Any district where a Dem 'NO' vote on HCR would be viewed as a positive...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

...is a district where the Democratic candidate is going to lose this November no matter what happens.

No Democratic politician is going to win an election because of voting no.

None.


There should be a "no heroic measures" policy with these bozos. When you are obviously toast then vote your conscience on the way out rather than clawing to see how much you can shame yourself in a futile cause. (Though I must admit that some of the RW moves from Dems on the way out may be as much to curry favor with their next employer as with the voters.)

Remember the woman who cast the winning Clinton deficit reduction plan vote and was serenaded with "Na na na na, Good-bye" by Republicans? Did she lose because she cast that vote? No. She lost because she was a Democrat in a mostly Republican district and she was up for re-election in 1994... a RW wave election. That vote didn't cost her anything she had not already lost.

She recognized she was toast anyway and did the right thing on the way out.

I understand pragmatism. I do not mind Democrats selling out to win elections but I cannot stand Democrats selling out to LOSE elections.

Have some dignity!

[Pirate Smile]

1. This is such a basic issue that it seems to be at the core of why a person would be a Democrat

instead of a Republican. It was clearly shown at the HC Summit.

I agree with you. Voting no wouldn't save anyone. It can only hurt them by telling their base not to bother voting for them.

[jody]

2. Perhaps some members of the Blue Dog Coalition might gain by voting no. n/t

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. If losing by 8% instead of 9% is a gain

The point is that all the blue-dogs are going to lose this year either way.

Blue-dogs are from conservativish swing-type districts. Those districts are going to pull the R lever this year. The blue-dogs are beyond saving.

(Kind of the inverse of what moderate Republicans faced 2006-2008. Even a decent guy like Lincoln Chaffee couldn't survive. There is no vote he could have cast, no policy he could have adopted. No Republican was going to survive in Rhode Island that year.)

[jody]

4. There are over 50 Blue Democrats. I doubt if all of them will lose. It's still too early to tell if

any Dem congresspersons who vote "yes" might lose.

[Ozymanithrax]

5. You are assuming these no people are bothered by their conscience...

Stupak uses the whole issue to sell his religious convictions. He will vote his conscience. I bet, almost every other "no" votes no because that is what he believes. Those congressmen will sell their vote to get something.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. Well, maybe so

I suppose there could be issues of conscience involved. Or not... always tough to tell with politicians.