but not investigating a clearly corrupt president?

>>if by 'win' you mean in terms of public opinion (which i
>>assume you meant since repubs failed to remove clinton).
>
>No president has ever been removed via 2/3rds Senate vote to
>impeach.

Right. Very few people (if any) are predicting this or even hoping for it. And you know it.

So "winning" impeachment is about public opinion, and hopefully making Senators take a stance.

>
>It's not wise to assume that this will play well w/ the public
>- when most of the public doesn't follow any of these
>technical facets of government, and only vote on poorly
>informed perceptions of what's actually happening.

So your message now is that Dems shouldn't do anything because people aren't paying attention?

The Dems shouldn't fight, because people won't understand it?

A lot of people don't understand Medicare For All. Should dems not do anything with that?

>
>I don't believe that this impeachment effort is going to be
>popular with swing voters. It will rally up the left - for
>sure - but Dems do not hold the moral authority like they
>think they have. Most of the electorate considers both
>parties to be crooks at this point.

Do you think taking insurance away from Americans will be popular with "swing voters"?

>
>>trump has historically low approval ratings.
>>
>>the majority of americans have *never* supported him at any
>>time during his presidency.
>>
>>a record number of americans *personally* dislike him (over
>20
>>pts higher than the previous record...g w bush during 2
>>unpopular wars and an economic downturn)
>>https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/nbc-wsj-poll-record-share-voters-dislike-trump-personally-democrats-n1057036
>>
>>and *60%* of people believe trump doesnt deserve re-election
>>(during a 'strong' economy).
>>https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/10/politics/cnn-poll-trump-reelection-2020/index.html
>
>Yes - all the conventional wisdom points towards Trump having
>no business even being President, let alone winning a second
>term. However, how many times has as sitting President failed
>to earn a second term in recent decades? Trump has defied all
>of these statistics and "expert" data crunching - and I don't
>think pushing for impeachment will change that. What will
>change that is getting behind a movement that takes the fight
>to him directly. Dems have to be ready for a street fight -
>not a faux civil impeachment proceeding.
>
>
>
>
>-->

I think I pick up your hint. So you honestly think that swing voters and/or people who don't pay attention to stuff, are **more** likely to get behind a **movement** led by a self-described socialist?? When a big piece of that movement involves *Taking Away* insurance from Americans?

You really think that Bernie and Medicare for All, etc is an *easier* sell to non-political people than the idea that Trump is corrupt?


This isn't to say that both shouldn't be done, because that isn't my point.


My point is that your tone on impeachment seems to have changed, and it seems largely based on the idea that "only Bernie can save us".

Or maybe your tone hasn't changed, and I haven't noticed your take before. Either way, "only Bernie" or "only a movement" is an odd thing to say.


The argument that non-political swing voters won't get behind impeaching a lying ass president, but they'll get behind a socialist who has been in Washington for 30+ years without getting any of his ideas through is...troubling to say the least.


Not to mention, I could have sworn you have talked about the importance of turnout on the left. If this helps that, how on earth does it hurt our chances in 2020?