How Nancy Pelosi could lose the impeachment vote
It isn't likely, but it is possible. Here's how.


Well, here we are. Impeachment articles against President Trump have been introduced — one for abuse of power and one for obstruction of Congress — and a vote in the House is coming soon.
The way forward seems entirely predictable. The Democratic majority in the House will vote "yes" on impeachment and the Republican-controlled Senate will decline to convict. Likewise, polling shows the impeachment inquiry has overwhelmingly served to reinforce Americans' previously held opinions about the president. Fully 95 percent of those who came away more convinced of Trump's guilt already thought he was guilty, and an equal 95 percent of those freshly persuaded of his innocence already believed he hasn't done anything impeachable.
But here's an interesting thing: In survey data collected by Ipsos and FiveThirtyEight at the beginning of this month, 16.5 percent of Democrats said they believe Trump committed an impeachable offense but do not think he should be removed from office via impeachment. Instead, they say, his fate should be left to the voters to decide on Election Day 2020. Another 9.4 percent of Democratic respondents said Trump didn't commit an impeachable offense at all. If those numbers are reflected in Congress, the impeachment articles will fail.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
That outcome is unlikely, I'll grant you — but it's not entirely implausible, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says she's not whipping votes. "On an issue like this, we don't count the votes. People will just make their voices known on it," she told reporters the night before the articles of impeachment were announced. "I haven't counted votes, nor will I."
I don't believe Pelosi has no sense of where each member of her caucus stands on this — or that Democratic representatives are unaware of the preferences of their party's leadership. Yet this statement paired with Pelosi's long reticence (reportedly on electorally strategic grounds) to move forward with impeachment suggests a real willingness to let House Democrats in vulnerable districts vote against the articles if they judge that's what's needed to stay in office and preserve the Democratic majority.
There are 31 House districts that are held by Democrats but which voted for Trump, in some cases by large margins. One of those Democrats — Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), a 15-termer whose district gave Trump a 31-point victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016 — voted against beginning the impeachment inquiry. Peterson seems unlikely to vote for the articles of impeachment, and he may not be alone. For these representatives, it's a lot easier to defend supporting an inquiry ("I just wanted to settle the matter once and for all" or even "I wanted to give the president a fair chance to clear his name") than backing impeachment itself.
With a 235-seat majority (plus one independent, Justin Amash of Michigan, who has expressed support for impeachment) against 197 Republicans, House Democrats can only afford to lose 18 votes. If all 31 Trump-district Democrats vote "no," impeachment fails. If Democratic representatives share their national voter base's perspective from that Ipsos/FiveThirtyEight survey and vote accordingly, a whopping 63 would vote "no," so impeachment definitely fails.
I doubt either of those outcomes are realistic, they make defections in the high teens or low 20s seem possible. And I'm not sure Pelosi (to say nothing of Democrats' presidential candidates) would hate a narrow loss, whatever she says publicly. The Senate verdict remains all but a foregone conclusion — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said he "can't imagine a scenario" in which his chamber would convict and remove Trump, and without an anonymous vote, he's probably correct.
Thus there's a sense in which Democrats' work here is done, a sense in which the impeachment vote, its final fate at trial basically predetermined by the Senate's partisan composition, is irrelevant. The inquiry is what mattered, and the inquiry has happened. The evidence of Trump's malfeasance has been aired. It had its opportunity to sway what few 2020 voters were available to be swayed. The trial, managed by GOP Senate leadership, will not be as politically useful for Democrats. So does it really make a difference if it proceeds? Does it really matter if the impeachment articles pass?
My guess is Pelosi's private answer to these questions is, "Yes, but keeping the House majority matters more." If winning a Senate-doomed impeachment vote means losing the House, I can't imagine that's a victory Pelosi seeks. She probably has the votes — but if she doesn't, that's a plausible scenario in which she wouldn't mind.
Editor's note: This article previously misstated the articles of impeachment leveled against President Trump. It has since been updated.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Bonnie Kristian was a deputy editor and acting editor-in-chief of TheWeek.com. She is a columnist at Christianity Today and author of Untrustworthy: The Knowledge Crisis Breaking Our Brains, Polluting Our Politics, and Corrupting Christian Community (forthcoming 2022) and A Flexible Faith: Rethinking What It Means to Follow Jesus Today (2018). Her writing has also appeared at Time Magazine, CNN, USA Today, Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, and The American Conservative, among other outlets.
-
Netanyahu's Qatar problem
Two of the prime minister's key advisers are accused of taking bribes from the Gulf state in exchange for favourable publicity
By Richard Windsor, The Week UK
-
Cartier at the V&A: a 'dazzling' show
The Week Recommends A 'once-in-a-lifetime' display of the French jeweller's 'exquisite' objects
By Irenie Forshaw, The Week UK
-
Blue Origin all-female flight: one giant leap back for womankind?
Talking Point 'Morally vacuous' celeb space crew embody defeat for feminism
By Richard Windsor, The Week UK
-
13 potential 2028 presidential candidates for both major parties
In Depth A rare open primary for both parties has a large number of people considering a run for president
By David Faris
-
Sen. Booker's 25-hour speech beats Thurmond
Speed Read He spoke for the longest time in recorded Senate history, protesting the Trump administration's policies
By Peter Weber, The Week US
-
Democrats win costly Wisconsin court seat
Speed Read Democrats prevailed in an election for the Wisconsin Supreme Court despite Elon Musk's robust financial support of the Republican candidate
By Peter Weber, The Week US
-
The JFK files: the truth at last?
In The Spotlight More than 64,000 previously classified documents relating the 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy have been released by the Trump administration
By The Week Staff
-
Schumer: Did he betray the Democrats?
Feature 'Schumer had only bad political options'
By The Week US
-
MAGA's push to impeach federal judges
In the Spotlight Trump launches a 'stunning assault' on judicial branch
By Joel Mathis, The Week US
-
Resistance: How should Democrats oppose Trump?
Feature The Democrats’ lack of strategy leaves them struggling against Trump’s agenda
By The Week US
-
Schumer: Democrats will help pass spending bill
Speed Read The Democrats end the threat of government shutdown
By Peter Weber, The Week US