NRA a good example of a vote counter.
So what you/the party has to decide IMO, are those groups really all that influencial, at least enough to potentially derail your agenda, or is not having accomplishments more detrimental?
The party needs to give leeway to those reps in highly competitive districts that lean conservative. This bill is no more of an accomplishment than the GOP house voting to repeal ACA 80 times.
So some ppl will go from a 33.1% NRA rating to a 33.25% because of this vote. Ok. Is this really going to stop the NRA going after them anyway just because they are a D? Scary enough to make it worth 200 other members having to take a bad vote in their district?
It gives the NRA specific and effective talking points that will resonate with voters in these districts. Are the 200 members that are in democratic strong holds going to be voted out because they voted for a bill that has a nonsense ICE clause in it?
Take the failure to include the public option to the ACA. Not having a good public option as an insurance backstop cost them how many seats and how much favorablilty of the program? Lots of wasted money too.
There is a huge difference in what happened with ACA and this bill. First, the ACA actually passed so it had real ramifications. Second, removal of the public option massively effected the bill and how the program worked. This amendment wouldn't do anything except lightly embarrass democrats even if the bill became law. I seriously doubt there are many (any?) illegal immigrants trying to legally buy guns. Third, dems should've known they were going to take huge hits by passing ACA and just stuck to their guns and passed it the right way.
Recall the "Grand bargain" debates? Didn't win Obama anything.
What about the Merrick Garland nomination?
A. the fact he nominated such a compromise to begin with.
B. Just sat and watched Rs stuff it anyway.
Where was the fight? Didn't even try to force a recess appt or constitutional confrontation. Just counted on the mushy middle to be offended and come thru for Hillary. Oops.
To be clear, I am not at all saying dems shouldn't fight. They definitely should and should a lot more than they have in the past. This was by far my biggest issue with Obama. I am however very much against the purity test, "get in line or else," bullshit that will only lead to them losing their majority.
The election of the house is very much rigged in favor of republicans, both in purposeful manipulation and in the attitudes of actual voters. Democrats can't afford to give a middle finger to any rep that caucuses with them from a red district.
I think it is important to remember, too, the republicans won the house popular vote by 1.1% in 2016, so even if there was no gerrymandering and everything was based on popular vote the republicans would've gotten the majority. If anyone thinks that the dems won the popular vote by 8.8% in 2018 solely because people decided to embrace the left wing of the party and would therefore want a purity test they are deluding themselves.
1. The R party will be saying the last candidate was dumb as hell and will be gunning for her anyway.
The GOP has been saying that since he lost. My point was, in 2020 she will definitely have to deal with negative ads. A negative ad based on voting against this amendment would be very harmful to her in this district. She must do what she can to protect her image in her district, while still supporting what she said she would.
It really blows my mind that some dems would rather have republicans in these seats than have a democrat vote against them in a meaningless vote.
2. If they are meaningless votes then np. But these aren't meaningless if you lose them. Lose them and you can screw over everyone else.
So is it worth losing crucial procedural votes to give some individual some tiny bump in probability of holding a seat at the expense of others and the party agenda?
I really don't understand how losing this vote is harmful to the reps in safe districts. It is a meaningless vote because the amendment has no effect in the real world and the bill will never become law anyways.
So yeah, it will all likely die in the Senate, but otoh 2020 will be decided on Trump's elitist corruption vs D "main St populism" anyway. Ds are busy building that brand, and this is part of that effort.
The dems got their talking point by passing the larger bill and making republicans vote against it. Are republicans really going to attack democrats with "You passed a bill that included an ICE provisions! A bill I voted against even though 90% of people agree with it, while voting for the amendment I am bashing you for."
I understand why the party leadership and the left wing of the party are annoyed, but democrats can't win anything if they push a left wing purity test.
IMHO, democrats protecting their majority is the most important thing. That requires protecting the must vulnerable reps and running more moderates to compete in more districts and state legislators.
Facebook
Twitter