,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
I think it's odd that the onus had been placed on Pelosi to argue the negative on impeachment when the affirmative has not been argued like its proponents think it has. An impeachable offense is a necessary condition for deciding to impeach, not a sufficient condition.
In my view, the key purpose of impeachment is removal. It would not achieve that here. Maybe a purpose of impeachment is to express condemnation of the president's acts. I am skeptical that it would be a particularly effective or useful way to do so.
I think a lot of people are yearning for a clear and loud declaration that what the president did was wrong. Partly because they hope that would convince others (unlikely) and partly because it would make them feel good (likely, but not important.)
What I go back to is that the president's poll numbers don't move on Russia news -- positive or negative. That I think is our best indicator of what an impeachment inquiry would be likely to do to public views on the president's actions. I really don't think it would matter.
But without moving the headline approval numbers, it could matter in different ways. I think there are larger opportunities for it to improve Republican intensity than Democratic intensity. It would crowd out other messages. The president would fundraise off it like crazy.
I also think Nancy Pelosi is a very smart political strategist -- I wasn't alone in underestimating how savvy her handling of other aspects of the speakership would be -- and I think it's worth pausing to wonder if she sees something you don't.
But broadly I think a lot of liberals have a framework looking at this: that the president's behavior is so manifestly bad, that people would change their views if they Only Paid Attention. This framework is incorrect and can cause you to misjudge the impeachment question.
