Posted on 07/15/2014 6:31:02 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network
Apparently, Sarah Palin still has some influence after all: Shortly after the former half-term Alaska Governor called for President Obama’s impeachment, over two-thirds of Republicans said Obama should be impeached in a new poll. That’s an increase since a similar survey was taken in early 2013, wherein “only” half of Republicans supported removing Obama from office.
(Excerpt) Read more at bustle.com ...
“Gore lost after the US House impeached Bill Clinton. Gore might have won, if the Republican base was not energized by the Impeachment process of Bill Clinton.”
Gore lost by a famously slim margin, of course. Kind of hard to definitively judge the effect of the impeachment on public opinion and voter turnouts just based on that. It might be just as true that it energized both sides, resulting in a such a close race.
Remember also that the Congressional elections happened at the same time, and Republicans lost seats in both chambers. I don’t think that is the wave of enthusiasm we are hoping for.
In the House in the first election after impeachment (2000), Republicans won 233 seats, Democrats won 211 seats.
That should be 223 seats for the Republicans vs 211 seats for the Clinton defenders.
“In the House in the first election after impeachment (2000), Republicans won 233 seats, Democrats won 211 seats.”
Those number are not correct, I don’t know where you got them from. Besides, without looking at the previous election results, you might miss the vital information that we lost seats to the Dems in that election in both chambers of Congress.
Did you read one post further when I corrected the typo?
Besides, without looking at the previous election results, you might miss the vital information that we lost seats to the Dems in that election in both chambers of Congress.
All House seats are up every election cycle. As I said (when I corrected the typo) we won 223 seats and lost 211 seats after doing the right thing, which was the third best House results for Republicans since 1948.
Why is that a problem for you?
“All House seats are up every election cycle. As I said (when I corrected the typo) we won 223 seats and lost 211 seats after doing the right thing, which was the third best House results for Republicans since 1948.
Why is that a problem for you?”
Because we LOST seats to the Democrats from the previous cycle, for the third time in a row.
The more accurate description...
We WON 223 seats(three less than the previous election) and lost 211 seats after doing the right thing, which was the third best House result for Republicans since 1948.
And you think that's a problem.
So then what's the point in having 226 seats instead of 223 seats if you can't use your majority to do the right thing?
How many seat majority are you waiting for? 250?
300?
And God forbid we do the right thing when we have 300 seats and then we lose three seats after that.
What would your reaction be then?
That we shouldn't have impeached because we *gasp* lost three seats and are down to 297???
And of course there is no guaranty that we wouldn't have lost three seats anyway if we didn't impeach, because then your base becomes lethargic and doesn't turn out.
“The more accurate description... “
No, it’s not more accurate, it just serves your narrative better.
“And you think that’s a problem.”
I think losing seats to Democrats is a problem, yes.
“So then what’s the point in having 226 seats instead of 223 seats if you can’t use your majority to do the right thing?
How many seat majority are you waiting for? 250?
300?
And God forbid we do the right thing when we have 300 seats and then we lose three seats after that.
What would your reaction be then?
That we shouldn’t have impeached because we *gasp* lost three seats and are down to 297???”
I don’t care how many seat majority we have, or how many seats we lose. If we can’t accomplish anything that advances our goals through impeachment, then we shouldn’t pursue it.
“And of course there is no guaranty that we wouldn’t have lost three seats anyway if we didn’t impeach, because then your base becomes lethargic and doesn’t turn out.”
I’ve never said that we lost three seats due to the impeachment. I was responding to a different poster’s claim that the election of Bush in 2000 was evidence of some energized base after the impeachment, and pointing out that the full electoral results do not really support that notion.
You see, the only potential benefit the pro-impeachment crowd can come up with is that we can “energize the base” with impeachment. Yet, they have no evidence to offer that this would actually be the case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.