Change in Tactics: The New Goal

a reply to: RickinVa

They do, but if Trump wins by as much as he's projected to, it will be hard for them to flip the Senate. It will be much easier if the election is a near thing. A House struggle would be easier to do what they want, but Senate seats are state wide, and Trump votes will tend to carry down ticket.

They will have better luck trying to make these local races, not national ones. They had some success flipping House districts that way. After all, people who thought that Senate was unfair would be unlikely to vote for Trump because they would think he should be removed as president.

a reply to: RickinVa

God won't help us all? remember Noah and his boat? It was the last orginal thought.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

So, you do seem to repeat stuff that's on right-wing blogs and opinion sites. I just made the assumption that it is probable that you got it from somewhere. Are you suggesting that you base your ideas on no information at all?

I understand you get all of your talking points from certain sources, and I can sympathize that it must be terribly difficult to imagine anyone else having an original thought. However, I assure you that original thought is possible!

We are talking of things and concepts that are well established, and have been for centuries, but you don't seem to have invented any new letters, paradigms or words yet.

Are you sure ¿

I use information from the statements made by the politicians themselves. That's all the information I need.

And you must admit most posters on ATS favor Trump, are opinionated and post their opinions here. Wouldn't ATS, then, be a site, and other posters here be pundits?

I will admit many posters on ATS favor Trump... not most. We do not have a political litmus test for membership. Want proof? We even have you as a member.

TheRedneck

How thoroughly egalitarian of the forum.

originally posted by: Deplorable
Ya know what the problem is with your logic?

You are one smart fella. But ... you give other people too much credit.

Yeah ... you can post a decent opinion of the facts here at ATS, but ... 99% of the American citizens aren't smart enough to think things through the way you can. And, how many people read these boards? 1,500?

What I do know is 28% of the people voted for Hillary, thanks CA, and 27% voted for Trump. That leaves 44% voted for neither, so what do you think those 44% are going to do when the DOW hits 30,000 and life is actually good?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Deplorable
Ya know what the problem is with your logic?

You are one smart fella. But ... you give other people too much credit.

Yeah ... you can post a decent opinion of the facts here at ATS, but ... 99% of the American citizens aren't smart enough to think things through the way you can. And, how many people read these boards? 1,500?

What I do know is 28% of the people voted for Hillary, thanks CA, and 27% voted for Trump. That leaves 44% voted for neither, so what do you think those 44% are going to do when the DOW hits 30,000 and life is actually good?

They will enjoy things, but they probably still won't vote.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I've been watching the continuing drama surrounding the impeachment circus, and a few days ago it stopped making
It never was about removing Trump. That was the cover. It was about using Senate support for Trump to re-take the Senate! If they can pull that off, and keep the House in 2020, the Presidency doesn't matter... the Democrats can impeach and remove Trump then!

To be honest, it wasn't ever about removing Clinton either. To get him on lying about cum on a blue dress...really? Everyone knew old Bill was screwing everything in sight. Since he was Governor he was screwing everything in sight. If they really wanted to get him they would have gone after forcible rape, which he did on one of his devoted democrats.

The problem here is the left doesn't even have a blue dress AND more importantly they will end up with two white guys. One is a feakin socialist that is older than dirt and the other has clearly lost most of his ability to think in any coherent way longer than 10 seconds. Not good....

Trump looks pretty damn good for the 44% that voted for neither Trump or Hillary in 2016. As to the senate it will remain Republican and the house is in jeopardy to actually go back to Republican as the 13+ swing states ponder on what they see as wrong with the impeachment.

a reply to: TheRedneck

but didnt the failed impeachment of bill help the dems take the senate and the house after it was deemed crazy partisan and whatnot? so what will be different this time , i dont think we will retake the house but we will at least hold the senate if not gain a few from what i been reading for months so why would this not help us with general voters ?

originally posted by: chr0naut
They will enjoy things, but they probably still won't vote.

I would agree with you if it wasn't one of the top three the left is putting forth. Like taking meds that taste bad they could look at Trump like we did with Hillary. With Hillary it was "anyone but Hillary" for 2020 it could be anyone but the three liberal stooges.

Sometimes you need to drink the meds even though they taste bad...

a reply to: RickinVa

www.270towin.com... here is the senate map for 2020
this one rates the seats as either safe seat,leans right or left or tossup


en.wikipedia.org... and wiki for it

Including the special elections in Arizona and Georgia, Republicans will be defending 23 seats in 2020, while the Democratic Party will be defending 12 seats. Democrats will need to pick up three or four seats to gain a majority in the Senate, depending on which party wins control of the vice presidency.[a] Several races are expected to be competitive, including the Democratic-held seats in Alabama and Michigan as well as Republican-held seats in Colorado, Arizona, North Carolina, and Maine.[1]

www.vox.com... vox of all places thinks trump gets re-elected and republicans hold the senate

The GOP holds the Senate (80 percent) There’s a chance, if literally everything breaks in the Democrats’ favor, that they retake the Senate. But it requires a lot going right for them, and even one botched race means Republicans keep control. This should have been a promising year for Dems, at least on paper. Twenty-three Republican seats are up for reelection, compared with only 12 Democratic seats; these were, except for a couple of special elections, seats that were last open in 2014, when Republicans gained a whopping nine seats. You would think Democrats could regain some of the nine that they lost, but you’d mostly be wrong. Democrats lost seats in Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, and West Virginia, races they’re basically not contesting this time around. Iowa and Montana look only slightly better. Instead, Democrats’ hopes rest on the two 2014 losses they think they can reverse — in North Carolina and Colorado — as well as on a special election in Arizona, an unlikely Alabama seat they won in 2017, and Susan Collins’s once-safe seat in Maine, which Dems hope her vote for Kavanaugh will make competitive.Though sweeps of this magnitude do happen (2006 and 2008 both saw huge Democratic sweeps), they’re rare, especially as the parties have polarized geographically and because Democrats are underdogs, in Alabama and North Carolina in particular. There’s a chance the Dems pull it out, but I think it’s quite unlikely. — DM

while its true more R seats are up then dems but they are mostly in DEEP red districts but we do have 3 retirements vs 1 for the dems but even with the shenigans redneck has talked about i just dont see it , but i did hear that Mitt Romney may have had investments in ukraine so that would at least lead some creedence to his theory

edit to add plus there is the huge difference in funding between RNC and dnc of which in almost all cases team r is out raising them with no debt

www.opensecrets.org... numbers for presidential candidates

news.ballotpedia.org... s-narrows/

The Republican National Committee (RNC) outraised its Democratic counterpart by more than two-to-one for a seventh consecutive month, while the Democratic House committee outraised its Republican counterpart, according to December 2019 campaign finance reports filed with the FEC. The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) raised $6.2 million and spent $3.2 million last month, while the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) raised $5.8 million and spent $5.8 million. So far in the 2020 cycle, the NRSC has raised 8.7% more than the DSCC ($60.7 million to $55.6 million). The NRSC’s 8.7% fundraising advantage is down from 8.8% in November but up from 7.1% in October.

so in the senate on those numbers it looks really good for RNC but the house is the opposite and dnc is out raising RNC there but republicans have zero debt and the dems have mostly spent their money and this final snippit

So far in the 2020 cycle, the RNC, NRSC, and NRCC have raised 34.6% more than the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC ($352.4 million to $248.5 million). The Republican fundraising advantage is up from 34.2% in November and 32.7% in October.

both are from the balotpedia article and it was from the last day of 2019

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Then today it all clicked into place. I heard at least three prominent Democrat leaders make the statement that if the Senate did not conduct a 'fair trial with witnesses,' they were obstructing justice. Of course! That was the plan all along! Start an argument over witnesses, then claim that the argument is indication of bias! After all, Trump will not be removed; it requires 67 Senators to vote for renewal, and the Democrats have 47 Senators. They're not going to convince 20 Republicans to switch their votes, especially given the caliber of "evidence" that has been presented.

Why not just have the witnesses. Let them testify. If Trump is innocent this will come out in testimony. So why not have the witnesses. If they don't say anything meaningful then it will really make the Democrats look bad. I don't understand why Trump is so afraid. Just let the witnesses testify under oath. All will be good and right in the World.

originally posted by: JON666
a reply to: TheRedneck
Declare the dems traitors and let the tree of freedom be watered by the blood of Patriots taking out the traitors!

Killing members of the opposition party is dictatorship.

www.washingtonexaminer.com... and this glorious news if true the headline

'People will sit at home': Sanders supporters threaten to stay home if Democrats nominate a bland centrist

so the angry sanders voter card is apparently in play
from above source

They're particularly steamed Sanders, a socialist who has been in Congress since 1991, isn't getting his due though he's proven to have staying power in public opinion and fundraising, even after suffering a heart attack last October. As of last week, he leads a tight four-horse race in Iowa ahead of the first-in-the-nation caucuses on Feb. 3, raising a record figure of $34.5 million in the final financial quarter of 2019 for a total of $96 million. Nominating a career center-left candidate such as Biden, the former vice president and 36-year Delaware senator, would dampen enthusiasm by the liberal populist grassroots, Sanders backers contend.

so there is this as well to consider

ballotpedia.org... last updated 23rd of december
raised disbursements $ on hand Debt

DSCC $55,600,343 $44,453,291 $17,336,936 $7,870,852

NRSC $60,659,103 $50,146,310 $18,010,729 $0

NRCC $77,098,637 $64,270,649 $29,393,186 $0

DNC $82,527,600 $83,838,951 $8,394,445 $6,451,707

DCCC $110,343,684 $68,373,303 $47,585,877 $0

dems best performing one and the sole one with no debt

RNC $214,646,882 $174,915,051 $63,233,392 $0

so these are the numbers

dems do lead in one category as noted above the d triple c which focuses on house not senate races . but look at RNC vs DNC numbers 82 mill to the republicans 214..... the senatorial branch for the dems is the DSCC numbers are kind of close if you ignore the debt

ballotpedia.org...

About party committees See also: Party committee fundraising, 2019-2020 Both Democrats and Republicans have three major party committees. The national committee's purpose involves oversight of the presidential nominating process as well as supporting party candidates with research, polling and funding in races across the country. Each party also has two Hill committees, one each for the House and Senate, which are dedicated to helping elect candidates from their party to Congress and helping incumbents win re-election. During the 2018 election cycle, these six committees were each among the top 10 spenders in congressional elections with a combined $1.3 billion in spending.[7] As of the December 2019 campaign finance reports, the same six party committees—three Democratic committees and three Republican committees—have raised a combined $600.9 million during the 2020 election cycle ($352.4 million across the three Republican committees and $248.5 million across the three Democratic committees).

just posting this link so i could quote this snippet

a reply to: TheRedneck
I think you’re right, it’s all about the senate at this point in time. They knew this before Trump took office. The legislative branch only gets you so far and they’re fully aware of that, especially now.

I posted some of the below a few days ago and think it deserves a repost in relevance to this thread

I think Trey has their number.

The impeachment inquiry, investigation, votes, and ultimate refusal to transmit articles are not about removing Trump from office. Rather, it is a tacit acknowledgment he will be re-elected in November of 2020. The plan now is to use impeachment to neuter that second term with a Democrat-controlled Senate.

This impeachment exercise is most assuredly about removing someone from office. It's just not about removing Trump from office. It's about removing Cory Gardner, Martha McSally, Thom Tillis, Susan Collins and Joni Ernst from their senate offices.

A Democratic Senate would make the assemblage of a Cabinet next to impossible, end the filling of judicial vacancies, paralyze the country should there be a U.S. Supreme Court opening and ensure that both the House and Senate spend their time investigating the executive branch.

There are currently 53 Republican Senators with 45 Democrats and 2 independents.  The 2 independents caucus and vote with the Democrats for a practical split of 53-47. Democrats need to flip four Republican seats (and more likely 5) if Republicans nominate an electable candidate in Alabama.

If you think the country made little to no legislative progress with a Democrat-controlled House and a Republican president, just wait until there is a Democrat-controlled House and Senate and a Republican president.

www.foxnews.com...

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: JON666
a reply to: TheRedneck
Declare the dems traitors and let the tree of freedom be watered by the blood of Patriots taking out the traitors!

Killing members of the opposition party is dictatorship.

To be fair, it is probably more the kind of things that a terrorist does.

And, really it would hardly be a tree of freedom if the government were rounding up and killing people around it. It would be probably the furthest thing from freedom.

That's the thing about all these really stupid slogans. They most often get repeated by people who are also unable to simply think them through, and they also seem to get so emotionally attached to the stupid.



"For God's sake, think of the children! It's time we put children before traffic!"

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Even if Biden gets trounced, he is assumed immune to prosecution and investigation until the election. Then, if things go as intended, Democrats can get control of both houses of Congress and remove Trump. That removes the threat of exposure and things can go back to normal.

I don't think it will succeed, but that does seem to be the plan.

I will also mention that, should Trump be removed by impeachment, the Vice President (Pence) immediately assumes the Presidency. He will then appoint a Vice President, but that Vice President must be approved by the Senate. Should something happen to the President before the Vice President is confirmed, the Speaker of the House assumes the office of President.

Think about Seth Rich. Now read that last paragraph again, bearing in mind that the Speaker of the House is Nancy Pelosi.

TheRedneck

Man if that went down I would bet there would be a disturbance in the force that would make the Civil war look like kids playing in a sand box...

a reply to: TheRedneck

So the question is this....

1. You know that none of these people are dummies. And that's a very good point and I agree. Pelosi (for example) is a senator and the average person you meet on the street is not. Therefore, even if she might seem like a complete moron or doesn't know what's going on or whatever, it would be prudent to assume that you could be wrong in your perceptions. But the same thing goes for the Republicans and Trump.

2. Building off of #1, how can you really know what's really going on? Throwing your support behind any of these people is basically rolling the dice even if you think you know what's up. You don't get to be a senator or the POTUS (or even a judge, for that matter) on dumb luck.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: TheRedneck

Think about Seth Rich. Now read that last paragraph again, bearing in mind that the Speaker of the House is Nancy Pelosi.

She of the bullet pens ...

Yep, bullet pens. Not so incognito message.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: TheRedneck

But surely, if they have been pushing for impeachment since day one, then the fact that they are methodically going through with it, wouldn't actually be a change in tactics?

You might see changes in tactics, but you are reading the details of what the Democrats are thinking from Republican news and blogs. These have the LEAST idea of what the Democrats are thinking and what their tactics are supposed to achieve.

And the polls just don't show what the people who post on ATS believe they do. The Democrats and the Republicans are roughly in balance and the numbers oscillate wildly. It just isn't true that Trump is ahead by a large margin. It's still anyone's game.

Latest Election Polls - RealClear Politics

at least you admit that impeachment started during inauguration. Baby steps.

a reply to: Guyfriday

Imagine getting arrested for murder because someone felt like you might have done it. No body is found, no one saw you do it, no one even knows who the murdered victim is, but because some people felt like you did a crime you get to go to jail without even being able to defend yourself?

That's what's going on here; if one side is claiming that a crime was committed, then interview the people involved. All of them not just a select few that have something to gain from agreeing with you, and interview the accused person as well. Instead we have closed door hearings, done by people who change the rules as they see fit in the middle of public hears, and even opening lie to the public while pushing the charges as fact.

It is actually more like being accused of attempted murder. The victim had come forward and denies that they were threatened nor harmed in anyway. Yet, that person is ignored. It doesn't matter since the prosecutors have a mind machine and they just know that your intention and thoughts really were to murder. If they don't lock you up now, you will successfully murder in the future. Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!