Leaving Half The Country Behind: Poll Shows Majority Now Opposes Impeachment

During the testimony last week, I expressed various concerns with the artificially short period allowed for the impeachment investigation due to the Democratic pledge to impeach President Donald Trump by Christmas. Not only will that abbreviated period leave a thin and incomplete record, but it will leave “half of this country behind.” That appears to be exactly the right estimate. A new Monmouth poll shows that 50 percent of the country now opposes impeachment. The polling in some swing states is even worse. In other words, this impeachment is playing to the Democratic base and little beyond it — precisely what Speaker Nancy Pelosi pledged that she would not allow to happen.

Not long ago, Speaker Pelosi declared to The Washington Post Magazine that “I’m not for impeachment. Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.” 

Similarly, back during the Clinton impeachment, Chairman Jerry Nadler insisted “You have to be able to think, at the beginning of the impeachment process, that the evidence is so clear, of offenses so grave, that once you’ve laid out all the evidence, a good fraction of the opposition, the voters, will reluctantly admit to themselves, ‘They have to do it.’ Otherwise you have a partisan impeachment, which will tear the country apart.”

The new polls show precisely that type of hard and unresolved divide. While six out of 10 say that Trump has not cooperated with the investigation, half opposed impeachment. Support for impeachment now stands at just 38 percent. Some 44% say they do not trust the inquiry at all. That is the stuff that tears a nation apart.

Once again, none of this means that the allegations should not be investigated or that impeachment is improper. Rather, there is a good reason to distrust a record that was thrown together on a rocket docket of impeachment. The schedule adopted by the Democrats appears driven primarily by the Iowa caucuses and not an objective part of the impeachment process. It may turn out that this makes for not only for a bad record but bad politics.

146 thoughts on “Leaving Half The Country Behind: Poll Shows Majority Now Opposes Impeachment”

  1. At this particular juncture, impeachment is slipping. But with Trump another shoe will always drop. And the biggest shoes yet to drop are those two Soviet-born money bundlers linked to Guiliani. When they come to trial those will be hard to explain.

    1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me thirty-eight citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after fifty-two weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – Nate Silver thought Hillary had a 95% chance of winning on election day. How did that work out.

    2. Nate Silver is free to believe whatever he likes.

      I will never forget the NYT “92% likely hillary will win” prediction late in the game.

      Has there ever been a clearer demonstration that polling in respect of Trump is way out of whack

      Do you understand that polling methods are an art not a science? And the state of the art where guys like Trump is concerned, is faulty.

      The explanation is simple. Political correctness. People are being massively trained to lie in public and to strangers about their true political beliefs and feelings, on pain of being scolded in social media and possibly losing their jobs. The system is becoming similar to the support that Soviet citizens expressed for the USSR. In a word, it was fake.

      That is not to say they didn’t support Russia; they continued to love the Rodina in their hearts.
      But the political entity that was the USSR was no longer equated with the Rodina– in their private feelings.

      So all the doublespeak. Say, that’s a term from the great journalist and socialist, George Orwell. today again it fits.

      Hence, polling is as imprecise as ever in properly measuring attitudes.

        1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me thirty-eight citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after fifty-two weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – your area of expertise is computers, so STFU

  2. Actually, that half the country is opposed to impeachment IS a good indication that Democrats should have never got involved in this. Impeachment should ONLY be attempted if there is a solid reason to remove the president. In this case, it’s not going anywhere regardless of how the vote comes out. The Senate is NOT going to hear it or if they do, they’ll never get the required 2/3’s vote for removal. It’s a waste of time and the Democratic Party is going to suffer major damage. Not only does the Monmouth Poll show lack of support, does the Quinnipiac poll. Incidentally, BOTH of those polls are left wing. That is NOT good news for Democrats.

  3. I know believe Turley will protect this president and defend him to the end. He has yet to find fault of any kind with this moron, which put him in league with him for me. I can no longer bear the sophistry. Good bye, Prof, I pray for you as well as me.

      1. TIA:


        I can no longer bear the sophistry. Good bye, Prof, I pray for you as well as me.”
        *******************************
        You’re telling me!

        With Chuck’s long overdue departure, the truth quotient in the comments section is sure to skyrocket. A theme song to the day;

      2. Yeah, Tabby, it’s not like these threads need any fresh blood. They’ve been doing just fine vacuum-sealed in the right-wing bubble.

        1. I wonder Philip (fka Peter?) since you say this is a right wing bubble.

          Did you have any comment on my remark that a potential middle american based revolt against the DC swamp and Megapolis aligned globalist combine, could take inspiration from the agrarian based revolt of Mao Zedong’s Communists in China 1927-1937?

          If you’re a leftist then maybe you could comment on that notion because it never gets a bite from my “Right wing” dialogue partners here.

            1. You can say so but his policy positions are what has got him in hot water, not all the trifles the Dem leadership have dramatized in the “impeachment hearings”

              De-escalation with Russia is a huge deal it seems. People like me wanted that, for fear of nuclear war; wanted an end to Pentagon and State Department’s provocative adventures on the Russian border in Ukraine.

              On the other hand, it seems a lot of the professional bureacracy in Washington, from both parties, the civil servant lifers and their ilk, just love the contretempts against Russia

              Out here, we’re sick of it. likewise, sick of more and more foreigners flooding into the country, sick of deindustrialization and competing with slave wage labor in china, just sick of all the things that have made NYC, LA, and DC functionaries rich at the expense of everyone else.

              Trump’s our guy. His policies have brought us lowest unemployment in 50 some years.
              Bottom line. America should be thanking Trump and America does; it’s the Dem leadership that’s really out of touch.

              They should be apologizing for harassing him and spying on his campaign as the IG report confirms. However supposedly “legit” the FBI tools’ spying was, obviously, they were sucked into it by the Hillary pee pee dossier thing. Despicable! Instead you’ve thought up a new reason to blame the victim.

        1. Comment @4:30 p is in response to the following:

          “This is absurd x XV says:December 12, 2019 at 10:08 AM

          “I’m sure he’ll miss you dreadfully.”

    1. Unlike you, Prof. Turley believes in the Constitution. Democrats don’t. Impeachment is ONLY to be an option when a president has committed a high crime or misdemeanor.

    2. I know believe Turley will protect this president and defend him to the end.

      Unlike yourself, Turley knows that this president will not be our last. He is honoring his oath to support the constitution. Given the wafer thin articles for impeachment, the only abuse of power is being exercised by congressional democrats. And a growing majority of people in this country are recognizing the true threat to our rule of law and our national security is the Democrat party.

  4. I think Turley just hasn’t grasped how bad Civics education has fallen in the US, so he feel he has no need to explain the obvious.

    1. Again, civic education or the lack of it is not the problem here. You cannot reason someone out of a position that he himself was not reasoned into.

    2. Paul,

      LOL;) What Civics classes, a big chunk of these people, between getting hit in the head repeatedly IQ wise with all the toxic Vaccines & the Rat Poison Sodium Fluoride in the water, ( instead of the good halogen Calcium Fluoride), thus rendering many as dumb as a sack full of hammers.

      Hell, maybe me to at this point.

      I haven’t confirmed this stat, but I’ve recently heard the average IQ of Americans has dropped from 100 to an IQ of 80.

      One might think, well, my IQ is just fine. Ok, but keep in mind as you hurling yourself down a expressway at 70 mph in a big chunk of iron just look around & realize those others driving vehicles around you have had an IQ drop of 20% or more…. & maybe they’re on Med MJ. LOL; )

  5. Why don’t you quote Lindsey Graham on the Clinton impeachment?

    Most people don’t want impeachment because they don’t want Pence!

  6. The only poll that matters is the vote of the People in their Collective Capacity assembled proportionally, in a republican sense, in the House of Representatives and achieving a simple Majority Consensus based upon that mode of assembly. For you over educated pompous scholarly sycophants, that’s as few as 9 States to reach a simple Majority consensus by Population.

    This isn’t a partisan poll of some imagined electorate that you intellectuals have deemed to represent the country! It’s the actual assembly of all the People of the United States through Representation to participate and vote as if they were present in person to participate and vote themselves.

    A Majority of the People in their Collective Capacity choose the President, and it takes a Majority of the People in their Collective Capacity, assembled in Congress, to remove the President if the President no longer respects their collective decision making authority, and by the Concurrence of the States in their Collective Capacity, the Established Government Authority, any person who doesn’t respect their Authority of their Union to make all decisions involving their Union, that person will be immediately removed.

    By that official Poll of the People in their Collective Capacity, Trump would have never been selected as President, and if by chance he had been selected, then his immediate removal would have been certain the first time he made any decision, or contacted any foreign interest, without their consent by the concurrence of 2/3 of the States as they are assembled in Congress.

    All you over educated imbeciles who can’t even read and comprehend on an 8th grade level! What a waste of potential!

    1. Actually, the STATES chose the president, not a majority of the people. That’s what the Electoral College is all about. Although the names of candidates are on the ballots, we are actually voting for electors, who then vote for the president. There is no “national election.” Instead, each state votes for electors on the same day and the tabulation of the votes of all the states is meaningless.

      1. Try again, your analysis doesn’t hold water!

        The People in their Collective Capacity from each State choose the persons which are considered to be President! The Electors are a direct duplication of the Representatives for each State which are a direct representation of each State’s own most numerous Legislative Branch, the People of each State in their Collective Capacity, which are selected by a process each State’s own Legislature determines for selecting the Electors, which must occur on the same day in every State, a date determined by Congress, then the chosen electors are sequestered in their respective State’s on the Same day, a date determined by Congress, to vote by ballot, the ballots are collected, compiled into list of candidates and the number of votes each received, those list are certified, sealed, and transmitted to the seat of government directed to the President of the Senate, to be opened by the President of the Senate and counted, if a person receives the most votes, be it a majority of the Electors, not the Electors votes, then that person becomes the President, if no person receives a Majority, then an Immediate runoff election of the top 5 persons receiving votes by Article 2 Section 1, or the top 3 by the 12th amendment, will commence, the vote in the House will be by State, 1 vote per State, a quorum consist of a Representative or Representatives from 2/3 of the States, and a Majority of the votes by State is necessary to the Choice.

        Now if you can find anywhere in Article 2 Section 1 or the 12th Amendment that allows for declared Candidates, party nominations, party tickets, general popular elections, or winner takes all by State of the electors votes, please cite the appropriate constitutional references.

        The Electors are appointed in each State, then the Electors vote by ballot by the following criteria: the persons the electors choose must be natural born citizens, they must have reached the age of 35 years, they must be an inhabitant in the United States for 14 years, and the Electors must choose at least 1 person that resides in another State other than The Elector. Meaning the Electors can only choose 9ne person from their own State, not that the persons they choose must be from different states.

        At least try to read and understand the Constitution, it is clear and needs no interpretation!

  7. As expected, undemocratic Dems impeached Trump for winning an election he was supposed to lose, for wanting improved relations with Russia, and other issues unrelated to phony charges against him.

    His real high crimes of war and against humanity were ignored. The same goes for betraying the public trust by serving monied interests exclusively at the expense of ordinary people.

    Why? Because the vast majority in Congress share guilt, so Dems invented phony politicized reasons to charge him.
    https://stephenlendman.org/2019/12/dems-impeach-trump/

  8. Using JT’s logic – a majority of the population didn’t ask for tax cuts for the 1%, regime change wars, 700+ military facilities world wide. Nor did they ask for a corrupt president. The GOP is simply playing to their bases in order to maintain and advance the wealthy by muddying the waters for their uninformed voters.

    1. billmcwilliams:

      Well, Bill three strikes is an out. The middle class got a tax cut not just the rich )I can send you my taxes for proof); Trump has specifically avoided regime change wars in Syria, Ukraine and Afghanistan; we have 600 bases out of the country to fight terrorism which Trump neither built nor authorized in their inception
      (https://kritisches-netzwerk.de/sites/default/files/us_department_of_defense_-_base_structure_report_fiscal_year_2015_baseline_-_as_of_30_sept_2014_-_a_summary_of_the_real_property_inventory_-_206_pages.pdf) .

      So while being consistent is usually a good thing; being wrong — always — probably isn’t.

      1. mespo

        I said trump gave a tax cut to the rich. He did. The middle class loses most of their “CUT” when they figure out they’ve lost deductions they previously counted on.

        Trump actively supported regime change in Venezuela, Bollivia, and various countries in the M.East – except for where his & Ivanka’s financial interests would be in possible jeopardy.

        Being uninformed is one thing. Being consistently wrong is the mark of an arrogant Trump supporter.

        1. bill:

          He gave a tax cut to everyone; no US troops are at war in your cited nations; and you over stated the number of overseas US bases by a 100+, and you call me wrong?

  9. Your discussing the to-and-fro among a modest population of swing voters who are commonly quite low-information.

    The real story, and indicative of what a terrible political culture we have, is that you have north of 40% of the public who want the President removed from office and never mind the details. It’s another indication, in case you needed one, that the Democratic Party is a collecting pool of people who have no respect for procedural values, just want what they want, and cannot conceive of themselves in a venue wherein interests and ideas compete according to rules. The mentality is corrosive of constitutional government. About this, the professor is clueless.

    In this venue, we can get an idea of the sort of people that street-level Democrats really are: the emotionalism, the recycling of (misleading or frankly mendacious) talking points, the juvenalia, the arrogance, the stupidity, the complete lack of common standards of conduct.

    1. This is why the Democrats are asking for a bloody nose. They’ve gone out of their lane so many times they need a forceful correction. To nip it in the bud. because the logic of purity spiralling towards radicalism on their part will only get worse.

      when you know it’s eventually going to come to blows, you start planning, on how best to land the first real punch.

      1. I should say the Democrat leadership. I still think the rank and file of Democrat voters are still filled with a lot of good hearted people. It’s persistently mislead by the activists and professional bureaucrats who make up their system architecture.

        Of course a lot of those good hearted folk are welcome to jump on the TRUMP TRAIN and MAKE AMERICA GREAT! Trump’s leadership is for America as a whole, and not just the narrow interests of Republican functionaries, who have been timid in supporting him and mostly dragged along by the nose all the way.

  10. Given that there is no alternative explanation for the known facts regarding Trump’s actions regarding the Ukraine – or at least none offered by the Republicans – his defenders strategy is to muddy the waters, making the usually poorly informed undecideds think this is just another partisan squabble they can ignore. That is so far working, and thanks in no small part to actions like JT’s appearance before Congress. For those willing to look at the evidence, there is no political choice to be made and impeachment is imperative. The man is a self serving scoundrel with no regard for laws or ethical behavior. Let the cards fall where they may and we’ll see what happens in the Senate.

    1. Isn’t it curious that JT writes column after column critical of Democratic strategy regarding impeachment and virtually none about GOP tactics which virtually ignore evidence while calling into question not only the rules – mostly the same they had as the majority – but the motives and character of their Democratic opposites? Trump’s stonewalling, infantile personal attacks, and daily lying are also largely accepted without comment by him even though they are driving these events as much or more than Pelosi’s reactions.

      1. btb:

        ” …virtually ignore evidence ”

        **********************

        Please state the evidence in detail. We’ve debated its paucity here lots of times but we’re always willing to educate the ignorant. Proceed …

        1. Morrison, Taylor, Volker, and Sondland all testified under oath that military aid was contingent on Ukraine announcing publicly an investigation into Biden. They were all personally involved in the diplomatic machinations around that effort and Sondland spoke directly to Trump about his wishes. Not only was the aid withheld until the effort became public, but there are texts supporting this fact and a scheduled appearance by Zelensky on Fareed Zacharia’s CNN show for this purpose, cancelled after the WB. By Occam’s Razor and the fact that Trump first raised the issue with Zelensky, reasonable people will conclude these actions were taken under his direction and knowledge.

          If you have another explanation, let’s hear it.

          1. btb:

            “If you have another explanation, let’s hear it.”

            ********************

            I’ll do better; I’ll show it and let you hear it, all despite your wrongful characterizations. Try 3:46. listen for Sondland admitting he “presumed” it true like his fellow Deep State crocs and the POTUS never participated in such a scheme:

            1. I’m sorry Mespo, that is not an alternative explanation of how these actions transpired without Trumps direction and approval, it’s a weak sowing of doubt to what is obvious. Do you truly assert all these things went on, including Trump’s own facilitating behavior without his knowledge and direction? How and who?

              As to the cute attorney’s trick you dug up, Sondland interacted with the President numerous times and acted with the Ukraine as he read his wishes. There is no evidence of Trump’s displeasure with what he was doing, unless you take the “no QPQ” statement for the record after being caught. He immediately followed that statement with a detailed QPQ he wanted Sondland to execute. We can only reasonably conclude that Sondland accurately “assumed” his bosses wishes. Further, Sondland did not hold up the military aid. Only Trump had that authority.

              Your turn.

              1. Easy answer. Your whole submission is a false premise. The give away is the line “Do you truly believe….without knowing/”

                The answer is can YOU truly prove your unsupported opinion is sufficient to convict? Of course that is a major if not the entire ‘stated’ fallacy. Guilty by and unknown unproven majority until proven innocent.

                It’s a shame you had no decent education

                Personally i fail to find any portion of what socialists believe that is not based on a false premise starting with Plato but then i don’t have to prove guilt. it’s demonstrated every day.

                Plato by the way rejected his own system in a final examination by saying “It won’t work my fellow Greeks will never give up their independence.”

                Thus our founders saw the educated citizens as a the only valid source as well spring of power and termed them ‘self governing.’

                The very faction that provided the most votes and defeated the second and third place ‘party’ totals.

                it never pays to be force fed cherry picked fallacies .

          2. Morrison, Taylor, Volker, and Sondland all testified under oath that military aid was contingent on Ukraine announcing publicly an investigation into Biden

            No, they didn’t. They testified that they surmised that. Even if that were true, it is not important.

    2. bythebook:

      “Given that there is no alternative explanation for the known facts regarding Trump’s actions regarding the Ukraine – or at least none offered by the Republicans – ”
      ******************
      If your book is little and red, you’ve got it! if you’re rational and believe in evidence-based thinking – not so much.

      Oh and it’s innocent until proven guilty – not guilty until proven innocent. Are all Leftists so freedom-challenged?

      1. I eagerly await your posting of a discussion of the known facts, including the missing explanation of them which does not include an impeachable action by the president.

        1. bythelittleredbook:

          “I eagerly await your posting of a discussion of the known facts, including the missing explanation of them which does not include an impeachable action by the president.”

          ******************

          You’re asserting the “stupid.” He who asserts must prove. Back up your statement or slink out like your brethren around here typically do. Remember it’s a bunch of lawyer you’re speaking to and we are born with BS detectors.

          And btw Euclid, you can’t prove a negative i.e. Trump didn’t do this or that. That’s the burden is on the accuser — you.

          Yeesh, the quality of troll used to be so much higher around here.

          1. I’m sorry Menlo, but insulting me does not equal that alternative explanation you imply is available. I would expect better from someone with your pretentious to superiority.

            1. btb:

              I wouldn’t waste time insulting you; that would imply some sort of interest in your position. I’m just calling it like I see it. BTW the video refuting your copius bullshark is above.

              1. Ah, but you did and repeat the behavior again. I’ll chalk it up to an inability to rationally discuss facts important to us all.

                My response to your video – are you a millennial? – above.

                  1. Menlo earlier claimed he wouldn’t waste his time insulting me, but now after this at least 3rd attempt to do so, we see it’s not a waste of ttime . It’s a smoke screen to hide his inability to carry on a rational discussion of the facts.

                    Anyone from the A team here who wants to pick up the banner he left on the ground?

                    1. Not really. Under whatever name you choose to post with this week, you’re just not worth the bandwidth.

                    2. Others will read it Foxtrot and if you prove your point you further your argument. That’s why you post here right? Menlo seems to post for the preening and snark and he’s good at that. Not so much in a debate.

  11. The Pinkos have made up their minds, now they want to see the evidence.

    Sounds like a bunch of Red Queens (no guys, this is not a veiled reference to your manhoods).

    The Pinkos got what they wanted. May they have much joy from it.

  12. Dear Professor, since the President refused allow or shall we say obstructed the access of Congress to important testimony should they have just continued fighting with him? They have him in a written transcript that he himself praised engaging in abuse of power! Statistics offered by others show that this was not a short period of investigation. Trying to be on both sides of this issue?

    1. Justice, Turley’s point is that what you and the majority see as ‘obstruction’ the President sees as ‘privilege’. The courts are there to resolve the dispute. If they agree with congress and the President refuses to comply, then it’s ‘obstruction of justice’, if they agree with the President, then congress will have to find another way to get the information or give up. ‘Obstruction of Congress’ is a hastily made up charge that ignores the role of the courts, the professor points out that by doing this the majority is in fact abusing it’s power. Turley has not changed his position, nor is he straddling the fence.

Leave a Reply