Doesn't matter how Schumer voted on this

[standingtall]

Rather he was really was for, but didn't want to take the heat so Durbin voted for it to cover for him or he was actually against.

Schumer is the minority Senate leader so how he voted is kind of a moot point. I actually believe he was against it and those 8 Democrats went behind his back to do this. Which would be a serious failure of leadership.

[Irish_Dem]

1. Wow yes that would be very bad if his own people betrayed him behind his back.

[dem4decades]

2. Chuck knows how to count votes, he knew he could vote no

And it would still win, if he really wanted this to fail he could have had his number 2 man vote no, but he didn't.

[Irish_Dem]

3. OP is suggesting the yes people went behind Chuck's back.

That Schumer lost control of the group.

[dem4decades]

5. I doubt that, i think they did Schumer's bidding while giving him cover.

Durbin is the number 2 man, his most trusted member. I suggest that Durbin gave Schumer cover, Schumer gets what he wanted without having to vote for it.

Durbin takes the pill for him, what does it matter to Durbin, he's not running again.

[Irish_Dem]

6. Interesting theories.

In this one Schumer doesn't not want to look like the bad guy
so he has his #2 take one for the team, he is retiring any way.

But it makes Schumer look weak, but I guess he figures that is better than looking like a traitor?

But why does Schumer give into the GOP at all in your theory?
What is his rationale?

[dem4decades]

9. Schumer's rationale? Don't know, he represents NY, lots of money there.

Maybe the airlines, or the business community, certainly not the rank and file.

[Irish_Dem]

11. The airlines were getting hammered.

Good guess.

[dem4decades]

13. I don't know how the big money works but i know how voting works.

And how a leader can get the vote he wants while protecting those that are vulnerable. Chuck is vulnerable, Durbin isn't. I guess it comes down to this, did Schumer let this pass to protect him or the party, because the Durbin vote stinks.

[Irish_Dem]

15. But did he protect the party? The base is not happy.

And I think we can assume big cheese politicians have to learn to protect themselves or they lose votes.

[dem4decades]

17. Lose votes or big money backers, there's two layers. At least.

[Irish_Dem]

19. Yes and big money may win over regular voters.

[dem4decades]

21. That's the part we'll never know.

[Irish_Dem]

24. Oh I would love to be a fly on the wall some days.

[Ars Longa]

16. Either way-- It should be the end of his Leadership position.. EOM

[Irish_Dem]

20. Yes the optics are terrible.

[ForgedCrank]

4. My personal

opinion is that there was probably a lot more consensus among Democrats that is being accepted publicly. If we look at the people, the ones who voted yes, they are the ones not facing a challenge in the upcoming med-terms and they were likely asked to make that sacrifice.
And no, not everyone would be on board with this, but I think it probably had a lot more support (although grudgingly) than any of us are wanting to think.

[Irish_Dem]

7. Why do they keep leaving their base in the dark?

And springing these surprises on us?

Like with the Biden/Harris situation.

It leaves people confused, angry, and hopeless.

[ForgedCrank]

12. In my

opinion, it's only a surprise if we insist on only listening to the voice we agree with and ignore everyone else.
It's like this, 1/3 of this country will for Democratic no matter what. Nothing will change those votes. 1/3 of the country will vote Republican no matter what. It's that other 1/3 that we need, and a larger portion of them were pointing the finger at us, not the Republicans.
Yes, I already know I'll be called full of shit for saying it, but those are the folks who insist on ignoring the other voices. We can choose to ignore them, but that means we choose to lose again. It sucks, but that is the brutal reality of it all. I believe Schumer saw that happening and probably even getting worse by the day. No, I'm not sure about that statement, but it's the one that makes sense. Chuck Schumer is not in bed with Republicans, and he's not out to damage his own party. I'd bet bank that this is killing him just as much as the rest of us. The internal operations of this game are quite often kept close to the chest because it is usually strategic, and you can't extend an opportunity to your opposition.
Anyway, that's my take on it all. I do hope I'm correct.

[Irish_Dem]

18. Your theory is that Schumer was catering to the one third who are undecided voters?

And was willing to upset the one third of the Dems who will vote Dem anyway?

Or perhaps he was trying to attract dissatisfied MAGA voters who have had SNAP taken away.

Would explain why he can't divulge his strategy to his base.

PS. I don't think we have any idea what goes on behind closed doors in DC.
So I cannot venture to guess anyone's loyalties and motives.
The only thing we can see is their public behavior.

[ForgedCrank]

22. No, I never

said cater. Consider is the proper way to describe it. As any other successful politician knows, those swing voters are the ones who decide elections. That is the give and take portion of our system at work. We don't have to like it, but sometimes these decisions have to be made.
And no, I don't think for one second that chuck Schumer is stupid enough to believe he could draw in any MAGA voters.
But you are correct, at least in my view, that all we have to work with is speculation, and that includes my own position. Few other explanations make sense though. Chuck Schumer is not bent on harming Democratic voters, so I can't see any other viable reason.

[Irish_Dem]

23. Whatever the word is, it means "to take into account non Dem (swing) voters."

IDK, if I were going to lose my reputation and take a big hit, I would go big.
Try to capture angry hungry MAGAs.
Go big or go home if I am going down in flames anyway.

The research shows that some cult members will leave the cult.
Schumer is not stupid I agree, but he knows hungry people can be budged.

Well we are just building theories right now.
That is all we can do.

[Jersey Devil]

10. I agree. Just look at who changed to "no" at the last minute, Peters and Ossoff

They switch to no because their votes were no longer needed in order to avoid blowback from Dem voters. I suspect, as you do, that there were also others in the same category who voted no but were in fact in favor of caving. How many? We'll never know.

[Shrek]

14. I think you're probably right

Political cover to allow some "no" votes from those otherwise inclined to vote the other way.