The Original BJ wrote:GULP, every day just takes us further and further into uncharted territory.
Assume this is related to him tweeting out today that he can pardon himself?
It's to the point where people need to specify what outrage they're referencing; it's the rare day there's only one absurdity floating in the media ether.
Kudos, BJ, for getting out there and actively working for what we all know is our best chance. I'm of course hoping tomorrow night's primaries yield the right results (though it's annoying the main risk seems to be that California's debatable system of choosing candidates could cost Dems even a shot at vulnerable seats).
To answer Sabin's question about Mueller, how much impact do I think he'll have?: it depends on how strong a case he presents. Each week/month, our sense of the size of the investigation has grown. Not too long a while back, pundits were confidently saying collusion was off the table, obstruction was the only real jeopardy for Trump. Subsequent revelations have rendered that thesis laughable: it's clear Mueller is going way deep into collusion. But we still don't know how far it goes, how many people it covers, how many crimes are involved, how extensive the evidence is. It may turn out that the percentage Mueller is still sitting on, compared to what's already been revealed, is similar to the ratio between what's in plain sight now compared to the amount we knew a year ago (NOTE: I EDITED THIS SENTENCE AFTER THE FACT TO TRY AND GIVE MORE CLARITY; FOR SOME REASON, I HAD A LOT OF TROUBLE PHRASING IT SUCCINCTLY). Given how things have gone up till now -- and based on what numerous anonymous sources have been buzzing over (not to mention what non-partisans like Brennan, Clapper and Hayden have been warning) -- I tend to take the "over": I think there's a lot more to come.
Which doesn't fully answer your question, of course, because what you're really asking is, even if we have streaming video of Trump paying Putin to flip vote totals across the Midwest, would that rouse elected Republicans to do anything? Based on their unforgivable behavior to date, it's easy to take the super-cynical view and assume they'll stay where they are and (in BJ's metaphor) go down with the ship. But I take Nate Silver's position: baked into that view is an assumption that there's nothing that crosses the line enough to change public opinion in a way even Republicans can't ignore. Not every Republican, of course. There's probably an irreducible 25-35% of the country for whom the talk radio/Fox News bubble has served as the equivalent of Radio Rwanda over the past two decades; these are the people Trump rightly said would forgive him killing someone on Fifth Avenue. But there are other Republicans (I know some) who are capable of shame, whose tribal loyalty can be shaken if the revelations are stark enough. This is also true of elected Republicans. A good percentage -- those in gerrymandered districts, or super-red states -- will stay true to Trump even if the country's on fire. But there are Republican Senators in swing states who have to face voters before long -- too few of them this year, unhappily, but many in 2020, which isn't so far off as they'd like it to be. If Mueller comes up with a persuasive case -- Capital T treason, to do a variant on BJ's phrase -- these people can be gettable votes for removal.
As for what Democrats should be doing now, in the teeth of the shameless (and ludicrous) propaganda campaign from the Trump camp...I understand it can be frustrating to hear lies spouted daily without instant rebuttal. It would help if the press did a better job of labelling these lies as such immediately, and repeated the characterization every time the lie was repeated; the fact that they're finding that too exhausting, and slacking on the job, is one way in which the mendacious Trump folk do seem to be winning. But I'm not sure it's doing any irreparable damage. In the end, Mueller's presentation is going to be persuasive or it isn't, and most of these temporal rhetorical victories could end up meaningless.
As for how Dems should be campaigning -- I'll say more on this as we get deeper into the season, but, in brief: 1) Dems should of course campaign on the issues where people hugely support them (heath care above all); 2) at a certain point, "Repubicans won't hold Trump accountable; we will" should be a strong additional selling point; and 3) the pundit certainty that "Democrats can't get elected simply being anti-Trump" is ahistorical -- presidential unpopularity was pretty much the whole shebang in both 2006 and 2010, massive anti-incumbent party wave elections.