I'm betting Mrs. Carnahan votes no.

Ms Carnahan has an election campaign she'd really like to win, in a largely Red Country (I hate that Red/Blue Country crap) state.

She'll vote yes.

Stephen, you are far too many liberal democrats voting 'yay'. Try no's for Corzine, Harken, Daschle, Bayh and maybe Edwards for starters. I predict the Senate vote for the resolution won't exceed 60 yes.

The polls dictate otherwise, Robin. And the polls will go stronger towards war once Bush takes his case public on 9/12 at the UN.

And pols read the polls even better than you or I.

Besides, Leiberman will carry a few extra senators with him, because he looks like a strong contender in '04.

Mrs. Carnahan knows that outstate Missouri rejected her last time and that St. Louis and Kansas City elected here. She'll need to get the city liberals to come out to make up for all the men she's losing as we speak. I hope you're right, VP, but I still think she's too much of a party hack.

I wouldn't be too sure about Richard Lugar (R-IN), Stephen. He's been in our papers demanding answers to various quesitons before he agrees to a war with Iraq, questions he was just quoted as saying in today's main Indianapolis paper had not been answered yet. But you probably are right about Evan Bayh, our Democratic Senator. He's a warmonger, despite his political affiliation.

To add to my previous post, and this addressed to Robin:
Bayh, unlike Lugar, has been extremely outspoken in his support of Bush taking out Saddam. Surprisingly so - and I'll repeat myself and say that I suspect Stephen is right about the direction of his vote.

Kerry, Harkin, and Biden, I'd quibble, might well all vote "Nay." And as for Feinstein, if she's too embarrassed, as a US SENATOR to wear a US flag pin, unless the Great God Jehovah Himself presents the information, I'd wager she'll vote "Nay."

'Course, you've left no "abstentions" there. I'd bet that at least some of the quibbles here will actually abstain/be absent. Yeah, it's a wimp-out---but easier to avoid the blame if things go bad, and to claim support if things go well.

Stephen, Up here in Minnesota I bet Wellstone votes YES so he can stay close in his re-election bid. He is running away from his ultra liberal record. Coleman, the challenger, is already making hay out of his last NO vote in '91

My guess is that your predictions are pretty close. However, I do have one nitpick: isn't it usually spelled 'yea'?

This is a brilliant political move on Bush's part, the best 'rope-a-dope' Washington has seen in a couple of decades. Instead of squashing on the Bidens and Daschles and such when they started their carping, the Administration let them chatter on in endless passive-agressive opposition of attacking Iraq, building up pressure for a congressional 'debate' on the whole matter...

... and then Bush said, "Sure, let's have a vote." Now they have to stand up and actually cast votes, right before the election. Be careful what you wish for, boys.

The Dems are between the proverbial rock and rock-like-locality. They can read the polls, and vote with Bush--and infuriate the hard left base, lowering turnout and bringing up the possibility of future primary challenges, or they can vote against him--and infuriate at least sixty percent of the general electorate. Talk about a lack of good options.

The squirming will be priceless, particularly among all the yahoos who're spending half their time in Iowa and New Hampshire these days.

Your argument is fairly persusasive... but I'm not convinced. Not considering how incredibly close the Gulf War resolution was.

There's no way either Levin or Kennedy would vote 'nay'.

Was it really necessary to remind me that my state (NJ) has two democrats in the Senate? I'll grant you that both the Torch and the Wallet will probably vote in favor of going into Iraq, but still ... two democrats.

I Second Dean's belief that Feinstein will probably vote "nay" if the cowardly shrew won't stand up for America while Visiting Europe, I doubt she'll stand up for us against Iraq.

Stabenow, despite being an otherwise unrepenant liberal, has been all over the airwaves in Michigan about a World Trade Center Charity program. Sure, she won't have to run re-election for 4 years, but a nay vote contrasted with that would be shoved down her throat by her opponent 4 years from now.

Sadly, I think you have my other Senator, Levin, Pegged. His cowardly appeasment demand that we have more facts before we go to war pegged. Levin running the Armed services committe is like Bill Clinton running an ethics committee. This Coward is making me ashamed to be a Michigander.

Handicapping the handicapper:

Landrieu (anybody else think of a bad Star Trek episode when they hear that name?) wouldn't dare vote nay in an election year. That vote would turn her race around in an instant.

Harkin, on the other hand, despises the military, and probably thinks he's far enough ahead to risk it. Kerry has been building his presidential campaign on opposing Bush on the war in general; I suspect he'd vote no and hope things go badly (ditto for Daschle, who wants to steal the liberal vote in the primaries).

Bob Smith, depends on whether the vote is before or after the primary (he'd never vote no before, especially given Sununu's ethnicity).

Hillary won't vote for it. She said as much today. Byron Dorgan wouldn't vote for a military operation during a Republican administration if you had his microscopic gonads in a tiny little vice grip. Byrd and Hollings probably wouldn't either (particularly since both not run again).

Nah, Stephen's right about DiFi. She can be a pretty tough old warmonger when she feels like it. Who he is wrong about, though, is BabaBoxer. She's gonna chuck those old love beads and pick up her cudgel on this one.

Most Democrats have safe enough seats that they will not be watching the polls. The leadership will make sure the resolution passes, because they are cowards and don't want to be blamed for overt obstructionism, but the vote will not be a landslide. Too many Democrats will vote their partisan hatred. They will cover it with nonsense about "not enough diplomacy yet" or "not strong enough case yet".

My prediction stands, no higher than 60 votes for.

I think bringing the vote to Congress will kill the Dem's come election time. They'll vote no and then the President will pull out all the facts about Iraq and their involvement in 9-11 and get the whole country behind him while those shmucks who voted against it have to defend themselves and their vote. I can see the ads now....."Senator X voted against removing a madman with weapons of Mass Destruction...is he really protecting and serving you and your family?"

Can I change my vote thereby proving the brilliance of the VP but that's not sucking up or anything? I just saw one of Mrs. C's campaign commercials a bit ago. She said lots of nice things about Bush and sounded like she was ready to personally enlist.

Time for conspiracy theory. Samizdata pointed out that Blair does not have the political capital to push Iraq and the Euro. He chose US. Why? What have they got? What does France have that they don't want released to the great unwashed? And what really happened in Iraq's Berlin embassy? I think W is triangulating. Or the biggest game of high-stakes poker we are ever to see in our lifetimes. Oh, well, hopefully all will be known on 9/12. But I find it interesting the bar has been raised. I'm getting the impression we are only to attack if he has nukes. If it's chen/bio, we're supposed to let him go on his merry way. It'll pass. And I hope it comes back to bite a certain party in the rear end. But with American's short attention span,....

There are 435 seats in the House, not 335

Bill linked to an article with Feinstein blathering http://www.dailypundit.com/archives/004517.php#004517

The policy is clear to me, the Democrats will pass a resolution barely after undermining it. Maybe I should pick 55 votes in favor?

According the the WSJ, the repubs in TX are using Priscilla Owen's defeat at the hands of the dems in ads. Kirk (D) has lost support, latest poll by dem shows Cornyn 45%/39%. Also, 84% of Texans voted for Judge Owen in the last State Supreme Court election.