How Many Senate Seats Will Trump's Toxicity Cost The GOP? Could Be A Solid 5, Maybe 6.

Cory Gardner got a free plane ride, but... there are no free plane rides

There's little doubt at this point that the House is going to impeach Trump. There may even be a handful of House Republicans-- in swing districts where Trump is loathed-- who vote with the Democrats. But then... the Senate's red wall of injustice. I was fascinated by Lindsey Graham's Trump-inspired resolution of disapproval of the House inquiry process. The resolution itself is infantile and just plain silly-- exactly what you might expect from a conflicted, panic-mode closet case-- but what I was fascinated by was how 9 Republican senators-- under intense pressure-- refused to co-sponsor it. Aside from pointing out that Lamar Alexander (TN), Mike Enzi (WY) and Johnny Isakson (GA) have announced their retirements and that Dan Sullivan (AK) is rumored to be about to, I don't want to get into motivations and calculus. The others who refused were Mitt Romney (UT), Rob Portman (OH), Lisa Murkowski (AK) and then two of the three most vulnerable GOP incumbents, Susan Collins (ME) and Cory Gardner (CO). The third, Martha McSally (AZ) has apparently decided on a full-on all base reelection strategy and is sticking close to Trump; she co-sponsored Lindsey's nonsense. Same with Thom Tillis (NC) and Joni Ernst (IA), who may be throwing out their reelection chances by backing Trump. WAIT! After Trump went bonkers on the holdouts, they all signed on as co-sponsors except Susan Collins, Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski. Nancy Ohanian captured, in Disorganized Crime just what Lindsey's resolution seeks to protect (left to right): Gordon Sondland, William Barr, Mike Pompeo, Señor Trumpanzee, Vlad the Impaler, Mike Pence, Rudy Giuliani, Mick Mulvaney, Rick Perry and Pete Sessions.

One frustrated Republican senator told Hill reporter Alexander Bolton that Trump is losing the impeachment battle. "Does he need to be so unhinged? He says the dumbest things... [T]here needs to be a coordinated response to everything. There needs to be a coordinated effort to just shut up."

Other Trump allies say the president’s frequent zigging and zagging makes it tougher to defend him against Democratic attacks, even though they also acknowledge that past efforts to tamp down on Trump’s tweeting have proved unsuccessful.

“I think it could be helpful to have a more professional, coordinated communications effort. However, you have to be very careful to not prohibit Donald Trump from being Donald Trump and that’s the risk you run when you start institutionalizing these things,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND).

But Cramer said Trump’s unpredictability makes it tougher for GOP allies to defend the president.

“The reason it’s difficult is sometimes he changes in midstream and when that happens you find yourself out on a limb that has suddenly been cut off,” he said. “The lack of that sort of institutional discipline does make it more difficult for the rest of us, if you will, as we’re trying to carry his message.”

[John] Thune (R-SD) on Thursday expressed his hope the White House messaging operation would become more organized in the weeks ahead.

“It always is an advantage to make sure that you are as organized, prepared and coordinated as you possibly can be. And to the degree they can step up the efforts, that’s great,” he said.

“I’ll leave that to them and I’m sure they’re preparing,” he added. “We’ll see if the House proceeds. If they do, they’re going to have be able to respond and put on a defense.”

As damaging revelations pile up, more and more senators such as McSally and Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), who both declined to comment on impeachment-related questions Thursday, are opting to stay quiet rather than defend the president.

The NY Times' Catie Edmondson and Emily Cochrane took it from there, noting that "Senate Republicans facing steep re-election races next year know the impeachment inquiry coursing steadily ahead on the other side of the Capitol will determine President Trump’s political fate. Their growing fear is that it will also determine their own. In a matter of weeks, those few senators have watched helplessly as the investigation by House Democrats has lobbed a grenade into the middle of their campaigns, putting them on the defensive amid a torrent of damaging revelations about the president’s conduct with no clear end in sight. It has tightened the squeeze they were already feeling between a political base that demands unquestioning loyalty to Mr. Trump, and the moderate swing voters who may very well decide their elections. And it is one reason that support for the president in the Republican-led Senate appears to be subtly softening, a phenomenon that some of his own advisers fear that Mr. Trump does not fully appreciate."

Senator Cory Gardner of Colorado, known as a talented campaigner, abruptly walked away from a filmed interview last weekend to avoid answering a question about the military assistance Mr. Trump withheld from Ukraine, a central issue in the inquiry into whether the president enlisted a foreign government to smear his political opponents. In brisk dashes back to their offices, Senators Martha McSally of Arizona and Joni Ernst of Iowa, quickly pivoted to other issues such as rising health care costs, border security and the trade deal with Mexico and Canada. And Senator Susan Collins of Maine has rebuffed any effort to get her to weigh in on impeachment, saying that doing so could jeopardize her impartiality as a juror in an increasingly inevitable trial of the president.

It is not an attractive prospect for senators already toiling to balance between appealing to a conservative base they badly need to win re-election and drawing the support of more centrist voters who polls show support the impeachment inquiry.

...Some endangered Republicans have also carefully eyed blueprints tested by senators considered to be among the savviest in the conference. Senators Rob Portman of Ohio and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, have offered one alternative: staking out the position in interviews with local publications that while Mr. Trump’s call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine may have been inappropriate, it is not impeachable.

Of the most vulnerable cluster of senators, only one has offered a full-throated defense of Mr. Trump: Mr. Tillis. But Mr. Tillis also has the most immediate threat to counter: a credible primary challenge from Garland Tucker, a deep-pocketed businessman who has accused the lawmaker of disloyalty to the president in a series of ad buys on Fox News.

“I see nothing there that rises to a level of impeachment,” Mr. Tillis said in an interview this month, describing the account the White House released of Mr. Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian president. “I’m not going to get into any nuanced questions, or choices, the president made. I’m looking at the plain letter of the transcript, and I see nothing that rises to a level of impeachment.”

For their part, Democratic candidates challenging incumbent senators have largely shied away from using their responses as a vein of attack, though some see the lackluster response and viral video clips as a way to tie incumbents even more directly to the president and sway independent voters.