President Hakeem Jeffries

[if..fish..had..wings]

Blue wave in November, both houses go Dem.

Impeach, convict and remove Rump.
Impeach, convict and remove Vance.

President Hakeem Jeffries in 2026.

[Red Mountain]

1. Why would Republican Senators go along with this?

I mean, everybody detests Vance but I think they'd give him a shot to redeem himself before they voted him out and put Jeffries in charge. The election wouldn't be all that far off at that point, anyway.

[QueerDuck]

4. It's a fantasy that sounds plausible but is ultimately logically unsound.

But it's a fun "what if" exercise for the purpose of exploring constitutional rules rather than a realistic political forecast or plan.

[if..fish..had..wings]

6. Why

Why is is that Republicans can dream big, and often succeed, whereas we Dems must always talk ourselves out of the big dreams because we must remain "realistic" and only yearn for those things we think we can maybe get.
We must offer the most milquetoast candidate because a radical would never win, yet Rump is the most radical on the planet and won twice.

Elect every possible dem senator and talk the fringe who would be glad to be rid of Rump and have no love for Vance to change their minds.

Dream big, reach far, hope for a bright future...or plan for failure and hope they don't hurt us anymore.

Jeez.

[samsingh]

11. because Republicans fight tooth and nail whether they are right or not

we want to remain above the fray and dream big. We don't succeed in selling our vision or the vision is to big too soon.

that's why we have a convicted felon and his supervillians running the country

[if..fish..had..wings]

12. I'm not sure what the vision is

Do we Dems have a vision? Who is iterating that vision? What exactly is it?

[Jedi Guy]

14. Because it's just not going to happen for several reasons.

The only way the math works out in our favor is if we win damn near every single seat that's up for election in 2026. If we won every seat we'd end up with a supermajority of 69 seats and we need 67 to convict on impeachment. The odds that we're going to win 67+ seats in the Senate are beyond astronomical.

If we wind up with a majority in the Senate we'll be far short of what's needed to convict. There's absolutely no way we're going to talk enough GOP Senators into supporting convictions on both Trump and Vance. That's just fantasy because it would be political suicide for them and they know it. Your idea presupposes the notion that they care for country over party and there's vanishingly small evidence to support that notion. Apart from a few like Massie (and he's in the House, anyway) they're terrified of provoking Trump's wrath and falling foul of the cultists.

The best we can hope for (and given polling and special elections we have reason to be hopeful) is that we can take control of both houses of Congress and stymie Trump's legislative agenda until he's out of office. Even that is tenuous because he'll just legislate via executive order and, in all probability, the judiciary will either let it slide or move so slowly he'll still be able to do some damage.

Reality is unpleasant right now, I get it. But we gain nothing by entertaining fanciful scenarios that just aren't going to happen.

[Wiz Imp]

20. Current chances of Democrats winning the each of the current Republican Senate seats.

https://www.racetothewh.com/senate/26#google_vignette

Idaho 1.3%
West Virginia 1.3%
Tennessee 1.4%
Oklahoma 1.5%
Wyoming 1.6%
Arkansas 1.9%
Alabama 2.1%
Louisiana 2.4%
South Dakota 3.1%
Mississippi 3.7%
Kentucky 4.0%
South Carolina 6.0%
Montana 8.1%
Kansas 15.9%
Florida 17.9%
Nebraska 23.3%
Iowa 25.9%
Texas 32.2%
Alaska 33.3%
Maine 54.5%
Ohio 64.4%
North Carolina 85.6%

[bearsfootball516]

2. I don't know where you're getting 67 senators to convict.

[QueerDuck]

3. Remove Vance first. Deny and block any Trump nominee for VP replacement. THEN remove Trump.

[SocialDemocrat61]

5. If fish had wings?

[if..fish..had..wings]

8. they'd be birds nt

[choie]

17. If grandma had wheels...

She’d be a trolley!

[Autumn]

7. No. No. No.

[pinkstarburst]

9. Shudders. Can we get someone else as House minority leader, please?

[if..fish..had..wings]

10. Works just as well with President AOC

[ABC123Easy]

13. To quote Bush, Sr.

Not gonna happen. Wouldn't be prudent at this juncture.

[Fiendish Thingy]

16. Not going to happen

We will be lucky if Jeffries allows impeachment hearings to be held.

[CrispyQ]

18. LOL. That would require a boldness from the dems, that the party just doesn't have.

Next week at the SOTU address, a few will speak out or do something to show their disgust, but the majority of the democratic congress will sit politely, while Trump lies & boasts & whines, & afterwards, they'll make some kind of polite rebuttal. I call my reps on Wednesdays & today I'm going to suggest that they all wear orange tee-shirts with Epstein's face on the front & my message will be that it's time for the Democratic Party to rock the boat. No more Mr. Nice Guy. Time to punch some Nazi faces.

[Blue Full Moon]

19. Hard No

[PCIntern]

21. In what version of this Universe???

It didn’t happen when he fucking invaded the Capitol and sanctioned the execution of his VP and Members of Congress. Think they’ll do it over some Venezuelan fishing boats, or some billions in payoffs and blackmail? Not a prayer.

[Ursus Rex]

22. Highly unlikely

... and honestly, fairly undesirable. Jeffries is lame as a Minority Leader, I just can't see him being the POTUS we need post-MAGA.