29 Democrats in Trump districts voted for the coup, Republicans only need 18 seats to regain house.

[RMESMH]

Originally Posted by natalie469

Let me ask. Why was Trump allowed to meet with Putin without anyone else there. No one was there to take notes. So we have no idea what was said. Why has Trump fired most of his people he appointed who were excellent in their positions. Oh, because they disagreed with him. Trump has Rudy doing the duty work of dirt on Biden. Most of us on the east coast know Trump was nothing but a con man.

Really ?

I don’t like Trump, I’m not an R, and I would never vote for him, but he’s the head of the Executive branch. Who is going to tell him no and at the same time give him a 100% concrete reason prohibiting him that isn’t open to interpretation ? The checks/remedies against him include courts ruling against him (the Judicial branch), and impeachment followed by conviction/removal (the Legislative branch)

[RMESMH]

Originally Posted by bohemka

Cute. Your boy is asterisked. Just like Clinton. He is now forever tied to a Clinton. That's perfect.

The first thing I thought about after hearing the final vote tally is that now famous (since 2016) photo of Trump, Melania, Hillary, and Bill at Trump and Melania’s wedding reception.

[banjomike]

Originally Posted by vacommonwealth

Yes, the Democrats need to do the math on keeping the House

I'm sure they did the math.

Don't be too certain that Trump's impeachment will kill the Democratic party's members from winning their elections next year.

The historical facts from the previous impeachment say otherwise. The Clinton impeachment destroyed the Republican leadership in the House, but it didn't harm the Repub members of the House. The Repubs still kept their House majority into the 2000 election when Bush was elected, and that majority lasted for another 6 years until 2006.
The Democrats only took it away from them for 4 years, and the Republicans regained it again. And then kept it for another 12 years.

The only other previous historical example is Nixon's near-impeachment. It only went as far as the preliminary stages because Nixon resigned quickly once it began. His resignation was as low as a party could go, especially after his landslide election, but even that didn't hurt the members of the House or the Senate.

The Republicans never got crushed afterward. They mostly kept their seats, and the party underwent a normal round of win some, lose some, as it always happens in every election.

Here's the basic facts:
Voters do not vote for their representatives like they vote for their Presidents. The voters feel differently about their Representatives and Senators than their Presidents, so a damaged President seldom damages his party very much.

Another fact is once one party becomes entrenched in its majority in either house of Congress, it is damned hard to displace them. The voters have to be very discontented to do it, and their discontent seldom lasts for very long. Once the problem goes away, the voters are more likely to go back to their old ways than to seek new ways as permanent change.

In other words, conservatives will always be conservative, and liberals always liberal.
The voters who are always undecided can swing a house in Congress, but they're seldom a large enough group to make the swing last for very long.

[kevxu]

Originally Posted by vacommonwealth

Trump has the ability to transform the courts, supreme court, and fundamentally transform this country with a second term. An I by his name won't mean much.

Agree.

But the country was already long into change before he was elected. The Trump presidency is a manifestation of that change. Both the GOP and Dems keep putting the cart before the horse.

The country is already irrevocably fragmented socially and politically, and Mr. Trump will (and/or Mr. Pence) make more fundamental changes.