Democratic Senators who voted no on the Debt Ceiling vote last night.

[sarcasmo]

Fetterman

Markey

Merkley

Warren

Sanders

[Beachnutt]

1. Roll call vote here

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1181/vote_118_1_00146.htm

[Walleye]

2. Our unity is our power, good thing we don't depend on these

I feel like saying come on guys get with the program

[gab13by13]

7. Maybe you should think about what Jim Clyburn says about that issue.

Clyburn said that unity is not the same as unanimity. Do you understand his point?

The Democratic party is a big tent party and that is the advantage it has over the Magat party.

I will take those Democratic Senators in a heart beat to start a party.

The Democratic party is united, it does the party no good by claiming it isn't.

[Walleye]

10. I just don't like symbolic protest votes, or "signaling" to their constituents.

I am glad they are looking out for every day people, but, it does help when we play on the same team

[gab13by13]

15. So you disagree with the Jim Clyburn quote?

Maybe I need to explain what he was saying?

[Bettie]

17. Did the bill pass?

That it wasn't unanimous matters not at all. It passed.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

37. God forbid representatives actually represent the wishes of their constituents

when the vote isn't needed for the bill to pass.

If you think these votes weren't run through the Whip, you are mistaken.

[Walleye]

40. Well I can see now I shouldn't speak out about these things

[Cuthbert Allgood]

43. Or, you could justify your response and position.

You literally criticized representatives for representing their constituents when a bill passed. If you are OK with that stance, then defend it. If you aren't, then change it. Keeping it private still makes it a bad take.

[Walleye]

44. I am just talking about practical politics.Some folks resent it for some reason

[Cuthbert Allgood]

55. But you're not, though. You are talking about purity politics.

If you were actually talking about practical politics, you would realize the reasons for those votes both for those people's constituents and how those votes can be used as a bargaining tool to not make further cuts lest we lost them. If you were talking practical politics, you would acknowledge that there is no doubt that each and every one of those votes were cleared by the Whip and that, without hesitation, those people would have voted in favor if their votes were needed.

But you aren't, and that's why people "resent" it (which means they are actually calling you out on what you are really doing).

Own what you are saying and support it. Don't piss in my ear and telling me it's raining.

[Walleye]

59. You are right, I was wrong, wasn't questioning motives or policy. I just put it wrong.

I was questioning the tactic. Many of the voters we want to attract of the independent variety don’t understand party politics. And it makes us look fragmented. But on second thought the Democratic Party is looking pretty unified right now compared to the GOP, and as long as they know it isn’t gonna tank the bill then maybe it is a good tactic. I could easily be wrong. I am definitely not a purist and I love John Fetterman and Elizabeth Warren and the rest of them.Take it easy on me I’m an old woman

[Autumn]

47. Manchin and Sinema joined Republicans to tank Biden's agenda last night.

Those two joined with the fucking Republican and happily killed Biden's student loan forgiveness, no symbolic protests votes there. We are not playing on the same fucking team when you have no complaints about them but post after post complaining about progressives who were given leeway to vote no on a shitty bill guaranteed to pass.

[Walleye]

48. I was wrong, I apologize. Really didn't mean to upset anyone

[yardwork]

58. Gotta agree with this.

These two votes are crystal clear examples of working together vs. working against the Democratic Party.

The fact that certain Democrats are being criticized while others are not is telling.

Personally, I've said all I have to say about Manchin and Sinema. If I say more my posts will be hidden. I will say that I look forward to the primaries in Arizona.

[CentralMass]

8. When the math was clearly known. Meaning Schumer and Mosow Mitch

Had the votes to pass it these Democratic Senators voting on principle is perfectly acceptable.
Sinema and Manchin are Biden bill killers. Not Senators Fetterman, Warren, Markey, and Merkley.

[gab13by13]

13. Well said,

Some people still want to relive the Bernie v Hillary campaign.

Joe Lieberman cost President Obama the public option for Obamacare.

[True Blue American]

21. Joe did and

I disliked him from that day on. Then found out his wife was an insurance lobbyist. Then Joe joined the same thing when he left Congress.

Fake piety, nothing could be done on Saturday but that was not important when he tried to kill the ACA. Joe, Chuck Grassley and Max Baucus,
another fake Democrat..

[Emile]

14. Spot on! +1

[3Hotdogs]

19. If the vote was "tight," I'm sure they would'a voted to pass.

While the bill wasn't a complete shit show, it did nothing to raise taxes on billionaires.

[JudyM]

42. This. It didn't fix a fundamental (and of course republican) driver of the deficit, and they had

the room, fortunately, to vote on that principle. Joe has otherwise had strong support, including cross-country lobbying for his agenda, from these folks.

If MSM was doing its job, this essential truth about the deficit would have become clear.

[Doc Sportello]

29. Actually they have been quite united in supporting Biden's agenda

Last edited Fri Jun 2, 2023, 09:28 AM - Edit history (1)

The only actual disunity I've seen comes from posters like you and the one who bashed the Democratic representatives yesterday. Good grief, the reasons for their votes and the reasons why they didn't matter have been explained to the "purists" over and over. But, it's more important for some to trash fellow Democrats than to acknowledge the fact that prgoressives in both chambers have been unified with Biden on every major piece of legislation. That's real disunity.

[yardwork]

34. Well said.

[yardwork]

33. In this case, their votes were highly strategic.

There were last minute demands from the Republicans to make the bill even worse. Schumer needed to be able to say he might not have the votes from the Democratic caucus to pass the bill. The final vote needed to be close.

Feel confident that everybody was playing their necessary roles, in order for us to push the Republicans back as much as possible.

[Magoo48]

45. Even when "the program" is another slap in the face to next generation's climate catastrophe?

I applaud them all for voting their conscience.

[JT45242]

3. Heard head of house progressive caucus interview

She said that a no vote was a signal to those negatively affected by the cuts.

When asked if that meant she was willing to default.

No, we have the votes to pass this. I am letting the people that we promised to help know that we have not forgotten them. We are fighting for them.


This is very different than manchin and sinema tanking Biden's agenda. This was a symbolic gesture being articulated clearly when the votes are not needed. In a way it's like Romney's impeachment vote. The right vote, but it didn't matter to the outcome.

[blm]

6. Exactly right.

[Celerity]

20. +1

I find it so ironic that some who attempt to weapoise purity test charges when slagging off progressives (who have blocked or slashed nothing in terms of Biden's agenda) then turn around and demand lockstep purity over meaningless (in terms of bills or nominees passing) protest votes that block nothing.

In addition, some of those same people, at times, make a multiplicity of excuses and rationalisations to defend Manchin, Sinema and (to a lesser extent) some of the members of the No Labels-affiliated Problems Solvers Caucus in the House when they actually slash/gut or outright block massive parts of Biden's agenda (for example the $6.1 trillion in new spending combined totals for Biden's BBB and BIF frameworks being gutted by around 84%, down to only $984 billion combined totals for new spending, or their blocking both of the staggeringly important voter rights bills, or block multiple Biden nominees, or (in the House), actively opposed and/or voted against Pelosi for Speaker multiple times etc etc).

SPO

selective purity outrage

[demmiblue]

22. +1

[CentralMass]

24. +1

[hippywife]

28. This is exactly what...

I was trying to get through to some numbskull on here yesterday, but eventually put on Ignore since they were insisting the House progressive caucus was full of cowards. Another idiot said they were initially supporting Katie Porter for Senate, but her no vote changed their mind.

You know, I like Joe Biden, glad he's president, but too many people are kissing his ass over this when it's not deserved. It wasn't a great bill, but it was what was needed to squeak by without a default. Period. Once the votes are there, Dems not in agreement are free to vote according to their conscience and the expectations of the constituency that elected for them. Had the votes not been there, enough of them would have voted yes in order to avoid default.

It's called being pragmatic, not cowardly, and it's the way things have to work sometimes.

[yardwork]

35. Not just symbolic. Their stance helped push back on the Republicans

This bill could have been much worse - and would have been, if the Democrats had said they'd vote for anything to avoid default.

This is strategy and this is how we kept the damage in the bill to a minimum, despite being in the minority.

[panader0]

39. I agree about the strategy.

[MichMan]

50. How when the bill had already been agreed to by Biden and passed the House

The negotiations were over.

[yardwork]

57. The Republicans tried to change it in the Senate.

Until the final votes are tallied, there's always the chance of amendments. The Republicans tried.

[W_HAMILTON]

62. But I think the efforts can end up being ultimately the same...

...when their "letting the people that we promised to help know what we have not forgotten about them" can result in depressed voter turnout because a certain segment of voters very important to Democrats are (wrongly) led to believe that """both sides are the same""" and other similar bullshit that have likewise resulted in the tanking of progressive ideals (e.g., see the disaster resulting from the 2016 election).

You can do this in a good way or you can do this in a bad way. I have not followed Fetterman lately to see how he specifically responded, but in the lead up to his election, he did it in a good way. He didn't try to frame Democrats as the bad guys. He was always on the attack, and at our rightful enemies: Republicans. He would proudly affirm his principles without tearing down Democrats as a whole to do so.

Some others, well, let's just say they went about this in a bad way and we are still suffering the consequences -- and will be for the foreseeable future, unfortunately...

[marble falls]

4. Mostly people with higher and capable ambitions.

[CentralMass]

16. I voted for Elizabeth Warren twice before I moved to Oregon and have voted

for Merkely in Oregon. I am also very familiar with Bernie Sanders from my years living in a neighboring state
Your characteruzation that some how their ambition was the reason these Senators voted no is IMO is way off base. Unity on a bill that had the votes to pass but has potential downside to strip away a lot of Biden initiatives is not being disloyal. With this bill the republican have not given up trying to gut social programs and the green energy initiatives in the infrastructure bill, etc.
I'm sure that Joe Buden has no issue with these votes of conscious. They caused no harm.

[marble falls]

32. Me neither. I supported Bernie in his first run until the very capable Hillary got the nod ...

... And I'd have supported Elizabeth Warren if she had run. I'll be supporting John Fetterman when his turn comes up.

I know what their symbolic vote against the bill meant, they'd never have voted against it if Joe Biden needed their vote for it.

What we needed to do was pull the nation from the brink McCarthy put it on, and fix it once we get our votes out and give Joe Biden the Congress he needs to fix it.

Please don't think I was criticizing them, I was pointing out these are among the best and brightest with high potential to do good we have. Joe needed to signal the this Bill was tactical and the next phase will be strategic - get pure politics out of the budget and those Senators made that clear.

There was no way Joe Biden was going to lose this thing. He needed to show it wasn't politics and handshakes as usual.

[Polybius]

56. You think Fetterman is gonna run for President one day?

I find it unlikely at best.

[marble falls]

61. A little more gravitas after another term as Senator and he'll be ready.

[Chainfire]

5. I understand why they did it, but I do not agree with them.

Bernie especially expects a perfect world. While that is a noble sentiment, it is not the real world. Biden lives in the real world of present day American politics and as far as I am concerned he kicked ass and took names with the deal.

[gab13by13]

9. Not the real world?

What does Bernie believe in that the "real world" is against?

[Chainfire]

52. Sanders fights for a perfect world. The perfect is the enemy of the good enough.

Nobody bats 1000. I like Sanders because he is a good man, but that is not the only qualification for being a good leader. He had his protest vote, I get that, what I wonder if his was the deciding vote if he would have supported the deal and I am not sure. Democrats cut off a finger to save the arm.

[Walleye]

12. Yes, if Bernie had managed to get himself elected president,he could've invoked the 14th amendment.

I understand he knew the bill was going to pass anyway. It still gives political ammunition to the other side

[NoRethugFriends]

18. it gives no ammunition to anybody

You're still worried about the what the rethug think and say???

[Walleye]

27. I'm not worried about what anybody will think or say, I'm just worried Democrats won't vote

[NoRethugFriends]

54. You think Democrats won't vote because a few senators voted against this bill????

Seriously.
Some Democrats won't vote, but it won't be because of this bill. It will be because some Democrats are stupid.

[Celerity]

23. No, it actually strengthens Biden's hand in future negotiations

Lawrence O'Donnell explains why the 46 House Democrats who voted No actually strengthen Biden's hand in future negotiations with McCarthy, and would have voted 'Yes' in enough numbers to pass it IF needed.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217962089

[CentralMass]

26. +1

[Cuthbert Allgood]

38. This wasn't 13 votes to get a House Speaker, it passed.

Right away. It's OK that people voted this way, and it was needed to put pressure on Republicans that it wasn't unanimous.

[yardwork]

36. These were strategic votes, to keep the bill from being worse.

What if the Democrats had said they'd all vote for the bill, no matter what was in it, to avoid default?

The Republicans would have loaded it with worse things.

[Johnny2X2X]

11. Wow, Republicans

So of the 49 Republicans, only 17 were a yes. 31 were willing to send the world economy into chaos. 1 didn't vote.

Tells you everything you need to know about this bill:
Dems Caucus 46-5 in favor of.
Rep caucus 31-17 against.

Any doubters still that this was a big Biden win? Republicans wanted to gut every legislative achievement Biden has made the last 2-1/2 years, he defended it all.

[gab13by13]

25. I have to laugh that Democrats are complaining about progressive Senators who cast symbolic votes,

but overlook what happened when Democrats controlled Congress and could have passed a clean debt ceiling bill were it not for Manchin and Sinema.

Don't get me wrong now, this was a huge victory for President Biden, but just the money that was cut from the IRS would have pumped a ton of revenue into Social Security making it more solvent.

[Autumn]

41. I laugh every time I see it. They don't hate the no vote, they just hate the people voting no.

[crickets]

60. +1

[progressoid]

30. Aaaahahahaha. Bernie is a Democrat now!

[Emile]

46. +1 LOL good catch.

[RandySF]

31. I can't hold it against them.

[fishwax]

49. Those no votes were an essential part of our negotiation strategy

When the opposition needs to get something passed but they don't have enough votes to do it, you don't say "oh sure, our whole caucus will vote for it so don't worry about it."

You say something like "I've got ten votes that I'm not sure of, but if you make this concession and this concession, I know we can get five of them."

Here is an article about how it played out in the house: https://www.axios.com/2023/06/01/jeffries-mccarthy-debt-ceiling-bill-side-deal

Basically, McCarthy needed more democratic votes and Jeffries, knowing he could deliver them, negotiated additional spending to make it happen.

Think of it like buying a car. The sticker price might be a starting point for negotiations, but you try to talk the dealer down in price or maybe get him to throw in the undercoating or extend the warranty or whatever. The only power you have is the potential that you might not agree to the deal. It would be really bizarre if, after negotiating the best deal you could, you just paid the full sticker price and said "well, the important thing is that we got the deal done, and I was willing to spend it all anyway."

Same deal when you're negotiating with votes instead of dollars. You hold some back. There is just no value in (and, indeed, some genuine cost to) a purely symbolic unanimous vote from the democratic caucus.

[MichMan]

51. What did any of that have to do with the Senate vote?

The negotiations were already done.

[fishwax]

53. I just meant about the process as a whole

on edit: I mean I know the senate passed the house deal, and since we control the senate (and there is no filibuster for debt ceiling) teh senate wasn't central to the negotiations. But the same principle remains in play, and a unanimous vote would have meant nothing.