He has nothing to do with the Senate trial. The judge is the tie-breaker, not the VP.
Nobody wonders this. A vote against the party, which is supposed to represent the will of the electorate, is political suicide. It’s a guarantee they’d never hold any office ever again.
I agree. There’s a slight chance they try to convince a junior Senator to flip, to achieve the same result, but all the candidates are banking on their impeachment votes to be a major campaign talking point. They have to tow the party line 100%, no matter how strategic the move might be, or they might as well drop out of the race right now.
1 Like
Which, again, is why I mentioned Senator Bennet. His candidacy is already essentially kaput. But if push came to shove he could save his fellow candidates who still might have a chance, as well as saving the process.
If they opt for witnesses, and if Trump then puts up the opposition I think he would taking the matter to court, this whole thing could still be going on when Super Tuesday arrives. And in the end Trump would still be in office and Biden would be the nominee, winning essentially by default. Democrats deserve a better, fairer, process than that.
Anyone who casts a vote based on who holds the most local pep rallies deserves whatever the process produces… 
1 Like
I assume you do not live in Iowa. One-on-one candidate contact and “pressing the flesh” are part of the process there. These things are expected by Iowa caucus participants. Biden and other candidates not in the Senate have been criss-crossing the state doing such things.
You can impugn the Iowa process to your heart’s content. But things have been this way for a long time and expectations in Iowa will not change because you disagree.
I do think there could be another beneficiary if matters in the Senate are unduly extended. Mayor Bloomberg has been pursuing a Super Tuesday strategy from the jump. His campaign dismissed Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada at the outset. The Mayor, right or wrong, believes he has bigger fish to fry.
Now everyone remembers what happened to Rudy when he tried the same thing in 2008. The candidates coming out of the earlier primaries steamrollered him on Super Tuesday. But because of all the tumult potentially surrounding those same early votes today, Mayor Bloomberg might be able to achieve a better outcome than did Rudy. Bloomberg is moving up in the polls anyway. Keep an eye on him, he is a very smart guy. And keeping your eye on him will be easy if you plan to take in the Super Bowl!!
Let’s help everyone out & vote NO on witnesses. Make us all happy & Ryno Romney is on his own… 
^^^ Use another thread to discuss the impeachment of the POTUS and your opinions about it – don’t derail this one with your ignorance.
As OP I would ask that we all be respectful of one another and not use insulting or severe language.
That said, I take scripta’s point overall. It has been a high wire act for me, I can tell you. The problem here is that the trial actually IS having an impact on the matter which is our subject on this thread. They are difficult to separate. When the ability of important candidates to campaign actively is restricted, that’s a big deal.
Think about the POTUS general election in 2016 as a case in point. That election was wildly close and Mrs. Clinton actually WON the popular vote. But Trump’s ability, and freedom, to campaign as vigorously as he did helped him win the day. Suppose Trump for some reason, serious illness for example, had been unable for a month or six weeks prior to the vote to be out holding his many rallies. Something like that could have resulted in his loss, I think.
We now have at least three of our candidates here, the ones we have been discussing for more than a year, unable to campaign in the customary way. Sure you can argue they are doing their Senatorial duty, I get that. But did that duty have to arise precisely now, at this critical juncture in the election proceedings? I question that we are witnessing a genuinely fair process.
Finally it is noteworthy that despite everything Bernie seems to be taking control in Iowa . . . at least according to a couple of recent polls. My strong preference is for a level playing field. But if Biden cannot prevail despite the advantage he has been given . . . well . . . that is something to consider seriously.
2 Likes
I didnt say it wasnt. But given that shaking hands is one of the least relevant criteria in one’s qualifications to be President, continuing this process, and outsiders indulging this process, removes all expectations of fairness in the results. It is what it is and to each their own (cast your vote based on a coin flip for all I care), but to give it such significance on the national stage is boarderline asinine.
Did anyone else catch Senator Klobuchar on the Sunday shows yesterday? I thought she presented herself very, very well. I can see how she is able to win votes from independent voters and from some Republican voters, too. Amy has Democrat party views on the issues, there is no question about that. But she does not express herself in a sharp-edged manner.
1 Like
I think one-on-one contact does have a place in the making of our political decisions. But with our population having grown so large, TV and rally campaigning is all there is as we move further into campaign season. One-on-one campaigning becomes a practical impossibility very early in the process. Hence:
I’m glad the people of Iowa and New Hampshire, at least, still have opportunity to check out all of our candidates more or less in person when the campaign season is very young. The people in both states take that responsibility quite seriously. It’s a good thing.
ETA
Just wanted to reiterate that in this century no Democrat has won his party’s POTUS nomination without first having won the Iowa caucuses. If Bernie wins both Iowa and New Hampshire, will Biden be able nevertheless to knock him off?
Stay tuned.
Ignorance?
Ok. Sorry!
I agree and it’s totally fine to discuss the fact that the trial is happening and that it is having an impact on the election.
Of the facts in the case. Which should not be discussed in this thread.
Debate update:
Seven candidates have so far qualified for the first Democrat debate in February. There will be a total of three such debates next month. The qualifiers so far include everyone on the stage for the January debate, six candidates, and in addition Andrew Yang. Mr. Yang did not qualify in January, but he is good to go on February seventh in New Hampshire.
More candidates might be on the stage. They have until the end of the day on February sixth to qualify. Any candidate who wins even just a single delegate in the Iowa caucuses will qualify for the New Hampshire stage.
I bow to the wisdom of Mr. Perez here. Finally I see him offering Mayor Bloomberg a way into the debate process. If the Mayor can win just a single delegate in Iowa he will be on that New Hampshire stage, even though he has declined to accept campaign contributions. This is smart rulemaking.
Finally, if the Senate trial is still ongoing on February seventh I have no clue what Mr. Perez will do. It’ll sure be a mess.
Yet you just said that Bloomberg wasnt bothering with Iowa and is instead focusing on Super Tuesday.
I did assert that and it is true to the best of my knowledge. But if the Mayor chooses not to pursue that one Iowa delegate he has only himself to blame. Prior, he had no path whatsoever to the stage . . . absent abandoning his core principle of a campaign self financed. Now he has a path. And that is a new development in the nomination process which I found worthy of mention.
I honestly do not know whether or not the one delegate rule will also apply following New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. But I think it might. And if so there will be still more opportunities for Mayor Bloomberg finally to access the debate stage.
I’m not saying Mr. Perez has found the perfect solution or answer to the unfairness issue presented by Mayor Bloomberg’s no campaign donations stance. But I do think Mr. Perez has made a step in the right direction.
Que sera sera
Nominations to the rule making DNC committees include last minute additions of Sander’s enemies from 2016. Just because you’re not paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you…
2 Likes