Her impeachment is a well-timed jab at Vice President Sara Duterte’s political survivability and it’s fast turning the midterm elections into a death match between the Marcos and Duterte tribes.

The high-stakes tribal clash, of course, comes from the fact that should the pivotal Senate impeachment trial convict Ms. Duterte, she won’t only be ousted but will also be banned for life from public office, thereby sealing the fate of the Duterte dynasty.

For her to be removed, at least 16 senators must vote to convict her — a fact that makes the senatorial elections crucial as it will decide who will make up half of the jurors for the Senate trial.

As expected, the Duterte tribe this early is vigorously moving to have all its senatorial candidates elected to save the Veep’s neck.

And it’s hardly surprising that the Duterte tribe is making the push on social media, expecting to sway other political tribes.

This is probably because they believe this would make a huge difference since social media played a big role in getting former strongman Rodrigo Duterte elected.

Ms. Duterte herself made the pitch when she urged supporters to make a lot of noise on social media on her beleaguered behalf even as they go on with their lives.

Ms. Duterte and her tribal allies are in for a rude awakening, however.

Before anything else, labeling both the Marcos and Duterte camps as “tribes” — and for that matter the mainstream opposition as “yellows/pinks” — isn’t some whimsical appendage, for a host of reasons.

Not least of these reasons is the fact that this year’s midterms is the third “social media” election exercise. “Social media” once more is going to be the campaign vehicle of choice for many candidates.

Now, despite “social media” being seen as an electoral darling, it might not be an effective electoral tool as before precisely because “social media” effectively entrenched political tribes in our political landscape. Why?

Well, because recent research on the deleterious effects of social media on modern-day politics increasingly show that political “opinions emerge from affiliation, not vice versa,” meaning one’s political opinions are largely determined by the political tribe one belongs to.

In practical politics, that means that even if people believe or say their political views reflect a careful, reasoned analysis of the issues, these views are usually the by-products of tribal allegiances and tribal allegiances are always rooted in emotion, not reason.

Tribal politics also means that we’re now beyond the so-called “echo chamber” politics which social media platforms early on inadvertently created.

So much so that even if Duterte or Marcos tribe members are exposed to opposing views from another tribe a sort of an immune response is triggered within the tribe.

“Members band together even more tightly to defend their position against what they perceive to be an invasive idea,” one research study, from another tribe, said.

“Once a group has established its position, all information — con as well as pro — tends to reinforce it. You don’t need an echo chamber” to be a Dutertard or loyalist, you just need a lot of information and your skewed perceptions.

So, if other points of view are perceived as being attacks on groups or persons it makes the difference between “us” and “them” seem even bigger.

Thus, what is happening now is that different political points of view are not seen as opportunities to learn about socio-political issues that matter to the country but as provocations to attack the other tribe.

And that perhaps is the true tragedy of the pervasive and deranged tribal politics in our midst — that even the valid political point of impeachment that says no person can be trusted to resist corruption if they cannot be held accountable for their actions is roundly held as fake news.