Yesterday, I reported that 183 House Democrats favored a public option tied to Medicare rates plus 5% (the "robust" public option). Further, 22 Democrats, all Blue Dogs, were opposed. 20 were undecided. Another 31, many of whom are in the House Democratic Leadership, were not whipped.
Greg Sargent had earlier confirmed very, very similar numbers with Raul Grijalva's office.
Our reports, which were first hinted at last Friday, appear to have set off a series of counter-leaks on the whip count effort, with results all over the map. From The Hill:
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), the leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told a closed-door caucus meeting that the group's "whip count" showed it had 208 of the 218 votes needed to pass what liberals call a "robust" public option.
Wow-208 would be great! Given that the numbers I was reporting were as of last Friday and doesn't include the House leadership, it also seems plausible to me. However, Woolsey's claims were countered by the House Whip, Representative Clyburn:
Clyburn told Woolsey that his ongoing, informal tally doesn't show the liberals' version of the public option having that kind of support.
Also, Blue Dogs repeated their bogus claims of only 150 in support of the robust public option, which they originally leaked to The Concern Troll The Politico:
Some House members, particularly centrists, questioned Woolsey's 208 figure, noting that last Thursday the Progressive Caucus presented Pelosi with only about 150 names.
That number is just wrong. Either that, or multiple people associated with the Progressive Caucus are giving both Greg Sargent and I bad figures. I trust the people I am talking to a lot more than I trust anonymous Blue Dog staff members leaking to The Concern Troll The Politico.
There was, however, a third number leaked to The Hill today that sounded very much on target:
And another Progressive Caucus source said the liberals' whip count, begun last week at the behest of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), found 176 solid "yes" votes, about 15 "leaning yes," 30 undecided and 23 solid "no" votes.
That sounds about right. In fact, it sounds almost exactly like the numbers I leaked, only updated and with more specifics.
These dueling whip counts can likely be explained as follows:
- The Blue Dog leadership that is opposed to the robust public option are intentionally lowballing or giving outdated figures to their friends in the Capitol Hill media.
- Clyburn probably isn't including the 15 "leaning yes" votes as actual yes votes. I don't blame him--on a bill of this magnitude, hard counts are probably all he is interested in.
- The third source, who claimed 191 yes and leaning yes votes, 23 no votes, 30 undecided votes, and 12 members who were not whipped, is likely correct. Not only does that confirm what I have heard, but the specificity of that source leaves the others behind.
- Woolsey is probably adding the 191 yes and leaning yes votes to the Democratic leaders who were not whipped (plus maybe a few undecideds and / or wishful thinking) to arrive at 208.
The best bet is that to pass a robust public option in the House, we need to keep all of the "leaning yes" votes, add the entire leadership, and then snag need half of the 30 undecided votes. Unfortunately, right now, we don't know who those undecideds are. Someone knows, but I don't. |
