The Impeachment of President Donald J. Trump

And Nate Silver had Hillary’s odds in the 60s and falling.
Polls tend to lag behind public sentiment (it takes days to contact enough to get a good sample) so the direction of the trends are important when trying to get a snapshot.

Yes, there's always the inconvenient reality that polls are often poorly reported and even more poorly understood.

Yep. Definitely worth following 538.

I'm thinking of a letter of the alphabet.

You get 26 guesses.

Careful now. One of your guesses might be right!


The fox news poll is demonstrative - even their poll of "republicans" is so far from an accurate estimation as to be worthless. Ignore that they purposely skewed the population between dems and gop, even their guesstimate of GOP was 13% - polling a total pop of around 1000, when a broad public poll of over 50,000 came out as 5%. (only skew was had to be on twitter).

So ... I went looking for the source of this assertion. Here it is:



It's so stunningly misinformed in so many different ways that it's hilarious.

He claims that the poll oversampled Democrats by 14 points because 48% of respondents said they planned to participate in the Democratic primary and 34% said they planned to participate in the Republican primary.

First of all, there are more voters who identify themselves as Democrats than there are voters who identify themselves as Republicans. According to Pew results published in 2018, 37% of registered voters identify as Democrats, 33% as independents, and 26% as Republicans -- an 11-point difference.

Second, the question doesn't even ask what people identify as -- it asks what primary they're planning to participate in. Independents, who you're claiming were undersampled, don't have a primary, so many of them will vote in either the Democratic or Republican one. And it's kind of a no-brainer that in a year with a Republican incumbent, the Democratic primary would have higher turnout. (For example, in New Hampshire in 2012, the Democratic primary had somewhere in the area of 60,000 votes cast, and the Republican primary had something in the area of 250,000 votes cast. That doesn't mean the Republicans actually outnumbered Democrats in New Hampshire that year by 5-to-1.)

Seriously, are you just looking for the most shriekingly lunatic nutjob you can find to get talking points from now?

It is @Zombie , of course he is.

I am actually interested in the spin on the recent arrests. I was wonder in @Zombie could tell us his ideas on a few things.

So Igor and his Ukranian friend who were donating tons of money to trump's campaign and PAC were arrested with one way tickets to germany a few hours after having a conversation with Trump's Lawyer Rudy. It is said that they helped facilitate contact between rudy and the ukranian government, and rudy is trump's personal lawyer.

I am just wondering how do you explain this in a non-corrupt and legal way? I am talking about the whole relationship of where their donation money came from since their businesses do not show enough business to have that much money. How is it that trump did not know who they were despite clearly having met them and spoken to them regarding their huge donations? Why were they leaving the country right after talking to rudy while under investigation by the FBI?

Oh, and most of all how the fuck did Obama and hillary make all this shit happen? I know those two are some amazing space time manipulators, but how did they accomplish this? Also, how is it that in your universe they can cause all of these things to happen, but yet cannot get hillary elected president? What sort of crazy plot hole is that?

The line is going to be something like "Well, if they didn't support it, why didn't they stop it?"

The equivalent of burglars saying "don't blame us for robbing your house; you're the one who didn't buy sturdy enough locks."

Let's say you're right (you're not).

Why would Fox do this? They've been in the can for Trump for so long, that, if the poll is somehow skewed (it's not) then it means one of the following:

• It was a completely unintentional perfect storm of errors that somehow got through every single oversight before being published
• It was intentional because Fox knows which way the wind is blowing and is slowly turning on Trump
• It was intentional because they wanted to lull impeachment supporters into falsely citing the poll and then have Trump supporters point out the error, thus making impeachment supporters look bad.

You forgot the real reason. It is all a plot of the deep state created by hillary and obama to take his presidency away because they can do that even though they could not fudge a few numbers to get her elected president.

Question.

What are the ratio of registered Democrats and Republicans in the US?

"registered" only has meaning depending on which state you live in. Stupid huh?

Here's information that might help (from this article on Gallup):

The left has been wanting to impeach Trump since before he was even sworn in, in spite of his having done absolutely nothing wrong. Since then, beginning with the Russia collusion hoax, they've been looking for/and manufacturing excuses to do so. It's strictly partisan. The current excuse involving the Ukraine is just another effort to drive themselves and the people into an impeachment frenzy. Necessity, Democracy, and justice be damned.

Tasvir? He's the only real indian I know.

So the population is 47% Democrat and 42% Republican.

The sample used for the poll was 48% Democrat and 34% Republican with the rest consisting of variations of "don't/know" or "other".



In fairness that is a bias, but nowhere near that found if people make the mistake of expecting the numbers of Republicans and Democrats to be equal, they shouldn't be. Also it doesn't take into account the independents and undecideds, or actually ascertain who is registered (as claimed) but rather voting intentions in the next primary.

However there are a number of other biases in there which aren't so flattering for Republicans, see if you can find them?

EDIT: @tafkats beat me to it.

I'm not sure of the relevance of any of the information presented in the graph. It concerns voter likelihood to vote in the primaries. How does it relate to the public's desire to impeach?

It's the demographics of those polled, with the difference between 48% Democrat and 34% Republican being the claimed +14 sampling bias. It's true, there is indeed a bias there but the underlying assumption seems to be that both parties should be represented equally in order to qualify as an unbiased sample.

Now you and I both know that's untrue, the sample should be representative of the demographics in the wider population, not artificially levelled on one particular variable.

I think that what made him look suspicious is that both birth documents which he finally provided were determined to be fakes by two court certified, forensic document experts. Not to mention that Obama kept a high priced law firm on retainer to prevent anyone from ever seeing his vault birth records, which would have actually cleared up the matter.

This is news to me.

Link?

Trumps (new) personal attorney under criminal investigation.

https://a.msn.com/r/2/AAIDRKd?m=en-us&referrerID=InAppShare

Noticing a pattern here.

Maybe not quite a "frenzy," except in the media where it earns them big bucks when they push the impeachment narrative. Most of the rest of country doesn't care much yet - this is an activist thing with the attention of less than 1/4 of the public, imo.

First impeachment attempt in December 2017- On December 6, 2017, 58 House Democrats voted to invoke articles of impeachment against President Trump for his fierce criticism of NFL players “who took a knee” during the performance of the US national anthem.


Impeachment try #2 was just six weeks later, on Jan 19.

It's like one of those lotto games with ping pong balls and some wind that pops a random ball into a chute. This latest ping pong ball to pop up said "Ukraine." It's still at farce level with every breaking "story" barely worth a paragraph.

I'm minded of a sentence from James Comey's book here, about his days working for Giuliani in New York. A press conference about a prominent case was up and, even though Comey was the lead attorney, he was instructed to stand well at the back with the warning from a colleague - "The most dangerous place to stand in New York is between Rudy Giuliani and a microphone".

Rudy loves the spotlight as much as Trump does. This isn't what you want in a lawyer - for all Trump's pleas for a Roy Cohn, a figure as off the chain as Trump needs a fixer who can stay in the shadows. He HAD that in Cohen, except he pushed Cohen's ability to cover up his shenanigans too far.

Been awhile. Here's something from Google: Zullo said the aim of their investigation was to "clear" Obama's birth certificate, but two forensic experts were unable to do so.https://www.abc15.com/news/region-p...to-talk-obama-birth-certificate-investigation
On efforts to release his vault records:
The political action committee 'Obama for America' paid $1,066,691.90 to the Perkins Coie law firm between Oct. 16, 2008 and March 30, 2009, to fight every request to release Obama's original birth records.[10] Partial listing of cases courtesy of WND.com [1]

• New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress did not properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of President.

• Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.[11]

• Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming that Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.

• Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's Secretary of State, making a similar argument to Donofrio's. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.

• Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.

• Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.

• Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.

• In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.[12]

• Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.[13]

• In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.

• In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

• California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.[14]

• In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility:

• In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.

• In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.[15]

• In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade, the then secretary of state Hope Andrade.

• In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.

• In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.[16]
• https://www.conservapedia.com/Obama_birth_certificate_lawsuits

First link doesn't name the two "experts" so their credentials can be verified.

A PAC funding a law firm is not Obama paying a law firm.

The rest is a load of cases getting thrown out because of lack of legal merit, usually an indicator that the case brought before the court is bullshit.

And a Conservapedia link? If you AREN'T Dayton, then for fuck's sake have a word with yourself.

If you ARE Dayton, then good work avoiding the obvious "do your own homework!" trap when asked for a link but for fuck's sake still have a word with yourself.