Odds of conviction?

[fskimospy]

Sure.

So you must be happy with the Impeachment outcome. Republicans are standing fast with Trump and the Trumpist.

According to you this is losing strategy for them.

I guess we find out in 2 years...

Well I’m not happy about it because it’s deeply destructive to our democracy. I don’t think it’s a winning electoral strategy for them though.

And to be clear, Republicans might still take back the house and senate in two years because the electoral map is so slanted that Democrats need to win by 5+ points just to break even. In 2010 Republicans won an outright majority of votes for example - that will not happen in 2022 if they stick to trumpism.

 

[Commodus]

Can't help but think the Republicans are in a lousier situation than they let on, and just picked the "least worst" option for their future. They know Trumpism will rally Democrat support and might cost them votes regardless; they just think it's better than fragmenting their own base and admitting they screwed up. Unfortunately, that means that a horrific act will go unpunished.

 

[Viper1j]

Well I’m not happy about it because it’s deeply destructive to our democracy. I don’t think it’s a winning electoral strategy for them though.

And to be clear, Republicans might still take back the house and senate in two years because the electoral map is so slanted that Democrats need to win by 5+ points just to break even. In 2010 Republicans won an outright majority of votes for example - that will not happen in 2022 if they stick to trumpism.

On the bright side, I have a cousin that works with the Capitol Police. He watched the entire hearing, he just texted me that anyone that voted to acquit Trump, should forget about asking him for anything. Not even directions to the men's room. And he's not the only one.

 

[esquared]

I wonder what the count would be if the ballot was secret. I fully believe that fear of republicans by republicans effected some that lack courage to defend anything but their own greed and self-interests.

Some of the pundits said 80/20 in favor of conviction.

 

[shortylickens]

Wonder if civil "wrongful death" lawsuits against Trump by the families of the dead Capitol Police officers is a possibility.

Thats a nice idea but sets a bad precedent.
Allegedly most public officials are immune to civil suits based on things they did in their official capacity. If we start allowing lawsuits it could open the floodgates and even the incredibly rare politician who actually attempts to do the right thing may be in serious trouble.

I dont like that.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Well I’m not happy about it because it’s deeply destructive to our democracy. I don’t think it’s a winning electoral strategy for them though.

And to be clear, Republicans might still take back the house and senate in two years because the electoral map is so slanted that Democrats need to win by 5+ points just to break even. In 2010 Republicans won an outright majority of votes for example - that will not happen in 2022 if they stick to trumpism.

Yeah ... I have no fear of Trump as an influencer – he’s far too lazy to put in the effort. He wants to be a pundit and a kingmaker, having every Republican in the country come to Mar-a-Lago to kiss his ass. Fine by me. Everything Trump touches dies. By 2024 the odds of him being a viable influencer of potential presidential candidates are vanishingly small.

 

[nickqt]

He got more votes, and yet lost by more.

If you want to explain why losing by more is better because the total score is higher I’m open to hearing it but I doubt it will be very convincing.


I mean it’s about as perfect an analogy as you’re going to get. His ‘score’ was higher but his margin of defeat was larger. The reason why sports analysts use point differential is that the difference between the scores is what matters, not the sum of the two scores together.


Nah, there’s little evidence for that. Turnout was sky high in 2018 with no COVID. In both 2018 and 2020 Trump drove turnout for both parties. This is, once again, what doomed Republicans. He had a ~40% approval rating on Election Day. If the top issue is the guy that most people dislike, you lose.

For example in 2018 Republicans said immigration was their #1 issue and their turnout was very high. Was that the reason they actually turned out though? Of course not, they turned out because of Trump, as seems to be the basis for your argument. The same thing holds true for Democrats.

2020 was much closer than 2016.

~43,000 votes in AZ, GA and WI go the other way, and it's 269-269, and the House elects Trump.

It doesn't matter if 200,000,000 Californians vote for the Democrat.

 

[woolfe9998]

2020 was much closer than 2016.

~43,000 votes in AZ, GA and WI go the other way, and it's 269-269, and the House elects Trump.

It doesn't matter if 200,000,000 Californians vote for the Democrat.

I don't think you looked back on 2016 before posting this.

In 2016, Trump won Michigan by 11,000 votes.
In 2020, Biden won Michigan by 155,000 votes.

In 2016, Trump won PA by 44,000 votes
In 2020, Biden won PA by 71,000 votes

In 2016, Trump won WI by 22,000 votes
In 2020, Biden won WI by 20,000 votes

GA and AZ were not needed by Biden to win. Their electoral votes were surplus. But he did in fact win them. EC count is the same, margins in key swing states are similar but wider for Biden on the whole.

 

[nickqt]

I don't think you looked back on 2016 before posting this.

In 2016, Trump won Michigan by 11,000 votes.
In 2020, Biden won Michigan by 155,000 votes.

In 2016, Trump won PA by 44,000 votes
In 2020, Biden won PA by 71,000 votes

In 2016, Trump won WI by 22,000 votes
In 2020, Biden won WI by 20,000 votes

GA and AZ were not needed by Biden to win. Their electoral votes were surplus. But he did in fact win them. EC count is the same, margins in key swing states are similar but wider for Biden on the whole.

The vote totals are the vote totals.

If 43,000 votes over 3 states were flipped, Trump would have been re-elected in the House.

That's 0.003% of the total votes cast.

This was no "blowout". If Trump had actually closed the border and gotten behind masks, the death toll would have been far less and the economy wouldn't have taken as massive of a shit...and he would almost certainly have won the Electoral College, along with the Senate.

I'm aware that Biden won the Electoral College, but it was by ~43,000 votes out of ~158,000,000...whereas Trump won the Electoral College by ~78,000 votes out of ~136,00,000, as liberals liked to remind ourselves in November of 2016.

In terms of the number of votes that turned the Electoral College, 2020 closer than 2016.

 

[fskimospy]

The vote totals are the vote totals.

If 43,000 votes over 3 states were flipped, Trump would have been re-elected in the House.

That's 0.003% of the total votes cast.

This was no "blowout". If Trump had actually closed the border and gotten behind masks, the death toll would have been far less and the economy wouldn't have taken as massive of a shit...and he would almost certainly have won the Electoral College, along with the Senate.

I'm aware that Biden won the Electoral College, but it was by ~43,000 votes out of ~158,000,000...whereas Trump won the Electoral College by ~78,000 votes out of ~136,00,000, as liberals liked to remind ourselves in November of 2016.

In terms of the number of votes that turned the Electoral College, 2020 closer than 2016.

So if that’s your standard he went from winning slightly to losing slightly.

How is that doing better.

 

[nickqt]

So if that’s your standard he went from winning slightly to losing slightly.

How is that doing better.

Well I didn't say anything about better.

I said the 2020 election was closer. By any metric, popular vote or Electoral College vote, Biden won.

But, the outcome of the election in 2016 was about ~78,000 votes for Trump winning the EC. Out of ~136,000,000.

In 2020, the outcome of the election was about ~43,000 votes for Biden winning the EC. Out of ~158,000,000. It would have resulted with a 269-269 tie that would give Trump the win in the House. Or, ~65,000 votes if you want to throw in the NE 2nd Congressional District.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Well I didn't say anything about better.

I said the 2020 election was closer. By any metric, popular vote or Electoral College vote, Biden won.

But, the outcome of the election in 2016 was about ~78,000 votes for Trump winning the EC. Out of ~136,000,000.

In 2020, the outcome of the election was about ~43,000 votes for Biden winning the EC. Out of ~158,000,000. It would have resulted with a 269-269 tie that would give Trump the win in the House. Or, ~65,000 votes if you want to throw in the NE 2nd Congressional District.

Why do you keep comparing the votes from only the 3 swing states instead of all the swing states? That is the only legitimate way to make any comparison. But You excluded Michigan which was also flipped, which Trump won in 2016 by 11k votes, and lost by 155k votes in 2020. Michigan alone blows your 43k vote argument out of the water. Which is why you excluded it, as if it didn't play a part in the outcome. Also, why are you comparing those 3 swing states numbers against the full nation's numbers, when you should only be comparing them to the total votes from those state as those are the only votes that where involved, not the full 158 Million. Your argument is BS because it's based off incomplete data as you are selectively removing the other states that also effected the outcome in both years.

 

[MtnMan]

Thats a nice idea but sets a bad precedent.
Allegedly most public officials are immune to civil suits based on things they did in their official capacity. If we start allowing lawsuits it could open the floodgates and even the incredibly rare politician who actually attempts to do the right thing may be in serious trouble.

I dont like that.

I disagree as this was not incompetence, or didn't understand how fucking serious this disease was. Early on he made off the record statements (but recorded) indicating he fully understood this would kill thousands, and then he called it a hoax and harassed mask wearing.

He knew Capitol police were in grave danger, along with members of congress he dislikes, and he made a fucking deliberate decision to not do a fucking thing to stop it.

He is culpable in the death of Capitol Police officers, and hundreds of thousands of Americans due to his deliberate decisions to not do a fucking thing when he understood the threat.

And why the fuck do you want to give "public officials" a pass on deliberately ignoring threats? There has to be accountability beyond losing the next popularity poll.

 

[nickqt]

Why do you keep comparing the votes from only the 3 swing states instead of all the swing states? That is the only legitimate way to make any comparison. But You excluded Michigan which was also flipped, which Trump won in 2016 by 11k votes, and lost by 155k votes in 2020. Michigan alone blows your 43k vote argument out of the water. Which is why you excluded it, as if it didn't play a part in the outcome. Also, why are you comparing those 3 swing states numbers against the full nation's numbers, when you should only be comparing them to the total votes from those state as those are the only votes that where involved, not the full 158 Million. Your argument is BS because it's based off incomplete data as you are selectively removing the other states that also effected the outcome in both years.

It seems like y'all are having real trouble with the numbers.

If ~43,000 people in 3 states had voted for Trump, or stayed home, Trump would have received 269 EC votes, and he would have won re-election in the House.

That is a fact.

Just the same way that it was ~78,000 votes in 3 states in 2016 that got Trump the EC votes he needed to win.

It doesn't matter if 500,000,000 people voted for the Democrat in MI, if Trump pulls 43,000 votes out of AZ GA and WI.

So, no, my argument is not BS. It's numbers. Full stop.

 

[NWRMidnight]

It seems like y'all are having real trouble with the numbers.

If ~43,000 people in 3 states had voted for Trump, or stayed home, Trump would have received 269 EC votes, and he would have won re-election in the House.

That is a fact.

Just the same way that it was ~78,000 votes in 3 states in 2016 that got Trump the EC votes he needed to win.

It doesn't matter if 500,000,000 people voted for the Democrat in MI, if Trump pulls 43,000 votes out of AZ GA and WI.

So, no, my argument is not BS. It's numbers. Full stop.

What other swing state that flipped also has 16 EC votes? The one you keep ignoring, MI. If you remove GA and replace it with MI which would be just as faulty of an argument, your 43k just now became 180K votes for Trump to get 269 votes. And that is if NO other votes where effected in any other way. The only way you can argue the 269 EC votes is if you include the 2 states that flipped that actually would determine that outcome, but that is not what you are doing. You are trying to argue a position that is based off of only half of an equation, which makes your argument BS and not fact.

 

[nickqt]

What other swing state that flipped also has 16 EC votes? The one you keep ignoring, MI. If you remove GA and replace it with MI which would be just as faulty of an argument, your 43k just now became 180K votes for Trump to get 269 votes. And that is if NO other votes where effected in any other way. The only way you can argue the 269 EC votes is if you include the 2 states that flipped that actually would determine that outcome, but that is not what you are doing. You are trying to argue a position that is based off of only half of an equation, which makes your argument BS and not fact.

Let's be clear.

If ~43,000 votes in AZ GA and WI had flipped, Trump would have won the election in the House after a 269-269 EC vote. Even if Biden won 300,000,000 votes in Michigan.

I'm not sure where the disconnect is for you, but it's on your side.

 

[Heartbreaker]

What other swing state that flipped also has 16 EC votes? The one you keep ignoring, MI. If you remove GA and replace it with MI which would be just as faulty of an argument, your 43k just now became 180K votes for Trump to get 269 votes. And that is if NO other votes where effected in any other way. The only way you can argue the 269 EC votes is if you include the 2 states that flipped that actually would determine that outcome, but that is not what you are doing. You are trying to argue a position that is based off of only half of an equation, which makes your argument BS and not fact.

I think there is overblown arguments being made about the exact numbers.

The reality is that it was close both times.

No one should look at Bidens win and come away with the message that Trump was crushed and GOP is doomed and destined to fail with Trump still in play, which seems to be how fskimospy is treating it. That's wishful thinking IMO.

This was not a blow out win. Swing states tilted to Biden, they could easily tilt back in 2024. The Senate is only tied. If the Democrats lose just 1 seat in the Senate in 2022, they lose it. Republicans only need to take 6 seats to take the House. Given historical precedent Democrats will likely lose one if not both in 2022.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Let's be clear.

If ~43,000 votes in AZ GA and WI had flipped, Trump would have won the election in the House after a 269-269 EC vote. Even if Biden won 300,000,000 votes in Michigan.

I'm not sure where the disconnect is for you, but it's on your side.

Lets be clear, you can't IGNORE the other state that also flipped to give you that outcome. Even in what if's you have to include all the data. I'm not disconnected, I'm just not manipulating the facts to argue a hypothetical position. You either include both GA and MI, or you exclude both GA and MI. That is your only option to have a valid argument.

 

[Heartbreaker]

Lets be clear, you can't IGNORE the other state that also flipped to give you that outcome. Even in what if's you have to include all the data.

If you are looking for the shortest path to reverse the victory you look for the states with the smallest margins that get you there.

 

[NWRMidnight]

If you are looking for the shortest path to reverse the victory you look for the states with the smallest margins that get you there.

That isn't what he was arguing. He was arguing that 2020 was much closer than 2016 based off of just 3 states. Which is not accurate because he needs to include MI to have that argument. Actually he needs to include all 5 states that flipped. It wasn't about reversing the victory to get 269. That is just where the argument ended up because his original argument is BS. It's simple math, you can only remove identical data from both sides if the equation that you are comparing, but that is not what he did. He removed data from both sides of the equation that are not identical in his comparison which invalidates his argument completely.

He went from a faulty comparison to a hypothetical what if argument.

 

[Heartbreaker]

That isn't what he was arguing. He was arguing that 2020 was much closer than 2016 based off of just 3 states. Which is not accurate because he needs to include MI to have that argument. Actually he needs to include all 5 states that flipped. It wasn't about reversing the victory to get 269. That is just where the argument ended up because his original argument is BS. It's simple math, you can only remove identical data from both sides if the equation that you are comparing, but that is not what he did. He removed data from both sides of the equation that are not identical in his comparison which invalidates his argument completely.

He went from a faulty comparison to a hypothetical what if argument.

What do the other states have to do with the margin of victory?

The Electoral college margin of victory is essentially is the minimum amount of votes you would need to Flip to revers the Win.

When looking at Gore vs Bush. We only look at Florida flipping one way or the other on hundreds of votes, to call that a ~500 vote margin of victory...

Same applies here, is what it would take to reverse the win.

Again pointless argument, other than it was very close both times.

 

[nickqt]

That isn't what he was arguing. He was arguing that 2020 was much closer than 2016 based off of just 3 states. Which is not accurate because he needs to include MI to have that argument. Actually he needs to include all 5 states that flipped. It wasn't about reversing the victory to get 269. That is just where the argument ended up because his original argument is BS. It's simple math, you can only remove identical data from both sides if the equation that you are comparing, but that is not what he did. He removed data from both sides of the equation that are not identical in his comparison which invalidates his argument completely.

He went from a faulty comparison to a hypothetical what if argument.

Lets be clear, you can't IGNORE the other state that also flipped to give you that outcome. Even in what if's you have to include all the data. I'm not disconnected, I'm just not manipulating the facts to argue a hypothetical position. You either include both GA and MI, or you exclude both GA and MI. That is your only option to have a valid argument.

Wow.

The numbers really aren't this difficult.

I don't care that Biden flipped Michigan. And I don't care that he won 400,000,000,000 votes out of California either.

Both are irrelevant when we're discussing by how much Biden won the EC, the only thing that matters.

For the Electoral College, Biden won because he won ~43,000 votes in AZ, GA and WI. Had he lost those three states, the Electoral College would have been tied, regardless of Biden winning 20,000,000 votes in MI or whatever you keep alluding to. At 269-269, the House re-elects Trump. Regardless of Biden winning MI, or Biden getting 400,000,000,000 votes out of California.

I'm not manipulating anything. The 2020 election was won on the back of 43,000 votes in 3 states. The election was extremely close...because just 43,000 votes changing columns and Trump wins.

If it makes you feel better that Biden flipped MI and PA along with AZ GA and WI, then so be it. But it doesn't change the FACT that had 43,000 votes been different in AZ GA and WI, Trump wins re-election via the House. Which is why I think it is absolutely incorrect to believe that 2020 was some kind of blowout or rebuke to the Republican Party.

The Republican Party PICKED UP HOUSE SEATS. Donald Trump PICKED UP 11 million votes after the past 4 years of hilarious own-goaling the entire country.

2020 wasn't a blowout. It was a close call. 43,000 votes for the White House.

55,000 votes for Ossoff, and 95,000 votes for Warnock, means 150,000 votes for the barest majority possible Senate. Out of how many hundreds of millions of votes for Senate seats?

Y'all keep whistling past the graveyard about this 2020 blowout/rebuke if you want.

It was a fucking nail-biter.

And we have to succeed EVERY TIME to prevent the full slide into Republican Party Authoritarianism. All they have to do is win once.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Wow.

The numbers really aren't this difficult.

I don't care that Biden flipped Michigan. And I don't care that he won 400,000,000,000 votes out of California either.

Both are irrelevant when we're discussing by how much Biden won the EC, the only thing that matters.

For the Electoral College, Biden won because he won ~43,000 votes in AZ, GA and WI. Had he lost those three states, the Electoral College would have been tied, regardless of Biden winning 20,000,000 votes in MI or whatever you keep alluding to. At 269-269, the House re-elects Trump. Regardless of Biden winning MI, or Biden getting 400,000,000,000 votes out of California.

I'm not manipulating anything. The 2020 election was won on the back of 43,000 votes in 3 states. The election was extremely close...because just 43,000 votes changing columns and Trump wins.

If it makes you feel better that Biden flipped MI and PA along with AZ GA and WI, then so be it. But it doesn't change the FACT that had 43,000 votes been different in AZ GA and WI, Trump wins re-election via the House. Which is why I think it is absolutely incorrect to believe that 2020 was some kind of blowout or rebuke to the Republican Party.

The Republican Party PICKED UP HOUSE SEATS. Donald Trump PICKED UP 11 million votes after the past 4 years of hilarious own-goaling the entire country.

2020 wasn't a blowout. It was a close call. 43,000 votes for the White House.

55,000 votes for Ossoff, and 95,000 votes for Warnock, means 150,000 votes for the barest majority possible Senate. Out of how many hundreds of millions of votes for Senate seats?

Y'all keep whistling past the graveyard about this 2020 blowout/rebuke if you want.

It was a fucking nail-biter.

And we have to succeed EVERY TIME to prevent the full slide into Republican Party Authoritarianism. All they have to do is win once.

The number aren't difficult. But for you, it seems comparing them properly is.
What if's don't belong in a comparison. and that is what you are doing. You are using what if scenarios to argue 2020 was closer than 2016. You have to compare ALL of the data with no what if's, not just a fraction of the data laced with what if's. That's why you have to compare all 5 states that flipped, not just 3 of them. The only way you can compare only those 3 states is if the other states didn't flip and those 3 states where the only states that determined the outcome, which is not the case. Now, if you we where talking about different scenarios, you would have one of many possible scenarios. But we are not talking about scenarios, we are talking about your argument of 2020 vs 2016, and 2020 being closer. That requires facts vs facts (all facts) , not facts vs scenarios, or facts vs partial facts.

 

[nickqt]

The number aren't difficult. But it seems comparing them properly is for you.
What if's don't belong in a comparison. and that is what you are doing. You are using what if scenarios to argue 2020 was closer than 2016. You have to compare ALL of the data with no what if's, not just a fraction of the data laced with what if's.

I'm comparing how close Biden's win was in 2020, to how close Trump's win was in 2016. This inherently involves a "what if", because what we're measuring is a rhetorical idea of what it would have taken to get a rhetorical outcome: the opposite outcome of what actually happened.

I don't care about irrelevant numbers, like how many votes Biden won in California in 2020 compared to how many votes Clinton won in California in 2016, because California is irrelevant in how close Biden's EC win in 2020 was to Trump's EC win in 2016.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this. Of course this is a "what if", because I already know who actually won the EC. That isn't up to debate. But how close the election was is a debate. And I have a side that, while you may disagree with, isn't a manipulation of any data. It's using data to make a case that 2020 was very close, if not closer, than 2016.

In order to compare how close the 2016 and 2020 wins were, I only care about the smallest amount of votes in the least amount of states, that would have resulted in a change in the outcome.

So, in 2016, it was ~78,000 votes in 3 states that gave Trump the EC win. That is to say, if 78,000 votes out of 136,000,000 votes changed, Clinton would have won. We're using a "what if" to determine how close the election was to having a different outcome.

In 2020, it was ~43,000 votes in 3 states that gave Biden the EC win. That is to say, if 43,000 votes out of ~158,000,000 votes changed, Trump would have won. We're using a "what if" to determine how close the election was to having a different outcome.

If you don't want to partake in that aspect of the "closeness", than so be it, but don't accuse me of data manipulation. I'm using simple math and simple division here.

 

[NWRMidnight]

I'm comparing how close Biden's win was in 2020, to how close Trump's win was in 2016. This inherently involves a "what if", because what we're measuring is a rhetorical idea of what it would have taken to get a rhetorical outcome: the opposite outcome of what actually happened.

I don't care about irrelevant numbers, like how many votes Biden won in California in 2020 compared to how many votes Clinton won in California in 2016, because California is irrelevant in how close Biden's EC win in 2020 was to Trump's EC win in 2016.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this. Of course this is a "what if", because I already know who actually won the EC. That isn't up to debate. But how close the election was is a debate. And I have a side that, while you may disagree with, isn't a manipulation of any data. It's using data to make a case that 2020 was very close, if not closer, than 2016.

In order to compare how close the 2016 and 2020 wins were, I only care about the smallest amount of votes in the least amount of states, that would have resulted in a change in the outcome.

So, in 2016, it was ~78,000 votes in 3 states that gave Trump the EC win. That is to say, if 78,000 votes out of 136,000,000 votes changed, Clinton would have won. We're using a "what if" to determine how close the election was to having a different outcome.

In 2020, it was ~43,000 votes in 3 states that gave Biden the EC win. That is to say, if 43,000 votes out of ~158,000,000 votes changed, Trump would have won. We're using a "what if" to determine how close the election was to having a different outcome.

If you don't want to partake in that aspect of the "closeness", than so be it, but don't accuse me of data manipulation. I'm using simple math and simple division here.

ok