Most Likely GOP Senators To Convict Trump

Oryx · 2019-10-08T15:06:44.185Z

zantax:

This isn’t 1972, progressive liberals no longer have a monopoly on television and the public narrative, so I wouldn’t look for a repeat.

I’m not making a prediction, just pointing out that even back in 1972, when “progressive liberals” held “a monopoly on television and the public narrative,” as you put it, more than a third of voters still supported Nixon when he resigned. I don’t expect Trump’s support to ever dip below that, no matter what happens.

Demon · 2019-10-08T15:09:06.407Z

Not so sure about the swing staters. I don’t think Gardner has the spine to stand up against Trump, and I really don’t think he expects to win in CO again. Collins has proven herself to be nothing more than deeply concerned while voting the way Trump wants. McSally & Ernst I could see going against Trump.

H_Arendt · 2019-10-08T15:10:33.102Z

zantax:

Oryx:

SimplyTrying:

Nixon had a lot of support at the beginning that faded after the tapes came out. I’m hoping the same will happen here. Not good odds though.

It wasn’t until the tapes came out that a majority of Americans thought he should leave office. More than a third of voters still supported Nixon when he resigned. That seems to be around the number that will stick with Trump no matter what.

This isn’t 1972, progressive liberals no longer have a monopoly on television and the public narrative, so I wouldn’t look for a repeat.

If progressive liberals held a monopoly on the public narrative in 1972 as you claim, why did almost no newspaper or tv station pay attention to the Watergate story from the break-in until the Senate hearings in the Spring of 1973. Though most of the issues in Nixon’s impeachment were clear in 1972 but Nixon cruised to a landslide victory in November.

The historical record is at odds with your claim.

margaretms2 · 2019-10-08T15:44:38.153Z

zantax:

Does it upset you that politicians have to be accountable to the people who voted them into office?

No. Not at all. If a senator sincerely (key word) believes that a president should be impeached (particularly when that president is from the same party) because the president is corrupt, unethical, dangerous, or unacceptably harmful to the country, that senator is being accountable to voters. That official can choose (or choose not) to explain to voters why, and let the voters decide during the next election. How is that avoiding accountability?

In any case, this isn’t a direct democracy. Senators make decisions all the time that aren’t based on some direct, immediate expression of voter preferences.

toreyj01 · 2019-10-08T17:16:02.725Z

Nice work, I would add a couple other candidates:

Roy Blunt- He has been critical of Trump, and was waiting to form an opinion in regards to the impeachment. On the other hand, he said Trump was kidding about China. But this isn’t about China.
Jon Cornyn: Up for election in 2020 and Trump is doing badly in Texas. He could drag Cornyn down with him if he is still in office.
Richard Burr: He truly works with the Dems on his committee and is well respected. He has a lot of integrity and lives in a purple state.
Inhofe and Lankford: Oklahoma dudes, they have stayed silent on the matter but are probably going to follow the tide one way or the other. If it looks bad for Trump they will probably follow the rest and vote for impeachment.
Mike Lee: Utah guy. He has been an apologist but I don’t see him having the stones to support Trump in a losing effort.

Bodecea · 2019-10-08T18:28:10.922Z

zantax:

So a gop presidential candidate wasn’t investigated under the Obama administration?

With a quid pro quo request to a foreign government? No.

Bodecea · 2019-10-08T18:29:44.801Z

H_Arendt:

zantax:

Oryx:

SimplyTrying:

Nixon had a lot of support at the beginning that faded after the tapes came out. I’m hoping the same will happen here. Not good odds though.

It wasn’t until the tapes came out that a majority of Americans thought he should leave office. More than a third of voters still supported Nixon when he resigned. That seems to be around the number that will stick with Trump no matter what.

This isn’t 1972, progressive liberals no longer have a monopoly on television and the public narrative, so I wouldn’t look for a repeat.

If progressive liberals held a monopoly on the public narrative in 1972 as you claim, why did almost no newspaper or tv station pay attention to the Watergate story from the break-in until the Senate hearings in the Spring of 1973. Though most of the issues in Nixon’s impeachment were clear in 1972 but Nixon cruised to a landslide victory in November.

The historical record is at odds with your claim.

But the facts don’t fit in with the GOP victimhood narrative.

DougBH · 2019-10-08T18:39:43.568Z

Good call. And I’m counting on Schiff and Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortiz voting against impeachment in the first place because…reasons.

W_and_C · 2019-10-08T18:41:00.704Z

It ain’t gonna happen

DougBH · 2019-10-08T18:43:09.277Z

NuffSaid:

Scary thing is that if Dems uncover something similar to the Nixon tapes, Republicans still won’t switch. It’s truly a sore spot in American history.

No. If real reasons come up then Trump will be convicted. Democrats have been looking for real reasons since Nov 2016. Mueller fell through for them so they came up with this latest nothing.
The problem is, you have no real reasons nor any reason to believe there are any.
That is why this whole thing is an exercise in futility…and for “personal political gain”…by Democrats.

You can’t take the many rejections by Republicans over fake reasons for impeachment to project that real reasons would be rejected.

NuffSaid · 2019-10-08T18:45:44.685Z

DougBH:

NuffSaid:

Scary thing is that if Dems uncover something similar to the Nixon tapes, Republicans still won’t switch. It’s truly a sore spot in American history.

No. If real reasons come up then Trump will be convicted. Democrats have been looking for real reasons since Nov 2016. Mueller fell through for them so they came up with this latest nothing.
The problem is, you have no real reasons nor any reason to believe there are any.
That is why this whole thing is an exercise in futility…and for “personal political gain”…by Democrats.

You can’t take the many rejections by Republicans over fake reasons for impeachment to project that real reasons would be rejected.

Nope, nothing Trump could do or what evidence is unearthed that would sway Republicans. Republicans have put Trump over country.

DougBH · 2019-10-08T18:45:57.746Z

zantax:

So a gop presidential candidate wasn’t investigated under the Obama administration?

But that was done “by the book”. Obama said so and had Susan Rice email that statement to herself to document it.

DougBH · 2019-10-08T18:48:34.874Z

Bodecea:

zantax:

So a gop presidential candidate wasn’t investigated under the Obama administration?

With a quid pro quo request to a foreign government? No.

Even if a “quid pro quo” were actually documented (highly doubtful) it would be a quid pro quo to do something legal…investigate possible corruption. Offering a foreign country something in return for something we want is not illegal or unethical…or uncommon.

coolidge · 2019-10-08T18:50:56.229Z

zantax:

If Democrats wanted to pull off an impeachment of a President for trying to investigate an opposition candidate, they should probably have refrained from launching an investigation of an opposition candidate in the last election. Just saying.

my sentiment as well.

toreyj01 · 2019-10-08T19:07:22.937Z

The main thing is, if the GOP Senators start to support impeachment you are going to see a wave happen. McConnell alone is good for 10-15 Senators, if Burr follows you are over 20. Those are the two guys to watch IMHO.

zantax · 2019-10-08T21:58:32.704Z

coolidge:

zantax:

If Democrats wanted to pull off an impeachment of a President for trying to investigate an opposition candidate, they should probably have refrained from launching an investigation of an opposition candidate in the last election. Just saying.

my sentiment as well.

Look, all Democrats are saying here is, if a Republican administration investigates a democratic candidate, Democrats have to agree that investigation is legitimate, but if, on the other hand, a Democratic administration investigates a Republican candidate, Republicans don’t get any say in the matter.

Bodecea · 2019-10-08T22:35:34.913Z

DougBH:

Bodecea:

zantax:

So a gop presidential candidate wasn’t investigated under the Obama administration?

With a quid pro quo request to a foreign government? No.

Even if a “quid pro quo” were actually documented (highly doubtful) it would be a quid pro quo to do something legal…investigate possible corruption. Offering a foreign country something in return for something we want is not illegal or unethical…or uncommon.

Against a political opponent…only because they are now a political opponent.

DOLOOP · 2019-10-08T22:42:11.504Z

toreyj01:

Nice work, I would add a couple other candidates:

Roy Blunt- He has been critical of Trump, and was waiting to form an opinion in regards to the impeachment. On the other hand, he said Trump was kidding about China. But this isn’t about China.

Jon Cornyn: Up for election in 2020 and Trump is doing badly in Texas. He could drag Cornyn down with him if he is still in office.

Richard Burr: He truly works with the Dems on his committee and is well respected. He has a lot of integrity and lives in a purple state.

Inhofe and Lankford: Oklahoma dudes, they have stayed silent on the matter but are probably going to follow the tide one way or the other. If it looks bad for Trump they will probably follow the rest and vote for impeachment.

Mike Lee: Utah guy. He has been an apologist but I don’t see him having the stones to support Trump in a losing effort.

Good call. what happened to Mike Lee? He used to be a bulldog? It’s like he disappeared.

Ex-Pat · 2019-10-08T23:02:31.257Z

merickson:

The OP has a hidden assumption.

The OP assumes that Trump has committed high crimes and misteomeaners and that the only consideration in voting to keep him is the political calculation.

I also assume that the Trump administration will probably be able to successfully block, delay, and obstruct Democrats from getting damaging information. Hence why I said chances of conviction are so low.

Ex-Pat · 2019-10-08T23:10:08.141Z

I considered adding Mike Lee to my list. He’s younger and a member of the LDS Church. But he’s one of the most conservative members of the Senate based on his positions.

Inhofe is someone I considered least likely to convict. He has no chance of being defeated in deep red Oklahoma and is one of the most craven people in Congress.