no, her argument about people voting for it and then letting mitch mcconnell vote it down isn't the same as the reverse argument, because it's still a vote, at the end of the day. if the intent is strictly to see how people vote, then it's....there's always going to be specific issues in any bill, and people could outright change their mind, so there's really not any way to bank on a previous vote. but, this is going to be an issue in the opposite direction for more members than it is in the positive one; that is, more members are going to find themselves worried about a 'yes' vote following them around when they don't actually support it, if they have any further ambitions in politics. as clear as the polling is, it's also a career destroyer for most democrats. so, it's an argument rooted in a false equivalency - nobody would take that risk, if they weren't willing to accept being labeled as supporting it.
i mean, there's a very good chance that something like this could fail to get 10 votes. but, that would be important to realize - it would just demonstrate the depth of the problem, and the futility of continuing in the party.
actually, i think it's important to debunk this woman so that people stop putting faith in her. that's not to end her, entirely, it's to bring people back to earth and get them being real about it. this is a career politician that has never accomplished anything worthwhile in her life. it's important to see things clearly and take off the tinted glasses.
we don't accomplish things through hope and faith, we accomplish them through hard work and critical analysis.