Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Is Trump really just a 17% chance to be impeached?
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Is Trump really just a 17% chance to be impeached?
Graphic – Recent YouGov polling on impeaching Trump
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Quite remarkable.
But you're right, for impeachment to work they have to show something either illegal or unconstitutional that he's done.
Otherwise, they're left with the 25th Amendment.
But as long as Mike Pence is Vice-President neither seems exactly likely. If Romney or Ryan were VP I think there is a good chance an excuse to act would have been found before now.
Tony Bloom did indeed get namechecked for his million quid football bets in Asian markets based on statistical analysis.
They highlighted the problem that people here suffer of their max bets being reduced to almost nothing because you're a winnar.
Being the beeb, he obviously didn't double his money.
It passed the time I guess.
I think I have discovered the first positive advantage of leaving the EU.
“... what he was doing was acknowledging that Labour is effectively dead as a viable electoral prospect in Scotland.
... Scottish Labour... could well end up with zero MPs in any snap general election.
Leonard, who has made zero impression in his almost two years in charge, has not helped his cause. At every test of his leadership he has been found lacking. During his tenure, Labour have arrived at combined positions on independence and Brexit seemingly designed to alienate the maximum number of voters. At times it seemed like he was engaged in some weird avant-garde art project to destroy a political party for fun.
...When Lord Ashcroft published a shock poll on Monday showing a majority of Scots back independence, Labour didn’t even bother issuing an official response. Few observers noticed the omission and even fewer cared. Labour’s opinion on the biggest Scottish political news story of the summer was, frankly, irrelevant.”
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/labours-uk-leadership-realised-winning-18859075.amp
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/08/house-judiciary-committee-sues-don-mcgahn-donald-trump-impeachment.html
The second ditto
The third isn't a crime in itself, although arguably it should be
The fourth is difficult to lay solely at Trump's door
With regard to the fifth, investigations are ongoing and actually the powers of Congress to investigate are quite limited. For example, it seems unlikely that the investigation into Trump's business interests or financial arrangements will get very far because that's investigation into an individual which Congress isn't meant to do. If however the intelligence enquiry turned up something there would more likely be impeachment on that than on Trump's failure to co-operate.
Most weeks in Popbitch we include an example of nominative determinism, which is where a person's name matches up pleasingly with the thing that they're best known for.
Things are slightly different this week, insofar as this one is not pleasing in the slightest.
Spotted in the Boots on Victoria Street on Monday, buying what looked like a box of 12 'Thin Feel' Durex?
Dominic Cummings.
The Mueller report lays out multiple occasions of corroborated obstruction of justice.
If nothing else, it would expand considerably the effectiveness of their subpoena powers, and their powers to question witnesses.
It could go either way, depending upon the discipline with which any proceedings might be conducted.
The problem is not putting forward charges in Trump's case. There's an awful lot of dodgy stuff that we know leads back to him because that's the only logical conclusion (cf Nixon and Watergate). But proving it to the standard (a) required and (b) sufficient to make Pence look a more attractive option is going to be hard.
Though tbh I've never really understood why it is necessary to queue to show passports to prove that you do not need to show your passport. Especially since they must know where the train or plane has just come from.
Then I realised I'd misunderstood the word 'constitution.'
So end of spring, early summer next year ?
And even if it worked - President Pence? Hardly a great improvement. He might not rant on Twitter every three minutes but he's just as batshit crazy as Trump.
One of the Prime Minister's closest aides proposed "cloud-bursting technology" to give Britons more sunshine and less rain, it was revealed today.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/how-number-10-blue-sky-thinker-planned-to-bring-on-the-sunshine-6427023.html
Trump does have a loyal core of support, but he won by a wafer-thin margin last time and I can't see* floating voters giving him any benefit of the doubt again.
*Should stress I'm not that up on US politics, but that's what I think.
Samsung has a long and illustrious history of trolling Apple in its smartphone commercials. But now the South Korean firm is cloning one of the iPhone features it once mocked, and it has quietly deleted records of the ads.
Samsung unveiled its Note 10 on Wednesday and, as has been widely observed, the phone falls in line with other new devices on the market in that it does not come with a 3.5 mm headphone jack.
https://www.businessinsider.com/samsung-ditches-headphone-jack-deletes-apple-trolling-ads-2019-8?r=US&IR=T
Like Hilton, I think Cummings will bugger off elsewhere when he realises his ideas ain't practicable.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/08/man-jailed-for-terrifying-threats-to-heidi-allen-over-brexit
There was no Trump surge in the rust belt, only a Clinton collapse.
In fact, Flavible DOES predict a Con Maj on today's YouGov, albeit only just.
Con 327, Lab 185, LD 62, SNP 51.
https://flavible.com/politics/map/polls?sid=2246
If it were done, it should be planned in the certain knowledge that the Senate will dismiss any charges, and done before the end of the year. Planned properly, by a handful of Cyclefree types (if the Democrats have any such thing) it could be quite effective.
https://twitter.com/AndyTCarroll/status/1159491424343273473
In January the Meaningful Vote was held as per subsection (1)(b).
Following its rejection, as per subsection (4) a statement was made.
Later subsections come into force on 21 January 2019 - obviously that has already happened too.
This was all done in January, we are past this now. There is no requirement for parliamentary approval of no deal - that is the point and why it can happen by default, it is already approved by invoking Article 50. What would need approving still is a deal but the parliamentary approval requirements set in law were fulfilled in January already.
There is no chance of the impeachment process succeeding on the present material but it could have been used to put a lot of rational and reasonable Republicans in a bit of a spot. But its too late now.
https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1159472016002605056
Because the UK is not in Schengen, everyone who enters the UK needs to show their identity (unless travelling from ROI or a British territory where there is a Schengen-like agreement) .
Parliament voted overwhelmingly to serve the Article 50 notice. The effect of that notice was that we left the EU 2 years later unless there was unanimous agreement between both parties that it should be extended. The notice was not conditional on a deal. Article 50 contemplates a deal but is not conditional on one being agreed.
We got unanimity on the first occasion and the period of notice was extended to 31st October. We will leave at that point unless (a) we again unanimously agree to a further extension or (b) we serve notice of revocation, an option given to us by the ECJ.
So Parliament could resolve to revoke. If they did we would remain members. Parliament cannot require that we leave with a deal. That is not in its power. It cannot stipulate that we don't leave without a deal. That is not in its power either.
Polling tend to show Democrats overall support a more cautious policy:
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/medicare-for-all-poll-obamacare-public-option-biden_n_5d3f13d1e4b01d8c977f25cf
Even Warren would likely trim a bit if she secured the nomination. She wants to win.
Sanders is a wild card, but I don't think he'll get it.
Immigration is a potentially problematic issue - and climate change a very strong suit for the Democrats, with around two thirds of voters favouring something like the 'green deal'.
I have vague but fond memories of backing Bottas for a podium at about 8 there.
Cambridge: LibDem defence, looks safe
East Northants: Con who defected to Lab resigned, looks like Con hold/regain
Worcester: Con defence, looks a good chance of another LibDem gain
I wonder who YouGov is asking nowadays; I've been on their panel for ages and used to get VI questions now and again, but they stopped asking me a couple of years back.
A big difference from UNS is their model putting the LibDems in play against Labour in such seats - whereas on straight swing the LibDem prospects are mostly Tory.
It's only a week or two since certain Leavers were getting excited about the prospects of proroguing parliament; funnily enough we're not hearing so much about that now.
It's like the social care debate over here (remember Gordon Brown's "death tax")
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/08/02/new-comres-poll-with-lab-in-lead-might-put-the-mockers-on-an-early-election/
Anyway, it's a lot more fun taking the piss out of that egomaniacal retard Dominic Cummings.
Go on then - tell us leavers why we're stupid and incompetent voters.
They are at least attempting to forecast the results that will 'surprise' next time (compared to expectations based on conventional swing) - just as Mansfield, Canterbury and Kensington did last time. It's quite clear the next election won't be a straight swing election.
I'm also a yougov panel member but I seem to have received surveys much less frequently in the past few months.
I think this should be born in mind when there is loose talk about “the will of the people”.
In the same year, the UK spent 9.76% of GDP on healthcare and had universal coverage.
I think it is fair to say there is room for improvement in the efficiency of US spending. Indeed not that long ago there was a suggestion an NHS would be needed to save them money because their system is simply unaffordable.
Sources: Health Spending as a proportion of GDP, World Bank, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS
Kaiser Family Foundation, Key Facts about the Uninsured Population, https://www.kff.org/uninsured/fact-sheet/key-facts-about-the-uninsured-population/
Parliament has approved no deal yet. It has approved leaving on 31 October. The only way to rule out a negative is to do something positive, unless Parliament ratifies a deal in the remaining days then Parliament by definition has not approved a deal.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/usercode.py?CON=31&LAB=22&LIB=21&Brexit=14&Green=7&UKIP=2&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVBrexit=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTBrexit=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2017base
To be clear, I don't think that's a good thing.
"Why nations fail"
No wonder he is keeping a low profile.
There are a lot of laws and regulations designed to please vested interests. In particular a number of laws designed to prevent drugs prices from coming down. The system there is completely broken.
Efficient is not a word that can be used to describe American healthcare at all.