Feinstein wanted to investigate the allegation by herself without notifying anyone. That wasn't allowed. But nothing said Feinstein or someone on her staff could talk to Ford directly to assess her credibility level, discuss what if's, and potential courses of action. And Feinstein was in a difficult position, holding potentially damaging information to the Kavanaugh nomination while also attempting to respect Ford's request for anonymity. And I disagree Kavanaugh is more credible. Unless you believe boofing is farting, the Renate Club is about platonic friendship only, Kavanaugh was a member of the Ralph Club because he had a queasy stomach, and Kavanaugh never once passed out from too much alcohol consumption. Each not a huge lie, but if Kavanaugh was willing to lie about these things, what else is he willing to lie about?
Really? What is the win rate for an incumbent under 45% in a state that aligns to their political ideology? I assume you also think that Heller is toast, right?
Why wouldn't she share this allegation? It could easily been kept quiet and handle in a discreet manner by the FBI. If she believed Dr. Ford, why not ask about her allegations during the close hearing with Kavanaugh? And Feinstein knew there was no way Dr. Ford's accusation was not going to come out if other Democrats in Congress were aware of it and it had not been brought during Kavanaugh's hearings and he was about to be confirmed. I guess you think it was just totally random that this accusation just happened to come out not too long after Republicans past the point of no return in terms of withdrawing Kavanaugh and getting a new nominee confirmed before the mid-terms. Where did I said Kavanaugh is more credible?
It does to me also, a bit. But under the circumstances, I don't think we can assume or necessarily expect that when answering Mitchell's question, Ford remembered the situation described by her ex, even if he remembered it, and simply lied about it. It's as likely if not more she just didn't recall the situation in that moment.
I don't think Ford has much credibility because of the holes in her story. She seemed pretty credible at the hearing, but certainly too many inconsistencies in her story to just take her word for this. Kavanaugh seemed very credible and compelling in his open statement. But he fell apart under questioning and lost that credibility. He lied many times both in repeated misrepresentations of witness affidavits, and about drinking and sex terms from high school. He most likely also lied about his personal drinking habits and problems. His belligerent attitude in responses, talking over interviewers, and paranoid partisan rant were also evidence of him falling apart. I don't think that all adds up to saying he committed a sexual assault here. We'll never know. But it does add up to huge problems with the credibility and behavior of a nominee for Supreme Court Justice.
62%. The only way he doesn't win walking away is that Democrats don't terribly love him. But I am interested, if you are basing this on empirics, we should see the empirics. Does this arbitrary cut point at 45% in polling really indicate much?
49-43, but that isn't really responsive to the question so I will do my own empirical examination. In 2016, here were the incumbents at 45% or lower in final RCP average: Toomey Johnson Kirk 2 out of 3 won. Not a good start to your point.
I doubt she misidentified BK or that she wasn't actually assaulted, as Q is trying to suggest. Even Rachel Mitchell, the GOP's hired gun, was well-known for making the argument that inconsistencies among sexual assault victims is common. Trauma does that.
2016 is probably not the year you want to use as it was a POTUS year and Trump had a much higher turn out of voters in PA and Wisconsin than anyone expected. I'll see if I can find something more recent than '04 that talks about the Incumbent Rule later tonight.
I don't agree. Kavanaugh's evasiveness, lies, and misrepresentations while testifying under oath cratered his credibility.
The explanation is actually somewhat the reverse, turnout among Democratic voters, specifically minorities and voters under 35 was lower in PA, MI and WI than it was in 2012 (probably lower nationwide but those were the states that made the difference in the EC). Romney lost those three states in 2012 receiving more votes in each state than Trump received in 2016.
LOL, he was ready to have a hearing the next day. It was Ford's lawyer who stalled, so that they could get their story together.
2016 is not the best year to base anything off of due to a lot of factors. Which is why looking back at historical data is more helpful than focusing on one year.
Yes, but it really didn't support your point. He said nothing about 45% being some sort of important cutoff. BTW, the result of the election being discussed in that post(the 2004 Presidential election) didn't conform to the points in the post. He said it would be a photo finish if the President's polling was in the 48-49%range (it was 48.9). Instead, many of the undecideds broke for the incumbent, pushing him up to 50.7%, and a relatively comfortable win.
