10 in the house, out of 215 or 214 depending on the exact time of death of Sylvester Turner, not really sizable imo. Also, since there were 0 Republican Nays, it would have passed regardless.
Give those 10 a piece of your mind, yes, but it’s not sizable or impactful at all.
I don’t accept excuses. It should have been zero. democrats expect unthinking lockstep from their voters no matter what they do, so I expect them to vote with the party.
If democrats just accept that they’re going to have turncoats in the legislature, they don’t get to demand perfect lockstep from voters. They can’t keep control of a couple hundred people, but expect to scold millions into voting for them no matter what they do.
10 in the house, out of 215 or 214 depending on the exact time of death of Sylvester Turner, not really sizable imo. Also, since there were 0 Republican Nays, it would have passed regardless.
Give those 10 a piece of your mind, yes, but it’s not sizable or impactful at all.
It should have been zero. Stop making excuses.
The point you seem to be missing is that you’re using the actions of ten to condemn the whole party, which isn’t reasonable.
I don’t accept excuses. It should have been zero. democrats expect unthinking lockstep from their voters no matter what they do, so I expect them to vote with the party.
All of them.
That doesn’t make sense. How can you blame the party for party members defying the party line?
If they accept it when it’s legislators doing it, they don’t get to demand it from voters.
What does that even mean?
If democrats just accept that they’re going to have turncoats in the legislature, they don’t get to demand perfect lockstep from voters. They can’t keep control of a couple hundred people, but expect to scold millions into voting for them no matter what they do.
What are you talking about? “Perfect lockstep?”
When do Democrats “demand perfect lockstep?”
How is it possible to demand that of the average person, who votes about once every two years?