So, first, some of the ground rules.
This time we're counting for removal from office and just removal from office.
Before, I was seeing if Congress would keep the President from being “
threatening”. That’s no longer a question since 2018. The House will block him. The Senate will block the House. Trump will try to be a dictator but will fail due to his own incompetence.
There is also no doubt as to will he be impeached. He will. The moment the Speaker announced the inquiry, impeachment was certain. She would not have done it if there were not the votes. And not voting now would be political malpractice. So, the only question is when.
Therefore, the only question left is whether there are enough, if any, Republican senators that would remove the President from office.
However, Speaker Pelosi’s goal is not removal.
The Speaker has to delicately time the vote. She has to give enough time that all the evidence that can be found is found, but not too long as so the inquiry can be made to look only political. Also, until the Impeachment vote happens, she (and by extension the Democrats) are in control. After that, Moscow Mitch is. Reason enough for her to keep the inquiry going as long as she can.
Given that she still is unlikely to get enough Republicans to vote for removal by that time. However, what she can do is make a vote against removal look so craven, she ensures control of the House, damages Trump’s re-election, and threatens Republican control of the Senate.
That’s the real battle here.
It’s 1, 4, 20, or 27
Remove of a president requires 67 senatorial votes. That means 20 Republicans in addition to the 47 Democrats. However, there is one vote that matters more than the others, Majority Leader Mitch McConnel.
What Moscow Mitch could do is unclear, but he could and is capable of is using whatever procedural trick is available. (Remember Merit Garland?) By his statement, the senate is constitutionally required to have a trial and a vote. However, "
how long you're on [the trial] is a whole different matter." In other words, he could choose to have the vote 1 hour after the impeachment, leaving no time for any evidence being brought to the public. Or, he could delay the vote until after the election. My understanding is that it would have to happen while the current Senate is in power, but that would still leave about 3 months after we know who the next president is.
My usual measure as to if Moscow Mitch turns against Trump is that over half of the Republican senators want it. That number is 27.
However, removal is not the only adverse outcome for Republicans and the President. A clearly craven vote by senators would be electorally dangerous, especially if it looks bipartisan. That could mean as little as 4 Republicans, making the vote a straight majority, would cause harm.
Tiers of Desperation
Again, I must remind you how bad it would be for a Republican senator to vote for removal. At the very least, they will be viewed as disloyal, and their voters will be unmotivated. Effectively, all power would be ceded to the Democrats at the next election.
More likely, after a time, those senators will be the targets of political operatives and pundits who still believe the President should have been protected. Under the best scenarios, that would be over half of registered Republicans. And if the Trump remains, he’s made clear that will use all power and influence he has to attack those that voted against him, even at risk of Republican control of the Senate.
Before you judge them, honestly, ask yourself. What would you be willing to do if it risked your job? Not only your career but everything you worked for because that is what likely will happen. Democrats will gain all the power, pick the judges, increase the size of government, take away tax cuts to the rich, and add regulations.
Most would not show “political courage” under those conditions, any form of rationalization would be welcome, and every instinct would be to duck your head and hope it all just goes away.
Times would have to be desperate indeed. Meaning, only expect senators to vote for removal if:
- Their voters would punish them.
- They are safe and want to.
So who are they:
Tier 1 – Those who will vote against Trump regardless.
These would be senators who have the conviction that the President should be removed and either will suffer no consequence or would be punished for supporting Trump. They are willing to vote even if Trump is not removed.
Tier 2 – Those who will lead the charge.
These are the senators who need to know that he will be removed if they vote against him but are willing to tell others this. There needs there to be 20, but they are the first to say they are part of the 20.
Tier 3 – Those that say “count me in.”
These are the senators who will happily vote to remove Trump, but only if it will succeed and won’t take the lead.
Tier 4 – The wildcards
These are the senators who have a mixed record. There are good reasons for them to oppose the President, and at least one time they have. However, they have also shown unusual support for him at others. In some cases, they reached the point of being political opportunists.
Where to find them
So how do we look for these mysterious senators?
Retiring and when is their re-election.
First, I would look at retiring senators, of which there are currently four. These have the best option of “voting their conscious” and can think more about how their acts will be viewed in history. Also, and sadly, most are retiring due to health concerns, so even factors that I mentioned in Speaker Ryan’s retirement are not an issue.
Though, oddly, only one, Lamar, has voice anything negative towards Trump’s behavior. The others, in fact, have criticized the inquiry. So, those three could be “true believers” or so partisan to still excuse these acts. However, at the very least, I have to believe any senator retiring would vote for removal if enough other senators do.
Then, we can look at those up for re-election in 2024. A lot can happen in 4 years, and that is plenty of time to survive past any political harm a vote against their party would do. However, that group is small, 6, and since they were elected when Trump had the most influence, 2018, only one, Mitt Romney, has spoken against the President. Others, such as Ted Cruz and Rick Scott, have been practically sycophantic towards Trump.
Then, there is 2022. 2 years is not as good as 4 years, but that does give a little time. Not enough to free them of political worry, but it does help.
And, of course, those up in 2020 are going to be the ones most driven by electoral concerns.
Their States
As would be no surprise, the state a senator represents has a lot to do with how they vote. In fact, senators should vote for who they represent. Thus, we look at whether a state is anti-trump, pro-trump, safe, or “swingy”.
Note that the support of a state is not as simple as whether it is blue, red, or purple. What matters is the senator’s relationship with his state. So, despite Utah being a very red state,
their view of Trump is at best look warm and have better regard for Mitt Romney, making it a safe state.
Also, there are two ways a state can be purple. The populace could have a mix of left and right views or, more likely, they could have staunch, but equal, areas of red and blue. In the first case, the state is more likely to waiver in support of Trump, if they have not done so already. However, in the second case, that can make it harder for the senator to oppose Trump because he more desperately needs to turn out those red areas.
What I would look at first is whether Trump won that state in 2016. If they did not want him, then it’s unlikely they changed their minds. As you might expect, there are only 2 states with Republican senators: Colorado and Maine. After that, I would look at which states have a Democratic and Republican senator as it’s a strong indication of a bipartisan populace. And finally, there is the
state’s approval/disapproval rating of Trump. (Unfortunately, state by state polls on the impeachment question are barely available and problematic.)
The more complicated case is Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Trump won both of those (starting our national nightmare), but they are still blue states with low approvals of him. Have they now rejected Trump, or could their Republican senators rely on pro-Trump areas?
What they’re saying.
Of course, there is what the senators are actually saying about impeachment. Short answer. Not much.
Even Mitt Romney, the most vocal critic, has not given more than “it would be bad if”. Then again, what should they say? It would be improper for them, even Democratic senators, to prejudice themselves before there is a trial.
That doesn’t stop us from “reading the tea leaves”, however.
So, how are we doing?
Not good. As of now, I only have 16 in the first 3 tiers, which means we need some wild cards to reach the 20. But, hey, I’ve been saying for a while not that impeachment in the first term was not going to happen and would if there was a second. I’d like to be wrong, but it still doesn’t look like it.
What could change?
The Polls Of Course
Given that reelection is what most senators are worried about, approval on removal and/or Trump could shift them. However, that’s problematic because it’s not the national polls that matter. It’s the state polls, and the states almost all of these senators represent are the least likely to shift.
The Growth of Independents
There is a way the polls are misleading. As I pointed out in
Why Democrats Feel They’re Always Losing, determining what party a person belongs to is not straightforward. Depending on how the question is asked, the pollster could be talking to an “independent” that just yesterday was a Republican. In other words, if a Republican begins to believe Trump should be removed, then they are probably considering no longer being a Republican.
If we see the overall numbers growing towards impeachment but not among Republicans, then that is what is going on.
