I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.
McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.
McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
In other words no witnesses will be called Moscow Mitch will make sure the Baffoon goes on unscathed but but he’s still impeached 2020 and guess what he will still be impeached when he’s swearing to uphold the constitution come 1/21/2021
His actions have spoken. There's no need for evidence, witnesses, a big fancy time-wastin' trial. Everybody knows what he did and how he acts DAILY. He's literally the WORST elected official in the history of this country. He doesn't know what he's doing out there. OUT WITH HIM.
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.
McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators.
On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November.
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.
McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators.
On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November.
I don't see really an scenario (besides finding some smocking gun) where they call witnesses. they are hoping to high hell trump just gets reelected and he endorses all his supporting senators.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.
McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators.
On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November.
I don't see really an scenario (besides finding some smocking gun) where they call witnesses. they are hoping to high hell trump just gets reelected and he endorses all his supporting senators.
Well most people also thought he would never be impeached. We shall see.
They want to get re-elected too and Trump isn't doing so hot in purple states...
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.
McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators.
On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November.
I don't see really an scenario (besides finding some smocking gun) where they call witnesses. they are hoping to high hell trump just gets reelected and he endorses all his supporting senators.
Well most people also thought he would never be impeached. We shall see.
They want to get re-elected too and Trump isn't doing so hot in purple states...
absolutely true. i think one thing we can all agree on, this admin is impossible to predict.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.
McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators.
On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November.
I don't see really an scenario (besides finding some smocking gun) where they call witnesses. they are hoping to high hell trump just gets reelected and he endorses all his supporting senators.
Well most people also thought he would never be impeached. We shall see.
They want to get re-elected too and Trump isn't doing so hot in purple states...
In terms of the general public (as opposed to this board), a shocking number of people conflate "impeach" with "remove." I don't think those that understand the politics of today are stunned he was impeached (following the Dems taking over the House). But the Senate is controlled by the Party of Trump.
Regarding the re-election of senators, even in purple or blue states, they know they have to back Trump because they might even lose their nominations. If they get voted out in purple states for supporting Trump, then it turns out they were screwed either way. I still take the "under" on 1 GOP senator to vote for removal.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.
McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators.
On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November.
I don't see really an scenario (besides finding some smocking gun) where they call witnesses. they are hoping to high hell trump just gets reelected and he endorses all his supporting senators.
Well most people also thought he would never be impeached. We shall see.
They want to get re-elected too and Trump isn't doing so hot in purple states...
In terms of the general public (as opposed to this board), a shocking number of people conflate "impeach" with "remove." I don't think those that understand the politics of today are stunned he was impeached (following the Dems taking over the House). But the Senate is controlled by the Party of Trump.
Regard the re-election of senators, even in purple or blue states, they know they have to back Trump because they might even lose their nominations. If they get voted out in purple states for supporting Trump, then it turns out they were screwed either way. I still take the "under" on 1 GOP senator to vote for removal.
my whole family, the day he got elected, started a pool about when he'd get impeached (my brother won). up until just about a month ago, my father thought impeachment meant removal. I had to explain the whole process to him.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.
McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators.
On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November.
I don't see really an scenario (besides finding some smocking gun) where they call witnesses. they are hoping to high hell trump just gets reelected and he endorses all his supporting senators.
Well most people also thought he would never be impeached. We shall see.
They want to get re-elected too and Trump isn't doing so hot in purple states...
In terms of the general public (as opposed to this board), a shocking number of people conflate "impeach" with "remove." I don't think those that understand the politics of today are stunned he was impeached (following the Dems taking over the House). But the Senate is controlled by the Party of Trump.
Regarding the re-election of senators, even in purple or blue states, they know they have to back Trump because they might even lose their nominations. If they get voted out in purple states for supporting Trump, then it turns out they were screwed either way. I still take the "under" on 1 GOP senator to vote for removal.
Check the link I posted. Polls specifically ask both questions: impeach / impeach and remove.
What's more important than the vote for removal is the vote for calling witnesses. He's highly unlikely to be removed. They'll get enough to call witnesses though...
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.
McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators.
On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November.
I don't see really an scenario (besides finding some smocking gun) where they call witnesses. they are hoping to high hell trump just gets reelected and he endorses all his supporting senators.
Well most people also thought he would never be impeached. We shall see.
They want to get re-elected too and Trump isn't doing so hot in purple states...
In terms of the general public (as opposed to this board), a shocking number of people conflate "impeach" with "remove." I don't think those that understand the politics of today are stunned he was impeached (following the Dems taking over the House). But the Senate is controlled by the Party of Trump.
Regard the re-election of senators, even in purple or blue states, they know they have to back Trump because they might even lose their nominations. If they get voted out in purple states for supporting Trump, then it turns out they were screwed either way. I still take the "under" on 1 GOP senator to vote for removal.
my whole family, the day he got elected, started a pool about when he'd get impeached (my brother won). up until just about a month ago, my father thought impeachment meant removal. I had to explain the whole process to him.
Umm....is your father old enough to remember the late 90's?
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.
McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators.
On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November.
I don't see really an scenario (besides finding some smocking gun) where they call witnesses. they are hoping to high hell trump just gets reelected and he endorses all his supporting senators.
Well most people also thought he would never be impeached. We shall see.
They want to get re-elected too and Trump isn't doing so hot in purple states...
In terms of the general public (as opposed to this board), a shocking number of people conflate "impeach" with "remove." I don't think those that understand the politics of today are stunned he was impeached (following the Dems taking over the House). But the Senate is controlled by the Party of Trump.
Regarding the re-election of senators, even in purple or blue states, they know they have to back Trump because they might even lose their nominations. If they get voted out in purple states for supporting Trump, then it turns out they were screwed either way. I still take the "under" on 1 GOP senator to vote for removal.
This is why I wanted Pelosi to slow play this a bit, to get past primary season for vulnerable senate republicans, giving them more freedom to vote.
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.
McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators.
On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November.
I don't see really an scenario (besides finding some smocking gun) where they call witnesses. they are hoping to high hell trump just gets reelected and he endorses all his supporting senators.
Well most people also thought he would never be impeached. We shall see.
They want to get re-elected too and Trump isn't doing so hot in purple states...
In terms of the general public (as opposed to this board), a shocking number of people conflate "impeach" with "remove." I don't think those that understand the politics of today are stunned he was impeached (following the Dems taking over the House). But the Senate is controlled by the Party of Trump.
Regard the re-election of senators, even in purple or blue states, they know they have to back Trump because they might even lose their nominations. If they get voted out in purple states for supporting Trump, then it turns out they were screwed either way. I still take the "under" on 1 GOP senator to vote for removal.
my whole family, the day he got elected, started a pool about when he'd get impeached (my brother won). up until just about a month ago, my father thought impeachment meant removal. I had to explain the whole process to him.
Umm....is your father old enough to remember the late 90's?
of course. but being canadian, and at the time without internet, he most likely thought clinton not being removed meant he wasn't impeached. he follows canadian politics much more closely than american.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.
McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators.
On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November.
I don't see really an scenario (besides finding some smocking gun) where they call witnesses. they are hoping to high hell trump just gets reelected and he endorses all his supporting senators.
Well most people also thought he would never be impeached. We shall see.
They want to get re-elected too and Trump isn't doing so hot in purple states...
In terms of the general public (as opposed to this board), a shocking number of people conflate "impeach" with "remove." I don't think those that understand the politics of today are stunned he was impeached (following the Dems taking over the House). But the Senate is controlled by the Party of Trump.
Regard the re-election of senators, even in purple or blue states, they know they have to back Trump because they might even lose their nominations. If they get voted out in purple states for supporting Trump, then it turns out they were screwed either way. I still take the "under" on 1 GOP senator to vote for removal.
my whole family, the day he got elected, started a pool about when he'd get impeached (my brother won). up until just about a month ago, my father thought impeachment meant removal. I had to explain the whole process to him.
Umm....is your father old enough to remember the late 90's?
of course. but being canadian, and at the time without internet, he most likely thought clinton not being removed meant he wasn't impeached. he follows canadian politics much more closely than american.
I'm impressed all you Canadians know as much as you do. There's a shit ton of Americans who don't know the difference that you explained to your father.
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.
McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators.
On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November.
I don't see really an scenario (besides finding some smocking gun) where they call witnesses. they are hoping to high hell trump just gets reelected and he endorses all his supporting senators.
Well most people also thought he would never be impeached. We shall see.
They want to get re-elected too and Trump isn't doing so hot in purple states...
absolutely true. i think one thing we can all agree on, this admin is impossible to predict.
It's (the current administration) even more impossible to respect.
"A smart monkey doesn't monkey around with another monkey's monkey" - Darwin's Theory
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.
McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators.
On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November.
I don't see really an scenario (besides finding some smocking gun) where they call witnesses. they are hoping to high hell trump just gets reelected and he endorses all his supporting senators.
Well most people also thought he would never be impeached. We shall see.
They want to get re-elected too and Trump isn't doing so hot in purple states...
In terms of the general public (as opposed to this board), a shocking number of people conflate "impeach" with "remove." I don't think those that understand the politics of today are stunned he was impeached (following the Dems taking over the House). But the Senate is controlled by the Party of Trump.
Regard the re-election of senators, even in purple or blue states, they know they have to back Trump because they might even lose their nominations. If they get voted out in purple states for supporting Trump, then it turns out they were screwed either way. I still take the "under" on 1 GOP senator to vote for removal.
my whole family, the day he got elected, started a pool about when he'd get impeached (my brother won). up until just about a month ago, my father thought impeachment meant removal. I had to explain the whole process to him.
Umm....is your father old enough to remember the late 90's?
of course. but being canadian, and at the time without internet, he most likely thought clinton not being removed meant he wasn't impeached. he follows canadian politics much more closely than american.
I'm impressed all you Canadians know as much as you do. There's a shit ton of Americans who don't know the difference that you explained to your father.
i knew literally zero until I waded into the AMT years ago. And I still know so little comparably speaking. but now with the 24 hour news cycle, our cable channels being mostly from the US, it's hard to escape.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.
McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators.
On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November.
It's hard to take national polls and apply that to individual Senate races. It also doesn't tell you how important this issue is for a particular voter or block of voters. Sure, an Arizonan could favor removal of Trump, but how much does that factor into their vote for McSally? Maybe a lot, maybe not at all. Who knows.
I still wish the House had gone to the courts on Bolton, Mulvaney, Giuliani, etc. Especially since Pelosi is holding the articles and hoping for a break anyway. Was there a need to rush or is there no need to rush? The whole thing feels sloppy to me and it's frustrating.
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.
McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators.
On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November.
I don't see really an scenario (besides finding some smocking gun) where they call witnesses. they are hoping to high hell trump just gets reelected and he endorses all his supporting senators.
Well most people also thought he would never be impeached. We shall see.
They want to get re-elected too and Trump isn't doing so hot in purple states...
In terms of the general public (as opposed to this board), a shocking number of people conflate "impeach" with "remove." I don't think those that understand the politics of today are stunned he was impeached (following the Dems taking over the House). But the Senate is controlled by the Party of Trump.
Regard the re-election of senators, even in purple or blue states, they know they have to back Trump because they might even lose their nominations. If they get voted out in purple states for supporting Trump, then it turns out they were screwed either way. I still take the "under" on 1 GOP senator to vote for removal.
my whole family, the day he got elected, started a pool about when he'd get impeached (my brother won). up until just about a month ago, my father thought impeachment meant removal. I had to explain the whole process to him.
Umm....is your father old enough to remember the late 90's?
of course. but being canadian, and at the time without internet, he most likely thought clinton not being removed meant he wasn't impeached. he follows canadian politics much more closely than american.
I'm impressed all you Canadians know as much as you do. There's a shit ton of Americans who don't know the difference that you explained to your father.
i knew literally zero until I waded into the AMT years ago. And I still know so little comparably speaking. but now with the 24 hour news cycle, our cable channels being mostly from the US, it's hard to escape.
Same here. This is the place that got me (and keeps me) excited about politics.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.
McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators.
On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November.
It's hard to take national polls and apply that to individual Senate races. It also doesn't tell you how important this issue is for a particular voter or block of voters. Sure, an Arizonan could favor removal of Trump, but how much does that factor into their vote for McSally? Maybe a lot, maybe not at all. Who knows.
I still wish the House had gone to the courts on Bolton, Mulvaney, Giuliani, etc. Especially since Pelosi is holding the articles and hoping for a break anyway. Was there a need to rush or is there no need to rush? The whole thing feels sloppy to me and it's frustrating.
I agree I wish Democrats would of taken all the ones who failed to comply to court no matter how long it took !
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.
McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators.
On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November.
It's hard to take national polls and apply that to individual Senate races. It also doesn't tell you how important this issue is for a particular voter or block of voters. Sure, an Arizonan could favor removal of Trump, but how much does that factor into their vote for McSally? Maybe a lot, maybe not at all. Who knows.
I still wish the House had gone to the courts on Bolton, Mulvaney, Giuliani, etc. Especially since Pelosi is holding the articles and hoping for a break anyway. Was there a need to rush or is there no need to rush? The whole thing feels sloppy to me and it's frustrating.
Let's take Colorado. HRC won by 5%. Gardner is up for reelection this year. Trump has a negative 18 net approval (39%-approve/57% disapprove) there. To me, it would be wise for Gardner to vote for witnesses after the trial starts. It's got to be obvious to him that his state is pretty much against the president so do the math.....He is also running against a popular former governor who has a substantial lead in early polling there.
McConnell has to appease Trump, but he also has to retain control of the senate. Not calling witnesses (at some point) will hurt senators up for re-election like Gardner and Collins etc....
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.
McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators.
On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November.
It's hard to take national polls and apply that to individual Senate races. It also doesn't tell you how important this issue is for a particular voter or block of voters. Sure, an Arizonan could favor removal of Trump, but how much does that factor into their vote for McSally? Maybe a lot, maybe not at all. Who knows.
I still wish the House had gone to the courts on Bolton, Mulvaney, Giuliani, etc. Especially since Pelosi is holding the articles and hoping for a break anyway. Was there a need to rush or is there no need to rush? The whole thing feels sloppy to me and it's frustrating.
Let's take Colorado. HRC won by 5%. Gardner is up for reelection this year. Trump has a negative 18 net approval (39%-approve/57% disapprove) there. To me, it would be wise for Gardner to vote for witnesses after the trial starts. It's got to be obvious to him that his state is pretty much against the president so do the math.....He is also running against a popular former governor who has a substantial lead in early polling there.
McConnell has to appease Trump, but he also has to retain control of the senate. Not calling witnesses (at some point) will hurt senators up for re-election like Gardner and Collins etc....
True. And this is what I hate about politics. Worried about keeping power vs doing what you think is right.
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.
McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators.
On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November.
It's hard to take national polls and apply that to individual Senate races. It also doesn't tell you how important this issue is for a particular voter or block of voters. Sure, an Arizonan could favor removal of Trump, but how much does that factor into their vote for McSally? Maybe a lot, maybe not at all. Who knows.
I still wish the House had gone to the courts on Bolton, Mulvaney, Giuliani, etc. Especially since Pelosi is holding the articles and hoping for a break anyway. Was there a need to rush or is there no need to rush? The whole thing feels sloppy to me and it's frustrating.
Let's take Colorado. HRC won by 5%. Gardner is up for reelection this year. Trump has a negative 18 net approval (39%-approve/57% disapprove) there. To me, it would be wise for Gardner to vote for witnesses after the trial starts. It's got to be obvious to him that his state is pretty much against the president so do the math.....He is also running against a popular former governor who has a substantial lead in early polling there.
McConnell has to appease Trump, but he also has to retain control of the senate. Not calling witnesses (at some point) will hurt senators up for re-election like Gardner and Collins etc....
He'll lose the primary if he does that. Yes, he will probably lose overall, but no one is ready to throw that towel in. That's why I was saying earlier that it would have been better to hold off until after primary season. But then of course you hurt the Dems that are running for President as they lose campaign time.
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.
McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators.
On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November.
It's hard to take national polls and apply that to individual Senate races. It also doesn't tell you how important this issue is for a particular voter or block of voters. Sure, an Arizonan could favor removal of Trump, but how much does that factor into their vote for McSally? Maybe a lot, maybe not at all. Who knows.
I still wish the House had gone to the courts on Bolton, Mulvaney, Giuliani, etc. Especially since Pelosi is holding the articles and hoping for a break anyway. Was there a need to rush or is there no need to rush? The whole thing feels sloppy to me and it's frustrating.
Let's take Colorado. HRC won by 5%. Gardner is up for reelection this year. Trump has a negative 18 net approval (39%-approve/57% disapprove) there. To me, it would be wise for Gardner to vote for witnesses after the trial starts. It's got to be obvious to him that his state is pretty much against the president so do the math.....He is also running against a popular former governor who has a substantial lead in early polling there.
McConnell has to appease Trump, but he also has to retain control of the senate. Not calling witnesses (at some point) will hurt senators up for re-election like Gardner and Collins etc....
You might be right. If so, though, doesn't the opposite apply to Doug Jones? That 538 link said 9% of Republicans supported removal and he needs a lot of those votes to win. In either case, we still don't really know where this issue ranks for voters.
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.
McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators.
On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November.
It's hard to take national polls and apply that to individual Senate races. It also doesn't tell you how important this issue is for a particular voter or block of voters. Sure, an Arizonan could favor removal of Trump, but how much does that factor into their vote for McSally? Maybe a lot, maybe not at all. Who knows.
I still wish the House had gone to the courts on Bolton, Mulvaney, Giuliani, etc. Especially since Pelosi is holding the articles and hoping for a break anyway. Was there a need to rush or is there no need to rush? The whole thing feels sloppy to me and it's frustrating.
Let's take Colorado. HRC won by 5%. Gardner is up for reelection this year. Trump has a negative 18 net approval (39%-approve/57% disapprove) there. To me, it would be wise for Gardner to vote for witnesses after the trial starts. It's got to be obvious to him that his state is pretty much against the president so do the math.....He is also running against a popular former governor who has a substantial lead in early polling there.
McConnell has to appease Trump, but he also has to retain control of the senate. Not calling witnesses (at some point) will hurt senators up for re-election like Gardner and Collins etc....
He'll lose the primary if he does that. Yes, he will probably lose overall, but no one is ready to throw that towel in. That's why I was saying earlier that it would have been better to hold off until after primary season. But then of course you hurt the Dems that are running for President as they lose campaign time.
I don't know about that. It's not like he's voting for removal. He's just voting for witnesses. And keep in mind, these witnesses would not only be the ones that democrats will want. Looks like the primary is 6 weeks away too. Maybe his calculation would be it might trigger a primary challenge in the short term but he would still likely win...and then it would help him more in November.
I don't know. I think holding onto the articles for months would hurt the dems more than help them at this point.
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.
McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators.
On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November.
It's hard to take national polls and apply that to individual Senate races. It also doesn't tell you how important this issue is for a particular voter or block of voters. Sure, an Arizonan could favor removal of Trump, but how much does that factor into their vote for McSally? Maybe a lot, maybe not at all. Who knows.
I still wish the House had gone to the courts on Bolton, Mulvaney, Giuliani, etc. Especially since Pelosi is holding the articles and hoping for a break anyway. Was there a need to rush or is there no need to rush? The whole thing feels sloppy to me and it's frustrating.
Let's take Colorado. HRC won by 5%. Gardner is up for reelection this year. Trump has a negative 18 net approval (39%-approve/57% disapprove) there. To me, it would be wise for Gardner to vote for witnesses after the trial starts. It's got to be obvious to him that his state is pretty much against the president so do the math.....He is also running against a popular former governor who has a substantial lead in early polling there.
McConnell has to appease Trump, but he also has to retain control of the senate. Not calling witnesses (at some point) will hurt senators up for re-election like Gardner and Collins etc....
He'll lose the primary if he does that. Yes, he will probably lose overall, but no one is ready to throw that towel in. That's why I was saying earlier that it would have been better to hold off until after primary season. But then of course you hurt the Dems that are running for President as they lose campaign time.
I don't know about that. It's not like he's voting for removal. He's just voting for witnesses. And keep in mind, these witnesses would not only be the ones that democrats will want. Looks like the primary is 6 weeks away too. Maybe his calculation would be it might trigger a primary challenge in the short term but he would still likely win...and then it would help him more in November.
I don't know. I think holding onto the articles for months would hurt the dems more than help them at this point.
I thought you meant removal, not just the witness argument. My bad.
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.
McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators.
On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November.
It's hard to take national polls and apply that to individual Senate races. It also doesn't tell you how important this issue is for a particular voter or block of voters. Sure, an Arizonan could favor removal of Trump, but how much does that factor into their vote for McSally? Maybe a lot, maybe not at all. Who knows.
I still wish the House had gone to the courts on Bolton, Mulvaney, Giuliani, etc. Especially since Pelosi is holding the articles and hoping for a break anyway. Was there a need to rush or is there no need to rush? The whole thing feels sloppy to me and it's frustrating.
Let's take Colorado. HRC won by 5%. Gardner is up for reelection this year. Trump has a negative 18 net approval (39%-approve/57% disapprove) there. To me, it would be wise for Gardner to vote for witnesses after the trial starts. It's got to be obvious to him that his state is pretty much against the president so do the math.....He is also running against a popular former governor who has a substantial lead in early polling there.
McConnell has to appease Trump, but he also has to retain control of the senate. Not calling witnesses (at some point) will hurt senators up for re-election like Gardner and Collins etc....
He'll lose the primary if he does that. Yes, he will probably lose overall, but no one is ready to throw that towel in. That's why I was saying earlier that it would have been better to hold off until after primary season. But then of course you hurt the Dems that are running for President as they lose campaign time.
I don't know about that. It's not like he's voting for removal. He's just voting for witnesses. And keep in mind, these witnesses would not only be the ones that democrats will want. Looks like the primary is 6 weeks away too. Maybe his calculation would be it might trigger a primary challenge in the short term but he would still likely win...and then it would help him more in November.
I don't know. I think holding onto the articles for months would hurt the dems more than help them at this point.
I thought you meant removal, not just the witness argument. My bad.
Nah. That would be ideal but.......hey who knows?! Bolton may very well be a game changer.
Comments
His actions have spoken. There's no need for evidence, witnesses, a big fancy time-wastin' trial.
Everybody knows what he did and how he acts DAILY. He's literally the WORST elected official in the history of this country.
He doesn't know what he's doing out there. OUT WITH HIM.
On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo
-EV 8/14/93
They want to get re-elected too and Trump isn't doing so hot in purple states...
-EV 8/14/93
Regarding the re-election of senators, even in purple or blue states, they know they have to back Trump because they might even lose their nominations. If they get voted out in purple states for supporting Trump, then it turns out they were screwed either way. I still take the "under" on 1 GOP senator to vote for removal.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
-EV 8/14/93
What's more important than the vote for removal is the vote for calling witnesses. He's highly unlikely to be removed. They'll get enough to call witnesses though...
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
I still wish the House had gone to the courts on Bolton, Mulvaney, Giuliani, etc. Especially since Pelosi is holding the articles and hoping for a break anyway. Was there a need to rush or is there no need to rush? The whole thing feels sloppy to me and it's frustrating.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/
Let's take Colorado. HRC won by 5%. Gardner is up for reelection this year. Trump has a negative 18 net approval (39%-approve/57% disapprove) there. To me, it would be wise for Gardner to vote for witnesses after the trial starts. It's got to be obvious to him that his state is pretty much against the president so do the math.....He is also running against a popular former governor who has a substantial lead in early polling there.
McConnell has to appease Trump, but he also has to retain control of the senate. Not calling witnesses (at some point) will hurt senators up for re-election like Gardner and Collins etc....
I don't know. I think holding onto the articles for months would hurt the dems more than help them at this point.