The breakdown of the voting in mind boggling. There is no rhyme or reason to it.
You have some of the most liberal D’s and R’s voting No, and then some of the most conservative R’s voting Yes. and vice-versa. No one true bloc anywhere.
I am still in shock to see Rogers, Everett from Alabama and Tancredo and Cantor all voting yes.
I think that there are MANY things going on here.
On GOP side, you had those who are thinking, "this is the best we'll get and we're gonna get blamed anyway," along with personal interests or beliefs, perhaps (note that even on FR, some are for this).
On the Dem side, you have, "well, the GOP might get blamed overall, but in my district, I'll get creamed if I vote for this piece of thievery!" and "There's not enough pork in this...I'm not going to vote for it until it's fattened up again!" etc.
While I am against any federal intervention, my take is that some conservatives like Blount, Boehner, Cantor, et al voted as “realists,” believing this version of the bailout bill was likely the best deal we could get with the Dems. Most of the 94 Dems voting “No” did so because the bill was too conservative for their tastes, having been largely stripped of the benefits to ACORN and various other special interests. The next version will be more like the original version and will, I predict, pass primarily along party lines.
The breakdown of the voting in mind boggling. There is no rhyme or reason to it.
I was very surprised to see that too. I had expected that states with big banking/finance industries would vote 'yes' regardless of party and states with relatively less finance industry would tend to vote 'no'. With the exception of the New York delegation that had nearly all 'yes' votes, that wasn't the case.
My guess is that except for congressman with a strong idealogical bent (e.g., Pence and Kucinich), the best predictor of whether they voted 'yes' is how close their election was in 2006. Most of the congressmen who got elected with more than about 60% of the vote probably voted 'yes'. Most of the congressmen who expect close reelection fights voted 'no'.
The breakdown of the voting in mind boggling. There is no rhyme or reason to it.
$$$$$
There were several simultaneous reasons why people voted as they did.
I am sure that the list of the Democrat-Socialist Caucus voted a straight NO, the freshman dems who ran in ‘06 as ‘conservative’ democrats were given permission from Nancy to vote NO, for very different reasons.
This was a bill without enough pork for the ACORN crowd, and which obviously was too much government money for conservative Republican voters.
The next bill will have more pork, which is why some Republican congressmen voted YES for this one, hoping to stop the hemorrhage.