Impeachment

[polly_mer]

RealClearPolitics indicates that Trump has a 45% approval rating and only 51% of the US population wants impeachment.

polly_mer:  Be a bit cautious with the RCP polling aggregrations.  They fluctuate, quickly.  What might have been 45% on the day you  checked is 43.5% 10/3 -10/10.  A small difference to be sure, but my point is that RCP polls are aggregates and are only as sound as the underlying polls.

The point I'm making still stands: the approval rating isn't something like 5% and never has been at any sustained point per https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo; the approval rating has been and continues to be a big enough number that certain media assertions that Trump is really going down this time seem bizarrely out of touch with reality.  Anything 25% or bigger indicates pretty good support.  Any impeachment number below a sustained 75% indicates pretty good support.

In contrast, Congress' approval rating tends to hover around 20% for the past 10 years per https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx.

Ecuador's president had to move the capital due to the riots: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/world/americas/ecuador-protests-president.html
Hong Kong continues to have rioting in the streets against their government: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests/hong-kong-protesters-stage-shopping-mall-rallies-taunting-riot-police-idUSKBN1WS026

and we in the US have daily entertainment in the national media as people play gotcha/not it while clearly enjoying every minute of outrage if politics is their thing.  After all, we're not really being affected in daily life;  grocery stores are still stocked, lights still turn on, and those of us who need it have heat.  The people who don't have those things temporarily are much more outraged with PG&E or frustrated with natural disasters than following every fabulous turn in the circus of chewing over whether Trump committed a violation of the official rules.

The New York Times and Washington Post cover every little detail.  Meanwhile, out away from NYC/DC where the American people have bills to pay and worry about daily life, the impeachment anything tends not to even make the front page. The Chicago papers, LA Times, and Houston Chronicle give a very different view of what's important in the past few weeks and they aren't wrong on what their readers need. 

Watching local television (and I've been on travel recently so not just "my" local television) indicates almost no time devoted to the impeachment circus, because they have plenty of local things to talk about.

The people chewing endlessly on the national media circus are not representative of the little guys who are trying to become educated in the issues in order to vote intelligently in the next election.  "Picking on Trump" is a losing strategy when it's clearly just picking instead of going forward with a useful investigation and focusing on the hearings, not the recitation of all evils (real, imagined, or already investigated and deemed not sufficient for formal charges).  I remember the Clinton years, as do many people my age and older.  The daily circus is not the same as reporting on actual government activities that affect normal people's lives.

Even academics aren't all on the same bus per https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/do-americans-support-impeaching-president-trump/?ex_cid=rrpromo with about 50% supporting impeachment and about 44% not supporting.

[Puget]

RealClearPolitics indicates that Trump has a 45% approval rating and only 51% of the US population wants impeachment.

polly_mer:  Be a bit cautious with the RCP polling aggregrations.  They fluctuate, quickly.  What might have been 45% on the day you  checked is 43.5% 10/3 -10/10.  A small difference to be sure, but my point is that RCP polls are aggregates and are only as sound as the underlying polls.

RCP doesn't use good statistical methodology-- they don't take into account pollster house effects (lean) or quality, which is why it bounces around so much. For better tracking see 538:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/do-americans-support-impeaching-president-trump/?ex_cid=rrpromo

They have long explainers about their methods and post their data, so you can go as deep as you want.

If you just want the analysis:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-latest-polling-on-impeachment-and-where-it-could-go-from-here/

Bottom line, Trump's approval has been moving in the very narrow 40-43% range it has for basically his entire presidency, while support for impeachment has increased by about 9-10 percentage points since the Ukraine scandal broke, increasing ~12 points for Ds, 10 points for Is, and 3 points for Rs. So the shift seems to not be from those who approved of Trump now disapproving of him (probably nothing will shift that ~42% base), but among those who disapproved of Trump but didn't favor impeachment now favoring impeachment. You have to figure that however in denial Trump and the inner circle of true believers are, others in the republican party establishment are very worried about that 10 point shift among independent in particular.

[polly_mer]

You have to figure that however in denial Trump and the inner circle of true believers are, others in the republican party establishment are very worried about that 10 point shift among independent in particular.

And yet support for impeachment actually means nothing in the big picture.  I can both support having an investigation into the facts and end up voting for Trump.  Warren, Biden, and Sanders are most definitely in the category that I'd rather have Trump again than have one of them, especially if we don't have a good third party candidate.  However, I'm not so strongly against those three that I'd emigrate or protest in the streets.  I'd sigh heavily and do my best to influence the Congress members who can stop their stupid plans that undermine national security and global defense.

It's entirely possible that even impeachment (the official charging with wrongdoing) results in a non-guilty verdict, as it has in the two previous presidential impeachment proceedings.  Upthread someone asked about who got away with it.  The examples that spring to my mind are the public officials who didn't get away with it, were convicted, served their time, and came back like Marion Berry.

[mahagonny]

You have to figure that however in denial Trump and the inner circle of true believers are, others in the republican party establishment are very worried about that 10 point shift among independent in particular.

And yet support for impeachment actually means nothing in the big picture.  I can both support having an investigation into the facts and end up voting for Trump.  Warren, Biden, and Sanders are most definitely in the category that I'd rather have Trump again than have one of them, especially if we don't have a good third party candidate.  However, I'm not so strongly against those three that I'd emigrate or protest in the streets.  I'd sigh heavily and do my best to influence the Congress members who can stop their stupid plans that undermine national security and global defense.

It's entirely possible that even impeachment (the official charging with wrongdoing) results in a non-guilty verdict, as it has in the two previous presidential impeachment proceedings.  Upthread someone asked about who got away with it.  The examples that spring to my mind are the public officials who didn't get away with it, were convicted, served their time, and came back like Marion Berry.

Regarding things that are going on but somewhat off the radar: a certain number of voters hear the right (what's considered a scare tactic) crying 'socialism' and it's dog whistling for people who hate unions. Businessmen, college administrators pretending to be liberal, et al. 'Return to socialism' could easily be code for 'those annoying unions and talk of workers' rights.' Trump has the right approach to appeal to these folks. Profess empathy for the worker but quietly fill the National Labor Relations Boards with saboteurs.

[polly_mer]

Regarding things that are going on but somewhat off the radar: a certain number of voters hear the right (what's considered a scare tactic) crying 'socialism' and it's dog whistling for people who hate unions. Businessmen, college administrators pretending to be liberal, et al. 'Return to socialism' could easily be code for 'those annoying unions and talk of workers' rights.' Trump has the right approach to appeal to these folks. Profess empathy for the worker but quietly fill the National Labor Relations Boards with saboteurs.

That is indeed one technique.  For the record, I will state again that I am registered Libertarian and consider terms like "liberal" and "progressive" to be much more neutral labels than automatically-positive-someone-on-the-proper-side labels.

I return again to the Elizabeth Warren question.  Today, I skimmed through about two weeks' worth of tweets for Pete, Bernie, and Elizabeth.

Pete had a variety of tweets of all kinds on various issues including a Yom Kippur message, a few personal anecdotes related to National Coming Out Day, and mention of most of the big US events including US abroad events.

Bernie had a fair number of union-activity tweets, but had other issues in as well including strong commentary related to the California situation and a couple international events.  Healthcare is clearly a big concern that's associated with looking out for the little guy and unionization isn't everything.

Elizabeth had many LGBT+ "I feel your pain" tweets along with some Trump-is-a-bad-guy assertions with a little bit about Elizabeth's current FaceBook ad experiments.

I am not in the mood to go look at any of Trump's tweets.  Previous exposure indicates a lot of emphasis on Trump himself and gentle lobs to keep the media circus going.

[fast_and_bulbous]

The Good Fight's Animated Guide To Impeachment

Reminds me a bit of Schoolhouse Rock.

[mahagonny]

For the record, I will state again that I am registered Libertarian....

...and against government regulation of higher education?

Elizabeth had many LGBT+ "I feel your pain" tweets along with some Trump-is-a-bad-guy assertions with a little bit about Elizabeth's current FaceBook ad experiments.

I haven't seen Warren's LGBT+ messages, but my gut tells me that any candidate who thinks this is a way to win the election will not succeed.

[Ruralguy]

First, Warren is now just trying to win the primary.

Plus, there's actually a chance that she believes what she says.

[polly_mer]

For the record, I will state again that I am registered Libertarian....

...and against government regulation of higher education?

No.  Schools, roads, hospitals, food safety, medicine effectiveness, and national defense are areas where the government should collect taxes and then spend them to make a better society for everyone.

I've lived in some poor, rural areas.  Making K-12 school attendance mandatory and then ripping people off on quality makes my blood boil.  Likewise, selling people on the idea that a college education will make their lives better and then ripping people off on all fronts (e.g., failing at liberal arts education for its own sake, failing at career preparation, failing at job training, or failing at obtaining a checkbox credential through having a below 80% six-year graduation rate for a four-year degree) angers me, especially when we could be spending that same money to provide education to those who want it.

Micromanaging is a bad idea.  Enforcing a minimum quality in services provided is a legitimate use of the people's resources.

First, Warren is now just trying to win the primary.

Plus, there's actually a chance that she believes what she says.

I believe Warren's sincerity.  However, I want someone running in the November election for whom I can vote with reasonable confidence that person will do a good job.  That person is not Elizabeth Warren.

I'm tired of watching people pander to a concern that's way, way down the important list of priorities for the nation to win primaries instead of someone who will be a much better president by addressing a wider array of the true concerns that are the president's job and can be addressed by good plans at the Cabinet level.

[mahagonny]

For the record, I will state again that I am registered Libertarian....

...and against government regulation of higher education?

No.  Schools, roads, hospitals, food safety, medicine effectiveness, and national defense are areas where the government should collect taxes and then spend them to make a better society for everyone.

I've lived in some poor, rural areas.  Making K-12 school attendance mandatory and then ripping people off on quality makes my blood boil.  Likewise, selling people on the idea that a college education will make their lives better and then ripping people off on all fronts (e.g., failing at liberal arts education for its own sake, failing at career preparation, failing at job training, or failing at obtaining a checkbox credential through having a below 80% six-year graduation rate for a four-year degree) angers me, especially when we could be spending that same money to provide education to those who want it.

Micromanaging is a bad idea.  Enforcing a minimum quality in services provided is a legitimate use of the people's resources.

Except people are borrowing tens of thousands to pay tuition and fees for swollen college administrations, made possible/necessary by government regulation, people who spend their week mailing out forms to the government, as well as maintaining an expensive tenure system that continues despite not being the wishes of the public. Doesn't sound really libertarian.

[Hegemony]

"An expensive tenure system"?  Meaning that we really should make all professors adjuncts or "career faculty" with short-term contracts, paid much less?  I'm not sure that reducing the average tenured pay of some $70,000 at my place to the ~$35,000-$40,000 we pay "career faculty" is going to do much to raise the standards you want raised. 

The teachers at my own high school, who were paid low salaries that saved the taxpayer all that money, shows what happens when you need highly trained and student-helping faculty and do not offer them an attractive salary.  Many of them were only semi-literate.  One of them actually bought his drugs in the classroom (one of the students was selling).  I think maybe we should champion the kind of pay and conditions that attract actual high-fliers into the profession.

[mahagonny]

Not me. I don't want any standards raised. I'm another tax and spend liberal, like everyone here.

[polly_mer]

Except people are borrowing tens of thousands to pay tuition and fees

Libertarians tend to believe that competent adults are allowed to make bad choices as long as they have enough information to make those choices.  That's the whole idea behind legalizing many drugs and then imposing quality control so that people are really getting heroin, cocaine, etc. instead of random stuff added to bulk up the profit margin by unscrupulous people not subject to any regulation.

for swollen college administrations, made possible/necessary by government regulation, people who spend their week mailing out forms to the government,

Institutions that decide to not take federal financial aid don't have to participate in the monthly reporting to the National Student Clearinghouse nor do they have to do the less-than-monthly reporting to IPEDS.  People who enroll in those institutions (generally unaccredited institutions with no external quality control) are not eligible for the government-backed loans. 

The clerks ensuring electronic data are being transferred (few paper forms are involved) generally aren't being paid the big bucks to do their job and, except at huge institutions, generally have additional useful duties related to keeping the internal processes going like being the financial aid clerks or the registrar front service desk.

Competent adults can make choices on how to spend their own money.  However, the evidence is that people are voting with their feet against the for-profit sector, especially when regulation to enforce minimum standards was applied: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2019/03/26/for-profit-college-closing-argosy-university/3271813002/

When the people's money is being spent, then asking on what it is being spent and ensuring the people are getting good value for that money is a reasonable government function.  Yes, that includes some overhead in providing the oversight.  However, except at the smallest of schools where compliance no longer scales with enrollment, complying with the funding reporting is not a primary driver of administration costs.

Eliminating the Title IX super expansion since 2011 would indeed be consistent with libertarian principles in not wasting money on non-government business.

as well as maintaining an expensive tenure system that continues despite not being the wishes of the public.

I doubt very much whether the public cares at all about the tenure system at the college level.  My impression from all the reading I do is that the public is quite angry that they pay a lot in taxes and don't get the public services (schools, roads, hospitals) for which the taxes were supposed to pay.  Fooling around with breadth requirements to make college take longer instead of having solid K-12 education so that people can then specialize in tertiary education for a shorter degree tends to be more popular in the discussions where I read.


What would be unlibertarian includes:

* mandating the types of faculty who must be employed at an institution including what types of contracts are allowed to be entered by competent adults
* mandating what classes must be offered and what the qualifications faculty must have to teach the classes
* mandating how an institution must structure itself in terms of how many employees of what type are allowed

[mahagonny]

...needs a new thread

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/10/15/what_pelosi_really_wants_from_impeachment_141494.html

This makes sense to me. Of course the author doesn't want Trump to lose in 2020. It's not hard to see his hopes, reading through the lines.

Then again, if someone commits impeachable offenses, it is your job as a member of Congress to act on it, whether or not you think the impeachment vote will be for.

[mamselle]

Apropos of none of the above, inviting the grieving parents of a kid killed in a hit-and-run accident (by a diplomat's spouse in the UK who fled the scene--and the country) to the WH with the idea of bringing out the offender from a side room--with photographers alerted to the scene as a photo-OP, may not be an impeachable offense.

But it's terribly offensive. The confusion between real-life grief and reality-show drama is pathological.

M.