Will Trump be impeached?

[136or142]

Follow along: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/trump-s-odds-of-staying-in-office-the-day-6-impeach-o-meter-for-july-20-1.4753127

Trump's odds of staying in office: The Day 6 Impeach-O-Meter for July 20

[136or142]

The bottom line is twofold:

In 1974, the Democratic and Republican parties were far more ideologically diverse.  I can't think of a single Democratic member of Congress today in the category of the guys that would be afraid to impeach Trump for fear of being too liberal.

Also:  In 1974, Republicans DID, progressively, begin to call for Nixon to resign, hoping to be spared from the impeachment vote and the Democrats making Nixon's trial the biggest thing since Nuremberg.  If Mueller is truly closing in on Trump, I guarantee that there will be a progressive call from GOP officeholders for Trump to resign.  That's actually a forgotten historical precedent.  The Democrats actually hedged on resignation; they really wanted to see Nixon go down in flames.  That wouldn't have been good for the country.  I wonder if Trump is bound and determined to give the Democrats their wish.

Right, but it's not all about ideology, Fuzzy. Let's not forget that Republicans already tried to impeach an opposition party president, although that was instance was notably different, both in partisanship and that Clinton was very popular at the time. Nonetheless, Democrats still seem to be thinking about that in regards to Trump. There seem to be enough Democrats in office who acknowledge that you need the public on your side as well an ironclad case, as that is the only remotely plausible way to make enough Senate Republicans fold.

I dunno, I just have to disagree with you here. It's possible that a newly-minted Democratic House majority is small, and there appear to be more enough hesitant Democrats who could tank an impeachment effort, at least until Mueller's investigation is done and presuming it gives a good reason to attempt to remove him. In this sense, I don't think you're giving Democrats enough credit.

I'm not sure what Fuzzy means by "Democrats hedged on resignation."  It's not like they could have prevented Nixon from resigning.  But the attitude that Nixon being impeached and convicted would have been bad for the U.S reeks of "prison is only for the little people."

[136or142]

The bottom line is twofold:

In 1974, the Democratic and Republican parties were far more ideologically diverse.  I can't think of a single Democratic member of Congress today in the category of the guys that would be afraid to impeach Trump for fear of being too liberal.

Also:  In 1974, Republicans DID, progressively, begin to call for Nixon to resign, hoping to be spared from the impeachment vote and the Democrats making Nixon's trial the biggest thing since Nuremberg.  If Mueller is truly closing in on Trump, I guarantee that there will be a progressive call from GOP officeholders for Trump to resign.  That's actually a forgotten historical precedent.  The Democrats actually hedged on resignation; they really wanted to see Nixon go down in flames.  That wouldn't have been good for the country.  I wonder if Trump is bound and determined to give the Democrats their wish.

Right, but it's not all about ideology, Fuzzy. Let's not forget that Republicans already tried to impeach an opposition party president, although that was instance was notably different, both in partisanship and that Clinton was very popular at the time. Nonetheless, Democrats still seem to be thinking about that in regards to Trump. There seem to be enough Democrats in office who acknowledge that you need the public on your side as well an ironclad case, as that is the only remotely plausible way to make enough Senate Republicans fold.

I dunno, I just have to disagree with you here. It's possible that a newly-minted Democratic House majority is small, and there appear to be more enough hesitant Democrats who could tank an impeachment effort, at least until Mueller's investigation is done and presuming it gives a good reason to attempt to remove him. In this sense, I don't think you're giving Democrats enough credit.

How many Democrats would suffer political backlash for voting to impeach Trump?  Regardless of ideology, I can't think of many that would.

How many Democrats are elected from districts where the majority of voters who are socially conservative whites who were supporters of racial segregation?  That was the situation in 1974; many Democrats were not only conservatives; their constituents were conservative and had already made their break with the National Democratic Party.  In 1974, one of the moderate Democrats, John W. Davis of GA, was beaten in the Democratic Primary by Larry McDonald, a member of the John Birch Society; primaries for Southern Democrats could be challenging if a Representative became too LIBERAL.  

The Democratic Party is different today; there is no intra-party philosophical divide anymore.  There isn't a dime's worth of difference between "centrists" and "progressives" in the Democratic Party, at least not to the degree that there was a difference between Sen. James B. Allen (D-AL) and Sen. Alan Cranston (D-CA) in 1974.  Maybe I'm missing something, but what moderate Democrats (Jim Cooper, maybe) would refuse to vote to impeach Trump?

Personally I think the correct decision is for Trump to be impeached so there is no reason for a political backlash against any Democrat voting for impeachment.  However, there was a vote on impeachment not that long ago in the House, and although the arguments for impeachment in that bill were apparently inane, I'm sure the specifics weren't all that important and I believe only 68 House Democrats voted in favor.

[136or142]

Having a House majority of the party opposing the president always poses a theoretical danger of impeachment.  Trump has certainly increased the danger to him in the way he has conducted his office.  Like True Federalist, I think at least hearings are likely in this scenario, and how those hearings go would test the waters about whether to go farther.  But there are risks in doing it too.  If the Dems go farther than a good case would warrant, they can alienate the voters, just as the '98 impeachment of Clinton did.  Second, focusing on booting Trump from office may detract the Dems from the surest-fire way of unseating him, namely finding a candidate that the voters like better in 2020.  Right now, I admit, that is looking difficult to me, but it's a safer political route.

This is all an analytical take on the situation.  I  certainly do think Trump is the most, no, the only genuine, impeachment-worthy president since Nixon. Emolument violations would be serious in themselves, but If Moeller does come up with substantial evidence that the Trump campaign actively sought assistance from Russian government actors for its campaign, I think he should be removed from office by whatever party is in the majority.        

It seems quite clear that although the impeachment overreach hurt the Republicans in 1998, that it helped them in 2000.  Not only did Al Gore choose the useless and sanctimonious Joe Lieberman as his Vice Presidential nominee, he refused to let President Clinton even campaign for him despite Clinton's high approval ratings, and it even allowed the callow hypocrite George W Bush to recite the oath of office at his campaign rallies while the fawning media referred to him in positive terms citing 'Clinton fatigue.'

I can appreciate that what I wrote above might sound like I only have an ax to grind here, but my point is that the impeachment of Bill Clinton was at worst a mixed bag for the Republicans.