If Obama loses war vote, is this good or bad for the Democrats in 2016?

[ellenrr]

I think it's good.
a commentator on npr just opined that if the pres. loses the vote it would be a disaster for the rest of his term, and for the Dems in 2016.
I disagree bec.:
If the Democrats in congress stand up for principle, people will remember and be mobilized to come out and vote in 2014 and 2016.
If they cave to partisan politics, I think they are toast.

People in this country are sick and tired of endless war. And of lies. And I believe they will rally behind those who stand for some integrity.

what do you think?

[Not Me]

1. If he loses the vote

and decides NOT to go in on his own, it won't hurt 2016.
If he does go in after losing the vote, it's bad for Congressional Dems in 2014 and bad for POTUS candidate in 2016.

[ellenrr]

3. I'm talking about the effect of the Congressional vote nt

[Myrina]

8. Considering that the will of the people at present is strongly against intervention,

If Congress votes 'no', it should bode well for Congressional Dems because they're actually listening to their constituents instead of 'marching lockstep with Obama'. That may actually play well with independents (definitely will with Anti-War Dems) because it shows 'principle over party', IMHO.

It may also give Dem candidates ammo to shut the GOP'ers up on that same front.

[ellenrr]

9. exactly! and one hopes that those who vote against their constituents

get the door. Like Nancy Pelosi, who said, "I know my constituents are against the war, but I'm voting with Obama."
I heard on the radio that her constituents are now in her office, but I can't find a link.

[Bluenorthwest]

2. Depends on which Democrats you mean. Bad for the war loving Third Way types.

Good for the members of honor who oppose warfare and endless killing as the one and only answer to all things. Good for anyone who is standing up to John Kerry and his Saudi pals and their offers of riches and rewards for those who will kill upon orders from House of Saud.

[ellenrr]

4. ok, but do you think that the American populace (or the voting one) or the Democratic voting one)

will see things this way?

[leveymg]

5. It's good for the country and the world. The elections are already FUBARed.

G-d only knows how much damage this has already had.

[ellenrr]

6. everything is stood on its head. I heard a rep. Tom Cole, don't know maybe he is a "moderate" repub,

but he was saying- no bombing, take it to the Int'l Court. Never thot I'd hear a repub say that.

[leveymg]

7. And the band played "The World Turned Upside Down"

when Lord Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown (1781). Here are a few stanzas. Still apt, I think:

Command is given, we must obey, and quite forget old Christmas day:
Kill a thousand men, or a Town regain, we will give thanks and praise amain.
The wine pot shall clinke, we will feast and drinke.
And then strange motions will abound.
Yet let's be content, and the times lament, you see the world turn'd upside down.

Our Lords and Knights, and Gentry too, doe mean old fashions to forgoe:
They set a porter at the gate, that none must enter in thereat.
They count it a sin, when poor people come in.
Hospitality it selfe is drown'd.
Yet let's be content, and the times lament, you see the world turn'd upside down.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

10. Do Republicans even recognize the ICC?

Bush walked away from that years ago (likely because he knew what he was planning on doing and knew that we could be subject to it) and had implicit- if not explicit- support from Republicans. Of course, if the GOP wants to have a renewed conversation about it...............

[ellenrr]

13. the US is not a signatory to the ICC

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. "Hard to see. Always in motion the future is"

Did Clinton's intervention in Kosovo ruin the Dems in 2000 (granted, the Dems had a lot of problems in 2000 but nothing to do with Kosovo, which was viewed AFAIK as a success)? Why would a failed war vote in Congress hurt us politically in three years time? By then, it will be clearer whether or not the decision was the right one but so many things are going to happen between now and 2016 that will shape the election and it's questionable about whether or not this will be one of them. I recall just a few weeks ago, a lot of people here were convinced that the Snowden/NSA revelations were going to destroy the Democratic Party in 2014 and 2016. Now, we're on to Syria.

[polichick]

12. Depends on what happens next, and next, and next.

[bemildred]

15. It's good for those Democrats who vote against the war. Bad for those that vote for war. nt