Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Igotadose

peddlelies wrote: »

So if it goes to the senate and the Republicans vote along party lines then what, the 2020 election carries on as normal?

There's the trial in the Senate, then a vote. There's no tie to any election.

If he's impeached and removed from office, he could run for the Presidency again. Wouldn't *that* be amusing.

peddlelies

Igotadose wrote: »

There's the trial in the Senate, then a vote. There's no tie to any election.

If he's impeached and removed from office, he could run for the Presidency again. Wouldn't *that* be amusing.

I do mean trial/vote in the senate, it's highly improbable the Dem's will get the votes to remove him from office given there's already a Republican majority and they need a two third majority.

I guess I should be asking what's the outcome beyond political ramifications.

listermint

peddlelies wrote: »

I do mean trial/the vote in the senate, it's highly improbable they Dem's will get the votes to remove him from office given there's already a Republican majority and they need a two third majority.

Ya an impeached president will all the evidence in the public realm is a good look for a 2020 election..

peddlelies

listermint wrote: »

Ya an impeached president will all the evidence in the public realm is a good look for a 2020 election..

Well you don't know that, it could backfire too. Bill Clinton's job approval went up

Overheal

peddlelies wrote: »

Well you don't know that, it could backfire too. Bill Clinton's job approval went up

He also didn’t have to attempt re election after being impeached. Republicans job approval of Trump won’t win a general election.

Professor Moriarty

peddlelies wrote: »

Well you don't know that, it could backfire too. Bill Clinton's job approval went up

So, following that logic, Trump will be pushing to get his impeachment going and the evidence published.

FreudianSlippers

peddlelies wrote: »

I do mean trial/vote in the senate, it's highly improbable the Dem's will get the votes to remove him from office given there's already a Republican majority and they need a two third majority.

I guess I should be asking what's the outcome beyond political ramifications.

The evidence that comes out in the House public hearings will be so damning that there's very little chance that the GOP won't tell him to resign. If he doesn't resign, then I think there is a chance the Senate would be left with no option but to impeach.

Overheal

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The evidence that comes out in the House public hearings will be so damning that there's very little chance that the GOP won't tell him to resign. If he doesn't resign, then I think there is a chance the Senate would be left with no option but to impeach.

Pedantic: the President is already “impeached” once articles pass the House.

peddlelies

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So, following that logic, Trump will be pushing to get his impeachment going and the evidence published.

Obviously not, I'm just giving an opinion. I think it's somewhat unlikely that anyone pre senate trial who was going to vote for Trump in 2020 is going to change their vote post trial.

I don't think Trump is fit to be president, what I'm trying to get at is that the impeachment process isn't without major flaws. In the case of Nixon it would have worked, but in Clinton's case and Trump's the votes are going to split down party lines.

peddlelies

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The evidence that comes out in the House public hearings will be so damning that there's very little chance that the GOP won't tell him to resign. If he doesn't resign, then I think there is a chance the Senate would be left with no option but to impeach.

That's not the vibe I'm getting at all, I'd be very surprised if that happened. Sure we'll see in the next few months.

pixelburp

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The evidence that comes out in the House public hearings will be so damning that there's very little chance that the GOP won't tell him to resign. If he doesn't resign, then I think there is a chance the Senate would be left with no option but to impeach.

I don't believe it. The Sunk Cost fallacy is too deep and rooted; if evangelicals can look past his obvious infidelity and general lack of Christian virtues, then there's no way hamfisted geopolitical corruption will make the needle move.

The Congress vote was clue enough, not a single Republican vote, even among those who aren't running for re-election. US politics is too far gone, too partisan to allow for a President to be impeached by his own. The Nixon example might as well be an ancient history, and I think itd take actual, classical treason or murder to get the GOP and its adherents to move against Trump.

Professor Moriarty

peddlelies wrote: »

Obviously not, I'm just giving an opinion. I think it's somewhat unlikely that anyone pre senate trial who was going to vote for Trump in 2020 is going to change their vote post trial.

I don't think Trump is fit to be president, what I'm trying to get at is that the impeachment process isn't without major flaws. In the case of Nixon it would have worked, but in Clinton's case and Trump's the votes are going to split down party lines.

I think that depends. Parallels with Clinton and Nixon don't work simply because the circumstances and accusations are different. If it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that Trump broke the law, not all Republicans will stand by their man.

FreudianSlippers

Overheal wrote: »

Pedantic: the President is already “impeached” once articles pass the House.

Correct: should have said "convict"

peddlelies

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I think that depends. Parallels with Clinton and Nixon don't work simply because the circumstances and accusations are different. If it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that Trump broke the law, not all Republicans will stand by their man.

Not all perhaps, but they'll never get a two third majority imo unless something comes out during the process much bigger than the Ukrainian call. The stakes are too high, the GOP know if Trump is removed they have zero chance to win the election in 2020. With Trump even after this is all over they'll still have a small chance.

Politically I'm not really invested in it at all tbh, I'm looking forward to the entertainment value. I want to see Trump squirming like this , notice the eyes

FreudianSlippers

pixelburp wrote: »

I don't believe it. The Sunk Cost fallacy is too deep and rooted; if evangelicals can look past his obvious infidelity and general lack of Christian virtues, then there's no way hamfisted geopolitical corruption will make the needle move.

The Congress vote was clue enough, not a single Republican vote, even among those who aren't running for re-election. US politics is too far gone, too partisan to allow for a President to be impeached by his own. The Nixon example might as well be an ancient history, and I think itd take actual, classical treason or murder to get the GOP and its adherents to move against Trump.

I'm not convinced one way or the other. I don't think the House vote is indicative though, as the evidence isn't public... yet. If the constitutional republic works the way it's meant to, then things will go the way I suggested earlier - that's the conventional logic. On the other hand, we seem to be firmly in bizzaro world and there's no clear indication that the USA isn't fundamentally broken.

In a normal world we could logically look at things like this and Brexit and make assumptions and calls based on evidence. In reality, even the most educated and informed people can at best sum up what's going to happen as: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I think people out there claiming they know the outcome are not the most educated and informed amongst us.

FreudianSlippers

peddlelies wrote: »

Not all perhaps, but they'll never get a two third majority imo unless something comes out during the process much bigger than the Ukrainian call. The stakes are too high, the GOP know if Trump is removed they have zero chance to win the election in 2020. With Trump even after this is all over they'll still have a small chance.

Politically I'm not really invested in it at all tbh, I'm looking forward to the entertainment value. I want to see Trump squirming like this , notice the eyes

I don't think they'd be doing this if it was just the Ukraine call or if there wasn't something fundamentally more damaging on the Ukraine call that is clearly and unarguably wrong.

TomOnBoard

peddlelies wrote: »

I do mean trial/vote in the senate, it's highly improbable the Dem's will get the votes to remove him from office given there's already a Republican majority and they need a two third majority.

I guess I should be asking what's the outcome beyond political ramifications.

At this point, it looks like the House will impeach and send the challenge up to the Senate to hold the actual trial. Even without hearing the actual articles of impeachment and/or the evidence that may be presented to support those articles, the Republicans in the Senate look like they will close ranks and acquit him.

Now, as the process moves on on to public hearings in the House investigation (which is what the Republicans clamoured for), the public will hear more and more stuff that, while unlikely to shake the resolve and support of say 35% of voters, may sway the currently undecided persuadables that Trump should not be President. Once those numbers result in anything like a 55-45 split or 60-40, the Reps in the Senate will see that the public's mood will be in favour of removal from office. If, at that point, the Senate votes to acquit, the 55-60% will annihilate the Reps in the 2020 Senate elections and the GOP will lose the Senate. Because of the vagaries of the electoral college system, if Trump still runs in 2020, he may well get in. But if he does, he'll have a Democratic Congress (both houses) chasing him for the 4 more years.

If the Dems fail to convince the public that Trump is a "bad 'un", and don't get much over 50-50 for removal, then there could be a very strong public backlash that may translate into Dem annihilation and a clean sweep of Republican control across both Congressional Houses as well as the White House.

So, that's the gamble that Pelosi has accepted by this week's vote. She and the Dems are betting that the evidence is going to result in a Dem clean sweep in 2020.

All conjecture of course, and I reckon the current situation is still evolving, but the momentum is currently against Trump. If that continues, and voters turn against the GOP, McConnell will cut Trump loose, and we may well see a resignation as part of a departure deal. Whether that results in a President Pence is a big unknown, as the Dems would find it very difficult to support a pardon for Trump (only for Federal stuff and not State) coupled with Pence taking over, given the extent to which Pence has been travelling in lock-step with Trump since the early days.

There's lots to be seen over the next month or so ... No-one should place a large bet one way or the other yet. There's going to be much drama and open warfare in Washington between now and the end of the year. As the primaries begin in the New Year, the Dems are going to want to have had most of the evidence presented to the public so that the 'persuadable undecideds' can be recruited. If, in the process, they can embarrass Senate Reps and force them to publicly stick with Trump, they'll replay that in every Senate election advert before November 2020.

Professor Moriarty

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't think they'd be doing this if it was just the Ukraine call or if there wasn't something fundamentally more damaging on the Ukraine call that is clearly and unarguably wrong.

Yes, this might just be a foot in the door.

FreudianSlippers

TomOnBoard wrote: »

At this point, it looks like the House will impeach and send the challenge up to the Senate to hold the actual trial. Even without hearing the actual articles of impeachment and/or the evidence that may be presented to support those articles, the Republicans in the Senate look like they will close ranks and acquit him.

Now, as the process moves on on to public hearings in the House investigation (which is what the Republicans clamoured for), the public will hear more and more stuff that, while unlikely to shake the resolve and support of say 35% of voters, may sway the currently undecided persuadables that Trump should not be President. Once those numbers result in anything like a 55-45 split or 60-40, the Reps in the Senate will see that the public's mood will be in favour of removal from office. If, at that point, the Senate votes to acquit, the 55-60% will annihilate the Reps in the 2020 Senate elections and the GOP will lose the Senate. Because of the vagaries of the electoral college system, if Trump still runs in 2020, he may well get in. But if he does, he'll have a Democratic Congress (both houses) chasing him for the 4 more years.

If the Dems fail to convince the public that Trump is a "bad 'un", and don't get much over 50-50 for removal, then there could be a very strong public backlash that may translate into Dem annihilation and a clean sweep of Republican control across both Congressional Houses as well as the White House.

So, that's the gamble that Pelosi has accepted by this week's vote. She and the Dems are betting that the evidence is going to result in a Dem clean sweep in 2020.

All conjecture of course, and I reckon the current situation is still evolving, but the momentum is currently against Trump. If that continues, and voters turn against the GOP, McConnell will cut Trump loose, and we may well see a resignation as part of a departure deal. Whether that results in a President Pence is a big unknown, as the Dems would find it very difficult to support a pardon for Trump (only for Federal stuff and not State) coupled with Pence taking over, given the extent to which Pence has been travelling in lock-step with Trump since the early days.

There's lots to be seen over the next month or so ... No-one should place a large bet one way or the other yet. There's going to be much drama and open warfare in Washington between now and the end of the year. As the primaries begin in the New Year, the Dems are going to want to have had most of the evidence presented to the public so that the 'persuadable undecideds' can be recruited. If, in the process, they can embarrass Senate Reps and force them to publicly stick with Trump, they'll replay that in every Senate election advert before November 2020.

One also has to remember that there are a lot of Republicans up for re-election next year as well. It's not just Trump. If all this damning evidence comes out against Trump and the Republicans are seen as complicit, they will be hammered in 2020. Yes, there's a base that will vote along party lines and for Trump no matter what, but that base is only about 30% maximum and that 30% is very specifically located. The GOP would be in the minority on both the House and Senate if they only had party-line towers voting for them in 2020.

Overheal

Yep even senior members like Graham and McConnel are up for re election. Their career (which shouldn’t have been careers) ride on it, both have been in power for decades and are dependent on it.

everlast75

Trump controls the amount of money going to each member and therefore has a hold over them. This is not illegal by the way.

What will change the Senators' minds will be polling data. They will stick with Trump up to the point where they know it is politically advantageous to go against him. That's what politicians do. See the 2 Dems that sided with the Reps on the impeachment vote.

Let's keep a close eye on the numbers as the public testimony comes out.

Overheal

He wouldn’t still hold the purse string if he was removed though.

It just means that when Republicans decide (if they decide) they can’t ignore the evidence it would be a sea change of republicans favoring impeachment, sticking their neck out when he could still be acquitted has them terrified of being primaried.

Overheal

Speaking of which

“ The dramatic late-October sequence traced a now familiar arc of Trump’s presidency. Republicans who dare to step out of line get pummeled for their trouble. Rather than inspire imitators, they become object lessons — a warning to others of the dangers of disobedience. The dynamic helps explain why every GOP House member — Rooney included — voted Thursday against opening an impeachment inquiry, even as Democrats voted nearly unanimously in favor.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/is-trumps-base-breaking-over-impeachment-the-tale-of-a-congressmans-defiance-suggests-not/2019/10/31/196283d8-f754-11e9-829d-87b12c2f85dd_story.html

PropJoe10

Overheal wrote: »

He wouldn’t still hold the purse string if he was removed though.

It just means that when Republicans decide (if they decide) they can’t ignore the evidence it would be a sea change of republicans favoring impeachment, sticking their neck out when he could still be acquitted has them terrified of being primaried.

Just read a poll there that still has Republican support for Trump in this impeachment investigation at 82%. I wouldn't expect Senate Republicans to turn against him unless that figure dropped to somewhere in the low 60s - if that happens, it's very likely that you'll see at least a few Republicans starting to side with the Dems. As someone said before, the polls here are the key.

mcmoustache

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

One also has to remember that there are a lot of Republicans up for re-election next year as well. It's not just Trump. If all this damning evidence comes out against Trump and the Republicans are seen as complicit, they will be hammered in 2020. Yes, there's a base that will vote along party lines and for Trump no matter what, but that base is only about 30% maximum and that 30% is very specifically located. The GOP would be in the minority on both the House and Senate if they only had party-line towers voting for them in 2020.

In 2020, 35 senators will be up for election. That's 23 Republicans and 12 Democrats. The Republican senators, McConnell in particular, will be very aware of this and the risks that it poses.

Right now, the public doesn't have access to much of the investigation's testimony but the small amount that's out there is having a very measurable effect. Even the ABC/WaPo poll from today has Trump's approval among Republicans at 74% with 18% of republicans supporting impeachment and removal. Again, this is with the information that voters currently have.

Over the coming weeks, there will be public hearings that will give a better picture of what has been going on. Instead of voters seeing media talking heads and headlines on the internet, they'll be treated to insiders spilling the beans in a way that tells a more memorable story. This will only move the polling further in the direction of disapproval and impeachment.

If that needle moves enough, Republicans are going to come to a point where Trump is seen more of a liability going into the 2020 elections than an asset. If removal from office becomes popular enough, they could be in a situation where losing the presidency becomes inevitable at the ballot box. In such a situation, they could lose more Senate seats by tying themselves to Trump than they would if they vote to convict.

The real question though is how far that needle can actually move. Using your approximate numbers from above, we have 30% of the population who will be very difficult to persuade. These are the ones who get "informed" by FOX and other right-wing media which does its best to keep them loving Trump and hating Democrats. These people might never see the hearings and if they do see any, it will be spun and distorted. There's a strong chance that these people won't budge, simply because they don't know what's actually happening.

With all that in mind, there's a good chance that support for his removal gets capped at 55 or 60 percent. Would that be enough for Senators to convict? Support for Nixon's removal was at 58% just before he resigned but back then the population was actually informed by the media. There wasn't this bloc of voters who only got their news from what are basically sources of misinformation - everybody basically got the same evening news so everyone knew that Nixon did it and that what he did was illegal. It was a lot simpler.

I honestly don't know which way this will go but at the moment I don't think he'll be convicted by the senate. They aren't going to be making their decision like a jury would. Their decision will be a political one based on which produces the better political outcome and at the moment, supporting Trump is the better one from their point of view.

But, the world isn't going to pause between now and then so plenty more can come out and we don't know what Trump's next self-inflicted crisis will be. Plenty can change but I'm not sure it will get through to that base of his. I'm not fond of making predictions but if forced, I think he'll survive impeachment. I also think that he'll lose the presidency, mainly because he only knows how to talk to his base and he has made no effort to expand that. And as for the Senate, I think that the failure to convict Trump by republicans will lead to the more vulnerable Senators losing their seats.

mcmoustache

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Just read a poll there that still has Republican support for Trump in this impeachment investigation at 82%. I wouldn't expect Senate Republicans to turn against him unless that figure dropped to somewhere in the low 60s - if that happens, it's very likely that you'll see at least a few Republicans starting to side with the Dems. As someone said before, the polls here are the key.

This is basically the tl;dr version of my post so if you don't want to read my wall of text, this one will do just fine.

spacecoyote

Does Trump have to appear for questioning in the House piece, or only in front of the Senate?

duploelabs

spacecoyote wrote: »

Does Trump have to appear for questioning in the House piece, or only in front of the Senate?

The senate is where the trial will occur

Igotadose

duploelabs wrote: »

The senate is where the trial will occur

He can, if he wants, testify to the House. That was part of the procedures adopted yesterday. Wouldn't *that* be a hoot.

Penn

Igotadose wrote: »

He can, if he wants, testify to the House. That was part of the procedures adopted yesterday. Wouldn't *that* be a hoot.

Especially as he'd surely have to testify under oath if he agreed to it. He's a completely different person when in a deposition.

It's why he'll never agree to appear before the committees, not even Senate-led ones. Same reason he wouldn't agree to an interview with Mueller.