House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi,
interviewed by TIME, says she's not sure if a majority of House Democrats will back a resolution giving President Obama authority to attack Syria:
Q: Can you get a majority of your caucus? Is that important?
A: I don’t know. I think it would be important to get a majority in the Congress. But I don’t know if it’s important how you would break it down. These issues are not really partisan.
If your goal is a majority, you probably don't care where you get it—as long as you do get it. But in this particular case, it's looking more and more like the only way that majority can be got is if a majority of Democrats—and probably a big majority—vote in favor of an attack on Syria.
Meteor Blades posted a roundup of whip counts on where members of Congress stand from various organizations, and while there are big differences among the counts, members are far more willing to come forward with opposition to an attack resolution than support.
The average of the six whip counts shows 138 members against or leaning against a Syria attack resolution with just 36 supporting or leaning in support. That means a majority of members are still undecided, but even though there are more Republicans than Democrats in the House, there are more Democrats among the undecided—136 to 123. That's because Republican opponents of a Syria attack have been tripping over themselves to announce opposition, while Democrats have been more reluctant: On average, the whip counts show 99 Republicans against compared with just 39 Democrats.
As with Republicans, Democrats who have announced their position are more likely to oppose a Syria attack than support it, but the ratio is much narrower—25 in favor and 39 against among Democrats, compared with 11 in favor and 99 against among Republicans.
Unless the leaners change their mind (or the administration somehow wins the backing of virtually every undecided Republican), for a Syria resolution to pass, virtually all undecided Democrats would need to support it along with about one-third of undecided Republicans.
Thus numbers shed light on Greg Sargent's report yesterday the administration was pushing hard to win support from House liberals for the resolution. Despite their push, by the end of the day the Wall Street Journal reported many of the liberals wooed by the White House were still leaning against supporting a strike.
Obviously, these whip counts are unofficial, but at this point, seems fair to say that if the House were to hold a vote on the Syria resolution next week, it would be in serious jeopardy of losing. If that doesn't change, it will be interesting to see whether they proceed with the plan to have a vote—or if they decide to postpone it.