportionate representation wasn't something the founders put in because they thought it best..

they put it in, because they were extorted to by those with the disproportionate power at the time.

It was basically a concession to pro-slavery states (like Va) who did not want to count their slaves as "full citizens", but didn't want to lose a portion of their population to the popular vote as well. So it was a compromise to entice Southern Legislators to ratify the Consitution. A state like Va was able to claim their slave citizens in population totals, but at the same time keep them from actually voting. Win/Win for Southern Slaveowners...

The idea that it was some safeguard to protect the rights of "small states" is just plain ludicrous. 7 of the first 12 POTUS were from Va (8 total), which was at the time the Largest state (population-wise) in the US. It's interesting to note that the string was broken after Taylor in 1850, as we neared the Civil War and the country was rapidly adding new territory. Today no one thinks of Va as a particularly large state and their last POTUS was Wilson.