Megathread: Congressional Vote on the Iran Deal

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Really disappointed in Rand, if he's voting no then I doubt any Republican will vote yes.

[moderatevoter]

IMO, the only gettable Senate Republican is Jeff Flake.

[moderatevoter]

Sen. Kaine (D-VA), Boxer (D-CA), and Nelson (D-FL) are in favor. Sen. Carper (D-DE) is "lean yes."

[Gass3268]

My guess is it'll fail in the Senate by 1-3 votes. Can't see Schumer, Nelson or Menendez voting aye at the end of the day.

Wrong on Nelson, still waiting on the other two.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

this many Democrats opposing probably means this fails easily.

There hasn't yet been a Democrat in the Senate who's outright come out against this, and there can be as many as twelve without the deal failing.

[moderatevoter]

Rep. Lowey (D-NY), Rep. Israel (D-NY), and Deutch (D-FL) are against the deal.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Proof that the hawkish Democrat is alive and well.

[SATW]

Rep. Lowey (D-NY), Rep. Israel (D-NY), and Deutch (D-FL) are against the deal.

Links, if anyone needs:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/rep-steve-israel-announces-opposition-to-iran-deal-121000.html
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-ted-deutch-bill-nelson-iran-nuclear-20150804-story.html
http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/08/04/new-york-democrat-nita-lowey-announces-opposition-to-iran-nuclear-deal/

The second link also includes Sen. Nelson's decision to support the deal.

[moderatevoter]

The Hill now has a Whip List for House Democrats.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Okay, yeah, on the House side this is starting to get concerning.

What's mysterious to me is why exactly the people who are opposing this deal expect defeating it to have anything close to the desired effect. It's not like current policy is doing such a bang-up job discouraging Iran from pursuing its nuclear program.

[ElectionsGuy]

Proof that the hawkish Democrat is alive and well.

Yeah, all these Safe district Democrats coming out opposing it just shows that the establishment and common wisdom position in Washington on foreign policy is to favor "being tough" over diplomacy. There would probably be far more Democrats coming out against it if it was a Republican deal.

[MaxQue]

Let's hope than Obama spends 2016 supporting primary opponents to some of these.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Let's hope than Obama spends 2016 supporting primary opponents to some of these.

I support the deal*, but that would be in bad taste for a sitting President.

*It's the best we'll get.  If I were President I would ask for the release of the preachers in prison in exchange for leaving Iran alone.

[bballrox4717]

I suspect that while it's going to wind up being tighter in the House than expected, it's not going to pass through the Senate and get to Obama's desk. On the fence House Democrats are actually having an easier time opposing the deal because the spot light isn't on them as much as the Democratic senators on the fence on this. It's so much easier to hide among 40 representatives than 13 defecting senators.

People are forgetting that it's just so much harder politically as well for these senators to defect than it was for Iraq. Iraq was somewhat forgivable given the amount of misinformation and false intelligence that was given at the time. There isn't an excuse this time. If they override Obama's veto, not only does it effectively destroy Obama's credibility on the world stage, but it destroys any possibility for a future deal with Iran. If Iran gets a nuke after the deal is killed, or get ourselves into a military conflict with Iran over this, no senator who voted for this is ever going to get liberal support again.

I think any objective look at not only the deal, but the international political situation surrounding the deal makes it so much easier for Senate Democrats to bite the bullet and vote for the deal, even if they don't think we got everything we wanted with the deal. We're not going to be able to get the Iranians to the table again if Congress kills the deal. This is just common sense. Why they should negotiate with us if we're going just going to draw the line further back every time there is an agreement on something? We're also not going to have international support, and our relationship with allies and key partners is going to regress to Iraq levels. We won't have the international political capital to solve key issues like Russian aggression, the Syrian Civil War (including ISIS), or Chinese undermining of the global political system.

At least under the deal, we'll have more time to stop the building of a weapon if they violate the deal, and we will have significant support from the international community against Iran if they are acting in bad faith. Even if an Iranian thaw does not occur, we can still undermine the Iranian gain of influence in the Middle East without violating a deal.

At the end of the day, Senate Democrats are going to come home to the president. Nelson and Kaine's support, and silence from Schumer is incredibly indicative of this already. Ultimately, Menendez has lost his influence on any Democrats and any opposition from Schumer is likely to be weak considering his genuine indecisiveness. Skeptical Democrats will likely see support as the deal as the better plan of two bad choices.

I do think that Obama is almost certainly spending the last of his political capital on this deal, and that aside from executive action on climate change or an emergency situation, the Iran deal will likely be the last significant action of his presidency.

[DavidB.]

Menendez, Schumer, Cardin and maybe even some other Democratic senators (Booker?) will eventually vote against it, but they won't get to 13, which means that Obama's veto won't be overridden.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Wouldn't Schumer seriously damage his chances of becoming the new Dem leader by voting against his own caucus on such critical issue? Real Democrats certainly shouldn't let that slip.

[DavidB.]

Wouldn't Schumer seriously damage his chances of becoming the new Dem leader by voting against his own caucus on such critical issue? Real Democrats certainly shouldn't let that slip.

I think it might hurt him, but if he doesn't actively try to convince other Democrats and the bill will be passed, then he will be forgiven. Other Democrats will understand that he is not to be envied, as a Jewish senator in New York, the blue state were opposition against the Iran deal might be the highest. Supporting the deal might lead to a serious primary.

[Gass3268]

Not surprising, Chris Murphy backs the deal

[Antonio the Sixth]

Wouldn't Schumer seriously damage his chances of becoming the new Dem leader by voting against his own caucus on such critical issue? Real Democrats certainly shouldn't let that slip.

I think it might hurt him, but if he doesn't actively try to convince other Democrats and the bill will be passed, then he will be forgiven. Other Democrats will understand that he is not to be envied, as a Jewish senator in New York, the blue state were opposition against the Iran deal might be the highest. Supporting the deal might lead to a serious primary.

Democratic Jews don't care about foreign policy nearly as much as everyone seems to think. Otherwise they'd be solid Republicans by now. Also, despite what Netanyahu wants us to believe, he does not in fact speak for all Jews.

If Schumer fears he'll be primaried, it's just further proof that Democrats need to grow a spine.

[SATW]

Wouldn't Schumer seriously damage his chances of becoming the new Dem leader by voting against his own caucus on such critical issue? Real Democrats certainly shouldn't let that slip.

I think it might hurt him, but if he doesn't actively try to convince other Democrats and the bill will be passed, then he will be forgiven. Other Democrats will understand that he is not to be envied, as a Jewish senator in New York, the blue state were opposition against the Iran deal might be the highest. Supporting the deal might lead to a serious primary.

Democratic Jews don't care about foreign policy nearly as much as everyone seems to think. Otherwise they'd be solid Republicans by now. Also, despite what Netanyahu wants us to believe, he does not in fact speak for all Jews.

If Schumer fears he'll be primaried, it's just further proof that Democrats need to grow a spine.

Neither do you.

But a combination of Bibi, Bennett, Herzog, Lapid, Livni, and others do speak for Jews worldwide, and they all oppose this bad Iran deal.

Also, you are right...One issue or a few issues usually isn't enough to tip an entire voting block one way. This goes for everyone. However, to say Israel and other foreign policy issues that do effect American Jewish lives is not important is wishful thinking on the far-left.

[Antonio the Sixth]

But a combination of Bibi, Bennett, Herzog, Lapid, Livni, and others do speak for Jews worldwide

lolno

Israeli Jews =/= Jews worldwide, you know?

[MaxQue]

Wouldn't Schumer seriously damage his chances of becoming the new Dem leader by voting against his own caucus on such critical issue? Real Democrats certainly shouldn't let that slip.

I think it might hurt him, but if he doesn't actively try to convince other Democrats and the bill will be passed, then he will be forgiven. Other Democrats will understand that he is not to be envied, as a Jewish senator in New York, the blue state were opposition against the Iran deal might be the highest. Supporting the deal might lead to a serious primary.

Democratic Jews don't care about foreign policy nearly as much as everyone seems to think. Otherwise they'd be solid Republicans by now. Also, despite what Netanyahu wants us to believe, he does not in fact speak for all Jews.

If Schumer fears he'll be primaried, it's just further proof that Democrats need to grow a spine.

Neither do you.

But a combination of Bibi, Bennett, Herzog, Lapid, Livni, and others do speak for Jews worldwide, and they all oppose this bad Iran deal.

No. They speak for Israel. Plenty of Jews don't agree with current Israeli government or parties. And that's without some, like the Outremont Jews here in Québec, thinking Israel is illegitimate and "hereric", because Jews shouldn't return to the Holy Land until God allows them to do so.

[moderatevoter]

Sen. Angus King (I-ME) is a YES.

[Gass3268]

Not shocking, Congressman Mark Pocan (WI-02) is a yes.

[MalaspinaGold]

Regardless, the Israeli security establishment supports the deal, so it's all good.