2020 Presidential Election

[bundabergdevil]

Folks talked about that on NPR this morning, how Clinton's impeachment actually bolstered support for him. Democrats would be wise to sharpen their memories of those days.

Also, remember, '98 was before the days of the internet and social media. The rallying cry can be at least twofold nowadays.

I don't entirely disagree but there are a couple of key differences that they should consider. The first and most important - Bill Clinton was WAY more popular as president than Trump has ever been. By a lot, too. The scandal broke in early 1998 before the mid-terms. From 1996 - 2000, Clinton's approval rating mostly bounced between 50 and 70%. Trump's approval rating - despite a surging economy - has never been above 50% and mostly bounces between high 30s/low 40s. That's a huge political consideration for impeachment - Trump is historically unpopular according to polls. Second, Clinton was halfway into his second term. I think the electorate had already "priced in" his departure in 2000 to a certain extent. Trump has potentially 6 more years in office.

There's probably a decision tree w/ probabilities in here somewhere. For example, path 1 might be begin impeachment before election, path 2 might be if trump wins and dems gain seats, begin impeachment post-election, path 3 might be trump wins AND Reps reduce majority in House, no impeachment, etc etc. Assign likelihoods of success and input public approval ratings, etc.

We'll see if at lasts, but Trump's approval rating has also dropped to 2019 lows post-Mueller ---- If I'm the Dems, there is good evidence to suggest that hearings and a steady drumbeat of negative news will help keep it there

[OldPhiKap]

I don't entirely disagree but there are a couple of key differences that they should consider. The first and most important - Bill Clinton was WAY more popular as president than Trump has ever been. By a lot, too. The scandal broke in early 1998 before the mid-terms. From 1996 - 2000, Clinton's approval rating mostly bounced between 50 and 70%. Trump's approval rating - despite a surging economy - has never been above 50% and mostly bounces between high 30s/low 40s. That's a huge political consideration for impeachment - Trump is historically unpopular according to polls. Second, Clinton was halfway into his second term. I think the electorate had already "priced in" his departure in 2000 to a certain extent. Trump has potentially 6 more years in office.

There's probably a decision tree w/ probabilities in here somewhere. For example, path 1 might be begin impeachment before election, path 2 might be if trump wins and dems gain seats, begin impeachment post-election, path 3 might be trump wins AND Reps reduce majority in House, no impeachment, etc etc. Assign likelihoods of success and input public approval ratings, etc.

We'll see if at lasts, but Trump's approval rating has also dropped to 2019 lows post-Mueller ---- If I'm the Dems, there is good evidence to suggest that hearings and a steady drumbeat of negative news will help keep it there

To keep my response strictly on the horse race -- I don't see how impeachment really advances the Democratic candidate's position in the general. Isn't the better selling point for the ultimate candidate: "the best way to remove Trump from office is to vote him out?"

Also note that any impeachment attempts will be countered by the sorts of counter-accusations Trump has made that muddy the waters. Impeachment is not a clean shot; it is a mud bath for both parties. It risks turning off independents who will just stay home or will vote Libertarian again.

I know that the Democratic base is chomping at the bit to impeach. The election is won with the independents though. It seems to me that it would be a better strategy to keep Trump wounded through investigations -- and actually putting forward a legislative program -- than tying up Washington with a bloody impeachment process that is all but guaranteed to fail in the Senate.


Meanwhile, Trump is raising good money for his reelection bid while Democtratic Party donors are split amongst the factions. If I was a Democrat, I would really be worried about the possibility of still having three or four candidates going after Super Tuesday. And I think that is a real strong possibility.

[Jeffrey]

Meanwhile, Trump is raising good money for his reelection bid while Democtratic Party donors are split amongst the factions. If I was a Democrat, I would really be worried about the possibility of still having three or four candidates going after Super Tuesday. And I think that is a real strong possibility.

As usual, I completely agree with OPK.

Another substantial issue for the Democratic Party is this may end up being labeled a Socialism vs. Capitalism election. IMO, that's a hard win if the U.S. economy is still strong.

[Highlander]

To keep my response strictly on the horse race -- I don't see how impeachment really advances the Democratic candidate's position in the general. Isn't the better selling point for the ultimate candidate: "the best way to remove Trump from office is to vote him out?"

Also note that any impeachment attempts will be countered by the sorts of counter-accusations Trump has made that muddy the waters. Impeachment is not a clean shot; it is a mud bath for both parties. It risks turning off independents who will just stay home or will vote Libertarian again.

I know that the Democratic base is chomping at the bit to impeach. The election is won with the independents though. It seems to me that it would be a better strategy to keep Trump wounded through investigations -- and actually putting forward a legislative program -- than tying up Washington with a bloody impeachment process that is all but guaranteed to fail in the Senate.


Meanwhile, Trump is raising good money for his reelection bid while Democtratic Party donors are split amongst the factions. If I was a Democrat, I would really be worried about the possibility of still having three or four candidates going after Super Tuesday. And I think that is a real strong possibility.

Most of the arguments I have seen via twitter for impeachment center on "it's the right/constitutional thing to do, given the evidence." One pundit (I can't remember which one) noted by not impeaching, Democrats put all their eggs into the "beat Trump at the ballot box" basket. If Trump is somehow re-elected, Dems have lost the ability to litigate the Mueller investigation via impeachment AND lost the election. It's akin to 2016 when Dems allowed the Scalia SC seat to be litigated at the ballot box rather than fighting to give Garland a hearing or seating him anyway against Mitch's obstruction, primarily because they thought they couldn't lose to Trump. They lost both the WH and the SC, and they are essentially making the same gamble again.

Of course, moving forward with impeachment would be largely theatre for the next 18 months, with the final result a foregone conclusion, and it runs the risk of backfiring spectacularly.

It's a political gamble either way for the Dems.

[Highlander]

Here's an analysis article on impeachment and the 2020 implications that sums up most of what I have seen:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/22/polit...ort/index.html

[OldPhiKap]

Most of the arguments I have seen via twitter for impeachment center on "it's the right/constitutional thing to do, given the evidence." One pundit (I can't remember which one) noted by not impeaching, Democrats put all their eggs into the "beat Trump at the ballot box" basket. If Trump is somehow re-elected, Dems have lost the ability to litigate the Mueller investigation via impeachment AND lost the election. It's akin to 2016 when Dems allowed the Scalia SC seat to be litigated at the ballot box rather than fighting to give Garland a hearing or seating him anyway against Mitch's obstruction, primarily because they thought they couldn't lose to Trump. They lost both the WH and the SC, and they are essentially making the same gamble again.

Of course, moving forward with impeachment would be largely theatre for the next 18 months, with the final result a foregone conclusion, and it runs the risk of backfiring spectacularly.It's a political gamble either way for the Dems.

The bolded part is my focus from a horse race perspective.

As for whether it is the right thing to do or not -- that's a purely political view on my part so I'm trying to avoid comment on it. I guess my horserace question from that argument though is -- given that impeachment would almost certainly fail in the Senate, is it worth the Democrats throwing away a year of time that could be spent advancing its legislative agenda in order to accomplish -- well, what? Whacking the piñata for a year? They can do that through committee hearings without locking up Washington without doomed impeachment proceedings it seems to me.

Again, I'm not unsympathetic to the argument (although I do not see too many altruists in Washington these days). I just don't see how it advances the electoral ball from the D perspective.

[BandAlum83]

The bolded part is my focus from a horse race perspective.

As for whether it is the right thing to do or not -- that's a purely political view on my part so I'm trying to avoid comment on it. I guess my horserace question from that argument though is -- given that impeachment would almost certainly fail in the Senate, is it worth the Democrats throwing away a year of time that could be spent advancing its legislative agenda in order to accomplish -- well, what? Whacking the piñata for a year? They can do that through committee hearings without locking up Washington without doomed impeachment proceedings it seems to me.

Again, I'm not unsympathetic to the argument (although I do not see too many altruists in Washington these days). I just don't see how it advances the electoral ball from the D perspective.

With a split congress and no appetite for compromise on either side, I don't see anyone's legislative agenda getting accomplished. The only remote possibility would seem to be infrastructure, but I don't think the Republicans would have the appetite for the price tag, and I think the Democrats would rather wait until 2020 to take the Senate and White House and do it themselves, rather than give Trump any kind of victory.

Grid lock in Washington seems assured until at least January 20, 2021.

Does anyone really think any substantive legislation can possibly be passed before 2021?

[BandAlum83]

If I remember correctly, I think I put the over/under on Democratic candidates at 17.5 or 18.5 and said I would take the over. No one seemed to commit either way, but I am claiming victory!

[OldPhiKap]

With a split congress and no appetite for compromise on either side, I don't see anyone's legislative agenda getting accomplished. The only remote possibility would seem to be infrastructure, but I don't think the Republicans would have the appetite for the price tag, and I think the Democrats would rather wait until 2020 to take the Senate and White House and do it themselves, rather than give Trump any kind of victory.

Grid lock in Washington seems assured until at least January 20, 2021.

Does anyone really think any substantive legislation can possibly be passed before 2021?

True, although if the Dems propose legislation and it is blocked then they can run on a platform of "this is what we would do -- but we need you to turn out and vote the R's out of office." With impeachment, everything is about Trump and the counter-accusations against the Dems. I think everything that was learned from the Mueller exercise is baked in the cake for good or ill, and I don't see how rehashing it for the next two years gains ground for the Dems. I do see how a mud bath between both parties suppresses turn-out. Doesn't seem to be a risk worth taking IMHO, again putting aside whether he "deserves" to be impeached or whether it is the "right" or "wrong" thing to do.

Let me put the impeachment issue into a different horse race context. Even if it was started today, we're likely looking at an impeachment trial next spring. Which would Dems rather be talking about then -- their wonderful candidates going through the primary season, or rehashing what we already know about Donald Trump? I think the former, not the latter. There will be plenty of time for Trump bashing at the convention and beyond.

Dems need to be for something, not just against Trump. And the bad stuff about Trump is baked in the cake. So I would focus on how a Dem administration, with a Dem Congress, would benefit America and not frighten the independents. To the extent they want to dredge up bad stuff about Trump, I would focus on the tax and financial angles which have not really been disclosed yet but likely contain a gold mine of dirt.

For balance, I should say what I would do if I was advising the Republicans. But Trump's gonna do what Trump wants to do so there is little possible in the way of strategizing. Just buy the ticket and take the ride.

[Jeffrey]

So I would focus on how a Dem administration, with a Dem Congress, would benefit America and not frighten the independents.

Does that mean you would focus on a more capitalistic candidate (Biden and Buttigieg) and avoid the most socialistic (Sanders, Warren, and Harris)?

[elvis14]

The bolded part is my focus from a horse race perspective.

As for whether it is the right thing to do or not -- that's a purely political view on my part so I'm trying to avoid comment on it. I guess my horserace question from that argument though is -- given that impeachment would almost certainly fail in the Senate, is it worth the Democrats throwing away a year of time that could be spent advancing its legislative agenda in order to accomplish -- well, what? Whacking the piñata for a year? They can do that through committee hearings without locking up Washington without doomed impeachment proceedings it seems to me.

Again, I'm not unsympathetic to the argument (although I do not see too many altruists in Washington these days). I just don't see how it advances the electoral ball from the D perspective.

Given that impeachment would 100% fail in the Senate, could the Dems move forward on it for two reasons:

1. Make it analogous to the Benghazi investigations. There were something like 9 of them. All of them with the same conclusion: nothing to see here. So why did we spend millions on investigation after investigation and then suddenly stop investigating as soon as the election was over? Simple, the goal was to use the elections to win votes, not to see any actual justice prevail. Similarly, the Dems can loudly work on impeachment until the 2020 elections are over just to keep the cloud over that guy and the senate R's.
2. Naturally, the Dems want to take the Senate in addition to the WH. Could they use impeachment (and the Senate blocking the impeachment) in their favor in the 2020 congressional races?

[BandAlum83]

Given that impeachment would 100% fail in the Senate, could the Dems move forward on it for two reasons:

1. Make it analogous to the Benghazi investigations. There were something like 9 of them. All of them with the same conclusion: nothing to see here. So why did we spend millions on investigation after investigation and then suddenly stop investigating as soon as the election was over? Simple, the goal was to use the elections to win votes, not to see any actual justice prevail. Similarly, the Dems can loudly work on impeachment until the 2020 elections are over just to keep the cloud over that guy and the senate R's.
2. Naturally, the Dems want to take the Senate in addition to the WH. Could they use impeachment (and the Senate blocking the impeachment) in their favor in the 2020 congressional races?

Only the Mueller report didn't come to the conclusion that there is "nothing to see here." It lays out a strong case for multiple counts of obstruction that can only be prosecuted by Congress while the President remains in office. The decision to move forward (or not) with impeachment proceedings has the potential to wreak havoc within the Democratic base. This is probably why the PTB within the party are taking the middle road thus far: continue to have hearings, issue subpoenas, use the inevitable court fights to bang the drum "what do they have to hide," and see if cracks in the Republican wall begin to appear (notwithstanding Mitt Romney's recent comments to the contrary).

Meanwhile, the Republicans will beat the drums of illegal spying and investigating the investigators (the oranges story...sorry, origins).

Which will have better legs and will resonate better with the middle/independents? Hard to say, but early indications are that the Democrat's story is playing better on social media and late night monologues.

[OldPhiKap]

Does that mean you would focus on a more capitalistic candidate (Biden and Buttigieg) and avoid the most socialistic (Sanders, Warren, and Harris)?

Yes, although I admit that my personal bias would be towards the former group on that range anyway. So take it with the appropriately-sized grain of salt.

[PackMan97]

Which will have better legs and will resonate better with the middle/independents? Hard to say, but early indications are that the Democrat's story is playing better on social media and late night monologues.

Well, given that Jimmy Kimmel goes off on a Trump monologue EVERY SINGLE NIGHT...I'm not sure that's a good measuring stick. Kimmel has become all but unwatchable by my wife and I because well...it just gets BORING when I know what he's going to say before he says it.

[BandAlum83]

Well, given that Jimmy Kimmel goes off on a Trump monologue EVERY SINGLE NIGHT...I'm not sure that's a good measuring stick. Kimmel has become all but unwatchable by my wife and I because well...it just gets BORING when I know what he's going to say before he says it.

BROAD social media and late night. It is early, yet. And the Russian troll farm has yet to gear up to its full capacity to totally flood social media. They are probably still waiting on internal polling to tell them where to target and refine the message.

[gus]

Per Morning Consult/Politico polling:

Trump's Approval/disapproval among independent registered voters:

Before release of Mueller report
App: 38
Dis: 53
Net disapproval: 15 points

After release of report
App:32
Dis: 58
Net disapproval: 26 points

That's a pretty big shift. I think it's clear this report has an impact on independent voters, and it's not good news for Trump.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Per Morning Consult/Politico polling:

Trump's Approval/disapproval among independent registered voters:

Before release of Mueller report
App: 38
Dis: 53
Net disapproval: 15 points

After release of report
App:32
Dis: 58
Net disapproval: 26 points

That's a pretty big shift. I think it's clear this report has an impact on independent voters, and it's not good news for Trump.

I didn't realize there were still undecided/independent voters at this stage.

I am a registered independent for logistical reasons, but this report hasn't swayed me one bit.

[sagegrouse]

Given that impeachment would 100% fail in the Senate, could the Dems move forward on it for two reasons:

1. Make it analogous to the Benghazi investigations. There were something like 9 of them. All of them with the same conclusion: nothing to see here. So why did we spend millions on investigation after investigation and then suddenly stop investigating as soon as the election was over? Simple, the goal was to use the elections to win votes, not to see any actual justice prevail. Similarly, the Dems can loudly work on impeachment until the 2020 elections are over just to keep the cloud over that guy and the senate R's.
2. Naturally, the Dems want to take the Senate in addition to the WH. Could they use impeachment (and the Senate blocking the impeachment) in their favor in the 2020 congressional races?

3. Not allow McConnell -- and Trump, for that matter -- to label them as "wimps" for being afraid of Trump and his base.

I agree with OPK that the calendar is an issue, and I suspect the House Dems will find an intermediate position to take a stand but not launch a year-long process that impinges on the 2020 election. Censure, perhaps.

[dudog84]

3. Not allow McConnell -- and Trump, for that matter -- to label them as "wimps" for being afraid of Trump and his base.

I agree with OPK that the calendar is an issue, and I suspect the House Dems will find an intermediate position to take a stand but not launch a year-long process that impinges on the 2020 election. Censure, perhaps.

I've been wondering about what an intermediate position would be, and was wondering if censure was an option. Or is that something for fellow House members only? That way they can say they disapprove without kicking him out. Keeping him in office gives them a nice pinata (don't know how to do a tilde).

After hearing Giuliani's remarks, why isn't the House passing a law that it is illegal to accept foreign assistance during a campaign? Isn't it already illegal to take foreigners' money? No-brainer. Pass that, and make McConnell block it.

[sagegrouse]

I've been wondering about what an intermediate position would be, and was wondering if censure was an option. Or is that something for fellow House members only? That way they can say they disapprove without kicking him out. Keeping him in office gives them a nice pinata (don't know how to do a tilde).

After hearing Giuliani's remarks, why isn't the House passing a law that it is illegal to accept foreign assistance during a campaign? Isn't it already illegal to take foreigners' money? No-brainer. Pass that, and make McConnell block it.

It is illegal to accept donations or other material help from a foreign entity.

As in --

§30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition

It shall be unlawful for-

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-

(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) "Foreign national" defined

As used in this section, the term "foreign national" means-

(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term "foreign national" shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or

(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.

It's that pesky "other thing of value" that makes Giuliani's statement incorrect.