Is this the end of Democrat front runner Joe Biden?

notobtuse

KSU wrote: »

Problem is if Bloomberg does enter the race it splits the voter base as the more moderate DNC candidate.

I agree. Biden is the most moderate candidate of the show. Problem is the hardcore base is the most politically active group in the DNC primaries and extremely Leftist/Liberal. That is why the Superdelegates play such a vital part in the DNC primaries.. and will once again (despite efforts to curtail the Superdelegates power) in this election because of no clear frontrunner.

marieholmfan

notobtuse wrote: »

Again, polls REGARDING TRUMP are suspect due to the effect of the 'SHY TRUMP VOTERS.' Can I not be any clearer?

They certainly don't seem to be shy. Trump voters seem to be the worst sort of obese , loudmouthed ,ugly American.

Dohnjoe

notobtuse wrote: »

Again, polls REGARDING TRUMP are suspect due to the effect of the 'SHY TRUMP VOTERS.' Can I not be any clearer?

Hmm, not so sure about that theory

"First, the “shy Trump” theory relies on the notion of social desirability bias — the idea that people are reluctant to reveal unpopular opinions. So if the theory is right, we would have expected to see Trump outperform his polls the most in places where he is least popular — and where the stigma against admitting support for Trump would presumably be greatest. (That stigma wouldn’t carry over to the voting booth itself, however, so it would suppress Trump’s polling numbers but not his actual results.) But actual election results indicate that the opposite happened: Trump outperformed his polls by the greatest margin in red states, where he was quite popular. The two states that had the largest polling error for Trump were Tennessee and South Dakota, where Trump won more than 60 percent of the vote. Meanwhile, Trump underperformed his polls in states where the stigma against him would seem to be strongest: deep-blue states like California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York and Washington.2 Overall, as my colleague Carl Bialik and I (as well as Andrew Gelman) have pointed out, there’s a very strong correlation between how Republican a state is and how much better Trump did than polling averages indicated he would."
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/shy-voters-probably-arent-why-the-polls-missed-trump/

Also, just to clarify, you have no issue with a US president withholding aid to a country, specifically one that is known for corruption, in exchange for an investigation on a political opponent?

Do you have any examples of this from recent history?

notobtuse

Regardless if Joe Biden gets the DNC nod, or not, look to the Trafalgar Group polling in the general election. They at least developed some methodology to deal with the Shy Trump Voters, and correctly predicted Pennsylvania and Michigan (they didn’t poll Wisconsin) in the 2016 election.

notobtuse

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Also, just to clarify, you have no issue with a US president withholding aid to a country, specifically one that is known for corruption, in exchange for an investigation on a political opponent?

If you read the transcript you will take notice Trump was most concerned with Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. The Hunter Biden thing was almost an afterthought late in the conversation, regardless of Democrat fabrications. And again, Kent in his testimony said he would love to see a Burisma probe and testified to concern of Biden’s conflict. This was one of the two DNC star witnesses. If the DNC star witness had concerns about the Biden's actions regarding Ukraine, why couldn't Trump?

notobtuse

marieholmfan wrote: »

They certainly don't seem to be shy. Trump voters seem to be the worst sort of obese , loudmouthed ,ugly American.

I'm not obese, nor loudmouthed, and I've been told I'm fairly good looking because I have a notable resemblance to David Hasslehoff. :pac:

notobtuse

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Hmm, not so sure about that theory

"First, the “shy Trump” theory relies on the notion of social desirability bias — the idea that people are reluctant to reveal unpopular opinions. So if the theory is right, we would have expected to see Trump outperform his polls the most in places where he is least popular — and where the stigma against admitting support for Trump would presumably be greatest. (That stigma wouldn’t carry over to the voting booth itself, however, so it would suppress Trump’s polling numbers but not his actual results.) But actual election results indicate that the opposite happened: Trump outperformed his polls by the greatest margin in red states, where he was quite popular. The two states that had the largest polling error for Trump were Tennessee and South Dakota, where Trump won more than 60 percent of the vote. Meanwhile, Trump underperformed his polls in states where the stigma against him would seem to be strongest: deep-blue states like California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York and Washington.2 Overall, as my colleague Carl Bialik and I (as well as Andrew Gelman) have pointed out, there’s a very strong correlation between how Republican a state is and how much better Trump did than polling averages indicated he would."
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/shy-voters-probably-arent-why-the-polls-missed-trump/

Of course most of the polling companies that got things wrong would claim the 'Shy Trump Voter' effect didn't play a factor because admitting to it would indicate their polls were garbage.

Dohnjoe

notobtuse wrote: »

If you read the transcript you will take notice Trump was most concerned with Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. The Hunter Biden thing was almost an afterthought late in the conversation, regardless of Democrat fabrications. And again, Kent in his testimony said he would love to see a Burisma probe and testified to concern of Biden’s conflict. This was one of the two DNC star witnesses. If the DNC star witness had concerns about the Biden's actions regarding Ukraine, why couldn't Trump?

In my opinion it's shocking for a carefully edited summary of the call no matter which way you spin it. I would like to see the full unedited thing.

To ask again, do you think it's fully legal and acceptable if a sitting president asks another country to investigate a direct political rival in exchange for military aid?

Also, Fox news anchors seem pretty alarmed at Trump's tweets today toward Maria Yovanovitch, going so far as to suggest they are witness intimidation, would you agree?

Bret Baier

That was a turning point in this hearing so far. She was already a sympathetic witness & the President’s tweet ripping her allowed Schiff to point it out real time characterizing it as witness tampering or intimidation -adding an article of impeachment real-time.

notobtuse

Dohnjoe wrote: »

To ask again, do you think it's fully legal and acceptable if a sitting president asks another country to investigate a direct political rival in exchange for military aid?

Your premise is a fabrication. Trump in no way indicated there was a trade of military aid in exchange for them to investigate a political rival.

Also, Fox news anchors seem pretty alarmed at Trump's tweets today toward Maria Yovanovitch, going so far as to suggest they are witness intimidation, would you agree?

Oh, poor babies. Who sets foreign policy... the State Department or the President? It is the job of ambassadors to promote the President's foreign policy. If they can't do that they should resign or they will be replaced. It's quite simple. If Yovanovitch was dissing the new Ukrainian president and Trump she had no place being an ambassador. The Deep State may think they're in control, but they're not. Also, why did she lie in testimony that she had no contact regarding a DNC request, when she responded via a personal email account?

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

Your premise is a fabrication. Trump in no way indicated there was a trade of military aid in exchange for them to investigate a political rival.

Hmm do I take your word for that or do I review the call, the texts, the depositions? Decisions decisions

(By the way this isn’t the impeachment thread?)

Oh, poor babies. Who sets foreign policy... the State Department or the President? It is the job of ambassadors to promote the President's foreign policy. If they can't do that they should resign or they will be replaced. It's quite simple. If Yovanovitch was dissing the new Ukrainian president and Trump she had no place being an ambassador. The Deep State may think they're in control, but they're not.

That doesn’t address the witness intimidation one bit.

Dohnjoe

notobtuse wrote: »

Trump in no way indicated there was a trade of military aid in exchange for them to investigate a political rival.

I thought you indicated that that was okay?

The Deep State

Oh jesus christ. History is not going to be kind on this particular era.

Overheal

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I thought you indicated that that was okay?



Oh jesus christ. History is not going to be kind on this particular era.

The Deep State is the McCarthyist Red Scare of the 2010s

notobtuse

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I thought you indicated that that was okay?.

Why do you keep making things up? We were discussing the phone call. Stick to the phone call.

So show me where in the the phone call Trump indicated there was a trade of military aid in exchange for them to investigate a political rival, since that is your position.

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

Why do you keep making things up? We were discussing the phone call. Stick to the phone call.

So show me where in the the phone call Trump indicated there was a trade of military aid in exchange for them to investigate a political rival, since that is your position.

“IGNORE THE OTHER EVIDENCE IT EVISCERATES THE POINT IM MAKING”

Dohnjoe

notobtuse wrote: »

Why do you keep making things up? We were discussing the phone call. Stick to the phone call.

So show me where in the the phone call Trump indicated there was a trade of military aid in exchange for them to investigate a political rival, since that is your position.

So you believe that the Ukrainian military aid was held up because..

notobtuse

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So you believe that the Ukrainian military aid was held up because..

Stop moving the goalposts and answer the question.

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

Stop moving the goalposts and answer the question.

As you’ve never not answered a question on this thread?

James Brown

Trump held up aid until Bolton released it. Then Bolton got fired of course.

Hopefully champion of the people Trump can get to the bottom of this, between bullying witnesses in his impeachment.

Saw this today, maybe the bould Don will take a peek for the public good?

1. Justice Kennedy retried to make way for Brett Kavanaugh.
2. Kennedy's son Justin signed off on loans for Trump at Deutsce Bank.
3. Deutsce Bank destroyed copies of Trump's tax returns.

Conflict of interest maybe. I trust the Don will have a look.

Dohnjoe

notobtuse wrote: »

Stop moving the goalposts and answer the question.

You appear to be attempting to narrow this issue down to one phone call we don't have a full unedited transcript of - so if anyone here is moving goalposts it's yourself

As we all know this is far larger than the phone call, and involves many players, the details of which are starting to emerge, so we don't know everything yet

But we do know Ukrainian aid was held up, that's a fact. Which is why I was asking why you thought it was held up..

Was it held up on purpose? for a reason?

notobtuse

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You appear to be attempting to narrow this issue down to one phone call we don't have a full unedited transcript of - so if anyone here is moving goalposts it's yourself

As we all know this is far larger than the phone call, and involves many players, the details of which are starting to emerge, so we don't know everything yet

But we do know Ukrainian aid was held up, that's a fact. Which is why I was asking why you thought it was held up..

Was it held up on purpose? for a reason?

This is what you stated...

Dohnjoe wrote: »

In my opinion it's shocking for a carefully edited summary of the call no matter which way you spin it. I would like to see the full unedited thing.

To ask again, do you think it's fully legal and acceptable if a sitting president asks another country to investigate a direct political rival in exchange for military aid?

So because you haven't seen the entire transcript you are convinced 100% that Trump made it clear to Zelensky that he was withholding military aid unless he dug up dirt on Biden.

Seems Zelensky didn't even know military aid was being withheld, even after the conservation. I guess that throws your contention out the window.

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

This is what you stated...



So because you haven't seen the entire transcript you are convinced 100% that Trump made it clear to Zelensky that he was withholding military aid unless he dug up dirt on Biden.

Seems Zelensky didn't even know military aid was being withheld, even after the conservation. I guess that throws your contention out the window.

He said it was his opinion, not that he was 100% convinced. You appear to be trying to shove words in the mouths of others.

Dohnjoe

notobtuse wrote: »

you are convinced 100%

Nope, are you?

notobtuse

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Nope, are you?

I see you continue to avoid backing up your contention with facts. I figured as much. It's okay, though, I understand it's impossible for you to back up what you claim.

Here is what I believe… In the past, aid from the US to Ukraine has gone missing. Corruption amongst Ukrainian officials was rampant. Trump was troubled about corruption in Ukraine and leery of spending more money to help Ukraine when compared to America’s European allies, and thought answers to Ukraine’s interference in the 2016 election needed to be forthcoming. He therefore temporarily held up some aid until he got a better feel that the US wasn’t wasting more money. He's committed to America First. The US has done this type of thing all the time with aid when serious questions arise.

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

I see you continue to avoid backing up your contention with facts. I figured as much. It's okay, though, I understand it's impossible for you to back up what you claim.

Here is what I believe… In the past, aid from the US to Ukraine has gone missing. Corruption amongst Ukrainian officials was rampant. Trump was troubled about corruption in Ukraine and leery of spending more money to help Ukraine when compared to America’s European allies, and thought answers to Ukraine’s interference in the 2016 election needed to be forthcoming. He therefore temporarily held up some aid until he got a better feel that the US wasn’t wasting more money. He's committed to America First. The US has done this type of thing all the time with aid when serious questions arise.

How does your position mesh with the fact that by the GOP's own reckoning, lethal aid and aid in general has substantially increased to Ukraine?

Dohnjoe

notobtuse wrote: »

Here is what I believe… In the past, aid from the US to Ukraine has gone missing. Corruption amongst Ukrainian officials was rampant. Trump was troubled about corruption in Ukraine and leery of spending more money to help Ukraine when compared to America’s European allies, and thought answers to Ukraine’s interference in the 2016 election needed to be forthcoming. He therefore temporarily held up some aid until he got a better feel that the US wasn’t wasting more money. He's committed to America First. The US has done this type of thing all the time with aid when serious questions arise.

Perhaps. If however more witnesses/facts emerge that paint a different picture, are you willing to accept that? Or will you shoot it down regardless

How would you feel, (and this is hypothetical) in the light of overwhelming witnesses from his own administration, that Trump admitted he held up US aid to Ukraine in order to make sure they investigated Biden, would you think he should be impeached based on that?

notobtuse

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Perhaps. If however more witnesses/facts emerge that paint a different picture, are you willing to accept that? Or will you shoot it down regardless

How would you feel, (and this is hypothetical) in the light of overwhelming witnesses from his own administration, that Trump admitted he held up US aid to Ukraine in order to make sure they investigated Biden, would you think he should be impeached based on that?

I am not willing to accept hearsay, opinions, second, third, fourth, or fifth hand information as facts. Neither would any court of law in the US.

And as to your second point I don't believe he did that. And your question is too vague. If it was ONLY to dig up political dirt as Hillary Clinton did, possibly with the aid of Obama and Biden, then perhaps. If it was to look into the corruption of a US elected official who bragged about a quid pro quo in which he got the investigator fired who was looking into corruption of his son's company, than no... because he has a duty to get to the bottom of things and use what avenues he had available.

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

I am not willing to accept hearsay, opinions, second, third, fourth, or fifth hand information as facts. Neither would any court of law in the US.

It is in fact admissible in court.

Dohnjoe

notobtuse wrote: »

I am not willing to accept hearsay, opinions, second, third, fourth, or fifth hand information as facts. Neither would any court of law in the US.

What would convince you?

And as to your second point I don't believe he did that. And your question is too vague. If it was ONLY to dig up political dirt as Hillary Clinton did, possibly with the aid of Obama and Biden, then perhaps. If it was to look into the corruption of a US elected official who bragged about a quid pro quo in which he got the investigator fired who was looking into corruption of his son's company, than no... because he has a duty to get to the bottom of things and use what avenues he had available.

If the president directly admitted he withheld military aid in return for an investigation into Biden - is that an impeachable offence to you?

notobtuse

Dohnjoe wrote: »

What would convince you?

If the president directly admitted he withheld military aid in return for an investigation into Biden - is that an impeachable offence to you?

I'll answer the question in the way it should have been asked, not the misleading method you used.

If Trump, in the phone call, told a Zelensky that we was withholding military aid for no reason whatsoever other than he merely wanted dirt on Biden either discovered or made up (as is the case with Hillary Clinton and the DNC)... then yes, I'd say that is an impeachable offense.

Dohnjoe

notobtuse wrote: »

If Trump, in the phone call, told a Zelensky that we was withholding military aid for no reason whatsoever other than he merely wanted dirt on Biden either discovered or made up (as is the case with Hillary Clinton and the DNC)... then yes, I'd say that is an impeachable offense.

Thanks for the answer

So he literally has to be stupid enough to directly say in a recorded phone call, listened in by a dozen officials, that he is withholding military aid in exchange for dirt on a political opponent

Okay.

If Clinton were in the same position, holding up military aid to Ukraine, discussing corruption on the phone, but evidence was emerging of all sorts of back-channel pressure on Ukraine to dig dirt on Republicans - you would completely vindicate her because she didn't directly say it on the phone?