538: House Probably Has A Pro-Impeachment Majority

[berni_mccoy]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-house-probably-has-a-pro-impeachment-majority-right-now/

Only a few dozen of the 235 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives have publicly called for the impeachment of President Trump, or even for Congress to launch a formal impeachment investigation. And that number hasn’t meaningfully changed — so far, at least — even after former Special Counsel Robert Mueller gave a closing public statement Wednesday in which he all but said his investigation concluded that Trump obstructed justice regarding the probe of potential Russian interference in the 2016 election.

But the relatively small number of Democrats calling for impeachment doesn’t mean the vast majority of House Democrats oppose impeachment — or, more precisely, that they would vote “no” on impeachment. In fact, it’s likely the overwhelming majority of House Democrats would vote to both the launch of an impeachment inquiry and for impeachment itself if either or both came up for a vote.1

...snip...

If impeachment came up for a vote, there is almost certainly a pro-impeachment majority among House Democrats. There is likely a pro-impeachment majority in the House overall, because even some members in districts that backed Trump may not be able to vote against impeachment, considering the details described in Mueller’s report and the demands of their more liberal constituents. So expect the kabuki dance between Pelosi and the pro-impeachment bloc to continue. The pro-impeachment group probably has the votes, if there is a vote. But Pelosi can probably stop a vote from ever taking place — particularly if the silent majority of House members never really pushes for one.

[PoliticAverse]

1. See also this list of those currently supporting an impeachment inquiry...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212145529

[berni_mccoy]

2. Right, that's only who has publicly declared. Read the 538 article to see reality.

[FBaggins]

3. The 538 article also demonstrates why it won't happen unless/until...

...public opinion shifts significantly.

So there are 5-10 who are known to oppose... plus 30-50 who might be forced to vote for impeachment even though they might oppose it.

That's enough (IF Pelosi makes it a party loyalty issue and whips hard) to win. But that's also 40-ish votes that would be forced by the more progressive elements in their otherwise-conservative/moderate districts. Those are the representatives who lose their seats when impeachment fails in the Senate. They retain their progressive supporters but lose too many votes in the middle.

Which is why Pelosi won't do it. She knows that she COULD force passage, but that it would cost her the speakership.

[berni_mccoy]

4. Untrue. Forcing the passage would not cost her the speakership.

[FBaggins]

5. "Read the 538 article to see reality."

that fact, maybe more than anything, explains why the Democratic leadership has resisted the impeachment push.

Democrats have 235 votes in the House, so at least some members who represent the 31 districts that supported Trump in 2016 would have to back an impeachment resolution for it to pass by simple majority (218). And that could hurt their re-election prospects in 2020, perhaps jeopardizing Democrats’ majority. Pelosi is aware of the cross pressures these members would face from an impeachment vote and is trying to take that on her herself instead of leaving these members in a tough position.

[berni_mccoy]

6. Could is a far cry from will.

And she Probably has the votes so no forcing required.

She could lose the speakership for not impeaching as well. In fact she is more likely to for not impeaching Trump than she would be for impeaching him.

[FBaggins]

12. And it's at least as far from "will not"

Given how the highest leader in the party is currently handling the issue... we can see which way she's leaning.

[tymorial]

8. Your highlighted portion is everything that is wrong with Congress.

Politics and re-election should never be taken into consideration when the president has violated his oath of office and engaged in criminal activity. Trump has colluded with a foreign government to disenfranchise voters and steal the election. He has sought to undermine the investigation and obstructed justice. Congress has a mandate to hold him to account. Reelection is irrelevant. Majority is irrelevant. Congress is duty bound to act and inaction would be a public statement that the constitution and oath of office only matter when it is politically convenient.

If there is truly no plan to impeach and hold the administration to account... If Pelosi and the Democrats are simply waiting for political winds to change...

They have abdicated their oath of office and proclaimed no confidence in the rule of law and our constitution. I already believe the Republicans (in general) to be guilty of this. It remains to be seen whether or not the Democrats take their oath seriously. If they dont, I cannot and will not support any incumbent primary candidate that failed to demand the house carry out their duty.

If Pelosi had no plan, she doesnt deserve the speaker's seat.

I really hope that she does because right now I respect her and believe that she does have a gameplan. I have to believe this to be true or I will lose faith in the party.

[NewJeffCT]

10. Seth Moulton was one of the leaders of the Anti Pelosi faction in the House

and he has called for impeachment inquiries to start


https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2019/05/29/lead-seth-moulton-sotu-tease-live-jake-tapper.cnn

Another conserva-Dem says that they may have no choice:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/may/30/tim-ryan-closer-today-on-impeachment-we-may-be-lef/

[Fiendish Thingy]

7. This makes a good case for bring articles of impeachment to a floor vote before primaries

To put pressure on GOP senators running for reelection, and even better, improving the odds for William Weld and any other primary challengers to Trump. Wouldn’t it be simply fantastic if the GOP had to dump Trump?

[Honeycombe8]

9. "But Pelosi can probably stop a vote...." Hmmm.

I wonder if she would. If the votes are there, and she stops it, I don't think the Democratic Party voters are going to like that.

[sandensea]

11. There would still be a major problem though:

[uponit7771]

15. Don't need Senate to follow constitution and hurt Republicans politically

[sandensea]

16. And thank God for that!

But I often wonder if pursuing impeachment - as richly deserved as it may be - could backfire on Democrats.

Coming so close to the campaign season as it would be.

[uponit7771]

17. Historically the party of the impeached has never fared well in elections post impeachment...

... including democrats in 98 seeing they didn't win any new control of any part of the government

[sandensea]

19. I hope you're right

This much we know: if any president ever deserved impeachment, it's this one (and Dubya).

To say nothing of a nice, long stay at Ft. Leavenworth with his brood.

[Kaleva]

13. It's more of a Pro-Let's Wait For Nancy To Decide What To Do majority

[uponit7771]

14. Hmmmm, I'm thinking the dribbling of votes for impeachment gets news coverage

[Celerity]

18. Katie Porter CA-45 (Orange County), one of the Blue Wave new moderates, just came out in favour

on The Last Word With Lawrence O'Donnell.

[pnwmom]

20. The title is wrong. The article actually says a majority of the DEMOCRATS.

That's not the same thing as the majority of the House, which is what would be needed to pass a resolution to start an inquiry of impeachment.

[berni_mccoy]

21. It's the title of the article

And the article concludes: “There is likely a pro-impeachment majority in the House overall,..”

You are really fighting this Impeachment thing...