View original post
The founders wanted the President convicted in an impeachment only if there's a 2/3 vote in the Senate. Do you think a simple majority of voters in favor of that conviction should be enough to trigger 2/3 of Senators to be and vote likewise in favor?

View original postI mean, the reason that Trump won't be is that the House's case wasn't strong enough to move enough voters to put 2/3 of Senators on notice that they must either vote to impeach or lose their jobs, right? A majority of Democrats know that they must either vote to impeach or be replaced, but they want to impeach anyway so of course they will. A couple of Democrats might fear that if they vote to impeach then that action could cost them an election because they're at risk in red states, while my Senator Jones has a more unique situation. His re-election campaign here in Alabama is probably hopeless anyway so he might as well kamikaze and do as much damage as possible to Trump because there's really no downside. Maybe he can get a new job in the Biden administration after being such a loyal soldier. On the other hand, maybe he can hope that TyrReborn's fears are valid and Roy Moore will win the Republican primary and Jones will then have a chance in the general. Probably no chance if he votes to convict, of course. So maybe he won't.

Meanwhile, there are definitely more than 34 Republican Senators (maybe as many as 50!) who know that they are gone if they vote to convict on the charges the House has come up with so far, and likewise would be doomed if they side with the Democrats to expand the investigation in the Senate, essentially giving the prosecutors a do-over on constructing their case.

Impeachment goes nowhere unless polling shifts dramatically, right? Polling only shifts dramatically if some super-damning new evidence is found. Seems unlikely.