Why Are The Democrats So Fixated On Impeachment Talk?

[toobfreak]

With all this talk of impeachment nonsense, I thought it important to explain why. Whether or not the Democrats ever actually try to carry it out or just want to keep it on the front page of the MSM to keep their base engaged in hope that the Dems are actually making progress anywhere in the now 3-year-long continual loss to Trump does not matter. HERE IS THE REALITY THAT THE DEMOCRATS FACE come 2020 that is driving talk of impeachment.

And it is a no-win situation for them with Trump in office.

This is sort of a continuation of an earlier thread called Why Trump Won (Why Trump Won), so in a sense, this thread may be considered HOW Trump Won. In it, I will attempt to cast great doubt both on our national polling and reporting as well as the claim that Trump lost the popular vote, as well as show why his reelection is a near certainty! All data for this came from the web page: 2016 United States presidential election - Wikipedia graciously provided by XponentialChaos and though he claimed to be a statistician, apparently declined my invitation to offer any statistics to the contrary, so here is what the stats really tell us about HOW Trump won and why his reelection is almost certain.

In creating these charts, I presented data on the 50 states. For our intents and purposes, DC was not included here as it is not a state and only has 3 EC votes making it rather statistically irrelevant.

Following is the main chart which I invite you to open and place off to the side for reference for easier reading. Here is the 2016 election in a nutshell, presented in a way perhaps never shown before:

KEY POINTS to what is different about this chart:

1. The 50 states are broken down into three groups of ten BY ORDER OF THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THAT STATE VOTING FOR THE CANDIDATE THAT WON THEM THAT STATE.
   
2. Do not mistake the twin red/blue columns for Trump vs. Hillary per state AS IS USUAL; the 20 blue columns represent the 20 states HILLARY WON while the 30 red columns represent the 30 states Trump won.
3. The chart is organized Left to Right in order of: (a)The relative number of people in that state voting for the candidate that TOOK that state; since the other candidate LOST that state, those votes do not count for anything and are not shown. (b) The order of ranking for the states with the first group to be the 10 biggest and most important states each candidate won, both by electoral votes AND by votes (the two tend to closely correlate). Obviously, the higher the state ranking, the more it helped each candidate win.
   
4. Each blue or red bar was rounded to the nearest 100,000 or 10,000 as was appropriate for easier tabulation.

WHAT GLOBAL OBSERVATIONS MAY WE CONCLUDE FROM THESE DATA?

1. Hillary actually only really beat Trump in one state ranking! California! #1 ranking. By that I mean, whomever takes California, it being by far the most populous state, has a CLEAR ADVANTAGE. And not only did Hillary get a huge amount of votes there, but it netted her a clear advantage over the 2nd most populous state, Texas. BUT THAT WAS REALLY THE ONLY STATE RANKING where she CLEARLY HAD THE ADVANTAGE, both in terms of votes gotten AND their concomitant electoral votes that went with them!
2. AS A RESULT, though fairly close in total EC votes acquired among their top ten most important states (183 for Trump vs. only 179 for Hillary), HILLARY LOST the EC vote count in her TEN BEST STATES.
3. Looking at the second group of ten, here Trump easily TROUNCED Hillary, getting nearly DOUBLE the electoral votes of Hillary! (78 for Trump vs. only 45 for Hillary).
4. In the final group of ten, Hillary scored NO EC votes at all. She only won 20 states. Trump won an additional 41 electoral college votes here, which while the Left famously say that "no one lives in these states," they collectively added up to more EC votes than ANY OTHER STATE other than California, so are statistically SIGNIFICANT. Indeed, they may have WON THE ELECTION.
5. Looking at the height of the bars, which represent ACTUAL VOTES CAST FOR THE WINNING CANDIDATE (not mere population), it truly is a wonder how Hillary somehow still won the popular vote. Indeed, there were 28 out of 30 rankings where Trump either TIED HILLARY in popular votes cast or BEAT HER. In fact, here are the only rankings where Hillary beat Trump: (1): California vs. Texas. (8) Maryland vs. Arizona. That is it. Trump tied or beat her in every other state ranking.

• Hillary took California. Obviously, Democrats have every interest in holding that state and getting the population higher and higher there, as it will get them more EC votes.

• Trump and Hillary tied in #2 New York vs. Florida.

• Trump and Hillary essentially tied in #3 Illinois vs. Pennsylvania.

After that, Hillary pretty much lost everywhere else for the most part and these were her strongest states. In the one she won, it only gained her 1 EC vote.

So clearly, the ENTIRE ELECTION to the Democrats hinges on just three states (the Centralized Power of the DNC):

1. California (San Francisco and LA).
2. New York (New York City).
3. Illinois (Chicago). The irony is that Trump actually won most of the rest of these states outside these cities! So those areas never get any representation.

In the 2nd group of state ranking comparisons, Trump totally owned Hillary. Hillary lost in every comparison both in total votes acquired as well as EC votes.

And finally, in the third group, Hillary doesn't even make an appearance. Trump won all ten states appearing here.

With an actual difference I believe of about 74 EC votes between the two, several things become apparent:

• Despite Hillary's famous name recognition, popularity and support, it is easy to see why they now say she was a "bad" candidate, despite being more popular and better supported than Biden, Warren or Sanders! To say otherwise "What Happened" is to admit that Hillary was spanked.
  
• Looking at Chart 1 again and the SEA OF RED across the chart, it is easy to see why the Electoral College was created, why Trump was really the nationally desired and supported candidate for president better representing the will of the nation over Hillary's meager showing where she was really only "popular" (drew heavy numbers of voters) in eight states!

THE PROBLEM IS CLEAR:

The democrats are in a bind. This is the real data they are looking at. They cannot count on the vast number of "red" states" voting for crazy Biden, Warren or Sanders, and these candidates will have a harder time keeping the votes Hillary got even in the blue "key" states much less swinging 37 or more EC votes between Florida, PA, Ohio or Michigan.

If the Dems keep Biden, Sanders or Warren as their nominee, they probably LOSE. If they go with one of the other candidates, they DEFINITELY lose. If they bring back Hillary for Sloppy Thirds with that forced smile of hers like she's really a nice person, they look pathetic, weak and desperate and Democrats probably don't even bother voting.

That leaves the election now really in the hands of Adam Schiff, Nancy and Jerry to somehow manage to either find the specious grounds to impeach Trump (which falls flat in the Senate), or hope that continuing to drag his name through the mud week after week sullies his image in the eyes of enough voters tired of hearing about impeachment, charges and allegations never coming to fruition, and doesn't come back to bite them in the ass instead. Stories of voters leaving Trump simply are not true as Trump has not only been a successful president, but his foibles that democrats like to parade are in large part why a lot of people like and voted for him in the first place!

So if anything, Trump popularity is on the upswing and credibility and belief in the democrat's never-ending investigations that prove nothing or go anywhere are wearing really thin.

Right now, despite all claims to the contrary, it is NOT looking good for the Democrats. They really need to either remove him from office, hope he resigns, or that maybe an asteroid falls on him from space. 2 and 3 are unlikely, so they are pushing hard hoping for a very long shot for #1.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Impeachment is all they have. It will fail.

And then comes retribution.

 

[beagle9]

Impeachment is all they have. It will fail.

And then comes retribution.

This situation where our Military has now gotten the leader of Issis under Trump's rules of engagement while on his watch, is causing heads to explode on the left.

Their media mouth pieces are even committing treason by siding with America's enemies over Trump, and that should be a red flag to any red blooded American on how bad these people really are.... It really says all it needs to say about the leftist attitudes about this country today, and how they hate it so much now that they would openly side with this nations enemies now???? It's really pathetic.

 

[jameny5]

Why were the Republicans - chiefly Lyndsey Graham fixated on impeaching Bill Clinton. I bet you have an answer for that? I'm waiting.

 

[Claudette]

Why were the Republicans - chiefly Lyndsey Graham fixated on impeaching Bill Clinton. I bet you have an answer for that? I'm waiting.

Because Clinton actually did do something to be impeached for.

Impeachment of Bill Clinton - Wikipedia

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-clinton-impeached

If you need further proof look it up yourself.

 

[jameny5]

Since you found that - Dig up some material on liar and thief Trump. You guys on these blogs love protecting your Whyte guys! Nothing new in that department. Next...

 

[Claudette]

Since you found that - Dig up some material on liar and thief Trump. You guys on these blogs love protecting your Whyte guys! Nothing new in that department. Next...

Look it up yourself and good luck. dumbass.

 

[Oddball]

With all this talk of impeachment nonsense, I thought it important to explain why. Whether or not the Democrats ever actually try to carry it out or just want to keep it on the front page of the MSM to keep their base engaged in hope that the Dems are actually making progress anywhere in the now 3-year-long continual loss to Trump does not matter. HERE IS THE REALITY THAT THE DEMOCRATS FACE come 2020 that is driving talk of impeachment.

And it is a no-win situation for them with Trump in office.

This is sort of a continuation of an earlier thread called Why Trump Won (Why Trump Won), so in a sense, this thread may be considered HOW Trump Won. In it, I will attempt to cast great doubt both on our national polling and reporting as well as the claim that Trump lost the popular vote, as well as show why his reelection is a near certainty! All data for this came from the web page: 2016 United States presidential election - Wikipedia graciously provided by XponentialChaos and though he claimed to be a statistician, apparently declined my invitation to offer any statistics to the contrary, so here is what the stats really tell us about HOW Trump won and why his reelection is almost certain.

In creating these charts, I presented data on the 50 states. For our intents and purposes, DC was not included here as it is not a state and only has 3 EC votes making it rather statistically irrelevant.

Following is the main chart which I invite you to open and place off to the side for reference for easier reading. Here is the 2016 election in a nutshell, presented in a way perhaps never shown before:

View attachment 286767

KEY POINTS to what is different about this chart:

1. The 50 states are broken down into three groups of ten BY ORDER OF THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THAT STATE VOTING FOR THE CANDIDATE THAT WON THEM THAT STATE.
   
2. Do not mistake the twin red/blue columns for Trump vs. Hillary per state AS IS USUAL; the 20 blue columns represent the 20 states HILLARY WON while the 30 red columns represent the 30 states Trump won.
3. The chart is organized Left to Right in order of: (a)The relative number of people in that state voting for the candidate that TOOK that state; since the other candidate LOST that state, those votes do not count for anything and are not shown. (b) The order of ranking for the states with the first group to be the 10 biggest and most important states each candidate won, both by electoral votes AND by votes (the two tend to closely correlate). Obviously, the higher the state ranking, the more it helped each candidate win.
   
4. Each blue or red bar was rounded to the nearest 100,000 or 10,000 as was appropriate for easier tabulation.

WHAT GLOBAL OBSERVATIONS MAY WE CONCLUDE FROM THESE DATA?

1. Hillary actually only really beat Trump in one state ranking! California! #1 ranking. By that I mean, whomever takes California, it being by far the most populous state, has a CLEAR ADVANTAGE. And not only did Hillary get a huge amount of votes there, but it netted her a clear advantage over the 2nd most populous state, Texas. BUT THAT WAS REALLY THE ONLY STATE RANKING where she CLEARLY HAD THE ADVANTAGE, both in terms of votes gotten AND their concomitant electoral votes that went with them!
2. AS A RESULT, though fairly close in total EC votes acquired among their top ten most important states (183 for Trump vs. only 179 for Hillary), HILLARY LOST the EC vote count in her TEN BEST STATES.
3. Looking at the second group of ten, here Trump easily TROUNCED Hillary, getting nearly DOUBLE the electoral votes of Hillary! (78 for Trump vs. only 45 for Hillary).
4. In the final group of ten, Hillary scored NO EC votes at all. She only won 20 states. Trump won an additional 41 electoral college votes here, which while the Left famously say that "no one lives in these states," they collectively added up to more EC votes than ANY OTHER STATE other than California, so are statistically SIGNIFICANT. Indeed, they may have WON THE ELECTION.
5. Looking at the height of the bars, which represent ACTUAL VOTES CAST FOR THE WINNING CANDIDATE (not mere population), it truly is a wonder how Hillary somehow still won the popular vote. Indeed, there were 28 out of 30 rankings where Trump either TIED HILLARY in popular votes cast or BEAT HER. In fact, here are the only rankings where Hillary beat Trump: (1): California vs. Texas. (8) Maryland vs. Arizona. That is it. Trump tied or beat her in every other state ranking.

View attachment 286775

• Hillary took California. Obviously, Democrats have every interest in holding that state and getting the population higher and higher there, as it will get them more EC votes.

• Trump and Hillary tied in #2 New York vs. Florida.

• Trump and Hillary essentially tied in #3 Illinois vs. Pennsylvania.

After that, Hillary pretty much lost everywhere else for the most part and these were her strongest states. In the one she won, it only gained her 1 EC vote.

So clearly, the ENTIRE ELECTION to the Democrats hinges on just three states (the Centralized Power of the DNC):

1. California (San Francisco and LA).
2. New York (New York City).
3. Illinois (Chicago). The irony is that Trump actually won most of the rest of these states outside these cities! So those areas never get any representation.

View attachment 286777


In the 2nd group of state ranking comparisons, Trump totally owned Hillary. Hillary lost in every comparison both in total votes acquired as well as EC votes.


View attachment 286778


And finally, in the third group, Hillary doesn't even make an appearance. Trump won all ten states appearing here.

With an actual difference I believe of about 74 EC votes between the two, several things become apparent:

• Despite Hillary's famous name recognition, popularity and support, it is easy to see why they now say she was a "bad" candidate, despite being more popular and better supported than Biden, Warren or Sanders! To say otherwise "What Happened" is to admit that Hillary was spanked.
  
• Looking at Chart 1 again and the SEA OF RED across the chart, it is easy to see why the Electoral College was created, why Trump was really the nationally desired and supported candidate for president better representing the will of the nation over Hillary's meager showing where she was really only "popular" (drew heavy numbers of voters) in eight states!

THE PROBLEM IS CLEAR:

The democrats are in a bind. This is the real data they are looking at. They cannot count on the vast number of "red" states" voting for crazy Biden, Warren or Sanders, and these candidates will have a harder time keeping the votes Hillary got even in the blue "key" states much less swinging 37 or more EC votes between Florida, PA, Ohio or Michigan.

If the Dems keep Biden, Sanders or Warren as their nominee, they probably LOSE. If they go with one of the other candidates, they DEFINITELY lose. If they bring back Hillary for Sloppy Thirds with that forced smile of hers like she's really a nice person, they look pathetic, weak and desperate and Democrats probably don't even bother voting.

That leaves the election now really in the hands of Adam Schiff, Nancy and Jerry to somehow manage to either find the specious grounds to impeach Trump (which falls flat in the Senate), or hope that continuing to drag his name through the mud week after week sullies his image in the eyes of enough voters tired of hearing about impeachment, charges and allegations never coming to fruition, and doesn't come back to bite them in the ass instead. Stories of voters leaving Trump simply are not true as Trump has not only been a successful president, but his foibles that democrats like to parade are in large part why a lot of people like and voted for him in the first place!

So if anything, Trump popularity is on the upswing and credibility and belief in the democrat's never-ending investigations that prove nothing or go anywhere are wearing really thin.

Right now, despite all claims to the contrary, it is NOT looking good for the Democrats. They really need to either remove him from office, hope he resigns, or that maybe an asteroid falls on him from space. 2 and 3 are unlikely, so they are pushing hard hoping for a very long shot for #1.

Their can't-idates suck....The only hope is to slime Trump badly enough that they can drag one of their poorly disguised Marxist dweebs across the finish line.

 

[occupied]

So how much absolute power are you willing to grant the president? Every problem Trump has involves him not respecting the limits of his office. He must be shown that he is merely the most powerful public servant and accountable to the people, election be damned.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

So how much absolute power are you willing to grant the president? Every problem Trump has involves him not respecting the limits of his office. He must be shown that he is merely the most powerful public servant and accountable to the people, election be damned.

A lesson less learned by the current House Democrats, who believe themselves the Princes of America.

 

[occupied]

So how much absolute power are you willing to grant the president? Every problem Trump has involves him not respecting the limits of his office. He must be shown that he is merely the most powerful public servant and accountable to the people, election be damned.

A lesson less learned by the current House Democrats, who believe themselves the Princes of America.

I see no political downside to this, democrats finally acting like they have some balls? It's about goddamned time.

 

[beagle9]

So how much absolute power are you willing to grant the president? Every problem Trump has involves him not respecting the limits of his office. He must be shown that he is merely the most powerful public servant and accountable to the people, election be damned.

You say this with a straight face after all the abuse of power the Democrats have engaged in ????? Wow!

 

[occupied]

So how much absolute power are you willing to grant the president? Every problem Trump has involves him not respecting the limits of his office. He must be shown that he is merely the most powerful public servant and accountable to the people, election be damned.

You say this with a straight face after all the abuse of power the Democrats have engaged in ????? Wow!

You guys howl about democrats abusing power any time they actually use their power. Getting old.

 

[beagle9]

So how much absolute power are you willing to grant the president? Every problem Trump has involves him not respecting the limits of his office. He must be shown that he is merely the most powerful public servant and accountable to the people, election be damned.

You say this with a straight face after all the abuse of power the Democrats have engaged in ????? Wow!

You guys howl about democrats abusing power any time they actually use their power. Getting old.

We'll see.

 

[Synthaholic]

Because we’re gonna impeach the motherfucker!

 

[occupied]

So how much absolute power are you willing to grant the president? Every problem Trump has involves him not respecting the limits of his office. He must be shown that he is merely the most powerful public servant and accountable to the people, election be damned.

You say this with a straight face after all the abuse of power the Democrats have engaged in ????? Wow!

You guys howl about democrats abusing power any time they actually use their power. Getting old.

We'll see.

We've already seen you people cry like babies when democratic presidents use the expansive executive powers republicans insist on. Now here we are again with Trump trying to make all sorts of questionable things perfectly fine just like the rest of your emperor wannabes.

 

[Paulie]

With all this talk of impeachment nonsense, I thought it important to explain why. Whether or not the Democrats ever actually try to carry it out or just want to keep it on the front page of the MSM to keep their base engaged in hope that the Dems are actually making progress anywhere in the now 3-year-long continual loss to Trump does not matter. HERE IS THE REALITY THAT THE DEMOCRATS FACE come 2020 that is driving talk of impeachment.

And it is a no-win situation for them with Trump in office.

This is sort of a continuation of an earlier thread called Why Trump Won (Why Trump Won), so in a sense, this thread may be considered HOW Trump Won. In it, I will attempt to cast great doubt both on our national polling and reporting as well as the claim that Trump lost the popular vote, as well as show why his reelection is a near certainty! All data for this came from the web page: 2016 United States presidential election - Wikipedia graciously provided by XponentialChaos and though he claimed to be a statistician, apparently declined my invitation to offer any statistics to the contrary, so here is what the stats really tell us about HOW Trump won and why his reelection is almost certain.

In creating these charts, I presented data on the 50 states. For our intents and purposes, DC was not included here as it is not a state and only has 3 EC votes making it rather statistically irrelevant.

Following is the main chart which I invite you to open and place off to the side for reference for easier reading. Here is the 2016 election in a nutshell, presented in a way perhaps never shown before:

View attachment 286767

KEY POINTS to what is different about this chart:

1. The 50 states are broken down into three groups of ten BY ORDER OF THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THAT STATE VOTING FOR THE CANDIDATE THAT WON THEM THAT STATE.
   
2. Do not mistake the twin red/blue columns for Trump vs. Hillary per state AS IS USUAL; the 20 blue columns represent the 20 states HILLARY WON while the 30 red columns represent the 30 states Trump won.
3. The chart is organized Left to Right in order of: (a)The relative number of people in that state voting for the candidate that TOOK that state; since the other candidate LOST that state, those votes do not count for anything and are not shown. (b) The order of ranking for the states with the first group to be the 10 biggest and most important states each candidate won, both by electoral votes AND by votes (the two tend to closely correlate). Obviously, the higher the state ranking, the more it helped each candidate win.
   
4. Each blue or red bar was rounded to the nearest 100,000 or 10,000 as was appropriate for easier tabulation.

WHAT GLOBAL OBSERVATIONS MAY WE CONCLUDE FROM THESE DATA?

1. Hillary actually only really beat Trump in one state ranking! California! #1 ranking. By that I mean, whomever takes California, it being by far the most populous state, has a CLEAR ADVANTAGE. And not only did Hillary get a huge amount of votes there, but it netted her a clear advantage over the 2nd most populous state, Texas. BUT THAT WAS REALLY THE ONLY STATE RANKING where she CLEARLY HAD THE ADVANTAGE, both in terms of votes gotten AND their concomitant electoral votes that went with them!
2. AS A RESULT, though fairly close in total EC votes acquired among their top ten most important states (183 for Trump vs. only 179 for Hillary), HILLARY LOST the EC vote count in her TEN BEST STATES.
3. Looking at the second group of ten, here Trump easily TROUNCED Hillary, getting nearly DOUBLE the electoral votes of Hillary! (78 for Trump vs. only 45 for Hillary).
4. In the final group of ten, Hillary scored NO EC votes at all. She only won 20 states. Trump won an additional 41 electoral college votes here, which while the Left famously say that "no one lives in these states," they collectively added up to more EC votes than ANY OTHER STATE other than California, so are statistically SIGNIFICANT. Indeed, they may have WON THE ELECTION.
5. Looking at the height of the bars, which represent ACTUAL VOTES CAST FOR THE WINNING CANDIDATE (not mere population), it truly is a wonder how Hillary somehow still won the popular vote. Indeed, there were 28 out of 30 rankings where Trump either TIED HILLARY in popular votes cast or BEAT HER. In fact, here are the only rankings where Hillary beat Trump: (1): California vs. Texas. (8) Maryland vs. Arizona. That is it. Trump tied or beat her in every other state ranking.

View attachment 286775

• Hillary took California. Obviously, Democrats have every interest in holding that state and getting the population higher and higher there, as it will get them more EC votes.

• Trump and Hillary tied in #2 New York vs. Florida.

• Trump and Hillary essentially tied in #3 Illinois vs. Pennsylvania.

After that, Hillary pretty much lost everywhere else for the most part and these were her strongest states. In the one she won, it only gained her 1 EC vote.

So clearly, the ENTIRE ELECTION to the Democrats hinges on just three states (the Centralized Power of the DNC):

1. California (San Francisco and LA).
2. New York (New York City).
3. Illinois (Chicago). The irony is that Trump actually won most of the rest of these states outside these cities! So those areas never get any representation.

View attachment 286777


In the 2nd group of state ranking comparisons, Trump totally owned Hillary. Hillary lost in every comparison both in total votes acquired as well as EC votes.


View attachment 286778


And finally, in the third group, Hillary doesn't even make an appearance. Trump won all ten states appearing here.

With an actual difference I believe of about 74 EC votes between the two, several things become apparent:

• Despite Hillary's famous name recognition, popularity and support, it is easy to see why they now say she was a "bad" candidate, despite being more popular and better supported than Biden, Warren or Sanders! To say otherwise "What Happened" is to admit that Hillary was spanked.
  
• Looking at Chart 1 again and the SEA OF RED across the chart, it is easy to see why the Electoral College was created, why Trump was really the nationally desired and supported candidate for president better representing the will of the nation over Hillary's meager showing where she was really only "popular" (drew heavy numbers of voters) in eight states!

THE PROBLEM IS CLEAR:

The democrats are in a bind. This is the real data they are looking at. They cannot count on the vast number of "red" states" voting for crazy Biden, Warren or Sanders, and these candidates will have a harder time keeping the votes Hillary got even in the blue "key" states much less swinging 37 or more EC votes between Florida, PA, Ohio or Michigan.

If the Dems keep Biden, Sanders or Warren as their nominee, they probably LOSE. If they go with one of the other candidates, they DEFINITELY lose. If they bring back Hillary for Sloppy Thirds with that forced smile of hers like she's really a nice person, they look pathetic, weak and desperate and Democrats probably don't even bother voting.

That leaves the election now really in the hands of Adam Schiff, Nancy and Jerry to somehow manage to either find the specious grounds to impeach Trump (which falls flat in the Senate), or hope that continuing to drag his name through the mud week after week sullies his image in the eyes of enough voters tired of hearing about impeachment, charges and allegations never coming to fruition, and doesn't come back to bite them in the ass instead. Stories of voters leaving Trump simply are not true as Trump has not only been a successful president, but his foibles that democrats like to parade are in large part why a lot of people like and voted for him in the first place!

So if anything, Trump popularity is on the upswing and credibility and belief in the democrat's never-ending investigations that prove nothing or go anywhere are wearing really thin.

Right now, despite all claims to the contrary, it is NOT looking good for the Democrats. They really need to either remove him from office, hope he resigns, or that maybe an asteroid falls on him from space. 2 and 3 are unlikely, so they are pushing hard hoping for a very long shot for #1.

This is post of the year right here. I had never really considered how badly he actually did beat her, but as far as the impeachment thing goes you’re dead on. Drag him through the mud so hard and for so long that hopefully voters become exhausted and just say let’s move on from him. But I don’t think they chose the right time period to do it. People are waking up more. They could’ve pulled something like this off 20 or 30 years ago but not today.

 

[HandleTheTruth]

With all this talk of impeachment nonsense, I thought it important to explain why. Whether or not the Democrats ever actually try to carry it out or just want to keep it on the front page of the MSM to keep their base engaged in hope that the Dems are actually making progress anywhere in the now 3-year-long continual loss to Trump does not matter. HERE IS THE REALITY THAT THE DEMOCRATS FACE come 2020 that is driving talk of impeachment.

And it is a no-win situation for them with Trump in office.

This is sort of a continuation of an earlier thread called Why Trump Won (Why Trump Won), so in a sense, this thread may be considered HOW Trump Won. In it, I will attempt to cast great doubt both on our national polling and reporting as well as the claim that Trump lost the popular vote, as well as show why his reelection is a near certainty! All data for this came from the web page: 2016 United States presidential election - Wikipedia graciously provided byXponentialChaosand though he claimed to be a statistician, apparently declined my invitation to offer any statistics to the contrary, so here is what the stats really tell us about HOW Trump won and why his reelection is almost certain.

In creating these charts, I presented data on the 50 states. For our intents and purposes, DC was not included here as it is not a state and only has 3 EC votes making it rather statistically irrelevant.

Following is the main chart which I invite you to open and place off to the side for reference for easier reading. Here is the 2016 election in a nutshell, presented in a way perhaps never shown before:

View attachment 286767

KEY POINTS to what is different about this chart:

1. The 50 states are broken down into three groups of ten BY ORDER OF THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THAT STATE VOTING FOR THE CANDIDATE THAT WON THEM THAT STATE.
2. Do not mistake the twin red/blue columns for Trump vs. Hillary per state AS IS USUAL; the 20 blue columns represent the 20 states HILLARY WON while the 30 red columns represent the 30 states Trump won.
3. The chart is organized Left to Right in order of: (a)The relative number of people in that state voting for the candidate that TOOK that state; since the other candidate LOST that state, those votes do not count for anything and are not shown. (b) The order of ranking for the states with the first group to be the 10 biggest and most important states each candidate won, both by electoral votes AND by votes (the two tend to closely correlate). Obviously, the higher the state ranking, the more it helped each candidate win.
4. Each blue or red bar was rounded to the nearest 100,000 or 10,000 as was appropriate for easier tabulation.

WHAT GLOBAL OBSERVATIONS MAY WE CONCLUDE FROM THESE DATA?

1. Hillary actually only really beat Trump in one state ranking! California! #1 ranking. By that I mean, whomever takes California, it being by far the most populous state, has a CLEAR ADVANTAGE. And not only did Hillary get a huge amount of votes there, but it netted her a clear advantage over the 2nd most populous state, Texas. BUT THAT WAS REALLY THE ONLY STATE RANKING where she CLEARLY HAD THE ADVANTAGE, both in terms of votes gotten AND their concomitant electoral votes that went with them!
2. AS A RESULT, though fairly close in total EC votes acquired among their top ten most important states (183 for Trump vs. only 179 for Hillary), HILLARY LOST the EC vote count in her TEN BEST STATES.
3. Looking at the second group of ten, here Trump easily TROUNCED Hillary, getting nearly DOUBLE the electoral votes of Hillary! (78 for Trump vs. only 45 for Hillary).
4. In the final group of ten, Hillary scored NO EC votes at all. She only won 20 states. Trump won an additional 41 electoral college votes here, which while the Left famously say that "no one lives in these states," they collectively added up to more EC votes than ANY OTHER STATE other than California, so are statistically SIGNIFICANT. Indeed, they may have WON THE ELECTION.
5. Looking at the height of the bars, which represent ACTUAL VOTES CAST FOR THE WINNING CANDIDATE (not mere population), it truly is a wonder how Hillary somehow still won the popular vote. Indeed, there were 28 out of 30 rankings where Trump either TIED HILLARY in popular votes cast or BEAT HER. In fact, here are the only rankings where Hillary beat Trump: (1): California vs. Texas. (8) Maryland vs. Arizona. That is it. Trump tied or beat her in every other state ranking.

View attachment 286775

• Hillary took California. Obviously, Democrats have every interest in holding that state and getting the population higher and higher there, as it will get them more EC votes.

• Trump and Hillary tied in #2 New York vs. Florida.

• Trump and Hillary essentially tied in #3 Illinois vs. Pennsylvania.

After that, Hillary pretty much lost everywhere else for the most part and these were her strongest states. In the one she won, it only gained her 1 EC vote.

So clearly, the ENTIRE ELECTION to the Democrats hinges on just three states (the Centralized Power of the DNC):

1. California (San Francisco and LA).
2. New York (New York City).
3. Illinois (Chicago). The irony is that Trump actually won most of the rest of these states outside these cities! So those areas never get any representation.

View attachment 286777


In the 2nd group of state ranking comparisons, Trump totally owned Hillary. Hillary lost in every comparison both in total votes acquired as well as EC votes.


View attachment 286778


And finally, in the third group, Hillary doesn't even make an appearance. Trump won all ten states appearing here.

With an actual difference I believe of about 74 EC votes between the two, several things become apparent:

• Despite Hillary's famous name recognition, popularity and support, it is easy to see why they now say she was a "bad" candidate, despite being more popular and better supported than Biden, Warren or Sanders! To say otherwise "What Happened" is to admit that Hillary was spanked.
• Looking at Chart 1 again and the SEA OF RED across the chart, it is easy to see why the Electoral College was created, why Trump was really the nationally desired and supported candidate for president better representing the will of the nation over Hillary's meager showing where she was really only "popular" (drew heavy numbers of voters) in eight states!

THE PROBLEM IS CLEAR:

The democrats are in a bind. This is the real data they are looking at. They cannot count on the vast number of "red" states" voting for crazy Biden, Warren or Sanders, and these candidates will have a harder time keeping the votes Hillary got even in the blue "key" states much less swinging 37 or more EC votes between Florida, PA, Ohio or Michigan.

If the Dems keep Biden, Sanders or Warren as their nominee, they probably LOSE. If they go with one of the other candidates, they DEFINITELY lose. If they bring back Hillary for Sloppy Thirds with that forced smile of hers like she's really a nice person, they look pathetic, weak and desperate and Democrats probably don't even bother voting.

That leaves the election now really in the hands of Adam Schiff, Nancy and Jerry to somehow manage to either find the specious grounds to impeach Trump (which falls flat in the Senate), or hope that continuing to drag his name through the mud week after week sullies his image in the eyes of enough voters tired of hearing about impeachment, charges and allegations never coming to fruition, and doesn't come back to bite them in the ass instead. Stories of voters leaving Trump simply are not true as Trump has not only been a successful president, but his foibles that democrats like to parade are in large part why a lot of people like and voted for him in the first place!

So if anything, Trump popularity is on the upswing and credibility and belief in the democrat's never-ending investigations that prove nothing or go anywhere are wearing really thin.

Right now, despite all claims to the contrary, it is NOT looking good for the Democrats. They really need to either remove him from office, hope he resigns, or that maybe an asteroid falls on him from space. 2 and 3 are unlikely, so they are pushing hard hoping for a very long shot for #1.

For the same reason the republicans were under Clinton.