General Discussion

pampango

(24,692 posts)

21. So far 35 members of the Progressive Caucus were among those included in the OP link.

Tue Sep 3, 2013, 11:09 AM

Sep 2013

Of the 35, 18 were No or Leaning No, 10 were Yes or Leaning Yes and 7 were Undecided. There are 71 total members of the Caucus so many have either not made their position public or were missed by Think Progress.

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:

Syria Strike Whip Count - No/Lean No: 124 Yes/Lean Yes: 35 Undecided: 63 [View all] bigtree Sep 2013 OP

That's good news. Now, let's just hope they don't change their LuvNewcastle Sep 2013 #1

1 bulk order of pork, comin' right up! Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #13

Keynes said it was better for a government to pay people to dig holes and fill HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #14

King Canute, is that you? dawg Sep 2013 #18

LMFAO - great pic! - nt HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #19

Good! I hope the no column grows. But would that stop Obama? morningfog Sep 2013 #2

The fix is in. woo me with science Sep 2013 #24

Just as many Democrats will vote "yes" as will be needed woo me with science Sep 2013 #3

You're right, of course. Villain Rotation is a ploy that has worked. No need to give it up. AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2013 #5

Thanks for this, woo. Hadn't seen that article before. kath Sep 2013 #6

How'd that work for Cameron? LOL! KittyWampus Sep 2013 #11

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

Point taken. AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2013 #37

Republicans far more likely to oppose military action, while Democrats were likely to support it progressoid Sep 2013 #7

There are a few in each party who try to follow their conscience, LuvNewcastle Sep 2013 #8

Is there an estimate for the most liberal Democrats? David Krout Sep 2013 #17

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

related bookmark bigtree Sep 2013 #23

What about the other 210, though? (Two vacancies, AL and MA) MADem Sep 2013 #10

How do you think the House will vote? nt David Krout Sep 2013 #15

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

Likely the deals regarding who's to get rich from the New War DirkGently Sep 2013 #12

This Congress knows where their bread is buttered. woo me with science Sep 2013 #22

so we have to lay our hopes on the repukes to do the right thing backwoodsbob Sep 2013 #25

Yup. We need Rand Paul :(. Pelosi and Feinstein are hacks when it comes to Natl Sec. . dkf Sep 2013 #28

Fortunately (?), Paul and the tea party caucus are not "hacks"? pampango Sep 2013 #32

I'm not talking about the progressive caucus, I'm speaking of Dem leadership. dkf Sep 2013 #33

"We need Rand Paul?" For what, precisely? nt msanthrope Sep 2013 #36

And the only reason you'll get the "right thing" out of the GOP CakeGrrl Sep 2013 #30

You can bet that AIPAC and MIC lobbyists.... HooptieWagon Sep 2013 #26

Where people are depends on the question karynnj Sep 2013 #29

Democrats are going to be called on to save Obama's credibility. Disgusting. dkf Sep 2013 #27

Thank Goodness for Barbara Lee. JRLeft Sep 2013 #31

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