I read today that more millennials voted for Sanders in the primary that Clinton and Trump combined. Whatever happened in the Democratic primary, it seems pretty obvious to me that Sanders had broader appeal to the general electorate, and he remains a much more popular politician than either of the two GE candidates.
In what world is an FBI agent texting negative things about the President he is literally and actively investigating not a source of professional misconduct?
In what world is an FBI agent texting negative things about the President he is literally and actively investigating not a source of professional misconduct?
In every world.
Professional misconduct is performing an official duty in a biased or corrupt way. Since presumably sending texts to his personal acquaintances is not part of his professional duties this is not professional misconduct. If 'saying something mean about someone you're investigating' was the standard for professional misconduct we wouldn't have any law enforcement officials left.
It is very likely that Muller removed the guy because he knew even the slightest appearance of bias would set off a wave of concern trolling and conservative attempts to delegitimize his investigation. That's turned out to be prescient.
So your argument essentially boils down to "if there is smoke, there must be fire".The only reason to remove the appearance of bias if there is evidence of bias to give that appearance.
Not even smoke. It's more if there's fire wood piled up there must be fire.So your argument essentially boils down to "if there is smoke, there must be fire".
Now apply the same logic to Trump, his business dealings, and his contacts with Russia...
nmNot unsurprising that people around here aren't talking about that. If on the other foot, they would be all about it. How it is not a big deal to them in incredible. Just more hypocrisy from the lefties here. Clear bias in a pretty big way, in several big "cases". He obviously had a bias agenda and ranked very highly. Passed judgement while having a conflict of interest to say the least. Hmmm, now where have I see this before.
Not even smoke. It's more if there's fire wood piled up there must be fire.
nmThen why did Mueller feel the need to fire him? That is a hard fact, not open to speculation.
Actually, the correct and rational answer is that we should expect full impartiality from both the FBI and an independent investigation, and rational people should demand the assurance that partisanship did not tip the scales of justice.
Selling something you don't personally believe in makes you a salesperson.I don't want to go too far into the weeds but I look at it like any of my previous sales jobs.
Goals, products or pricing gets changed for whatever reason. Saying you don't like the changes to coworkers or friends doesn't mean you are no longer qualified to sell them.
The above scenario happens all the time in sales
Selling something you don't personally believe in makes you a salesperson.
Vocalizing bias against someone you are actively investigating is the raw meat upon which defense attorneys feast and establish reasonable doubt.
This is a pretty similar phenomenon to 'the backup quarterback is the most popular guy in town'. After Clinton lost to Obama in 2008 her popularity skyrocketed. I do not find it at all obvious that Sanders had broader appeal to the general electorate either. He remained popular because he was never viewed as a genuine threat by the right. If Sanders becomes the Democratic nominee in 2020 his popularity will plummet. I would bet money on this.
This may be true, I just go back to what's been said over the decades and by Bernie. Get involved and always vote, every election always. Understand the consequences of not voting or a protest vote.
Linked for everybody else-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ers-than-trump-and-clinton-combined-by-a-lot/
The problem with your analysis is that millenials only cast ~10% of the vote in the Democratic primary... 3M out of 30M... Not to mention that Trump is Prez only by dint of an anomalous result in the Electoral College.
That's not how it works in the new U.S.A.So your argument essentially boils down to "if there is smoke, there must be fire".
Now apply the same logic to Trump, his business dealings, and his contacts with Russia...
Yes, I've heard that theory before, but how does that explain her low popularity today, after losing the GE? The assumptions we've made about what happens to a candidate's popularity and why might need to be updated, and the rules from 2008 might not apply any more.
For example, Trump's popularity seems like it's been fairly stable since before the GE, sitting at approval ratings a little under 40%. Nothing seems to move that very much.
If you want to say that Sanders's popularity is going to take a meaningful hit after he becomes the D nominee, I think you need to explain why.
That percentage will go up. But the lesson that should be taken from this is that Sanders had broader appeal than Clinton did. It challenges the assumption that Democrats need to capture "moderate" voters by adopting more centrist and business friendly positions.
100% he confirms something they suspect.djt jr is being questioned by the House Intelligence Committee behind closed doors as i type this.
what are the odds he gets caught lying?
djt jr is being questioned by the House Intelligence Committee behind closed doors as i type this.
what are the odds he gets caught lying?
Sanders will become significantly less popular with Republicans as partisanship asserts itself. Clinton's favorable ratings among Republicans dropped by something like 25 or 30 points from when she was secretary of state to when she became the Democratic frontrunner despite very little meaningfully changing about her other than Republican elites signaling to their voters that she was a threat in 2016.
Considering the primary electorate was considerably further to the left than the general election electorate and Clinton crushed Sanders that would run counter to your argument.
Sanders' problem as a candidate was that he simply wasn't very well versed in the issues and didn't have a good blueprint for competent governance. Republican voters tend not to care about those things but Democrats do. Sanders' campaign was much more of a Trump style campaign and that doesn't work so well for Democrats.
Sanders will become significantly less popular with Republicans as partisanship asserts itself. Clinton's favorable ratings among Republicans dropped by something like 25 or 30 points from when she was secretary of state to when she became the Democratic frontrunner despite very little meaningfully changing about her other than Republican elites signaling to their voters that she was a threat in 2016.
Considering the primary electorate was considerably further to the left than the general election electorate and Clinton crushed Sanders that would run counter to your argument.
Sanders' problem as a candidate was that he simply wasn't very well versed in the issues and didn't have a good blueprint for competent governance. Republican voters tend not to care about those things but Democrats do. Sanders' campaign was much more of a Trump style campaign and that doesn't work so well for Democrats.
Sanders was polling better with Independents and hence the general election. She wasn't liked because of the baggage.
What exactly is the problem? No one really cares about specifics. You just say universal health care, etc. One thing you came up with is being able to "finance" the stuff. We see how that's BS with no movement of interest rates despite GOP tax bill, and it's okay not to be afraid of the NAIRU.
Trump was popular with the Republican base despite having been previously aligned with Democrats, and despite elite Republican opinion being heavily against him. I'm certainly not denying that partisanship and elite opinion don't still mean something, but there are clearly other factors at work too.
I don't think the electorate splits conveniently right/left anymore. It has to be about delivering a message that resonates with voters. I think your comment about policy details mattering to Democrats applies more to the elites than it does to the voters, and I think that causes some tension in the party. I agree with you that Clinton seems to have a firmer grasp of policy detail, but I don't know how much that ultimately mattered to voters.
We've covered this before, you can't use favorable ratings in that way.
I am guessing many of you don't manage people or contracts where personal biases have huge implications.In every world.
Professional misconduct is performing an official duty in a biased or corrupt way. Since presumably sending texts to his personal acquaintances is not part of his professional duties this is not professional misconduct. If 'saying something mean about someone you're investigating' was the standard for professional misconduct we wouldn't have any law enforcement officials left.
It is very likely that Muller removed the guy because he knew even the slightest appearance of bias would set off a wave of concern trolling and conservative attempts to delegitimize his investigation. That's turned out to be prescient.
I think there were other issues present as well, principally Sanders' inability to broaden his appeal outside of white voters. If you can't win over black and hispanic voters in a Democratic primary you're in deep trouble.