But couldn’t every Dem in the house just vote for it knowing it would die in the Senate and even if it made it through there that it would be veto’d by Joe? Their donors surely understand hiding your true colors to retain power
Not trying to go after you here, but these are thoughts I’ve had about this issue
If the dems pass it by faking then good for us it’s still passed, if after that they fail to take back the senate that’s political ammunition for us, if Joe vetoes the bill that also political ammunition for us, on all potential angles the vote benefits us, how much it benefits is up to debate but there still a range of benefits which is why it’s worth doing
Ultimately it seems like framing this all within electoral politics is rather pointless. It’s ammunition for what? How is it actually going to change anything? By the time there are primaries this is a at best a distant blip in the memory of the electorate, and if you’re organizing to radicalize people there are plenty of other issues much more impactful to speak about.
Sure it could do something, but the chances of that are incredibly low, to the point it doesn’t feel worth the effort involved in getting it to happen.
If we want to talk electoral politics then the controversy should rest on Pelosi’s Speaker of the House role and not that she’ll get voted for if she lets a m4a vote fail in the house “so we can know who is bad”
One’s a vote that COULD change the lives of millions and the other is a name on a paper
A vote for a bill that can pass is for sure a higher commitment. The best case scenario of this bill is all the cosponsors plus a few more vote yes, and it won’t pass if just a few Dems are against it as the majority is a slim one. Which is why I’m not considering it a higher commitment. Someone can vote yes now and then change their mind when they run for higher office
