[Discussion] The (likely) Depressing Road to the 2020 Election Thread

It's going to be a circus.

Will 45 get impeached or step down or challenged? All 3? MAYBE.

Will the democrats eat themselves alive and hobble literally every potential candidate before the primaries are done? PROBABLY.

Talk about that junk here.

Kentucky's still +30 Republican and Trump's net approval in the state is +15 (56%) as of last month.

So, am I crazy or does this looks like an impediment inquiry.

Pages 26-33 really seems to lay it out in clear language.

Well, four representatives from the House Judiciary Committee published this yesterday:

The Atlantic: Why We’re Moving Forward With Impeachment: Our Constitution requires it. Our democracy depends on it.

It includes this bit:

Despite assertions to the contrary by the president and his allies, the special counsel’s report and testimony are not the end of our investigations. We have now filed a petition in court to obtain the grand-jury documents referenced in the special counsel’s report. In that filing, we have made clear that we will utilize our Article I powers to obtain the additional underlying evidence, as well as enforce subpoenas for key witness testimony, and broaden our investigations to include conflicts of interest and financial misconduct.

While many people believe that beginning an impeachment investigation can begin only with a vote of the full House of Representatives, this is not true. Article I authorizes the House Judiciary Committee to begin this process.

Gremlin wrote:

Well, four representatives from the House Judiciary Committee published this yesterday:

The Atlantic: Why We’re Moving Forward With Impeachment: Our Constitution requires it. Our democracy depends on it.

It includes this bit:

Despite assertions to the contrary by the president and his allies, the special counsel’s report and testimony are not the end of our investigations. We have now filed a petition in court to obtain the grand-jury documents referenced in the special counsel’s report. In that filing, we have made clear that we will utilize our Article I powers to obtain the additional underlying evidence, as well as enforce subpoenas for key witness testimony, and broaden our investigations to include conflicts of interest and financial misconduct.

While many people believe that beginning an impeachment investigation can begin only with a vote of the full House of Representatives, this is not true. Article I authorizes the House Judiciary Committee to begin this process.

Sounds like they aim to make Pelosi back it since she’s not going to open it wholesale in Congress. People claim that only 90 were for it last time around, but I can guarantee you that if Pelosi were for it and endorsed it, there would only be a handful that would be against it on the dem side.

My position is that Pelosi is stoking the fires of impeachment in a way that will make it appear more organic than being forced by Democratic leadership. This would be more persuasive to the public, which is what is needed to help insure a positive outcome out of impeachment, whether that is getting GOP senators on board, or a crushing presidential defeat by numbers like we saw in the midterms.

Pelosi spoke afterwards about the importance of winning the House by a massive amount instead of just by a few seats because Trump and the GOP would have just pushed to contest seats and refuse to seat new Dems. Winning so many seats made contesting moot.

One thing to consider is that with Mueller’s testimony, which was factually damning of Trump, even if it failed optically, is that everything is different now. We spent years waiting for Mueller, and in the process put to the side many, many impeachable acts because it was felt that Mueller’s report would carry more gravitas.

Now we see a change in the narrative. There is nothing more coming, so now there is only one question, to impeach or not. And Trump handed the Dems all the moral high ground they need to be aggressive with his disgusting attack on Cummings this weekend.

You are seeing more and more mainstream liberal pundits talking about fascism and the danger of Trump refusing to accept the 2020 results. People are starting to get it.

Prediction for tonight's debate: 2020 Race to the Middle!

To the bottom and beyond.

Shadout wrote:

To the bottom and beyond.

Lukewarm centrism forever!

Jesus, I’ll be happy the moment Tim Ryan is no longer on the debate stage. I’m absolutely done with this moderate Democrat BS brand. We’re too wealthy and developed a country to allow the many things that are currently a sh*tty mess and playing centrist isn’t going to cut it anymore.

I may not vote for buttigeg in the dem primary, but he’s not wrong when he said it’s time to stop catering to republicans on policy because they’ll call you a socialist no matter what stance you take, so build the policy and then defend a good policy.

They're going to ask all these African American related questions again tomorrow when there's an actual African American at the debate, right?

Rat Boy wrote:

They're going to ask all these African American related questions again tomorrow when there's an actual African American at the debate, right?

I hope so. Lemon hammered them on it quite a bit and with this being in Detroit, there’s quite a bit to address - including unions, reparations, Flint and infrastructure in general which I really do hope they come back to with the same with tomorrow. I kind of feel like the healthcare issue is currently just beating an uninsured horse at this point and would better be addressed when there aren’t a million candidates on stage.

Didn’t get a chance to watch tonight’s debate but some friends are saying that all of CNN’s questions sound like they were written by a GOP intern. Is it that bad?

ruhk wrote:

Didn’t get a chance to watch tonight’s debate but some friends are saying that all of CNN’s questions sound like they were written by a GOP intern. Is it that bad?

Isn’t that always the case?

The bar Democrats are held to is that they want to help people, so how are they going to pay for it?

Meanwhile Republicans are held to the bar of not wanting to help people, how far are they willing to go to take away benefits?

And by "an African American" I should have said two. Keep forgetting Cory Booker's in the race.

More than usual, I mean. I’ve had several people say that the questions are somehow even more pointed and dumb than MSNBC was. Considering how bad MSNBC was during the debates and generally is about everything I didn’t know whether it was hyperbole.

ruhk wrote:

More than usual, I mean. I’ve had several people say that the questions are somehow even more pointed and dumb than MSNBC was. Considering how bad MSNBC was during the debates and generally is about everything I didn’t know whether it was hyperbole.

There were quite a few that were ‘combatively’ written and/or just poorly written - they would ask a pertinent issue question and add a Republican-lite talking point in the phrasing.

Also Republicans are never asked to pay for forever war, but modernizing our health care system to the same standard as the rest of the planet is somehow a threat to the republic.

DSGamer wrote:

Also Republicans are never asked to pay for forever war, but modernizing our health care system to the same standard as the rest of the planet is somehow a threat to the republic.

This!

BlackSheep wrote:

There were quite a few that were ‘combatively’ written and/or just poorly written - they would ask a pertinent issue question and add a Republican-lite talking point in the phrasing.

The one that stuck out to me was when they asked if the candidate would raise taxes on the middle class to pay for health care, and if the candidate tried to say "no" then they repeated the question. ("You'll crack eventually. We can do this all night.")

Other than that I thought it was better moderated than the MSNBC debate. More substance, fewer interruptions.

Ashley Fineberg of Slate wrote a pretty funny piece on the questions

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

Holy sh*t, that's worse than I thought.

DSGamer wrote:

Ashley Fineberg of Slate wrote a pretty funny piece on the questions

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

Funny, but very informative. It’s also the reason, now looking back on it, that it felt like every question they gave Delaney a response and rebuttal. Like. To. Everything. And he’s not a serious contender, more of a foil for Sanders and Warren.

... and it’s kind of why I remember seeming Bernie and Warren both defend each other. They shared the same bunker basically.

It's almost like CNN('s financial backers) feels deeply threatened by Sanders and Warren and would much prefer a republican-lite centrist on the democratic ticket.

You guys are seriously complaining about conflict in a debate? That's kinda the point. We want these candidates to compare and contrast their ideas. CNN pushed hard to force these candidates to attack each other and I'm very glad that they did. We ended up with two hours of spirited debate focusing on substantial issues that never once turned nasty. I want more debates like that.

Djinn wrote:

You guys are seriously complaining about conflict in a debate? That's kinda the point. We want these candidates to compare and contrast their ideas. CNN pushed hard to force these candidates to attack each other and I'm very glad that they did. We ended up with two hours of spirited debate focusing on substantial issues that never once turned nasty. I want more debates like that.

It’s hardly that at all. I enjoyed the debate mostly. I hate the idea that there’s a billion people on stage; the questioning was shady unless you’re looking for GOP campaign ad snippets you can cut from context to feed to ignorant voters; and I realize this was supposed to be about moderates vs less moderates vs left candidates, but, jesus, if that’s the case then I want Biden on stage with warren, Harris, and sanders.

Djinn wrote:

You guys are seriously complaining about conflict in a debate? That's kinda the point. We want these candidates to compare and contrast their ideas. CNN pushed hard to force these candidates to attack each other and I'm very glad that they did. We ended up with two hours of spirited debate focusing on substantial issues that never once turned nasty. I want more debates like that.

I don't think people are complaining about conflict. I think they're complaining about the framing of the debate being Republican.

This entire election is being framed around the idea that the President is crazy and racist and his followers are die hards who can't be swayed by reason or logic, so then how much do Democrats need to pander to his voters.

It's an insane way to frame the election when 50% of the population doesn't vote. Many of us have a theory that that 50% (the ones who aren't having their vote suppressed) are largely demotivated because American politics pander too much to the right.

thrawn82 wrote:

It's almost like CNN('s financial backers) feels deeply threatened by Sanders and Warren and would much prefer a republican-lite centrist on the democratic ticket.

I believe it was CNN who, during the 2016 primaries, put up a poll, and when it turned out that Bernie won the poll instead of Hillary, they took it down and pretended it never existed.

bekkilyn wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:

It's almost like CNN('s financial backers) feels deeply threatened by Sanders and Warren and would much prefer a republican-lite centrist on the democratic ticket.

I believe it was CNN who, during the 2016 primaries, put up a poll, and when it turned out that Bernie won the poll instead of Hillary, they took it down and pretended it never existed.

Not that I'd put it past them, but you could cite this? I'm not seeing any such thing in a quick google search.

Edit: in fact, this looks like it was (yet another) reddit conspiracy theory:
https://www.politifact.com/punditfac...

Tanglebones wrote:
bekkilyn wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:

It's almost like CNN('s financial backers) feels deeply threatened by Sanders and Warren and would much prefer a republican-lite centrist on the democratic ticket.

I believe it was CNN who, during the 2016 primaries, put up a poll, and when it turned out that Bernie won the poll instead of Hillary, they took it down and pretended it never existed.

Not that I'd put it past them, but you could cite this? I'm not seeing any such thing in a quick google search.

Edit: in fact, this looks like it was (yet another) reddit conspiracy theory:
https://www.politifact.com/punditfac...

Nope, it's been forever-ago, but I remember actually seeing a poll on their page between Bernie and Hillary and maybe a couple of the others, and then later it was gone after Bernie was showing to be ahead, and there was some discussion on it over on another forum, but that's all I remember about it, but it stuck in my mind.

I don't have any idea if it was the poll talked about in the link you posted or if it was for something else, so it's always possible people were getting confused and claiming it was that one, but it was for a different question. I just don't know, but I do know what I saw and there *was* something that they took down. In any case, my point isn't so that people would believe me, but one part of my own reason for why I could *very* easily believe that they would prefer another republican-lite centrist on the ticket because it's behavior I've seen out of them before...at least until Bernie was helping their ratings go up.