Hmmm, just tried to fact check your odds here. Could not find anything.
However, did see an article dated November 9, 2016 by Lucinda Shen on fortune.com.
In it she said the odds of a Trump win in August 2015 when he first announced his campaign was 25 to 1. Even betting parlors we’re giving 5 to 1 on Election Day.
If you find such long odds as you suggest on a red controlled house let’s us know.
They lost some of their gerrymandering, retiring members, getting killed in fundraising, and then theres trump. They got whooped in 18. What has changed?
Changes for the positive since 2018 have been plentiful for the Trump administration. A wide array of venues too, including trade deals with several countries, wiping two terrorists off the face of the earth and a soaring economy including record highs in Stock Markets and epic lows in unemployment.
Now your turn, other than impeachment which still very well could get wiped clean, what else has changed since the Dems took back control of the House?
Making observations about elections isn’t showing support for any particular side. Impeachment would have been a bad idea, no an even worse idea, if I wanted Democrats to win.
The economy ain’t that hot right now. Which trade deals are you referring? And honestly two terrorists wiped is not really on the mind of 98 percent of voters. Your turn
And the D’s knew that. But impeachment isn’t only about politics. It’s also about what is right.
Not buying it, they did thinking it would hurt his election chances.
How? They new he would be acquitted. And the only recent example - clinton - shows acquitted presidents grow in popularity.
I’m pretty sure that since Impeachment is explicitly outlined in the Constitution, and Articles of Impeachment are binding, while censure is not, nor is it binding, that a new House cannot, in fact, erase the Articles of Impeachment from the record.
Happy to be corrected on that, though.
Hey Kevhead: Thanks for spinning changes back to me.
You ask “which trade deals are you referring” - For starters, the Dem’s did finally get around last December to tweaking and sending over to the Senate USMCA (revised version).
While the climate in the House remains stone cold, a deep freeze on change remains in effect. Yet Trump continues to weather the storm. For example, he warmed up both China and Japan to the idea of lifting steep tariffs. So food to be produced here and shipped overseas will not eat into profits previously destroyed by tariffs increases.
It is also pretty safe to assume the initial reaction of trade changes impact the financial community too. Imagine Wall Street believes such deals represent change for the better (going forward). And probably is a significant factor on why stock markets changes continue to trend in a more positive direction.
Surely it is to be expected how fears of a wide spread of the coronavirus have spooked most everyone including Wall Street.
Trump taking action to ban travel from China is yet another positive change.
Side bar: Obama administration era ended in January 2017 but outright refused to ban travel from nation’s battling Ebola. Mercy spared America a much harsher fate. But why the former POTUS could not change like Trump made it harder, not easier, to contain and combat that outbreak.
I give you one happy face 
for at least Congress is reacting favorably to insist Trump take a lot more money to fight this health crisis. One thing that has not changed is China continuing to be secretive. For denying access to health officials to find root cause is a change for the good of humanity.
Trump always is looking for proactive ways to possibly spare American lives. There is no real way to keep an accurate score of hypothetical things such as this. Suffice to say many American voters, including those with family and friends overseas, are less burdened. Imagine how the thoughts of loved ones with service members abroad sleep easier with these 2 men of evil plus many more terrorists blown off the street.
I will turn it back to you…
And to add, the House I don’t believe…
#1 The House has the power to modify the Congressional record to retroactively remove the actions of a previous House, i.e. “expunge” those records by removing them.
#2 The House has no power to “expunge” Congressional records created by the Senate which is where the impeachment trial took place.
Has there ever been an instance of an impeachment “expunged” from the records? (May have been, but we may not know about them because they were “expunged” and no record exists. Obvious sarcasm here.)
.
.
.
.WW, PHS
Hey JayJay - “Pretty Sure” does not really cut it here. Not even close.
“Surely” the Constitution does not prevent either Chamber of Congress to expunge/revoke their own internal censures and impeachments.
“Not sure” you will consider further research on the Andrew Jackson censure to avoid further confusion in your mind.
“Be sure” if there is to be a next time to bring your A game so we can all expunge any further doubts…
The Democrats have a serious credibility problem after pushing the Russian collusion lie.
#2- True that World Watcher. Each Chamber has their own internal rules including on expunging. Intervening in each other’s internal work’s is not appropriate.
Andrew Jackson’s having his censure of 1834 ultimately expunged the closest example to compare to the current set of circumstances with DJT.
Andrew Johnson was the only past President besides Donald Trump that could of technically run for office subsequent to being impeached. I previously mentioned how with the 17th President he failed to even capture the Nomination of his Party to run in the 1868 Election.
Trump will be seeking to be the 1st President ever to win an election with this tag
Weedhooper: Partisan agenda’s are never credible no matter whatever party is pushing.
Politics of pushing such things like Russian collusion or Ukraine meddling is not the problem. Rather its either party remaining open to impeach merely because no one can stop them.
That’s why until expunging 1st happens it’s even more problematic.
Pushing to expunge will no doubt lessen future abuses, but even that can’t happen unless much like with Andrew Jackson censure, a House also changes control.
Censure is not impeachment. I did consider it…in fact, I mentioned it in my post.
And I said I stood willing to be corrected.
You didn’t correct me…you simply reiterated your opinion.
JayJay - Our collective opinion’s on this forum are neither here nor there.
Obviously an impeachment is not a censure - that much is both crystal clear and factual.
Each originate in the US Government and as such are identical as to being of a governmental type.
A censure and impeachment are very similar in its body’s members wish to rebuke a civil officer in an official tone.
For a censure it is done whenever a body’s member wish to publicly reprimand a civil officer via a formal statement of disapproval.
For an impeachment by which a legislature (usually in the form of the lower House) brings charges against a civil officer of government for crimes alleged to have been committed, analogous to the bringing of an indictment by a grand jury.
Both do share in common NO legal consequences whatsoever.
The one time in history where either a censure or impeachment was expunged with a President was Andrew Jackson. Consideration to decide if one or the other can be expunged is not up to you or me to decide.
In absence of identifying anything of substance to reference to the contrary, I suggest using commonsense. Please reconsider based upon all now provided if it at least a reasonable assumption that the powers to be of each House can decide both censure and impeachment at their own sole discretion.
If you still have doubts perhaps the following illustration may lighten your load a bit:
Let’s try to applying contrast between political and a real life expunging.
In this example it relates an offense on anyone’s official driving record. I researched and found all states allow non-moving violations such as parking violations or failing to maintain a vehicle to be expunged. Also for less serious moving violations such as speeding I also see this removal process can prove effective in most states.
Suspension analogy:
In traffic court you cannot suspend a driver of future privileges when they never had a driver’s license to operate a motor vehicle in begin with.
If re-elected, in the House Trump appears to be serving a suspension in perpetuity. But it’s flawed being imposed like a penalty by a (kangaroo) court not recognized.
Clinton and Nixon:
Previously mentioned how Clinton had his law license revoked and plead guilty to several felony counts.
Nixon agreed to resign and got a pardon by Ford so Congress would not pursue criminal charges.
Yet this newest impeachment result NEVER yielded any legal infraction’s whatsoever.
Application of each:
In traffic court cases expunged means to remove “violations” from a person’s official driving record.
In an impeachment case what is expunged from the Lower Chambers official records are the “Articles” themselves.
Wrap up:
The supreme judgment of the voter’s to re-elect Trump will clear the only path that’s then only makes it completely feasible for any future keeper of the House to tidy up or not.
Hopefully with all that you will consider manning up and stand corrected…
No because censure and impeachment are not even remotely similar enough to each other that what happened with one can be considered guidance as to what happened with another.
Impeachment is a process mandated by the Constitution for exploring the removal of certain officials.
Censure is not.
This is an incredibly important distinction.
Allowing such records to be expunged would greatly weaken impeachment powers (which are already weak enough…likely explaining at least one reason why it’s not used all that much).
So your common sense argument fails.
That is incorrect. One originates in the United States Constitution, the other does not.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS
JayJay-
“Not even remotely similar” - says only you; still seems you offer up little more than pure conjecture.
“Impeachment is a process mandated by the Constitution …Censure is not.” - I believe you are correct that the concept to censure a civil employee is not explicitly mentioned in this most grand document. And to your point the process of impeachment clearly is. The distinction between expunging a censure vs an impeachment has been deemed unimportant. Otherwise each would already be explicitly described. It is without a doubt it is on each chamber soley to create and update their own set of rules.
“Allowing such records to be expunged would greatly weaken impeachment powers” - In all due respect, not relevant to argue if or how expunging this particular impeachment weakens any future censures or impeachment’s attempts.
“So your common sense fails.”- again only in your own opinion does my own good judgment fail.
Recognizing moderators watch. I cannot insist you bring more facts and examples to support your assertions. Please maybe ponder adding some more substance to future replies. As it stands now I have nothing more to add.
