Why the Skittish Caucus is so Skittish About Impeachment.

[kennetha]

Democrats who flipped Republican districts in 2018 are a blessing and a curse. They are a blessing because they are crucial to the Democratic majority. They are a curse because they still live in fear of Trump ... just like Republicans do.

They are the SOLE reason that Nancy Pelosi fears undertaking impeachment. Her calculation seems to be that many of these seats ... many of which were won, but won narrowly, thanks to a highly activated democratic vote, a somewhat less activated republican base, and the desertion of suburban Republican women, especially, from the Republican column -- would be lost (and with them the Majority) if the House moves to impeachment. They dare not do anything to supercharge the Republican base or give those wavering defectors the chance to recant and return to the fold. Impeachment would do just that, she seems to think. Or at least her members seem to think. So she hems and haws and tries to balance on a tightrope between the different factions of her caucus.

I get the "strategic" calculation. But t I'm not at all convinced that this isn't a recipe for disaster.
First, failure to move aggressively against a president who is in such OBVIOUS, FLAGRANT and ONGOING violation of the law and the constitution may dampen the enthusiasm of the democratic base.

After all one of the things that the Democrats promised that GOT them the House was not just to pass symbolic legislations destined to go nowhere as long as Trump was in office (and the Republicans in control of the Senate) but to be a CHECK on the EXECUTIVE. Some check they are. Trump is acting even more out of control. If the Democrats cannot use their majority to in any way constrain a lawless president what good are they, some of the base may wonder. And that may depress base turnout.

Pelosi and the skittish part of the caucus would probably counter that it's the job of the presidential nominee, whoever she or he turns out to be, to generate enthusiasm among the base. That will carry over into House elections, allowing the skittish to keep their heads low on the question of impeachment and ride the Presidential coattails. That way they can focus on confronting Trump on issues ... where they seem to believe they have an advantage, or at least that they won't alienate many marginal voters by talking healthcare rather than impeachment.

Perhaps that will work. Only time will tell. Even the best laid plans have a way of going asunder. One possible problem is that Trump probably already has plenty of ammo with which to excite the Republican base and to woo back defectors.

Think about it this way. Trump has clearly violated the law. Pelosi herself has all but said as much ... I want to see him in prison, not impeached ... Since the DOJ opinion only says he cannot be prosecuted while in office, an OBVIOUS question for the Democratic nominee is whether Trump should face prosecution if he is not re-elected.

How do you suppose the Democratic nominee should answer that question. Yes? No? No comment? We shall see?
What is the "safe answer," the one that will not turn the election into a referendum, at least in part, on the question of Trump's criminality and what to do about it?

Answer there is NO safe answer! Any answer a candidate gives is going to alienate somebody and piss off somebody.
What to do about Trump and his law breaking is an unavoidable question. It HAS to be faced. It CANNOT be swept under the rug. And it is BOUND to divide.

So look, whatever worries you have about impeachment "firing up the Republican base and causing republican defectors to return to the fold" you should have in spades about the question, and what happens if Trump is not -reelected. Do we just say, oh well, he's out of office, that is punishment enough? I don't think so. Or maybe I'm wrong, but then what does that mean?

And what happens if he wins? Then will the Democrats push the issue of impeachment? Fat chance of that.

So here's the thing. We face a question of great and lasting signficance for the constitutional order. It CANNOT be avoided or swept under the rug. Either we face up to it now or we face up to it during the campaign.

Given that what do Democrats gain by stalling and dithering? Once the campaign has been joined in full don't count on the House making a methodical walk through the evidence against Trump.

[trev]

1. It is my opinion

that the Republican base is already fired up. They never stopped being fired up. We should not waste our time with vain hopes.

According to another GD thread, even Fox News is showing that 50% of the people are in favor of impeachment hearings. I think we should rejoice in that number, and do what needs to be done.

[Hortensis]

6. We have no expectations for "the base." In them America

has the citizen element needed for "it" to happen here. We are one very bad, but enabled leader away from their approving anything the leader does, including fake trials and prison for Obama and Hillary, journalists, concentration camps for noisy social media "warriors." That "enabled" is a long way off right now, but the base is not even one leader away.

It's OTHER conservatives we need. SOME of them anyway.

We all need to remember the huge indicator of the midterms. Many came and were part of the huge blue wave rejecting trumpism, but not enough of them are ready to remove the president they elected yet and they could vote red again also.

[mountain grammy]

50. Agree!

[Meadowoak]

2. If they don't impeach, we will lose the house next year and likely, the Presidency!

[Trumpocalypse]

29. And that prediction is based on what?

[shanny]

51. what happens when we don't push for our values and policies?

2010

Does anyone seriously want to argue that we were too bold in 2009?

[Trumpocalypse]

55. Yet in 2007

When Pelosi refused to impeach Bush the prediction was that we would lose everything in 2008. How did that election turn out?

[shanny]

57. link? on the prediction--who and when?

I recall that we were pissed (me included) but not enough to stay away. We won a big victory in 2006, a bigger one in 2008--a black president, a super-majority in the House and 60 seats in the Senate--and did very little with it.

let's not repeat that, OK?

[Trumpocalypse]

59. Look back in the DU archives

Many here predicted that if Bush and Cheney weren't impeached it would depress the base in 08.

And I'm sure many will be pissed if Trump isn't impeached, but not enough to stay away.

[Meadowoak]

61. Don't forget the stock market crash, it's hard to say how we would

Have faired if not for the stock market crashing, and the the mortgage crisis. But who knows.

[Trumpocalypse]

64. Obama was leading before the crash nt

[LenaBaby61]

62. EXACTLY ......

[ehrnst]

80. Indeed. (nt)

[Meadowoak]

54. Based on the fact that a lot of us will stay home. We sent Democrats

To Washington to hold Trump accountable. If they just sit on their hands, many of us will stay home in 2020.

[Trumpocalypse]

56. Anyone that stays home in 20

is helping Trump. I doubt that most are that stupid or arrogant to do that.

Plus every poll of the midterms show that most voted based on issues like healthcare, not to impeach Trump.

[ehrnst]

81. So you won't vote for Democrats in 2020 if there is no impeachment?

Good to know.

[Meadowoak]

124. If I vote, it would be for Democrats. But unless there is impeachment

I'm really losing enthusiasm about it, I believe a lot of Democrats feel the same way.

[sheshe2]

128. If you vote?

Wow, just wow.

No words.

[StarfishSaver]

131. Voting isn't a soccer match

If you need to be "enthusiastic" to do it and if not impeaching a president who isn't going to be removed from office is enough to make you to become so unenthusiastic that you don't vote, well

[Me.]

3. Skittish, Stalling, Dithering

Heads low, hemming & hawing, disaster...yeah that'll get them.

[lapucelle]

5. I trust Democratic leadership.

Why would I trust the judgement of those try to win people over to their side by calling them names? Who does that?

[Me.]

7. It's Been The Way Lately

with the so-called pundits, journalists, hosts so on and so forth. They seemingly don't understand that they are not helping by criticizing the Dems 24/7 and are in fact aiding and abetting for another four of the horror in the WH. THey did this to HRC and look where it got us. What was it Michelle Goldberg recently applied to the Dems...craven & cowardly. Good work Ms. Goldberg, invite into our very lives the very thing you say you are against.

How crazy has it gotten? I saw a young woman named Alexi on Nicole Wallace's show kick the Dems saying they were afraid to impeach because the Senate wouldn't convict and then in the very next sentence she kicked them for spending/wasting time passing legislation that they knew the Senate wouldn't pass.

How about we start wholeheartedly supporting our side, what could it possibly hurt?

[wryter2000]

110. Amen

Why constantly pick on the Dems when the Repubicans are mucking everything up? If I thought for a minute that the Senate Republicans would do the right thing and get this abomination out of the White House, I'd be screaming for impeachment, too. But they won't, so we're stuck with him until January of 2021 (unless some law enforcement official takes him out in handcuffs).

We have to concentrate on winning in 2020, and impeaching him now so it can all be forgotten by this time next year will not help in that effort.

[Me.]

114. Also, We Need To Make The Case

As has been pointed out the numbers for impeachment and against him are rising steadily...I read somewhere here that when MLKjr asked LBJ for civil rights LBJ said 'make me'. By that he meant he wanted MLKjr to 'sell it' to the point where the country was up in arms and demanded civil rights

[ehrnst]

82. Softball insults, but insults nonetheless.

SMH...

[Me.]

84. And Incorrect To Boot

Go figure

[ehrnst]

85. Attacking scapegoats is easier than dealing with one's own anxiety head on.

And when the scapegoats continue to act in a reasoned manner one needs to invent flaws and ulterior motives to continue to attack them.

It feels far more powerful to be angry than to be anxious about something that is beyond one's control.

Straight White male privilege in the form of rage at "WEAKNESS in our leaders!!!!!!!!!!" is showing its head all over the place now that they are experiencing the marginalization and insecure future that every other group is familiar with on some level.

[StarfishSaver]

87. Great point!

[Me.]

89. It Was Interesting Watching HOward Dean With Chris Hayes

Hayes was all hopped up about impeachment, talking fast, interrupting. Howard was measured, explaining why he was with Nancy, making a very plausible case. He made such sense and it was so hard for Hayes, you could tell he thought DEan was making sense but it was so hard for him to give up his position.

[ehrnst]

98. Chris was clearly emotional. It can be a problem with men who don't deal

well with strong emotions and try to rationalize them.

They can't be anxious about something that's out of their control - that would be like a frantic, dithering woman, so they go aggressive, and DEMAND that this situation that is UNACCEPTABLE be DEALT with, or somebody's gonna be sorry...

Chris being a white straight man, I'm sure he isn't used to anyone punishing him or pushing back for expressing his outrage, so he must be correct in what he thinks is the problem .. Which is that Pelosi not DOING SOMETHING BIG AND MANLY, and if she would just LISTEN, she would learn what NEEDS TO BE DONE.

Those of use who are not straight white men have a bit more self-awareness about dealing with being on the short end of the stick, because it's been so much a part of our lives.

[Me.]

99. I Mostly Agree With You

except that it's not just straight white men, he has Michele Goldberg on frequently and when the 2 of them get started the insults rain down on Dem heads and of course there is Joy Reid who hasn't missed a weekend lately where she isn't stomping her foot and having a complete meltdown about this. MSNBC needs to have a talk with their hosts.

[ehrnst]

100. True this. (nt)

[wryter2000]

113. And Stephanie Miller

I love her show, but it's getting to be impeach, impeach, impeach!

[Me.]

115. ...

There is arrogance involved in all of this, I sometimes think that after a while when these folks have a show they begin to lose perspective about themselves.

[wryter2000]

112. You nailed it!

[Hortensis]

4. National support for impeachment hearings risen to 27%!

And over the past month support among Democrats has risen 10%! To 48%.

I have an enormous problem with arguments that which party has power after the 2020 elections is of much less importance to the continuance of our constitutional order than a failed impeachment attempt now.

So nonsense to "skittish" and "dithering." We move when we can protect the constitution by winning. The goal is to succeed at everything we must. Anything less would be highly immoral and an enormous failure of duty.

[empedocles]

10. Nice, fine line. Protect the Constitution by winning. Like that.

[customerserviceguy]

8. Please remember

that nearly all of the flipped seats this last election were won by Democratic candidates who had to fight charges that they would be Nancy Pelosi's "rubber stamp". They overcame this charge by saying that they were going to focus on getting necessary legislation accomplished, not by "playing politics".

The only thing worse than seeing the Senate acquit the Dotard is for the House to fail to pass an impeachment bill should one be put to a vote in the chamber. If you think Trump would crow victory in the former circumstance, you can imagine him howling with delight if the latter happened.

Yes, Trump's name should go on the short list of US Presidents who have been impeached, but right now, the votes are simply not there. The mushy middle has Trump outrage fatigue, for well over two years they've been told on a near-daily basis, "Look what he's done NOW!", and because they are the mushy middle, they really don't want to spend so much time thinking about politics. They think that's an obsession with the right and the left, they'd much rather see who's in and who's out on "The Bachelor".

[marylandblue]

105. The legislation is part of our 2020 platform, to include

the argument that the Republican Senate is doing nothing at all and the Dealmaker in Chief can't make any deals.

[customerserviceguy]

130. It's true

there hasn't been much (the sentencing reform bill is about all that can be pointed to), but these Democratic seat-flippers can go back to their districts and say, "Well, I voted with the GOP here, here, and here, when it seemed reasonable," on procedural votes. That's why GOPers in the House try to attach things on to bills that the Senate will never pass.

The blame can be placed on the Senate. Impeachment is not a mere procedural vote. It's about these newly-flipped seats staying flipped, and the freshmen Representatives keeping the job. They fear that if they fall in line with the AOC's in Congress, they will be ousted in 2020.

I'm not saying that it's the best possible outcome, but I was trying to answer a question as honestly as possible.

[redstateblues]

9. I'm with Nancy

Impeachment does not remove Trump and only leads to Trump throwing an exoneration party.

[kennetha]

12. As if Trump controls the narrative

Who cares what Trump says?

[marylandblue]

30. Unfortunately, a lot of people care what Trump says.

Just watch how DU lights up everytime Trump says something really stupid
.

[kennetha]

40. Well, democrats can fight back. they don't HAVE to SURRENDER the narrative to Trump or Fox News

[ehrnst]

67. Who is "surrendering the narrative?" You think Democrats should be on FoxNews?

Wasting time in twitter wars with him? Or responding to every stupid tweet that he sends from the john?



Not "fighting back?"

But I'll bite - what does "fighting back" and "winning the narrative" involve? Specifically.

What could Democrats do that would make you happy in this regard?

BTW - suspending DT's twitter account and preventing him from going on TV aren't going to be possible.

[kennetha]

69. Begin impeachment now

And explain to the American people why they are doing so. And stand up and fight when the Republicans call it a witch hunt or a show trial. And call the Republicans out every single day in every forum for aiding and abetting a traitor and their failure to stand up for the rule of law.

That’s what.

[ehrnst]

70. What if the timing isn't right? (nt)

[kennetha]

74. No time like the present.

The fierce urgency of now. She who hesitates is lost!

[ehrnst]

75. So timing is a non-issue?

I guess you'd be onboard with impeaching Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas, as well, because "no time like the present?"

[marylandblue]

104. And when Trump shoots back that Democrats are the traitors

And threatens to arrest Clinton and Pelosi. What do we tell them then? Read a 400 page report? Watch C-span while ignoring Trump's live tweets? Sputter and rage about the raving madman?

We are in fact saying daily he is violating the rule of law. Maybe people will get the message and maybe they won't. But don't bother impeaching if you don't have the votes. That's the weakest move of all.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

16. Doesn't he get to throw that party too

if the House refuses to do anything?

[ehrnst]

76. What are you talking about? The House has dozens of investigations going on.

That's not "refusing to do anything."

[Proud Liberal Dem]

117. They're refusing (at least so far) to start holding impeachment inquiries

[Gothmog]

11. Without 20 GOP Senate votes, impeachment is not going to work

Colin Allred and Lizzie Fletcher are two of the GOP’s top targets and we cannot afford to lose these seats

[kennetha]

13. Make the Republicans stand up and be counted

[Gothmog]

17. And risk losing 40 moderate seats that gave the Democrats control of the House?

We flipped two house seats in 2018 in Texas. Both were red districts. Nancy Pelosi does not want to risk these seats

Link to tweet

[Amishman]

26. Yup, several seats in PA could easily be at risk if we hypermotivate the right

PA district 7, 8, and 17 would be at risk as they contain significant rural, redneckish areas and by registration are pretty much even or a small R advantage. PA 6 might be slightly at risk as it includes a very conservative section in southern Berks and only is a D +2 by registration.

[Nevermypresident]

34. Are you speculating we could lose all 40 seats in the House? Or maybe 15, 10, 7, 5?

Point is, you nor I, nor Pelosi for that matter has no idea.

Every single path Pelosi takes has risks associated with it, including running out the clock on impeachment. Not to mention doing what is right for our country, which should be a huge part of this calculation.

If pursuing Articles of Impeachment against the most corrupt, democracy-destroying, semi-illiterate, grifting, immoral, incompetent president in modern (if not all) history results in losing our majority in the House, then IMO it's all over anyway.

We already know we're not dealing with a level playing field in the next general election because I guarantee trump and repubs will be even more sophisticated with their cheating this next time.

[Gothmog]

36. I trust Speaker Pelosi

Colin and Lizzie are the two new Congresscritters from Texas. These two are being targeted by the GOP and a vote to impeach followed by a complete vindication for Trump in the Senate would put these and other seats at risk.

Again, there is no way to get 20 GOP senators to vote to remove trump and adoption of Articles of Impeachment could help re-elect trump

Again, I trust Nancy Pelosi on this

[Nevermypresident]

45. Every single Democrat in the House is and will be targeted by the GOP, with or without impeachment,

no question.

The rest is speculation.

There have been posts, more posts, and even more posts here on DU alone positing why it's worth it no matter what the repubs do in the Senate. So I won't repeat ad nauseum.

I don't agree with Pelosi's stance on this issue or the way she has handled this whole issue to date. I do however, respect your opinion.

[Gothmog]

46. How are you going to get 20 GOP senators to vote for removal?

[Nevermypresident]

48. As i stated in my post,

"There have been posts, more posts, and even more posts here on DU alone positing why it's worth it no matter what the repubs do in the Senate. So I won't repeat ad nauseum."

I'm sure you are familiar with the points that have been made repeatedly by other posters here and elsewhere.

[Gothmog]

52. If trump is able to claim vindication by being found not guilty by the GOP senate, he could win

I trust Speaker Pelosi on this issue. Unless you can explain to me how you are planning on getting 20 GOP senators to vote to remove, this appears to be a really bad plan. Luckily Speaker Pelosi is the one making the decision here

[Nevermypresident]

58. You have taken a stance that should Repubs not remove,

impeachment isn't worth it. I absolutely do not agree with this stance.

(No need for barbs, we can agree to disagree

[Gothmog]

60. This is also the same stance being taken by Speaker Pelosi

I trust Speaker Pelosi and I really do not want to lose control of the House by putting seats into play with a stunt that serves no purpose

[Nevermypresident]

108. Again, that is just your speculation...

Interesting that you use the word "stunt".

It's clear to me that you only see black and white. We impeach in the House and we will automatically lose seats OR we don't take up Impeachment in the House and those seats will be safe.

There are so many more scenerios that could play out with either decision.

[ehrnst]

116. Your scenarios are also just speculation.

And it appears you are the one seeing in black and white, so it looks like others are.

The person with the most tools and experience to speculate is the Speaker of the House.

[Nevermypresident]

120. Well, you got one of your sentences correct! What I think will happen if we pursue

impeachment in the House is speculation, as I've not yet gained the ability to see the future.

[ehrnst]

134. I got all my sentences right, thanks.

[Gothmog]

135. Yes you were right

[Gothmog]

118. I like living in the real world and working on real campaigns

Texas is turning blue due to the hard work on the ground by good Democrats. I have been active in Texas state and local politics for a while including running the statewide voter protection efforts for the Clinton campaign and working to turn my county blue. It is not easy to be elected to be a delegate to the national convention and I was a Clinton delegate to Philadelphia.

We had some success in Texas that I do not want to give up, These gains could be reversed if trump is able to motivate his base with a quick verdict of vindication in the GOP controlled senate https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/28/politics/dccc-2020-battlefield-map-memo-texas-suburbs/index.html

That's reflected in the committee's focus on Texas, the state most heavily represented on the target list. The DCCC is targeting six Texas seats: the 10th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th and 31st districts located in suburbs outside San Antonio, Houston, Dallas and Austin.

The party scored a couple of key wins in Texas in 2018: Rep. Colin Allred defeated veteran Republican Rep. Pete Sessions in the Dallas-area 32nd district and Rep. Lizzie Fletcher similarly toppled Republican John Culberson in the 7th district near Houston. A DCCC aide noted that the districts on the 2020 target list have trended Democratic in recent cycles and share characteristics like high population density as well as high or growing levels of education and diversity -- key demographic factors for the party.

My congressional district is one of the six districts targeted by the DCCC in its red to blue program. My middle child is another of these targeted districts.

Contrary to your claims, Nancy Pelosi is against impeachment at this point. I strongly agree with Speaker Pelosi and believe that her plans are in the best interest of the party. We do not want to put Colin's and Lizzie's seats at risk and I would love to get rid of my congresscritter. Again I trust Speaker Pelosi on this issue.

Schumer has hopes of flipping the Senate and is also against pushing for immediate impeachment

Link to tweet

One of the other targeted districts is the one that Kim Olson is running in. Kim ran for Ag commissioner last cycle and is a great lady.

Link to tweet

Speaker Pelosi and Senator Schumer do not want to endanger the Democrats control of the House or the chances to pick up Senate seats with a stunt that the public will not support in the real world.

I will be a fundraiser for one of the candidates mentioned above and will ask him about starting impeachment with only 27% of the voters supporting such action. I have a good feeling that I know what his answer will be.

We picked up 12 state house seats in 2018 and need nine more to flip control of the Texas state house. There are two state house seats in my county that are being targeted by the state party that we came within 5% of flipping last cycle. If we flip the Texas state house, we can control redistricting or at least block the GOP plans with respect to redistricting of Texas.

Impeachment might make sense if the polling shows that such action would not hurt Democrats. Right now, the polling is not favorable and there is a good chance that impeachment followed by a vindication of trump the GOP senate will likely aid trump and motivate his base.

Texas has come a long way towards being a blue state and I do not want to give back the gains we made. I will continue to work hard to turn Texas blue which will include flipping some red seats blue.

[Turin_C3PO]

119. Just curious where you're getting that only 27% of people support impeachment?

It was being posted on DU this past weekend that 50% of voters were pro-impeachment. Not saying you’re wrong but I wonder why the disparity in numbers?

[Gothmog]

121. This was covered heavily on MSNBC

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Turin_C3PO]

122. Ok, thanks.

Looks like the people saying it’s 50% are dead wrong.

[Gothmog]

123. This is a 10% increase over the prior polling on this issue

Link to tweet

[Nevermypresident]

125. I like working on real campaigns as well!

I intend to do so again next year as I have for many, many years in my district and state.

However, it almost sounds as if you are putting party over country. After all, I'm sure you would agree that our democracy, the rule of law, our values, etc. are under attack from trump. While Pelosi publicly states trump should go to prison, etc., a thoughtful person might say then WHY don't you pursue Articles of Impeachment?

We all recognize that turnout is essential for victory. Have you considered how some Democratic voters are becoming disillusioned? I've had some pp. in my Resist Group that are so disappointed at this juncture say that they will vote but not donate to any Dem's campaign in the House if they are putting their seat over attempting to hold trump accountable. I've had several others say they will consider becoming "Independent" and yet a few others say they will consider 3rd party candidates.

Point being, have you taken into consideration the pushback from some Democrat voters if we don't pursue impeachment? Some of those coveted Dem seats in the House could be impacted by this. There are many moving parts to this decision.

Alas, I don't have a crystal ball and no one else does either. That's why you don't go into a battle knowing you are going to win, you do it because it's the right thing to do for our country.




BTW, you said "Contrary to your claims, Nancy Pelosi is against impeachment at this point" I made no such claims. Quite the contrary...

[Gothmog]

127. In the real world, you need 20 GOP Senators to vote to remove

That is not going to happen. In the real world, you can try trump and only need 12 carefully selected to convict based on evidence presented. Manafort was convicted with at least one serious trump supporter on the jury based on the evidence. These are two completely different standards.

As for a lack of a crystal ball, the polling is clear here

Link to tweet

Article of Impeachment are a stunt. Right now the polling shows only 27% favor an impeachment inquiry which is a far cry from actual article of impeachment. That number is up 10% percent from the prior polling which is some movement. 27% is not sufficient to win a congressional seat. Many moderate democrats are worried and for good reason. Right now it is my understanding that only 60+ house democrats favor an impeachment inquiry and that is not close to half of the caucus.

Moderate democrats have reason to worry

Link to tweet

Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN) will entertain the idea of impeaching President Trump when he’s sure enough votes exist in the GOP-controlled Senate to convict him. Which is to say, not anytime soon.

“We’re not anywhere close,” Peterson told The Daily Beast as he exited the House floor on Tuesday. He’s been pressing his colleagues in the House Democratic caucus to recognize that this simple fact should put impeachment fever to bed, for now. But he says he hasn’t had much luck.....

But political concerns clearly are a factor for Democratic moderates and the leadership that is closely following their re-election prospects. Pelosi, for starters, has fed the idea that Trump would welcome impeachment because it would fire up his base heading into the 2020 election. Impeachment proponents scoff at that argument, stressing that historical data isn’t conclusive that the public rallies to the president under fire. But polling data tends to show that the country right now isn’t enamored with the idea. A new survey from a Michigan-based pollster found in that key swing state, over 41 percent of voters strongly oppose impeachment, while 27 percent strongly supported.

The two seats that we flipped in Texas would likely be lost if we file articles of impeachment and trump is vindicated by a GOP controlled Senate.

I want to pick up additional house seats this term and not lose seats. Lizzie and Collin are both good people and it would be a shame to lose these House members. I have been on the phone with both of them (dialing for dollar calls) and they are class people. Collin was with Marc Elias' firm and was involved in the 2016 voter protection efforts.

I support Nancy Pelosi's position here. I also support calling witnesses to testify bout the Mueller report and seeing if we can get the polling to shift on the percentage of Americans who support an impeachment inquiry (which is a far cry from Article of Impeachment).

[Nevermypresident]

129. CNN poll last week showed 79% of Democrats want Impeachment proceedings.

Of course, when you include across parties polling, the repubs are are going to drastically move that % down.

If you read my prior posts to you, I was discussing possible pushback from Dems that want Impeachment that you don't seem to consider when forming your point of view on this serious issue. Along with the potential of successfully securing grand jury testimony thru Impeachment proceedings, educating voters with televised Impeachment hearings, and amplifying how corrupt and complicit Senate repubs are other positive consequences resulting from Impeachment proceedings in the House, before the 2020 election. Again, it's not a black and white issue as you posited (don't impeach = House dem seats more secure vs. impeach =lose more House seats).

Alas, we are just repeating the same points over and over and over.

I enjoyed our discussion.

[Gothmog]

132. I am a lawyer in the real world

We can get the grand jury testimony without article of impeachment in the real world. That is what was authorized last week

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

There is no need at this time for impeachment inquiry. If the Democrats lose a couple of court cases then this can be revisited but so far the courts have been ruling in favor of the subpoenas.

As for educating voters, there will be hearings that can educate. As noted above, there will be lawsuits on McGhan and tomorrow Hope Hicks will be testifying

Link to tweet

I confident in Chairman Schiff and Nadler getting Mueller to testify

Link to tweet

As for polling, you do realize that if we want to win the control of the Senate, keep control of the House and elect a Democrat as POTUS, we need more than just Democratic votes in the real world. Texas is turning into a battleground state not due to stunts like article of impeachment but due to hard work on the ground. It would be a shame to undo this hard work. 27% is a good polling number from NBC/WSJ and is on point.

I support and agree with Speaker Pelosi and Senator Schumer. I am happy that they are the ones making the decisions here. In the mean time, I and others will continue to work on the ground to win these races.

[Nevermypresident]

137. Oh goodness! Now you implying that we will lose the majority in the House, not have a

shot at the Senate AND lose to trump all due to an impeachment "stunt"!!!! I'd trade in that crystal ball you
are using.

I too will continue to work on the ground to win these races in my district/state.

[Gothmog]

138. We are fortunate that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are calling the shots here

I am so glad that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are calling the shots here. I trust their judgment

[ehrnst]

133. Can you post a link to that poll? Because this one from June 8 says otherwise.

Democrats are split as to whether impeachment should begin (36%) or investigations should continue (37%). House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., continues to try to hold the line against impeachment proceedings, saying she favors another I-word — investigations.

A slim majority of Americans (52%) want one of the following: to begin impeachment proceedings (22%), to continue investigations into potential political wrongdoing of Trump (25%) or to publicly reprimand him — that is, censure (5%).

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/08/730697885/poll-support-for-impeachment-hearings-grows-but-americans-split-on-way-forward

[Nevermypresident]

136. Sure can.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/02/politics/trump-impeachment-mueller-testify-cnn-poll/index.html

By Jennifer Agiesta, CNN Polling Director

Updated 1:19 PM ET, Sun June 2, 2019

snipped:


The shift on impeachment stems mostly from a rebound in support for it among Democrats -- 76% favor it currently, up from 69% in April. Whites who hold college degrees have also increased their support for impeachment.

[Fiendish Thingy]

53. Flowers and Candy?

It doesn’t matter- Dems need to show some spine and stand up for the Constitution and the Rulr of Law. Those who don’t should be primaried by someone with the courage to carry out their path of office.

[marylandblue]

109. Yes, every path has risks to it, just like in war.

And generals choose the path that they believe has the best risk-reward ratio. That's a complex decision. I'm sure nobody in the general's staffroom screams, "You dithering fool! All choices are risky, so do it my way!" That's a good way to get drummed out of the army.

[fescuerescue]

28. I think they would jump up and wave their arms

to be counted.

Remember, they proudly wear the "R" and got elected by doing so.

[ehrnst]

91. Yep. (nt)

[uponit7771]

14. Senate is not needed to hurt Red Don politically and follow constitution

[Gothmog]

18. It takes 20 GOP votes to remove trump and without these votes, trump will claim vindication

[uponit7771]

37. Trump will claim vindication no matter what dems do and to hurt Red Don and KGOP ...

... politically all they have to do is investigate and expose Red Don's crimes.

Impeachment process has hurt the party of the impeached the last 3 times it was implemented

[ehrnst]

15. So you've talked to her about her "sole reason" that she "fears" impeachment?

You write as though it was a fact, not a guess.

[kennetha]

19. IT's an inference from things she says and a little common sense.

[ehrnst]

21. So, it's a guess, influenced by your feelings about her. (nt)

[kennetha]

23. I have no particular "feelings" about her

[ehrnst]

24. Your guess as to her motives is based in large part on your judgement of her. (nt)

[kennetha]

25. Observation and judgment... that's all anybody ever has.

What’s your point?

[ehrnst]

66. Actually, no. One can have someone's statement, or confirmation of their motives or reasoning.

You claim to know her motives, and state them as though there is no way that it could be otherwise.

They are the SOLE reason that Nancy Pelosi fears undertaking impeachment.

And is therefore positing a "recipe for disaster."

"Skittish"

adjective
(of an animal, especially of a horse) excitable or easily scared.
"a skittish chestnut mare"
synonyms: restive, excitable, nervous, easily frightened; More
(of a person) playfully frivolous or unpredictable.

That's a word that demeans those it is used to describe.

That's the judgement of the subject one reveals when one uses that word.

That's the point.

[kennetha]

68. I use the word skittish because that's what I observe

Skittishness... I know it when I see it.
You disagree... fine by me.

But i’m Right and you’re wrong.

I assume you disagree there too.

Again fine by me.

[ehrnst]

71. Skittish is a demeaning term.

And you are using it to describe our Democratic leaders.

That's been established.

[kennetha]

73. It's a descriptive term.

But hey I am out if this exchange with you. No point in continuing it. Have a mice day.

[ehrnst]

77. Yes, it describes someone in a demeaning way.

Have a mice day yourself.

[BigOleDummy]

20. There seems to be a fear ...

… that impeachment proceedings will backfire in some sort of way. "But look at what happened when Mr. Clinton was impeached" I hear. Yes , his numbers (and ours) went way up when that happened. My reply is 1. it was a different world back then and for better or worse (ok, for worst, that's just a phrase. I'm old can't you tell?) a blow job in the White House just didn't carry the same weight as it would today. (Again, as I say back THEN) 2. Our chump in chief has committed multiple crimes that would put anybody else in prison. Forget the obstruction of justice and you still have campaign finance crimes, emolument violations that are FREELY admitted and yes..... sorry but we CANNOT forget the obstruction of justice violations. If we do not impeach or try to at least we are aiding and abetting a criminal enterprise. We are showing ourselves to be no better than the gop as enablers of this criminality. We would have the Senators ON RECORD as to how they stand for the rule of law.

It is not and cannot be a political decision. It's a question of right and wrong and where we stand on that principal.

[ehrnst]

22. Timing also figures into doing the right thing, or else we might end up worse off

which would be a bad thing.

[marylandblue]

31. Will you or anyone you know vote differently in 2020 because of Pelosi's actions?

[kennetha]

39. They might. Especially marginal democrats, who sit out many elections unless strongly aroused.

[ehrnst]

92. Marginal democrats?

You mean like the ones that have stated as much in this thread?

[kennetha]

93. No I mean people who only lightly identify as democrats and are open to voting Republican.

[ehrnst]

95. I mean like post #53 in this thread. (nt)

[marylandblue]

106. So people who are open to voting Republican want him impeached?

If they want him impeached so badly why would they consider voting Republican?

[brooklynite]

32. We didn't win the House because of the Trump base...

We one the House because moderate Republicans and Independents, some of whom voted for Trump, joined Democrats to elect moderate Democratic candidates who promised to focus on pocket-book issues. not on impeachment, Trump, Russia. etc.

[kennetha]

38. This is true. But...

Once you've won their vote on that basis and you have their attention and you have weaned them away from Trump, you have to LEAD and not just FOLLOW. You have to trust a little bit in your ability to COMPLETE the STORY and not just live in fear, kowtowing to the native Trump-affinity.

[brooklynite]

44. It not a matter of fear of Trump...

It's a matter of focusing attention on something voters don't care about, and risking losing their support in the upcoming election.

[kennetha]

47. Are you sure that voters don't care about democracy and the rule of law?

Why are you so sure of that? You think they only care about the equivalent of "making the trains run on time?"

"Don't bother me with the rule or law or the constitution, those are just abstractions. I can't eat the rule of law. Give me health care and I'm happy."

Pretty low estimation of the voters. Pretty low estimation of what matters.

[ehrnst]

78. That's a pretty big straw man you're attacking there.

If someone doesn't agree with you about what voters are paying attention to, then the are demeaning voters by saying that they 'don't think that voters care about democracy and the rule of law!!"

Also known as a false dillema fallacy.

False Dilemma is a fallacy based on an "either-or" type of argument. Two choices are presented, when more might exist, and the claim is made that one is false and one is true-or one is acceptable and the other is not. Often, there are other alternatives, or both choices might be false or true.

[ehrnst]

94. It seems that a favorite put down of yours is to paint someone who

disagrees with you doing so out of "cowardice," skittishness, or lack of ability to "think for themselves." Lots of language about dominating over the weak...

Once you've won their vote on that basis and you have their attention and you have weaned them away from Trump, you have to LEAD and not just FOLLOW. You have to trust a little bit in your ability to COMPLETE the STORY and not just live in fear, kowtowing to the native Trump-affinity.

And explain to the American people why they are doing so. And stand up and fight when the Republicans call it a witch hunt or a show trial. And call the Republicans out every single day in every forum for aiding and abetting a traitor and their failure to stand up for the rule of law.

Answer there is NO safe answer! Any answer a candidate gives is going to alienate somebody and piss off somebody. What to do about Trump and his law breaking is an unavoidable question. It HAS to be faced. It CANNOT be swept under the rug. And it is BOUND to divide.

Given that what do Democrats gain by stalling and dithering? Once the campaign has been joined in full don't count on the House making a methodical walk through the evidence against Trump.

They dare not do anything to supercharge the Republican base or give those wavering defectors the chance to recant and return to the fold. Impeachment would do just that, she seems to think. Or at least her members seem to think. So she hems and haws and tries to balance on a tightrope between the different factions of her caucus.

No time like the present.

The fierce urgency of now. She who hesitates is lost!

Think for yourself much?

Well, democrats can fight back. they don't HAVE to SURRENDER the narrative to Trump or Fox News

A lot of old school hypermasculinespeak/imagery going on there. That which values the traditional domineering, black/white, no grey area, aggressive, DO SOMETHING BIG RIGHT NOW mindset which gives the weight of fact to one's own musings, and devalues the more cerebral, considered, strategic, chess player manner of conflict as weak and ineffectual. Or perhaps threatening.

Just an observation and common sense. After all, as you said, what do we have but observation and judgement?

[kennetha]

96. You're funny, In a sad sort of way.

[ehrnst]

97. Nailed it, didn't I?

Sadly, very accurately.

[Sudsy]

33. Right

The Democrats lost control of Congress in 2010 because they kept "reaching across the aisle" and getting their hands chopped off for fear of losing Congress.

If the shoe was on the other foot, Republicans would have long ago begun impeachment proceedings against a Democratic president for far less than Trump brags about doing. They would have impeached Obama but couldn't manufacture even the perception of a reason that Fox was willing to run with.

This President is a shameless, arrogant criminal. It is the constitutional duty of the House to impeach him regardless of how it plays in Mudville.

[StarfishSaver]

41. Democrats didn't lose in 2010 because they reached across the aisle

They lost in 2010 because lots of Republicans were furious and energized by the passage of ACA other progressive and too many Democrats want satisfied with the Democrats' accomplishments and thought it would be better to let Republicans take over the House and state legislatures all over the country than to have Democrats reach across the aisle.

Very different.

[marylandblue]

35. I think she is not impeaching him because that is the correct way to

Last edited Mon Jun 17, 2019, 05:10 PM - Edit history (1)

handle a malignant narcissist. There are only two options really. Ignore the narcissist as if he doesn't exist, or completely crush him (that is, convict). When you do anything else or use an ineffectual attack(such impeach without conviction) the narcissist entangles you in his web and creates all sorts of problems. Of course, if you crush him, he will try take you down with him, so you better be ready for the blowback it will be awesome. She can't crush him, so she is mostly ignoring him, as much as one can ignore a President.

This is the voice of someone who did actually crush a narcissist. It required a lot of carefully planning, I only pulled the trigger when I was ready, I recieved the expected blowback which really sucked, but I did, in the end, crush him. I got what I wanted. He was out of my life. Now he drives other people crazy. Not my problem.

[kennetha]

42. I say they should try to Crush Trump in just the way you did with your narcissist.

Unleash the dogs of war. Put on full and relentless display the depths of his criminality. This should be topic one, the one that leads every political conversation, for the next 6 months. Forget about the jockeying among the democratic nominees. forget about symbolic legislation that has no chance of becoming law. Take this f*ing lawless shit of a president down, with extreme prejudice, by every constitutional means at their disposal.

All else is just playing at politics,

[marylandblue]

49. Unfortunately, that's not possible.

You do have to play politics, and I did, even though I hate doing that. I had to line up support so I knew other people would back me when the time came. A failure would have led him to declare victory and create an even worse monster. Then he would know he was untouchable.

Had I not had the support, I simply would have ignored him until he realized I would not give him the attention he craved.

[marylandblue]

103. You misunderstand me, I was talking about convicting in the Senate.

Impeachment will not lead to conviction, therefore it is not it is either not worth it or detrimental, at least from the point of view of how to deal with a narcissist. The narcissist will use your failed attempt against you and turn accusations back on you, creating a giant distraction to protect himself and possibly hurt you. (This actually happened to me. I'm talking about my personal experience and extending it to national politics).

By all means, crush him electorally. That in, fact would be the best thing of all, and entirely doable.

[marylandblue]

111. Yeah I've been back and forthing too, yet here we are.

You are correct, nobody knows what the future holds, that's true in all human affairs from small to large. Nonetheless, we all make our best educated guess as to likely outcomes happen and act accordingly.

I do remember Nixon and Clinton. Those are very different from our current situation and it also differs from the 2000 election, therefore of limited value in figuring out the present.

[StarfishSaver]

43. Astute analysis

[ehrnst]

90. +1000. (nt)

[warmfeet]

63. No impeachment, no white house and no senate.

You think things are bad now? It will get so much worse. And so it goes.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

65. NOT the sole reason. . . . nt

[ehrnst]

72. So, basically Pelosi and Congress are "skittish" weak and cowardly because you want impeachment NOW.

Because you know better than Pelosi about this stuff, and if there's anything we've all learned about Pelosi is that she's a scared, timid person that just can't make a decision under stress.

It boggles the mind as to why she keeps getting elected Speaker/minority leader by her peers. Maybe you should write to them to let them know how wrong they all are.

[ehrnst]

83. Did you find a sale on strawmen and false dillema fallacies?

I see them in place of thoughtful rebuttals all over this thread.

[kennetha]

86. You're the one attributing some kind of unimpeachable wisdom

to Pelosi!

[ehrnst]

88. And another straw man/false dillema combo....

Anyone who says that Pelosi has far more qualifications than you do is "attributing some kind of unimpeachable wisdom to Pelosi."

That's pretty ironic coming from someone who considers their musings on a topic to be unimpeachable TRUTHs...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/~kennetha

They are the SOLE reason that Nancy Pelosi fears undertaking impeachment.

Then say you're done with me, and keep coming back.

[Nevermypresident]

126. +1000