Respect for Marriage Act

[Reactionary Libertarian]

The Senate should be voting on this within the next week. It's basically a win-win situation for Democrats because either it passes and they get a win, or the GOP kills it and puts themselves in even more hot water in the midterms. Personally, I think the GOP would be very stupid to vote against this when they already have the abortion issue and gay marriage is way more popular than abortion. I'm still not sure it will pass, though. Which Senators do you think will vote yes? I would guess:

Portman (for sure)
Collins (for sure)
Murkowski (for sure)
Tillis (for sure)
Johnson (probably)
Romney (probably)
Ernst (probably)
R. Scott (maybe)
Thune (maybe)

That's still only 9, and I'm not sure about all of them.

EDIT: Maybe Young or Burr too. That would be 11, if they all end up supporting.

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

it really is an open question at this point and either way it will be bad for Republicans.

[Reactionary Libertarian]

If it passes it will be good for Republicans. The MAGAs and the donors don't care about it, the only people who will be upset are the pro-lifers who many in the GOP are already trying to distance themselves from.

[Lief 🗽]

It'll be another historic legislative achievement for President Biden to finally sign marriage equality into law.

[Pericles]

Ron Johnson said he's voting against it? Which is great for us because we want that very competitive Senate race for the rest of the agenda. The House vote suggests the Senate should vote for it, but it looks like a tough fight for the numbers.

[It’s so Joever]

Either way it’s a win for Ds.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Ron Johnson said he's voting against it? Which is great for us because we want that very competitive Senate race for the rest of the agenda. The House vote suggests the Senate should vote for it, but it looks like a tough fight for the numbers.

Right? Like I thought he would vote for it to appear more "moderate", since he is perceived now as ultra conservative.

[Pericles]

Ron Johnson said he's voting against it? Which is great for us because we want that very competitive Senate race for the rest of the agenda. The House vote suggests the Senate should vote for it, but it looks like a tough fight for the numbers.

Right? Like I thought he would vote for it to appear more "moderate", since he is perceived now as ultra conservative.

That would be the smart move but he is just saying and doing whatever he wants.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Ron Johnson said he's voting against it? Which is great for us because we want that very competitive Senate race for the rest of the agenda. The House vote suggests the Senate should vote for it, but it looks like a tough fight for the numbers.

Right? Like I thought he would vote for it to appear more "moderate", since he is perceived now as ultra conservative.

That would be the smart move but he is just saying and doing whatever he wants.

Perhaps 2016 made Johnson feel somewhat invincible?

[Progressive Pessimist]

I hope it has some sort of tangible effect. I'm starting to feel like Democrats need something significant again to keep the ball rolling.

Ron Johnson said he's voting against it? Which is great for us because we want that very competitive Senate race for the rest of the agenda. The House vote suggests the Senate should vote for it, but it looks like a tough fight for the numbers.

Right? Like I thought he would vote for it to appear more "moderate", since he is perceived now as ultra conservative.

That would be the smart move but he is just saying and doing whatever he wants.

Perhaps 2016 made Johnson feel somewhat invincible?

Maybe today's Marquette poll will do that too.

[Utah Neolib]

It’s honestly surprising how Tilis went from a stalwart anti-gay person in the North Carolina State Legislature to being a possible vote for this bill. I support his transition.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I hope it has some sort of tangible effect. I'm starting to feel like Democrats need something significant again to keep the ball rolling.

Ron Johnson said he's voting against it? Which is great for us because we want that very competitive Senate race for the rest of the agenda. The House vote suggests the Senate should vote for it, but it looks like a tough fight for the numbers.

Right? Like I thought he would vote for it to appear more "moderate", since he is perceived now as ultra conservative.

That would be the smart move but he is just saying and doing whatever he wants.

Perhaps 2016 made Johnson feel somewhat invincible?

Maybe today's Marquette poll will do that too.

Yep we got a Johnson + 1 poll. Safe R cause of polling error.

Seriously though, even if you’re in a remotely competative race in a state that heavily supports SSM, why vote against it? It just gives your opponents ammunition

[MT Treasurer]

Yes, this will move the needle in WI-SEN by giving more Barnes even more ammunition and changing voter perception of Johnson, the ads write themselves-

"We already know Ron Johnson fueled the January 6 insurrection, promotes baseless conspiracy theorists, wants to end democracy as we know it, plans to privatize Social Security, and profits from selling out WI families to his special interest donors, but now he even decided to enable Young Kim's agenda by voting against the Respect for Marriage Act. Enough is Enough. Vote Mandela Barnes on November 8. Authorized and paid for by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee."

[NewYorkExpress]

Portman's the only plausible GOP vote for a cloture vote here, let alone for actually passing the bill, and that's specifically because his son is gay. Everyone else will vote no (even Murkowski), and if Portman didn't have the immediate gay relative, he'd probably be a no vote too.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Portman's the only plausible GOP vote for a cloture vote here, let alone for actually passing the bill, and that's specifically because his son is gay. Everyone else will vote no (even Murkowski), and if Portman didn't have the immediate gay relative, he'd probably be a no vote too.

Collins?

[NewYorkExpress]

Portman's the only plausible GOP vote for a cloture vote here, let alone for actually passing the bill, and that's specifically because his son is gay. Everyone else will vote no (even Murkowski), and if Portman didn't have the immediate gay relative, he'd probably be a no vote too.

Collins?

I don't think so, because she'd lose a primary if she voted for this (assuming she intends to run for reelection in 2026).

[ProgressiveModerate]

Portman's the only plausible GOP vote for a cloture vote here, let alone for actually passing the bill, and that's specifically because his son is gay. Everyone else will vote no (even Murkowski), and if Portman didn't have the immediate gay relative, he'd probably be a no vote too.

Collins?

I don't think so, because she'd lose a primary if she voted for this (assuming she intends to run for reelection in 2026).

I'm pretty sure Collins and Murkowski will vote for it. Collin's re-election is too far out, she comes from a very pro-SSM state, and there's a very good chance she won't seek re-election. She was able win the primary in 2020 without too much serious opposition despite having been publicly pro-SSM

Murkowski has actually supported SSM for a long time and given RCV in Alaska, there's not really any electoral consequences in voting for it, infact I'd argue it'd help her.

[NewYorkExpress]

Portman's the only plausible GOP vote for a cloture vote here, let alone for actually passing the bill, and that's specifically because his son is gay. Everyone else will vote no (even Murkowski), and if Portman didn't have the immediate gay relative, he'd probably be a no vote too.

Collins?

I don't think so, because she'd lose a primary if she voted for this (assuming she intends to run for reelection in 2026).

I'm pretty sure Collins and Murkowski will vote for it. Collin's re-election is too far out, she comes from a very pro-SSM state, and there's a very good chance she won't seek re-election. She was able win the primary in 2020 without too much serious opposition despite having been publicly pro-SSM

Murkowski has actually supported SSM for a long time and given RCV in Alaska, there's not really any electoral consequences in voting for it, infact I'd argue it'd help her.

It'd help Murkowski if her immediate danger was a Democrat, not Kelly Tshibaka, who is running way to her right and will hammer her over this, and Murkowski can't afford to lose the voters she already has.

As for Collins, I think if she's already decided not to run for reelection in 2026, she votes in favor, if she is running, or hasn't decided yet, she votes against.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Portman's the only plausible GOP vote for a cloture vote here, let alone for actually passing the bill, and that's specifically because his son is gay. Everyone else will vote no (even Murkowski), and if Portman didn't have the immediate gay relative, he'd probably be a no vote too.

Collins?

I don't think so, because she'd lose a primary if she voted for this (assuming she intends to run for reelection in 2026).

I'm pretty sure Collins and Murkowski will vote for it. Collin's re-election is too far out, she comes from a very pro-SSM state, and there's a very good chance she won't seek re-election. She was able win the primary in 2020 without too much serious opposition despite having been publicly pro-SSM

Murkowski has actually supported SSM for a long time and given RCV in Alaska, there's not really any electoral consequences in voting for it, infact I'd argue it'd help her.

It'd help Murkowski if her immediate danger was a Democrat, not Kelly Tshibaka, who is running way to her right and will hammer her over this, and Murkowski can't afford to lose the voters she already has.

As for Collins, I think if she's already decided not to run for reelection in 2026, she votes in favor, if she is running, or hasn't decided yet, she votes against.

Most polling suggests Alaska is pretty pro-SSM and honestly voting against it makes it more likely for her to be "squeezed out". Her goal is to consolidate both Democrats and moderate/non-MAGA Rs to beat Tshibaka, a group which OVERWHELMINGLY supports SSM.

What benefit would Collins get to voting against SSM marriage 4 years out from her primary? I really doubt the main argument against her by an R challenger will be that she voted to codify SSM marrige into law 4 years ago. The issue is likely to be even further down on the GOP totem pole in 4 years, especially when it comes to the Northeast.

[Aurelius]

Portman's the only plausible GOP vote for a cloture vote here, let alone for actually passing the bill, and that's specifically because his son is gay. Everyone else will vote no (even Murkowski), and if Portman didn't have the immediate gay relative, he'd probably be a no vote too.

Collins?

I don't think so, because she'd lose a primary if she voted for this (assuming she intends to run for reelection in 2026).

Collins is one of the primary sponsors of the bill

[NewYorkExpress]

Portman's the only plausible GOP vote for a cloture vote here, let alone for actually passing the bill, and that's specifically because his son is gay. Everyone else will vote no (even Murkowski), and if Portman didn't have the immediate gay relative, he'd probably be a no vote too.

Collins?

I don't think so, because she'd lose a primary if she voted for this (assuming she intends to run for reelection in 2026).

Collins is one of the primary sponsors of the bill

And your point is? We've seen Senators vote against legislation that they sponsor before. Hell, Manchin and Sinema do it all the time.

[Aurelius]

My very early prediction, assuming the Collins amendment is added to the bill:

Collins
Murkowski
Portman
Tillis
Scott (FL)
Ernst
Toomey
Romney
Capito
Johnson

On the bubble (3 of them will vote yes):
Fischer
Cramer
Tuberville
Sullivan
Burr
Lummis

Fringey (1 of them will vote yes)
Rubio
Thune
McConnell
Crapo

[Aurelius]

Portman's the only plausible GOP vote for a cloture vote here, let alone for actually passing the bill, and that's specifically because his son is gay. Everyone else will vote no (even Murkowski), and if Portman didn't have the immediate gay relative, he'd probably be a no vote too.

Collins?

I don't think so, because she'd lose a primary if she voted for this (assuming she intends to run for reelection in 2026).

Collins is one of the primary sponsors of the bill

And your point is? We've seen Senators vote against legislation that they sponsor before. Hell, Manchin and Sinema do it all the time.

Collins is not going to vote against a bill she sponsored that, in the House, Tom Emmer and Kat Cammack voted for.

[ProgressiveModerate]

My very early prediction, assuming the Collins amendment is added to the bill:

Collins
Murkowski
Portman
Tillis
Scott (FL)
Ernst
Toomey
Romney
Capito
Johnson

On the bubble (3 of them will vote yes):
Fischer
Cramer
Tuberville
Sullivan
Burr
Lummis

Fringey (1 of them will vote yes)
Rubio
Thune
McConnell
Crapo

Tuberville!? Lummis!? Rick Scott? Johnson?

[Aurelius]

My very early prediction, assuming the Collins amendment is added to the bill:

Collins
Murkowski
Portman
Tillis
Scott (FL)
Ernst
Toomey
Romney
Capito
Johnson

On the bubble (3 of them will vote yes):
Fischer
Cramer
Tuberville
Sullivan
Burr
Lummis

Fringey (1 of them will vote yes)
Rubio
Thune
McConnell
Crapo

Tuberville!? Lummis!? Rick Scott? Johnson?

Johnson and Tuberville made vaguely supportive noises a while back. Scott represents Florida. Lummis is a woman representing a sparsely populated, libertarian leaning western state. I have a gut feeling for some reason. A lot of this is based on extrapolating from the sorts of people that voted Yes in the House.