23% of Dem Senators Deny Funding, Contrasted to 62% of Dem Representatives

[Herman74]

In looking back at the recent vote in Congress to continue funding The Chimp's Pet Project in Iraq, I see that 62 percent (140 out of 226) of Democratic Representatives voted "No!" but only 23 percent of Democratic Senators (11 out of 48, counting Bernie as a Dem). I am struck by the wide gap. Anyone have any thoughts about how this disparity can be explained?

My conjectures:

1) Dem. Senators were able to see how the House voted (280-142 in favor of continuing to fund Bush's War), and thought it would reflect badly upon them if the measure lost in the Senate: they would be seen as the ones denying "funding to the troops."

2) Nancy Pelosi (herself voting "No!) exercised more leadership than Harry Reid.

3) Dem Representatives are up for re-election in two years and read the polls. What is scary about this option, though, is that the Dem. Senators (only a small minority up for re-election in 2008) were thus "voting their conscience."

A combination of 1), 2) and 3) and perhaps other factors I am unaware of might ultimately be the true explanation for the gap.

In looking for a silver lining in this fiasco of a cloud, I am encouraged that both major Democratic presidential candidates voted "No!" And we know that both Gore and Edwards would have voted "No!" had they been members of Congress.

[skipos]

1. IMO, the reason the senate tends to be more conservative

than the house is that there are more red states than red districts (% wise). If you look at the official 2004 results, Kerry won 19 states& DC, Bush won 31. Even though Dole was thumped by Clinton in 1996, he still won 19 states.

There are more red states than blue ones, and therefore more senators from red states than blue one. If you look at most of DU's disliked Dem senators, they tend to come from red states. Lieberman is an exception to that, of course.

[Herman74]

5. Good Point.

Much of the Senate is comprised of Senators from low-population, rural states that often tend to be conservative. Any Democrat winning in one of these states would generally have to be a conservative Democrat, and thus more likely to fund Bush's war.

In my opinion, this explains a significant part of the 62%-to-23% Dem Representative/Dem Senate discrepancy, but not all of it.

[TwilightGardener]

2. Number one--once it passed the House, the Senate would look obstructionist.

[TwilightGardener]

3. Also, Senators represent states, not districts. Districts may be more uniform

in terms of what constituents want--a very blue district would want you to vote no, a very red one--you get the picture. Much trickier to make the decision for an entire state of constituents, many of whom are not of the same political affiliation.

[Herman74]

4. Just by chance, I came across this vote for 2) at Firedoglake.com

scarecrow writes there:

"It seems to me the House leadership came up with a strategy that first recognized this reality but allowed its members to vote against the open-ended occupuation while voting for needed domestic programs, including a much needed increase in the minimum wage. Had the leadership trusted its base enough to level with them, and not tried to suger coat the reality by claiming all was well, they'd have been in better shape with us today. Those who tried to fool us, Steney Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel, hurt the party. We should let Pelosi know that demoting those who hurt the party and promoting those who support what needs to be done have our support."

"The Senate leadership, however, failed us and failed its members badly. They were left with forcing their own Presidential candidates, with little support from their colleagues, with the choice of voting against the funding or voting against needed domestic programs, thus splitting Democrats from each other and driving a wedge between anti-war positions and domestic programs, and between the party and its most active base." (from www.firedoglake.com)

Perhaps the minimum wage legislation was found within the Senate's funding bill but was kept separate in the House's bills?? If so, advantage Pelosi over Reid.