"A wasted vote" wasn't Mtn Devil's premise. He was wondering about who would be affected.
I think it is widely assumed that Perot doomed Bush, not the Democrats. Since then, I do the think the Dems have been affected. I'm not sure who would lose this time, my guess is it would be the Democrats again.
Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."
Doesn't it really only matter in competitive states, and states that don't follow winner-take-all electoral vote assignation?
Suppose you live in a winner-take-all state that is polling strong for the R candidate (double digit lead). You prefer I to D, and D to R. You aren't hurting D's chances nationally by voting I in your state, unless the polls are very wrong. And you can send a message that way, sort of (if there are enough who think like you).
According to the WaPo, the Dems are changing their impeachment strategy based on focus group testing with an eye toward the elections:
Several Democrats have stopped using the term “quid pro quo,” instead describing “bribery” as a more direct summation of Trump’s alleged conduct.
The shift came after the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee conducted focus groups in key House battlegrounds in recent weeks, testing messages related to impeachment. Among the questions put to participants was whether “quid pro quo,” “extortion” or “bribery” was a more compelling description of Trump’s conduct. According to two people familiar with the results, which circulated among Democrats this week, the focus groups found “bribery” to be most damning. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because the results have not been made public.
Bribery is also expressly listed as a cause for impeachment. So, smart move if they can make it stick.
This is the federal criminal definition: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201
I recognize that this definition does not apply to this circumstance for a number of reasons (including because the Ukrainian government is not a "public official" within the meaning of the act) but it's useful color for the kind of conduct deemed a bribe.
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act has a definition of bribery that would be useful to reference as well: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78dd-2
Just be you. You is enough. - K, 4/5/10, 0:13.8 to play, 60-59 Duke.
You're all jealous hypocrites. - Titus on Laettner
You see those guys? Animals. They're animals. - SIU Coach Chris Lowery, on Duke
We seem to be getting a bit off track here. I deleted a bunch of posts.
Jason will be along sometime soon to reset the thread.
-jk
Actually, I am quite busy this weekend with the B’not Mitzvah of my two nieces so this is a bad time for me to fix things. Plus, I feel like a few days off could be useful to all of us. I’ll likely reopen late Sunday or Monday.
We are likely going to have to tone down some of the impeachment talk. I need to figure this out.
Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?
Ok, I am back to reality so the thead is re-opened.
Here is what I want us to do with impeachment... let's not get obsessed over every detail and moment that happens. If it is something major, something that feels like it moves the needle a bit on the President's re-elections chances, then feel free to mention it but I would love for us to have a lot less about impeachment and more on the horse race. If that means that this thread goes from 40 posts per day down to 15, that is not the end of the world at this point in the cycle.
Also, I hope we can avoid too much talk characterizing the coverage of impeachment by various news outlets as that tends to get partisan very quickly.
Lastly, just to remind everyone that your post should not display your personal political leanings in any way. I think we have forgotten that maxim a good bit lately.
Now, go forth and talk about how Jason (me) has been talking about the Buttigieg surge for a long time and the networks only seemed to notice when he suddenly pulled ahead in Iowa.
-Jason "at this moment, right now, I would make the Dem chances as: Buttigieg 30%, Warren 25%, Biden 20%, Sanders 10%, Klobuchar 8%, someone else 7%" Evans
Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?
Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?
I think Buttigieg has a fairly compelling story, despite his youth.
He's one of the few candidates (on either side) that has military experience. As a member of the Navy Reserves he served for 10 years and he did deploy overseas once to Afghanistan for a 7-month tour in 2014 (taking a leave of absence from his mayoral duties). I think there is a strong desire for a lot of the population to have Presidents with military experience. A good 75% of Presidents have served in one form or another. We had a good string since WWII. All of their experience was in WWII with a few also serving in Korea. No President has been elected that served in an active combat zone since Korea.
It's very interesting that most of them were not lifers, only serving for a bit during war time but the clear preference is there.
I agree that Obama is only going to say so much publicly and one needs to read between the lines. IMO, the following statements are revealing and imply Obama believes the game will be won in middle.
“The average American doesn't think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it. And I think it's important for us not to lose sight of that,” Obama said.
“Even as we push the envelope and we are bold in our vision, we also have to be rooted in reality and the fact that voters, including the Democratic voters and certainly persuadable independents or even moderate Republicans, are not driven by the same views that are reflected on certain, you know, left-leaning Twitter feeds,” Obama said.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/oba...warren-sanders
The Presitential, unexpected "phase one" of a medical physical story is kind of interesting.
Well, this might be big. House now investigating if Trump lied in written statements to Mueller. Relevant in that was the main impeachment article by the Rs against Clinton (lying under oath). I know, I know, hypocrisy & politicians is like peanut butter & jelly.
His base will not move. It's all about the independents now.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...T4N?li=BBnb7Kz