But if you're a liberal in a blue district, then you should write your rep and let them know that 1) you will vote in the primary, and 2) having a firm public position on this issue will be your litmus test for who gets your vote.
They won't get money from their big $$$ donors if they don't pass the tax cut bill. They won't survive a primary if they're seen as being 'soft' on the ACA by the true believers in their party.
They don't have any idea how they're going to make it through the general election, but that's a fight for another day. They have other priorities first.
I think the GOP knows they are going to get one bite at this apple, and they are taking advantage of it. Hello tax reform and good bye NN.
The ones that are on shaky ground are those in areas that previously voted Republican primarily for economic rather than social reasons (i.e. for the sake of low taxes, not because they wanted to ban abortion etc), and are now flipping to blue because Republican social policies became intolerable. This is many suburban districts. And Republicans there are listening; for example, in my district (WA-8), Dave Reichert voted against AHCA.
The catch is, Republicans in those districts know that even if they pander to the new electorate somewhat, there are still enough reasons why their Democrat opponent will likely get their vote. They'd basically need to be liberal on everything except taxes (and given the nature of the tax proposal that Republicans unveiled, not even on that, since it hurts the suburban mid/high-middle class dwellers most!), at which point they might as well just switch parties. So you see a bunch of guys saying they won't run for re-election at all, and then they treat their remaining term as a means to squeeze the few last things in while they can.
If you mean who I'd vote for, it would be the Dem candidate, no question. The parties are far enough now that I don't foresee a situation where a Republican candidate would be more closely aligned with me on the issues than a Democrat, even a particularly disagreeable one. But, more importantly and urgently, I think that this administration must have some counterbalance in the Congress to check it. But this is a moot question, anyway, because I'm not a citizen and cannot vote.
Millions of people who are registered to vote simply didn't turn out last November because they thought their vote wouldn't matter, that the candidates would be about the same, or...who knows what else. If just a few tens of thousands of them happened to have voted for Clinton last November, we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now.
And for the record, I think the President should be voted out for a couple dozen things, one of which is NN.
Americans cast one single vote (in presidential elections) for one of two candidates, on a myriad of issues of every level of seriousness. Leaving aside the fight to convince a majority of americans, just deciding to vote against someone for NN is anything but straightforward.
I don't see why the criticisms on the idea discussed in the article. We can try both routes, give them all the flak we can for this and also try alternative paths to NN. This is an extremely uphill battle, we should be looking for every remotely-viable path.