You think it’s gonna happen?
1 Like
Zero chance before 2027.
3 Likes
What happened in South Korea?
1 Like
Once we get to martial law
I put the odds of impeachment at being approximately 0 before 2027, and then about 35-40% in 2027.
The odds of a conviction are approximately 0.
1 Like
IFYP . . .
I think if the House flips to a super-majority of Democrats/Independents, I think the probability of impeachment will be a bit higher (50-60%).
And if the Senate flips to 60 senators being Democrat/Independent, then I think that the probability of a conviction would be 66-75% (assuming that the House does send articles of impeachment to the Senate).
I stand by my earlier post.
I think there’s a 40-45% chance of the House flipping. If the House flips, there’s a high likelihood there will be an impeachment. I think it’d be close to 100% if the House flips and Trump’s still in office.
A 2/3rds majority of the Senate is required to convict after impeachment. There is effectively no chance of replacing enough Senators in the midterm to get enough potential votes.
1 Like
Yes that seems accurate… unfortunately.
You think 7 Republican Senators are going to vote to convict Trump?
Which 7?
Cassidy… maybe, but he’s probably going to lose his primary so he probably won’t be there
Collins & Murkowski… maybe
Husted… conceivably, he’s a dark horse at the moment but the guy who appointed certainly doesn’t love Trump although he lacks the conviction to directly come out against him. I rate Husted as “unlikely but possible if the charges are egregious enough”. He could surprise me and have more backbone than his former boss but I ain’t holding out a lot of hope here. We don’t even know how pro or anti Trump he even is.
That’s 4 under the most implausibly optimistic scenario of
A) Cassidy and Husted winning their primaries, AND
B) the Democrats holding all 13 Senate seats they’re defending AND
C) Democrats flipping 13 out of 22 Republican Senate seats not counting Cassidy OR Collins OR Husted AND
D) House Democrats gaining at least 3 seats (by far the lowest hurdle listed) AND
E) Murkowski AND Collins AND Husted AND Cassidy all voting to convict
If all that happens then you still at least need at least 3 more Republican Senators. Who are they?
In order for the Democrats to flip 13 seats, Collins would have to lose so you are double counting her.
But if the Ds do win 13 seats, it requires such a colossal meltdown of the Republican party that a bunch of other people might be fleeing for the hills and willing to convict. That is, P[flip 13 seats] < P[7 R votes to convict | 13 seats flip] < P[snowball’s chance in hell].
Not sure how you’re getting that sort of statement from my post.
“60 senators being Democrat/Independent” doesn’t have anything related to Republicans.
With 20 Republican seats being voted on in 2026 . . . there is a mathematical possibility of seeing 60 seats ending up being filled by Dem or Indep.
Now, if you want to argue that this is highly unlikely, that’s one thing. But I’m not claiming that any Republican Senator is going to vote to convict a sitting Pres of their own party.
humor intended only 
I think Trump is terrible, but I think Vance could be worse.
Same policies in a slicker package.
Heh, good point. I’ll update my post to say “flip 13 seats NOT including Cassidy OR Collins OR Husted.” (Murkowski is not up.)
To get a conviction in the Senate, you need 67 votes.
D’s and friendly I’s currently total 47.
There are 22 R seats up in the midterm. 10 of them seem rock-solid R.
The likelihood of D’s, I’s, and (R’s willing to convict) totaling 67 post-midterm is probably less than 1%.
The circumstances where they’d actually get to 67 are such that something else would likely happen (resignation, a hot civil war, death, etc.) before there were a vote to convict.
Thus, I put the chances of a conviction at approximately zero.
1 Like
You need 67 votes to convict. If only 60 Senators are Democrats then you still have to pick off 7 Republicans.
Otherwise how are you getting to 67?
Your hypothetical was that a Senate comprised of 60 Democrats would convict Trump. That requires 7 non-Democrats. Which in our two-party system effectively means 7 Republicans voting to convict a sitting Pres of their own party.
Were you thinking it was only 60 to convict? That’s just the threshold for the filibuster. Conviction following impeachment is 67.
Yes, sadly I agree with the analysis. Way less than 1% absent something far more shocking than what he’s currently doing which is pleasing his base.
I mean, we’d probably have a better chance at pushing through DC statehood. Then it would be 68 Senators needed but if there were two more Dems from DC and 60 from the other states then you’d only have to pick off 6 Republicans.
This is all REALLY far-fetched.
Also there’s only 13 D seats up but defending all 13 is no joke. They are vulnerable in Georgia and Michigan.
With the current Congress, I think it’s more likely that Texas would be reorganized into 2-3 R states, and/or a new R-state were organized in the inland Pacific Northwest, than DC be granted statehood…or maybe DC statehood would occur alongside such other changes.
If the Senate filibuster were eliminated, the R’s might be able to pull it off, but I don’t think there’s enough time to make it happen to forestall a sufficient D wave to make an impeachment conviction possible.
Of course, if the Project 2025 folks have such a plan ready but unpublicized…
Once again, sadly I agree. My scenarios are really far-fetched. Just exploring VA’s hypothetical world where Trump might get convicted.
Puerto Rico statehood might be on the table for Project 2025. Puerto Ricans are brown, which Trump hates, yet they are socially conservative and vote R. (An oversimplification of a complex topic, to be sure.)