Well, there’s no rule, afaik, that deliberations must be held in private. But you’re probably mostly right. During the proceedings they’ll be limited to facial gymnastics to garner camera time. However, there will be plenty of hallway and staircase interviews daily.
The Clinton rules had deliberations behind closed doors (in private). Senators were not allowed to speak for more than ten or fifteen minutes on a question. Outside of closed-door deliberations, senators are not allowed to ask questions, they have to write the questions down and the Chief Justice will read them. Individual senators are not allowed to cross-examine witnesses, the party that produces the witness picks one person examine and the other side picks one person to cross-examine. Motions are voted on without debate unless the doors are closed for deliberation, colloquy is not allowed, etc.
~Max
I could see this hurting their campaigns, from a political perspective. The Iowa caucus is too close for comfort, and there are valuable photo/news ops the candidates will have to pass up. I don’t think they would be too concerned about voters that have already decided, the focus would be more on voters that are torn or even voters who don’t bother to make up their minds until the weeks leading up to the caucus.
And the local visits are especially important in Iowa, due to the unique and communal nature of the caucus meetings. Less time on the trail means less local visits means less people are thinking about you when they meet on 2/3.
~Max
Do some people vote about how often they see the candidate, rather than what the candidate has said?
Or even who they last saw. In any case many are not voting based on the WHAT the candidate said as much as HOW they said it, the feeling they got listening to them.
In terms of impact? I can see this going either way honestly, depending on how much interest the voters in Iowa in particular have in the impeachment process.
Yes having to be in the Senate for those hours of the day is that many fewer hands shaken and selfies taken.
But a public that cares about the impeachment trial will be hanging on to what the sitting Senators who will be voting have to say about it, and what cameras might not have caught, after each day’s events. That’s not just hallways and staircases, it’s in studios.
Maybe a net negative for Iowa by some small margin but a bunch of unpaid publicity that feeds for races that follow that will be, assuming it is used well, net positive there.
Yeah, there’s some value in shaking hands, and in being seen eating local food at the county fair, and the like. Given the opportunity, no competent politician would pass that up. But any politician who can’t spin around that in a case like this is too incompetent to be in the Senate, much less the White House.
Some non-voters or on the fence voters may be swayed by seeing a candidate in person. It probably won’t matter to people who already made their minds up. I believe voter turnout in the Iowa caucus is only about 20%.
I don’t think any of the four have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting the nomination anyway. No effect.
I’d expect that anything lost by the lack of campaigning would be offset by being able to have actually been trying to do something about Trump. The other candidates especially won’t be able to use this against them, like they could for other campaign absences.
I’m not so sure there’s all too much to gain from the senate trial. Everybody knows the president will be acquitted, and there are few opportunities for grandstanding.
~Max
Is grandstanding even considered a political positive in a situation like this?
~Max
“Grandstanding” is a negative descriptor so it’s never a positive. Delivering an impromptu impassioned speech, can be positive. Though some might describe it as grandstanding.
I wasn’t aware of such a connotation. What I meant to say would be, the senators can make speeches when the Senate is adjourned, speeches which probably criticize the President or lay out their thinking on the impeachment vote. But will swing voters in Iowa care if, ultimately, they know the President will be acquitted?
That’s what I’m wondering. I believe Ann Selzer did a poll showing 87% of Americans are tired of political circus, but I don’t know how well that describes the citizenry of Iowa, and I don’t know how many of those people identify as swing voters (for the Democratic primaries/caucus). It is my opinion that the entire impeachment debacle amounts to… well, political circus. Not because it is unjustified, but because under the current circumstances he just isn’t going to be convicted.
~Max
Biden or Warren or a dark horse will be winning the nomination anyway.
Senator Warren, by virtue of being a senator, would be tied up in D.C. while former Vice President Biden is out campaigning in Iowa. That is a significant part of this thread.
~Max
The first casualty as Bernie cancels his rally tomorrow in Iowa.
Even if Bernie could have chartered a private jet to and from the rally (one hour time difference helps) I think he knows that would look just awful to all but his most fervent supporters.