When did we stop taking a vote on something unless we know it'll succeed?

[X_Digger]

There's a lot of value in having a record of some schmuck voting 'no' on something, and being able to use it against them later.

I've seen this on both sides of the aisle, and.. I just don't get it.

[TheRealNorth]

1. Republicans do it to protect their members

Because a lot of What the Republican Party stands for is unpopular, especially in swing districts.

If Democrats do it, I think it's because of how the media runs the "defeat" narrative.

[Autumn]

2. I think they don't want to waste their political capital on it because Pukes won't vote for it. nt

[LanternWaste]

3. Probably 1902.

When Dem whip Oscar Underwood realized the Spooner Amendment would happen despite the majority voting against it, as McKinley stated he would grant the Taft commission legislative powers regardless of the outcome of that vote.

But I'd guess votes of realpolitik are found throughout human history.

[StarfishSaver]

4. It happens all the time

The Affordable Care Act being one prime example.

[ehrnst]

5. When there is a huge, unintended negative consequence to us possible by taking that vote.

In that case it makes sense to weigh the benefits of taking it, doesn't it?

This is exactly why McConnell won't bring certain votes to the Senate floor. And it's why he's not out there discouraging impeachment.

People want us to take a page from the GOP? Well this is one.