Some thoughts about what to do when the Senate trial gets underway

[Stinky The Clown]

1. Democrats could do nothing. The senators running for president can just suck it up while the non-senators make hay. In my view, kinda shitty all the way around.

2. ALL candidates could agree to stop campaigning for the duration. Of course the GOP will take full advantage of this.

But consider a third alternative.

3. ALL candidates could agree to stop campaigning for the duration. BUT . . . . all candidates pool their re$ource$ and give them to the DNC, let the DNC run non stop truth-based anti Trump ads to amplify the evidence and testimony in the Senate trial.

The GOP are planning to jiujitsu the Senate trial to their advantage. Wouldn't it be a hell of a thing to see the Dems beat them at their own game? For a change!

[VarryOn]

1. It will be #1....

If I were campaigning, I wouldnt stop. I'm guessing it will take a couple months, at least. There are going to be lots of witnesses, and the preliminary schedule I saw said the hearing would be for only five or six hours per day while it lasts. Democrats cant afford to kill the campaign for weeks and weeks, especially when a guilty verdict is unlikely.

Any of the Senators averse to attending the trial have a choice, of course. They can resign.

Impeachment is a foregone outcome. I'm sure the Senators running have already worked out a plan,

[crazytown]

3. "They can resign"

WTF?

[VarryOn]

5. Yes...and each one of them has governors who...

Would replace them with doctrinaire, reliable Democrats.

I dont think any of the Pres candidates should or would be penalized by primary voters by being in DC for the impeachment trail.

But, if it's too big of a problem for them to miss being on the campaign trail, then yeah, resign.

We just can halt the entire campaign while this deal gets resolved. trump won't. Hell, he'll have done 15 rallies in the meantime.

Sorry, I didnt mean to offend.

[Celerity]

9. Massachusetts has a Charlie Baker, a super popular Rethug for a Gov, so for a few months Mass would

have a Rethug Senator replacing Warren.

If he could appoint himself (not sure if he can tbh) we would not get that seat back, as he would crush Warren, I fear, in a general election. He has had a 73% approval rating and is the most popular governor in the US for the past three years.

If all Rethugs were like him, the country would be a billion times better, but alas, he is one off.

Governor Baker polled the most popular governor in the nation

https://dailyfreepress.com/blog/2019/10/24/governor-baker-polled-the-most-popular-governor-in-the-nation/

Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker is the country’s most popular governor for the 11th quarter in a row, according to a recent poll by Morning Consult.

The poll, which surveyed more than 5,000 registered U.S. voters on their governors, found 73 percent of Massachusetts respondents approve of Baker’s performance. Disapproval rate is 16 percent and 12 percent said they were unsure.

Baker took the top ranking despite being a Republican in a consistently Democratic state. However, his party affiliation does match the national trend of Republican governors being relatively more popular than their democratic counterparts, as the nation’s 10 most popular governors are all Republican, according to the poll.

In contrast, two of Massachusetts neighbors have governors that are remarkably unpopular with their constituents.

Rhode Island Governor and Democrat Gina Raimondo was ranked most unpopular in the nation, with a 56 percent disapproval rate, while Democratic Governor Ned Lamont of Connecticut showed a 48 percent disapproval rate, making him America’s fifth most unpopular governor.

snip

[VarryOn]

10. I forgot Mass has a Republican governor...

Senator Warren's situation would be complicated with the impeachment trial.

I wonder if a senator could just show up to vote. After all, it's not like the trial will change any votes.

Bottom line is the campaign must go on. No pauses!

[Demsrule86]

24. There are Republican governors in Massachusetts...and in Vermont.

[brooklynite]

17. If you're campaigning in part on your Senate experience, the obligations come with the job...

[napi21]

2. Based on McTurtle's history, I doubt he'll have the trial witnesses testifying 5 days a week,

8 hrs a day! If the Dem Senators who are running for Prez aren't there EVERY DAY/every hr, I see no problem! Nor do they campaign every day/all day! Even now, they go to the Senate & Campaign. I don't see where the problem is?

[ancianita]

4. You know that the House needn't conduct their vote when hearings are over, right? When they

get around to a House vote -- because there's no time limit, and very possibly after Super Tuesday -- they still wouldn't have to immediately send the multiple Article votes over to the Senate for trial.

The House can drag this process out over any number of Articles of Impeachment. Right into next year, if they want.

Hell, they've got so many impeachment Articles they could write and vote on, that when they finally send them all over to the Senate, they could have the Senate vote on Article after Article through the end of the 116th Session.

The more they vindicated the colossal corruption brought before them, the worse the whole party would look going into next November.

It would be easy for the public to see that Senate trials to vindicate their bass would be the most work they've seen the Senate do in three years.

[boomer_wv]

8. They could...

but that would be a terrible strategy politically. The longer they drag it out, the more chance of public sentiment turned away from our favor.

The best we can hope for, realistically, is that the trial is damning and Trump is left crippled in the aftermath, even though Republicans vote to keep him in office. If we drag it out people are going to begin to lose sight of that it was all about in the first place, Republicans will say we are playing political games, and we will lose the upper hand. Trump could come out of this stronger with the general public if we botch it.

[ancianita]

11. "They" won't be dragging it out. The amount of impeachable offenses will drag it out. This isn't

about strategy; it's about The People's First Branch's oversight; it's about doing their jobs.

The whole idea that our side "should" worry about "terrible political strategy," or what a corrupt opposing party will "say," or that we even have to use strategy is morally questionable.

The only way we'll botch this is to think of any impeachment timeline, or the work, as "the best we can hope for," and quit out of fear of losing some "game." If you hadn't noticed, one side is working its ethical oath keeping butts off, and the other earns the same amount of money just for working for one man, not any policy, laws, or betterment of Americans.

This is now and has been the slow grind of defending and protecting the Constitution. Because this is a nation of laws, not of men. We've got all next year to show what that means.

[boomer_wv]

14. Wrong

There are lots of ways to botch this and hand Trump another term. Domt fool yourself into thinking facts matter more than sentiment.

[ancianita]

15. The evidence is on their side for many ways to get this right. But hey, keep putting out that vibe.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that sentiment won the 2018 House.

The only sentimental comfort I take is in the evidence and facts that will draw out the best in voters next year.

We can strategize to win, but Pelosi and Perez are handling that, so I won't doubt them.

We'll see.

[boomer_wv]

16. Voter put him in once.

And it's hard to believe and admit to yourself that you made the wrong choice. Most people who voter for him would be willing to do it again, especially if convinced that he is being treated "unfairly."

We need to do this quickly and fully. If we can damage him and then the Republicans save him, we can hammer them on it for the rest of the election.

[ancianita]

18. "Voter" is your code for Electoral College, I conclude, since you and I know the popular Voter count

We need to do this quickly and fully. If we can damage him and then the Republicans save him, we can hammer them on it for the rest of the election.

"Quickly and fully"? You can have one or the other, but not both.

To want to hurry this is reactive, and plays right into the hands of Republicans whose candidate has run his whole occupancy term as a campaign. They know they've got Nothing.Nada. Zero. Zip. Zilch. We've got so much campaign footage, that after the primaries, with the nominee apparent, we can swing right into next Fall.

This is exactly what Republicans expect. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, FUD, is their messaging to Democrats. Don't buy into it.

No Democrats need think either-or about impeaching and campaigning.

Democrats in the House and Senate can walk impeachment and chew campaign gum at the same time.

Thanks for your posts. I'm done here.

[boomer_wv]

20. Impeaching and campaigning

Are tied together. There is no space between them regardless of any romanticized belief otherwise.

Voters drive the EC, it's not some ethereal being. It was voters in PA, MI, and WI that decided he would be president and they can do it again. They are the people who matter in this and the ones that we need to convince. I couldn't care less about the popular vote, it is immaterial.

If we are still holding hearings in the house in March, we have lost. The public will have turned out and they will blame democrats for causing all of the disfunction.

[ancianita]

21. Just your opinion. Pay attention to polls.

[Demsrule86]

22. Polls can change. We need a result ...impeachment or not by Christmas or the first of the year.

[ancianita]

23. Pelosi can change, too, depending on what's needed for applying the law.

[Demsrule86]

25. I don't even know what that means...dragging this out hurts us in 20 particularly putting the house

at risk...but the Senate and the presidential elections could be affected too.

[ancianita]

27. Show how "dragging" out evidence, witnesses and law will adversely hurt the elections. I just don't

see the public hating all that, I guess.

If you're making the claim, you must know.

[Demsrule86]

30. People don't like things that drag on and Trump could gain sympathy.

[boomer_wv]

6. You absolutely don't stop campaigning.

This trial could easily run into, or very near, the first primaries. It's a senators duty to serve as jury in an impeachment, and every sitting senator in the democratic primary has gone public that they want an impeachment trial to happen. That means they are agreed that they want to be pulled from the campaign trail to sit for the trial. I don't see any reason that any of the non-senators should be expected to sideline themselves during the trial.

[judeling]

7. Option 1

it will be a test of all campaigns and even the non-senators will be tested in how they handle it.

[BadgerMom]

12. Trump fears Biden.

Biden could still campaign. Moscow Mitch may be helping Biden and harming DJT. I don’t think he’s trying to do that, but that could be the result. Republicans are so invested in acting as evilly as possible that they don’t always think things through.

[wnylib]

13. The Senate will drag out the trial with a slew of

witnesses to promote Trump and his version of events as a Trump campaign asset. In the process they will slur Biden or whoever the Dem candidate is.

They might drag it on long enough to avoid a a vote before the election.

They will treat the trial as free campaign publicity.

They will do everything in their power to prevent a real prosecution from happening.

[Demsrule86]

19. Sorry, I am not in agreement with any of that. Senators have a job to do...they knew when they ran

this could happen. Too early to run ads with big buys-we need to do that in the general...this is the only thing I would consider given your choices...and ads where exactly? The idea that we must make everything somehow equal, I just don't buy it. And sitting senators have an advantage too...both Sanders and Warren put their senate campaign money into their campaign...so no but let's hope it isn't a long process.

[beachbumbob]

26. McConnell has ZERO reason to allow a trial to happen

[TheRealNorth]

28. That's what I am thinking

The more successful the House Democrats are at making a case, the less likely Moscow Mitch will allow a real trial to happen in the Senate.

[beachbumbob]

29. There is no positive outcome even with not removing trump

Merrick Garland defense. Let nov 2020 be the trial.

I am 99% certain

[Joe941]

31. The money given to candidates was donated to help promote that candidate.

Doing otherwise with the money is being dishonest to the donor. So no 3 is a terrible idea.