Anyone know why Reid voted no on cloture today?

[usregimechange]

:shrug:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00124#position

[malaise]

1. Because he has to bring up the bill again

as Leader. ReTHUGS all voted no.

[usregimechange]

6. So he has to vote no in order to do so again?

[robinblue]

8. Yes.

[robinblue]

10. here.....

Forum Name Latest Breaking News
Topic subject Senate blocks financial regulation bill
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4357643#4357643
4357643, Senate blocks financial regulation bill
Posted by Amerigo Vespucci on Mon Apr-26-10 10:28 PM

Source: USA Today

A sweeping proposal to revamp Wall Street suffered a legislative setback today when the Senate failed to bring the measure to the floor for debate.

Voting 57-41, Senate Democrats could not muster the 60 votes needed to overturn the threat of a GOP filibuster and begin formal debate on the bill, which has become President Obama's top priority following his success on health care.

At least one Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, voted with all Republicans against advancing the measure. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., switch his vote to "no" on the measure -- a procedural move that will allow him to call for a new vote later this week.

Politically, the failed vote immediately allowed Democrats to cast Republicans as obstructionists on the issue that Americans generally support. A Washington Post-ABC News poll found that about two-thirds of Americans back new regulations on banks.

Read more: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/04/senate-blocks-financial-regulation-bill-on-party-lines/1

[Clintonista2]

2. Good 'ol Reid

Always standing up for the party.

[babylonsister]

9. He did it for a very valid reason. I'll not slam him for it...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8221784

[pnwmom]

14. Actually, he was. This way he can force them to vote again.

You have to be on the other side to call for a re-vote.

[napi21]

3. My guess is it has to do with Senate rules & being able to resubmit

the bill at a later date. I've seen this happen before.

[BlooInBloo]

4. Asked and answered, your honor....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8221784

[yellowcanine]

5. Procedural. By voting no it allows him to bring it up again for another vote.

Standard practice for a majority leader to do in this circumstance.

[usregimechange]

7. I see said the blind man

[notadmblnd]

11. cause he's expecting a big contribution to his re-election campaign from the bankers?

[ncteechur]

15. read much?

[notadmblnd]

19. As I said to another poster here...

Since it's so hard for people like you to just pass up a post you don't like without a snarky response. I imagine you don't get the opportunity to make yourself feel superior in your day to day lives- It's my way of giving you a moment of glee.

BTW way my comment was a question, which might indicate I didn't read the article or the responses before I posted. Others here managed to post the real reason without making themselves feel good at the expense of others ignorance.

[Arkana]

16. Kneejerk much?

[notadmblnd]

18. NO, I post stuff like that here just so people like you can post a snarky reply.

Wouldn't want to deny your brief glimmer of glee over it.

[Arkana]

20. Not our fault you didn't read the article first.

[notadmblnd]

21. LOL... Did I place blame? No need to defend yourself. You are who you are

Being mean and snarky just because you can, must somehow make you feel better about yourself, so I say go for it every opportunity you get.

Doesn't hurt my feelings. My self esteem doesn't depend on whether I get some anonymous poster's approval on a message board.

[CTLawGuy]

12. it's a procedural tactic

he wants to make a motion to reconsider which would allow a second vote. He can't do that unless he was on the prevailing side. That's why he changed his vote at the last minute to "no."

[backscatter712]

13. I was beaten to it, but the other repliers are exactly right - it's parliamentary procedures.

He had to vote no in order to be allowed to make a motion for reconsideration at a later date. Fairly standard parliamentary tactic.

No, I don't hold this vote against Reid.

[Bitwit1234]

17. The only democrat to vote no on cloture was BEN NELSON