Will Mitch lose leadership role if he votes to impeach Trump?

[BlueSwan]

Question in headline. If Mitch McConnell votes to impeach, will republicans in the senate elect another minority leader? Discuss.

[NewYorkExpress]

I suppose someone like Hawley or Cruz might challenge him...but I don't think McConnell is voting to acquit anyways.

[Person Man]

50/50. If anyone can become majority leader again after this it’s him. That is, survive his base’s demands and go on to win in 2022.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

No

[Roll Roons]

No. The Senate has a lot fewer MAGA types than the House.

[Calthrina950]

No. The Senate has a lot fewer MAGA types than the House.

And of course, the leadership challenge to Cheney failed. Moreover, most of the Republican Senators are indebted to or allied with McConnell in some way, and he is much better at controlling his caucus than McCarthy is.

[ugabug]

Don't think Mitch will vote to impeach Trump unless there's enough votes for it to pass in which case he wouldn't have to worry about losing his leadership anyway.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

D's have a very weak case for Impeachment now that so much time has gone by.

That's why he sided with Rand Paul to dismiss case.

Mcconnell only threatened CONVICTION not impeachment, Trump has already been impeached, to tell Trump to behave until he leaves and not be unruly.

I doubt the networks except cable carry full coverage of the Impeachment case

Impeachment has blown up in D's faces, Trump vows to campaign against D's in Midterms

Only Partisans care about Impeachment trial now

[redjohn]

He wouldn't lose his leadership, because his goal in impeachment would be to weaken the influence of Trump on the party and strengthen the pre-2016 conservative movement that helped elect so many Republicans to the House and Senate in 2010, 2014, and 2016. Trump is an electoral liability, and McConnell knows this. It's never about the "right thing", obviously, it's about what can strengthen the Republican grip on power, and we saw congressional Republicans outrunning Trump mostly across the board in November. Trump also directly cost Republicans control of the Senate, which is one of the main motivating factors for those seeking to get him to shut up.

If you look at the statewide votes for House candidates in November, Rs won more votes in WI, PA, GA, and AZ. They just barely received fewer votes in MN and MI. There are local issues that affected these specific races, but if that alone doesn't show Trump's toxicity, I don't know what does. McConnell knows this and the majority of Senate Republicans also know this.

[Crumpets]

I don't know. Mitch is pretty shrewd when it comes to his own power. He doesn't always get votes to go his way, but when that's the case, it takes someone like a McCain to outmaneuver him. Not a Hawley or a Cruz.

[Hermit For Peace]

In an ideal world, no he shouldn't lose his leadership role for doing the right thing. Trump is truly a cancer to that party and to the entire country. So are his loony followers. Sanity must prevail.

But I don't count on the "right" thing happening. I don't count on Trump being admonished in any way that sticks. The GOP are basically cowards and they have proven that over and over. And Mitch cheats. So phooey on most all of them. (There are some good GOP members to be sure, but they seem to be in the minority.)

[Erebus9]

He will be challenged but McConnell knows his politics, to challenge him will be hard to do and therefore even to succeed.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Mitch just confirmed that he will vote no on conviction by voting that the trial is unconstitutional.

[Hermit For Peace]

Mitch just confirmed that he will vote no on conviction by voting that the trial is unconstitutional.

Mitch has also said he will listen to the charges and the evidence in the trial before he makes a decision. Sounds like he is talking out of both sides of his mouth again.

[RINO Tom]

I suppose someone like Hawley or Cruz might challenge him...but I don't think McConnell is voting to acquit anyways.

Neither of them would defeat The Senate, I mean Mitch McConnell.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Mitch just confirmed that he will vote no on conviction by voting that the trial is unconstitutional.

Would not rule out Mitch or someone else being like, "I don't think this process is constitutional, but the Senate has declared it to be so, so I am forced to consider the merits and will therefore vote guilty."

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

No. The Senate has a lot fewer MAGA types than the House.

This

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Would not rule out Mitch or someone else being like, "I don't think this process is constitutional, but the Senate has declared it to be so, so I am forced to consider the merits and will therefore vote guilty."

I highly doubt it.

[Alben Barkley]

Would not rule out Mitch or someone else being like, "I don't think this process is constitutional, but the Senate has declared it to be so, so I am forced to consider the merits and will therefore vote guilty."

I highly doubt it.

So do I.

I win either way though: I make money off PredictIt if no more than 56 senators vote to convict. If they do, I get to be happy about it.

[R.P. McM]

No. The Senate has a lot fewer MAGA types than the House.

Despite McConnell's best efforts to imitate LBJ, the Senate remains an egalitarian institution. McConnell is merely the first among equals, and he serves at his colleagues' pleasure. How many Republican senators would be willing to kick the hornets' nest by retaining as their leader a man who publicly endorsed Trump's conviction? Granted, none would face individual accountability — it's a secret ballot (sure to assuage the QAnon types). Instead, it'd be the equivalent of detonating a daisy cutter at the RNC. The lunatic base wouldn't know who to lash out at, so they'd lash out at everyone. Yeah, not gonna happen. But if it did, Mitch would be toast.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Mitch just confirmed that he will vote no on conviction by voting that the trial is unconstitutional.

Would not rule out Mitch or someone else being like, "I don't think this process is constitutional, but the Senate has declared it to be so, so I am forced to consider the merits and will therefore vote guilty."

Well considering this was Burr's exact reasoning for voting Guilty per HuffPo, I accept my accolades.

[R.P. McM]

Mitch just confirmed that he will vote no on conviction by voting that the trial is unconstitutional.

Would not rule out Mitch or someone else being like, "I don't think this process is constitutional, but the Senate has declared it to be so, so I am forced to consider the merits and will therefore vote guilty."

Well considering this was Burr's exact reasoning for voting Guilty per HuffPo, I accept my accolades.

Good call. But I suspect Burr's stated rationale is a reversal of his actual reasoning process. He was inclined to vote "guilty," and thought opposing the trial at its outset might lessen the intraparty blowback.