(
From the diaries. This analysis is as good as any, and may actually be on the money -- kos)
There are a number of diaries recently expressing shock at various Democrats announced votes on the Roberts confirmation (Feingold "Yes", Hillary "No", for instance). So far, I haven't seen any that are particularly surprising.
To figure out how people are going to come down, you simply need to look at several factors. . .
- Any Democrat considering a run for President in 2008 is going to vote "No". No one wants the next Howard Dean nipping at their heels.
- Any Democrat seriously considering leading a filibuster of the next nominee and planning to keep the gang of fourteen on board is going to vote "Yes". Voting "No" on Roberts would allow, in fact almost require, the Republican G14 members to break ranks under pressure ("Come on, de Wine, this guy even voted "No" on Roberts!"). Conversely, voting "Yes" on Roberts strengthens the Democrat's argument with the seven Republicans who will matter ("Listen guys, I'm reasonable, I even voted for Roberts. But Judge Hitler really is an exceptional circumstance!").
That accounts for Clinton and Biden voting "No", and for Byrd and possibly Leahy voting "Yes" (Byrd being one of the G14, and Leahy the ranking member on the Judiciary committee, both well positioned to lead a filibuster).
Furthermore:
- Any senator genuinely concerned about Senatorial process and commity is likely to vote "Yes". That's because Roberts did appear, did answer questions (if not as specifically as some would have liked), and nothing has emerged to disqualify him from the post. The reasons for voting him down are that you believe he lied under oath (always a possibility) or you believe there is some skeleton in the missing Bush administration papers that would disqualify him but that hasn't been leaked in some form already. Those are positions that can be held by a partisan player, but not by a collegiality-oriented Senator concerned about maintaining the integrity of senatorial process. I put Feingold, and possibly Leahy in this camp.
- Senators from Red States will likely vote "Yes" -- why lose their jobs over a symbolic vote?
We're left with a relatively small number of Democrats, partisan players from blue states with no interest in a Presidential run or leading a filibuster. How many of them are there? My guess is that they'll break on the "No" side since a "Yes" vote won't get them anything and the "No" will earn them a little credibility with the base (and besides, who in the Senate is thinking maybe, someday, of a Presidential run?).