 |
| House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) |
Lost in the era of Trump is the knowledge that, at some point, Trump's time in the public spotlight will reduce, and eventually extinguish all-together, making him someone just in a textbook that you read about in the same way you do Lyndon Johnson or Warren. G. Harding. Yesterday was the day that Donald Trump will be remembered for. If we think back on people like Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, or Bill Clinton, literally the first moment from their presidencies you remember are either their impeachment or their resignations. Trump will forever be marred as a president that broke the law and that the majority of the US House (the largest number ever to convict a president) chose to impeach him. Trump is not a president you assume will be preoccupied with legacy (and seems incapable of understanding that he has failed), but the Trump legacy is going to stand apart as one that was associated with criminal behavior, now with a public repudiation that will be on the records of history.
 |
| President Donald Trump (R-FL) |
That being said, most Americans are focused on the short-term, and certainly most pundits are, and here's a dirty secret-no one knows what this means. Some point to polling that shows Donald Trump's approval up as a sign that the impeachment isn't helping him, but if that were the case, the congressional Democrats' numbers would also be hurt, and they haven't been (they still show a 7-point enthusiasm advantage). The reality is that, like most things in Donald Trump's presidency, it's not clear what will hurt or help. Many assumed that his presidential nomination was doomed when the Access Hollywood video was released, yet he still won. Many have assumed that his coalition of conservative and Midwestern states would be his stronghold, and it could well be...but Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, & Minnesota all elected Democratic governors last year. The reality is that it's not clear impeachment made any impact one way or the other, and that might well be the case in a polarized country. But people who assume this hurts Trump should look at his polling in Wisconsin for proof that it doesn't appear to have harmed him, while those who are panicked that this helps Trump should remember that Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton's parties all lost the next time they were on the ballot-no impeached president's party has ever won the next election.
 |
| Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN) |
With one exception, there wasn't a lot of suspense surrounding yesterday's vote-it went roughly as expected. Going into the day, most Democrats from Trump districts had announced that they would be voting for impeachment, all three Republicans from Clinton districts said they would vote against the impeachment. This speaks in part to the fact that most incumbents still view their primary as one of the harder elections than the general (thanks in large part to gerrymandering). In the coming days, it's possible we could see a telltale sign of polling if, say, Ron Kind (D) of Wisconsin or Brian Fitzpatrick (R) (two of the most vulnerable incumbents as a result of this) were to announce a retirement.
That said, five people crossed over in some capacity. Rep. Justin Amash (I-MI) voted for both counts, which was no surprise as he had basically switched parties for this exact reason. Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN), who represents a seat that went for Trump by 30-points, clearly got the okay from Pelosi that he could vote no and still keep his Agriculture chairmanship; Peterson has been a long-rumored retirement, which could still happen, but one wonders if this is an indication that he will stay on for another term. Peterson is unique in that he is well-liked enough (and Minnesota has open primaries) that he would probably be fine avoiding a progressive challenger here. Jared Golden earned a spot as a political trivia question by voting for one count but not the other (essentially infuriating everyone-I have no idea what Golden was thinking). And finally there was Jeff van Drew, who has clumsily been hiding the secret that he would switch parties today, and only waited so that Trump could have the graphic of multiple Democrats defecting on impeachment. Van Drew has already drawn a quality Democratic opponent in Brigid Harrison, a local political science professor, and will probably struggle to get through the Republican primary as a result of being their opponent for two decades, but Trump at the very least got his graphic, even if van Drew appears to have destroyed his long political career and reputation in the process.
 |
| Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) |
Those four all definitively switched sides-the same can't quite be said for Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. The Hawaii congresswoman, who is currently running for president, voted "Present" for both counts, also making her a political trivia question, and opening up questions about her motives. Unlike Golden, Van Drew, and Peterson, Gabbard doesn't represent a district that Donald Trump won, so there was little practical use of her not voting "Yes" here-in fact, she represents one of the most liberal districts in the country, one that backed Hillary Clinton by 30-points. Gabbard's defection speaks to a hoodwink she's been perpetrating all year with her presidential campaign.
I'm not going to mince words here-I agree with Hillary Clinton that Gabbard is, if not a "Russian agent" (I don't have enough knowledge to say that), someone who is clearly helping Trump and Russia's cause in getting the president a second term. Gabbard's decision to vote "Present" has destroyed her chances of being the Democratic nominee (the nominee will have supported the impeachment hearing in either actual vote or at least in public statement), so her career in Hawaii is over. What appears to be happening is Gabbard is looking at running for a third party bid, perhaps as a "former Democrat" who could siphon off votes from the eventual nominee by giving progressives or moderates who don't like the nominee, but might hold their noses, a chance to vote for a "qualified" candidate in the form of a sitting member of Congress. In a lot of ways she's taking on the role of Jill Stein, except with a stronger national backing and the ability to use her voice in Congress in a way that Stein never could.
 |
| Sen. Susan Collins (D-ME) |
The Senate will (or could...still waiting to see how Pelosi & McConnell handle their stalemate) vote on this, which may have more direct impact on the elections. The vast majority of the senators in 2020 have not had to face the public since Donald Trump became a political figure, and as a result the voters may be more likely to want to unleash the "Trump Era" onto these figures in a way similar to the long list of Republicans who lost in Clinton-won districts in 2018. Doug Jones and Cory Gardner will be put in impossible situations, where they have to vote the party line in a state that will almost certainly back the opposite party at a presidential level. Jones & Gardner are likely to lose regardless of this vote, though, next year. Someone like Susan Collins is running in a state that the Democrat would be heavily favored to hold (Maine)-a vote to quickly dismiss the charges against Trump by Collins would be another hit on the bipartisan image that she once trumpeted, but has now largely gone to shatters since 2016. Then there are figures like Gary Peters, Thom Tillis, Joni Ernst, and Martha McSally, all voting in swing states and having to face their state's voters in 2020-while none are expected to go against their party, they still run the risk of alienating moderates in their state and decreasing split ballots, which could be a problem if their party isn't winning their state. Senators like Joe Manchin & Kyrsten Sinema will be fascinating to watch in general, but that'll be a conversation for a later date as neither will face voters again until Trump is either long out of office or in the final year of his presidency.
No comments:
Post a Comment