|
 |
Let me preface this post by saying that this post is not intended as some backhanded way of suggesting that Trump supporters are disproportionately ignorant. I am pretty confident that rational ignorance (and perhaps even a dollop of irrational ignorance?) is pretty rampant among voters of all persuasions.
That having been said: I am idly curious as to what fraction of those Trump supporters who oppose impeachment/removal are guided by a belief that if Trump is removed from office, then Hillary Clinton will become president. Are there any survey data on this?
Replies that directly address the question about survey data, or that offer plausible arguments based at least partly on logic or evidence, are on-topic. Honest speculation about similar false beliefs among voters of any stripe are on-topic, especially if they come with data and/or plausible arguments. Digressions about what a hero or a villain Mr. Trump is, and what fate he does or does not deserve, are decidedly off-topic on this thread.
Edited to add: I should have added, and am adding now, that the reciprocal question is equally interesting: How many anti-Trumpers favor impeachment/removal because they believe it will make Hilary Clinton president?
I’m as prone to believing the worst of my political opponents as anyone else, but I suspect the number is low. 27% is the traditional upper bound for these sorts of questions and I figure that’d be high here.
That said it’s certainly not zero either — figure for any popular political figure there’s some number of people who will take anything he or she (or their spokespeople) says in the most painfully literal way possible, and plenty of folks have referred to impeachment as an attempt to “overrule the election” so it’s a lock that there are some people sufficiently ill-informed as to think that would be the result. Finger in the wind I’d say 2% max but I have no data on which to base that.
Not aware of any survey data, but I haven’t actually heard ANYONE suggest that Clinton would become president. I have read some speculation that the House wants to impeach Pence as well, because he had knowledge of Trump’s abuse of power…but that would put Nancy Pelosi into the presidency, not Clinton (although there is some dispute about whether she is constitutionally qualified, according to Kalt’s “Constitutional Cliffhangers”, which devotes a whole chapter to that question.
Several months ago, I heard Rush Limbaugh suggest that some people want Trump impeached in order to re-instate Hillary Clinton as President. I think the idea was that if Trump were proved to be a Russian agent conspiring to steal the election, then the election results would be reversed.
Limbaugh adamantly argued that would never happen, and was making fun of anyone who would think that.
He might have even said that some people might think that Obama would be re-instated as President, I don’t remember.
None of this answers your question about whether anyone really believes such nonsense.
“although there is some dispute about whether [Pelosi] is constitutionally qualified, according to Kalt’s “Constitutional Cliffhangers”, which devotes a whole chapter to that question”
Jens: Can you elaborate on that? Why wouldn’t she be qualified?
I just posted that question as a poll on our radio station’s website, with possible answers Hillary Clinton, Mike Pence, Mitch McConnell, AOC and I don’t know.
@TedBaker: Awesome! I’ll look to the results.
I had never considered that anybody thought that. I think it is a bad idea to suggest it as it may be picked up by the disinformers.
Now the idea has been put in my head, I am sure there are some who believe it. Quite a lot of people think the Earth is flat and no amount of evidence will convince them. I hope and expect the numbers are too few to make much difference.
On Pelosi, since Pence is not being impeached and cannot be removed at the same time a Trump, Pelosi cannot be the next president. Pence would appoint his own VP.
In the unlikely event Pence dropped dead before he could appoint a VP, I think Pelosi would succeed. There may be challenges that she is not an “Offices of the United tates” or something, but these would have tp be sorted out by the SC.
The 25th amendment says ” The Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what OFFICER shall then be President, or, in case of inability, act as President, and such officer shall be or act as President accordingly, until a President shall be elected or, in case of inability, until the inability shall be earlier removed.”
(capitalization of OFFICER is, of course, mine)
The argument was that they specified an “officer” rather than some random person or member of government, and this meant that one of the confirmed officers of the executive branch was required, and putting somebody from the legislature in was a no-no. We might never find out how the court rules on that!
Can’t quote the whole chapter here, but the Wikipedia comments:
“In 2009, the Continuity of Government Commission commented on the use of the term “Officer” in the 1947 statute,
The language in the current Presidential Succession Act is less clear than that of the 1886 Act with respect to Senate confirmation. The 1886 Act refers to “such officers as shall have been appointed by the advice and consent of the Senate to the office therein named …” The current act merely refers to “officers appointed, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.” Read literally, this means that the current act allows for acting secretaries to be in the line of succession as long as they are confirmed by the Senate for a post (even for example, the second or third in command within a department). It is common for a second in command to become acting secretary when the secretary leaves office. Though there is some dispute over this provision, the language clearly permits acting secretaries to be placed in the line of succession. (We have spoken to acting secretaries who told us they had been placed in the line of succession.)”
(see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession#Next_in_line )
I think it’s still Al Haig
Ah, old times!
Even in keeping with your rules about not letting this degenerate into a discussion of Trump and his supporters generally, I believe it is on-topic to point out that self-identified Trump supporters seem more ignorant than average (and thus more likely to believe this specific wrong thing). Consider the percent who thought that Obama was not born in the U.S.:
https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/09/23/trump-may-recant-birtherism-many-his-supporters-ha
The probability of any one specific crazy reason for impeachment/non-impeachment is probably very low even is some crazy reason is pretty probable