Three more Senate Democrats back Iran nuclear deal

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

Politics | Thu Sep 3, 2015 5:06pm EDT

Three more Senate Democrats back Iran nuclear deal

WASHINGTON | BY PATRICIA ZENGERLE

Support for the Iran nuclear deal rose in the U.S. Senate on Thursday as three more Democratic senators, Cory Booker, Mark Warner and Heidi Heitkamp, said they would back the agreement.

"My decision is about seeking diplomacy rather than conflict," Heitkamp said in a statement.

They brought the list of senators supporting the deal to 37, all Democrats or independents who caucus with them.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/03/us-usa-nuclear-congress-idUSKCN0R328120150903

[AtomicKitten]

1. 4 more and the Republicans are hamstrung.

[underpants]

3. The consensus seems to Sen. Mikulski put it over the top

Not sure why.

[AtomicKitten]

4. They've got enough to sustain a veto.

4 more will filibuster a Republican attempt from even making it to a vote.

[Princess Turandot]

7. It's a little confusing. POTUS doesn't need the Senate's approval for him to sign the agreement...

But they could call a vote to stop him from signing it.

Were they to do that, he would exercise his veto power. They could vote again to override his veto but once Sen. Mikulski signed on, the number of senators remaining who *might* vote to stop it was no longer enough to guarantee an override as well. It would take 51 votes to pass such a bill but 67 votes to override the veto. When she decided, only 66 votes against it remained potentially available. With these latest decisions, there are now only 63.

[underpants]

10. Thanks

Yes 67 to override.

[a2liberal]

13. slight clarification

Unless I'm mistaken, I think with the new normal of filibusters all around they need 60 to "pass" the disapproval... That's why there's some hope that we'll get to 41 and not have to go down the veto route.

[Thinkingabout]

2. We should see 41 Senators backing this deal.

[cascadiance]

5. And if we get to that point, then hopefully Obama won't even have to sign a veto then.

Thankfully Merkley came out earlier and supported it. I wonder if his thinking was influenced by a little dispute when he had a BBQ here in Portland a couple of weeks ago between protestors and others there that might have influenced his pause at that point.

I wonder what Wyden is thinking though in still holding out against this. He's already in hot water with his base here in Oregon for his leadership in getting TPA passed that a lot of us hate here in Oregon. You'd think that perhaps he'd be a bit more in favor of working with Obama in this instance and get perhaps a few more brownie points with his base here that might avoid a primary that could come from someone like Pete DeFazio. I think he'd be pretty wise if he wants to hold on to his seat to come out in favor of this agreement before the total comes to 41 senators supporting Obama. Being one of those in perhaps single digits opposing the President I don't think would work well for him getting reelected in 2016.

[Thinkingabout]

11. Probably Schumer will stick to his not supporting the deal and the Independents will both vote to

Support, probably Biden is working hard along with President Obama get the needed votes.

[a2liberal]

14. The independents are already both in the supporter count

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/247956-the-hills-whip-list-senators-take-sides-on-iran-deal

[kentuck]

9. 41 is an important number...

in appearance, as well as substance, to the rest of the world. Republicans will not be able to filibuster.

[cascadiance]

12. They won't be able to break a filibuster that is...

But point taken that at least it gets perceived as having a lot more support by both the president and a good part of congress if we don't even have a vote on the bill, that will help the agreement ultimately have more success in keeping the world at peace and avoiding conflict.

Ultimately hopefully this sends a message to Schumer too, that if he wants to "lead" the Democrats in 2016 at some point, he will need to rethink how he does his "business" in the Senate, when he can't even prevent 41 Democrats from voting against his position there. Not someone in my book that we want to have in a position of leadership then. I think at least Harry Reid was trying to work with the majority of senators, even if sometimes working with them was a flawed exercise too.

[spanone]

6. K&R...

[Scurrilous]

8. K & R