Ummm! The cowards showed their ignorance!

[imanamerican63]

The GOBers could have had an extremely strong stance against Trumpy’s vetoes! But they failed to override Trump’s veto of two bills. Those GOBers overwhelmingly supported and passed these a couple week ago.

One of those bills was the clean drinking water bill for Colorado that Boebert was behind!

These GOBers are inept at their jobs and showed that they are afraid of Trump no matter the consequences!

[Diraven]

1. One literally passed unanimously before

Can't go against the Orange Temperature.

[Igel]

2. Because the votes were different in nature.

The first one, at least in the House, was by consent.

Having called often for that vote in a former role, 'by consent' is "meh, I don't think it's a horrible idea, not enough to actually move my fingers" kind of vote.

A roll-call vote requires affirmative action, not inaction. Yes, inaction is a decision, but it's a much more a "I don't care, most don't care, they want it, so, sure, why not, I don't give jacksh*t, it doesn't effect me, I need to twiddle my toes and thumbs." But the roll-call vote says, "I have to say I care. I don't, really, not really; but you know, somebody cares, and I'm more with the 'no' side than 'yes' side, so voting to kill the bill might get me more than voting to sustain it."

Different kinds of votes, different kinds of buy-in, different possible hurts and helps ... Different results.

Even some of the votes that were by consent, had the chair called for a roll-call vote, might not have passed. I suspect most people didn't know anything about the bills they were voting on and, frankly, didn't care.

As chair, I often relied on that. It was slimy, but they all had the measures long in advance and if they didn't care they didn't care and I couldn't make them.

As for the Senate and the other two votes, I'm guessing things weren't that dissimilar.