How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?

[David Sklansky]

While everyone is making a big deal about how the issue was brought to a vote, I think it is important to know what the vote would have been if the internet bill stood alone. My impression is that it would still have passed easily. Am I right? If so that is important to know.

[New001]

Yes, it would have passed on its own by a very large majority.

[dibbs]

What am I thinking of when I remember reading on here by respectable posters that HR4411 was estimated at like 30% to pass a little before the Frist thing came up?

[govman6767]

Yes it would have passed on it's own. Though if the subject was debated a bit it might have lent itself to helping the "someday regulating and taxing" cause.

Just sneaking it through helps nothing......... I'm also 100% wrong as I sit here and type. The way this bill was snuck through may actually help somehow too we'll just have to wait and see

[Lego05]

I don't know if it would have passed by itself or not. I do know, however, that if it stood by itself and never got attached to anything they probably never would have voted on it anyway.

[RikaKazak]

On it's "own" I think it was more likely NOT to pass than to pass. But I don't follow politics very closely...maybe someone can chime in here. (I bet the european stock traders would have a good guess)

[Eaglesfan1]

Why is this important? What's important is that we move on and try to figure out a solution to this whole thing, not think what coulda been and was.

[FearNoEvil]

When the brought the issue up on the McLaughlin group (I believe this was after it had already passed the House by a huge majority, but I can't remember for sure), most if not all of the experts as I remember it predicted it would not pass. However, I think some of their prediction was based on the fact that it would not even make it to the floor.

As a comparison, the flag burning amendment which was proposed this congress also passed the house by a huge majority, but failed in the Senate by, I think, one vote, so an overwhelming house majority does not necessarily mean Senate passage even if the issue does get to a vote(although I think the gambling ban passed the house by a wider margin than the flag burning amendment did).

[New001]

I think it's important to clarify when you say it would not pass whether it would pass if it got voted on. My first reply assumed that the holds and whatever other means in place to stop the bill were overcome and the bill came to a vote. If this were the case, you would be hard pressed to argue that it would not pass.

[jimmytrick]

Totally irrelevant. Each sesion there might be hundreds of potential bills floating around, most of which woulld pass if they reached the floor. Especially in an election year, especially the day of adjorment.

But these bills never see the floor because of the process that exists to prevent, or at least, reduce the likelyhood of, politically motivated measures or frivilous matters from becoming law.

How could senators vote against the port bill? Give me a break.

No, it does not matter at all if this bill would have passed on its on, the fact is that it never reached the floor on its own merits.

Sorry for the spelling errors.