No, Not ALL The House Democrats Are Cowards Worthy Of Contempt

Their time is passed for the kind of energy it would take to fight for impeachment-- old and in the way

There are various whip counts of which Democrats support and which Democrats do not support impeachment. The New York Times tally says 54 House Democrats support impeachment, 58 do not support it and 123 have not committed. And then there's Justin Amash, the only House Republican to support impeachment. It takes just 118 votes to approve a resolution to begin a formal impeachment process. None of the whip counts are the same. For example, take the Times' interpretation of Judiciary Committee member Karen Bass' spokesperson: "If there’s a vote on opening an impeachment inquiry in the House Judiciary Committee, Representative Bass would vote yes, as indicated by her voting record established by the two votes she’s already taken on the House floor against tabling an impeachment resolution." The Times puts her under the "59 do not support now or undecided" column. I'd put her in the "56 support" column. But we'll use The Times faulty whip list anyway, since they're all faulty. First off, there are 13 on the Judiciary Committee Democrats calling for impeachment (not including Bass). There are 8 Judiciary Committee members most of whom are basically sating, "You may not have noticed before, but I have no brain and I will do whatever Pelosi tells me to do. Best example-- Hakeem Jeffries: "not at this time." Others, like Bass, are more nuanced. Eric Swalwell says he is "preparing for impeachment," which doesn't sound like a no to me. Most members are just hiding and refusing to answer. My Twitter followers answered this question correctly: 

I've arranged the ones who are for impeachment by their district's PVI. The bluer the district, the higher on the list (and the more likely they are unlikely to get into any political trouble back home by backing impeachment (bolded members are on the Judiciary Committee):

• Adriano Espaillat (NY-13)- D+43
• Dwight Evans (PA-03)- D+41
• Barbara Lee (CA-13)- D+40
• Danny Davis (IL-07)- D+38
• Nanette Barragán (CA-44)- D+35
• Ayanna Pressley (MA-07)- D+34
• Pramila Jayapal (WA-07)- D+33
• Rashida Tlaib (MI-13)- D+33
• Chuy Garcia (IL-04)- D+33
• AOC (NY-14)- D+29
• Maxine Waters (CA-43)- D+29
• Robin Kelly (IL-02)- D+29
• Al Green (TX-09)- D+29
• Steve Cohen (TN-09)- D+28
• Brendan Boyle (PA-02)- D+27
• Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18)- D+27
• Bobby Rush (IL-01)- D+27
• Ilhan Omar (MN-05)- D+26
• Cedric Richmond (LA-02)- D+25
• Earl Blumenauer (OR-3)- D+24
• Jared Huffman (CA-02)- D+22
• Juan Vargas (CA-51)- D+22
• Mark DeSaulnier (CA-11)- D+21
• Don Beyer (VA-08)- D+21
• Mike Quigley (IL-05)- D+20
• Norma Torres (CA-35)- D+19
• Mark Pocan (WI-02)- D+18
• Alama Adams (NC-12)- D+18
• Veronica Escobar (TX-16)- D+17
• G.K. Butterfield (NC-01)- D+17
• Ted Lieu (CA-33)- D+16
• Lloyd Doggett (TX-35)- D+15
• Jamie Raskin (MD-08)- D+14
• Betty McCollum (MN-04)- D+14
• David Cicciline (RI-01)- D+14
• Bennie Thompson (MS-02)- D+14
• Alan Lowenthal (CA-47)- D+13
• Mary Gay Scanlon (PA-05)- D+13
• Raul Grijalva (AZ-03)- D+13
• Val Demings (FL-10)- D+11
• Joaquin Castro (TX-20)- D+10
• Filemon Vela (TX-34)- D+10
• Joe Neguse (CO-02)- D+9
• Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01)- D+9
• Jim McGovern (MA-02)- D+9
• Chellie Pingree (ME-01)- D+8
• Tim Ryan (OH-13)- D+7
• Madeleine Dean (PA-04)- D+7
• Paul Tonko (NY-20)- D+7
• John Yarmuth (KY-03)- D+6
• Seth Moulton (MA-06)- D+6
• Darren Soto (FL-09)- D+5
• Greg Stanton (AZ-09)- D+4
• Kathleen Rice (NY-04)- D+4

• Tom Malinowski (NJ-07)- R+3

Young Tom grew up to be a courageous congressman from New Jersey

You'll notice that the one Democrat taking a relatively big chance is TomMalinowski, a freshman, in a red-leaning district and where this will absolutely be an issue. Trump isn't particularly popular there, though-- having lost to Hillary 48.6% to 47.5%.

Everyone has their own reasons for deciding to go for it or not go for it-- and they're not always apparent. Rep. Danny Davis (D) is in a deep blue district where voters hate Trump (he only carried 9.2% of the vote there in 2016) but his motivation may have had more to do with the fact that he has a strong progressive opponent this cycle, Kina Collins. In fact, last night Collins told us that "There is no middle ground for me. We need to investigate him, and we need to impeach him. There has been a complete breach of trust, and a breakdown of the checks and balances that are constitutionally bound. In our current political climate, it is critical that we elevate new leaders who will take bold action. I will not shy away from difficult political fights, and I stand by Congresswoman Maxine Waters who has talked about impeachment from the very beginning. I wonder why it has taken this long for so many other Democrats to step up."

Another interesting dynamic is the one in Rhode Island. There are 2 House seats, one held by David Cicciline, a progressive, and the other by Jim Langevin, a moderate. There's a 50-50 chance that after the census, Rhode Island is going to wind up with just one seat, which could easily result in a Cicciline vs Jim Langevin. And right now, Cicciline is pushing aggressively for impeachment and Langevin's spokesman said "Congressman Langevin does not support opening an inquiry at this time."

In yesterday's Washington Post, Greg Sargent offered data from Nixon's impeachment to show how public support for impeachment would grow (if the Democrats grew a pair). "In early 1973," he explained, "Gallup polling showed that only 19 percent of Americans supported removing President Richard M. Nixon. By the summer of 1974, when Nixon resigned, support had climbed to the high 50s-- which illustrates that on impeachment, public opinion can be moved in a big way, including, presumably on Trump." He pointed to Clyburn lame appearance on CNN over the weekend whining about bringing the public along. before they start impeachment.

So now let’s look at what happened with Nixon in that regard. Gallup provided me with this breakdown of four of its national polls on impeachment (the question wording shifts midway through):

As you can see, among Republicans, support for impeachment or removal moved from 6 percent in June of 1973, to 31 percent in August 1974.

Among independents, those numbers moved from 18 percent to 55 percent. And among Democrats, they moved from 27 percent to 71 percent.

In some ways, this offers more grist for believing that public opinion can be shifted again. Note that the shift was more substantial among independents, eventually amounting to a solid majority, than it was among Republicans.

Right now, independents are a key reason public support for impeachment is low. A recent Post-ABC News poll, which found that only 37 percent of Americans support beginning impeachment proceedings while 56 percent oppose it, also found that among independents, those numbers are 36 percent to 59 percent.

The Gallup numbers on Nixon suggest that big shifts among independents are possible and show that a substantially larger percentage of independents now support impeachment hearings than at the outset in Nixon’s day.

In other words, it might be possible to build majority support for an impeachment inquiry on Trump, even if Republican voters don’t ever move much on this question.

How support grew for impeaching Nixon

Princeton historian Julian Zelizer, the co-author of a new book on U.S. history, points out that some jumps in support for impeaching Nixon came after high-profile events.

For instance, Zelizer noted, the jump in July 1974 came after the House Judiciary Committee launched impeachment hearings in May 1974, and the subsequent jump in August 1974 came after the Committee approved articles of impeachment in July of that year.

It’s clear from the data that impeachment proceedings provided the jolt that shook the public, among independents in particular,” Zelizer told me. “An independent by nature is not going to make a quick decision. Impeachment proceedings and then the approval of articles of impeachment are what ended up moving independents.”

“This wasn’t Congress waiting on the public,” Zelizer added. “It was the other way around-- Congress provided guidance to the public.”

Democratic leaders insist an impeachment inquiry must have bipartisan support, meaning Republicans must come around. If that doesn’t happen, goes this argument, the Senate will acquit, so an impeachment inquiry will rip the country apart and potentially alienate swing voters while resulting in no serious consequences for Trump.

But if anything, this new data casts doubt on that approach. It raises the possibility that public opinion can be shifted in the middle regardless of whether Republicans ever support an inquiry in large percentages. What’s more, note that Republican support for impeaching Nixon never even reached one-third even at the end of the process.

And given current realities-- deep partisan polarization, and the massive media propaganda apparatus Trump enjoys that Nixon never had-- it’s plausible that Republicans could never come around in even those numbers. “Republican voters might be much less movable than in 1974,” Zelizer noted.

Here’s Gallup’s data on Nixon’s approval over the same period:

Try to imagine Trump’s approval among Republicans falling to 50 percent, and you get the idea.

It’s possible that because of this polarization, Republican-leaning independents might also be less movable, but we cannot know this in advance. And it’s also true that in Nixon’s day, there was far more time in advance of the next election to build support, but that perhaps argues for more prompt action now.

The bottom line is that insisting that even an impeachment inquiry can’t happen until Republicans support one might be tantamount to giving Republican intransigence-- and Trump’s disinformation network-- total veto power over whether our political system ever even considers the question of whether Trump’s corruption and misconduct amount to the high crimes and misdemeanors that merit removal.

That is likely tantamount to saying it can never happen at all. If that’s the real point, Democratic leaders should say so.

In fairness, Democratic leaders argue that pushing forward with oversight outside impeachment will shed light on Trump’s misdeeds, and that if this builds support for an inquiry, it might then be appropriate.

Look: If Democrats score multiple oversight wins in court, and new light is being shed on Trump’s corruption, it would be somewhat understandable if they then refrained from an inquiry, though the case for one has already been strong for many months.

But as many legal experts have pointed out, an inquiry would strengthen Democrats’ hands in these very same oversight battles, making success more likely. And if Democrats lose a bunch of them, and we find ourselves in the fall, and Democrats don’t want to launch one due to the looming election, then what?

If you oppose an inquiry, but also want Trump held accountable, you should at least engage with the risks embedded in this scenario-- and with the fact that the current conduct of Democrats could dramatically influence public opinion on the impeachment question. It’s not enough to simply declare that opinion tilts against an inquiry. Democrats don’t lack agency here.