IMPEACHMENT WATCH 2019-2020 - flow of data

As of today, September 16th, 2019, 146 elected House Democrats and 1 Republican turned Independent have come out in support of Impeachment (hearings, and if it gets that far, then the ensuing impeachment vote). That makes for 147 out of 435 House members (33.8% of the HOR). To date, to my knowlege, of the 89 remaining Dems, only 1 has publicly come out against impeachment hearings.

Before I go farther and before complaints appear, also before mods would decide to move this thread (a point of honest contention in the past, nöööö), I very specifically placed this thread in "Elections and Campaigns" for a number of reasons:

1.) President Trump himself has stated that any attempt to impeach him is a election-ploy in his eyes. So, he himself has made this part of "Elections and Campaigns"

2.) This process, as it is currently unfolding, will most certainly happen during the election season, since it started this last week and if Watergate is any indicator, will take months for the hearings to complete. The Watergate hearings took 10 months to complete. Were the same to happen here, then the hearings would be done shortly before the 2020 RNC, smack in the middle of the 2020 election season.

3.) The decisions of a number (but not all) Representatives to declared either for or against impeachment will be part of their election calculus. I'm not saying that that's right or wrong, but simply, that it surely exists.

My main source for collecting this data is Politico, which is keeping a close eye on the situation. But to put the data in historical perspective, I've created an excel table with five major tabs to help keep track. It's at Google Docs and HERE for anyone to read.

The excel-table (at least the first tab) has 17 columns, starting with the results of the 2018 mid-term elections and including name of the winner (text color-coded according to party, *=incumbent won the last election - or course, they are all now incumbents), then a check-mark if they are for impeachment or an X if they are against the same, with shading according to party, the date of the announcement, the tally per state and a cumulative tally.

Here two screenshots of the first tab, for learning purposes:

Screenshot 1:



Here you can see a ton of information. Now, it's just a matter of getting the eyes to be able to interpret this stuff without your eyes glazing over.

Let's take a look at MI-03. Justin Amash, former Republican, now Independent with possibly an eye on the Libertarian nomination for President in 2020 and the only then-Republican to come out very openly for Impeachment hearings based on his reading of the Mueller Report, won his seat in 2018 by +11.24% (column L, anything over +10 is considered a landslide margin). Because he is for impeachment, there is a checkmark in column N, but shaded in light red. Yes, Amash is now an independent, but at the time he made the announcement, he was still officially a Republican and for this reason, the color coding. Plus, even as an "I", regardless what happens in the primaries or the 2020 GE (he's still running for his seat, now as an I), he is more likely to caucus with the Rs than the Ds.

Now, look down at MI-08. Elissa Slotkin (D) picked up this seat by a pretty narrow +3.83% margin (which is why most of it is shaded in light blue - indicates a pick-up), but she also won an open seat, meaning, she didn't have to fight an incumbent. This is why column M (2018 Winner) is shaded in grey. Slotkin has not yet come out for or against Impeachment. You will notice that right under her, in MI-09, Andy Levin also won an open seat, but it was one vacated by his own father, so yeah, dynasty politics is alive and well in the USA in both parties. That's neither a plus nor a strike for/on him personally, just an impartial observation.

Look down to MN-01 (Row 216), which is shaded in very light red because that CD was one of only 3 R-pickups of 2018, and in this case, it was a nailbiter. Republican Jim Hagedorn won this open seat by only +0.45% and he of course has not declared for Impeachment. But he has also not declared himself openly against impeachment, either. This is an important detail to notice. I mention Hagedorn again at the end of this OP.

Screenshot 2:



Take a look at NY-11: Max Rose flipped this seat (Staaten Island) blue in 2018, by a moderate +6.44%. Alongside OK-05, this NY CD was on absolutely no one's radar and was one of the major surprises of the night in 2018; the district is pretty much evenly divided, also culturally. Rose is the first D I know of to very openly come out against Impeachment proceedings. In column O, where his announcement date is listed, if you go to the google doc, you will see that it is hyperlinked directly to his announcement.

Also sticking with NY as a good example of a tally and a running tally: in column P ("count") for NY-27, the last CD in NY, you will see "15 (of 21 D, 27)". This means that double math has been done for you: there are 27 seats in NY, 21 of them are D, which logically means the the remaining 6 seats are R. Of those 21 D seats, 15 have come out for impeachment, 1 against, and 5 are remaning to announce. Now, scan the 5 remaning seats: NY-03, NY-05, NY-19, NY-22 and NY-26. Two of those 5 (NY-19, NY-21) are, like NY-11, D-pickups from 2018 with narrow winning margins, but the other 3 are very safe, landslide margin CDs. In fact, Gregory Meeks (one of the harshest critics of Trump and a potential party leader of the future) has all but come out for impeachment, he just hasn't officially uttered the words yet. And so it is with many of the remaining 88 Ds who have until now been quite.

TAB 2 simply takes the 435 CDs and sorts them by winning margin, in descending order. Warning: at the very bottom of the tab are 4 Florida HOR seats where no election was held (in Florida, unchallenged races don't even come up for a vote, what a shame), so those 4 seats can automatically be characterized as 100% wins, for our intents and purposes.

TAB 3 takes those 435 House seats and sorts them only by those who have currently said YES to impeachment proceedings.

TAB 4 takes those YESes and sorts them by 2018 winning margin, in descending order.

Here a complete screenshot of TAB 4:







Of those 147 YESes, 122 of them were elected in 2018 by +20 or more, their seats are absolutely solid. Of the 43 D-pickups from 2018 (net D +40), 14 of them have declared for impeachment. This will be an important data point to watch in the next months.

TAB 5 takes only the Ds who have not yet declared and sorts them also by 2018 winning margin, in descending order. Here screenshots of the final TAB:





Of those who are officially "undecided" (most have decided, they just aren't saying anthing yet), 61 of them were elected in 2018 with +10 or more, and 40 of them were elected by +20 or more. For now, I left Max Rose (NY-11) in this tab, but soon, I will remove him. I'm keeping him for a while just so that you can see how the process works.

There is no doubt in my mind that soon, very soon, a large number of "Undecided" Ds are going to make announcement and then it will come down to how many of the freshman Ds who flipped seats from red-to-blue in 2018 will announce. Already, a number who won with very small margins (see: Lucy McBath, GA-06) have announced for. So, at this point in time, we are not seeing any specific pattern, which makes sense, for at the end of the day, all politics is local and what works in GA-06 may or may not work in KS-03.

The real question will be whether a number of Republicans will eventually break ranks and also come out for impeachment. I see two possible categories:

1.) retiring Rs who are either retiring from safe districts and therefore have nothing to lose by coming out for impeachment or they are retiring from Districts that are moving solidly blue and, knowing that they can barely help the next R candidate, they simply vote their conscience. There may be a number of these seat alone in the great state of Texas.

2.) Rs who just barely won seats in highly competitive districts that are leaning more D than R (for instance, MN-01, mentioned above, or GA-07, which is in BOTH categories).

This will be the phenomenon I plan to watch as hearings produce more and more evidence about President Trump, whom I personally despise with every bone in my body and then some extra ones, to boot.

Simply click on the EXCEL-DATA-LINK to keep abreast of developments. I may or may not post individual announcements here, depending on circumstances.

If you go to the POLITICO webpage dedicated to this kind of Impeachment Watch, they also have a timeline of when people declared and you will see some key dates where a lot of Reps declared all at once.

-Stat

 

This is interesting data; however, it is unlikely that any of the Republicans will break ranks and support impeachment inquiries.

 

I appreciate the effort you put into this, but...don't get your hopes up.

 

Well, Watergate has a prosecutor that suggested something like 8 crimes to impeach. Mueller came up with nothing on Russian Collusion then tried to make a case of obstruction of a crime that didn't happen. It should have been over then but democrats have become a clown show. This is all for 2020 since they have zero chance of impeaching Trump. They hope they can gain the Senate but even if they do they still would not be able to impeach unless they gained a super majority and that won't happen so they hope to convince the public with their hysterical propaganda.

 

There will be no impeachment, the russians arent coming, and democrats are categorically destorying themselves

 

Collusion is not a crime. Conspiracy against the United States of America IS a crime.
Obstruction of Justice is a crime.
The House does not need a super-majority to impeach. You have confused impeachment with conviction. If you read the US Constitution, that may clear up your ignorance on this issue.

 

Have they come up with an Article of Impeachment yet?

 

What criminal referral was made and by whom? When the the House as a body vote to authorize and impeachment as how impeachments are started.

What is the first article of impeachment, write it for me.

 

That's the entire purpose of having impeachment hearings. You do realize this, right?

 

Regardless of anything said, I doubt anyone will break ranks from their political affiliation. There was no evidence of a conspiracy, and obstruction is subjective.

 

Mueller, no collusion or conspiracy. The dem mantra is sure, Trump is not guilty of conspiracy but he is definitely guilty of not wanting to be hanged for it.

BWT, the investigation was never obstructed, so...

I notice you can't read, the Dems want the Senate but would need a super majority to impeach.

 

No you have a reason to impeach before you start an impeachment. Congress just doesn't say "let's see if we can find a reason to impeach". You don't realize that, right?

So what's the charge what will the first article say?

 

I wish I had the attention span & mental endurance to get through a fraction of the OP, lol (good on you though & tks for the thoroughness). I do know that little Jerrie's JC got off to a 'bang' w/ a spectacularly epic backfire of self inflicted carnage for them; good choice in 1st witness - Lewandowski. they should have fully know how that was going to turn out (given the fact that this was his 3rd or 4th time testifying), lol...

 

Great job on the OP and I agree with the overall premise.

I also strongly suspect that what you are tabulating is happening behind the scenes of the DNC with their strategists tallying the odds of their wins and losses if the House moves forward with an actual impeachment.

Personally I looking at this as Pelosi playing a waiting game with these hearings until she has a clearer picture of 2020. My expectation is that somewhere in the 1st quarter of 2020 she will make a decision to put the impeachment "on hold" and cite Moscow Mitch that it is now too near to the elections so it is best to allow We the People to decide on whether or not to remove the BLOTUS from office.

The advantage to this strategy is that she has NOT taken impeachment off the table. It can resume if the BLOTUS were to prevail in 2020 and if he goes down the Dems do not have to deal with negative impact of actually impeaching his YUUUUGE orange ass.

So your tabulations are an insight into the thinking behind closed doors. That the BLOTUS was not impeached sooner is regrettable but the GOP was NEVER going to remove him so that would have been a useless gesture on the part of the Dems.

 

I'm afraid you are wrong about that. Impeachment is a political process, not a judicial one. No crime required. You can see the democrat house doing it right at the moment. The confusion is that the impeachment process in this case isn't designed to get the president out of office. It is simply to hurt his chances for re-election. The whole thing is politics and politics is humanity at its worst.

 

I'm afraid I am not and that it being a political process matters not a twit. And in particular the use of impeachment just to score political points should be reason enough to vote the Democrats out of office.

 

10 documented cases of obstruction of justice - just one of them would already suffice for impeachment.

 

No. He is quite right. Impeachment is a political process.

 

What I think is quite critical is that, when you look at the list of those who have already come out for impeachment, 15 of the 43 Dems who picked up a seat for team blue have already come out for impeachment, 8 of them by +7 points or less. These are freshmen Reps who really have some political capital to lose by announcing for so soon. On the other side, of the 88 Ds yet to declare, 50 of them won by +15 or more, meaning, they all come from rock-solid D-districts and those districts are going to remain solidly blue. Pelosi needs 218 to impeach, but she will want to pad that, so let's say that she sets a goal of 225. With Justin Amash in the mix, then she can easily afford to let 11 Ds simply not say anything - Ds (likely, Freshman Ds who won in squeakers) who would be better served to stay neutral, for instance Adams in UT-04 or Kim in NJ-03. But then again, Lucy McBath (GA-06), who won by only 1 point, has already announced for impeachment.

And as I wrote in the OP, Republicans who are retiring and who therefore have nothing to lose by declaring FOR impeachment before they leave office can later claim that they did it to salvage what they could from the dying carcass known as the GOP. There really may be as many as 10 open seats in Texas alone (at the moment, there are 5: TX-11, TX-17, TX-22, TX-23, TX-24), for the GOP candidate-wannabees are circling the wagons already right now in TX-31, where John Carter only won by +3 in 2018, also in Chip Roy's CD (TX-21), where he won only by +2.6 in 2018, also in CDs where Republicans have served since the early 1990s: TX-08, TX-12 and TX-13. Also, for no apparent reason, other Republicans are showing great interest in Michael Burgess' seat (TX-26), which he retained by 20 points in 2018 and first won in 2002, 18 years ago, and which he has won with no less than 59.4% of the vote - so those are sometimes signs that something is going wrong with an incumbent campaign that is not yet broadly public knowledge. Burgess is one of those lesser known members of congress. He's not a lightning rod like AOC. On the contrary, he primaried Dick Armey's son and (after a runoff election) won the primary and then the GE. Burgess will be 70 this next year, so health issues may or may not be at hand.

More on this stuff later.

 

Just added John Sarbanes (MD-03) to the YES list. That makes for 147 Ds + Amash = 148.

 

Which doesn't change the fact that the Constitution lays our the grounds and in particular the use of impeachment just to score political points should be reason enough to vote the Democrats out of office. Do you really believe the purpose of impeachment as stated in the Constitution and by the founding fathers in the Federalist Papers is to provide remedy for the losing political party in a presidential election?

 

There is not one documented case of obstruction of justice. Who referred a single charge of obstruction of justice to the House?

 

Thank you, I was not aware of those House seats in TX so I will be keeping on eye on what is becoming a "purple" state.

Pelosi would be better off if she was energizing the entire electorate rather than just worrying about the unreliable segment that she is trying to hold onto from the moderate right. But that is only my opinion. She is not going to change between now and 2020.

 

There are TEN documented cases of Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller report which he referred to the House.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...mueller-report-obstruction-of-justice-summary

 

Would put a heap of money on that

Depends on what is unearthed