Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Syria Strike Whip Count - No/Lean No: 124 Yes/Lean Yes: 35 Undecided: 63 [View all]MADem
(135,425 posts)10. What about the other 210, though? (Two vacancies, AL and MA)
This is just slightly more than half of the House.
Just 35 of the 223 members of the House of Representatives said they will definitely or likely vote in favor or the resolution. Sixty-three are undecided.
Isn't this an interesting sentence:
Republicans were far more likely to oppose military action in Syria, while Democrats were more likely to support it.
It's not like they've polled anyone, here--they're just looking at pandering, off the cuff quoted, on-the-air, or published comments ("I oppose military action"--but is a targeted strike within their definition of "military action," one wonders?) and extrapolating from them.
I think they did a lot of work for very little effect. They've only looked at half the group, too.
I think anyone who says that they will "definitely" vote this way or that, either for, or against, before they've seen the briefs, are hanging it out there in a big way.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
38 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Syria Strike Whip Count - No/Lean No: 124 Yes/Lean Yes: 35 Undecided: 63 [View all]
bigtree
Sep 2013
OP
Keynes said it was better for a government to pay people to dig holes and fill
HardTimes99
Sep 2013
#14
You're right, of course. Villain Rotation is a ploy that has worked. No need to give it up.
AnotherMcIntosh
Sep 2013
#5
Are all those "likely to" support and will "definitely" back the use of force chicken-hawks?
AnotherMcIntosh
Sep 2013
#4
The politically correct term for Chicken Hawks is "Soaring Eagles" please use the correct term
Dragonfli
Sep 2013
#34
Republicans far more likely to oppose military action, while Democrats were likely to support it
progressoid
Sep 2013
#7
So far 35 members of the Progressive Caucus were among those included in the OP link.
pampango
Sep 2013
#21
My figures are so far: Progressive Caucus-18 no, 10 yes, undecided 7; tea party caucus-20 no, 1 yes,
pampango
Sep 2013
#9
When most Democrats supported the Amash amendment on the NSA, did you think it was interesting?
David Krout
Sep 2013
#16
I don't have "goals" and even if I did, they don't make a damn bit of difference when it comes to
MADem
Sep 2013
#20
Yup. We need Rand Paul :(. Pelosi and Feinstein are hacks when it comes to Natl Sec. .
dkf
Sep 2013
#28
This article is in error about the Iraq War Resolution vote. A majority of Democrats opposed.
stevenleser
Sep 2013
#35
It seems to correctly indicate in 2002 "Democrats in the House provided 'the bulk of the opposition'
AnotherMcIntosh
Sep 2013
#38