How Nancy Pelosi could lose the impeachment vote
It isn't likely, but it is possible. Here's how.
Well, here we are. Impeachment articles against President Trump have been introduced — one for abuse of power and one for obstruction of Congress — and a vote in the House is coming soon.
The way forward seems entirely predictable. The Democratic majority in the House will vote "yes" on impeachment and the Republican-controlled Senate will decline to convict. Likewise, polling shows the impeachment inquiry has overwhelmingly served to reinforce Americans' previously held opinions about the president. Fully 95 percent of those who came away more convinced of Trump's guilt already thought he was guilty, and an equal 95 percent of those freshly persuaded of his innocence already believed he hasn't done anything impeachable.
But here's an interesting thing: In survey data collected by Ipsos and FiveThirtyEight at the beginning of this month, 16.5 percent of Democrats said they believe Trump committed an impeachable offense but do not think he should be removed from office via impeachment. Instead, they say, his fate should be left to the voters to decide on Election Day 2020. Another 9.4 percent of Democratic respondents said Trump didn't commit an impeachable offense at all. If those numbers are reflected in Congress, the impeachment articles will fail.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
That outcome is unlikely, I'll grant you — but it's not entirely implausible, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says she's not whipping votes. "On an issue like this, we don't count the votes. People will just make their voices known on it," she told reporters the night before the articles of impeachment were announced. "I haven't counted votes, nor will I."
I don't believe Pelosi has no sense of where each member of her caucus stands on this — or that Democratic representatives are unaware of the preferences of their party's leadership. Yet this statement paired with Pelosi's long reticence (reportedly on electorally strategic grounds) to move forward with impeachment suggests a real willingness to let House Democrats in vulnerable districts vote against the articles if they judge that's what's needed to stay in office and preserve the Democratic majority.
There are 31 House districts that are held by Democrats but which voted for Trump, in some cases by large margins. One of those Democrats — Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), a 15-termer whose district gave Trump a 31-point victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016 — voted against beginning the impeachment inquiry. Peterson seems unlikely to vote for the articles of impeachment, and he may not be alone. For these representatives, it's a lot easier to defend supporting an inquiry ("I just wanted to settle the matter once and for all" or even "I wanted to give the president a fair chance to clear his name") than backing impeachment itself.
With a 235-seat majority (plus one independent, Justin Amash of Michigan, who has expressed support for impeachment) against 197 Republicans, House Democrats can only afford to lose 18 votes. If all 31 Trump-district Democrats vote "no," impeachment fails. If Democratic representatives share their national voter base's perspective from that Ipsos/FiveThirtyEight survey and vote accordingly, a whopping 63 would vote "no," so impeachment definitely fails.
I doubt either of those outcomes are realistic, they make defections in the high teens or low 20s seem possible. And I'm not sure Pelosi (to say nothing of Democrats' presidential candidates) would hate a narrow loss, whatever she says publicly. The Senate verdict remains all but a foregone conclusion — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said he "can't imagine a scenario" in which his chamber would convict and remove Trump, and without an anonymous vote, he's probably correct.
Thus there's a sense in which Democrats' work here is done, a sense in which the impeachment vote, its final fate at trial basically predetermined by the Senate's partisan composition, is irrelevant. The inquiry is what mattered, and the inquiry has happened. The evidence of Trump's malfeasance has been aired. It had its opportunity to sway what few 2020 voters were available to be swayed. The trial, managed by GOP Senate leadership, will not be as politically useful for Democrats. So does it really make a difference if it proceeds? Does it really matter if the impeachment articles pass?
My guess is Pelosi's private answer to these questions is, "Yes, but keeping the House majority matters more." If winning a Senate-doomed impeachment vote means losing the House, I can't imagine that's a victory Pelosi seeks. She probably has the votes — but if she doesn't, that's a plausible scenario in which she wouldn't mind.
Editor's note: This article previously misstated the articles of impeachment leveled against President Trump. It has since been updated.
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Bonnie Kristian was a deputy editor and acting editor-in-chief of TheWeek.com. She is a columnist at Christianity Today and author of Untrustworthy: The Knowledge Crisis Breaking Our Brains, Polluting Our Politics, and Corrupting Christian Community (forthcoming 2022) and A Flexible Faith: Rethinking What It Means to Follow Jesus Today (2018). Her writing has also appeared at Time Magazine, CNN, USA Today, Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, and The American Conservative, among other outlets.
-
The importance of discussing and dealing with debt
The Explainer Increasing numbers of people have 'problem debt' – but there are ways to tackle it
By Marc Shoffman, The Week UK Published
-
'Trump heavy on retribution, light on cash'
Today's Newspapers A roundup of the headlines from the US front pages
By The Week Staff Published
-
Crossword: March 19, 2024
The Week's daily crossword
By The Week Staff Published
-
Hur defends description of Biden's 'poor memory'
speed read Former special counsel Robert Hur defended disparaging remarks made about Biden's age in his report
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
'Democrats litigate; Republicans fight.'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Harold Maass, The Week US Published
-
'Shut these dangerous and parasitical robots down before it's too late'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Harold Maass, The Week US Published
-
'Has the government simply become too big to manage?'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Harold Maass, The Week US Published
-
What exactly is the role of the DNC and RNC?
In Depth Each major party organ looms large in an election year, but their actual operations are often misunderstood
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
'The problem with climate change is the disconnect between action and impact'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Harold Maass, The Week US Published
-
'Haley's decision to stay in this race could make sense'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Harold Maass, The Week US Published
-
Is the House GOP's Biden impeachment drive dead?
Speed Read FBI informant Alexander Smirnov has been indicted after admitting Russian intelligence fed him a false story about President Joe Biden
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published