Political Roundtable Part XXVI

[I_Like_Dirt]

Recent polls...

Code: Select all

               Quinnipiac   Emerson   Politico   Average
Biden                  25        25         32        27         
Warren                 27        23         20        23
Sanders                16        22         19        19
Buttigieg               7         6          5         6
Harris                  3         4          6         4
Yang                    2         8          3         4
O'Rourke                2         1          3         2
Booker                  0         2          3         2
Kobuchar                2         0          2         1
Castro                  2         2          1         2
Gabbard                 1         1          1         1
Bennet                  1         0          1         1
Styeyer                 0         0          1         0

I'm curious to see what all this Trump/Biden stuff does, if anything. Does it give Biden more name recognition than he already had? Does it make him more sympathetic? Does it make him appear less "electable" once it's clear that he totally can be attacked and it doesn't matter who the nominee is in that respect?

Warren has been slowly passing Sanders by and Harris has basically been overtaken by Buttgieg and Yang at this point. I still think Warren wins in the end but a lot can change very quickly.

[dobrojim]

Acting DNI came across to me (in the somewhat brief time I listened to testimony) as
one of (or all 3) the see no evil monkeys. Maybe the whistleblower law doesn't comtemplate
the bad actor being reported on actually being POTUS, but going to the WH and also involving
the DoJ in seeking help on how to deal with this when the WH is the subject of the complaint
doesn't seem like a courageous act by someone protecting the people's best interest.

[pancakes3]

Been seeing a lot of arguments out there digging their heels in that Biden is still corrupt and protecting his kid, justifying what Trump did.

Problem is:

1) it's not Hunter Biden's company, he was just added to the board in 2014.
2) the founder of the company is actually corrupt and was under investigation, starting around 2014 (no coincidence) after an election.
3) Biden was delegated the Ukraine to handle in his duties as VP, and the mouthpiece speaking out against corruption in the Ukraine
4) One of Biden's acts was to push for the removal of their AG for failing to prosecute instances of corruption, amongst which is the corrupt founder for the company where Hunter was recently appointed to the board.
5) The Ukrainian AG was eventually removed in 2016, but in an interview of March of this year, he claimed that he was removed to protect Hunter Biden
6) This probably kicked off Rudy's decision to visit in April, the phone call in July, etc.

So, I can buy that if it was just Trump and Rudy acting alone with zero oversight, they started at step 5, took Shokin at his word that he was removed for investigating Biden without doing any fact-checking or further research, and that plausible deniability lets him play the dummy card.

The problem is, that can't be true. With dozens of state department and intelligence officials hovering around, WH lawyers out the ass, etc. somebody would brought it to Trump's attention that the entire Biden narrative is bull, and that he needs to stop telling Ukraine to investigate Biden.

So yeah, the only conclusion that Trump is too dumb to process that information. However, it's not the "he's acting in ignorant good faith" or whatever excuse DF is talking about

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[Pointgod]

I thought that the complaint was anticlimactic. There really wasn't too much revealed that was gamechanging. Hell, most of it came out in public, on live TV, admitted by Giuliani himself 5 months ago. The stuff like the WH lawyers scrubbing the records, etc. is bad, but those are tacked-on infractions. The underlying baseline bad act that counts as a "high crime and misdemeanor" wherein Trump wants the Ukraine to investigate Biden has been common knowledge for months now. I was hoping that there would be something more - like other nations that Trump contemplated influencing, or other candidates who Trump contemplated investigating.

Still bad, and some times you need an authority such as a whistleblower to shake people awake but this has been out in the open for months.

Watch on YouTube

I disagree that the complaint was anticlimactic. It was a well laid out and corroborated complaint that had timelines, referred to details both policy and background and also mentioned additional witnesses. Like I said it’s only the starting point. Congress needs to get every single witness on the stand and if they don’t cooperate need to bring the full weight of their legislative body on them.

Also considering there this isn’t just one persons account, Trump can’t claim it’s politically motivated and it’s already been investigated by the Trump appointed IG who deemed it credible and urgent. Reading this thing is damning because it’s based on more than just the one phone call with the Ukranian President.

[Wizardspride]

Just perused Glenn Greenwald's twitter feed and I couldn't find one mention of #Ukrainegate.

I'm shocked....

[Pointgod]

Acting DNI came across to me (in the somewhat brief time I listened to testimony) as
one of (or all 3) the see no evil monkeys. Maybe the whistleblower law doesn't comtemplate
the bad actor being reported on actually being POTUS, but going to the WH and also involving
the DoJ in seeking help on how to deal with this when the WH is the subject of the complaint
doesn't seem like a courageous act by someone protecting the people's best interest.

The DNI reminds me of James Comey. He seems to be a by the book guy who’s a complete idiot regarding the political implications of his actions. I mean how could you not know that going the Whitehouse and DOJ, who are both implicated in the whistleblower complaint is freaking idiotic? I understand getting a third party opinion because this deals with executive privilege but don’t go to the **** guys that this is about!

[gtn130]

Read on Twitter

The Extremely Serious Email Server Management Warriors from 2016 are totally silent on this of course.

[Wizardspride]

MAGA!

[dckingsfan]

Recent polls...

Code: Select all

               Quinnipiac   Emerson   Politico   Average
Biden                  25        25         32        27         
Warren                 27        23         20        23
Sanders                16        22         19        19
Buttigieg               7         6          5         6
Harris                  3         4          6         4
Yang                    2         8          3         4
O'Rourke                2         1          3         2
Booker                  0         2          3         2
Kobuchar                2         0          2         1
Castro                  2         2          1         2
Gabbard                 1         1          1         1
Bennet                  1         0          1         1
Styeyer                 0         0          1         0

I'm curious to see what all this Trump/Biden stuff does, if anything. Does it give Biden more name recognition than he already had? Does it make him more sympathetic? Does it make him appear less "electable" once it's clear that he totally can be attacked and it doesn't matter who the nominee is in that respect?

Warren has been slowly passing Sanders by and Harris has basically been overtaken by Buttgieg and Yang at this point. I still think Warren wins in the end but a lot can change very quickly.

Those really are the questions - if Biden takes a hit - I think Warren sails through. If Biden gets a bump - he may well be able to hold Warren off.

Sanders does seem to be stuck. I think that he keeps trying to outflank Warren but it "seems" to be boomeranging on him. It does look like Harris is done.

The other question I have is when those like Booker, Bennet, Gabbard, Castro & Kobuchar drop - where do their votes go? And will Beto drop out early enough to go after the TX senate seat.

[Pointgod]

Been seeing a lot of arguments out there digging their heels in that Biden is still corrupt and protecting his kid, justifying what Trump did.

Problem is:

1) it's not Hunter Biden's company, he was just added to the board in 2014.
2) the founder of the company is actually corrupt and was under investigation, starting around 2014 (no coincidence) after an election.
3) Biden was delegated the Ukraine to handle in his duties as VP, and the mouthpiece speaking out against corruption in the Ukraine
4) One of Biden's acts was to push for the removal of their AG for failing to prosecute instances of corruption, amongst which is the corrupt founder for the company where Hunter was recently appointed to the board.
5) The Ukrainian AG was eventually removed in 2016, but in an interview of March of this year, he claimed that he was removed to protect Hunter Biden
6) This probably kicked off Rudy's decision to visit in April, the phone call in July, etc.

So, I can buy that if it was just Trump and Rudy acting alone with zero oversight, they started at step 5, took Shokin at his word that he was removed for investigating Biden without doing any fact-checking or further research, and that plausible deniability lets him play the dummy card.

The problem is, that can't be true. With dozens of state department and intelligence officials hovering around, WH lawyers out the ass, etc. somebody would brought it to Trump's attention that the entire Biden narrative is bull, and that he needs to stop telling Ukraine to investigate Biden.

So yeah, the only conclusion that Trump is too dumb to process that information. However, it's not the "he's acting in ignorant good faith" or whatever excuse DF is talking about

It’s the Hillary Clinton playbook. Just lie lie lie and pile on and claim Hillary is just as corrupt so Trump doesn’t look as bad in comparison. You know how I know that Hillary Clinton isn’t corrupt? Trump has had 3 years to open an investigation into Hillary and there hasn’t been a **** peep. Remember when Nate and STD we’re claiming Uranium One indictments were coming anyday now and the Clintons were going to jail? Again not so much as a **** peep.

Remember when the DNC was going to be exposed for colluding and John Podestas brother was going down?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/justice-department-ends-investigation-tony-podesta-vin-weber-without-charges-n1058306

Federal prosecutors have ended an investigation into Democratic lobbyist Tony Podesta and former Rep. Vin Weber, R-Minn., in a case connected to lobbying for Ukraine and Paul Manafort without filing criminal charges, multiple sources familiar with the matter tell NBC News.

This is all part of the idiocy of the right wing ecosystem and why conspiracy theories are so dangerous. These things shouldn’t even see the light of day.

[dobrojim]

Been seeing a lot of arguments out there digging their heels in that Biden is still corrupt and protecting his kid, justifying what Trump did.

Problem is:

1) it's not Hunter Biden's company, he was just added to the board in 2014.
2) the founder of the company is actually corrupt and was under investigation, starting around 2014 (no coincidence) after an election.
3) Biden was delegated the Ukraine to handle in his duties as VP, and the mouthpiece speaking out against corruption in the Ukraine
4) One of Biden's acts was to push for the removal of their AG for failing to prosecute instances of corruption, amongst which is the corrupt founder for the company where Hunter was recently appointed to the board.
5) The Ukrainian AG was eventually removed in 2016, but in an interview of March of this year, he claimed that he was removed to protect Hunter Biden
6) This probably kicked off Rudy's decision to visit in April, the phone call in July, etc.

So, I can buy that if it was just Trump and Rudy acting alone with zero oversight, they started at step 5, took Shokin at his word that he was removed for investigating Biden without doing any fact-checking or further research, and that plausible deniability lets him play the dummy card.

The problem is, that can't be true. With dozens of state department and intelligence officials hovering around, WH lawyers out the ass, etc. somebody would brought it to Trump's attention that the entire Biden narrative is bull, and that he needs to stop telling Ukraine to investigate Biden.

So yeah, the only conclusion that Trump is too dumb to process that information. However, it's not the "he's acting in ignorant good faith" or whatever excuse DF is talking about

You can't tell someone with Trump's personality that what they believe is bull.
You'll become irrelevant or worse for that. You also can't tell him that what
he wants to do is wrong on ethical or legal grounds. He either doesn't care and/or thinks
this is simply what everyone does and he's going to do it too.

He is a very stable genius. He said so himself.

[dobrojim]

Acting DNI came across to me (in the somewhat brief time I listened to testimony) as
one of (or all 3) the see no evil monkeys. Maybe the whistleblower law doesn't comtemplate
the bad actor being reported on actually being POTUS, but going to the WH and also involving
the DoJ in seeking help on how to deal with this when the WH is the subject of the complaint
doesn't seem like a courageous act by someone protecting the people's best interest.

The DNI reminds me of James Comey. He seems to be a by the book guy who’s a complete idiot regarding the political implications of his actions. I mean how could you not know that going the Whitehouse and DOJ, who are both implicated in the whistleblower complaint is freaking idiotic? I understand getting a third party opinion because this deals with executive privilege but don’t go to the **** guys that this is about!

The thing about privilege, executive or otherwise, is that legally, if you're trying
to conceal illegality, there can be no privilege.

Other than the pre-election announcement of re-opening the HRC server investigation,
Comey on at least some other occasions, behaved decently, even admirably. Faint praise perhaps,
kinda like saying about Edward Smith (capt of Titanic), that other than allowing
his ship to hit an iceberg, he did a reasonable job.

[dobrojim]

(I like Dirt)
I'm curious to see what all this Trump/Biden stuff does, if anything. Does it give Biden more name recognition than he already had? Does it make him more sympathetic? Does it make him appear less "electable" once it's clear that he totally can be attacked and it doesn't matter who the nominee is in that respect?

Warren has been slowly passing Sanders by and Harris has basically been overtaken by Buttgieg and Yang at this point. I still think Warren wins in the end but a lot can change very quickly.

Those really are the questions - if Biden takes a hit - I think Warren sails through. If Biden gets a bump - he may well be able to hold Warren off.

Sanders does seem to be stuck. I think that he keeps trying to outflank Warren but it "seems" to be boomeranging on him. It does look like Harris is done.

The other question I have is when those like Booker, Bennet, Gabbard, Castro & Kobuchar drop - where do their votes go? And will Beto drop out early enough to go after the TX senate seat.

If he waits until he knows he won't be either POTUS or VPOTUS, it'll be too late (stating obvious).
The dems really need to take back the Senate. I'm not sure it's as far fetched
as some say. Yes the states being contested favor the GOP but conversely, they
have a lot more incumbents that are defending their seats. And their margain isn't
that big.

Warren does appear to have a great deal of mo. I could live with her and actually
prefer her myself to many of the other plausible candidates. I like Klobuchar and Booker too but
they're not setting the world on fire yet.

[Pointgod]

Acting DNI came across to me (in the somewhat brief time I listened to testimony) as
one of (or all 3) the see no evil monkeys. Maybe the whistleblower law doesn't comtemplate
the bad actor being reported on actually being POTUS, but going to the WH and also involving
the DoJ in seeking help on how to deal with this when the WH is the subject of the complaint
doesn't seem like a courageous act by someone protecting the people's best interest.

The DNI reminds me of James Comey. He seems to be a by the book guy who’s a complete idiot regarding the political implications of his actions. I mean how could you not know that going the Whitehouse and DOJ, who are both implicated in the whistleblower complaint is freaking idiotic? I understand getting a third party opinion because this deals with executive privilege but don’t go to the **** guys that this is about!

The thing about privilege, executive or otherwise, is that legally, if you're trying
to conceal illegality, there can be no privilege.

Other than the pre-election announcement of re-opening the HRC server investigation,
Comey on at least some other occasions, behaved decently, even admirably. Faint praise perhaps,
kinda like saying about Edward Smith (capt of Titanic), that other than allowing
his ship to hit an iceberg, he did a reasonable job.

Good point. Wish Democrats would have pushed him more on that point.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Those really are the questions - if Biden takes a hit - I think Warren sails through. If Biden gets a bump - he may well be able to hold Warren off.

Sanders does seem to be stuck. I think that he keeps trying to outflank Warren but it "seems" to be boomeranging on him. It does look like Harris is done.

The other question I have is when those like Booker, Bennet, Gabbard, Castro & Kobuchar drop - where do their votes go? And will Beto drop out early enough to go after the TX senate seat.

The order in which people drop out definitely matters, too. If Beto drops out, how many of his supporters would go Biden over Warren? I have to think that Yang's supporters probably lean Warren but are also likely to just sit it out otherwise. Beto definitely offers a fair bit of incentive to the Democrats to drop out earlier, as you suggest - honestly, the same would hold true for Warren if she wasn't looking like she was going to win the nomination. Harris and Warren despite being quite different as candidates, seemed to have some interesting sympathies between their supporters based on the data I've seen (but can't find anymore because I'm too lazy). I also suspect Buttigieg's supporters probably lean Warren over Biden, too.

Bernie's supporters were always the ones that really didn't like any of the other candidates, though, and that's a problem the Democrats are going to have to solve. They aren't going to win if Bernie's supporters sit things out if they feel the establishment is bad and even Warren is an establishment candidate in their eyes. He's just an odd candidate because he seems so intent on bringing down Trump and it seems like he's missing an opportunity to play a rather massive supporting role in doing so because he wants the lead role really bad.

[dckingsfan]

Those really are the questions - if Biden takes a hit - I think Warren sails through. If Biden gets a bump - he may well be able to hold Warren off.

Sanders does seem to be stuck. I think that he keeps trying to outflank Warren but it "seems" to be boomeranging on him. It does look like Harris is done.

The other question I have is when those like Booker, Bennet, Gabbard, Castro & Kobuchar drop - where do their votes go? And will Beto drop out early enough to go after the TX senate seat.

The order in which people drop out definitely matters, too. If Beto drops out, how many of his supporters would go Biden over Warren? I have to think that Yang's supporters probably lean Warren but are also likely to just sit it out otherwise. Beto definitely offers a fair bit of incentive to the Democrats to drop out earlier, as you suggest - honestly, the same would hold true for Warren if she wasn't looking like she was going to win the nomination. Harris and Warren despite being quite different as candidates, seemed to have some interesting sympathies between their supporters based on the data I've seen (but can't find anymore because I'm too lazy). I also suspect Buttigieg's supporters probably lean Warren over Biden, too.

Bernie's supporters were always the ones that really didn't like any of the other candidates, though, and that's a problem the Democrats are going to have to solve. They aren't going to win if Bernie's supporters sit things out if they feel the establishment is bad and even Warren is an establishment candidate in their eyes. He's just an odd candidate because he seems so intent on bringing down Trump and it seems like he's missing an opportunity to play a rather massive supporting role in doing so because he wants the lead role really bad.

Hadn't considered the order in which they drop, where the other 30% go will matter and in what order (for momentum). I guess that also means the "damage" they do as they hold on. I see Bernie's folks going hard after Warren and now calling her a corporatist - LOL. The longer he holds on the more his supporters with taint the other candidates.

I think if the black/Hispanic vote comes out, the Ds could suffer through them sitting out, especially in the swing states. If they actively move to Trump - well, not so much.

[Pointgod]

Recent polls...

Code: Select all

               Quinnipiac   Emerson   Politico   Average
Biden                  25        25         32        27         
Warren                 27        23         20        23
Sanders                16        22         19        19
Buttigieg               7         6          5         6
Harris                  3         4          6         4
Yang                    2         8          3         4
O'Rourke                2         1          3         2
Booker                  0         2          3         2
Kobuchar                2         0          2         1
Castro                  2         2          1         2
Gabbard                 1         1          1         1
Bennet                  1         0          1         1
Styeyer                 0         0          1         0

I'm curious to see what all this Trump/Biden stuff does, if anything. Does it give Biden more name recognition than he already had? Does it make him more sympathetic? Does it make him appear less "electable" once it's clear that he totally can be attacked and it doesn't matter who the nominee is in that respect?

Warren has been slowly passing Sanders by and Harris has basically been overtaken by Buttgieg and Yang at this point. I still think Warren wins in the end but a lot can change very quickly.

The ironic thing is that this could actually help Biden who’s been falling. It’s possible this could galvanize some Democrats around Biden because he’s now a target of Trumps lies and schemes although this didn’t happen for Clinton but I’m pretty sure we all know why.

[Pointgod]

Those really are the questions - if Biden takes a hit - I think Warren sails through. If Biden gets a bump - he may well be able to hold Warren off.

Sanders does seem to be stuck. I think that he keeps trying to outflank Warren but it "seems" to be boomeranging on him. It does look like Harris is done.

The other question I have is when those like Booker, Bennet, Gabbard, Castro & Kobuchar drop - where do their votes go? And will Beto drop out early enough to go after the TX senate seat.

The order in which people drop out definitely matters, too. If Beto drops out, how many of his supporters would go Biden over Warren? I have to think that Yang's supporters probably lean Warren but are also likely to just sit it out otherwise. Beto definitely offers a fair bit of incentive to the Democrats to drop out earlier, as you suggest - honestly, the same would hold true for Warren if she wasn't looking like she was going to win the nomination. Harris and Warren despite being quite different as candidates, seemed to have some interesting sympathies between their supporters based on the data I've seen (but can't find anymore because I'm too lazy). I also suspect Buttigieg's supporters probably lean Warren over Biden, too.

Bernie's supporters were always the ones that really didn't like any of the other candidates, though, and that's a problem the Democrats are going to have to solve. They aren't going to win if Bernie's supporters sit things out if they feel the establishment is bad and even Warren is an establishment candidate in their eyes. He's just an odd candidate because he seems so intent on bringing down Trump and it seems like he's missing an opportunity to play a rather massive supporting role in doing so because he wants the lead role really bad.

Hadn't considered the order in which they drop, where the other 30% go will matter and in what order (for momentum). I guess that also means the "damage" they do as they hold on. I see Bernie's folks going hard after Warren and now calling her a corporatist - LOL. The longer he holds on the more his supporters with taint the other candidates.

I think if the black/Hispanic vote comes out, the Ds could suffer through them sitting out, especially in the swing states. If they actively move to Trump - well, not so much.

I think the key is to look at who the second choice of primary candidates are. This is a little dated but it’s pretty informing regarding who could pick up votes when candidates drop out. I would love to see an updated table.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-there-really-lanes-in-the-2020-democratic-primary/

[Pointgod]

Rudy Giuliani ladies and gentlemen. The gift that keeps on giving lol

Giuliani went on to say that State Department officials had asked for his assistance. “If they were so concerned about my activities, why did they ask for my help? Why did they send me a bunch of friendly text messages reaching out for my help, thanking me for my help?” Giuliani said he planned to make sure these “friendly text messages” came out “in a longer story.”

Good job dip ****. Now Congress will subpoena his text messages and state department messages. Anyways here’s the rest of the bonkers interview I look forward to Giuliani being decimated on the stand.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/09/giuliani-ukraine-trump-biden/598879/