Should you support publicly an issue that you know will lose seats for your Party in next election?

[kentuck]

In my opinion, that is why so many Democrats supported the anti-Syrian refugee bill in the House. They could talk to their constituents. They could see that it was not a popular idea in their districts. But they did not agree with it - even though they voted for it. Their heart and conscience told them that it was "un-American". Yet, they voted with the Republicans.

Will they change their votes if the President vetoes the bill? Or will they vote to over-ride the veto? That could be the next step?

[yeoman6987]

1. This is a tough one

We hardly have any democratic politicians left especially governors and state representatives. Also we are low on house seats but have enough to let them have their principles. The senate isn't too bad so we can afford some loss'. But we really are becoming extinct. And that is not discussed because everyone thinks the Repugs are going extinct with political seats is far from true.

[Agnosticsherbet]

2. I think they publicly supported the bill because opposing it endangered their own seats.

In the House, it isn't about the House it is about the individual's job.

Most Congressmen have an ear to their constituents. I think most of these men knew that a vote against the anti-Syrian refugee bill would come to haunt them on election day.

It is going to be an issue in the election at all levels of government. As long as we don't have a terrorist event, it will be manageable. A Daesh backed attack in the US would become the central issue in the election.

The House members are being cautious.

it doesn't make what they did right.

But I understand it.

That means I won't vote for Congressman Scott Peters in the Primary. In his case, his vote doesn't surprise me at all. He is a progressive it looks like it gets him votes and a non-partisan when it looks like that gets him votes.

[kentuck]

6. Absolutely correct!

They are all into self-preservation.

[CoffeeCat]

3. I am still dumbfounded by the Iowa Congressman,

Dave Loebsack (Democrat) who voted in support of the anti-Syrian refugee bill. He represents Iowa City, which is the most liberal part of the state of Iowa. His district houses the University of Iowa, which is a bastion of liberalism.

He certainly was not catering to his constituents. In fact, he failed to represent the prevailing views of his constituents.

I think sometimes these politicians just do what they believe is the most politically expedient.

Maybe many of them believe that an ISIS attack on US soil is highly likely and they don't want this vote to be used against them during an election year.

I really don't know.

[egduj]

4. No. They should vote for whatever will help get them re-elected.

What's right or ethical comes behind that.

[oneshooter]

5. Does that include voting against gun control bills? n/t

[backscatter712]

7. Yes, they should, it shows courage.

It's only a matter of time before at least some Americans calm down, smoke some weed, and get over the Syrian refugee hysteria.

And when they do, they'll see which politicians stood up and did the right thing, and which ones cravenly caved to keep their seats.

And showing cowardice, in the long term, is far worse for your re-election chances than taking an honest, but unpopular principled stance.

Doing the right thing, even in the face of opposition, is called leadership, and that's in short supply here.

[Mister Ed]

8. My small story:

I attended my first Democratic Party caucus here in Minnesota in February of 2006. Those were dark times. The GOP held power across the board on the Federal level: they had the presidency, the House, and the Senate. They likewise held all power in our Minnesota state government.

At the and of the portion of the caucus where people were invited to submit suggestions for planks to include in the Democratic Party platform, my neighbor Greg stood up. He said, "I'm astonished that no one in this group has yet put this suggestion forward, and so I'd like to submit it now: support of same-sex marriage needs to be part of this party's platform."

At the invitation to discuss, I was first to my feet. I don't know why, because I hadn't yet figured out what I was even going to say. "I'm terribly worried that the Republicans will publicly beat us over the head with this, all through the election season, and drive us to defeat in November...", I began.

And then my voice trailed off, and I looked down at my shoes. I have no idea why I thought I'd find the answer down there. But I guess I did find it down there, because I was suddenly filled with a feeling of certainty and resolve. When I raised my head again, my voice rang with clarity and conviction.

"...but being afraid to do the right thing is what has brought this party to the dire straits it's in today! I strongly support this resolution."

I sat down again, and one by one, every person in the room murmured their agreement. There was no dissent, and the motion carried.

Those scant few years ago, few people expected to see justice and fairness for same-sex couples anytime soon. And now, it's the law of the land, and of my home state. It's what happens when millions of little people like us in that caucus room that night cast off their fear of doing the right thing, and throw their careful political calculus to the winds. What we little people must do, so also must our elected representatives in Congress do.

[surrealAmerican]

9. Thank you for sharing your experience.

There are times when you just have to do what you know is right. I believe this is one of those times. Public opinion can change in a few months, and if the braver representatives take the time to talk to their constituents, they can help affect that change.

We may lose anyway, but if we win by doing what we know to be wrong, what exactly will we have won?