If I'm understanding you correctly, your claim is that wanting Jeffries to vote in favor of impeachment is "making demands that set him up to fail". For that to be true, impeachment would have to be *absurdly* politically toxic.

April 10, 2026 - 17:00 UTC

2
0
1
Not merely an opportunity cost where he'd get more value by doing something else, not merely unlikely to succeed, but so deeply toxic that Jeffries was forced to vote against it to avoid substantial political damage.

I don't think the evidence supports this, to put it mildly
1
0
1
It's also worth remembering that there are costs to doing things which piss off dem voters. Dem congressional leadership is deeply unpopular among dem voters (not just bsky users! real people!), which will absolutely incur real, serious political costs.
2
0
1
I don't even mean it that specifically, really. Just that there's no reason to take an oppositional stance at all when they're currently winning. What's the UPSIDE, is the question. If you think it's stupid that Jeffries didn't vote for it your take should be "no it isn't what do you mean?"
1
0
5
This might sound cynical but I just think it's flatly true. There's nothing for them OR us to gain out of that disagreement. So the play is to make it go away. It has to be.
2
0
5