The impeachment news conference went off as scheduled this morning at 9 a.m. ET. The USMCA news conference also went off as scheduled just one hour later. Various lefties are WTF-ing on social media over the timing: Why would Pelosi follow up a plea to remove Trump from office by handing him the biggest bipartisan policy win of his presidency, something hell surely run on next fall? She was asked about the timing. Watch:
Pelosi says timing of new trade agreement deal with Mexico and Canada and articles of impeachment announcements wasn't a "coincidence." https://t.co/8akZTb5iee pic.twitter.com/EY3s5FuYZu
CBS News (@CBSNews) December 10, 2019
The criticism on Twitter was harsh:
Pelosi has literally scheduled back-to-back press conferences to announce articles of impeachment against Trump and then support for his trade deal.
This is insane. What is the message here pic.twitter.com/QGlHjM7JOK
Will Stancil (@whstancil) December 10, 2019
Pelosi has successfully run an impeachment while simultaneously burying its urgency and significance. It's amazing. Outside of political Twitter and cable news, Americans aren't really talking about this event, which should be the biggest news story in 40 years. https://t.co/ZNgjQqFdHu
Brandon Friedman (@BFriedmanDC) December 10, 2019
If you wanted to convince voters that impeachment was just a partisan box checking exercise for Trump's most stubborn opponents, a brief distraction from the earlier plan, you could hardly do better. https://t.co/JEFeD1QlaP
Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) December 10, 2019
The timing was no coincidence, she says in the clip, pointing to the fact that the term is ending and that delicate trade deals like this one are potentially perishable since they require buy-in from Americas trade partners. But that doesnt explain why the news conferences had to be scheduled back to back. She could have done impeachment this morning and USMCA late this afternoon, or tomorrow morning. Its as if shes *deliberately* stepping on her own impeachment message.
Which, I think, she is. Ill steer you back to this Politico story from Friday:
Much of the freshman class won their seats after campaigning on an ambitious domestic agenda of health care and economic issues and long resisted endorsing the progressive push to oust Trump. And now theyre facing a multi-million dollar GOP ad campaign accusing them of focusing solely on impeachment without much help from Democratic outside groups to push back
Pelosi has privately signaled to her leadership team and vulnerable Democrats that she doesnt want impeachment to be the last vote the House takes before leaving for the two-week holiday recess, according to multiple lawmakers and aides
The only thing I want to see a timeline on is HR 3 and an infrastructure bill. I dont give a shit about timelines for anything else besides those things, a defiant Rep. Max Rose (D-N.Y.) said this week, referring to the drug pricing bill, when asked about a possible impeachment vote.
Pelosis given up on impeachment. Not in the sense that shes not going to follow through on it theyre definitely going to impeach him but in the sense that any further effort expended to try to win over Republicans and make the impeachment push bipartisan is futile. Schiffs hearings didnt convince any GOPers in Congress and theyve scarcely moved the needle on public opinion, unless theyve moved it slightly towards Trump. Pelosis worst fear about impeachment, a huge popular backlash against her party, hasnt happened (yet?) but theres obviously nothing left to be gained politically by investing more in it. Theyre going to do it, but as perfunctorily and low-key as possible. And to the extent they can change the subject to matters that will play better politically, like the can-do Dems passing bipartisan trade legislation, they will.
Like I said Friday, the biggest risk to House Dems isnt that swing voters conclude impeachment is some giant frame-up of the president. Thats unlikely with opinion stuck at 50/50 or so. The big risk is that they conclude that Democrats have no agenda beyond harassing Trump after big promises last fall about health-care reform, infrastructure, you name it. Benjy Sarlins right in what he says here about the midterms:
Related, practically no one ran on impeachment or even broader Trump scandals. It was a huge deal for Ds that Trumps subsequent behavior changed their mind, but its not baked into their political appeal back home at all. https://t.co/zE72tiirQ0 pic.twitter.com/j8nsD5OAv3
Benjy Sarlin (@BenjySarlin) December 10, 2019
They can hold the majority next fall if theyre known as the Trump-Hating Democrats. They might not be able to if theyre known as the Do-Nothing Democrats. Thats what todays timing is about. I think Pelosi scheduled them the way she did in order to give moderates in her caucus easy ammo for when theyre inevitably grilled by constituents about getting bogged down in impeachment. Not only are we not bogged down, the moderates can say, we announced the biggest trade deal in a generation literally an hour after revealing the articles of impeachment against Trump. Policy is the Democrats main business, impeachment is the side hustle, not vice versa: Thats Pelosis message.
And it may pay off on the big vote to come. The more policy wins she hands the moderates to tout to their voters back home, the easier it is for them to cast a tough vote for impeachment. Sure, you may hate me for wanting to remove Trump, theyll tell voters, but we continued to work with him the whole way and got X, Y, and Z done. Imagine what we can do with a more agreeable president in 2021. If they end up with nothing to show for themselves on policy, thats when voting to impeach becomes very risky in a purple district. Why send a Do-Nothing Dem back to Congress when you can send a Republican?
Exit question: Whyd they end up leaving bribery out of the articles of impeachment? Did the focus group change its mind?