There are a lot of whip counts on the House indicating a firm "no" on Syria. You can see a sample here, and the link updates daily. From the Senate whip count, it appears that there are more undecideds than anything else, sample here. Bear in mind that this may well change after Obama's Tuesday night address, but from reports it seems that the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to any action in Syria except humanitarian aid and diplomacy, which will tend to make reps wary of voting "yea".
The Senate will vote first, which potentially precludes a House vote. The first thing to note is that the Senate, and some members of the House, know a lot more about what is going on in Syria then we do. It's why they call them "classified briefings". And it may be that the reason so many Senators are undecided is because of what they know that we do not.
There are those who believe it's imperative to bomb Syria, and their reasoning is simple: chemical weapons cannot be tolerated, Assad will use them again if we don't stop him, and we are AMERICA and it's our place to lead the world. That's the argument.
There are others who are so war weary that they don't care about the chemical weapons, they just see the situation as a way to get embroiled in ANOTHER 10 years of war in the Middle East, with the potential for a spread outside of Syria, and possible WWIII.
If I had to prognosticate, I believe we will bomb, beginning on Sunday, 15 September. In addition to bombing, we'll surgically remove Assad and his regime.
But what I'm interested in is the party politics going forward. We've been saying here since 2009 that the Republican Party is imploding and there is a huge schism caused by the rise of the teabaggers. And this is another rift for them: the GOP has always been the party of war, of neocons, and of the military-industrial complex. The "daddy" party, if you will. If they all vote no, or enough of them to preclude congressional concurrence, Obama can certainly still bomb, and if it's successful, that wing of the party is in trouble in 2016. Every debate: "Why didn't you stand up for America?"
A different set of problems presents itself for the Democrats. All House Democrats and a lot of Democratic Senators will be running next year. Into their calculus is certainly whether they'll want to be seen as standing with or against the President on the issue of war with Syria. Voting "yes" if the bombing turns into war is a disaster. However, voting "no" with SUCCESSFUL bombing means a lot of explaining to the rank and file during any primaries, and possibly problems raising money down the road.
The decision that each member of Congress makes will not be simple. While some people are incredibly hawkish and would vote yea for any military action, and while the Democratic leadership is obligated to vote with the President, this is a vote of conscience, not of party. For the first time since he's been in office (since 2001), my Congressman sent an email asking my opinion as to go or no-go. I'm pretty sure that email went to every email address in the District his office could get its hands on. I understand that a lot of reps have been reaching out, in addition to taking calls.
The countrywide discussion is a good thing. I'm sorry that every country doesn't have this sort of verbal intercourse prior to every potential military action. There may be options that present themselves which will solve the problem of chemical weapons without causing additional deaths.
My personal preference is to seek a diplomatic solution, and failing that, to arm the moderate rebels and not the jihadists. It's also to lead a humanitarian relief effort for the Syrians in Jordan, Turkey, Greece and the other countries to which they've escaped. I personally don't see an up side to the bombing. Only potential disasters.
But that's just one girl's opinion. What's yours?