Famous election prognosticator says that House must impeach Trump or he’ll be re-elected

June 2, 2019 • 12:15 pm

So here’s a professor and a respected Presidential prognosticator, Allan Lichtman, who suggests that unless the Democrats impeach Trump, he’ll win again in 2020. Lichtman’s fame in this area, and his bona fides, appear in Wikipedia, which conflicts a bit with what the newswoman says in his introduction:

Allan Jay Lichtman (born April 4, 1947) is an American political historian who teaches at American University in Washington, D.C. He is well known for predicting seven of the last eight election results for the president of the United States Presidential Election since 1984, including forecasting the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election remarkably early. . . In April 2017, Lichtman authored the book The Case for Impeachment, laying out multiple arguments for the impeachment of Donald Trump.

Note that the news anchor below says that Lichtman predicted the last nine presidential elections, while Wikipedia says he predicted seven out of eight.  The exception: “The single failure was the 2000 election, where the model predicted a victory for incumbent party nominee Al Gore.”

Lichtman’s “model” is called “The Keys to the White House,” developed in collaboration with Vladimir Keilis-Borok, and aims to predict not who wins the popular vote, but who wins the White House.  It uses 13 criteria to determine the outcome, shown in the screenshot below. I haven’t sussed out the model, but supposedly when give of the relevant questions are answered in the negative, the incumbent party keeps the Presidency. If six or more are answered in the negative, the party of the presiding President changes.

Now some of the elections were no-brainers, like Obama’s re-election victory. And there are probably plenty of people who predicted 7 of the 8 last elections, so Lichtman isn’t necessarily some kind of wizard. But in the clip below he’s viewed as one, and makes the point that unless the Democrats impeach Trump, he’ll be re-elected.

You might ask yourself, “Well, an impeachment by the House is only a trial, and conviction requires vote of the Republican Senate. So how can he be sucessfully impeached Lichtman answers that below, and I’ll let you listen to the short video.  Then there will be two polling questions for you to answer.

If you’ve heard what he said, answer this question first:

And then this one.

And, of course, weigh in below.

141 thoughts on “Famous election prognosticator says that House must impeach Trump or he’ll be re-elected

  1. What we’re witnessing between the two parties is a war in which all the artillery is being aimed backwards and the winner will be whoever happens to do the least damage to their own cause.

    On the Dem side you’ve got the feckless and cowardly leadership desperate to run out the clock without touching the impeachment issue. This is a surefire way to depress turnout and kill their own momentum. Their hands may be forced though the way things are going. If we’re lucky.

    On the other end you’ve got Trump trying to distract from all this impeachment talk by ramping up his trade wars with the predictable result of further falling stocks and more pain for farmers. Having ridden into office on the crest of a six year recovery, kicking the legs out from under the economy just in time for election season to distract from an issue which has so far not put any appreciable dent in his support is the kind of hilariously inept strategery we’ve come to expect from Donny.

    1. Unfortunately, trade wars don’t hurt the economy nearly so much as the media’s talking heads generally suppose. Not that trade wars are good, but an economy as large as ours can cope with significant trade disruption.

  2. Wouldn’t surprise me in any way if the Dems refuse to impeach, tRump wins re-election, and the republicans retake the House. Spineless, brainless incompetence… but please prove me wrong.

    1. And the professor makes a good point. There is a false dichotomy between what is right politically and constitutionally. If you don’t impeach you’re signalling this behaviour is ok.

      1. Exactly! Just like dems signaled that it was ok for republicans to block Obama’s constitutional right to appoint a judge to the Supreme Court. Good thing the failure of Merrick Garland’s appointment didn’t come back to bite us in the ass…oh wait a minute…!

        1. In what way, available at the time, were the Democrats supposed to signal that it was not OK to block the appointment of Garland? The Republicans controlled the Senate. There was nothing the Dems could do about it.

          1. They could have found ways to force a vote and if not, then shut down the government. If the republicans can get away with government shutdowns, then why not the dems? oh, because they are cowards who won’t fight for their beliefs and this is why they lost the Supreme Court. They could have continued to rage against this hypocritical injustice in the same bulldog-like way the republicans clamped down on Clinton’s Benghazi nonsense, in the Senate and House, they could have and should have flooded the media with outrage over the block. Instead, they assumed they could win the next election (they didn’t) and now a generation or more will be under the thumb of religious conservatism. It’s not enough to pout, you have to threaten, rage, fight, go after McConnell with everything and everyone you have, and that’s why the dems lost: they did nothing. And when tRump put forth his nominee? They rolled over and showed their bellies, just like they continue to do with every other thing he does. Republicans don’t suffer from this weakness. As much as I despise their beliefs, I admire their dogged determinism to fight, even when in the minority, up hill and against the popular current. It’s a damn good thing liberals in the past were far more willing to fight back, or else we’d still have slavery. But you’ll disagree, I’m sure. and that’s the best tactic republicans have, to sit back and let the liberals fight amongst themselves, as we will most certainly do in the primaries, and they’ll pick apart whomever is left standing. They close ranks while we beat each other up.

    1. I think it’s not that simple. If they can get enough Republicans to support an impeachment vote, then they should impeach him. Otherwise, I agree – he would win again in 2020.

      However, if they try to impeach and fail, he will also win in 2020 imo.

      The key is educating the public about the reality of Trump. That requires impeachment hearings, WHICH DON’T NECESSARILY LEAD TO IMPEACHMENT. Those hearings would educate the public, as they did in Nixon’s time.

      Remember, in Nixon’s time, only one Republican voted to impeach him at first. That changed when the mood of the public changed as they realized their president was, in fact, a crook. Mueller has started the ball rolling with his public statement, He MUST testify publicly before Congress.

      Most people will not read the Mueller Report. (If they did, there would already be a public outcry for impeachment.) But they will watch Mueller saying exactly the same things in TV. His testimony is key. Then other witnesses need to give their evidence publicly too, in support of what Mueller says.

      1. Yes so my point stands. Let’s stop with the “do I dare eat a peach” and get on with it. These people have a duty to uphold the constitution so they should do it or just concede they are ok with ignoring the constitution.

        1. Yes. But I think many of the people calling for impeachment just want Trump gone, and don’t really understand (especially) the political implications. (You do, of course.) They’re calling for a vote now because it’s the right thing to do, but don’t realize that at this point, that would help him rather than hurt him. Ignorant as he is in so many ways, he does know how to read the public. Currently, he’s trying to goad the Dems into a quick vote because he knows that would help him. And once they’ve done it and lost the vote, they can’t do it again. They have to be careful, as Pelosi is being, and not rush things. You can be damn sure that she will call for impeachment when she knows it will hurt Trump. Until then, she’s playing him perfectly, and she’s scaring the hell out of him. He can’t handle a strong, smart woman, and I’m loving seeing her constantly best him.

          1. I to know I’d thats what Trump is doing or if he’s actually reacting in a tantrum to the pressure. Moreover, Republicans have come forward calling for impeachment now as well. I think Trump fears the rats could leave the ship. They need to keep the pressure on.

              1. Justin Amash is the only Aaron Sorkin-style Republican in congress — and the only congressional Republican still in the running to be in an updated edition of Profiles in Courage.

  3. Impeach the bastard already. There are two types of people in the world today — those who understand that Donald Trump is a justice-obstructing hoodlum and those who haven’t actually read the Mueller report.

    Republicans and the Mueller report are kinda like Republicans and the bible — plenty of ’em pay lip service to having read the thing, but none of them seems know what’s actually in it. What I haven’t seen any Trump supporter do so far is to get down into the specifics of the Mueller report and try to defend Donald Trump on the merits. The closest any of them has come is AG William Barr’s testimony before the Senate judiciary committee, and he got so bollixed up with his risible claim that a president who felt he was innocent couldn’t obstruct justice as a matter of law that he had to nope out of his scheduled testimony the next day before the House.

    Impeachment is a political process, sure, but it’s also the House of Representatives’ constitutional duty. If Trump isn’t impeached for what he’s done here what possible disincentive will the next US president who comes under investigation have from going balls to the wall in an effort to obstruct that investigation?

    Prof. Lichtman is absolutely right: the House’s moral and constitutional duties align completely with the Democrats’ political interests in this matter. Commence an impeachment inquiry NOW.

    1. +1 for the comment in general and +1 bonus point for the comparison of Republicans reading the bible with Republicans reading the Mueller Report.

    2. I think your correct. I think Pelosi is waiting for a good head of steam before she gives the go-ahead. I think it will come as a relief for everyone (except DT) at that point.

      1. Yes, I think Speaker Pelosi is posturing herself as the reluctant warrior, coming to impeachment more as a matter of restrained constitutional obligation than as a matter of partisan rancor.

        1. Her reluctance isn’t posturing, it’s very real. She’s never wanted to get her hands dirty, not under Bush, and not under Trump. If she eventually settles on impeachment she will have been dragged kicking and screaming by the rest of her party.

    3. It’s sort of a catch-22. If she doesn’t open an impeachment inquiry, there will be no political theater, without the theater, there won’t be the support she (I think) is waiting for. The dems need to keep a spotlight on this, and since trump et al. won’t heed subpoenas, the media doesn’t cover it well or often. (The frickin’ NYT actually wrote that Hope Hicks’ was “facing an existential question” considering whether or not to comply with her subpoena.) The only way to get around the ignored subpoenas is to open an inquiry. So I really don’t see any way Pelosi can get out of moving forward. She’s already said trump’s forcing her hand, so go ahead and be forced already.

      The only other strategy here I can think of is to subpoena Mueller, put the spotlight on him for an hour or two, and see if that doesn’t create a groundswell of support. This would have to be done within the next couple weeks imo.

      1. Yeah, I saw Maggie Haberman’s fluff piece (with accompanying glamour shot) treating Hope Hicks as though she were Hamlet; the West Wing, as though it were Elsinore.

        Cringe-inducing, for our “newspaper of record.”

        1. Yeah, that glamour shot takes the whole bullshit article to another level of bullshit. Journalists today really need a new set of olfactory organs and balls.

      2. Correct, the process itself will generate the support required for success.
        The depressing thing I read from the poll results (as I write most seem to think impeachment won’t proceed) is that although most want impeachment and believe it the right course, fewer have confidence in theie politicians to do the right thing.

        USA, if Trump isn’t held accountable a whole generation of children will absorb a very disturbing lesson on the bounds put on their behaviour.

    1. I agree, but the real question for me is whether he will peacefully give up power in 2024 if one of his kids doesn’t run and win.

    2. How do you figure a candidate against whom 46% of the American electorate says it will definitely vote against, and another 7% say they will likely vote against — and for whom just 19% say they will definitely vote for, and another 13% say they will likely vote for — is odds-on to win the next election, Gary?

      Donald Trump “won” the last election by minus three million ballots, with just 46.1% of the the vote. And he’s never been that popular again since taking office. Trump’s ceiling in the next election appears to be about 44%. Those kind of numbers (and they’ve been been remarkably consistent for 30 months now) do not bode well for the reelection prospects of an incumbent president, particularly in a race without a viable third-party candidate.

      1. I sure hope you are right but when it comes to Trump, I don’t trust the polls at all. That coupled with what is going on world wide with Trump type candidates scares me.

      2. Ken, yours is the viewpoint of an intelligent person who’s followed all this closely, who knows the law, and who may (gasp!) have actually read the Mueller report. Needless to say, this is not the viewpoint of the average American voter. From his/her/their/its pov, the message impeachment sends is that the Dems were going to impeach no matter what the Mueller investigation concluded, which is probably true.

        Generally speaking, Americans are fed up hearing about the Mueller report and, as much as they may dislike Trump, can’t escape the conclusion that he’s being unfairly hounded. They want the Dems to stop whining about the last election already and come up with a strategy to win the next one.

        IMO, impeachment is 180 degrees in the opposite direction of where we should be going. Without it, we may have a chance, so here’s hoping Pelosi prevails.

        1. Hey, buster, who you callin’ an “intelligent person”? Best smile when you say that, pardner. 🙂

      3. Ken, take a look at the Australian election just gone… things can go very wrong even if the numbers stack up in your favour. Labour was supposed to take it, but just by using a one liner, an exaggeration admittitly, by the imcumbent, he wiped Labour of the floor. One liners are trump’s natural territory… beware!

        1. Yeah, I agree, laingholm. I mean this by no means as a call for complacency. The Dems must wring out every available vote come November 2020.

          Those USians who don’t get out and campaign will have no grounds to complain.

  4. “The single failure was the 2000 election…”

    Actually not much of a failure for Lichtman since the winner was chosen by the Supremes, not the election alone.

  5. Yes – but I wouldn’t be confident in an impeachment having the impact that Lichman thinks it would.

    I think it would give the Dems a chance to win, but unless the Russia accusations can in some way be linked to something Americans identify as having some sort of real consequences, consequences they feel in their wallets, it will just end up being a damp squib.

  6. I do not think Lichtman has anymore idea on the outcome of the next election than any predictors here at this site. His criteria are mostly the standard stuff. Things like economy and incumbency are kind of no brainers and scandal depends on what party you are in. Not very impressive stuff.

    If you are an exclusive viewer of Fox for all your information you don’t even know what the Mueller report is other than vindication. If you are a republican in the Senate you know at this point, impeachment is not going to happen. So what you think or predict general depends on where you sit in this tribal and ignorant field.

    To say doing nothing assures re-election and impeachment attempt assures defeat seems almost backward. We also need a definition of what we mean by impeach. If it simply means the House votes to hold hearings then what. If it means hold hearing and then vote to send it to the Senate or does it mean the Senate has a trail and votes to impeach. There is much confusion here because of lack of definition.

    I believe I was a hand full of one who thought he would be impeached, and therefore not be around come election time. I would still say that although not as strong as a year ago because the House is extremely slow and the roadblocks by Trump have been working. The Senate trial can never accomplish impeachment if the hearings in the house do not change minds. I am not so sure the Democrats in the house are up to it. The leader, Pelosi has become the cutless wonder that some think makes her crafty.

  7. No doubt that, were the House to not indict trump, and trump go on to be reelected, Nostradamus here would falsely claim it as a correct prediction.

    1. I’m sure you mean impeach, not indict but that seems to be what the whole prediction turns on. I find it nearly as confusing as figuring out the circular reasoning of our hero Mueller. He would not say if he thought Trump guilty of obstruction because of DOJ crazy rules about not indicting a sitting president. And so, if they cannot indict it would not be fair to point the figure at the poor president who could not defend himself. This is almost sick reasoning and the one place where Mueller blew it. He also left an opining for his boss to carry the Trump flag to victory.

      1. House “impeaches” (indicts), Senate convicts. Chose ‘indict’ to avoid confusion as ‘impeachment’ colloquially refers to removal from office.

  8. >> he predicted seven out of eight

    I have 6 coins that have predicted the last seven out of eight elections, and 1 coin that has predicted the last 10 elections precisely.

    With these magic coins I will go to Vegas and get rich. Looking for investors.

  9. My prediction: an impeachment indictment will improve trump’s chances of being reelected.

    Latest poll:
    Should be impeached
    No … 54%
    Yes .. 41%

    Handling job as president
    Approve ….. 43%
    Disapprove .. 52%

    http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/06/01/rel7a.-.trump,.investigations.pdf

    Folks realize now that electing trump was not a great idea. Let them walk away from it quietly. Do not scold, do not shame. Stay positive and focus on your proposals, avoid attacking trump directly.

    1. That’s exactly right. Presidential elections now are won or lost on turnout. Stay positive, get young people excited; no need to attack Trump, every open-minded person already knows how bad he is. His loyal followers are outnumbered by the rest, but if we get MAGA types too excited and defensive, they will be sure to vote.

      1. Prospective Dem voters are not very excited by tepid and technocratic leadership too scared to rock the boat or stand for any principles . Right now Biden’s candidacy is looking like all the worst aspects of Hillary’s warmed over.

        1. Of the 27 or so Dem candidates, can you name one so able to inspire all Democrat voters — without counter-inspiring GOP voters — as to increase the net Dem POTUS vote in swing states?

          Both Dems and GOP have tapped out their ability to ‘motivate their base’; any further efforts will result in diminishing returns, while likely backfire by motivating the other party’s base. (cf. “Basket of Deplorables.”)

          Elections are won or lost by appealing to the undecided middle. Dems should try that for a change, instead of alienating.

          1. Dems always play to the middle, it is how they managed to end up with Hillary Clinton running last time.

            Constantly playing to the middle and not taking any firm stands on anything, has left them as a nothing party, the perpetual lesser of two evils vote.

            Because of that there is nothing to rally around, meaning even a party which the majority of Americans disagree with on the majority of issues stands about even odds of winning any given election.

              1. Universal healthcare, climate change and Wall Street reform. All of these are issues pushed by the “Justice Democrats” – and all have polled positively amongst Americans.

                The thing is the “Justice Democrats” are the ones you’d argue are alienating because they’re, again, the leftwing of the party.

                But lets look at creepy uncle Joe, the man who was quite prepared to prostitute himself to moneyed interests, except they weren’t interested at the time:

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oysFCNPg0DA

                On healthcare: He doesn’t have time for it. That’s even worse than Trump – sure Trump’s healthcare plan sucked and would have left millions more Americans uninsured but – and this is an important but, at least he took the time to have one when he was running for president.

                https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/joe-biden-healthcare-2020-campaign-bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-a8898926.html

                On climate change: He gets a D-. And quoting the article:

                “Biden, the Democratic front runner, has yet to release a detailed plan on how he will combat climate change.”

                So that’s two out of three points where he flat out doesn’t do the bare minimum.

                http://time.com/5598313/jo-biden-climate-change-report-card/

                On Wall Street regulation: Pushed for legislation that made bankruptcy harder – right before the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression.

                https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/middle-class-joe-cozied-up-to-credit-card-companies-and-made-filing-for-bankruptcy-harder

                And that is just three points off the top of my head. If the Dems want to lose they’ll pick Biden, because the thing about the centre is that it is empty, what are you voting for if you vote Biden?

                What issues specifically are you rallying around, what is he supposed to fix?

              2. The Justice Democrats also make many highly unpopular and unworkable proposals:

                * the New Green Deal, which notoriously included banning air travel and gov’t handout for anyone “unwilling to work”;

                * The Paycheck Fairness Act, based on the lie that women are paid less for equal work, and which would actually punish employers for providing the flexible hours that many women desire;

                * Free college education for everyone;

                * “ a truth and reconciliation commission to investigate the generational harms caused by slavery and Jim Crow and propose remedies.” (read: reparations);

                * voting rights for prisoners (Bernie’s also on the record for that);

                * abolish Immigration & Customs;

                * ban private donations to political campaigns — all campaigns 100% financed by the gov’t;

                * restorative justice;

                * abolishing the death penalty;

                * Make DC & PR states “ in order to bring balance to the increasingly skewed Senate.“

                Not to mention the stream of anti-semitic and divisive statements from their poster children, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.

                https://www.justicedemocrats.com/issues

              3. “So it’s not a priority for policy.” Serious steps that the United States could take to reduce emissions from air travel emissions would include more efficient planes, more direct routes and alternative bio-based low-carbon fuels. … The Democrats’ Green New Deal includes “working towards ending air travel.”

              4. * the New Green Deal, which notoriously included banning air travel and gov’t handout for anyone “unwilling to work”;

                No it doesn’t. It calls for the expansion of high-speed rail in order to reduce America’s reliance on air travel, but it doesn’t call for a ban on it.

                The Paycheck Fairness Act, based on the lie that women are paid less for equal work, and which would actually punish employers for providing the flexible hours that many women desire;

                It passed the house with bipartisan support and has over 80% public backing.

                Free college education for everyone

                11 states already have free college education plans in place, another 9 are working on it, and these include Southern States. How’s this unworkable, and who exactly is it supposed to be unpopular with?

                * “ a truth and reconciliation commission to investigate the generational harms caused by slavery and Jim Crow and propose remedies.” (read: reparations);

                I’m a South African. I don’t read it as reparations, because having had a TRC, it didn’t result in reparations.

                The Canadian TRC, over residential schools, found that those schools represented cultural genocide, but not physical or biological genocide, which left the state off the hook in terms of legal responsibility.

                TRCs in my experience are generally a masturbatory exercise that exist mainly to avoid reparations. Oppose it because it is a waste of time, not because you’re afraid of some sort of reparations coming out of it.

                * voting rights for prisoners (Bernie’s also on the record for that);

                Unpopular but not unworkable.

                abolish Immigration & Customs;

                Reading the site, its abolish ICE – the specific body that enforces immigration and customs in America. ICE was only established in 2003, America had immigration and customs laws and agencies enforcing them long before that, so how is this unworkable?

                * ban private donations to political campaigns — all campaigns 100% financed by the gov’t;

                That’s actually massively popular if you look at the polling, particularly given how a majority of Americans see the current system as legalised bribery.

                * restorative justice;

                How is this unworkable and unpopular? Polling I’ve seen on it shows that it is certainly popular, and it can hardly be termed less workable than the status quo which sees America leading the world in its per capita imprisonment rate.

                abolishing the death penalty;

                The death penalty may be popular, but it hasn’t shown much sign of being effective as a deterrent and actually ends up costing more than lifetime imprisonment, and it isn’t so dramatically popular as to be a deal breaker.

                Make DC & PR states “ in order to bring balance to the increasingly skewed Senate.“

                Have you seen polling on these issues to show they are unpopular? And how would they be unworkable, considering that it would just mean treating DC and PR the same as everyhwere else in America?

                So I’m looking at your list, the first point isn’t even true, none of it is actually unworkable (pointless in the one case I’ll grant you, but that isn’t the same thing) and most of it is fairly popular in terms of what polling I could find.

                But there is something a bit more to it than that. You see, they have actual policies which you can look at and disagree with, what has Biden got?

            1. That was fatuous of you, Bruce, to read it as a boolean AND. JD make unpopular proposals and unworkable proposals. Some of their proposals are both unpopular & unworkable. Given the insanely high cumulative price tag, their entire platform is impossible.

              What the US does not need is a TRC to remind white people how evil we all are for ending slavery only 156 years ago. No less than two Dem candidates have endorsed slave reparations.

              Pushing for DC & PR statehood so your side gets more senators (and EV) doesn’t play well. Further, for DC, a constitutional amendment would be required.

              Restorative justice is completely unworkable. It’s sheer lunacy.

              Proposing that mass murderers and terrorists should get to vote is about the most offensive suggestion imaginable. By making it, Sanders rendered himself unelectable.

              Most Americans favor limits on corporate campaign donations. They are not up for 100% financing by the government of every candidate on every ballot.

              _

              The death penalty … it hasn’t shown much sign of being effective as a deterrent and actually ends up costing more than lifetime imprisonment….

              non sequitur. Who said folks like it for its deterrence value? Why, after discussing trillion-dollar socialist schemes, is the cost of a proposal suddenly germane to its popularity?

              _

              … what has Biden got?

              I’m no fan of Biden. But what Biden doesn’t have is radical socialist views that most Americans recoil from. Nor is he indulging in divisive identity politics. Compared to all that, bland is good.

              1. Pushing for DC & PR statehood so your side gets more senators (and EV) doesn’t play well.

                What polling data do you have to show that this is in fact unpopular?

                That it requires a constitutional amendment for DC doesn’t make it unworkable – that just means it requires a super-majority win.

                Unworkable would be if for some reason the elections couldn’t be financed or held in those areas. As it stands, it is politically unlikely to happen, but it isn’t unworkable.

                The TRC – that fact that you feel that way about it, and I agree with you on it actually – doesn’t make it unworkable.

                And what is the polling on this?

                Restorative justice is completely unworkable. It’s sheer lunacy.

                What about it makes it unworkable and lunacy? That you say so? Do you actually have any data to back up your claims?

                Looking at a meta analysis, restorative justice looks promising. There isn’t enough data to conclude on it, but it certainly doesn’t look like lunacy to me.

                https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250872.pdf

                The point with the death penalty, well, what is it that you say?

                Given the insanely high cumulative price tag, their entire platform is impossible.

                The fact that some of their policies actually reduce costs – EG their call for ending nation building overseas – brings down that price tag now doesn’t it?

                Iraq cost about $1.1 trillion in direct costs according to Brown University. Annualised over the course of the war that came out at about double the cost of free tertiary education.

                Americans coped with the cost of the Iraq war just fine.

                The thing here is – this stuff could be done, whether it should be done well that is up to the electorate to decide.

                And Biden doesn’t engage in identity politics? What? He entered the campaign referencing Charlottesville as what defined Trump – identity politics so far is all he’s got.

              2. I’m not interested in a tedious debate here over the workability of these proposals, many of which are but vague pipe dreams. Even if workable, if they are unpopular, they are losers. The JD platform is chock-full of losers.

                I told you I don’t like Biden. Who appeals to you? NB: Bernie is DOA following that terrorists-get-to-vote statement.

              3. You’re the one making the claims of them being unworkable, you’re the one claiming they’re unpopular, and you haven’t supported any of this.

                I actually don’t think Sanders is out of the race. If there are enough convicted terrorists in America to form a voting block that significantly swings an election, you’ve got bigger problems than them having the right to vote.

                But honestly? Elizabeth Warren isn’t bad. She’s got actual policies, and has a decent record in government. Sure she supported Hillary Clinton, but so did the majority of the Democratic Party.

                If I had to go with a centrist, Amy Klobuchar at least has taken the time to put out her policy positions, so she’d get a look.

                And then of course there is Andrew Yang, but I think America would need a generational change in the electorate before he stood anything of a chance.

    2. Mr Trump’s approval rating countrywide is of little import, what counts is his approval ratings in the swing states, in PA, WI, MI, FL, NC, and a few others.

      1. Very true (though Florida, like Ohio, is hardly a swing state any more.)

        If the nation as a whole is not keen on impeachment, voters in those states surely aren’t.

        1. I included FL since Ms Clinton won the exit polls there in 2016, albeit within -just within- the margin of error.

          1. I note that of the 22 states where exit polls were held, the discrepancy was in favour of Ms Clinton in only 6 states, and in only one outside the Margin of Error (New York). In none of those 6 the discrepancies resulted in a ‘swing’.
            In 16 States the discrepancy was in Mr Trump’s favour, and in 12 outside the margin of error. In three states (NC,PA and WI) that resulted in a ‘swing’. In FL -as said- the discrepancy was 2.5% (MoE 3%) and in Michigan the exit polls had an ex aequo, but Mr Trump won the count with 0.2%, well within the MoE. I do not consider the latter result fraudulent.

  10. I’m a bit puzzled as to why so many think that impeachment is desirable. It would take a monumental mistake of Trump, and surely his presidency should end with as few scandals as possible?

    1. I don’t think desirable is the word for impeachment – more like duty. We all forget that each Congress person takes an oath of office to protect and defend the constitution or something like that. If we know that Trump did countless numbers of obstruction and certainly influenced the election by paying off women he slept with plus is likely under the influence of Putin, what should they do? Give him a bonus.

  11. Establishment Democrats have never missed an opportunity to ignore, if not actually run away in fright from, a winning campaign issue.

    Why they continue to act this way despite 3 decades of Republicans demonstrating the success of changing public opinion instead of taking cues from it, repeatedly standing by professed bedrock principles, and expressing issues in moral terms has actually got me speculating that Democratic strategy advisors are undercover Republican operatives.

    How else can they lose to such terrible candidates, who have such awful records and such obviously un American values?

      1. Do you think the Republicans would see it as a winning campaign issue?

        They manufactured a perjury trap on Clinton, induced State Troopers to lie under oath, etc all so they could impeach him for a sexual relationship.

        Here we have collusion with Russia, obstruction of justice, gross emoluments jeopardy, money laundering through the NRA, possible tax and election fraud. And, some of all of this will also rub off on powerful Republican senators like McConnell, who themselves have involvement in at least a cover-up.

        Of course this is a winning campaign issue! But it has to be done right – with moral authority. And THAT, imho, is why the Democrats fear it and why Progressives want it.

        1. Yes, progressives are always about asserting their moral authority.

          The Dems couldn’t convince the public that Brett Kavanaugh was a sexual predator and a pathological liar. How are they going to get folks to pay close attention to a bunch of wonky, subtle impeachment minutia in this age of Twitter? Seriously, folks don’t have the attention-span to even sit still while you explain what “emoluments” are.

          For a week after the Muller report came out, my friend’s conservative mother greeted her with “Good Morning! No Collusion!” Now, you make your case in four words.

  12. I believe that impeachment would backfire. Sadly, I have many relatives that supported Trump in 2016 and they are now even more rabid in their obsequiousness. If the Democrats cannot present a united front in the 2020 election, my magic coin says another 4 years of this POSPOTUS

    1. And then one of his kids running so that he can stay in power beyond 2024. I am becoming more convinced than ever that many Americans actually want an authoritarian leader.

    2. Diehard Trump supporters will vote for him no matter what Dems do, so this really isn’t a factor that is likely to decide the election.

      1. I should have been more clear – I agree that the rabid Trumpsters will never change their minds come hell or high water. They will be a factor since the POSPOTUS can count on their votes. The backfire I was referring to was regarding the ambivalent Trumpsters. They love him because he is anti-abortion, anti-transgender, anti-immigrant, anti-Iran, anti-trade, etc., and because he bullies those they despise. However, they are also beginning to understand how Trump’s policy-by-tweets and unfettered bullshit hasn’t been much of a benefit to them. But, they hate the Dems, the MSM, the deep state and will flock to Trump’s defense in any impeachment scenario, claiming yet another conspiracy to rob the election that they won.

  13. There is no question that an impeachment inquiry is the right and moral thing to do. But, the political ramifications of an ultimate impeachment vote in the House is uncertain. Pelosi thinks it would hurt Democratic chances, but she is guessing as is everyone else. She’s the Speaker and she’ll make the decision. I hope she makes the right one. The fate of Democracy in the U.S. may depend upon it.

    On a related note, various economic models predict a Trump victory as discussed by Steven Rattner in this NYT article.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/27/opinion/trumps-formidable-2020-tailwind.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

    However, I am skeptical of these models because I think the 2020 election will not hinge on economic issues in the sense of jobs and wages, but rather on issues such as abortion, immigration, heath care, and Trump’s coziness with dictators as well as his mental health. His rant on the White House lawn a few days about impeachment being a dirty word suggested to me mental deterioration. I am not a mental health professional, but if a friend or relative of mine talked like Trump, I would urge that person to get help quickly. Also, I trust the Democrats will have the wisdom to focus on the states that they narrowly lost in 2016, which cost them the election: Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Several other states are in play. I cannot see Trump winning any states that he lost in 2016. If the Democrats can increase turnout in these states, they have a good chance to win the election even if no members of the Trump cult have changed their minds. I am cautiously optimistic.

    1. Agree with your comments here. I also think Mueller did us no favor on a couple of things. His reluctance to testify and this is needed right away if the democrats ever get going with hearings. They may need to force him. I also think he left his boss an opening to trash his findings because he refused to state an opinion on the obstruction. His excuse that Trump would not be able to defend the accusation was over the top.

    2. His rant on the White House lawn a few days about impeachment being a dirty word suggested to me mental deterioration.

      That rant, and Trump’s other recent conduct, suggests we’ve entered the “Mad Roman Emperor” phase of the Trump presidency. And it’s likely to get worse, especially with Trump facing the prospect of criminal charges once he’s out of office.

      This nation now is in a constitutional struggle and likely being pushed into a constitutional crisis. Trump, for example, appears willing to do almost anything to keep congress (and, eventually, the American people) from gaining access to his tax returns and Deutsche bank financial records. He’s brought suit to prevent that from occurring, but his legal arguments are meritless. What happens when he plays out the string in court, loses, but refuses to comply with a final court order?

      So much of the functioning of our government depends upon universal consent to norms and traditions and the rule of law. Donald Trump thinks playing by the rules is for losers.

      1. And remember, my American cousins, it’s easier to resist early. Resistance is much more risky as totalitarianism takes hold.

        1. Security controls are always easier the earlier they are applied. We’re a few steps past the beginning, but there is a ways to go – so there is some hope.

    3. The right and moral thing to do is to get Trump out of office at the soonest opportunity so that he is no longer capable of damaging your country and so that he can stand trial for his crimes.

      If Trump is impeached, he won’t get convicted because of the make up of the Senate. Therefore, the rightfulness and morality of impeachment comes down to whether it helps or hinders Trump in the next general election.

      1. It has to do with the American system of checks and balances on the exercise of executive power. What Donald Trump has done here is an order of magnitude worse than Richard Nixon’s unsuccessful cover-up of a failed third-rate burglary (and much, much worse than that compared to Bill Clinton lying about getting head in the Oval Office).

        If the House of Representatives fails to bring articles of impeachment here, we may as well amend the constitution to repeal congress’s Article 2, section 4 power of impeachment. Congress has already abandoned its authority to declare war and is rapidly forfeiting its power of the purse. Hell, we may as well get it over with and declare ourselves a constitutional monarchy.

        1. I think there is the potential for something worse than a constitutional monarchy. It would be more like a fascist dictatorship. Remember that in Nazi Germany there was still a nominal legislature that met during that time (the Reichstag). Of course, there weren’t free elections and it had no real power and most Germans couldn’t have cared less.

          1. Dunno that I’d go quite that far. But we’re definitely in for a shitshow. If Trump loses, he won’t go gracefully. He almost certainly will try to pardon himself (and the rest of his clan) during the lame-duck period. He will also leave claiming the “fix was in” (as he laid the groundwork to do in 2016). I don’t see the Donald standing by smiling magnanimously as his successor takes the oath of office at the next inauguration, the way his predecessors have done.

            1. As mentioned earlier, the congress has given far too many of it’s own powers over to the executive and that has hurt them a great deal. Too many of the constitutional items are based on reasonable people following president but this guy follows nothing. The democrats continue at such a slow pace with their actions knowing the courts are going to be slow and slower. I think the clock may run out on them and I see very little leadership.

              Pelosi thinks doing nothing is a smart move and I do not understand that. Notice that most who are running for office are now in favor of impeachment because they know sitting on the fence is not popular. If in the end the democrats do not at minimum,hold impeachment hearing, I think they are done.

        2. The American system of checks and balances is worthless. It doesn’t work.

          Yes, you might as well dump the bit about impeachment. Or you could try fixing the constitution properly. The idea of asking a body of politicians whose fortunes may well be tied to those of the president to sit in judgement over him is mindblowingly stupid, for a start. You have to find a better non partizan method of indicting the president.

          1. The US constitution is by no means perfect, and has required amending from time to time. But its system of checks-and-balances on abuses of power by any of the three branches of government has served the US pretty well over the last 240 years.

            It was sufficient to chase a crook like Richard Nixon out of office (despite Nixon’s having had won a resounding 49-state and 60%-of-the-popular-vote victory less the two years earlier). Our system may be faltering now, with an outlier with no respect for our institutions like Donald Trump in office, but few USians are prepared to chuck it.

            I think the US Justice Department policy providing that a sitting US president cannot be indicted is misbegotten. It may come to pass that that the policy will be overturned, should the attorney general’s office for the state of New York or the Manhattan district attorney’s office seek an indictment against Donald Trump, and the underlying constitutional issue be resolved by the Supreme Court.

            1. One of the biggest design errors in our system is allocating 2 senators per state, regardless of population. This gives way too much power to a minority (and, as it happens, a less literate minority).

              It’s this unfair representation that enables Trump (and produces a Supreme Court so at odds with the country).

              And then there’s the Electoral College.

              Without these structural errors the USA would be in much better shape.

            2. The US constitution with its system of checks and balances is not serving the US pretty well now. It’s not fit for purpose.

              The problem is that the the current level of partisanship in the legislature is paralysing and if you think this is an outlier, can you articulate a good argument for why the situation will improve?

              The level of partizanship in the supreme court is utterly shocking. In the UK, a judge that was seen to apply openly political opinions to his or her judgements would be fired. The fact that there is even room to apply political interpretations to your constitution tells me that it is a very poorly designed document.

              You have a Republican Supreme Court, a Republican president and a legislature which, while not Republican, can be strangled by the Republicans. Where are these so called checks and balances?

      2. “If Trump is impeached, he won’t get convicted because of the make up of the Senate.”

        That is what they said about Richard Nixon’s Senate also. And then the Impeachment hearings themselves became the world’s best seminar on Republican corruption.

        Today’s Senate will have no choice to convict if the House hearings are done correctly.

        1. Disagree. It’s all politics. Trump has about 40% of the voters as rabidly blind followers, and that 40% intimidate/control the GOP Senate.

          That 40% will not be swayed by any amount of evidence presented at impeachment hearings, hence the GOP Senate will not “convict” Trump.

          Having said that, I still think impeachment is a good idea – even though it won’t remove Trump from office – because there is 60% of the country that is open to seeing the evidence of Trump’s crimes.

        2. Do you think that the current Senate is more principled or less principled than Nixon’s Senate? If you had slam dunk evidence of Trump’s wrongdoing like e.g. taped conversations of him breaking the law, then fine, I agree. But you don’t have that.

  14. The Democrats will never get the public witness testimony needed to expose Trump as a criminal unless they impeach. His supporters will watch instead of getting the spun FOX analysis of the Mueller report. As I understand, the law is clear that once impeachment starts witnesses can’t avoid testifying. Public TV testimony should destroy the credibility of both Trump and his Republican supporters. He is dangerous in the present and for the future of our country. Impeachment is the right thing to do.

    1. That makes sense except for the fact that Pelosi thinks Trump wants impeachment to help him get re-elected?

      1. I think that she is wrong, and hope that she changes her mind. Public testimony will have a greater impact than a report few have the patients to read. I think testimony will quickly justify impeachment in the minds of a majority of voters.

        1. If it sways the public, do you think that would have an impact on the Senate to remove from office?

          1. Yes, but probably not enough for the Senate to vote for impeachment. If exposing Trump with testimony on live TV isn’t enough to damage Trump and the Republicans for 2020, we probably don’t have a democracy that will continue to survive. Pelosi seems to want to fool people into doing the right thing. This wont work long-term. I think this is the right time to confront Trump. Impeachment will bring out the worst aspects of his character for the public.

  15. I’m not an American citizen so I don’t really have any deep insight into the impeachment debate.

    That said, there’s an argument that the ‘old’ left/right political axis is swinging around to a progressive/populist axis throughout the Western world. I wonder if the Authoritarian Left are unconsciously sabotaging their progressive colleagues grip on politics – and Trump is definitely *not* sabotaging his populist colleagues. In which case he could survive an impeachment attempt, and even bounce back stronger.

  16. If the Dems had a dynamite candidate who I thought could beat Trump, I’d say get rid of him by the electoral process. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see such a candidate. I expect Trump will make mincemeat out of the current lot. So impeach, even if the chance of conviction looks small right now. I think Mueller as much as hinted that the information is there for the impeachment inquiry to find.

    1. “If the Dems had a dynamite candidate who I thought could beat Trump. . .”

      You’ve hit the nail on the head, but unfortunately impeachment was never intended as a tool for parties that don’t have a candidate capable of winning an election. Also, the fact you have to say that Mueller “as much as hinted” that there was enough evidence to impeach is telling: he had over two years to come up with more than hints and couldn’t do it. Impeachment at this point is little more a desperate prayer to Our Lady of Perpetual Investigation.

      1. Nice Catch-22. If Muller had come out and said “impeach the guy, he’s guilty,” he’d be another political hack. But as he plays by the book, states clearly that DOJ policy meant an indictment against the office of the President was never possible under any circumstances, that he and his office would have said “Trump is innocent” if they were able to, and that they were not able to, well “that’s just not enough to go on.” Heads I win, tails you lose.

        Give me a break. It’s insulting that you think other people will swallow that crap.

        1. “. . .[Mueller] plays by the book, states clearly that DOJ policy meant an indictment against the office of the President was never possible under any circumstances. . . .”

          Mueller could have stated that clearly on day one instead of on day 674—not that we didn’t already know this. And since establishing innocence is never in the cards in this kind of investigation—it’s beyond the proper scope of a prosecutor—he could have clearly stated that on day one as well. Finally, even if Trump has immunity, Mueller could have come up with and reported damning evidence of wrong-doing without instructing Congress or the Justice Department what to do about it, which was never his job in the first place. But he didn’t do that either. Instead, he weasled that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” If you want some crap to swallow, try that.

  17. I am 100% convinced that the average voter really doesn’t deal with complex nuanced issues. I’m not saying they can’t, just that they don’t. This is an observation based on the political goings on in both the USA and my own country – the UK.

    If Trump gets impeached but then acquitted by the Senate, the narrative from Trump will be “Democrat witch-hunt failed”. This will be effective in turning enough people towards him to get him re-elected.

    Impeachment is bollocks, anyway. All it is is a process by which Congress can fire the President. This is, in itself, morally questionable given that it was not Congress that employed the president, but the fifty states of the USA. It really should be for them to fire him and the only way to do that under the US constitution is through a general election.

    Donald Trump needs to be indicted, not impeached. Somebody needs to challenge the DoJ ruling that you can’t indict a sitting president. Donald Trump needs to stand trial in a court of law not in front of 100 political representatives, of whom more than 50 will acquit just because he is of their political party.

    The US constitution isn’t fit for purpose and we are seeing the consequences.

    1. It is interesting to note that the Brexit mess in the UK has basically destroyed the two major parties, whereas the Trump mess in the US has strengthened the two major parties as they circle the wagons.

    2. “All it is is a process by which Congress can fire the President. This is, in itself, morally questionable given that it was not Congress that employed the president, but the fifty states of the USA. It really should be for them to fire him and the only way to do that under the US constitution is through a general election.”

      No, the House of Representatives is elected by the people, and is fully entitled to bring charges against the president. It is the only safeguard against a corrupt or criminal president. By the time the next election comes, it may well be too late.

      1. I know it is entitled to bring charges but that doesn’t mean it is being unethical in the current situation. The Senate isn also a political body and is likely to make a decision based on partizan lines not based on the principle of finding the truth. This is why impeachment is bollocks.

        And by the way, it is no safeguard. Trump, through incompetence and veniality, has caused untold damage in almost every aspect of his job and yet he will still be president on January 19th 2021 and may still be president on January 21st 2001.

        Your constitution is broken. That’s why I said it is not fit for purpose.

        1. Yes, I think impeachment is unlikely to work well in a two party system. When the constitution was written, the parties as we know and love them did not exist and were probably not envisioned. Politicians immediately formed strong party affiliations, but I don’t think it was the plan.

    3. The impeachment process will become national TV (if it happens). The news media will finally have the get-out-of-jail-free card they need to cover Trump’s crimes in depth. And by “jail” I mean “not-entirely-laughable accusations of liberal bias”. Even people who are mostly asleep will become aware of some of the key evidence against Trump. The one-third or so of Americans who are deeply conservative will dismiss it because Fox tells them to, but one-third is not enough to win an election.

      When the Senate votes not to remove Trump, *that* will be seen as a political move, as much or more so than the House action.

      1. The Mueller Report is already national TV. Trump supporters don’t trust national TV except the pro Trump end of it. Trump’s approval rating is 41-42% and hasn’t changed more than a point or two either way since the report was published. I simply don’t believe you when you say the evidence will sway people against him – unless you find something new like tapes of Trump obstructing justice.

  18. If broadcast public impeachment testimony causes a backlash that gets Trump reelected, our citizenry is too stupid to deserve or maintain a democracy. Do the right thing and impeach the bastard.

  19. This fellow already predicted that Trump would in fact be impeached in 2019

    https://www.dw.com/en/donald-trump-will-be-impeached-in-2019-says-prediction-professor/a-46890125

    And he also predicted in 2018 that he wouldn’t be impeached at all: ““I see grounds for it, as an observer, but I don’t see the politics of it,” Mr. Lichtman said last week when asked where he puts the odds.”

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/11/allan-lichtman-sees-no-politics-donald-trump-impea/

    And he predicted in 2017 that he would be impeached and Pence would be president.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/trump-impeachment-professor-allan-lichtman-237181

    And he’s written a book about impeaching Trump, whose sales no doubt go up each time he appears on TV and predicts that Trump either will or won’t be impeached.

    Well, I predicted Trump’s victory here as soon as it was clear that he’d win the nomination in 2016, though I would attribute it to pessimism and general horror that he could get so far in the first place. It still baffles me as to why so many in the US thought as long it’s 43% for Hillary and only 42% for Trump that everything would be fine.

    Anyway, I predict that Trump will be impeached but no one will notice, and he will win in 2020, after which time the liberal media will still be announcing every two weeks that “the cracks are beginning to appear in his administration” and that his popularity “has plummeted” from 42.3 to 42.2%.

    1. For what it’s worth, which is obviously nothing, I predicted Trump’s victory, and said as much under Jerry’s infamous ‘Trump Has Lost, Let’s All Move On’ article. I got a fair amount of pushback for saying so, especially at that point, when the polls were so certain that Hillary would sweep the board.

      But this time I think he will lose, and I don’t think it will be particularly close.

  20. I think the House will postpone impeachment as long as possible. The case should be slam dunk before impeaching.
    They need public hearings to make impeachment more palatable, but if that is blocked by the WH and it’s crony, the DoJ under Mr Barr, they will be forced to impeach in order to get these hearings .
    I think, btw, that Mr Barr should be indicted for his ‘offer to procure appointive public office’, a felony, with his June 2018 unsolicited memo., in which he implicitely offered something of value, to protect Mr Trump, if appointed AG.

    1. Moreover, although IANAL, defying a judge’s order to release transcripts of the conversations between National Security Advisor Mr Flynn and the Russian ambassador by bluntly refusing, instead of going to a higher court or invoking National Security, as Mr Barr did, appears weird to me.
      Can he just do that and get away with it? Is that not Contempt?

  21. There’s obviously a lot of Republicans who are not keen on Trump – except for the fact that he got them the white house. What’s the likelihood that they’ll turn on him once he wins reelection, since he can’t win again?

  22. For me, Trump’s popularity just highlights the fact that humans are large-brained apes. Trump is popular because he appears strong, and he appears strong for reasons chimpanzees would grasp- he shouts, pounds his chest and defies the others. He may as well spit and throw things. He wouldn’t lose any fewer voters than if he shot someone on Fifth avenue.

    Democrats could grab the media narrative with public hearings that shine the light of day on the criminality and national betrayal of the Trump administration. Why they don’t act, why on earth they behave like worried actuaries rather than taking on the mantle of their office and acting like patriots, when message and appearance mean everything and all the facts are on their side, is baffling to me. More than baffling, it’s extremely worrisome.

    1. I believe you have it in a nut shell. The meek will inherit nothing. It is like Watergate did not happen and provide everyone with how you do it. You must get it on TV and have the hearings. The people do not read 400 page reports. They must have the movie.

    2. Definitions of “popularity” may vary. Donald Trump is the only president since we began keeping track of such things back during the Truman administration who has never once had an approval rating above 50%.

      We have a tendency to think of Trump as some type of Merlin the Magician because he pulled off such an upset in 2016 (despite losing the popular vote by 3 million ballots). I’m hopeful we’ll be able to look back at that election someday and see it for the historical anomaly it was.

      1. “…he pulled off such an upset in 2016…”
        He? Did not the Russians pull it off?
        And can they not pull it off again in 2020?

          1. The question is, can they do it again next year? I don’t see much has been done to prevent it. Only if the vote against Mr Trump is in the order of 5 to 10 million I think voters can overwhelm the manipulations.

            1. Can they do it again? The way things stand now: no.

              Media companies are clamping down on fake news (shutting down Russian propaganda spam accounts, attaching fact-checking disclaimers to videos, etc.); and Trump is simply less popular (by about 4 points) than he was when he was elected – his BS isn’t working anymore on regular people (it only works with his base).

    1. I doubt that, especially if the hearings in the House are thorough, lengthy and well covered. They should postpone the Senate trial for as long as it takes to swing the Senate.
      I expect impeachment by September or October, unless the WH and Barr’s ‘DoJ’ keep obstructing. It will come earlier then.

  23. When is USA going to figure out the whole impeachment set up is ridiculous.
    The Dept of Justice memo/policy regarding non indictment is one of its fundamental flaws. Look where its led.

    I cannot imagine Trump lasting past lunch time in a parliamentary democracy free from this impeachment nonsense.

  24. It could be the bottom line is – You can impeach a president but you cannot impeach a cult. The Senate republican party is nothing but a Trump cult.

  25. So, in short, we need to destroy the Constitutional form of government of the United States because, if there’s another legitimate election, Trump will win? If that’s the case then, clearly, impeachment is a “nice and legal” way to pull off a coup d’état. It’s always good to keep up appearances.

  26. Worst case for the Dems would be an impeachment vote in the House, followed by a quick acquittal in the Senate. Trump would claim he was exonerated. The Dems would be demoralized and their turn out in the election would be poor. House might flip back to the GOP, along with Trump being reelected.

    I think that is why Pelosi is reluctant.

    1. I agree completely. Once Trump is acquitted by McConnell and Co., even the news media will go on and on about “Trump’s big win.” It will be doubly depressing. Pelosi has it right.

    2. Is there a time limit on impeachment hearings? Doesn’t the House decide about when to go to the Senate?

      1. Of course. It’s also true that the House can send impeachment articles to the Senate, but the Senate has no obligation to take up the matter. McConnell can treat it just like he did the Garland nomination.

  27. A word on Lichman and his model. Lichman has claimed that his model predicts the popular vote winner, not the electoral college winner. In the 2008 edition of his book The Keys to the White House he states “the Keys predicted well ahead of time the popular vote-winners of every presidential election from 1984 through 2004.” Hence he claimed his model was successful in 2000 when it predicted a win by Al Gore. Hence, his prediction for 2016 was wrong, since Trump lost the popular vote. Thus, his model was correct in 8 out of the last 9 presidential elections. He doesn’t get to choose after the results are known whether he was predicting the popular vote or the electoral college outcome.

  28. Typo bonanza:

    says that House much impeach Trump or he’ll be re-elected (headline)

    what the newswoman says in his introduction: (appears to be a gender twist, but there may be some defensible logic to it)

    Note that the new anchor below (usually rendered as “news anchor”)

    supposedly when give of the relevant questions (presumably “five”)

    an impeachment by the House is only a trial, (Any impeachment trial is in the Senate, not the house, which does the equivalent of indicting.)

    It says here that there have been 74 comments so far. I have not checked them all to see if someone else has already noted these typos, so there may be redundancies.

  29. Trump’s more likely to be reelected with impeachment, and impeachment will proceed through the House.

    1. I’m not so sure, despite Mr Barr’s whitewashing resume, it is abundantly clear that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians in a major way.
      Impeachment (impeachment hearings I’m referring to), will expose the treason Mr Trump and his cronies committed.

Leave a Reply