3 ms·

Trump won’t be neutralised unless Congress is willing to impeach and convict him. He has been pulling stunts like sucking up to Russia and the whole doge busine

Trump won’t be neutralised unless Congress is willing to impeach and convict him. He has been pulling stunts like sucking up to Russia and the whole doge business without permission from Congress. The chances of there being a “convict Trump” supermajority in the Senate after the midterms is basically zero — Dems would need to win all but two of the Senate seats up, or there’d need to be GOP defections.

DFHippie 2y ago
If it's a blowout for the Dems, there might be GOP defections in an impeachment trial. The surviving Republicans who had to stand for election would be the ones from states most loyal to Trump, but there would be plenty who hadn't had to stand. Is Murkowski up for election in 2026? Nope. So there's one possibility.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
  A future news story: "Senators Murkowski and Collins, after a private meeting with President Trump, say their concerns have been addressed. Senator Murkowski said, 'He promised he wouldn't do it again so I don't really see much point in impeachment.'"
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    Always "deeply concerned" but then falls in line just like the rest. More despicable, in some ways, than those who make it clear they are followers of Trump.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  > there would be plenty who hadn't had to stand They'll still be afraid of physical risks, like death threats or a Jan 6 incident again.
rstuart4133 2y ago
I'd wager if the economists are right and if it happens within 2 years, politicians of all stripes will be racing to save the political skins. That will lead to a titanic struggle between the executive branch and the rest, given the past history of Trump setting an armed mob onto Washington. He got away with it that time of course because he wasn't that unpopular. If the economy tanks that crutch is gone. People didn't vote for him because they liked him. They voted against the poor shmuck who happened to be in power when the hangover created by the COVID money bazooka came home to roost. Every democracy that held an election in 2024 did the same thing. If that happens we will see the if the balance of powers the US founders put into the constitution work. I expect they will, but it will be highly entertaining to watch. From the relative safety of Australia. It took 4 years for ill effects of the 2020 bazooka to take effect. If the effects of Trumps actions doesn't effect the economy within 2 years, I wouldn't be betting on Congress doing anything.
- jfengel 2y ago
  A lot of people like him a lot. Not all of his voters, but enough that it would take a serious disaster for enough of those to support throwing him out. That would be a massive rupture that would make the party utterly untenable for years to come. It would take more than a recession. It would take a Great Depression-scale economic event. That's not impossible (and ironically, if it did happen, it would not be solely his fault), but I don't think any of these economists are expecting it. A recession would cause Congress to shift, but the first removal of a President would require an utter economic catastrophe. Also, note that the person replacing him would be largely identical.

DFHippie 2y ago

If it's a blowout for the Dems, there might be GOP defections in an impeachment trial. The surviving Republicans who had to stand for election would be the ones from states most loyal to Trump, but there would be plenty who hadn't had to stand. Is Murkowski up for election in 2026? Nope. So there's one possibility.

sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
A future news story: "Senators Murkowski and Collins, after a private meeting with President Trump, say their concerns have been addressed. Senator Murkowski said, 'He promised he wouldn't do it again so I don't really see much point in impeachment.'"
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  Always "deeply concerned" but then falls in line just like the rest. More despicable, in some ways, than those who make it clear they are followers of Trump.
ceejayoz 2y ago
> there would be plenty who hadn't had to stand They'll still be afraid of physical risks, like death threats or a Jan 6 incident again.

rstuart4133 2y ago

I'd wager if the economists are right and if it happens within 2 years, politicians of all stripes will be racing to save the political skins. That will lead to a titanic struggle between the executive branch and the rest, given the past history of Trump setting an armed mob onto Washington. He got away with it that time of course because he wasn't that unpopular. If the economy tanks that crutch is gone. People didn't vote for him because they liked him. They voted against the poor shmuck who happened to be in power when the hangover created by the COVID money bazooka came home to roost. Every democracy that held an election in 2024 did the same thing. If that happens we will see the if the balance of powers the US founders put into the constitution work. I expect they will, but it will be highly entertaining to watch. From the relative safety of Australia. It took 4 years for ill effects of the 2020 bazooka to take effect. If the effects of Trumps actions doesn't effect the economy within 2 years, I wouldn't be betting on Congress doing anything.

jfengel 2y ago
A lot of people like him a lot. Not all of his voters, but enough that it would take a serious disaster for enough of those to support throwing him out. That would be a massive rupture that would make the party utterly untenable for years to come. It would take more than a recession. It would take a Great Depression-scale economic event. That's not impossible (and ironically, if it did happen, it would not be solely his fault), but I don't think any of these economists are expecting it. A recession would cause Congress to shift, but the first removal of a President would require an utter economic catastrophe. Also, note that the person replacing him would be largely identical.