The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (1 Viewer)

[Andrus]

By Laura Bassett

After months of internal arguing among Democrats over whether to impeach President Donald Trump, the dam is finally breaking in favor of trying to remove him from office. The Washington Post reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would announce a formal impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, following a bombshell report that Trump illegally asked Ukraine’s government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of his political opponents. (He essentially admitted to having done so over the weekend.)

“Now that we have the facts, we’re ready,” Pelosi said Tuesday morning at a forum hosted by The Atlantic. At 5 p.m. the same day, she was back with more. "The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the constitution, especially when the president says Article Two says I can do whatever I want," referring to the segment of the Constitution that defines the power of the executive branch of the government. Pelosi's message was that checks and balances of those branches are just as central to the Constitution. And one more thing: "Today, I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry," she said at a conference broadcast on Twitter by the Huffington Post. ...

Read the Full Story - InStyle

 

[Nebaghead]

Cool. I'll bet they retooled their model!
Yes, I understand that sometimes there's a difference between the pollsters and the media that disseminates the polling data that they publish.
I also understand that sometimes there's not, like when news organizations sponsor polls . . . CBS/NewYorkTimes/Gallup.

Paying for a poll doesn't impact the results of the poll. Gallup has a level of integrity that is second to none. All CNN does is help pay for the Poll so they can have unfettered access to the results and input on the questions being asked. You are being disingenuous and your arguments are unsubstantiated. It appears you don't even read the articles you link.

 

[Dadsdream]

The only one playing games is you, DD. You again mention polls and predictions from October 2016. Earlier in the thread, you shared two of them. One was from 24 days before the election and the other was from 28 days before the election. I ask again: is it possible for public opinion to significantly shift in a 24-28 day period?

I actually shared three . . . four if you count Moody's, but let's not quibble.
Perhaps you should find a poll or prediction from October 2016 that said Hillary would lose?
Anything is possible, CM, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find polls or predictions from October 16 that said Hillary do anything other than win big, even right up until the night of the election when she had celebrities waiting in the wings to come out on stage to sing and dance in a huge celebration that would never happen.
I really don't see why on earth anybody would want to deny that the polls and predictions were all for a landslide victory for Hillary. That's all we saw and heard for months.
I guess some folks just love to quibble.

 

[Dadsdream]

Paying for a poll doesn't impact the results of the poll. Gallup has a level of integrity that is second to none. All CNN does is help pay for the Poll so they can have unfettered access to the results and input on the questions being asked. You are being disingenuous and your arguments are unsubstantiated. It appears you don't even read the articles you link.

"Paying for a poll doesn't impact the results of the poll."

We examined this at length in Journalism School in our classes on Media Bias.
Paying for a custom poll allows the client to tailor the questions in such a way that the outcome can be foreseen in ways that point in the direction the client wishes. Some polling companies are more stringent than others. Some are downright pay-for-play.
You're addressing me as though I were some neophyte. I am not.
I am certainly not being disingenuous. I am being incredulous.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I actually shared three . . . four if you count Moody's, but let's not quibble.
Perhaps you should find a poll or prediction from October 2016 that said Hillary would lose?
Anything is possible, CM, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find polls or predictions from October 16 that said Hillary do anything other than win big, even right up until the night of the election when she had celebrities waiting in the wings to come out on stage to sing and dance in a huge celebration that would never happen.
I really don't see why on earth anybody would want to deny that the polls and predictions were all for a landslide victory for Hillary. That's all we saw and heard for months.
I guess some folks just love to quibble.

Fantastic. Now that you admit that it's possible for public opinion to change over the course of a month, can you also see why sharing polls from a month prior to the election is disingenuous?

 

[Dadsdream]

Fantastic. Now that you admit that it's possible for public opinion to change over the course of a month, can you also see why sharing polls from a month prior to the election is disingenuous?

Nah, "disingenuous" implies intent. I had no such intent.
Now, please post a national prediction or poll from the two weeks leading up to the election that shows anything other than Hillary winning big and we're all set!

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

EVERYBODY thought Hillary was going to win - even (or maybe especially) Trump
They had folded and were packing offices and waving the white flag a week before the election
Which he was fine with - he has shown us repeatedly that he did not want and does not want to president
The only thing propping him up now are a significant who won’t or can’t admit their mistake and would rather the country suffer than to face obvious facts

 

[samiam5211]

Now, please post a national prediction or poll from the two weeks leading up to the election that shows anything other than Hillary winning big and we're all set!

Where the presidential race stands today: The USC Dornsife / Los Angeles Times poll

graphics.latimes.com

 

[Dadsdream]

So, back to the original topic of the Impeachment Hearings. On Morning Joe, there's some skepticism that sounds strangely familiar. In fact, it sounds like what I was saying several pages back.

Par for the course, polls are cited . . . again!


"Morning Joe" regular panelist Donny Deutsch expressed his concerns after the first week of public impeachment inquiry hearings that liberal commentators like those on MSNBC were "in a bubble" and are overplaying their hand on impeachment. He asked the panel if "anybody knows" CBS sitcom "Bob Loves Abishola," because that show got the same ratings as the impeachment hearings.

"That’s a show on CBS, that had you know, about five or six million viewers. That’s what these hearings have done," he worried. "We live in a little bit of a bubble that we sit here and we watch. The reality is, when you look at that new Emerson poll where we’ve lost 5 percent of people who even believe he should be impeached and 14 percent removed from office."

MSNBC's Donny Deutsch: "We Live In A Bubble," Impeachment Hearings Got Same Ratings As A Regular CBS Sitcom

"Morning Joe" regular panelist Donny Deutsch expressed his concerns after the first week of public impeachment inquiry hearings that liberal commentators like those on MSNBC were "in a bubble" and are overplaying their hand on impeachment. He asked the panel if "anybody knows" CBS sitcom "Bob...

www.realclearpolitics.com

 

[RegularChuck]

So, back to the original topic of the Impeachment Hearings. On Morning Joe, there's some skepticism that sounds strangely familiar. In fact, it sounds like what I was saying several pages back.

Thanks for reminding me. Do you think crimes should be investigated based on tv ratings?

 

[JimEverett]

"Paying for a poll doesn't impact the results of the poll."

We examined this at length in Journalism School in our classes on Media Bias.
Paying for a custom poll allows the client to tailor the questions in such a way that the outcome can be foreseen in ways that point in the direction the client wishes. Some polling companies are more stringent than others. Some are downright pay-for-play.
You're addressing me as though I were some neophyte. I am not.
I am certainly not being disingenuous. I am being incredulous.

On the day of the election 538 gave Clinton an almost 72% chance of winning.

But, that's not a poll. LMAO

 

[wardorican]

So that is the difference between a proper use of power vs. an illegal use of power that warrants removal?
I just do not get that logic.

What is an abuse of power to you?

Can a president ever abuse his or her power? I want your take on this before I decide to step in this discussion, if you don't mind.

 

[Dadsdream]

Where the presidential race stands today: The USC Dornsife / Los Angeles Times poll

graphics.latimes.com

Thanks!
That shows the final "Who Would You Vote For" tally at 46.8% to 43.6% for Hillary which falls within the margin of error.
However, the "Who Do You Think Will Win" tally is at 53% to 42.7% for Hillary, which falls outside the margin of error.
Reading these polls can be akin to tea leaves or palm reading, but without the tea and the palms sometimes.

 

[Dadsdream]

Thanks for reminding me. Do you think crimes should be investigated based on tv ratings?

Of course not.
Do you think public apathy about the impeachment hearings may provide an indicator of the success or failure of the Democratic Party's 2020 presidential election strategy?

 

[samiam5211]

Thanks!
That shows the final "Who Would You Vote For" tally at 46.8% to 43.6% for Hillary which falls within the margin of error.
However, the "Who Do You Think Will Win" tally is at 53% to 42.7% for Hillary, which falls outside the margin of error.
Reading these polls can be akin to tea leaves or palm reading, but without the tea and the palms sometimes.

You have the who would you vote for results transposed. They had trump with 46.8% and Hillary with 43.6.

It was terribly wrong though. It had Trump winning the popular vote by 3%.

That poll had Hillary behind starting with Comey's announcement.

 

[Nebaghead]

Of course not.
Do you think public apathy about the impeachment hearings may provide an indicator of the Democratic Party's 2020 presidential election strategy?

Yes it does but also losing 2 governorships to Dems this month also is a bad indicator for Trump. People being tired of the process because they expect instant gratification isn’t as much of an indicator as the election losses he has faced in the last two years.

 

[RegularChuck]

Of course not.
Do you think public apathy about the impeachment hearings may provide an indicator of the success or failure of the Democratic Party's 2020 presidential election strategy?

I don’t think it’s an election strategy. If you think it is, wouldn’t you want them to continue with a losing strategy?

 

[Dadsdream]

You have the who would you vote for results transposed. They had trump with 46.8% and Hillary with 43.6.

It was terribly wrong though. It had Trump winning the popular vote by 3%.

That poll had Hillary behind starting with Comey's announcement.

Thank you. Forgive my eyesight and bifoculs.

 

[JimEverett]

What is an abuse of power to you?

Can a president ever abuse his or her power? I want your take on this before I decide to step in this discussion, if you don't mind.

Of course. And I am not saying Trump did not abuse his power. I am just trying to understand the argument.
Why is the demand for a Ukranian investigation of Burisma something outside the lawful bounds of the PResidency while a demand for an invetigation into the Ukraine's activities in the 2016 election not?
O maybe they both are?

[EDIT] I didn't answer your first question - I'll give an example of an abuse of power - using the intelligence community to spy on an opposition campaign.
OR - using the Justice Department to investigate political opponenets;
appointing cabinet members without the consent of the Senate, etc. . .