Just a moment...
www.axios.com

It sounds like a bunch of Democrats want to cave in exchange for no concessions whatsoever. Edit: Bloomberg has more details

Current likely Democratic votes for this:

  • Shaheen - NH
  • Hassan - NH
  • King - ME
  • Fetterman - PA
  • Peters - MI
  • Durbin - IL
  • Warner - VA
  • Kaine - VA
  • Ossoff- GA
  • Warnock - GA

If you want to change things, you need to call their DC office NOW, and leave an email if you can’t.

Edit 2: enough Democrats joined the Republicans to reopen the government with no real concessions.

The list:

  • Durbin
  • Hassan
  • King
  • Cortez Masto
  • Kaine
  • Shaheen
  • Rosen
  • Fetterman
  • Schumer
  • Gillibrand

There was a caucus meeting right before this, so the bulk of the Senate Democrats were likely OK with giving in, even if not willing to vote for it in public

  • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
    5·
    13 hours ago

    Schumer coordinated the Yes vote among Democrats

    You also missed King

    It wasn’t on the Senate website yet when I posted

    • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
      23·
      12 hours ago

      Schumer coordinated the Yes vote among Democrats

      Citation missing?

      You also missed King

      According to the website

      King (I-ME)

      King isn’t a Democrat.

      wasn’t on the Senate website yet

      Fair. Still, where did the other names come from?

      • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
        7·
        12 hours ago

        Me looking at cspan screenshot during the vote.

        And there is no way Schumer wasn’t coordinating this; he held a caucus meeting right beforehand, and the Yea votes were all Democrats who have 4+ years to their next election

        • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
          21·
          6 hours ago

          cspan screenshot during the vote

          From this Senate vote & video?

          And there is no way Schumer wasn’t coordinating this; he held a caucus meeting right beforehand, and the Yea votes were all Democrats who have 4+ years to their next election

          So…citation missing & speculation conflicting their no vote & statement in the CSPAN post?

          While you clearly know how to edit a post, you still haven’t corrected it. Why are you doing this?

          • TheObviousSolution@lemmy.ca
            1·
            2 hours ago

            Yeah, this is absurd, who are all the accounts voting him up when the misinformation he posted isn’t correct and he isn’t even bothering to edit it? It’s would be so easy to correct to, he just needs to put notes on why they should be included. Here, I’ll do it for him:

            Democrats who voted yes:

            • Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)
            • Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.)
            • Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.)
            • Tim Kaine (D-Va.)
            • Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)
            • Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.)
            • Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.)

            Additionally:

            • Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) - Independent who caucuses with Democrats, voted yes.
            • Schumer - Voted no but is getting blamed for being ineffective as Senate Democratic. He had dropped a counter-offer to Republicans to end the shutdown to get assurances regarding Obamacare which they rejected.

            Completely wrong about Gillibrand, it’s simply a flat out lie that he voted yes. He joined in along with Schumer on the counter-offer, but the Republicans did not agree to that and this is not what this vote was. A lot of people are mad at their attempts to reach bipartisan compromise, but even though that’s probably where a lot of the claims that they negotiated a “yes” vote are coming from, that was still something that needed to make the rounds again back at the House and had nothing to do with this vote.

            Personally, I think Schumer is getting blamed as a escape goat, he doesn’t hold a magic stick that can force other democrats to vote like they did. US parties are basically more of an alignment towards certain groups of lobbyists than what other countries would consider political parties. What likely did so was money, influence, and power, the US has been an oligarchy for quite some time now.