Presidential Prediction...Our own Crystal Ball

[CitizenBBN]

Trump’s argument, injected into him by subordinates who understand that absurdity is his vocation, is essentially that the Constitution’s impeachment provisions are unconstitutional. Bananas lol.

I’m sure most of you have seen this by now but if not it’s interesting reading:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...31d_story.html

The current argument is sound, and politically sound.

The House has never begun an impeachment investigation without a full vote, and the language of the Constitution can be interpreted that it should require such a vote. It says "the House" can impeach, not the Speaker. it also says the Congress can declare war, I'm sure the implication is that such a thing requires a vote.

Pelosi doesn't want a vote b/c it would put red state democrats on the record. that's politics too.

IMO if you're going to overturn an election it should require a formal vote of the House. Just having the party in charge declare one, and not give both sides the power of subpoena, etc., makes it just a pure political play, and impeachment should be an action with far more gravity attached.

I have lots of issues with details of Trump's policies and actions, but no President should consider an impeachment to be real until there is a formal vote and until it is a bipartisan process where members of both parties have the power to subpoena and investigate and present evidence.

Once there is a formal vote that makes this a bi-partisan process then yes he must comply. But the Speaker declaring an investigation and avoiding due process of the House taking a vote is just a political maneuver b/c she was losing control of her caucus if she didn't do something.

[Catonahottinroof]

To me the game plan is to drag this out to Election Day. Not to do anything meaningful legislatively as that may give Trump some kind of victory if he signs passed legislation. I get party directives, movements and direction, but the business and the needs of the country needs to be before party. That’s not happening right now and the people are becoming growingly pissed because of it.

The current argument is sound, and politically sound.

The House has never begun an impeachment investigation without a full vote, and the language of the Constitution can be interpreted that it should require such a vote. It says "the House" can impeach, not the Speaker. it also says the Congress can declare war, I'm sure the implication is that such a thing requires a vote.

Pelosi doesn't want a vote b/c it would put red state democrats on the record. that's politics too.

IMO if you're going to overturn an election it should require a formal vote of the House. Just having the party in charge declare one, and not give both sides the power of subpoena, etc., makes it just a pure political play, and impeachment should be an action with far more gravity attached.

I have lots of issues with details of Trump's policies and actions, but no President should consider an impeachment to be real until there is a formal vote and until it is a bipartisan process where members of both parties have the power to subpoena and investigate and present evidence.

Once there is a formal vote that makes this a bi-partisan process then yes he must comply. But the Speaker declaring an investigation and avoiding due process of the House taking a vote is just a political maneuver b/c she was losing control of her caucus if she didn't do something.

[CitizenBBN]

To me the game plan is to drag this out to Election Day. Not to do anything meaningful legislatively as that may give Trump some kind of victory if he signs passed legislation. I get party directives, movements and direction, but the business and the needs of the country needs to be before party. That’s not happening right now and the people are becoming growingly pissed because of it.

The House wouldn't vote to accept universal peace and meaningful contact with all alien races with Trump in the White House. They wont' give him a win on any issue, no way.

So not a thing will happen until the election. The only place Trump can get wins is in trade deals, but with absolutely no media coverage of anything that may help him, that will be hard.

There's a new NAFTA on the table, but if you don't research that on your own you won't even know about it.

I'm amazed when any conservative of any kind wins at all any more b/c the Left controls such a huge part of the media and all of our education system. There's no way it holds forever, as older Americans who know the difference between liberty and government maternalism die off there's no way we don't see a massive shift to real actual socialism.

Personally I'm going to become an expat, find some country somewhere that doesn't feel a need to tell me how much soda I can drink.

[Doc]

And that ideology is Trump's best shot. it is close to Bernie's, and that sells well in some places, but is a bastard at a family reunion in a lot of others.

As for grassroots, the GOP has done a great job of late, and IMO it will come down to the two parties and how well they work in those key states.

Will minority voters turn out for her? They have an interesting choice between three old, white rich men (same as usual) and an old, white rich woman who falsely claimed to be a minority in order to advance her career.

The minority turnout will be there for Warren as next month she will be African American, and she will snag the LGBTQRSTLMNOP vote by claiming she is a transgender lesbian

[ukpumacat]

Where is there any PROOF that any money was held up? Where is the PROOF that there was a threat to hold any money up? PLEASE show me exactly where the was done. Do so and I am on your side. But Adam Schiff saying it isn't proof. This is the guy who went to Russia to get naked pictures of Trump. His ethics are as lacking as his ability to speak the truth and foresee the future. Likewise MSNBC or CNN saying it is not proof. We have the transcript (or at least the official report, and it is a FULL report. Just because democrats claim it is doctored does not make it so) and NOWHERE in there does it mention foreign aid, withholding foreign aid, or the threat of withholding it. Trump said "Do me a favor". I use that phrase often, and its not to coerce or intimidate any action. It is a request to do something, usually WITHOUT any reward attached. In this case it was to look into the possible illegal activities of Biden, something he (Trump) is empowered to do and is obligated to do.

Doc, are you still going to stick to this?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mul...e-quid-pro-quo

Not that it wasn't clear before but that is his Chief of Staff (who will be soon thrown under the bus) literally admitting they held up the Aid.

[ukpumacat]

Thought this was an excellent article on the problem with a Warren nomination:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...antitrust.html

[CitizenBBN]

Doc, are you still going to stick to this?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mul...e-quid-pro-quo

Not that it wasn't clear before but that is his Chief of Staff (who will be soon thrown under the bus) literally admitting they held up the Aid.

Except they always admitted they held up the aid due to concerns about corruption. I saw this story, clicked thinking "oh boy this is a bad thing" and then read the quote and realized it was nothing.

Here's the quote:

Mulvaney added: “Did [Trump] also mention to me, in the past, the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money ... The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate.”

OK, so Trump mentioned past corruption being tied to the Ukraine, and says that that past corruption influenced Trump's concerns about the aid.

Can the POTUS now not hold up aid when he has such concerns without it being a "quid pro quo" and some kind of violation of his office? When the heck did that get crayoned into the Constitution?

The Ukraine, like the rest of the world really, has a deep history of corruption. Trump was particularly aware of it b/c some of it was tied to the last election, so he decided to drag his feet on the aid.

Of course I dont' yet see why a quid pro quo, even if he said "investigate these people or you don't get money" would be an issue. Biden did it and stood up on video and bragged about it and it was fine.

The POTUS has the authority to conduct foreign policy almost as he completely pleases, and as chief LEO he has every right to work with foreign nations to investigate people he suspects may be corrupt or have broken US laws.

Now we can question why he picked someone to investigate that happens to help him politically, but even that's far from the first such example. IN fact Trump was the subject of such an investigation, so he knows all too well, and that same investigation of him utilized foreign sources and assets as well.

But that quote, despite the spin it will get, is a long way from a gotcha.

[ukpumacat]

Chuck, I wasn’t (or didn’t) say that this should lead to impeachment.
Doc said if anyone showed proof Trump held up aid he would be “on your side”.
I was asking him if this changes things.

The reason the Mulvaney quote is a big deal is because he flat out admitted there WAS a quid pro quo after weeks of Trump and all of his defenders saying there absolutely was not.
I understand Mulvaney is not directly saying this was about Biden. That isn’t the point. The point is that EVERYONE on Trumps side said there was no quid pro quo. “Read the transcripts” they said.
And not only did the facts already tell us there was (even though the transcript didn’t show it according to some) Mulvaney is now admitting it.

The bottom line is that Trump’s team (and anyone defending him) is having to constantly move the goal posts because they lie...and then get caught in the lie...and then have to make it about something else.

First, it was that Trump didn’t ask them to investigate Biden.
Then it was clear he did.
But...he didn’t hold up aid. Prove it.
And then it was clear he did.
But...it wasn’t a quid pro quo.
But....then it was admitted it was.

If this wasn’t a big deal, Mulvaney wouldn’t be backtracking like crazy tonight. Should Trump be impeached over it?
Not for me to decide.
But I’m not the one that matters. I’m not voting for him either way.
I think this is a big deal for two reasons:
1. He is flat out pissing off some Republican Senators. Between this and Syria and now the G-7. He is daring them to go against him. Everyone has made such a big deal about Pelosi not calling for a vote (and you bet your bottom dollar it’s coming) because she wants to protect the moderate Dems in red states. But I think Trump is doing that to many Reps as well. Many of them are on the record saying that if it’s proven there is a quid pro quo it’s a crime. There is only so much backtracking and explaining they can do before they lose their own voters. I still don’t think Trump will be removed from office. But the dude is begging to be removed.
2. Independents hate this stuff. For Trump haters, anything he does is enough to get booted. For Trump supporters, nothing he does will be enough. We could find a literal letter he wrote saying, “Investigate Biden or else. This is a quid pro quo. Do it.” And Trump supporters would say, “He’s the president. That’s his right.”
But independents care. Every day and every poll show worsening numbers for him. This will not help. Which is why he is pissed today and Mulvaney is backtracking.
And now you have Neil Cavuto saying he is breaking the law with the G-7. This isn’t good for him. In any way. I don’t expect it to change your vote. But for a lot of people already on the fence, it could easily change theirs.

[CitizenBBN]

The reason the Mulvaney quote is a big deal is because he flat out admitted there WAS a quid pro quo after weeks of Trump and all of his defenders saying there absolutely was not.
I understand Mulvaney is not directly saying this was about Biden. That isn’t the point. The point is that EVERYONE on Trumps side said there was no quid pro quo.

I disagree. They all said the aid was held up due to concerns about corruption. That's all Mulvaney just said too. He said the money was held up over concerns about corruption, which is exactly what has been said in the past.

It's a non-story being spun into a gotcha, but there's no "there" there.

I don't have enough time to go through your goalposts but I disagree those have been the steps. Trump doubled down on having foreign nations investigate Biden the day or two after the story broke. He's been brazen about it. Not sure where the backtracking has been on that one.

[Catfan73]

What do you guys make of Hillary’s assertion that Gabbard is this year’s Manchurian candidate, taking Jill Stein’s place? BTW, while I’m not much on debate, I do read everything here.

[ukpumacat]

What do you guys make of Hillary’s assertion that Gabbard is this year’s Manchurian candidate, taking Jill Stein’s place? BTW, while I’m not much on debate, I do read everything here.

I think Hillary would do the party well just to stay out of it all.

And Gabbard is getting what every single low polling candidate would want: publicity.

[ukpumacat]

Btw....for the sake of going back and looking at this down the road, here are the current polls as of today:

Trump Approval Rating Average of Polls - Approve: 43 Disapprove: 53
(Editors Note: This is the lowest average of his Presidency. Even Rasmussen which is by far the most "conservative friendly poll" has him at +4 Disapproval).

Dem Nominee National Average of Polls - Warren 28, Biden 25, Sanders 15, BUttigeig 5, Harris 5
(Editors Note: This is the first time Warren has topped on an Average. The only reason her lead isn't more is because there was a poll last week with Biden at +11. All other polls has Warren now in the lead. The impeachment stuff has clearly hurt him nationally and Warren is starting to distance herself from Bernie. His health issues will not help him either. I expect him to drop more this week.)

Dem Nominee vs Trump National Average - (There has only been one poll in the last week, so I am just using that one. As others come in I will update)
Biden vs Trump = Biden +7
Warren vs Trump = Warren +2
Sanders vs Trump = Sanders +4
Harris vs Trump = Tie

I will also add that because of our Electoral system, the national polls are not quite as important as state by state. So here are a couple of those:

Wisconsin Fox News Poll -
Trump vs Biden = Biden +9
Trump vs Warren = Warren +4
Trump vs Sanders = Sanders +5

Ohio Emerson Poll -
Trump vs Biden = Biden +6
Trump vs Warren = Warren +4
Trump vs Sanders = Sanders +6

General Congressional Vote National Average = Democrats +7.5

Finally, in what many consider the most important and accurate "poll".

Vegas odds:

Trump +110 (He was -110 before the impeachment)
Warren +425 (the only Dem to consistently move up)
Biden +500
Sanders +900
Pence +6000 (just as an fyi)

I would agree with those odds. Once there is a Dem nominee (depending on who it is and who they choose as VP) I expect those odds to be very close to equal with Trump having an ever so slight advantage.

Some updates on these just to show trends:


Trump Approval Rating Average of Polls - Approve: 41 Disapprove: 55
(Editors Note: This is down 3 points since I posted this last week. Even Rasmussen has gone from +4 to +8)

Dem Nominee National Average of Polls - Warren 23, Biden 29, Sanders 15, BUttigeig 6, Harris 5
(Slight uptick for Biden and Buttigeig. This average will be much more accurate over the next couple of days as a new poll had Biden +10 and inflated his number Imo).


Vegas odds:

Trump +120 (He was -110 before the impeachment and +110 last week)
Warren +250 (trending)


Some thoughts:

Vegas is ignoring the last Biden friendly poll as Warren seems to be the clear favorite to them. I actually think Buttigieg wouldn't be the worst betting flyer at +1400. I actually think behind Biden and Warren he is the only other candidate with any shot to win the nomination (and a low one at that).

The last couple of weeks has been a disaster for Trump politically. He has been outmaneuvered by Pelosi imo. She gambled that she could do these impeachment hearings without calling a vote and that she would win the public's support and she has. And yes, media coverage helps obviously. But Trump is shooting himself in his own foot with the Syria mess and then the G-7 stuff. None of that played well with anyone. Obviously, ardent Trump supporters will not be moved by any of it and will justify it all as nothing to see here. But it doesn't seem like the "loose supporters" or independents agree. His numbers are on a downward trend. Again, I just simply don't get the timing of those moves whatsoever (and I am saying that from just a generic political science point of view).

I read today that "they" (whoever that is) have him on lockdown for the next two days. We will see if that holds (I doubt it does) but some close to him clearly see that they need to stop the bleeding.

Again, this is just a current snapshot. He's still barely the Vegas favorite and should be. There is a TON of time until the election.

[CitizenBBN]

Yes, media the media are covering for Pelosi the same way they did for Clinton. If this was reversed and the GOP house tried this with Obama they'd be losing their minds over the process.

I don't get his moves either, but in truth they won't matter this early in the game. Bush I was a shoe in after Gulf War I, still lost the election a year later.

Way too much time left. The economy, getting negatives up on Warren or Biden, what Trump could do positive between now and then (or negative). Just too many variables at this point. It's like picking the NCAA champ in October.

[UKHistory]

What do you guys make of Hillary’s assertion that Gabbard is this year’s Manchurian candidate, taking Jill Stein’s place? BTW, while I’m not much on debate, I do read everything here.

That is a heck of an accusation. But any third party candidate helps trump.

Gabbard is a vet so I’d hope that isn’t true.

[CitizenBBN]

That is a heck of an accusation. But any third party candidate helps trump.

Gabbard is a vet so I’d hope that isn’t true.

I have to ask. Do you really think there is any non-zero chance in the world that Hillary's accusation is true?

[UKHistory]

With Putin anything is possible. It could be Clinton trying to backdoor a chance to run again or there is a threat from Russia.

Trusting HRC to actually put her country first Rings hollow.

I never heard Gabbard say a pro Russia thing. Whereas trump helps Russia at every turn. Including betraying the Kurds.

[Doc]

Hillary's actions while SOS, along with Obama's make it more likely they are the Russian assets. The former took millions of dollars from Moscow for her foundarion..... and Russian to create a false dossier on her political opponent while the later promissed greater flexability after the election, and waved hallow threats while allowing them to meddle in our elections.

Anybody who threatens the Clinton mob is suddenly a "agent of Russia". The essence of Swamp Politics

[CitizenBBN]

With Putin anything is possible. It could be Clinton trying to backdoor a chance to run again or there is a threat from Russia.

Trusting HRC to actually put her country first Rings hollow.

I never heard Gabbard say a pro Russia thing. Whereas trump helps Russia at every turn. Including betraying the Kurds.

Do you see that our support of the Kurds over the Turks has helped give Russia access to Turkey? Relations with Turkey have been strained for a while, and our lack of support for Erdogan's megalomania has led him to reach out to Russia.

Trump's move is probably far too little and too late for fixing that situation, but Russia's foothold there started before Trump was even a candidate.

there was a time when these kinds of allegations would cost a politician his/her career. Now it's met with "anything is possible." I don't mean that to be negative, but it is true that what 10 or 20 years ago would be considered far-fetched conspiracy theories of the fringe are now mainstream news, and I don't see how we get back to the middle so long as people accept accusations about Obama being a Muslim agent or Trump being a Putin spy as legitimate with absolutely no real evidence. It is happening on both sides, and is a symptom of that further divide IMO.

[ukpumacat]

This trend in the polls is taking form. One surprises me and the other does not:

Trump's disapproval rating is now at +18. This is double what it was a week ago. And Chuck, I completely agree that we are far off but this is why this is important: There is ZERO way for his disapproval ratings to get there on Democrats and Independents alone. What this means is that some Republicans or "soft supporters" are turning on him.

Now, that is a far cry from voting for someone else. And Trump can obviously win them back. But I think it matters.

More importantly, Biden is clearly the nominee of choice again. All polls are showing an uptick for him. Warren's numbers are down slightly but Biden's are up.
This means that some of those who were in the more moderate camps of Booker, Klobuchar, etc are now trending toward Biden.
This surprises me a bit because I actually thought the Ukraine stuff would hurt him.

[CitizenBBN]

Not trying to defend Trump, but that shift still doesn't really mean much IMO. I fully expected it, and it is coming from his move in Syria. That's not going to sit well with traditional strong foreign policy voters, most of whom are either right leaning independents or GOP voters.

But this far out that won't keep them from showing up. First, if he gets some kind of peace accord there then he comes out fine on this issue. Second, unless it turns into a massive conflict and pulls us in somehow then it will be old news by November.

But mostly Trump is still running against himself. The truth is most voters don't like either candidate in an election, they hold their nose and vote for the lesser of evils. It won't be until Trump has an opponent and they can go negative on that person that we start to get an indication of how they feel about Trump relative to an alternative, and that's the key metric.

It may tell us something about the energy of the base, which is turnout, which is crucial, but this far out it won't impact that IMO unless this move turns into a drawn out situation that is still going on next year.

And even then foreign policy tends to drop hard on the priority list as we get close to an election.

I think it was a political mistake simply b/c he used up chips on a non-issue that has little real impact on US troop withdrawal, and he needed to broker a deal with Turkey BEFORE we left, but I doubt this becomes much of an issue for him in 12 months.

But no doubt he's self-inflicting wounds. The funny thing is they all do that a lot. Both parties on average seem to work hard at finding the one person that could lose to the other nominee. Hillary and Trump are great examples. Almost anyone probably beats Trump in the last election, but the Dems picked the ultimate insider with the personality of a honey badger in an era of Populism. Bad move.

Trump's best hope is the economy stays strong and he can get a couple of foreign policy wins between now and then, and then beat up the other guy. No one who is running against him is very strong either, so he's got a puncher's shot at it.

[kingcat]

I think Trump building a border wall in Colorado is going to help him. No one would have ever thought of doing that.
And if he can convince his supporters of it we're likely all doomed anyway so...why the heck not.
He has no actual clue if it's the State or the river that borders Mexico.
Deep down, we all know that.

Just kidding a bit. Even I almost supported Pat Paulsen back in the day.

[ukpumacat]

Not too much of an update this week.

Disapproval ratings are still trending worse but only slightly. Rasmussen has them one point worse for Trump. ABC News has it at +20 disapproval which is the 2nd worst in US History (Bush Sr has highest ever).

The real change this week is a new entrant on the Democratic side. It has been trending this way all week but I wanted to wait until a couple of more polls showed it.

But Pete Buttigieg is officially a contender now.

He's hovering around the 10% mark. But he is separating himself from the rest of the pack in consistent polls. And more than that, he is a real contender in Iowa.

Things may change, but it seems like we have a true 4 candidate race. 2 progressives and 2 moderates.

A lot will be determined by how quickly others drop out of the race, but Buttigieg has a shot if he can win Iowa. He has no shot in New Hampshire or South Carolina. So winning Iowa is key for him. I know a lot of people who like him. And eyes will be on him at the next Democratic debate for sure (which should be smaller because of the stricter guidelines to get in it).

Democrats clearly want another moderate choice instead of Biden and it does seem Buttigieg is the only one making any traction right now.

[CitizenBBN]

It's interesting Bush Sr. had the highest negatives, and if not for Perot he probably wins his re-election. That's why I don't put too much stock in that metric.

In fact in that case it was his negatives that led to Perot, where Bush SR. went back on "read my lips". But had Perot not run Bush Sr. was a decent chance at winning even with the issue b/c there would be no protest vote for conservatives.

[ukpumacat]

I also think we are just in a different era. Every President at some point in their term will be unpopular simply because of how divided the country has become.
I am not surprised his disapproval rating is so low and sinking. Its more an important metric to watch to see if/when at any point it goes up. He cannot win with it as low as it is.

I am still in the minority: I think Warren and Buttigieg can beat him. I do not think Sanders or Biden can.

[CitizenBBN]

I think it will be close either way, and just too many variables right now. I think anyone except Sanders CAN beat Trump, including Biden. But I think Trump can still win against them too.

The biggest problem for Trump, and all conservatives, is that the left all but controls the media that could influence those who could go either way. Fox counters CNN/MSNBC on the two sides, but those in the middle tend to listen to CNN or the networks, who are also all in for stopping Trump.

Trump's strength though is connecting more directly, and that's one of the reasons he won. He goes around the media as much as possible.

Honestly Mayor Pete may be his toughest opponent, but I don't think he gets the nomination. He's still in it, but I think it's Warren or Biden, probably Warren.

[Catonahottinroof]

Beto O’Rourke says buh bye

https://news.yahoo.com/beto-orourke-...drops-out.html

[Doc]

Beto O’Rourke says buh bye

https://news.yahoo.com/beto-orourke-...drops-out.html

Did he wave his arns like a seizuring marionette while exiting

[CitizenBBN]

How bad was he as a politician? He's tall, handsome, younger, has money ties and is from Texas, and he didn't make it past the first turn of the race. You know you're bad when....

[Catonahottinroof]

I will be curious if this is accurate. And if it is accurate, will it be pursued?

https://kfyi.iheart.com/featured/rus...ygHT4.facebook

[Darryl]

How bad was he as a politician? He's tall, handsome, younger, has money ties and is from Texas, and he didn't make it past the first turn of the race. You know you're bad when....

That clown promised he would take people’s guns. Now, as a private citizen he is free to do so. He can start with my older brother’s home (or really, any house in Hazard)

Darryl