Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 1
Here's Section 4 of the 25th Amendment:
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
My reading of this is that it would only require the Veep, plus a committee created by Congress to declare the president unfit. That is, it would NOT require a majority of the president's cabinet. Is that right? If so, and if the democrats win just the House, they alone, even if the committee consisted solely of democrats, could remove the president as long as Vance is on board. Is it that easy? The Senate doesn't get a say?
No. of Recommendations: 1
Is it that easy? The Senate doesn't get a say?
Oops, my bad - yes, the Senate get's a say. "Congress" includes the Senate after all!
But this means that if the Dems win the Senate as well, we'd only need J.D.'s concurrence.
Or can the House create a committee with no Senate involvement?
No. of Recommendations: 7
Oops, my bad - yes, the Senate get's a say. "Congress" includes the Senate after all!
But this means that if the Dems win the Senate as well, we'd only need J.D.'s concurrence.
Or can the House create a committee with no Senate involvement?
No. The relevant clause of the Amendment reads, "such other body as Congress may by law provide...." That reference to "by law" usually means, well, an actual law - passed by both chambers and signed by the President.
Trump would just veto the law creating the body.
And there's absolutely no way that Vance would sign off.
The talk of the 25A, as well as impeachment, might be useful for political purposes - but no one should pretend to themselves that either could ever actually occur.
No. of Recommendations: 1
And there's absolutely no way that Vance would sign off.
I don't know. I would think he would jump at the chance to achieve power. From what I know, that's what he wants. If the 25A was in the works, I don't see him blocking it because it would be his ticket to the WH.
No. of Recommendations: 3
I don't know. I would think he would jump at the chance to achieve power. From what I know, that's what he wants. If the 25A was in the works, I don't see him blocking it because it would be his ticket to the WH.
But this isn't necessarily a path to all that much power.
Sure, he'd be President. But he'd be an instant lame duck. Trump would make it his life's work to burn him to the ground and make sure that every Republican - every Republican - treated him as the greatest enemy that ever existed. Vance doesn't have the juice to withstand that. He'd hold the office, but he wouldn't be able to do very much - and certainly wouldn't get the nomination for the next term.
If Trump were to lose control of the GOP so badly that this was coming from a majority of the cabinet, then that would mean an earthquake had happened in the party and maybe that would change things. But if it's just because the Democrats won control of Congress? No way he makes that choice.
No. of Recommendations: 0
But he'd be an instant lame duck.
Is that the law? I thought he would serve out the term to 2028, and then be able to be elected twice in addition. No?
Trump would make it his life's work to burn him to the ground and make sure that every Republican - every Republican - treated him as the greatest enemy that ever existed.
He can't serve anymore. Would he have that kind of power? I got the impression that most Reps (including Vance) just sucked up to him out of convenience, because he was in power. Once he's out of power, he's mostly irrelevant. The Felon would be inviting a counter-offensive that would probably play-up the Epstein thing, plus diminished capacity, and all the stuff we complain about here. Once he's not in power, that's all weaponry against him, and Reps currently in office have little reason NOT to distance themselves from the excrement-storm.
No. of Recommendations: 5
Is that the law? I thought he would serve out the term to 2028, and then be able to be elected twice in addition. No?
Able to? Sure. But he'd instantly lose the 2028 primary. Hence, lame duck.
He can't serve anymore. Would he have that kind of power? I got the impression that most Reps (including Vance) just sucked up to him out of convenience, because he was in power. Once he's out of power, he's mostly irrelevant.
I think this overly simplifies the nature of power. Trump has a lot of power because he is President, but he also has a lot of power because a very large proportion of the GOP voter base loves him. The former might change with a successful 25A maneuver, but the latter would not. Plus, most of the GOP folks currently in Congress have already committed their brand to being Trump supporters and have every incentive to burn the Traitor Vance as a matter of political expediency even if Trump is no longer wielding any formal authority at that point.
No. of Recommendations: 2
But if it's just because the Democrats won control of Congress? No way he makes that choice.
Well, perhaps unless the dems win a veto-proof super majority in the House and Senate, which becomes less unlikely with every passing week of continued presidential insanity.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Just to follow up on this with another question. If the dems DO win a veto-proof super majority in the House and Senate in November, and they pass a law to create a committee to decide if the 25th amendment should be used to remove the president, and that committee concludes that POTUS is no longer capable of fulfilling his duties, does Vance really have to agree as is seemingly stated in the Constitution?
If Vance still gets a veto, despite the overwhelming contrary conclusion of a committee of Congress, this is a serious flaw in the Constitution. Because it fails to provide a remedy if BOTH the president and the VP are corrupt/bonkers/compromised/incapacitated/etc.
Reminder: The Amendment 25, Section 4:
Whenever the Vice President a͇n͇d͇ a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
No. of Recommendations: 19
If the dems DO win a veto-proof super majority in the House and Senate in November, and they pass a law to create a committee to decide if the 25th amendment should be used to remove the president, and that committee concludes that POTUS is no longer capable of fulfilling his duties, does Vance really have to agree as is seemingly stated in the Constitution?
IMNSHO, if the Dems take control of the House or Senate (or hopefully, both), they should NOT focus any energy on removing Trump. Constraining Trump’s worst impulses (and there are many) and making improvements for ordinary Americans for issues where they have the power to do so, must be their focus.
Trump will not be removed from office until the Republicans (or a good number of them) decide to remove him. Currently, the Republicans have no desire to bite the bullet. Apparently, riding the Trump elevator to hell seems to be their preference.
The Republicans have given up running on issues. Their focus is on cheating to win. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, false accusations, the list goes on and on. It’s all they have left.
Abraham Lincoln is spinning in his grave.
No. of Recommendations: 2
IMNSHO, if the Dems take control of the House or Senate (or hopefully, both), they should NOT focus any energy on removing Trump. Constraining Trump’s worst impulses (and there are many) and making improvements for ordinary Americans for issues where they have the power to do so, must be their focus.
This. Impeachment investigations of Trump, Hegseth, or anyone is just stupid. It would be yet another own goal.
No. of Recommendations: 5
If the dems DO win a veto-proof super majority in the House and Senate in November…
Even if Democrats and Independents won every single one of the 35 Senate seats up for election, they would not have a veto-proof majority. A 2/3 majority in both chambers (67 votes in the Senate) is required to overturn a veto.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Even if Democrats and Independents won every single one of the 35 Senate seats up for election, they would not have a veto-proof majority. A 2/3 majority in both chambers (67 votes in the Senate) is required to overturn a veto.
Gemini says the dems would end up with 69 seats. Is it correct? Perhaps not.
If the Democratic Party were to win every contested Senate seat in the 2026 midterm elections, they would have a total of 69 seats.
This calculation is based on the current composition of the Senate following the 2024 elections and the specific seats up for grabs in 2026.
1. The Starting Point (Post-2024 Balance)
Following the 2024 elections, Republicans gained control of the Senate with a 53–47 majority:
Republicans: 53 seats
Democrats: 45 seats
Independents (caucusing with Democrats): 2 seats (Bernie Sanders and Angus King)
Total Democratic-aligned seats: 47
2. The 2026 Contested Seats
There are a total of 35 seats up for election in 2026. This includes the 33 seats of Class 2 and two special elections for Class 3 seats vacated by members of the Trump administration.
- Class 2 (33 regular seats): Currently held by 20 Republicans and 13 Democrats.
- Class 3 Special Elections (2 seats): * Florida: To fill the seat of Marco Rubio (who resigned to become Secretary of State).Ohio: To fill the seat of J.D. Vance (who resigned to become Vice President).
Total seats "contested" in 2026: 35 (22 currently Republican-held, 13 currently Democratic-held).
3. The Math for a Democratic Sweep
To find the total, we add the seats Democrats already hold (that are not up for election) to the 35 seats they would win in this sweep scenario:
- Seats "Not Up" for election: 34 (These are the Democrats and Independents in Class 1 and Class 3 who were elected in 2022 or 2024).
- Contested Seats Won: 35 (Every seat on the ballot in 2026).
= Total: 34 + 35 = 69 seats.
High-Profile Seats Involved
In this hypothetical scenario, Democrats would not only hold onto competitive seats in Georgia (Jon Ossoff), Michigan (Open seat), and New Hampshire (Open seat), but they would also flip traditionally Republican seats in states such as:
- Texas (John Cornyn)
- North Carolina (Thom Tillis)
- Maine (Susan Collins)
- Iowa (Joni Ernst)
- Florida (Special election for Rubio's seat)
- Ohio (Special election for Vance's seat)
A 69-seat majority would be the largest for any party in the U.S. Senate since the late 1960s.
No. of Recommendations: 9
Gemini says the dems would end up with 69 seats. Is it correct? Perhaps not.
There is a vast difference between what is theoretically possible and what is realistic.
Theoretically, I could be a bigger movie star than Brad Pitt. In reality, nobody will hire me.
If the Dems wind up with 51 seats I will be pleasantly surprised. Astounded, actually.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Republicans: 53 seats
Democrats: 45 seats
Independents (caucusing with Democrats): 2 seats (Bernie Sanders and Angus King)
Total Democratic-aligned seats: 47
This part is correct.
Total seats "contested" in 2026: 35 (22 currently Republican-held, 13 currently Democratic-held).
Also correct.
To find the total, we add the seats Democrats already hold (that are not up for election) to the 35 seats they would win in this sweep scenario:
No. This double counts the seats that Democrats already hold and that are up for election. You need to add the seats Democrats already hold to the 22 “contested” seats that are currently Republican held.
No. of Recommendations: 1
A 69-seat majority would be the largest for any party in the U.S. Senate since the late 1960s.
Seems highly unlikely even in free and fair elections, but we know that Trump and the Republicans are planning to cheat in any way they can.
No. of Recommendations: 3
No. This double counts the seats that Democrats already hold and that are up for election. You need to add the seats Democrats already hold to the 22 “contested” seats that are currently Republican held.
You sure? I mentioned your correction to Gemini and it still thinks it was right:
It is a fair question—political math can get slippery, and "double counting" is the most common pitfall when looking at these maps. However, the 69 figure is calculated by strictly separating the "safe" seats from the "contested" seats to ensure every seat is only counted once.
To make it clear, we have to look at the Senate as two distinct piles of chairs.
The Math Breakdown
There are 100 total seats in the Senate. In the 2026 cycle, we divide them like this:
1. The "Safe" Pool (65 Seats)
These are the seats not up for election in 2026. They were either filled in 2022 or 2024 and won't be on the ballot again until 2028 or 2030.
Republicans hold: 31 of these seats.
Democrats (and allied Independents) hold: 34 of these seats.
Note: These 34 seats are "locked in" and are the starting point for the Democratic total.
2. The "Contested" Pool (35 Seats)
These are the seats actually on the ballot in 2026. This includes the 33 regular "Class 2" seats and the 2 special elections for the seats vacated by the current administration (the Florida and Ohio seats).
Currently held by Republicans: 22 seats.
Currently held by Democrats: 13 seats.
Note: In your "sweep" scenario, Democrats win all 35 of these seats.
The Final Tally
To get the final number, you simply add the seats they already have (that aren't up for election) to the ones they win on election night:
- 34 (Safe Seats)} + 35 (Contested Seats Won) = 69 Total Seats
Why there is no double counting:
The 13 seats that Democrats currently hold and are defending in 2026 are not part of that "34 safe seats" number. If we had started with the current total of 47 and then added 35, that would definitely be double counting (resulting in 82).
Instead, we essentially "vacate" those 13 seats for the purpose of the calculation, treat all 35 contested seats as a single block for the Democrats to win, and add them to the 34 incumbents who get to stay home on election day.
