For impeachment to have any practical consequence, at least 18 Senate Republicans would have to agree to remove Trump from office (or ban him from future office)
The sole Republican who was willing to do so last time, Romney, indicated yesterday he'd prefer waiting it out.
Democrats may have moral or political reasons to pursue impeachment, but the "getting Trump out of office early" really does come down to Republicans and there's no way around it.
Ben Sasse says this morning he will "consider" Democratic impeachment articles. First public sign of any GOP senator's openness to removal.
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO): "There is no way we're going to impeach the President. There's not the time to do it... it's obviously just another political point trying to be made."
I think any take on the nature of the "Republican Party" re: Trump's election-stealing effort really has to grapple with the fact that no R swing state governor, swing state legislature leader, judge helped him in any substantive way. And McConnell and Barr didn't either
What's unfolding now is that Trump is making corrupt requests (that don't seem to be working), and that many House Rs and some Senate Rs (though not Senate R leaders) are willing to back him in a congressional vote that's 100% certain to fail.
Judges overwhelmingly spurned him, as did GA/AZ statewide officials. McConnell says it's over. Barr said no fraud. GA/AZ/WI/MI/PA state legislature leaders responded to calls for their intervention by putting their fingers in the ears and saying "la la la I can't hear you."
There's some surprisingly good stuff in Congress's end-of-year bills that hasn't gotten much attention because it doesn't really fit anyone's narrative
One is the ban on anonymous shell companies @cjcmichel discusses in this great thread and calls "the most sweeping counter-kleptocracy reforms in decades—potentially ever"
The coronabus package also contained "the most substantial energy legislation passed in the US in over a decade" per @drvolts who discusses its provisions, including major restrictions on HFCs, here volts.wtf/p/congress-mig…
I do think this is relevant to the discussion @perrybaconjr and @whstancil recently had about the divide between older, cautious Democratic leaders and the (relatively) younger generation more open to partisan confrontation bluegrassbeat.substack.com/p/how-cities-m…
.@whstancil cites the brutal 1968-88 period for Dems (presidentially) as shaping this thinking. But for Congress you don't have to go back that far.
Dems lost the House in 1994, couldn't get it back for 12 years. They lost it again 4 years later, couldn't get it back for 8 years
To me the generous interpretation is that Pelosi believes she knows, from hard-won experience, that Democratic majorities are very fragile — and that, if you lose them, it could take a very long time to get them back.
The context here was amidst the push for Clinton's health reform plan. Pelosi wanted to push the bill to the left. Instead no agreement could be reached and nothing passed. Democrats lost both houses of Congress in historic wipeout later that year
They hold 3 seats in Trump '16-'20 states (Manchin, Tester, Brown). Rs hold 1 seat that voted D in both years (Collins).
Also, there are 10 seats in Trump '16-Biden '20 states. Ds hold 6, Rs 2, other 2 are TBD in Georgia.
In 2016 Trump won 30 states despite losing the popular vote by 2. That has terrifying Senate implications for Ds (if Rs won both seats in all those states, they'd have 60 seats!).
But 2018 saw wins from Manchin, Tester, Brown, Sinema, Casey, Baldwin, Stabenow in Trump '16 states
Re: the map — presidential results:
2012: D+3.9 popular vote, Ds win 26 states
2016: D+2.1 popular vote, Rs win 30 states
2020: D+4.4 popular vote, Ds win 25 states