Why Is Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-01) not being pressured on impeachment?

[wbrocks67]

Or in general - why are moderate Republicans not being pushed on impeachment?

We constantly hear stories everywhere from pundits and outlets about how bad it could be for pro-Trump district Dems voting on Impeachment. Yet, I'm missing any stories on how it's going to play for people like Katko and Fitzpatrick in Pro-Clinton districts.

Now, Katko has more of a line bc he won by like 8% in 2018. However, Fitzpatrick only won by 3% against a weak opponent in PA-01, and Bucks County has had many Dem wins in the Trump era. So... how come there is no pressure on him to even think about it?

[Frenchrepublican]

Because people who wants Trump to be impeached are not going to vote for a republican anyway

[Pollster]

Still plenty of time for both of them to draw primary challengers.

[ElectionsGuy]

Because people who wants Trump to be impeached are not going to vote for a republican anyway

This and there's only two of them in the whole House. PA-01 is only slightly Clinton over Trump too, it's much more Trump-friendly than the other suburbs of Philadelphia.

[Xing]

Because the "electable moderate" standard is only applied to Democrats.

[Gracile]

There’s no benefit in Fitzpatrick (or any Republican incumbent seeking reelection really) doing so because he would incur the anger of the Republican base in the primary.

[MT Treasurer]

Because people who wants Trump to be impeached are not going to vote for a republican anyway

No, no, running as a "Reasonable Republican"/Democrat lite and disavowing Trump helps blue state/district Republicans immensely and will win them a ton of crossover votes, just ask Sen. Kirk, Gov. Buehler, Gov. Fung, and Rep. Paulsen. Democrats will definitely refrain from portraying him as a Trump clone if only he distances himself enough from him.

Like people said, voters who support impeaching Trump aren’t persuadable anyway. He’d win zero Democratic votes if he came out in favor of impeachment but would alienate a base he very much needs if he’s to even have a prayer in his race.

[Pericles]

There’s no benefit in Fitzpatrick (or any Republican incumbent seeking reelection really) doing so because he would incur the anger of the Republican base in the primary.

Then, why aren't people applying the same logic to Democrats who oppose impeachment?

[Xing]

There’s no benefit in Fitzpatrick (or any Republican incumbent seeking reelection really) doing so because he would incur the anger of the Republican base in the primary.

Then, why aren't people applying the same logic to Democrats who oppose impeachment?

It's been a long-standing double standard.

[wbrocks67]

Everyone brings up good points, but its irksome that there wasn't even a good faith effort to TRY and track him down and sort of hold his feet to the fire to get a response. He's being lumped with every other R as an assumed no, without having to explain at all how he's going to get away with this in a general in a district like this

[Frenchrepublican]

There’s no benefit in Fitzpatrick (or any Republican incumbent seeking reelection really) doing so because he would incur the anger of the Republican base in the primary.

Then, why aren't people applying the same logic to Democrats who oppose impeachment?

There is only a single democrat who opposes impeachment and he is in a heavily conservative district. What's your point ?

[JMT]

I think another reason he hasn’t received more pressure to vote in favor of impeachment is because impeachment will happen by a comfortable margin without any republican support. Democrats don’t need any republican votes to move forward with impeachment.

Although, if democrats could get even a single republican vote for impeachment, they could market this as a bipartisan move. But it just won’t happen (unless you count Justin Amash, but he’s an independent now).

[Gustaf]

There’s no benefit in Fitzpatrick (or any Republican incumbent seeking reelection really) doing so because he would incur the anger of the Republican base in the primary.

Then, why aren't people applying the same logic to Democrats who oppose impeachment?

It's been a long-standing double standard.

I don't Think it makes sense to call it a double standard. The Republican base is an insane cult while the Democratic base is a big-tent party with a range of views. As a result, it can hurt Democrats to be too radical but it can't hurt Republicans as much.

[The Mikado]

Like people said, voters who support impeaching Trump aren’t persuadable anyway. He’d win zero Democratic votes if he came out in favor of impeachment but would alienate a base he very much needs if he’s to even have a prayer in his race.

This is true, and it applies in reverse to the moronic Jeff Van Drew, who really wouldn't have been hurting his reelection prospects any more than they already were by quietly voting to impeach, but has instead decided to light himself on fire and go into a potentially unwinnable GOP primary because he insisted on falling on his sword by voting to acquit for some unknowable reason.

[Xing]

There’s no benefit in Fitzpatrick (or any Republican incumbent seeking reelection really) doing so because he would incur the anger of the Republican base in the primary.

Then, why aren't people applying the same logic to Democrats who oppose impeachment?

It's been a long-standing double standard.

I don't Think it makes sense to call it a double standard. The Republican base is an insane cult while the Democratic base is a big-tent party with a range of views. As a result, it can hurt Democrats to be too radical but it can't hurt Republicans as much.

Believing that the law applies to the President as well is hardly radical.