The impeachment dilemma

This week Electoral-Vote responded to a question from "A.M., Miami Beach" on why House Democrats are not eager to pursue impeachment against Trump.  The response is, I think, worth quoting in full:

What the Democrats are thinking about is the Bill Clinton impeachment of 1998, which not only failed to secure a conviction, but also ginned up the Democratic base, and so backfired against the Republicans. And that was with a president who did not have Twitter or a penchant for publicly blasting his enemies in coarse language. There is every reason to think that, in the hands of Donald Trump, an impeachment would give him exactly what he needs to drive his base into a frenzy. It might also serve to persuade Independents that the blue team is "just as bad" as the red team, and that both major parties are basically the same. So, the political risks here are significant.

At the same time, the benefits of impeachment would not appear to be all that great. There is little chance of a conviction, given the GOP-controlled Senate, and even if Trump somehow was removed, it would be with less than a year left in his presidency. You suggest that an impeachment proceeding would allow the Democrats to lay out the evidence against him, but the fact is that everyone who hates Trump already knows what they need to know. An impeachment proceeding would not have much impact in terms of opening voters' eyes, or giving them information they didn't already have.

The Democratic strategy, as we have pointed out, is effectively to use the 2020 elections to impeach Trump, but with the voters, rather than the Senate, serving as jury. The behavior in the Mueller report is not going to drop off the radar, and while the Democrats don't want to lay the anti-Trump stuff on too thick, there will be a theme of "If you want a corrupt President, vote for Trump, if you want one with integrity, vote for us."

The blue team also expects that, as in 2018, Trump will drag the overall ticket down. They are looking forward to that. In fact, it might be more correct to say they are drooling. If Mitt Romney or some more normal Republican is atop the ticket, a second blue wave probably becomes less likely.

The logic here seems compelling to me.  I do disagree with one point.  There is not "little" chance of a conviction, there is effectively zero, and that will remain the case as long as most Senate Republicans are too frightened of Trump's base to challenge him.

No one is more eager to see Trump removed than I am, because my greatest concern about him remaining in office is still the danger of his ordering the use of a nuclear weapon in a fit of impulsive rage about something or other -- making the United States, in an instant, guilty of a mass murder perhaps larger than the Nazi Holocaust.  (Which is why I reject the "Pence would be worse" argument -- this is an issue of temperament, not policy.)  If there were any possibility that impeachment would actually remove him, I'd be calling for it more loudly than anybody.  But there is not.

This could change.  Most Senate Republicans hate Trump's guts -- he's insulted and humiliated many of them and trashed a lot of what they value.  If Trump's support among his base were to seriously erode for any reason, so that a real possibility existed of twenty Senate Republicans daring to vote with the Democrats for removal, then yes, impeachment would become imperative.  It could happen.  But it hasn't happened yet, and turning so many Trumpanzees against their idol would take revelations a lot bigger than anything that seems likely to be in the pipeline.

Around the blogosphere I see a lot of calls for impeachment, and mounting criticism of Democratic leaders for not launching it.  Much of this seems to stem from a visceral desire for some kind of dramatic action after two years of frustration at Trump's rampages.  But Pelosi and Hoyer are thinking several moves ahead.  Impeachment now wouldn't remove Trump.  The supposed benefits of trying it would actually be small, and the harm to our side from a failed impeachment might be very considerable.  Trump would claim vindication, his base would be more infuriated and energized than ever, and the well would have been poisoned against trying impeachment later if circumstances changed and removal looked more possible.

Since impeachment can't remove Trump, the best available strategy is to exploit his noxious presence to maximize the gains of the 2020 election.  The more Democrats there are in the House and Senate to support a new Democratic President, the more progress will be made in repairing the damage Trump has done, and moving forward with the things we really want and need.