Live vote count updates

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 17:27


Update 6:18 p.m. Scott Murphy flips from "no to yes": Scott Murphy becomes the 7th "no to yes" vote. Leadership needs at least two more of those.

Update 6:05 pm--Barrow doesn't flip: A "no to yes" possibility disappears, as Rep. John Barrow stays a "no."  Good thing Obama cut an ad for Barrow when he faced a primary challenger in 2008.

Update 2--Cuellar a yes: Rep. Henry Cuellar, who was a possible Stupak bloc member, will vote yes, just as he did in November.

Berry, Dahlkemper, Kaptur and Ortiz are the remaining "Stupak curious" votes.

Ortiz holding a press conference to announce his vote tomorrow morning.

****

Update--Rahall and Carney join Stupak bloc: One step forward, two steps back.  Nick Rahall and Chris Carney join the Stupak bloc, giving "yes to no" ten votes.  Post updated to reflect.

****

Suzanne Kosmas flips:

Kosmas, one of 39 Democrats to oppose a similar bill in November, said in an exclusive interview with the Orlando Sentinel that she decided to change her mind because the latest version addressed some of her previous concerns about its effect on small businesses and the federal deficit.

"I'm going to vote for healthcare reform," she said. "I know this is not a perfect bill. But in the scheme of things, it provides the best options and the best opportunities for my constituents."

This is now seven confirmed "no to yes" votes, against ten solid-seeming "yes to no votes."  If the leadership can actually pick up just two more "no to yes," and hold down the rest of the no's, then they could pass the bill 216-215.

  1. 10 confirmed "Yes to No" votes: Arcuri, Cao, Carney, Costello, Donnelly, Driehaus, Lipinski, Lynch, Rahall, Stupak

  2. 7 confirmed "No to Yes" votes: Boccieri, Boyd, Gordon, Kosmas, Kucinich, Markey, S. Murphy

  3. This is a net of two three votes for "Yes to No." Without losing anymore yes votes, the Democratic leadership needs to pick up at least two more "no" vote from November to pass the bill
This is looking more positive than it was even just an hour ago.  Getting Brian Baird would be huge for passing the bill without the Stupak bloc.
Chris Bowers :: Live vote count updates

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Live vote count updates | 33 comments
They say Heath Shuler's undecided. (0.00 / 0)
Ordinarily, I'd write him off as a firm no, but after the Kucinich switch, I'm inclined to think he could vote for it.
He said today he's a firm no... n/t (0.00 / 0)


REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
He's as bad a Dem as he was a QB (4.00 / 3)


John McCain won't insure children
[ Parent ]
Makes me think they have it in the bag now (4.00 / 1)
As I mentioned yesterday, even though by all accounts he should be an automatic no, Shuler had been giving himself room to vote yes and I think he was a Rahm 'safety vote.' That they've let him go makes me think they've got the numbers locked up. All pure speculation, of course.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans
[ Parent ]
It's in the bag! (4.00 / 2)
For one thing, "Ortiz holding a press conference to announce his vote tomorrow morning."

That means another "no" to "yes." You don't hold a press conference to announce a "no" vote at this point. You try and keep a low profile until you can slink out of town.

At this point, the only question is which endangered Democrats can they let vote "no". There's a whole hierarchy of considerations:

1. First term Congressman?
2. Red district?
3. Tough re-election challenge?
4. Did they vote "yes" last time -- so that switching now won't help them, they'll still be targeted with attack ads?

Depending on how many votes they need, they can let the Congressmen on the hot-seat know whether they need their votes or not in the end.

This vote will be VERY carefully stage managed so that there are NO slip-ups. And some Congressmen will "pass" so that they can be held till the end in case Pelosi needs their votes. If (as expected) some Congressmen break for the HCR, then more of the fence-sitters can be let off the hook.

If NOT, then Pelosi will need to hold their feet to the fire and make them vote the right way. Back-sliding will not be tolerated on this one. The leadership and President Obama have made that one abundantly clear by now.

No matter how unpopular HCR might be in some of their districts they've got to suck it up and vote for it -- if the leadership needs their votes in the end.

ERGO: This bill will pass 216-215 or 217-214.

[ Parent ]
I also think that Costello and Donnelly (4.00 / 2)
are possible yeses as well. I wouldn't see that as def. nos at this point.
I suspect Baird will vote yes; maybe Scott Murphy (4.00 / 2)
I'm hoping that the Arcuri pile-on will convince Bill Owens and, esp. Scott Murphy (a former no vote) to vote yes.  
From what I've heard today.... (4.00 / 1)
Marcy Kaptur, who yesterday fiddled around for some reason, is leaning yes.
Braley's spokeswoman says he's undecided (4.00 / 1)
Bruce Braley (IA-01) was a yes in November, and I haven't seen his name on any undecided lists. However, he shares the concerns DeFazio has raised about the language on geographical disparity in Medicare payments. His spokeswomn told me today that he is "very much undecided on how he will vote on the reconciliation package and this is one of many factors that will play a role in his final decision."

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
Zack Space is being troublesome in Ohio... (0.00 / 0)
He was a yes, previously...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
It'd be kinda funny if (4.00 / 3)
after all that bitching about the horrible unreasonable purists in the DNC's left wing, it turned out to be the anti-women yahoos and the Blue Cross Dog democrats who defeated this POS.

Yeah, but if the bill goes down (0.00 / 0)
the left will get blamed. Hamsher will need bodyguards.  
[ Parent ]
anyone else notice... (4.00 / 2)
how everyone remaining in the Stupak block just happens to have a Y chromosome?
[ Parent ]
And under-publicized, because the left... (4.00 / 1)
...simply doesn't create and deliver messaging for shit, is that it isn't some crazy hippie shit that's dragging this bill (and cost the MA senate race), but rather the insider BS added to placate the wanker centrists.

The toxic politics are all about the buyoff's and payoff's demanded by the oh-so-thoughtful and necessary centrists. Someone from the left should be out there publicly kicking Ben Nelson and the wanker centrists in the press every day. Sadly, not happening.

...Adding, if it really was hippie shit bogging this down the centrists would be everywhere in the press kicking ass.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

[ Parent ]
I don't know about that Rahall link (4.00 / 1)
It's stamped at 10 am eastern and I heard him on MSNBC sound more accepting than not.

John McCain won't insure children
ditto that (0.00 / 0)
From everything I can tell, he's still in the undecided camp. You might put him into leaning no after that Hill article (and, more importantly this one), but considering other things he's said in the last 24 hours I think a better characterization is undecided.

Here's what he posted on Facebook at 11:46pm last night:

Just a quick note to offer you a link to the recent adjustments to the Healthcare reform bill, as promised. I sincerely thank my constituents of the 3rd Congressional District of WV, for your many calls to my various offices and for posting here as well. It has been an extremely busy week in Washington, as I've met and... talked with dozens groups; subject matter experts, individual citizens and, my colleagues on this very important piece of Legislation. As it always is, my focus will be on Southern West Virginia as I continue to study this bill in depth. http://rules.house.gov/


They call me Clem, Clem Guttata. Come visit wild, wonderful West Virginia Blue
[ Parent ]
this is fun and all (4.00 / 7)
But I can't help but think what we're seeing is that the votes are just breaking towards the foregone conclusion of a 216-215 vote, or maybe one or two yes votes above that.

The no votes we're seeing are just the maximum number of no votes that can be doled out to members who feel like they need to vote no and still get the bill to pass. But the bottom line is that there's just no way at this point that the Democrats can fail on this, and they all know it.

completely agree (4.00 / 1)
The machinations about Rep. Rahall is one example of that. As a member of House leadership (in key committee post), he's not going to be a deciding vote against. But, if there's room for an extra "no" he might be tempted to do something he thinks is politically expedient in a tougher than usual re-election battle.

Personally, I think in Rahall's case he'd be esp. foolish to vote no now since he already voted yes earlier... but, I can see where the temptation would be there.

They call me Clem, Clem Guttata. Come visit wild, wonderful West Virginia Blue

[ Parent ]
217-214 (4.00 / 1)
I think they'd like it so that no single vote can be portrayed as the deciding vote. 216-215 puts everyone on the hook as the deciding vote.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans
[ Parent ]
Pelosi, as usual, is the bill's saving grace.. (4.00 / 1)
Can't see them planning the vote without knowing they already had at least the minimum.

Just a note before checking out for the weekend. Grayson of Florida was just on with Ed Schultz and made a very sutttle point worth noting again more loudly. Asked if the President wasn't out there closing the deal on HCR, Grayson essentially brushed aside the mention of Obama and said it was Speaker Pelosi who's getting the job done, because she was a respected leader.

The fact that it will pass at all, the fact that she went public about not trusting the Senate and the fact that the bill that passes has just enough good in it to improve the health care problems for many,  is owed entirely to her truly superior leadership skills.

As far as I'm concerned the President himself was a road-block to his own goal of health or insurance reform.  On that he failed miserably.

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.

[ Parent ]
Just imagine where we'd be without her (0.00 / 0)
She is like a WWI trench commander, holding the line - and like you said, getting no help from Obama or Reid (or Hoyer, I'd bet)
[ Parent ]
As much as I'm pleased for these updates (0.00 / 0)
I do also think that some of the nos are by no means definite.

Actually, from Jon Cohn is reporting, Stupak is going to hold a press conference tomorrow. I wouldn't be surprised if some compromise is worked out. Cohn says they are likely to have some kind of later vote reconfirming Hyde language for the exchanges.

Thats partly why I think there is a lot of conflicting reporting about Carney, Donnelly, Costello, Rahall.

I'm certain now there is a Stupak deal in the works (0.00 / 0)
See these twitter feed:: http://twitter.com/JeffreyYoun...

Pelosi calls in pro-choice female Dems to her office, than seen huddling with Stupak for 10 minutes . . .

They CAN'T do a deal with Stupak! (0.00 / 0)
The Senate can't amend the abortion language because that can't be passed via reconciliation and they don't have 60 votes -- unless the Parliamentarian scores the abortion spending prohibition to have "budgetary impact" which I can't see happening.

Thus it does the House NO good to screw over women even MORE to get Stupak because the Senate can't go along with it. ALL changes to the Senate bill MUST be such as will passed via reconciliation.

The ONLY way around that would be for Joe Biden to over-rule the Senate Parliamentarian -- which he wouldn't dare do unless it was absolutely necessary and they couldn't pass HCR any other way. But that would cause all the media whores to scream endlessly about "breaking the rules of the Senate!"

Besides they don't even need Stupak. Most likely HE's the one looking for cover because there are going to be a LOT of angry pissed off Dems. once this is over and Bart Stupak is going to take a lot of flack from both sides over this.

He gets NO cover because he was willing to vote for "socialized medicine" but not if it didn't restrict abortion.

That means he's hated by the Tea-baggers AND Liberals in his own party base. Not a good place to be which is why he's so upset at being put on the hot-seat (he expected a deal a long-time ago so that his obstructionism wouldn't be THE issue).

[ Parent ]
So, the house votes for a Stupak bill... (0.00 / 0)
...and the Senate defeats it, and we are all good...  faces saved on all sides!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
Just speculation (0.00 / 0)
Jon Cohn has some blog posts about how this would work. Its about having a separate vote in the future, not now.
[ Parent ]
Here's the link: (4.00 / 1)
[ Parent ]
Damn... (0.00 / 0)
This is an insurance package, I'm sure, but at least we have the upper hand in negotiations now....  Stupak had to come to us, not the other way around.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
Worried about these counts given the negotiations with Stupak (0.00 / 0)
If they were that close to 216 or 217 Yes votes now, then why negotiate with Stupak at all?  I'd leave him and his buddies out there, and call their bluff to all vote "No" on the bill.  At this point it should be easier to get the last couple of no to yes changes, then risk losing dozens of pro-choice votes at the last minute.

I'm hoping at least some of these clowns will get voted out of office in the fall, especially the ringleader, Stupak.

Rahall (0.00 / 0)
Rahall is a full committee chair, and as such needs the good will of leadership to a) stay in his position; and b) get any of his legislation onto the House floor. Not to mention if the D's lose control because of his vote he's a random back-bencher again, with no opportunity to advance (losing control is a MUCH bigger deal for more senior members).

Moreover, althought he's always been anti-choice, it's never been a big driving issue for him. I find this behavior from him exceedingly odd, and I would put him front and center among "No leaners" whom leadership could turn to if they need it. I would almost put him in a category directly opposite Cao (who might vote Yes but almost certainly not if it's the deciding vote).  

Live vote count updates (0.00 / 1)
..or do I just have to update my address? I read that I'm supposed to contact my Count Auditor's office to update my address, but I tried to google some information on that--and address or email or some way to contact them, but I didn't find anything helpful.

top Grade Acai

BREAKING (I think): Melissa Bean is a Yes (0.00 / 0)
How exactly does this work? (0.00 / 0)
I'm still confused as to how I update my information so as to participate in the live voting. I'd really like to have this option but I'm not quite sure how it works.

Thanks
Sincerely,
Kathy Williams
CEO of Top Grade Acai Extreme

Live vote count updates | 33 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox