How I see Speaker Pelosi moving her Caucus to Yes

[StarfishSaver]

Last edited Fri Sep 27, 2019, 12:01 PM - Edit history (5)

Many observers seem to think that Speaker Pelosi either is preventing the opening of an impeachment inquiry or is failing to use her power and influence to force her caucus to support it.

That's not how I see it.

Its not the Speaker's job - or advisable or probably even possible - for her to try to single-handedly whip a majority of her caucus into impeaching just by putting pressure on them. While she has enormous influence and power, she can't, completely on her own, turn her entire caucus around on a dime.

Shifting the caucus mood takes time and a concerted, strategic effort.

She's dealing with different equities and issues here and each has to be addressed differently. This is how I see it playing out:

Some Members want an impeachment inquiry opened now, their constituents are behind them and they're outspokenly saying it - they have nothing to lose and everything to gain in calling for the opening of an inquiry.

Some Members want an impeachment inquiry now, but their constituents aren't there yet. Just as you think Pelosi needs to push them to support impeachment, they need to cajole their constituents into supporting it. They know their constituents better than anyone and they know what to do to move them. Members are in a District Work Period now and you can bet the Members in this category are working on selling their constituents on impeachment. There is not much that Pelosi can do to help them with this directly but she can - and is - taking fire for them to give them political cover while they work on it.

However if they're not able to move their constituents but their vote isn't really needed to get the necessary numbers to support the opening of an impeachment inquiry, Pelosi may give them a pass in order to protect them in their district - perhaps with a condition that if she really needs their vote further down the line, she'll get it.

Other Members don't support the opening of an inquiry now, but a significant number of their constituents do. In this case, much of the burden lies on the constituents themselves to push their Member to move toward impeachment. But this is also where Pelosi can be effective by helping to pressure them from the top with the help of other Members of the Caucus who are whipping them from within. That Member-to-Member whipping operation is very strategic and comprehensive. I'm sure this is happening even if we don't see it because this is not done in public, but must be handled internally and very delicately.

And, finally, you have the Members who don't support impeachment and whose constituents also don't support it, either.. They're a tough sell and, depending on their numbers, they might not be worth putting too much effort into convincing if their vote isn't needed to move forward.

As this all happens, Pelosi is keeping track of every vote and where it is and where more can be gotten. When they get close but are a little short, and the other Members can't move their colleagues, THAT's when the Speaker steps in and starts cracking her whip. And she'll drag them over the finish line, if necessary.

Most of this the public never sees - but I have no doubt it's happening. And when we do get to an impeachment inquiry (which I think will happen), it will be seen by the country as their idea, not as something Nancy Pelosi forced on them. And I think she'll be fine not getting credit for her role in making it happen because she that's how she often rolls.

This is in play...

FYI, I worked in the House Democratic whip operation, so my assessment comes from direct personal knowledge.

[rogertn]

1. This doesn't explain her public statements

Why did she say there is a school of thought that says a former President can't be indicted after a failed impeachment?

Why did she say an impeachment inquiry shuts down all other committee investigations?

Theories of Pelosi have to explain her actual statements.

[StarfishSaver]

3. When did she say these things?

[rogertn]

9. Statements

"He knows it’s not a good idea to be impeached, but the silver lining for him is then he believes he would be exonerated by the United States Senate, and there’s a school of thought that says if the Senate acquits you, why bring charges against him in the private sector when he’s no longer president?"

From this week's Jimmy Kimmel show. You must explain why she said that.

Pelosi dismissed this argument, asking Raskin whether he wanted to shut down the other five committees working on Trump investigations in favor of the Judiciary Committee.

“You want to tell Elijah Cummings to go home?” Pelosi quipped, referring to the chairman of the Oversight and Reform Committee.

From closed-door meeting on May 20th. You must explain this statement.

[StarfishSaver]

15. Thanks.

Both of these statements are true.

There IS a school of thought that Trump won't be prosecuted if he's acquitted by the Senate. She didn't say she agreed with it.

But you left out the rest of the quote that puts her comment into context:

He knows it’s not a good idea to be impeached, but the silver lining for him is then he believes that he would be exonerated by the United States Senate. And there is a school of thought that says if the Senate acquits you, why bring charges against him in the private sector when he’s no longer president? So when we go out there with our case, it’s got to be ironclad.”

And she's right that the other investigations will likely shut down if an impeachment inquiry begins because they'll be consolidated into the impeachment process. One of the reasons people are pushing for impeachment rather than oversight investigations is their belief that these issues should be investigated under the impeachment umbrella because, among other things, they think an impeachment panel will be able to secure testimony and material the oversight committess can't.

That said, neither of these statements undermine any observation I made in my OP.

[rogertn]

17. School

If there is such a school of thought, there must be evidence for it. Where is that evidence?

Of course she agrees with that statement! That's why she said it! Adding that last statement doesn't change the context.

And, no, an impeachment inquiry does NOT shut down other investigations. The tax returns, for example, do not involve executive privilege or grand jury issues, which impeachment helps with. Those investigations go on normally. Why did Pelosi use that as an argument?

Pelosi's actual statements, which you include none of, conclusively prove she does not want an impeachment proceeding at all, under any circumstances. (She clearly puts the bar so high it can't be reached).

Under your theory, by what date do the Democrats open an impeachment proceeding? Give a date.

[stopdiggin]

20. your opinion

"Pelosi's actual statements, which you include none of, conclusively prove she does not want an impeachment proceeding at all, under any circumstances."

That's a very big, and very strong (and many would say very wrong) opinion .. paraded around as a statement of fact. The Speaker's public statements do not "conclusively prove" anything like what you have stated. You're entitled to an opinion, but a rant like this just devalues your argument (and the discussion).

[rogertn]

45. Couldn't be clearer

Mar 11, 2019

"I'm not for impeachment," Pelosi said. "This is news. I'm going to give you some news right now because I haven't said this to any press person before. But since you asked, and I've been thinking about this: Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he's just not worth it."

Nov 2017

"It's not someplace that I think we should go..."

[stopdiggin]

46. cherry picking again

Or, if you wanted to be fair about it, you could include a much more recent quote. Which many might suppose indicated current thinking on the subject.

Pelosi, speaking at a Commonwealth Club event just hours after Mueller’s press conference — May 29. 2019

Pelosi said House Democrats were “focused on getting the truth for the American people.”
“Where it will lead us, we will see,” Pelosi said. “Nothing is off the table. But we do want to make such a compelling, ironclad case that even the Republican Senate… will be convinced of the path we have to take as a country.”

But go ahead and cherry pick to your hearts content ..

[watoos]

2. And you are a Constitutional scholar.

[StarfishSaver]

4. Yes, I am.

[PJMcK]

10. Actually, the issue raised by the OP is not a Constitutional issue

Of course, impeachment is outlined in the Constitution.

However, the OP was writing about the politics facing Speaker Pelosi.

They are different things and your snark seemed unnecessary.

[EffieBlack]

19. +1000

[stopdiggin]

21. OP advanced a real level of understanding

And .. the OP lays out some real understanding of nuts and bolts process .. political mechanics, and legislative realities! Thanks! It sometimes seems like we could stand repeated doses of that here at DU.

[democratisphere]

5. Prosecutors are always about the win.

If slippery don the con were to escape a long drawn out impeachment investigation and trial, it would be unlikely any other prosecutors would be willing to put their reputations on the line. Pelosi knows what she is doing, let her do her job.

[watoos]

8. And if Trump is able to stall

Everything in the courts and he gets re-elected the fervor for impeachment will be gone.

[Hekate]

48. Nixon got re-elected.

[watoos]

6. Pelosi was Speaker in 2010

When Republicans won a net 64 seats, not blaming her in the least, but that fact has to be weighing on her mind. This is why I believe that Speaker Pelosi is putting more emphasis on the politics of impeachment.

[StarfishSaver]

7. True - but this isn't just about her -it's also playing into her caucus members' positions

They also remember 2010.

For some reason, people are assuming this is all about and all up to Pelosi. But she's managing a diverse caucus and many Members aren't eager to jump on impeachment because their constituency isn't there yet - and they saw what happened to Members who walked the plank in 2009 and 2010.

[watoos]

12. Your reasoning evaporates

When we look at Justin Amash. He held a town hall and converted his base by laying out his case for impeachment. Why can’t Dems in swing districts be doing the same?

Are we basing impeachment on polls?

[StarfishSaver]

13. How do you know that no Democrats are holding town halls in their districts?

Have you checked the District Work Period schedule of every single Democratic Member?

And it's an exaggeration to say that Amash "converted his base" just because a couple of his constituents were interviewed on TV saying they are now more open to impeachment.

[pazzyanne]

23. Last count there were 51 House Democrats supporting impeachment.

Not enough to even pass in the House. What I see is Nadler and Pelosi working hard to get others on board with as much information as possible before starting impeachment inquiry/ proceedings. They both know their jobs and what they have to do to make this fly in the House IMHO.

[PJMcK]

11. Very good analysis

You outlined the politics that Speaker Pelosi faces succinctly.

Thanks, StarfishSaver.

[pnwmom]

14. Thank you for explaining all this. Too many people have the idea that Nancy should be able to wave

her magic gavel, and 218 Democrats will instantly follow her.

As you very well explained, IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.

And even if it did, 50 of the Dems could then find themselves out of a job in 2020. If Nancy could somehow impose an impeachment resolution, top down, on all the D's, and the people in their districts were opposed, we could find ourselves with Trump re-elected in 2020, with a R House and a R Senate.

In other words, we would be facing the nightmare scenario.

So Nancy has to be very careful about this.

To help her, we should be "whipping" among our own relatives, friends, and neighbors, and contacting our own Reps to let them know how important this is.

[StarfishSaver]

16. Exactly!

You nailed it!

[EffieBlack]

18. Excellent!

Thanks!

[spooky3]

22. I really appreciate your posts. I always learn something. Nt

[lunatica]

24. On a strictly political level

Presidential election campaigns do get people involved who normally don’t pay much attention.

impeachment with both the con and pro sides would be front and center in getting public attention. It’s a well known fact that most of the population is not interested in the daily political machinations going on in Washington DC. Most of the people I know don’t follow politics closely EXCEPT in Presidential elections.

Not only is impeachment the right thing to do, but the timing for it is as perfect as it can be. I do think a little later, when a the debates start thinning out the Democratic candidates, impeachment would be better, and I think Pelosi has this in mind. She is trying to guide the timing so the hearings will have maximum political effect. I certainly would if I were in Congress. I also happen to think McConnell is doing his version of timing. He evidently believes that impeachment will hurt the Democrats so he is goading them to do it. Perhaps to have it done prematurely so it can be either forgotten or used against the Democrats politically.

I happen to think that Pelosi, regarding impeachment, is in the stronger position. If the Democratic hearings can actually get started the information coming out of them will begin to seriously get people’s attention. And it will be that information that will fuel the perception that impeachment is necessary. Pelosi will get the support she needs to then press for impeachment. This is why Trump is ordering his staff not to obey Congress’s subpoenas. Because he knows he’s toast when millions of Americans are paying attention to the hearings. He can’t bluff his way through hearings about him and his crimes because his crimes are fascinating. They will be like a reality show on steroids. He will continue his insane obstruction but he won’t be able to divert the public’s attention away from this real reality show. On the contrary his efforts to obstruct will only serve to bring attention to it. He will be beaten on his favorite battleground.

Also, the subject of impeachment will be a legitimate and even necessary top topic of all the town meetings and campaign stump speeches. As a matter of fact impeachment will serve as campaign fodder to be used against the Republicans who are seeking re-election whether it is to Congress or on the local state level. That’s why the moment for maximum effect is now. It can be used against the Republicans for years. They will be known as the people who backed the criminal impeached President.

Aside from all that strictly political goldmine stuff, it also happens to be the right thing to do. Sometimes politics as usual gives way to political imperative for the betterment of the entire country. History will show the impeachment of Trump as a pivotal moment in Democratic principles that will rescue this country from the lurch into authoritarianism that is presently happening.

[LiberalLovinLug]

25. "Its not the Speaker's job (.) for her to try to (.) whip a majority of her caucus into impeachment"

So is the Speaker's job to whip a majority of her caucus into staying mum and sitting on their hands? In the face of obvious impeachable behaviour? Because that is what she is doing.

Like a sports team playing an important game. You either play to win or play 'not to lose'. The latter rarely works.

[StarfishSaver]

29. I don't think you read my entire OP

Please read the whole thing and I think you will conclude that I believe it's "the Speaker's job to whip a majority of her caucus into staying mum and sitting on their hands" since not only did I not say that, I made just the opposite point in considerable detail.

[LiberalLovinLug]

47. I don't think you made the opposite point at all

I re-read your entire post. You seem to be implying that Nancy actually DOES want impeachment, but is moving as quickly as possible. Its just that its tricky with differing levels of support amongst both reps and constituents. But the end game is to get everyone in line eventually with impeachment.

IMO, Nancy does not want impeachment. For reasons I could speculate on but it would just be speculation, and I may get into trouble on here doing that. Either way she is dead set that the best way forward is not to disturb the apple cart with impeachment hearings. She either believes simply trying to hold hearings (when no one shows up) will be enough. Or that the public wants to see Democrats stop needling Trump and get on with business, like passing an infrastructure bill.

And she is, not working with her members, to impeach, but to quell the calls for impeachment. And IMO its a huge mistake. I think she is failing to see the big picture.

I think those more troublesome ridings where either the rep or the constituents or both, are not polling in favour, would jump on board if impeachment was started. Especially once the dirt started to build. Just do it!

[StarfishSaver]

50. If Speaker Pelosi wanted "to quell the calls for impeachment'

Members wouldn't be all over to calling for impeachment. She'd have shut that sh#t down months ago.

And, it's one thing to disagree with her approach. But, with all due respect, the idea that the Speaker of the House is "failing to see the big picture" that YOU can see and feel the need to explain to her is absurd. She can see everything you can see, and she sees and knows much more than you or I can even imagine.

[PunkinPi]

26. K&R

[Funtatlaguy]

27. So, you were a whip? Dominatrix type or more subtle?

[StarfishSaver]

30. Much more subtle than that ...

[Funtatlaguy]

34. Pity

[StarfishSaver]

36. Sorry

[empedocles]

28. In the Age of Weakened Speakers, Pelosi sems to be doing powerful, effective work.

[Karadeniz]

31. As Amash's town hall showed, lots of educating the public is needed! Not only about Trump's

Crimes, but also about the threat to democracy the GOP now poses. Trumpers mistake a dictator for a strong leader. They don't think they need information. Trusting gut instinct is sufficient.

I understand Warren s qualms about going on Fox, but the voters who need help aren't watching Rachel.

[StarfishSaver]

32. The people who watch Fox and only Fox aren't going to listen to Elizabeth Warren

even of she's right in their face.

[dlk]

33. Public Hearings, With or Without an Impeachment Inquiry Will Bring Americans Around

For many, seeing is believing. I trust Pelosi. She’s the savviest politician in Washington & knows exactly what she is doing.

[Me.]

35. I Am So With You On This

+++++

[mcar]

37. Speaker Pelosi never brings anything to a vote

unless she knows how her caucus is voting. She is a master strategist.

At least some of those attacking her now all over the internet don't seem to even know that impeachment does not equal removal from office. Yet they think they can lecture, demand and slam her.

[StarfishSaver]

38. Not only doesn't she call votes until she has the numbers, she takes the heat for her caucus

while she quietly helps them move in the right direction.

Just look at the coverage. She's taking all of the fire for not jumping into impeachment when the reason she's not all in is that 2/3 of her caucus isn't ready. But you rarely see any if the reticent Members being called out - and you definitely don't see Pelosi or other Members publicly shaming them. She knows they have to do what they have to do to get to yes, and she's giving them the time, space and cover to do it while, in the meantime, she takes their ass-whuppin for them.

That's what real leaders do.

[mcar]

39. This!

Just like in 2018, she takes the heat and let's her caucus do what they need to. She is an amazing leader.

Pity many on the left and the media don't get that.

[Hortensis]

56. Yes. This! She's a pro, and all those years of

experience have brought her to this. She doesn't work alone, thank goodness. This has to be a terrible burden for all of them, no matter how tough and disciplined they are.

If only we had been able to give her and the others a senate majority to work with, instead of battling for the soul of our nation. How incredibly different it would be.

[DeminPennswoods]

40. House members will get back to DC on Monday

They've been busy out with their constituents, listening to what they have to say. There are moderate Dems like my rep and Katie Porter who have been getting increased feedback to start an impeachment inquiry after Mueller held his presser.

Dems will caucus as a group and Pelosi will get a good feel for where things are and are moving.

[Bradical79]

41. I think she has come across as weak

and has downplayed the significance of Trump's corruption, posibly harming the Democratic position and our Republic. Hopefully you're right and I'm wrong though.

[StarfishSaver]

42. Frankly, I don't think she cares how she comes across. She cares about getting the job done

It's not her job to be popular with the public. It's her job to work with and represent her caucus. And just as she probably doesn't care what the base thinks about her personally, she's also not worried about getting the glory when she delivers the goods.

And if you believe that she's "downplayed the significance of Trump's corruption," you must not be listening to her.

[kacekwl]

53. Isn't the whole point of her or any politician job

to be popular with the public ? That's pretty much is how you win elections.

[StarfishSaver]

54. No, it's not the Speaker's job to be popular with the public

Her job is to organize her caucus.

And, as a congresswoman, she's VERY popular with the constituents.

Funny how, on the one hand, people say it doesn't matter that impeachment isn't popular with the public. But, on the other people say that Pelosi should worry about whether she's popular with the public.

Interesting.

[NewsCenter28]

43. If it's what you say, I love it!

Thank you so much for this contribution to the board SS! Despite our disagreement several weeks ago, I think we largely agree on what really counts here!

Hope you get what I did with my subject line too haha!

[StarfishSaver]

44. Thanks!

And yes, I see what you did there ...

[Hekate]

49. Thanks very much for your OP and follow-up posts, StarfishSaver

I'm enjoying your posts more and more.

[watoos]

51. It's too soon is not

A good rallying cry. I hear many say it will only be a Constitutional crisis when Trump defies the orders of the court. Barr has defied the orders of a federal judge, so what’s the next red line? Trump ignores election results? When will impeachment be soon enough? When will the Mueller report, the counterintelligence investigation, grand jury testimony be released?
If Speaker Pelosi called for an impeachment inquiry she would have every Dem. on board, saying that she doesn’t have the votes is a cop out.

[StarfishSaver]

52. It's not the Speaker's job to issue "rallying cries" to the public

It's to organize and represent her caucus.

And if you think all a Speaker has to do is calls for a course of action and every Democrat in the caucus will "get on board," well ...

No, it doesn't work that way.

[Gothmog]

55. I trust Speaker Pelosi

I think that she is handling this issue in a very appropriate manner