2020 Presidential Election

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Please note that we have another repeat offender who has been permanently banned from the political thread. The violator is Sue Axe.

She got her second category-5 infraction yesterday and as a result will no longer be allowed to participate in this thread in any fashion. If any of you see a post by her (even an innocuous one), please immediately report it as it will be deleted and result in ever-increasing infractions for her possibly including a permanent ban from all of the DBR boards.

We now have two posters who have been banned from the political threads -- Left Hook Lacey (who I believe is a conservative partisan) and SueAxe (who is clearly a liberal).

RIP Sue Axe and Left Hook Lacey.

Their watch has ended.

[JasonEvans]

Add Tulsi Gabbard to the list of congressional retirees. I believe her seat is seen as very safe for the Dems.

Meanwhile, she appeared on Fox News last night with Hannity and fell right in line with the GOP in criticizing the impeachment proceedings. I don't know that she is a Russian plant or whatever Hillary has alleged, but I think taking Trump's side is probably not a good way to earn votes in the Democratic primary. It feels to me like she has given up and is angling for a lucrative commentator spot on some network after 2020.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, echoed the frustrations of many Republicans over a perceived lack of transparency in the handling of the impeachment inquiry led by House Democrats.

Appearing on “Hannity” Thursday, the presidential candidate said she originally supported the inquiry, but she stressed the need for transparency.

“I don't know what's going on in those closed doors,” Gabbard said. “We as members of Congress do not have access to the information that's being shared. I think the American people deserve to know exactly what the facts are, what the evidence is being presented as this inquiry goes on.”

[sagegrouse]

Yeah, this is exactly what Trump has wanted for a while. He is hoping to prove that Hillary and her "deep state" allies/sympathizers started the Russia investigation as a way of attacking Trump and discrediting his victory. Now that there is an actual criminal inquiry to look into it, I am sure Trump will repeatedly tell his Twitter followers that this proves Russia was really out to help the Democrats and that the intelligence community has been working against him all along.

It will be interesting to see if any actual evidence can be found to prove Trump's beliefs and if charges are brought against anyone. I will say that if anyone can find proof that the DOJ was used in a partisan fashion in an effort to influence the election then I hope the people behind it go to jail for a long time... whichever side they were working to help.

I wonder if this is a non-story and a misunderstanding by the NY Times. Durham is a seated US Attorney and, perforce (what the heck does this mean?), everything he does has the ability to morph into a criminal investigation without any further hurdles. He has the right to issue subpoenas, convene grand juries and depose witnesses.

Now one of the MSNBC commentators, Frank Figliuzzi, thought a "criminal investigation" was dumb -- because administrative procedures against government employees compel them to respond. Subpoenas would just result in hiring legal representatives and provide far less information.

[bundabergdevil]

Add Tulsi Gabbard to the list of congressional retirees. I believe her seat is seen as very safe for the Dems.

Meanwhile, she appeared on Fox News last night with Hannity and fell right in line with the GOP in criticizing the impeachment proceedings. I don't know that she is a Russian plant or whatever Hillary has alleged, but I think taking Trump's side is probably not a good way to earn votes in the Democratic primary. It feels to me like she has given up and is angling for a lucrative commentator spot on some network after 2020.

There are an article on Politico a few days ago talking about the origins of the Clinton-Gabbard feud. Political squabbling aside, one of the things that struck me is that no one seems to know much about Gabbard or what her endgame might be. She's a bit of an enigma and neither party likes a wild card (see RNC's ultimately quixotic effort to knock Trump out or reign him in) so it will be interesting to see what she does...it certainly seems like the D's shunning is pushing her into some fringe philosophy territory.

[OldPhiKap]

Add Tulsi Gabbard to the list of congressional retirees. I believe her seat is seen as very safe for the Dems.

Meanwhile, she appeared on Fox News last night with Hannity and fell right in line with the GOP in criticizing the impeachment proceedings. I don't know that she is a Russian plant or whatever Hillary has alleged, but I think taking Trump's side is probably not a good way to earn votes in the Democratic primary. It feels to me like she has given up and is angling for a lucrative commentator spot on some network after 2020.

There are an article on Politico a few days ago talking about the origins of the Clinton-Gabbard feud. Political squabbling aside, one of the things that struck me is that no one seems to know much about Gabbard or what her endgame might be. She's a bit of an enigma and neither party likes a wild card (see RNC's ultimately quixotic effort to knock Trump out or reign him in) so it will be interesting to see what she does...it certainly seems like the D's shunning is pushing her into some fringe philosophy territory.

I mentioned that she had ads on Drudge (which could be related to my searches I guess, except I never search anything about her and write about her quite infrequently). She also, by absurdly huge margins, always wins the Drudge "who won the debate" polls on that site. There is something odd afoot.

[Bluedog]

Question for the board, but perhaps there's not a simple straightforward answer. Why is Cory Booker polling so poorly? He's a very inspirational speaker, extremely smart, seems to debate quite well, and hits some of the demographic checkboxes that could help with Democratic-leaning voters. I feel like when we gave a speech at the DNC when Obama was a candidate, everybody in the party thought he was the next big thing. He is polling putridly among black voters, which is shocking given the fact he was Mayor of Newark and, of course, is black himself. He is polling at 2% in SC!! Where the majority of Democratic voters are black. Harris gets a bump up in support among black voters to an extent (+9 in SC compared to her white support), but Booker does not. I honestly believe if Obama hadn't already been president, Booker would be polling much much higher. Perhaps people view him as too similar or something. Are there any surveys out there that give some insight into the Democratic electorate and what he's not viewed well on?

[sagegrouse]

There are an article on Politico a few days ago talking about the origins of the Clinton-Gabbard feud. Political squabbling aside, one of the things that struck me is that no one seems to know much about Gabbard or what her endgame might be. She's a bit of an enigma and neither party likes a wild card (see RNC's ultimately quixotic effort to knock Trump out or reign him in) so it will be interesting to see what she does...it certainly seems like the D's shunning is pushing her into some fringe philosophy territory.

The Clinton's are really plugged in; therefore, I might take her comment at face value. As an independent candidate, she would tend to draw votes from the Democrat.

[Jeffrey]

“I don't know what's going on in those closed doors,” Gabbard said. “We as members of Congress do not have access to the information that's being shared. I think the American people deserve to know exactly what the facts are, what the evidence is being presented as this inquiry goes on.”

I certainly would not want to watch it, but why is this a closed door investigation versus Watergate's open door approach?

[Acymetric]

I certainly would not want to watch it, but why is this a closed door investigation versus Watergate's open door approach?

I'm guessing because there are potentially national security/international relations issues involved. It is still (as I understand it) bi-partisan, which removes most concerns that I would have otherwise, it is just only open to the relevant committees (although I may have misunderstood).

Edit: A quick perusal suggests they are also doing it that way to make it more difficult for witnesses to collaborate in their testimony, which I guess does make some sense but seems less compelling than my proposed reason.

[OldPhiKap]

I'm guessing because there are potentially national security/international relations issues involved. It is still (as I understand it) bi-partisan, which removes most concerns that I would have otherwise, it is just only open to the relevant committees (although I may have misunderstood).

This is correct, which is why it is being held in a SCIF area.

The only real partisan issue is that under House rules, the Chairman can issue subpoenas without a vote of the full committee. That rule was put in by John Boehner.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I'm guessing because there are potentially national security/international relations issues involved. It is still (as I understand it) bi-partisan, which removes most concerns that I would have otherwise, it is just only open to the relevant committees (although I may have misunderstood).

Exactly. The Republicans are portraying it as if the room is 100% Democrats, but that is not the case. I did some googling and I think this article explains it in about as impartial a way as possible.

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...hree-questions

[Jeffrey]

I'm guessing because there are potentially national security/international relations issues involved.

Thanks, it seems like almost everything has national security concerns in 2019. I'm actually glad the stock market cannot watch the blow by blow.

[JasonEvans]

I certainly would not want to watch it, but why is this a closed door investigation versus Watergate's open door approach?

In the case of Watergate, there was a special prosecutor (Archibald Cox) who gathered evidence behind closed doors before presenting his case to the House in open hearings. Because there is no special prosecutor here, congressional committees are handling that function. Everything I have read suggests that what Schiff and Pelosi plan to do is gather testimony and evidence and then will recall witnesses to testify in open hearings that everyone in congress and the nation can see. Trump's lawyers will also be given a chance to question the witnesses at that time, I believe.

It actually makes a lot of sense, in my opinion. There is no reason for all of congress or for the American people to listen to every witness for many hours on end. The impeachment investigatory committees will wade through all of it and then have us watch/listen to the most important 10-20%.

So long as Republicans are also given a chance to participate in the public questioning, I don't see anything wrong with that way of handling this.

-Jason "NYT saying Bolton may be deposed... hell hath no wrath like a neocon scorned!" Evans

[sagegrouse]

I certainly would not want to watch it, but why is this a closed door investigation versus Watergate's open door approach?

It's at the investigation stage -- and, while some info may be classified, there is the importance of not letting future witnesses know of prior testimony. Likened to a grand jury proceeding by some. There will be public testimony within 2-3 weeks, I believe. Pelosi and Schiff won't bring a bill of impeachment without the opportunity to build a public record.

On the Clinton impeachment, there was a huge record built by the special prosecutor Ken Starr. So, there was less need for hearings in the House.

Both Watergate committees, I believe, had closed-door sessions before public testimony. And Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who led the Benghazi inquiry, made a fervent case at the time for the greater productivity of closed sessions -- especially in the limited opportunity for "grandstanding" by members of the committee.

[SouthernDukie]

It will be interesting to see if literally ANYTHING (any black swan event you can conceive of or any outstanding issues now being investigated on either side of the aisle) will move folks from their entrenched positions on POTUS. Latest polling I have seen indicates the country is 49/49 even split on impeachment (NBC poll just released), which seems about right to me, give or take a point or two. I find it fascinating that on almost any day and with almost any news story, either side can claim it as a victory or twist it into a victory. Even this latest news about the FISA investigation is being touted by both sides as either good news for the President (Fox News, etc) or as bad news for the President (other media outlets).

I'm just not sure if anything will move most people at this point. One would hope something truly concrete would awaken a significant portion of the public (no matter which side of the aisle they are on), but I admit I'm skeptical right now. For instance, I agree with Jason that if Bolton were unleashed he could offer scathing stuff. But I also could see people on Trump's side simply dismissing anything he says as sour grapes or outright lies because he's part of "the Swamp." I just wonder if anything or anyone can break through the entrenchment.

[Bluedog]

I certainly would not want to watch it, but why is this a closed door investigation versus Watergate's open door approach?

The other factor that I heard mentioned (beyond perhaps sensitivity of information) is that closed door sessions allow for the committees to independently question witnesses and see if their answers align without them knowing what the prior person said. In public meetings, it's conceivable that a subsquent witness could change their story to align with what was already said in an effort to support a certain narrative. That's the thought at least. Similar to trial/cases in which consistency in the testimony is key and they don't want future witnesses to be biased based on what they already heard.

[dudog84]

What the heck is going on at Rasmussen? They do a daily weekday poll of presidential approval, and have consistently shown Trump about 10 points better than the average of all the other polls. They often show Trump with a positive rating. This is their polling over the last 10 days:

10/16 +1
10/17 -3
10/18 -5
10/21 -8
10/22 -7
10/23 -9
10/24 -11
10/25 -13

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/

Today's report is worse than any of the other polls, a complete flip-flop. If I was conspiracy-minded, I'd think the R powers-that-be are sending Trump a message.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

The other factor that I heard mentioned (beyond perhaps sensitivity of information) is that closed door sessions allow for the committees to independently question witnesses and see if their answers align without them knowing what the prior person said. In public meetings, it's conceivable that a subsquent witness could change their story to align with what was already said in an effort to support a certain narrative. That's the thought at least. Similar to trial/cases in which consistency in the testimony is key and they don't want future witnesses to be biased based on what they already heard.

I like to think that this methodology is based on the famous "what tire" anecdote with Duke Chemistry professor James Bonk...

[PackMan97]

Exactly. The Republicans are portraying it as if the room is 100% Democrats, but that is not the case.

That was my understanding as well. i'm a bit disappointed to learn that the spin is not grounded in reality.

[CameronBlue]

What the heck is going on at Rasmussen? They do a daily weekday poll of presidential approval, and have consistently shown Trump about 10 points better than the average of all the other polls. They often show Trump with a positive rating. This is their polling over the last 10 days:

10/16 +1
10/17 -3
10/18 -5
10/21 -8
10/22 -7
10/23 -9
10/24 -11
10/25 -13

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/

Today's report is worse than any of the other polls, a complete flip-flop. If I was conspiracy-minded, I'd think the R powers-that-be are sending Trump a message.

Well to state the obvious the impeachment inquiry doesn't play in Peoria but the Syrian pull-out does and maybe the cumulative impact is building slowly. I saw my first pictures of a wounded female Kurdish fighter in Turkish custody on the news today and it's the sort of thing that sticks with you. Political nastiness is the backdrop to almost every news story and people are numb to it. But loyalty and honor on the battlefield are still pretty compelling forces in the conservative mainstream, which Rasmussen reportedly over-samples.