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 General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(37,305 posts)
Thu Sep 5, 2013, 12:47 PM Sep 2013

Why House Dems think Syria resolution could still pass

After talking to House Dem aides, here is their view of the factors that really matter right now:

1) The majority of Members still have not gotten a classified briefing, sources tell me. Aides say this will change next week, on Monday, when Members are set to be briefed en masse by White House officials. Aides believe Members won’t really make up their mind until they see the classified info, which will make a No vote harder. I’m not defending this position; I’m merely reporting how things are viewed from the inside.

2) Many members were not around during the Iraq War vote and have never taken a big, consequential vote on matters of war and peace. Aides believe that this fact, combined with the classified intel such members will be given (which they haven’t seen yet), and the persuasion they will be subjected to when they hear from White House and State Department officials, will conspire to make a No vote harder.

3) The real state of play is not what it seems. Aides believe that many of those who say they are leaning No are not necessarily at that point. Aides believe there’s a lot of pressure on Dems — given the unpopularity of strikes with constituents, as reflected in the polls, and given some of the pressure being directed to offices by liberal groups — to downplay the possibility of a Yes vote later. So aides think the whip counts don’t tell the real story.

4) There are sizable blocs of Dems who can still get to yes. Dem aides believe they probably need around 120-130 Dems for the resolution to pass, because they think they’ll get around 90-100 Republicans (with most voting No). They think that they can get there. This would draw on Yes votes from 40 or so hawkish, interventionist Dems types who will be persuadable by groups like AIPAC; plus a sizable bloc of moderate Dems who aren’t too worried about the Dem base and will be genuinely gettable; plus some more votes drawn from around several dozen hard-to-classify Dems who are more focused on domestic affairs. Dem aides think they can get the numbers they need even if around 60 progressive Dems prove ungettable.


3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why House Dems think Syria resolution could still pass (Original Post) dkf Sep 2013 OP
The committed Nos are already 199. HooptieWagon Sep 2013 #1
If the Dems buy into this, they lose the next election big time Kelvin Mace Sep 2013 #2
But they keep upping the badness quotient. dkf Sep 2013 #3


(17,064 posts)
1. The committed Nos are already 199.
Thu Sep 5, 2013, 12:58 PM
Sep 2013

Only need a couple dozen more.
Committed Yes votes are 49....they have a looong way to go.
Congressional staff are reporting that calls from constituents urging No votes vastly outnumber those urging war.

It is not looking likely Obama will get Congressional authorization. If he proceeds anyway, he's opening a real Pandora's Box of a Constitutional crisis.


Kelvin Mace

(17,469 posts)
2. If the Dems buy into this, they lose the next election big time
Thu Sep 5, 2013, 01:22 PM
Sep 2013

because this is a GODDAMNED if you do, damned if you don't scenario. Doing nothing will get the Dems criticized as "weak" on national security, despite the fact that this is not a national security issue. Attacking puts us in the middle of another pointless war that cannot be won and will just get more people dead, while encouraging terror groups and creating a greater rift with our allies.

1) As to classified briefing, anyone who believes ANYTHING they are told by the intelligence community is a fool.

2) Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The lesson of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars was that they cannot be won. Also, US hands are FAR from clean on this issue. We have been actively attempting to destablilise the government in Syria for several years, and so we are "shocked" that they turn to chemical weapons to hold power? Push a crazy person to the limits and they will do crazy things.

3) What they are appearing to say in this point is they intend to move further to the right yet again, and ignore core constituent opinion, or I should say ignore those constituents who are not defense contractors.

4) Translation: Vichy Dems are going to sell out their moral, their constituents and the country yet again.\

Pushing for this war is seen by the Obama administration as a great way to end the domestic spying scandal, bury the lackluster economy and please the lobbyists for the defense industry who will be handing out high-paying jobs when Obama leaves office.



(37,305 posts)
3. But they keep upping the badness quotient.
Thu Sep 5, 2013, 01:26 PM
Sep 2013

Yes NSA was bad, war is worse isn't it? And this one would be worse than Iraq.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why House Dems think Syri...