I was scrolling through my Twitter Feed early this morning and saw an article published by The Hill where Tulsi Gabbard (the one the same) offered up her view that Impeachment would help re-elect Trump 2020. I won't get too much into my rage-filled feelings about Tulsi Gabbard (which side is she on?), but her opinion is one that seems to be banging around social media and op-ed pieces like a ball being knocked around inside a Pinball Table- that impeaching Trump is going to "help" Trump in 2020 and that Democrats are basically stupid for going after him for his obvious misconduct (re: Ukraine)

My question, are you f**king serious? In what reality will impeaching Trump *help* him, seriously? His MAGAT base will, as with all things, stand solidly behind him and rage at Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff, et. al right along with him, of course, but then I'm reading polling where REMOVING Trump from office actually has pretty solid public support. So, what's the deal here? How does impeaching Trump actually help him? Is there actual historical context for this assertion or is it just a whole lot of wishful thinking. I'm aware that there was never much public support for impeaching Bill Clinton in 1998-1999 and his popularity seemed to increase as a result- but his successor, Al Gore, *lost* in 2000- and George W. Bush was able to more or less successfully run on a platform of "restoring dignity to the White House" (LOL). Nixon wasn't impeached but he probably would have had he not resigned in disgrace and Republicans lost in 1976. I don't know much about Johnson's impeachment to comment on his situation at the moment. But, I still want to know why, exactly, some people think that it's going to help him, especially with how he is reacting to it and how the Republicans in Senate are planning their show trial to "exonerate" him?

Is anybody here able to see how Trump comes out of an Impeachment Trial- even if acquitted- with a strong(er) chance for re-election in 2020? I've heard that it will help "energize" his base, but won't it energize our base, who have been clamoring for it for even longer, as well?

Interested in everybody's thoughts here.

It's going to be an unbearably ugly, nasty election, but it won't be a Hillary v. Trump rematch, so I don't think that Trump will be able to smear any other candidate quite as badly as he was able to (wrongly) smear her. Plus, we've all seen what (nearly) 4 years with Trump is like and I don't know anybody IRL who really likes the guy or think he's suitable for the job. Pretty much smearing the Democratic candidate into oblivion- to the point he/she looks as bad as him (or worse) or having third-or fourth-party candidates- are about the only possible ways Trump can win IMHO. I'm NOT taking anything for granted. We will have to GOTV like we did in 2018 and then some more.

Public perception is that the economy is doing well and Democrats may look "out of touch" making broad negative statements about the economy. Democrats would probably be best to sidestep the issue and focus in on all the ways Trump(ism) hasn't been good for the country (and for the economy, where Trump's policies harmful to the economy can easily be identified) and make gratuitous references to "Obama's Economy".

To hear some Trump supporters and sycophants tell it, Trump is one of the best Presidents this country has ever had since Abe Lincoln and I hear them on Facebook and Social Media making it sound like he's the second coming and I can't figure out why other than cult-like devotion to him for some reason. He's never freed an enslaved or oppressed class of people (and is actually doing quite the opposite), he's never helped win a World War, and whatever you think of how "good" the economy supposedly is, it's hard for me to pinpoint anything *he* has personally done in order to help it (and has actually done quite a lot to harm certain segments of the economy). I'm sure that most Trumpers are just ecstatic that he's nursing their grievances against minorities, LGBTQ persons, women, et. al and actively working to put us "in our place", but, objectively speaking IMHO, that makes him the exact opposite of a "good" President and, certainly, one of the truly historic ones.

BUT what do you do when you have Senators (Jurors in this scenario) outright saying that they have already dismissed the evidence and/or planning to coordinate with the Defendant in the case who is on trial? In essense, they are outright planning a sham trial and are openly admitting it. They're refusing to allow witnesses to be called as well. Why should the House, which has invested a lot of time and effort in the AOIs hand them over to the Senate until there are assurances that they will get a fair and partial hearing in the Senate. I'm well aware that they could vote to acquit in the end, but at least we can have something resembling a fair trial in the Senate, right?

Billions of dollars for Walls, Space Forces, but national health care coverage is always just "too expensive"

I just hate the thought that people would re-elect Trump solely because of the economy and damn everything else. I know that Presidents typically get the credit or the blame for the economy but I'm not sure exactly why we can't have a good economy AND a much better President. I'm not entirely sure what Trump has done for the economy other than not f**k up the good economy Obama left with worse than he has in some respects. Hopefully, the Democrats can thread the needle between not being seen as "talking down" the economy and making the case that a Democratic President would still be better for the economy, but more importantly that we deserve a better quality President than Trump- and I can't see why that would be a hard one to make by anybody still in the running.

First off, Obama ran a squeaky-clean WH and nobody in his Administration were prosecuted. For anything. If I'm wrong, please correct me, but I sure don't remember anything during the 8 years that he was President, a track record better than just about any Administration in the history of this country.

Second off, Trump IS "The Swamp Monster" and Trump Tower is essentially Star Wars' Mos Eisley Cantina- one of the biggest hives of scum and villainy in the galaxy- with plenty of receipts.

His claims of combating corruption in the Ukraine is so outrageously laughable. Glad to see the media calling anybody pushing this "defense" out on it. I have no idea what has been going on over in the Ukraine (although it is certainly by far not the only country in the world where corruption is a problem that he's NOT concerned about) but we obviously need to battle corruption HERE. Trump literally has his daughter and son-in-law "working" in the WH on the taxpayer dime with no discernible jobs, much less qualifications. Add to that AG Bill Barr and Rudy Guiliani (who has also been involved in the WH's actions in a mysterious capacity) ALSO have family members engaged in no discernible jobs within his (mal-)Administration, so *who* exactly is corrupt here?

what it would be like to be married to Trump. And glad that I will never know. I would say that I feel sorry for her but the *least* she could do is not say anything at all. I don't know what exactly she had to gain by going on the offensive against Democrats over the whole "Bar(r)on" non-troversy or why she feels she has to publicly excuse her husband's behavior towards Thunberg. I'd suggest that she quietly fold up her anti-cyberbullying initiative and find a new crusade, although now that I'm thinking of it, I'm not really sure what she would be out there crusading against that wouldn't somehow put her at odds with hubby.

It would be nice if she could spare an ounce of outrage for Thurnberg as she could for her son- who was never actually maligned or attacked by anybody.

The overall takeaway here is that Melania Trump's anti-cyber bullying "initiative" is hollow and hypocritical and she is totally complicit in her husband's gross and misogynistic behavior.