U.S. Politics: The Jeff Sessions: The Killing of a Keebler Elf

[OldGimletEye]

Cantor says "Yep, I sold a bunch of horseshit to my base. Conservatives, they'll believe anything."

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/cantor-comes-clean-admits-he-didnt-believe-his-own-aca-rhetoric

Quote

The former GOP leader in the House talked to the Washingtonian’s Elaina Plott and conceded that his Republican Party is in a tough spot – parts of the conservative base expect the party to repeal the ACA, because that’s what they were promised – in part because of promises he and his colleagues made that they never intended to keep.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Mexal said:

Oh I agree. I don't believe firing Sessions or Mueller will do anything. I think the best case scenario is a wave election in 2018 and then ramp up the investigations in earnest. 

They might do something, we just haven't seen anything yet that indicates that they will. That said, they're increasingly growing mad at Trump for attacking Sessions, which he did again today:

Quote

WASHINGTON — Republican senators have Attorney General Jeff Sessions' back.

The GOP lawmakers are furious over President Donald Trump's escalating attacks on their former colleague and are letting the attorney general — and the public — know that they stand with Sessions in the face of the president's broadsides.

"I told him we were thinking about him and that he had a lot of friends up here," Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said he told Sessions, who until he joined the administration in February was the other senator from Alabama.

"Sessions is a very loyal man to the president. He stepped in front with him...when no senator did," Shelby added. "I think loyalty ought to be a two-way street."

............................

Privately, Republican senators, who served with Sessions for years on Capitol Hill, say they are increasingly angered by Trump’s public attacks on his Cabinet member. Senators are calling Sessions offering their support and encouragement as they can't understand why the president would treat one of his most loyal lieutenants in this way.

And Sen. Graham agrees with those of us who think that Trump is trying to shame Sessions into quitting:

Quote

Using a word sure to inflame the president — because it's what Trump had accused Sessions of being on Hillary Clinton — Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said the president was being "weak" by letting Sessions twist in the wind.

"I would fire somebody I did not believe would serve me well rather than trying to humiliate them in public, which is a sign of weakness," Graham said. "The president is not trying to use his power, he’s trying to get Sessions to quit. And I hope Sessions doesn’t quit."

Hell, even Gingrich is taking Sessions side:

Quote

And even Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker and outspoken Trump defender, took Sessions' side. "I think Sessions should stay," Gingrich told NPR Wednesday. "I don’t think this is one of the President’s better moments."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republican-senators-steamed-over-trump-attacks-back-sessions-n786686

[Lily Valley]

Orrin Hatch disapproves of Trumps military ban on transgendered people. 

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/343881-hatch-stands-with-transgender-utahns

[Mexal]

No surprise the plan is to get to conference and pass whatever they want. Just amazed they're talking about it so openly. I guess it ultimately does not matter.

 

[James Arryn]

5 hours ago, Fez said:

Fairly certain this violates a shit ton of laws; both the decision and the method of announcing it.

Also, "my Generals"

We keep going back in time. Things you thought were in the r-v mirror are all back in front. Open racism, sexism, religious bigotry, back on the 'yes we can!' table. Now we're back to sexuality and the military. W. T. F. I don't think there's really a floor anymore. 

I can't remember why I thought so, but I was actually under the impression that Israel and sexuality were the spots where Trump differed from the traditional GOP playbook. Guess that's wrong. Maybe in a few weeks we need to revisit how wise it is to have white kids and coloured kids in the same schoolrooms. Are we sure women are emotionally stable enough to vote? And it's been a while since the Army did it's job against those darned savage redskins out west, I think we need to get the cavalry's ass in gear. 

[Fez]

38 minutes ago, Mexal said:

No surprise the plan is to get to conference and pass whatever they want. Just amazed they're talking about it so openly. I guess it ultimately does not matter.

 

That's certainly McConnell's plan, but there are two big problems with it. First, it still needs to eventually pass the Senate and last night showed that right now only 43 Republicans support something broadly similar to the House bill (possibly 42, McCain's office put out a statement claiming he still opposes the underlying bill and his 'yea' vote was only for the point of order that failed). Second, conference reports from reconciliation bills are still subject to Byrd rules, which means that Democrats can still strike huge portions of the bill; including Cruz's amendment.

Maybe that's the juncture where McConnell pushes his caucus to change senate rules, maybe. But that definitely doesn't work if there still aren't 50 votes for the underlying bill.

 

24 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

We keep going back in time. Things you thought were in the r-v mirror are all back in front. Open racism, sexism, religious bigotry, back on the 'yes we can!' table. Now we're back to sexuality and the military. W. T. F. I don't think there's really a floor anymore. 

I can't remember why I thought so, but I was actually under the impression that Israel and sexuality were the spots where Trump differed from the traditional GOP playbook. Guess that's wrong. Maybe in a few weeks we need to revisit how wise it is to have white kids and coloured kids in the same schoolrooms. Are we sure women are emotionally stable enough to vote? And it's been a while since the Army did it's job against those darned savage redskins out west, I think we need to get the cavalry's ass in gear. 

On top of that, https://www.buzzfeed.com/coralewis/trump-transgender-military-service

Quote

At the Pentagon, the first of the three tweets raised fears that the president was getting ready to announce strikes on North Korea or some other military action. Many said they were left in suspense for nine minutes, the time between the first and second tweet. Only after the second tweet did military officials receive the news the president was announcing a personnel change on Twitter.

Keep that sentence in mind and go back and read the first Trump tweet. The Pentagon was literally concerned for nine minutes that the President was going to order military action via Twitter, and had no idea what that action might be. 

We're so fucked if there's a crisis.

ETA: Its also unclear if this policy will ever actually be implemented. The Pentagon seemed to have no plans to do so and tweets on their own have no force of law.

On top of that, read this fucking story. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/26/trump-transgender-military-ban-behind-the-scenes-240990

House Republicans had been debating whether to ban the Pentagon from paying for gender reassignment surgery, and looked like the ban was going to narrowly fail; so some of them went to Trump to get him to intervene. And that's when he decided to ban trans service members period, which wasn't even what the House Republicans were asking for.

 

[denstorebog]

52 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I can't remember why I thought so, but I was actually under the impression that Israel and sexuality were the spots where Trump differed from the traditional GOP playbook

Because he did differ, in the sense that he didn't care personally about those during the campaign or even as president. He didn't have any stake in those games. He still doesn't. But now transphobia has become a tool in his Toolbox of Satan that accomplishes at least three things I can think of:

• Gets focus off Russia (if only a little)
• Gets focus off healthcare (although even less)
• But mainly: It's culture war time, boys and girls. Liberals will now come out and decry transphobia and mixing church and state, and Republicans will remember that even though their president and Congress are actively trying to kill them, liberals are still culturally The Great Other. Breitbarters are wetting their pants over this because once again, Trump is making his base feel good about something during a time of in-fighting. 

And yes, this will probably lead him to reopen more of the social issues where we took for granted that liberals had won and the country had moved on. Because the country probably never did move on, they just needed someone to pick up the banner and lead the way backwards. Shit, we probably have all the worst of Trump's depravities yet to come if the polls don't punish him in the next days. That's a pretty big toolbox.

EDIT: Interesting. Turns out there may have been a directly pragmatic component to the decision as well. Border wall funding.

[Fez]

The Senate has now voted down the second key health care vote, which would've been the clean ACA repeal (albeit just of all funding, including funding to enforce regulations); 7 Republicans voted no, and its also a surprising list. This is the pure repeal vote, so everyone voting no is doing so from the moderate side, not the conservative side:

Alexander, Capito, Collins, Heller, McCain, Murkowski, and Portman.

The two names that really strike out are McCain (who seems to be determined just to anger everybody I guess) and Lamar Alexander; who I'm truly shocked to see. I think of him as a McConnell ally who always votes with leadership and yet here he is.

The only missing name that is disappointing is Cassidy, who a few months ago had been acting as a major thorn for McConnell. Its possible he, and maybe a couple others, are secretly glad the vote failed, but they weren't willing to vote no when they had a fair amount of cover from others, so they certainly wouldn't have been willing to vote no if they were the decisive vote.

The next key vote will be McConnell's substitute amendment at the end of the vote-a-rama, the "skinny repeal" and its still anybody's guess what will be in it and whether it can satisfy enough of the senators who voted yes yesterday and no today or no today and yes yesterday. Best guess that'll be really late Thursday night or really early Friday morning.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, denstorebog said:

 

• But mainly: It's culture war time, boys and girls. Liberals will now come out and decry transphobia and mixing church and state, and Republicans will remember that even though their president and Congress are actively trying to kill them, liberals are still culturally The Great Other. Breitbarters are wetting their pants over this because once again, Trump is making his base feel good about something during a time of in-fighting. 

DING DING DING!:

 

[DMC]

22 hours ago, Kalbear said:

My prediction is not based on their public statements of outrage but instead is based on pragmatism and their continued desire to keep their jobs

Except it's not pragmatic to stick with a sinking ship, and there would be far more electoral risk for acquiescing to a Mueller firing than blocking it for anyone in a purple state.  If he does it by way of firing Sessions, then there's muted risk of being primaried even for members in red states.  Even Breitbart is warning Trump not to fire Sessions - Sessions as AG is arguably more important to their movement than Trump as president.

I doubt Sessions resigns, he's going to make Trump fire him.  Instead, he will launch those leak investigations Trump is whining about, as Scaramucci mentioned this morning.  If Sessions is fired, the only way an AG gets confirmed is if they pledge to recuse themselves as well.  I suppose Cornyn or maybe Cruz could get by without it, but I see know reason why they would want the job.

Apologies for the lack of links (and brevity), but merely posting these past few days has been hair-pullingly frustrating.

[The Anti-Targ]

51 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

DING DING DING!:

 

I thought you worshipped the dollar.

[DMC]

53 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

It seems more like both houses are playing hot potato with Obamacare repeal and whichever house drops it gets the blame for the failure to repeal.

Yeah that seems to be what McConnell is going for.  Could totally see the "skinny repeal" getting 50 votes, but then they'd have to do something to stabilize the markets with the individual mandate gone, and how is everyone going to agree on that?  What seems to fairly certain:  Ryan's effort to transform Medicaid into a block grant program is almost assuredly dead after the (substantially) failed votes on the BCRA and clean repeal.  That's something to be happy about.

[Kalbear]

9 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Except it's not pragmatic to stick with a sinking ship, and there would be far more electoral risk for acquiescing to a Mueller firing than blocking it for anyone in a purple state.  If he does it by way of firing Sessions, then there's muted risk of being primaried even for members in red states.  Even Breitbart is warning Trump not to fire Sessions - Sessions as AG is arguably more important to their movement than Trump as president.

Again, the notion that there would be electoral risk is projection based on data that so far has not held accurate. I would normally agree with you, but so far we have seen zero punishment of anyone based on Trump's viewpoints.

Do you really think that the general electoral populace is going to be outraged that Trump fired his AG? Or even fired Mueller? More importantly, do you think that said outrage will translate to voting in a Democrat over their tried-and-true republican representative? We didn't see that in the general election where more people voted for Republican reps than they did Trump. 

And Breitbart has lost something like 95% of their readership. 

I would agree that it isn't pragmatic to stick with a sinking ship; my argument is simply that there is no evidence that the Trump ship is actually sinking. His poll numbers have stayed steady for months now despite outrage after outrage and almost no wins. Short of the economy collapsing there's very little sign that things will change, and Mueller firing would be upsetting but I doubt would even make it on Fox News. 

9 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I doubt Sessions resigns, he's going to make Trump fire him.  Instead, he will launch those leak investigations Trump is whining about, as Scaramucci mentioned this morning.  If Sessions is fired, the only way an AG gets confirmed is if they pledge to recuse themselves as well.  I suppose Cornyn or maybe Cruz could get by without it, but I see know reason why they would want the job.

Sessions cannot launch any investigations into Clinton, and I believe cannot into Comey. By DoJ rules he is forbidden. He can possibly have the DAG do it, but I don't think he's interested in it either. And per reports Sessions and Trump aren't even speaking to each other any more. 

 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

The next key vote will be McConnell's substitute amendment at the end of the vote-a-rama, the "skinny repeal" and its still anybody's guess what will be in it and whether it can satisfy enough of the senators who voted yes yesterday and no today or no today and yes yesterday. Best guess that'll be really late Thursday night or really early Friday morning.

Senator Heller's recent comments sound like he will support skinny repeal  if it comes up to vote. He pretty much said the Medicaid cuts are where his limit is. That is assuming he actually sticks with what he said.

No clue how they'll get the House to vote for the same thing as moderates, but it greatly worries me that McConnell will pull out half a zombie and somehow get it passed. It certainly doesn't look like he has a hope of getting the full 800 billion of slashing that he wants. Progress, I guess? Or maybe they are about to bring back workhouses?

I never expected the conservatives to hold firm about not voting for something. I wasn't shocked at all that Rand Paul didn't stop this.

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I would normally agree with you, but so far we have seen zero punishment of anyone based on Trump's viewpoints.

Hard to see any punishment with no elections other than the heavily GOP special election districts.

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Do you really think that the general electoral populace is going to be outraged that Trump fired his AG? Or even fired Mueller?

Yes.  42 percent think Trump should be impeached.  He fires Mueller?  That goes to around 50 percent.  Half the country wanting your party's president to be impeached is some incredibly bad headwind.

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

re importantly, do you think that said outrage will translate to voting in a Democrat over their tried-and-true republican representative? We didn't see that in the general election where more people voted for Republican reps than they did Trump. 

Yes, why do you think Trump rallied in Mahoning county last night?  It's counties like that where he outperformed Romney by about 25 points due to a shift among working class whites that would be in peril.  Combined with depressed turnout from the right, ~ 25 percent approval from independents, and incredibly mobilized Democrats, that's a recipe for disaster.

19 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And Breitbart has lost something like 95% of their readership. 

Haven't seen a link for that but it's rather irrelevant to the point - firing Sessions would cause a fissure among the...let's say "nationalist" portion of Trump's base.  Those voters take their cues from the crazies on the radio and internet, and the money and energy to prop up a primary challenge for anyone that would subsequently block a new AG from firing Mueller simply wouldn't be there.

21 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

my argument is simply that there is no evidence that the Trump ship is actually sinking. His poll numbers have stayed steady for months now despite outrage after outrage and almost no wins.

Well, they've stayed steady around 36-38% for the past couple months, but one could have reasonable hope he eventually improves that with some actual accomplishments.  All that vanishes with a Mueller firing, plus he probably drops a couple more points (particularly among independents).

24 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Sessions cannot launch any investigations into Clinton, and I believe cannot into Comey. By DoJ rules he is forbidden. He can possibly have the DAG do it, but I don't think he's interested in it either. And per reports Sessions and Trump aren't even speaking to each other any more. 

I don't see how any of this is relevant.  Point is Sessions appears to be launching "leak" investigations in order to appease Trump and hopefully shut him up - a clear indication he intends to stay on and force Trump to fire him.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

Hard to see any punishment with no elections other than the heavily GOP special election districts.

They didn't change, though, did they?

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

Yes.  42 percent think Trump should be impeached.  He fires Mueller?  That goes to around 50 percent.  Half the country wanting your party's president to be impeached is some incredibly bad headwind.

That half wasn't voting for him or Republicans anyway, most likely. And it still doesn't mean that it will translate into not wanting your Republican representative. 

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

Yes, why do you think Trump rallied in Mahoning county last night?  It's counties like that where he outperformed Romney by about 25 points due to a shift among working class whites that would be in peril.  Combined with depressed turnout from the right, ~ 25 percent approval from independents, and incredibly mobilized Democrats, that's a recipe for disaster.

I think he did the rally there because he's popular there and he likes places that he's popular. And that's really about it. 

I don't think that he's doing well for his own re-election, but I still haven't seen particular signs that the GOP itself is in freefall or headed for major losses. I could be wrong, but again - data hasn't shown this yet, nor does their personal polling numbers. The 'generic D/R' is still an 8-point advantage for D, and has stayed that way for about 4 months now. 

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

Haven't seen a link for that but it's rather irrelevant to the point - firing Sessions would cause a fissure among the...let's say "nationalist" portion of Trump's base.  Those voters take their cues from the crazies on the radio and internet, and the money and energy to prop up a primary challenge for anyone that would subsequently block a new AG from firing Mueller simply wouldn't be there.

I'm not really understanding your point here. Firing Sessions might cause a fissure only if the replacement was less white supremacist than Sessions, and that's not likely to be the case given who appears to have Trump's ear now. 

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

Well, they've stayed steady around 36-38% for the past couple months, but one could have reasonable hope he eventually improves that with some actual accomplishments.  All that vanishes with a Mueller firing, plus he probably drops a couple more points (particularly among independents).

Again, citation needed. He withdrew from the Paris accord, his son showed that his campaign actually did attempt to collude with Russia and he continues to fuck up, and he's just as popular as he was 3 months ago. And that was with the Comey firing. Again, all evidence suggests that something like a Mueller firing isn't going to register with people. Heck, a very large chunk of Republican voters believe that Russia and Trump's campaign did not meet despite actually DJTJ publishing his own email. 

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

I don't see how any of this is relevant.  Point is Sessions appears to be launching "leak" investigations in order to appease Trump and hopefully shut him up - a clear indication he intends to stay on and force Trump to fire him.

We're also seeing a pledge from the AL race that says that if everyone in the senate special election bows out they'll do so if Sessions wants his seat back. So...yeah.

[Dr. Pepper]

7 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

 

Yes.  42 percent think Trump should be impeached.  He fires Mueller?  That goes to around 50 percent.  Half the country wanting your party's president to be impeached is some incredibly bad headwind.

 

42% of Republicans?  42% of Republicans in congress?  42% of Republican voters who are committed to staying away from the polls come election day?  Will those 42% be supporting impeach Trump candidates?  

These stats are fairly meaningless right now.  A majority of the electorate wanted Hillary as president.  Guess who isn't fucking president right now?  

[Fez]

1 hour ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Aassuming the skinny repeal passes and gets kicked to conference, is there realistically any conference report that comes out that both houses can get a majority of votes to pass and that can be passed in the Senate through reconciliation?

The House only passed their version of the bill by convincing their members that kicking it over to the Senate to let them deal with it was the only way forward, and now the Senate seems to be trying to steal a play out of the House's playbook.

It seems more like both houses are playing hot potato with Obamacare repeal and whichever house drops it gets the blame for the failure to repeal.

Yes, I think so. I think a bill that did absolutely nothing except repealing the individual mandate, employer mandate, and medical device tax could probably pass. Although that accomplishing nothing beyond letting Trump try to claim a victory and jacking premiums by 20% in the individual market.

Anything more than that, and I think Collins/Murkowski and some combination of other senators will kill it. And yes, there's also the chance that the House could kill it as well; though I think that's less likely.

But I'm not going to confidently predict anything, not after the election. These are just my thoughts.

 

31 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Senator Heller's recent comments sound like he will support skinny repeal  if it comes up to vote. He pretty much said the Medicaid cuts are where his limit is. That is assuming he actually sticks with what he said.

No clue how they'll get the House to vote for the same thing as moderates, but it greatly worries me that McConnell will pull out half a zombie and somehow get it passed. It certainly doesn't look like he has a hope of getting the full 800 billion of slashing that he wants. Progress, I guess? Or maybe they are about to bring back workhouses?

I never expected the conservatives to hold firm about not voting for something. I wasn't shocked at all that Rand Paul didn't stop this.

Rand Paul wanted his clean vote, which he got. He'll probably also vote for the skinny repeal, so long as it only repeals things and doesn't have any of the other BCRA/AHCA provisions in it. Problem for leadership is, whatever comes back from a conference report will probably not be something he'll vote for.

McConnell will pass absolutely anything that can get 50 votes, which means there's a decent chance he will be able to do so. But whatever passes on Friday is not what'll be coming back in the end, and there's also a good chance nothing passes on Friday. To get Heller, Portman, Capito, and seemingly McCain he'll need to not include any Medicaid cuts. That may push Paul and Lee away, but maybe not, so long as there's no new funding in the bill. Then there's Alexander and Graham, who mostly object to continued can-kicking I think, and may be hard to get on board with something designed to only start a conference. I also have no idea what Cotton, Corker, or Moran might want. Any one of them, or Johnson if he decides to act up, can join Collins/Murkowski and end things.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

They didn't change, though, did they?

Change how?  Seriously, other than firing Comey, what substantively has Trump done that should anger any GOP representative, or Trump supporter?  He's done what they wanted him to do policy wise.  I think you're fundamentally underestimating how serious firing Mueller is.  This isn't Comey.  First of all, because of the obvious:  Comey literally said he wasn't targeting Trump while Mueller is, and Mueller is far more unassailable.  Second, because it is an apples and apples comparison to the Saturday Night Massacre.  It hardens opposition among - and yes even swings - those in the middle and softens strong approval, or approval to indifference.

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That half wasn't voting for him or Republicans anyway, most likely. And it still doesn't mean that it will translate into not wanting your Republican representative. 

It certainly mobilizes that half to vote in midterms much more than usual, which is an endemic problem among such an electorate.  And yes approval/disapproval of the president has always been significantly correlated to his party's vote in midterms.  "Wanting to be impeached" is a level of intensity much higher than mere disapproval.

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think he did the rally there because he's popular there and he likes places that he's popular. And that's really about it. 

He still lost the county by three points.

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The 'generic D/R' is still an 8-point advantage for D, and has stayed that way for about 4 months now. 

Disregarding this in itself is a horrible spread, again, the point is firing Mueller would destroy any hope this will improve for the GOP and greatly increase the likelihood it goes to about 10 points.

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Firing Sessions might cause a fissure only if the replacement was less white supremacist than Sessions, and that's not likely to be the case given who appears to have Trump's ear now. 

Actually, that helps make my point.  You think the ultra-nationalists would be cool with Guiliani or Christie?  Even Cornyn has compromised too much on immigration.  Cruz, maybe, but see previous posts.

16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Again, citation needed. He withdrew from the Paris accord, his son showed that his campaign actually did attempt to collude with Russia and he continues to fuck up, and he's just as popular as he was 3 months ago. And that was with the Comey firing. Again, all evidence suggests that something like a Mueller firing isn't going to register with people.

Citation for what?  What happens when Mueller is fired?  All the evidence points to Trump being bogged down in the upper 30s because of the Russia thing (the Paris accord is what his base wanted him to do).  All I'm saying is he stays there, and his independent support goes from 30-25% if he fires Mueller which makes sense when one considers how flagrantly guilty it makes him look.

20 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

We're also seeing a pledge from the AL race that says that if everyone in the senate special election bows out they'll do so if Sessions wants his seat back. So...yeah.

So the actions of GOP candidates that revere him demonstrating they have his back is more of an indicator than Sessions proceeding to do exactly what Trump asked him to in those tweets?

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Change how?  Seriously, other than firing Comey, what substantively has Trump done that should anger any GOP representative, or Trump supporter?  He's done what they wanted him to do policy wise.  I think you're fundamentally underestimating how serious firing Mueller is.  This isn't Comey.  First of all, because of the obvious:  Comey literally said he wasn't targeting Trump while Mueller is, and Mueller is far more unassailable.  Second, because it is an apples and apples comparison to the Saturday Night Massacre.  It hardens opposition among - and yes even swings - those in the middle and softens strong approval, or approval to indifference.

Let's see: Trump has

• not done fuck all about the wall
• ramped up in Afghanistan
• cozied up to Russia
• backed off of China
• failed against North Korea
• continued to bring in people supporting Wall Street
• happily threatened to take away medical care that he stated he would preserve

I think you're overestimating how serious firing Mueller is. He's set the groundwork calling it a witch hunt and calling Mueller a partisan because his group donated money to Clinton, and his base has largely bought it. 

I'm pretty well arguing that the 35-40% of people that are in favor of Trump aren't going anywhere short of themselves being personally hurt by Trump's policies. And Mueller firing doesn't even register, because they'll simply spin it as either fake news or another example of the swamp sucking and looking for something that isn't there with Russia, which they don't believe is an issue anyway.

2 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

It certainly mobilizes that half to vote in midterms much more than usual, which is an endemic problem among such an electorate.  And yes approval/disapproval of the president has always been significantly correlated to his party's vote in midterms.  "Wanting to be impeached" is a level of intensity much higher than mere disapproval.

That was true before. As we saw in 2016, there wasn't a correlation between representative voting and presidential voting. That was a first, but assuming that it'll go back to the way it was is a mistake. 

2 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Disregarding this in itself is a horrible spread, again, the point is firing Mueller would destroy any hope this will improve for the GOP and greatly increase the likelihood it goes to about 10 points.

Or it'll kill the investigation and make people forget about it.

2 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Actually, that helps make my point.  You think the ultra-nationalists would be cool with Guiliani or Christie?  Even Cornyn has compromised too much on immigration.  Cruz, maybe, but see previous posts.

And...so? Most people barely know who the AG is, much less what they do. Him appointing Cormyn or Cruz would be awesome for them, and have no real weakness. Do you honestly believe that Joe Republican will be all up in arms because he fired Jeff Sessions? They didn't get mad about Flynn, and he was far more outspoken and out there. 

2 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Citation for what?  What happens when Mueller is fired?  All the evidence points to Trump being bogged down in the upper 30s because of the Russia thing (the Paris accord is what his base wanted him to do).  All I'm saying is he stays there, and his independent support goes from 30-25% if he fires Mueller which makes sense when one considers how flagrantly guilty it makes him look.

Right - a 10 point drop for firing Mueller is the citation needed. 

GWB's numbers didn't decline that low until the height of the great recession, and even in spite of a shitty war and scandal and other issues his numbers didn't drop below 35%. I'm saying that scandal by itself is not enough to make a dent in partisanship, not any more. There was a time when it could, but that time is most certainly not now. 

2 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

So the actions of GOP candidates that revere him demonstrating they have his back is more of an indicator than Sessions proceeding to do exactly what Trump asked him to in those tweets?

I honestly don't know what you're asking here. Sessions not speaking to Trump at all is kind of a big deal, period, and Sessions being stubborn and dickish to Trump makes it more likely he'll be fired, even if he's doing what Trump wants. Trump hates petulant people against him. My bet is that Sessions will be gone, possibly as early as Friday, and almost certainly will be gone if the ACA repeal doesn't go well.