Democratic "No" votes on the Debt Limit agreement (46)

[brooklynite]

Last edited Thu Jun 1, 2023, 12:12 PM - Edit history (1)

Barragán Democratic California NO
Bonamici Democratic Oregon NO
Bowman Democratic New York NO
Bush Democratic Missouri NO
Casar Democratic Texas NO
Castro (TX) Democratic Texas NO
Chu Democratic California NO
Clarke (NY) Democratic New York NO
Connolly Democratic Virginia NO
Crockett Democratic Texas NO
DeLauro Democratic Connecticut NO
DeSaulnier Democratic California NO
Espaillat Democratic New York NO
García (IL) Democratic Illinois NO
Garcia (TX) Democratic Texas NO
Goldman (NY) Democratic New York NO
Gomez Democratic California NO
Grijalva Democratic Arizona NO
Hayes Democratic Connecticut NO
Hoyle (OR) Democratic Oregon NO
Huffman Democratic California NO
Jayapal Democratic Washington NO
Kamlager-Dove Democratic California NO
Khanna Democratic California NO
Larson (CT) Democratic Connecticut NO
Lee (CA) Democratic California NO
Lee (PA) Democratic Pennsylvania NO
McGovern Democratic Massachusetts NO
Meng Democratic New York NO
Moore (WI) Democratic Wisconsin NO
Nadler Democratic New York NO
Ocasio-Cortez Democratic New York NO
Pocan Democratic Wisconsin NO
Porter Democratic California NO
Pressley Democratic Massachusetts NO
Ramirez Democratic Illinois NO
Schakowsky Democratic Illinois NO
Scott (VA) Democratic Virginia NO
Stansbury Democratic New Mexico NO
Tlaib Democratic Michigan NO
Torres (CA) Democratic California NO
Torres (NY) Democratic New York NO
Vargas Democratic California NO
Velázquez Democratic New York NO
Williams (GA) Democratic Georgia NO
Wilson (FL) Democratic Florida NO

https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2023243

[claudette]

1. Personally

Last edited Thu Jun 1, 2023, 05:33 PM - Edit history (2)

I think they are disloyal Dems.

Edit: I was wrong to call them such an unkind name in my original post.

[gab13by13]

4. Why, because they are progressives?

Democrats could have raised a clean debt ceiling when they had control of Congress without giving up anything were it not for moderates Manchin and Sinema.

Water over the dam, however, this is a big win for President Biden and the country.

[claudette]

13. No

Because they could not realize this was the best deal we could get with the magats in charge of the House. Unity is the most important quality of Democrats which is needed to win BIG in 2024. I was very disappointed in these "No" Dems - especially Goldman of New York.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

17. Unity to win in 2024 IS needed, I agree. But people

have been saying for many years that we won't, can't or want to stop members of our caucus from voting their will and conscience.

Strikes me you only happen to get both once in a while? Like ( inexplicably to some) with McCarthy as leader vote.

[iemanja]

42. A conscience that makes you want to destroy the economy?

A conscience that makes you want to deny social security checks to the old and disabled? That's some conscience.

[onenote]

43. Some of Democrats voting may have voted their conscience. Most probably voted as cowards.

My guess is that most of those voting no did so only because they knew enough of their colleagues were voting yes. Had their votes been needed to prevent an economic catastrophe, their "conscience" suddenly would have given way to the reality that defeating the bill would be disastrous. They weren't brave, they didn't truly have a deeply felt principled objection to the legislation -- they were, in a word, cowards who sought the cover of their colleagues so they could pander to a portion of the electorate.

[yardwork]

58. That's nonsense, actually.

It's been explained throughout this thread. If you prefer to believe that the Democratic caucus is full of cowardly fools, knock yourself out.

[onenote]

59. How is it brave to vote against a bill that you would support if your vote mattered?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

65. I agree bravery doesn't have much to do with it. I

suspect your first choice might always be to give your constituency what they want. But there are some occasions when you can't do that and there's a bigger picture reason not to? I don't know - just my guess.

[treestar]

24. Manchin and Sinema were there

They were elected. That has to be dealt with. People can complain all day and they will still be in the Senate. Until they are replaced by someone farther to the right, which is as likely as someone farther to the left, maybe more so given the states.

The filibuster exists. Republican senators exist, giving red states disproportionate power.

[Demsrule86]

34. The point is this is what was possible. Otherwise we would go over the debt ceiling cliff. This is

why although I am a progressive and believe the same as those that voted no, I would not vote for any of them in a presidential primary or even a Senate primary. You must understand the art of compromise in politics in order to be successful in governing. You yourself noted we did not have the votes to end the debt ceiling...so what does some on our side not voting for an important bill do for us? Nothing in my opinion. It is possible they voted this way in order to give the Republicans a false sense that they won because they didn't win. President Biden did a masterful job. I hope so. The majority of Democrats came through for this important deal which can't be changed at this point without default.

Sadly, we have a great deal to do in terms of winning elections and pushing this country left. And every serious issue from Roe to water quality can be traced back to 2016. What did the protest against Hillary get us? What did the refusal to back the only person who could stop Trump get us other than three Republican SCOTUS justices-not to mention our lower courts packed with right-wing justices? So I have little patience with those who can not learn from their mistakes. We are all in this together...either we hang together or we hand separately. Unless it was a ruse, I am disappointed in those Democrats who did not vote for the Debt Ceiling compromise.

[yardwork]

9. This is just politics. I'm sure we have the votes.

Representatives from liberal districts are allowed to vote no to represent their bases.

We have the votes. Don't worry about this.

[treestar]

25. OP said it could open up the agreement though

that could only happen if there are not enough votes. And the House is R controlled now.

[Demsrule86]

36. The agreement can not be opened up period. There isn't time...not a single amendment can be

added period. This is a done deal in my opinion...I am sure there may be some 'show' amendments attempted but none can or will go through. Today is June 1st, we have less than five days. The closer we get the worse the toll on our economy will get...no doubt the media wants a shit show with everyone watching for their ratings. Ignore them.

[yardwork]

54. The media love their narrative of "Democrats in disarray!!"

It's never been further from the truth.

[femmedem]

12. Rep. Jayapal was clear that she would have voted Yes if her vote was necessary for it to pass.

Last edited Thu Jun 1, 2023, 08:51 AM - Edit history (1)

I saw her on MSNBC and she was clear that the Democrats would not have allowed the U.S. to default and that she would have voted Yes if it was necessary to prevent a default. But knowing that the bill would pass, she felt it was also important to have a significant number of Democrats voicing their opposition to certain provisions within the bill.

Additionally, Lawrence O'Donnell pointed out that the Democrats voting no were playing an important role by strengthening Biden's hand in future negotiations. He says Biden had to repeatedly say to McCarthy that certain items were off the table because he wouldn't be able to muster enough Democratic support to avoid default. If all the Democrats had voted yes for this necessary but imperfect bill, McCarthy would be more willing to hold firm on harsher, more draconian Republican priorities.

He lays this out beginning around 4:30:

[claudette]

14. That's a

silly argument. Unity at a time like this is more important than progressive tantrums. And - I am a progressive liberal.

[yardwork]

16. That's excellent politics. That's setting us up for more wins.

It's the only way to win concessions when we're in the minority. Empty symbolic "unity" is useless. Bargaining chips, forcing the Republicans to back off more extreme legislation - that's strength.

[Cha]

64. Ty.. It's also Strategic for future

primaries for some Dems. Which makes perfect sense.

My new Dem Rep, Jill Tonuka voted Yes.. they had to be many who did vote YES.

I'm sure Hakeem like Nancy before him had it all figured out.

[fishwax]

72. what would unity accomplish, exactly?

If dems were in charge of the house, Biden could say "all of my caucus will vote for this," and he wouldn't have to negotiate. But he needs mccarthy on board, so the only realistic meeting point is somewhere where he's got enough dem votes to assure it passes. Why would mccarthy *ever* agree to something that made all the dems happy and on board? That would make him even more vulnerable to his lunatic fringe.

One of the obvious tactics that both sides use in negotiations like this is "I can't get enough people on my side to agree to that." That's how mccarthy and Biden find a middle to meet at and thus pass a bipartisan agreement.

If dems turn around and vote unanimously for it, it makes it clear that, in fact, that negotiating tactic was a deception or a miscalculation.

So, given that unity would have undermined the basic strategy for negotiations here, what is the practical benefit that it would provide?

[claudette]

73. Maybe

But I still don’t see the logic of voting No to a deal that saves a catastrophe.

[fishwax]

76. because the no vote preserves the party's ability to negotiate in the future

Without having any negative consequence whatsoever.

Imagine you're negotiating a fee for a service, and the seller wants 300 but you're like "there's no way I can get you that much. I just don't have it. It isn't possible. But if you agree to do this and this, I can just scrape together 250."

Amd then finally the guy agrees to it and does the work amd you say "thanks and oh by the way here's the full 300. I wasn't really serious about 250 being my liimit."

Do you think that would help you or hurt you in future negotiations?

[Deminpenn]

20. Exactly, if these votes had been needed to pass the bill,

Dems would have voted yes.

Let's talk about the Republican party that actually controls the House not being able to muster even 150 votes for the deal their own leader negotiated instead, shall we?

[treestar]

26. If he can't, that could bring it mathematically closer

to the progressives having to vote yes. Which they surely will do, according to the posters defending their actions.

[yardwork]

55. Exactly. And our power builds as McCarthy's falls.

[Demsrule86]

37. I actually agree with that...and while I was initially annoyed by this, I truly believe every

Democrats in the Senate and House would vote for the bill if it was needed...including Sen. Sanders, Sen. Warren, and Congressperson Jayapal so I am OK with this.

[claudette]

75. But

WE are not Republicans thank Goddess.

[onenote]

44. So she didn't really have a deep principled objection to the legislation.

She was pandering, and cowardly relying on her colleagues to cover for her.

[yardwork]

56. I think she has a deep, principled commitment to getting the best deal possible for her constituents

That means playing ball with her caucus to maximize the Democrats' strength.

[onenote]

57. So she thought that voting no would strengthen the bill?

Did she think if the bill was defeated a bill more to her liking would pass?

[yardwork]

60. Her no vote prevented the Republicans from making the bill even worse.

It's been explained throughout this thread.

[onenote]

62. How? The deal was struck. The bill wasn't going to be amended on the floor.

Her voting for it couldn't have and wouldn't have changed the bill.

[fishwax]

78. because the threat of democratic no votes forced mccarthy closer to Biden's position

If the entire democratic caucus then turns around and votes yes, it becomes clear that those threats that strengthened Biden's position were illusory, and that will hurt our position in any future negotiations over anything. All without accomplishing anything of consequence.

[onenote]

79. So its about future negotiations? We'll see how that turns out.

My guess is that it won't make a bit of difference.

[fishwax]

80. it's about getting practical things done, rather than purely symbolic unity

Symbolism is important, of course, but far less so in the absence of the practical. Amd while the symbolism of a unanimous vote would have provided absolutely nothing of consequence, the symbolism of their hesitancy and opposition made the entire thing possible. Complaining that they then actually played out the string on that winning strategy instead of pulling out the bait-and-switch is not a particularly compelling argument.

[onenote]

81. Again, we got something done. And the final vote on the bill wouldn't have changed that.

If you're saying that the final vote on the debt ceiling bill will impact negotiations between McCarthy and Biden on future legislation, you may be right, but I have my doubts. McCarthy may have trouble holding onto his speakership without Democratic support, in which case that leverage probably will be more important than the Democratic votes against the debt ceiling deal.

[fishwax]

82. a unanimous dem vote would have destroyed mccarthy as speaker

Why would his caucus support him if he came out with an agreement that all the most progressive democrats were on board with? The fringe of his caucus already hates him. Why would the more nominally moderate people in his caucus support him if he put them on the same side of this deal as AOC?

As you said, the deal was done. So what practical benefit would unity have provided? What benefit that it provided would make it worth the democrats putting the lie to their position in the negotiations? You have your doubts that this sort of deception would hurt the dems in future negotiations. Fine. But what benefit would that deception bring? Why does ot matter? What makes it worth criticizing democrats like Jayapal, etc.?

[claudette]

71. Voting

No is not playing ball with the team she is on.

[fishwax]

77. sure it is

She's on a team that is playing defense, because the Republicans control the house and mccarthy can basically stop any deal in its tracks. Why would mccarthy agree to a deal that garners the support of the most progressive members of the house?

[claudette]

83. Why wouldn't he?

Most people would expect a unanimous Yes vote in such circumstances. Dems were all united in voting for Speaker. I’m just seriously disappointed in those progressives

[fishwax]

84. you really think McCarthy would be happy with a deal that AOC and Bernie Sanders were in favor of?

The extreme right flank of McCarthy's caucus already hates him. How do you think the nominally more moderate in his caucus would feel about him if he arranged a deal that MTG was up in arms about but AOC voted for happily? How do you think they would react to the prospect of going back to their district and facing a primary challenger from the unhinged faction attacking them for voting with AOC on the debt ceiling.

That's why McCarthy would never support something that all progressives would vote for. His speakership would be toast.

[claudette]

85. I'm really sorry

But I do not understand the logic that Dems have to vote not to displease a magat.

[fishwax]

86. I don't get where you're finding that logic

Nobody is saying they had to vote no to displease a magat. But plenty of people have made the case that a small number of democrats voting against the bill is beneficial and that, indeed, some democratic opposition was *essential* to the negotiating process, because we had to deal with McCarthy and in the context of those negotiations the potential for democratic opposition *helped* our side rather than hurting our side. (Think of it somewhat akin to good cop bad cop.)

You, on the other hand, haven't given any real reason that we needed the vote to be unanimous, nor any real benefit that a unanimous democratic caucus would provide. Yet, in the absence of any such compelling reason, you continue to express your disappointment with democrats. If that's your priority, then so be it.

[claudette]

87. I did give

a reason. To show UNITY which is strength

[EX500rider]

50. Ah, virtue signaling who doesn't love that

🙄

[Polybius]

67. Sorta like NYers who voted for Jill Stein

"Hillary will win NY anyway, it's just a protest vote. If it were a swing state, I'd have voted for Clinton."

Still wrong.

[claudette]

88. 👍

[Celerity]

61. Lawrence O'Donnell explains why the 46 House Democrats who voted No actually strengthen Biden's hand

in future negotiations with McCarthy, and would have voted 'Yes' in enough numbers to pass it IF needed.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217962089

[Joinfortmill]

2. Very cool. Thanks for this.

[walkingman]

3. Most of my favorite Dems - gives us great negotiating power for the Budget - Rock On!!

[gab13by13]

5. They will soon be put the test

when the Farm Bill comes up for adoption.

[honest.abe]

6. A no vote for this legislation makes zero sense.

There are no other reasonable options. Its this or default. No matter how "progressive" you are that is a simple choice.

[yardwork]

15. That's not how politics works.

The Democratic caucus will certainly support the Democratic president's plan. They've talked among themselves and they've planned how each Democratic representative will vote. Hakeem Jeffries is doing his job. They know they have enough yes votes, along with Republican yeses, to pass it.

Now, there's a bunch of Democratic representatives who represent liberal districts, and they're going to vote no in order to show that they're listening to their voters. This vote protects them from maybe being primaried, or even losing to a Republican in the next election. Remember the kinds of lying ads that Republicans run. Remember, representatives are elected every two years. They're never not running for re-election.

This is fine. This shows how strong the Democratic position is. This is hurting the Republicans, not us.

[honest.abe]

18. Still makes no sense. This is different.

There was no "liberal" alternative. Also I am sure the vast majority of the voters in these liberal districts would have agreed with a yes vote on this legislation.

[Autumn]

19. Why is it differenet? Because it's not Manchin or Simena?

[honest.abe]

21. Because its clearly a yes or no option, yes to avoid default, no to accept a default.

No grey area here.

Ask the voters in their liberal districts what they want? I am sure they dont want a default.

[Autumn]

23. All votes are a yes or no option. What's the difference with these people voting no?

They are from very liberal areas, just like Manchin and Simena are from conservative areas. .

[honest.abe]

27. As I said. this is different because there is no other reasonable more liberal option..

and the result of a no vote is potentially disastourous. In other legislation there is always a more liberal option. In this case there was not. Furthermore as I said I am sure the majority of the liberal voters in their districts would agree with a yes vote on this legislation so there is no point of voting no. Only makes President Biden look bad like he didnt do enough to protect the poor and disadvantaged. It was mistake to vote no in my opinion.

[Autumn]

29. There were other options. As for making Biden look like he didn't do enough to

protect the poor and disadvantaged that's on the republicans, that's on them.

[honest.abe]

30. Those options were considered by President Biden and dismissed.

[Autumn]

32. And that part is on him, it was his choice. The Republicans have been saying there had to be cuts

to programs that hurt the poor for months. That was no surprise.

[honest.abe]

33. I trust his judgement. Dont you??

[Autumn]

35. Trust has nothing to do with it. Trust isn't going to help the poor with those cuts to SNAP.

Nice deflection though

[inthewind21]

68. What

cuts to SNAP?

[honest.abe]

74. Options like the 14th amendment or minting a trillion dollar coin or discharge petition.

Options to bypass the Rs. None of these were considered realistic so the need to negotiate with McCarthy and accept some their terms.

[yardwork]

47. We the voters gave Biden a very weak hand when we gave the Republicans a majority.

I think Biden did a remarkable job keeping the damage as little as it is. We need to regain strong majorities in both houses if we want more.

Get out the vote for Democrats.

[Autumn]

52. We? You got a mouse in your pocket? I don't need to be told to vote, I've never missed an election.

[inthewind21]

69. Well

that's 1 out of what, 160+million eligible voters. That's a very LOT of mice in the pocket!

[Autumn]

70. Good math. Every voter has one vote.

[Demsrule86]

38. I don't think it is different either Autumn. There is a tradition in both houses of allowing folks

from all sides of the ideological spectrum to vote in a way that will help them politically in their districts or states. They all face primaries and elections. And we need all of them. Thus it is fine IMHO if their votes are not needed to vote no or present.

[yardwork]

46. And we won't have a default. That's been worked out.

By playing hardball in this way, Biden got more concessions from the Republicans.

If the Democratic caucus had said, "Default is a bad idea so we're all voting for this bill," then the Republicans would have packed the bill with even worse things. They'd have no need to negotiate with us.

This way, Biden was able to negotiate. That's what we want.

[honest.abe]

51. Perhaps but it just seems like a no brainer to vote for this legislation.

I suspect even voters in progressive districts mostly were in favor of the bill. Anyway I suppose its not really a bit deal. As long as we get this done and moved through the Senate.

[yardwork]

53. Actually, it a very big deal. Doing it this way kept the damage to a minimum.

[onenote]

45. But if their vote was needed to pass it, then they'd abandon their constituents?

No they wouldn't, because they knew that their constituents would be harmed by the defeat of the bill. Which is why they should have supported the legislation.

[yardwork]

48. It's just a good negotiation strategy.

What would have happened if all the Democrats had said "I'm voting against this terrible bill!" We're in the minority, remember. The Republicans would have packed it with even worse things, the Freedom Caucus would have loved it, it would have passed easily with zero Democratic votes.

We'd get left with horrible new laws and the Republicans would have crowed in victory. We would have strengthened McCarthy.

Being able to point to a feisty left wing whose votes weren't guaranteed helped Biden negotiate. It had to look close. We used the Republicans against themselves to hold the damage to a minimum.

[claudette]

89. I'm with you

100% 😊

[Darwins_Retriever]

7. Think there is something going on in the Dem caucus

All the Dems voted NO in the Rules Committee as well.

[brooklynite]

8. Voting "no" on Rules is standard for the opposition Party.

[Hortensis]

10. Two running for CA's senate seat voted no, Katie Porter and Barbara Lee.

Could this be a message to voters of the role one of them would play there? We've lost a lot to oppositional votes from within our own supposed majority.

The house is the place for this. Among 435 members, individuals very seldom can overset the work of the rest of the Democratic caucus.

In the senate, just one vote can do it. Tragically often, as we've had to witness.

[dem4decades]

11. obviously these Democrats would have voted yes if their votes were needed for passage.

I would guess their votes were more symbolic of what they would have liked to have in the bill. At first, I thought they weren't being team players, but who knows what exactly the game was, once passage was guaranteed.

[Deminpenn]

22. This was actually the perfect scenario for Dems

The moderates/centrists got to vote yes thus showing how bi-partisan they are and the progressives/liberals got to vote no thus reaffirming their commitment to improving the welfare of those who need the social safety net most.

[treestar]

28. If it is just symbolic, they aren't improving anything

The House is R controlled, as usual due to not voting in the midterms. If voters wanted that net not even to be an issue, they'd have gotten out in the midterms.

[Demsrule86]

40. That is not really true. The reason we don't have the House is the complete fuck up that was

redistricting in New York. I also think California could do better. The GOP is passing laws to actually overturn elections if their folks don't win. We need to play hardball in those states we can. We also need to take a couple more state governments so that we don't have Republicans in charge of who wins a presidential election if it is thrown into the House.

[yardwork]

49. Complete fuck up in North Carolina in 2022, too.

I blame the DNC.

[treestar]

63. definitely could pay more attention

to state and local. Republicans did, and it's gotten them a lot farther than they should be.

[Wounded Bear]

31. Meh. More "purity" politics nonsense. We won.

Most of these folks would have voted Yes if needed. I wouldn't care much if my Rep was on this list.

We won. Nuff said.

[walkingman]

39. Exactly - no doubt, they are all loyal Dems trying to make this nation better.

[Demsrule86]

41. Like I said although I was initially taken aback, I think what you say is true.

[fishwax]

66. yup n/t