Thread by @HoarseWisperer

Since my Biden Iraq vote/Mayor Pete post touches off the nine millionth round of this, apparently we need to go through this again.

I have no idea why this simple thing continues to elude so many people.

The Senate votes on things. The outcome is almost never surprising.

1/

Each party puts in a lot of work *before the vote* to understand how many senators are absolutely set on voting for or against the bill.

Those people are the immoveables.

If there are enough immoveables to carry a measure, it is going to pass *no matter what*.

2/

If there are 51 absolute yeses on a measure requiring 51 votes, it is going to pass no matter what the other 49 do.

If Dems, by and large, oppose that measure but there are 51 votes to pass it, no amount of fist-shaking will change the outcome.

That is how the Senate works.

3/

All that is left to do is to minimize the *additional* damage that would be caused by voting for or against the measure.

It’s possible to lose twice in a single Senate vote. You can lose the vote *and* hand the other party ammunition for the next election.

4/

At the time of the Iraq War vote, the vast majority of Democrats - including me - were STRENUOUSLY against the Iraq War.

However, the country overall was in a vengeful, ultra-nationalistic place after 9/11 and Republicans had *enough* votes to pass it over Dem objections.

5/

Dems had two choices:

1) Vote strategically to best protect Democrats in their districts

2) Vote as a bloc in opposition; watch the vote carry anyway; and then watch Republicans weaponize it to win more seats in the next election

6/

Now, in 2019, opportunistic politicians who absolutely know all of this are using the logical decision to not turn one loss into multiple losses as a weapon to bash Dem senators who made rational political decisions *that did not change the inevitable outcome*.

7/

Cherrypicking past votes and stripping them of the context of the situation and the “whip count” of whether the measure was going to pass or not regardless is one of the cheapest, most disingenuous, and *most effective* dirty tactics in politics.

8/

Rank and file Democrats voting as a bloc on divisive issues when those votes are futile isn’t principled; it’s suicidal.

It doesn’t “make a point” that somehow comes back to pay dividends. It costs a lot of vulnerable Dems their seats - for nothing.

9/

The Iraq War resolution passed 77-23.

If the vote had been a true measure of Senator’s personal feelings, it would have been closer to 50-something to 40-something.

Not knowing or understanding that is not knowing how the Senate works.

10/

The authorization of the Iraq War was a terrible idea. A great many of us knew it to be a terrible idea.

Republicans had the votes to carry it.

There are only two kinds of politicians still trying to weaponize that vote 17 years later...

11/

1) Politicians who weren’t in the Senate at the time and didn’t have the responsibility of protecting seats from further Bush gains

2) A self-dealer from Vermont able to grandstand solely because he’s from ultra-blue Vermont.

12/

Cherry-picking individual votes on measures that weren’t swung by those votes is the cheapest tactic.

It only works because people have this harebrained idea that casting purely symbolic votes which would cost Dems seats is somehow smart politics.

It is very much not.

13/13