Self-del

[4themind]

Sorry screw up all around on my part (meant to say why they voted present rather than "YEA". 4themindless is more apt for me

[cbayer]

1. I was also very curious about that.

Haven't seen any explanation. Hope someone has one.

[Fresh_Start]

2. they're copying Obama's strategy

why take a chance on a difficult vote when you can "PRESENT"

[gristy]

4. hmmm

Are you lost? There must be thread around here somewhere for which your post would be on-topic.

[Fresh_Start]

6. Is PRESENT a yea or a nay?

or a I'm not going on the record either way?

[gristy]

8. In this case PRESENT was a very clear NAY

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121088161312296299.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Antiwar Democrats opposed the funding, with some applauding as 132 Republicans voted "present" and the funding failed on a 149-to-141 vote.

The bill would have passed easily if they had voted YEA.

Now that I'm looking at these numbers, it sure looks like a lot of Dems voted for the bill... Looking for a complete breakdown now...

[patrice]

13. It is neither yes nor no, but abstaining from the vote because of technical issues with the bill.

Assuming that the bill does not succeed in the vote, a Present Vote is like saying "I'll consider voting yes the next time if you'll work on the (failed) bill some more and bring it back to the floor with my problems with it fixed."

Of course, the bill MAY succeed without you, in which case your technical issues are never dealt with.

Personally, I think it is a very interesting strategy, but you'd need to have a pretty solid estimate of the yeses, nos, and presents in order to use it well.

Some states, such as Illinois, have the Present Vote, but I didn't think the federal legislative branch did.

[gristy]

3. I also have no clue what is up with that

The house has at long, long, long last voted to NOT fund the Iraq War. I would have thought there would be more discussion on this.

[MojoMojoMojo]

5. How is voting present "exploiting our divisions"? This is exploiting

the weakness of a glass jawed nominee.It will get much worse after Hillarys gone.
She shields the attack until the nomination.

[havocmom]

7. ah, point of order: There are NOT over 100 republicans in the senate

There are EXACTLY 100 Senators, total

Might wanna que that one up and re-phrase it:

Vote was in the HOUSE on: "QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Senate Amendment With Amendment No. 1"

If there are over 100 republicans in the senate, we're in a shit load of trouble cuz there's been another coup ;)

[gristy]

9. This was in the House

I just now noticed the OP mistakenly said it was in the Senate.

[JMDEM]

11. Whose house?

My house wouldn't hold 100 people. Unless they were in the front and back yard too.

[patrice]

15. Just what are they doing out there in the yard? Tell 'em to come in. It's time for supper!

:beer: :popcorn: :beer:

[havocmom]

12. Yeah, I know it was in the House. I read the linked page

Somehow, I wonder if OP did same ;)

[pdxmom]

10. They voted "present" instead of "nay" so that an ad couldn't be made

that said they voted against funding our troops.

[patrice]

16. Nor could an ad be made that says they support Bush's FAILED War. nt

[gristy]

14. Here's some explanation from the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7403961.stm

House Republicans withheld their votes from the bill, saying the Democrats had added unrelated domestic-spending provisions that would delay getting funding to the troops.

[Skink]

17. The Government