This is a nice thought, but it's a flawed concept. Here's why:
1) This is not a promise you can make in good faith. You don't know what else they'll vote on before November and there would be a Dem running a campaign to remind you how terrible they are. And we need the seat.
1/
1) This is not a promise you can make in good faith. You don't know what else they'll vote on before November and there would be a Dem running a campaign to remind you how terrible they are. And we need the seat.
1/
2) It's not enough to vote for them in November. They HAVE to win the Republican primary. So enough Dems would have to vote in their primary instead of ours. It's never going to happen.
This isn't intended as a criticism, just an academic exercise.
2/2
This isn't intended as a criticism, just an academic exercise.
2/2
^^ This speaks to what factors into their decision. Yes, voting to remove is "the right thing to do" but there is zero personal gain or reward. Only negatives. I know you think you know what you would do but you can't argue it's an easy decision.
3/
3/
There's also the "prisoner's dilemma" element. Voting to remove only to have him exonerated anyway doesn't help anybody. So you'd have to trust your whip count, knowing everyone is weighing the same dilemma plus any potential dirty tricks by McConnell and Trump.
4/
4/
