Market politics

[bkp_duke]

The reason the vote was so divided was because the Republicans are being so tribal about this. If Trump was a Democrat and the fact pattern was otherwise identical, the entire Republican caucus would have voted to impeach. She's basically declaring she's a Republican in Democrat clothing.

Evidence to support this assertion please.

The corollary argument that the Democrats are being "so tribal" is just as a valid, given the paucity of evidence that the articles of impeachment were passed on. Remember, we are all told that there was a "Quid pro quo", and when that was too complicated for the general public to grasp, it was changed to "bribery". No article of impeachment for bribery was forthcoming, because there was not enough evidence to support it (there was evidence, just not enough). Instead of we got the two most vague articles that the Democrats could craft.

Furthermore, if the case were strong, you would see independent voters backing impeachment. In the past week, that has been melting away per the polls. According to the polls released right before the impeachment vote, the majority of those polled were against impeachment, especially among the all-important independents.

As predicted, the House impeached along party lines because the Democrats evidence was circumspect, not rock solid or conclusive. I stick by my previous prediction that the Senate will now NOT remove Trump from office. My final prediction was that this will lock up Trump's base for the 2020 election, and that independents will be so turned off by what the Democrats did that they will carry Trump to another term.




What is the most damning of this situation is that impeachment has now been used as a political weapon, as evidenced by the partisan vote). This is the precedent that Hamilton was terrified about. Now just imagine the next time there is a Democrat in the White House, and the Republicans control both houses, with a super-majority in the Senate. Vague articles of impeachment come against that president for the most trivial of reason, and will then be followed by a partisan vote to overturn a duly-elected president for entirely political reasons. This makes my stomach churn.

 

[JRP3]

My final prediction was that this will lock up Trump's base for the 2020 election, and that independents will be so turned off by what the Democrats did that they will carry Trump to another term.

The base has always been locked up, so no change there, and I think most people have deeper concerns than impeachment so it will have little effect on the vote.

What is the most damning of this situation is that impeachment has now been used as a political weapon, as evidenced by the partisan vote).

Sure, because the Clinton impeachment wasn't at all partisan...

 

[AudubonB]

To be filed in the "Faits Accompli = Markets Ignore" folder -

Right, yes, okay, it was indeed a fait accompli but still - up until a month or so ago did anyone ever really imagine that the impeachment of a US President would be met by the market with a great big ~~~zilchereeno~~~?

 

[Intl Professor]

To be filed in the "Faits Accompli = Markets Ignore" folder -

Right, yes, okay, it was indeed a fait accompli but still - up until a month or so ago did anyone ever really imagine that the impeachment of a US President would be met by the market with a great big ~~~zilchereeno~~~?

You are wiser than I and would probably agree the president has little direct impact on the economy and then there is some irrationality in the money economy as opposed to the "real" economy.

According to our conservative wealth manager the economy was on a sugar high due to the income tax boon favoring large corps. and the wealthy. Progressive economists criticized their behavior in buying back stock or paying down debt rather than investing in capital projects. (Not true of Tesla, but it was not considered "profitable.")

What is driving this economy is technology and a very solid base gifted to Trump by Obama and Bernanke/Yellen. This president has a specialty in using emergency national security exceptions to **sugar** with agricultural exports, etc. He gets a lot of credit for trying to mess with the Chinese but if he were serious about it cancelling the TTP decreased his leverage which might have been effective.

Today I had lunch with my brain trust which includes a distinguished economist. I can't remember the stats which he used. You smart folks can look up the metrics on the economy which Obama inherited from the Shrub. (I remember him saying unemployment was 10.8%, for example, and negative growth in the last quarter, to say nothing about the impending collapse of our auto industry.)

What did Trump inherit? Objectively the market would move up if he were removed from office, but it might for its own reasons and not because he was no longer our "helmsman."

Edit: There may be ways to do this, but it is beyond my brain-width to calculate the economic cost of electing Trump as opposed to Hillary. The sad fact is the Democrats are called upon to rescue the economy because of Coolidge's belief "the business of America is business," or some such quote. How well did it do him, Hoover, or Bush?

The business of government is serving the people, not just business or shareholders, as some major corporations are now realizing at least in words. Tesla is founded on an aspect of that principle. Jan. 31 this year I nominated Greta for the Nobel Peace Prize and will again jointly with Elon Musk, if two can be done with one nomination. (Otherwise, separate for each.)

 

[wdolson]

Evidence to support this assertion please.

The corollary argument that the Democrats are being "so tribal" is just as a valid, given the paucity of evidence that the articles of impeachment were passed on. Remember, we are all told that there was a "Quid pro quo", and when that was too complicated for the general public to grasp, it was changed to "bribery". No article of impeachment for bribery was forthcoming, because there was not enough evidence to support it (there was evidence, just not enough). Instead of we got the two most vague articles that the Democrats could craft.

Furthermore, if the case were strong, you would see independent voters backing impeachment. In the past week, that has been melting away per the polls. According to the polls released right before the impeachment vote, the majority of those polled were against impeachment, especially among the all-important independents.

As predicted, the House impeached along party lines because the Democrats evidence was circumspect, not rock solid or conclusive. I stick by my previous prediction that the Senate will now NOT remove Trump from office. My final prediction was that this will lock up Trump's base for the 2020 election, and that independents will be so turned off by what the Democrats did that they will carry Trump to another term.




What is the most damning of this situation is that impeachment has now been used as a political weapon, as evidenced by the partisan vote). This is the precedent that Hamilton was terrified about. Now just imagine the next time there is a Democrat in the White House, and the Republicans control both houses, with a super-majority in the Senate. Vague articles of impeachment come against that president for the most trivial of reason, and will then be followed by a partisan vote to overturn a duly-elected president for entirely political reasons. This makes my stomach churn.

This explains it better than I ever could:
Impeachment Report to Accompany H. Res. 775 - Musing about law, books, and politics

ADDITION: For some reason this didn't post. I sent it last night...

Another thought on this. The Republicans have a behavior pattern they pretty much perfected during the battle for the ACA. They circle the wagons and do everything they can to disrupt the process of whatever the Democrats are doing. The Democrats bend over backwards to get Republican participation, but the Republicans alternately throw the offer back in the Democrats' faces and then blame the Democrats for playing partisan politics.

One example was the Republican publicity stunt of storming the SCIF where the classified hearings were going on. Many of the Republicans participating in the stunt were supposed to be in the room for the hearing but were too busy complaining the Democrats were excluding them from the process to do their job and participate in the process.

The Republicans made many claims of partisanship on the part of Democrats, but every time the Democrats attempted to include the Republicans they either complained about being excluded or made a mockery of the process by dragging in irrelevant stuff or using their time to grandstand.

Another part of this process is to guarantee that whatever the Democrats are doing, it gets no Republican votes so they can then claim it was ultra-partisan. Going back to the ACA what could the Democrats have done to get Republican votes in the end? My answer from watching the whole process unfold: nothing was possible short of dropping the whole thing. Most of the things the Republicans subsequently complained about with the ACA were things they insisted on when it was in committee.

With the impeachment vote the Republicans have proven that their loyalty is to the party first. Screw everything else. The only non-Democrat to vote for impeachment was Justin Amash who was essentially kicked out of the party for having the audacity to read the Mueller report and conclude that Trump should be removed for what he did.

 

[bkp_duke]

Um, what you are describing is politics in this country since I have been born. None of what you describe is a trait unique to, or used more by one party than the other.

You can take everything you said, remove the word Republican and insert Democrat, and it is just as appropriate a description.

 

[wdolson]

Um, what you are describing is politics in this country since I have been born. None of what you describe is a trait unique to, or used more by one party than the other.

You can take everything you said, remove the word Republican and insert Democrat, and it is just as appropriate a description.

Were you born in the 1990s? I suppose what you say is true if you ignore the facts.

Congress has always had political wrangling, but would come together to get things done before Newt Gingrich. One of the things the Republicans have thrown at the Democrats is that no major legislation before the ACA without bipartisan votes, which is true. That's because the two parties would work with one another.

As I said the other day Reagan and Tip O'Neil frequently had drinks and discussed legislation. That sort of thing hasn't happened since the 90s. Obama made similar offers to John Boehner, but after Boehner met once with Obama the push back from other Republicans was so fierce he never tried it again.

I watched the impeachment process closely and I watched the ACA process closely. In both cases, the Democrats offered the opportunity for the Republicans to come to the table and contribute, but every time the Republicans only played political games rather than do anything to advance policy. When the Republicans played games, the Democrats gave up trying and moved on.

In the impeachment hearings the Republicans were offered chance after chance to call witnesses, but the only caveat was they had to have something to offer for the case at hand. As a result very few Republican witnesses ended up in front of the committees because most were irrelevant.

Democrats are very policy driven these days. There is some political games. Nancy Pelosi's not sending the articles to the Senate straight away is a political maneuver, but it's because Mitch McConnell has already declared he's going to torpedo the entire process before it starts. She's playing politics to try and get McConnell to stop playing politics. If McConnell agreed to have a fair trail and not a pro-forma trial with a rushed vote, she would send the articles over tomorrow.

I read Paul O'Neil's book. He was GW Bush's first Treasury Secretary. He had participated in several other administrations, both Democrat and Republican, but left politics after George HW Bush lost in 1992. He said that every administration he had been in (both parties) there was always a mix of politics and policy, but the GW Bush administration had no interest in policy, only politics. He was shocked at how policy bankrupt the Republicans had become while he was in the private sector.

One of the problems with the Democratic presidential race is that it's too policy heavy for most people to follow. In response to the over reliance on Republican politics only focus, the Democrats have doubled down on policy.

Rick Wilson has observed many times that the Republicans are great at playing politics, but are bankrupt when it comes to policy, but the Democrats struggle to win elections because they are great at governing, but terrible at politics.

The bipartisan nature of the obstruction in Washington is a myth created by the Republicans to convince the base they are really the victims of Democratic bullying and just fighting back.

 

[JRP3]

Maybe even the base is cracking: Christianity Today editor calls for Trump to be removed from office

Christianity Today, the flagship Evangelical magazine, called for President Trump to be removed from office in a new editorial.

The piece, attributed to Christianity Today Editor in Chief Mark Galli, notes that the magazine’s “typical approach” is to “stay above the fray,” allowing readers to “make their arguments in the public square, to encourage all to pursue justice according to their convictions and treat their political opposition as charitably as possible.”

 

[Intl Professor]

Were you born in the 1990s? I suppose what you say is true if you ignore the facts.

Congress has always had political wrangling, but would come together to get things done before Newt Gingrich. One of the things the Republicans have thrown at the Democrats is that no major legislation before the ACA without bipartisan votes, which is true. That's because the two parties would work with one another.

As I said the other day Reagan and Tip O'Neil frequently had drinks and discussed legislation. That sort of thing hasn't happened since the 90s. Obama made similar offers to John Boehner, but after Boehner met once with Obama the push back from other Republicans was so fierce he never tried it again.

I watched the impeachment process closely and I watched the ACA process closely. In both cases, the Democrats offered the opportunity for the Republicans to come to the table and contribute, but every time the Republicans only played political games rather than do anything to advance policy. When the Republicans played games, the Democrats gave up trying and moved on.

In the impeachment hearings the Republicans were offered chance after chance to call witnesses, but the only caveat was they had to have something to offer for the case at hand. As a result very few Republican witnesses ended up in front of the committees because most were irrelevant.

Democrats are very policy driven these days. There is some political games. Nancy Pelosi's not sending the articles to the Senate straight away is a political maneuver, but it's because Mitch McConnell has already declared he's going to torpedo the entire process before it starts. She's playing politics to try and get McConnell to stop playing politics. If McConnell agreed to have a fair trail and not a pro-forma trial with a rushed vote, she would send the articles over tomorrow.

I read Paul O'Neil's book. He was GW Bush's first Treasury Secretary. He had participated in several other administrations, both Democrat and Republican, but left politics after George HW Bush lost in 1992. He said that every administration he had been in (both parties) there was always a mix of politics and policy, but the GW Bush administration had no interest in policy, only politics. He was shocked at how policy bankrupt the Republicans had become while he was in the private sector.

One of the problems with the Democratic presidential race is that it's too policy heavy for most people to follow. In response to the over reliance on Republican politics only focus, the Democrats have doubled down on policy.

Rick Wilson has observed many times that the Republicans are great at playing politics, but are bankrupt when it comes to policy, but the Democrats struggle to win elections because they are great at governing, but terrible at politics.

The bipartisan nature of the obstruction in Washington is a myth created by the Republicans to convince the base they are really the victims of Democratic bullying and just fighting back.

I think Pilosi and Schumer are very shrewd in dealing with McConnell now. He made a great mistake kissing up to Trump on the trial in the Senate. Can you imagine how this might go on to June when the Supremes or other courts reveal a bombshell or so! Data, more data, I'm hungry for more data.

 

[winfield100]

Maybe even the base is cracking: Christianity Today editor calls for Trump to be removed from office

@JRP3
Note:
Christianity today magazine was started by
Billy Graham
Franklin Graham is his son who publicly wholeheartedly supports the OI
The editor of the magazine quits/retires in about a week, so not exactly a “profile in courage “ similar to ex senator Jeff Flake

 

[JRP3]

Shtable Jeenius rambling about water NowThis on Twitter

 

[wdolson]

The base has always been locked up, so no change there, and I think most people have deeper concerns than impeachment so it will have little effect on the vote.

Sure, because the Clinton impeachment wasn't at all partisan...

I was looking at the internals of one of the recent approval polls. They asked those who approved of Trump if they approved of almost everything he did, some, or only a bit. About 15% approved of almost everything. That's the hard core base who will worship him no matter what happens. Those who approve of only a few things are probably with him because the economy has been doing well. If that turns south in the next year they will probably abandon him.

But those who are with him because of the economy are already against him because of his crimes in office, so this will probably have little effect. Though sowing some more doubt among the Evangelical community is ultimately a good thing.

Basically the "anointed by God" thing stems from the fact that he won when even conservative pundits were saying it was impossible. They want to stuff the judiciary with judges before the Republicans get demographically locked out of winning national races. McConnell has been pushing this all year.

Shtable Jeenius rambling about water NowThis on Twitter

If your dishwasher has those sorts of problems, you need a new dishwasher. It isn't the government's fault your dishwasher died. Though the extra money you need to pay for a new dishwasher is Trump's fault (tariffs).

 

[JRP3]

Trump losing support of the troops, Sanders getting the most donations from the troops.

 

[msm859]

Trump losing support of the troops, Sanders getting the most donations from the troops.

I trust you meant the American troops. I am sure Trump has the full support of the Russian troops. He his their biggest asset.

 

[Paracelsus]

"In a recent email exchange with a wealthy prospective donor, a top fundraiser for Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg made an offer that was unusually blunt — even by modern pay-to-play standards.

What they're saying: "If you want to get on the campaign's radar now before he is flooded with donations after winning Iowa and New Hampshire, you can use the link below for donations," the fundraiser, H.K. Park, wrote in an email to the donor, which was reviewed by Axios.

• The Buttigieg campaign lists Park on its website as one of its top fundraisers — those who have raised at least $25,000 for the campaign.

Why it matters: Brendan Fischer at the campaign finance watchdog the Campaign Legal Center said the Buttigieg fundraiser's pitch "is an example of a campaign offering potential donors an opportunity to buy influence."

• "It's rare that the public has an opportunity to see it in writing," Fischer added, "but this is not the only campaign that's offering big donors the opportunity to get on the radar of the candidate in exchange for large contributions."
• The revelation comes days after Democratic presidential rival Elizabeth Warren went after Buttigieg for raising money from billionaires in a "wine cave."

The prospective donor was also disturbed by the solicitation. "It's very telling and concerning that one of the campaign's major bundlers would talk like that," said the donor, who asked not to be named.

• "What would this suggest about the way he's going to interact with Silicon Valley if the implication is pay-for-play?"
• "If that's the way he's operating," the donor added, "it's in the public interest for people to know what's being said.""

Pete Buttigieg fundraiser dangles influence for donations in email

 

[EVNow]

View attachment 491663

"In a recent email exchange with a wealthy prospective donor, a top fundraiser for Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg made an offer that was unusually blunt — even by modern pay-to-play standards.

What they're saying: "If you want to get on the campaign's radar now before he is flooded with donations after winning Iowa and New Hampshire, you can use the link below for donations," the fundraiser, H.K. Park, wrote in an email to the donor, which was reviewed by Axios.

• The Buttigieg campaign lists Park on its website as one of its top fundraisers — those who have raised at least $25,000 for the campaign.

Why it matters: Brendan Fischer at the campaign finance watchdog the Campaign Legal Center said the Buttigieg fundraiser's pitch "is an example of a campaign offering potential donors an opportunity to buy influence."

• "It's rare that the public has an opportunity to see it in writing," Fischer added, "but this is not the only campaign that's offering big donors the opportunity to get on the radar of the candidate in exchange for large contributions."
• The revelation comes days after Democratic presidential rival Elizabeth Warren went after Buttigieg for raising money from billionaires in a "wine cave."

The prospective donor was also disturbed by the solicitation. "It's very telling and concerning that one of the campaign's major bundlers would talk like that," said the donor, who asked not to be named.

• "What would this suggest about the way he's going to interact with Silicon Valley if the implication is pay-for-play?"
• "If that's the way he's operating," the donor added, "it's in the public interest for people to know what's being said.""

Pete Buttigieg fundraiser dangles influence for donations in email

Buttigieg is the best candidate money can ever buy.

 

[wdolson]

Every candidate has clay feet because every human being has faults.

 

[JRP3]

Every candidate has clay feet because every human being has faults.

Doesn't mean they are equal by any measure.

 

[JRP3]

Funny and terrifying at the same time

"I never understood wind, you know I know windmills very much. I've studied it better than anybody."

The Hill on Twitter

 

[ZeApelido]

Expert level troll