Sunday, January 12, 2020

DNC conspires to kneecap Bernie again

Since nobody can figure out what Pelosi's goal was in holding back the articles of impeachment, this theory is as good as any.  Fox News: "McCarthy says Pelosi holding articles of impeachment to hurt Sanders' Iowa chances."

Flashback - to 2016: "Leaked Emails Suggest DNC Was Conspiring Against Bernie Sanders."

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

Since nobody can figure out what Pelosi's goal was in holding back the articles of impeachment,


Heh. Pelosi's absurd, futile "strategy" is utterly inexplicable.


The Amazon Washington Post: New evidence for impeachment keeps turning up. That's why we need witnesses


Morning Consult: 57 percent of registered voters — including most Democrats and independents — think the Senate should call additional witnesses to testify in Trump’s trial, compared to 24 percent who think it should not. (51% say Senate should remove Trump from office.)


538/Ipsos: 57% want witnesses, 39% are satisfied with the existing evidence.


USA Today poll: 79% of Democrats, 64% of Republicans and 72% of independents say that Trump should allow witnesses to appear in a Senate trial


Hart Research Poll covering Maine, Colorado, Arizona, North Carolina, Michigan and New Hampshire:
"What would your reaction be if you heard that your Senator [identified by name as either Collins, Gardner, McSally, Tillis, Peters or Shaheen] voted against calling any witnesses or subpoenaing any documents during the Senate impeachment trial?"

26% favorable
63% unfavorable

Support in the Hart poll for the Senate viewing additional witnesses and documents: 72% (Dems 94%, independents 76%, GOP 48%)
Additional witnesses and documents are not important: 21%


National Review: Susan Collins Working with Group of Republican Senators to Allow Impeachment Witnesses

(or at least thinks she needs to be seen as having done so)

Anonymous said...

"Witnesses will save us."

Witness this - Polls asking leading questions of people who don't even understand how the impeachment process works, will not stop your Impeached President from serving for the next five years.

Eric said...

Muh polls - MUH POLLS!

Let's see how things are going with people who are actually putting money on the election.

https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election

Anonymous said...

Ouch. Today was a bad day to be scoffing at impeachment polls, or to be doubting the tactical effects of Pelosi's delay.

------

YUH BETS! Would those be the same betting markets that were so confident of Hillary Clinton's win that they paid out millions of dollars on Hillary bets in advance of the election results?

Well, you gotta fight with the weapons you have. Because duh polls are most definitely not to yuh preference.

Anonymous said...

Those betting markets were almost as confident in Hillary Clinton's win as you were.

It's sad to see someone whose last thread of hope is to cling to irrelevant outlier polls, which in saner days he would have disregarded.

Presto Derange-o! said...

I know "outlier" is your magic word of the month. But saying it over and over doesn't make the bad polling disappear.

Anonymous said...

Of course it doesn't. Because "bad polling" is just a synonym for "outlier."

[Boy, you're really tripping over your own feet lately. Up your game.]

Anonymous said...

Yak, yakkity, yak. It's a relentless wave of bad polling news. Your words are the same kind of weak, false noise that the president for the next five years shits out daily on Twitter.

[Against you, my game is a shutout. But I'll take your word for it that I'm tripping over my feet; no one has had a longer, closer view of my feet than you.]


Reality check. We both see the exact same polls. You know how bad they are for you. There's no outlying your way out of them. Maybe Trump's numbers will improve, but the economy hasn't done it, and Soleimani hasn't done it, and nothing else has done it. As of now, Trump's numbers are gruesome.


I have to admit, the best polls can cause a noticeable swelling in my pants.

But how are your pants responding to Trump's polls?

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/bcc78e21-e01b-4fd2-9d81-d0991a5e0c52

Anonymous said...

Enjoy farting in your pants.

I'll enjoy the next five years of Trump as your president.

Anonymous said...

Wear your soaked pants proudly. That's not fearful incontinence... it's cheerful confidence!

Anonymous said...

Words of advice from the wisdom and time-tested experience of Mr. Depends himself.

Anonymous said...

"I love the smell of facepalm in the morning. I smell like... victory."

https://i.imgflip.com/1q86pk.jpg

Anonymous said...

It's embarrassing that you're making such a frank confession.

Anonymous said...

An "I know you are, but what am I?" surrender is still an "I know you are, but what am I?" surrender even when you don't type the literal words "I know you are, but what am I?"

Especially when you do it twice in a row.

But don't feel so bad. There's no way your pants are half as shitty as President Trump's poll numbers.

Anonymous said...

No, you decided to play "Here's what I am, what are you?"

Get busy modifying your game, and upping it.

Anonymous said...

"I know you did it, but what did I do?"


Ouch. I take back everything I said about you being repetitive and not clever and repetitive.

Anonymous said...

You seem obsessed with repetition for some reason, Kmart.

Anonymous said...

Here's the kind of repetition I like the best.

The Congressional generic ballot:
January: Dems 47%, GOP 41%
December: Dems 47%, GOP 41%
November: Dems 47%, GOP 41%
October: Dems 47%, GOP 40%
September: Dems 47%, GOP 40%
August: Dems 46%, GOP 40%
July: Dems 46%, GOP 40%
June: Dems 46%, GOP 40% ...


Oof. No wonder the fake biased outlier push polls have made your pants permanently soaked, Yellow Rain Man.

Anonymous said...

Hope you didn't fret and agonize too much during the days it took you to scrape up that killer retort.

Republicans in 2016 trailed throughout the campaign in the generic polls and were under 40% as late as mid-October of 2016. How did that Congressional race turn out for you?

Maybe Democrats just have to come up with candidates actually named "Generic Dem" instead of the ones they've got.

By the way, Who's on first?

Anonymous said...

"One time, Republicans lost fewer seats than expected. So if these numbers ever change, it could happen again!" What sad taunting.


In 2016, the Democrats' generic ballot lead averaged 3% throughout the race. This cycle, the Democratic generic ballot average has been less changeable and twice as large. The 2016 Democrats picked up six seats in the House. A repeat of that election result this year — a slight expansion of what is now the majority — would be good.


Republicans in 2016 trailed throughout the campaign in the generic polls...

And lost, just as the polls indicated.


...and were under 40% as late as mid-October of 2016.

And were never under 40% any time other than that 48-hour period in mid-October. Nice try, sworn enemy of outliers.


By the way, Who's on first?

You are, after getting beaned in the head again.

Anonymous said...

"One time (2014), Republicans gained enough House seats to have their highest total since 1928, despite generic polls showing them below 40% as late as mid-April, mid-July, and mid-August of the election year. But those polls were much closer to the election than mid-January, so they were perhaps less valid than your current example." What un-sad taunting.

Anonymous said...

Oops! Your 2016 claim and generic ballot link blew up in your very intelligent face, so now you've switched to 2014. Hey, fine by me.


Let's look at your ballot graph do-over. In 2014, the generic Democratic vs. Republican percentage lines criss-crossed 18 times. The party lines on the 2020 graph haven't touched once. In fact, they've always been at least 5% apart. But let us know as soon as the 2014-style volatility starts to kick in.


Sure, it's possible. The Republicans could improve their current position by 8% or 9% just to match their final so-so 2014 numbers. Then maybe they would pick up the same 13 House seats they did in 2014. And remain the minority party. Dare to dream big!


So Republicans haven't led the Democrats at any point, on any day, in the past three generic ballots? Why, that just means they're due!


The question is, how can Republicans make that math magic happen? To improve the polling numbers, maybe Trump could oversee a solid economy. No, wait, that hasn't worked. Perhaps the right could try demonizing the opposition as dangerous radicals. Oh, you've already done that? A really great way to rise in the polls would be to have Trump moderate his actions and statements to appeal to independent voters, especially suburban wom-- PFFFTT!!! Sorry, it's always hard to say that without laughing. Ooh, I know! Being strong on war and terror always works! Or at least it always used to...

Anonymous said...

Oh, now I get the airtight logic: "The lines haven't criss-crossed in the last seven months, so there won't be any volatility in the next 10 months." That might be plausible if there weren't some overriding situation currently using up all the oxygen. But there is.

What will make volatility kick in on the generic poll? My bet is the end of the impeachment farce will accomplish that.

Interestingly, that inevitable event was conspicuously missing from your litany of possible GOP-friendly eventualities.

Of course, Democrats may try to seize a counterplay: "Impeach again, and then again!"

Anonymous said...

Brrr, another one of your scary predictions. Could be! You're certainly way overdue to get one right.


Cool prophecy, too: "Despite everything, just you watch. It's going to happen again just like it did in 2016, uhhh, 2014."