This not so much an exercise of “counting chickens before they’ve hatched”, but an exercise of “if we succeed, what can we do next?”
It’s not unreasonable to expect that a year from now both houses of Congress will be in Democratic hands. Maybe even securely in our hands. We could pass any legislation we wanted, conduct investigations of every last Republican congresscritter for crimes someone heard on the Internet he or she committed, impeach the entire corrupt administration in the White House. But just how likely are we to accomplish any of this?
Let’s look at impeaching the guy in the White House. (Sorry, I refuse to mention his name or the office he somehow came into. So excuse me for referring to him with the equivalent of a disdainful nod as “that person”.) Yes, impeachment, the act that Nancy Pelosi dismisses as “not someplace that I think we should go.” But she also added that "you can't go down any path without the facts, and the law. If that's there, perhaps it will come out in these investigations.” Which means she’s making a distinction without a difference: we shouldn’t start impeaching that person without evidence of his wrong-doing, and who here doubts that evidence will be forthcoming? (Of course, that presumes Robert Mueller intends to pursue his legal investigations to their ends, & is allowed to make indictments in Federal or State courts. For this discussion, let’s assume that he does.) So a year from now, should that be at the top of the Democratic todo list? Thinking about it, should impeaching any official of the administration be at the top of that todo list? (Not only presidents & vice-presidents are subject to impeachment, but so are federal judges & officials in the executive branch. The few individuals that person has put into office need to be dealt with; that person is not the only bad apple in the barrel.)
To impeach an official takes only a simple majority in the House. So anyone in the executive branch can be targeted with an impeachment. The action thus is very easy to start with a Democratic majority. The problem is with the Senate, as a bit of math shows. Right now there are 48 Democrats; if Doug Jones wins the election next week, it’ll be 49. In the 2018 elections, 8 Republican Senators have seats on the ballot; if the Democrats sweep all of them, that gives us at most 57 votes in the Senate, & this includes winning a few races that no one expects the Democrats to win. My own extremely optimistic expectations for 2018 is to pick up 2 or 3 seats. (Heller in Nevada, Flake in Arizona, the open seat in Tennessee, & maybe dumping Ted Cruz in Texas.)
However, even if we sweep all of the Senatorial races, 57 is 9 votes short of a two-thirds majority in the Senate — which is what is needed to remove that person from the presidency, Pence from the Vice Presidency, & all of the scumbags in the Cabinet. (Of course, if that person & the guy with the presidential hair are removed, the Speaker of the House then becomes president & can fire them all.)
So are there any Republican Senators who might vote to impeach? My own, uninformed gut feeling is that Murkowski & Collins are possible votes. And McCain is always eager to get payback at that person & McDonnell, so he might also vote for impeachment. But I can’t think of another Senator who would put country over party & vote to impeach either Republican in the executive wing — so we are left at 60 votes to impeach, or failure. This unsuccessful action might help win the White House in 2020 for the Democrats, but it won’t remove either man from power.
Is a 25th amendment solution possible? To accomplish this would require the Cabinet to initiate the action with a majority vote, then for both houses of Congress to vote two-thirds in favor of declaring that person “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office”. Even if that person were indicted for every crime he’s been accused of, & held in jail without bail, I doubt the Cabinet would vote to remove him. It’s less likely than a union voting in favor of closing their factory & moving it to China: the group of scumbags & criminals filling out the current Cabinet know if that person goes, so does their livelihoods & careers. And perhaps to be followed by an appearance in court.
So should the Democrats focus on passing legislation that reverse all of the actions that person took, that erased Barrack Obama’s legacy? Anyone thinking about the matter would expect any legislation that came out of Congress to accomplish those goals would be vetoed — with glee — by that person. He’s well-known for being petty & vindictive about all slights, real or imagined; he’d be eagerly tweeting how he’s “Making America great again” or “Draining the swamp” after each veto. And it requires a two-thirds majority in both houses to override a presidential veto. While it is possible that the Democrats win enough seats in the House to get a two-thirds majority — things look that good for 2018, although I wouldn’t bet any money on it — we still have at most 57 votes in the Senate — I wouldn’t count on Murkowski, Collins, or McCain to vote to override any veto — not the 67 votes that comprise a two-thirds majority.
The two years following the Democrats regaining Congress would easily just be two more years of his nightmarish tenure. With that person getting air time on the nightly news each night about how he stands up to the Democrats.
Well, controlling Congress would mean no more of that person’s choices for federal judges. And lots of detailed & in-depth Congressional investigations of what that person has done to this republic. We could hope that some of these might push that person’s ugly face & his bad comb-over off the news for the occasional night.
Maybe starting with impeachment should be at the top of the list. The process, with all of its inevitable complications from Republican obstruction might take up all two years before the 2020 elections, & almost nothing else might get done by Congress, but without impeaching that person & the guy with the presidential hair nothing will get done. At least that’s how I see it.