Governor Eric Greiten's Extramarital Affair (St. Louis, Ozark: bills, hairdresser, metro area)

[Mosep]

Originally Posted by MOforthewin

What I'm trying to say is we have women like Hillary who along with her husband is very shady and yet no real effort is looked into them. Just like the meeting with Billy and Loretta Lynch.

Hillary and Bill have done far more shady stuff than Greitens has done.

You mean like being only the second president in history to be impeached?

[RDM66]

Originally Posted by MOforthewin

New rankings are out. Greitens's disapproval rating is only 39 percent. Up from last time for obvious reason but I would have thought it would been higher with less people undecided after this all happened.

https://morningconsult.com/2018/04/1...lar-governors/

That poll was taken before the House released its report on Greitens. It will be interesting to see how far Greiten's approval rating will continue to fall, especially after all of the lurid details have been plastered on the front page of every newspaper and have been the lead story of every TV newscast this week.

Greitens has basically been accused of date rape and embezzlement. His numbers should fall like a lead balloon in the next poll.

[MOforthewin]

Originally Posted by RDM66

That poll was taken before the House released its report on Greitens. It will be interesting to see how far Greiten's approval rating will continue to fall, especially after all of the lurid details have been plastered on the front page of every newspaper and have been the lead story of every TV newscast this week.

Greitens has basically been accused of date rape and embezzlement. His numbers should fall like a lead balloon in the next poll.

I doubt they call as low as Oklahoma's governor. I think her rating of approval was 28 percent and almost 70 percent disapprove currently. Or as bad as Chris Christie but he was a republican in a deep blue state anyway. You have to remember Missouri is deep red in the Ozarks and they will support him no matter what just because he's not a democrap.

[James Bond 007]

Not sure why the Ozarks are so important politically? It's not like they're the most populous part of the state.

KC and St Louis are deep blue and won't support him no matter what just because he's a republican't.

[MOforthewin]

Originally Posted by James Bond 007

Not sure why the Ozarks are so important politically? It's not like they're the most populous part of the state.

KC and St Louis are deep blue and won't support him no matter what just because he's a republican't.

Jackson County isn't as blue as St. Louis city though.

Ozarks are important because of the way the house and senate districts are set up.

Those counties some of them in southern Missouri went over 80 percent for Trump and Mitt Romney.

You also have Greene County too that is populous. While being a college town and more blue, it's still holds a lot of Republican votes.

I last read Missouri has 96 seats in the house that are considered safe for Republicans where no matter what democraps either are not running anyone or have no chance of winning the seat.

Not sure what the senate is but it's probably about 20 safe seats. If the democraps are to pickup many seats it will be mostly in the stl metro area.

The only way that would change is the next census with redistricting but with Republicans controlling both chambers they get to draw the districts.

That is how it changed in 2002 when Republicans finally got control of the MO house.

The problem with the Democrat party is the last 25 years it has gone far left and now it's mostly made up of feminist, pro gay, anti gunners, pro illegal immigration.

In 2003 MO democrats really shot themselves when One Term Bob vetoed concealed carry. His own party kept telling him to not veto the bill but he went ahead anyway.

That also helped WI finally get Republican control as well when their democrat governor kept vetoing concealed carry.

[MoNative34]

Originally Posted by James Bond 007

Not sure why the Ozarks are so important politically? It's not like they're the most populous part of the state.

KC and St Louis are deep blue and won't support him no matter what just because he's a republican't.

The Eastern Ozarks leaned Democrat historically, but that's gone away more and more post Bill Clinton, who they voted for overwhelmingly in the 90s. The northern counties would swing back and forth, but recently have become much more reliably red
Combine those 2 things and Missouri isn't the swing state it was 20 years ago. I'm talking presidential election, not gubernatorial or Senate.

[James Bond 007]

Originally Posted by MOforthewin

The problem with the Democrat party is the last 25 years it has gone far left and now it's mostly made up of feminist, pro gay, anti gunners, pro illegal immigration.

And the Republican party has gone so far right young people are leaving it in droves.

[MOforthewin]

Originally Posted by MoNative34

The Eastern Ozarks leaned Democrat historically, but that's gone away more and more post Bill Clinton, who they voted for overwhelmingly in the 90s. The northern counties would swing back and forth, but recently have become much more reliably red
Combine those 2 things and Missouri isn't the swing state it was 20 years ago. I'm talking presidential election, not gubernatorial or Senate.

Don't forget Ross Perot sucked up a lot of Republican votes. Clinton wouldn't have won Missouri and many other states if it wasn't for Perot. Bush would have won in 92 and Dole in 96 in MO if it wasn't for Perot.

It's the flip in general though from democrat to republican voting that has taken place in the border south and other southern states. Clinton as you know won a number of southern states including border states like MO, but granted as I said he wouldn't have won MO in 92 if Perot didn't suck up votes.

Missouri completed the flip in 2002 it began at the state level and a couple years ago in Kentucky, and about 6 years ago in Arkansas and recently in West Virginia.

The rural democrats in MO just like in the other nearby states were more conservative and pro gun. it's simply the party as a whole moved to the left and people abandoned them.

Jefferson County democrats for example were always pretty pro gun and voted for concealed carry. One remaining democrat is Ben Hill of Hillsboro. He voted for permit less concealed carry in 2016 and voted to override Jay Nixon's veto of it.

The way it's looking the democrats will regain control of the KY house and senate this fall. Gov. Bevin is very unpopular there.

It wasn't until Reagan came along the Missouri and other border and deep south states voted republican at the federal level.

Jefferson County MO is very pro gun. The one democrat that just won that house seat in far northern Jefferson County, southern Stl county won it with very low voter turnout and mostly union diehards only showing up to vote allowing him to narrowly win. If he votes anti gun on Jared Taylor's bill I expect him to be ousted in Nov with a better republican running against him and normal turnout. I was shocked how low the voter turnout was for the special elections.

[RDM66]

Originally Posted by MOforthewin

Hillary and Bill have done far more shady stuff than Greitens has done.

Yeah, like that time I was in the basement gym with Hillary and she brought out the electrical tape and camera...

I guess what MOforthewin really means to say is that date rape is OK as long as the guy has an "R" behind his name.

What Missourians should be asking themselves: Would you allow your daughter to go into a basement with Eric Robert Greitens?

This man doesn't belong in the governor's mansion. He belongs in the state penn.

[MOforthewin]

Greitens just charged with a new felony. He just released a statement on it.

I will give credit to Eric, he has a giant set of balls and isn't backing down.

This is the only reason why I think he might be sincere and he might truly be innocent.

I think the new charge holds more weight than the invasion of privacy one.

Anyway, if he's found not guilty, or the charges are thrown out or dropped how will this affect his image?

In a way it actually could help bolster him maybe showing he's got a huge set and won't back down from the media or pressure from the establishment?

Same with impeachment. What if he speaks during the trial and ends up not being impeached? Again how does this affect his image if he wins?

I don't know BUT I'm thinking his strategy is by not backing down and being found not guilty he will use this for a possible presidential run as odd as it sounds. This is probably the gamble he's taking right now. Which is selfish indeed but I bet that is what he's thinking. That he balks the press, republican establishment, and the liberal witch hunts and proves to be Teflon.

In return if could also hurt Republicans a bit as well. If he's found not guilty, and wins the impeachment trial that it could enrage some of his supporters that republicans tried to remove him and they stay home and democrats win some of the battle ground districts and pickup a few seats and allows Claire to get a narrow victory as well.

Here is another thing. What if he's acquitted, however they go ahead and impeach him anyway? That too would enrage a lot of people impeaching the governor despite being found not guilty and could set the ground work for future governors if they're accused of something to just go ahead and try and impeach.

Anyway, voters are stupid if they even think about staying home, voting third party or democrap based on their like or dislike for the governor.

I wasn't a huge Bush fan but I certainly didn't vote third party or a democrat because of it.

The main and very legit question currently is if there are even grounds for impeachment since the crimes took place before he took office.

If it's decided legally they can't impeach him for it then voters should not be mad at the republican lawmakers if they can't impeach him because they don't have the legality to remove him.

It would be similar to the civil war when the constitutional convention voted to remove the elected lawmakers and governor in Missouri. The convention had no authority to remove lawmakers and it caused debate who was the legit government of Missouri at the time. Certainly don't want to see this again.