On eve of vote, it's still about the size of the Stupak bloc

by: Chris Bowers

Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 22:57


Looking at the latest vote counts from The New York Times and David Dayen, tomorrow's vote still hinges on the current size of the Stupak bloc.

Here is the math:

  1. The New York Times has the count at 207-206 in favor, while Dayen has it 205-207 opposed.

  2. The NYT has Cuellar as undecided, even though he is a "yes," so they are really at 208-206.

  3. Glenn Nye is no a "no," so the counts moves to 208-207 (NYT) and 205-208 (DDay).

  4. Some members are listed as undecided in one count, but not the other. DDay has Boucher as a "no," while the NYT has Foster, Ortiz, and Michaud as "yes." Allocating them all makes both counts 208-208.

  5. Both counts have the ten members of the Stupak bloc--Berry, Costello, Dahlkemper, Donnelly, Driehaus, Kaptur, Lipinski, Mollohan, Rahall and Stupak--as "undecided."  Current reports are that that group is down to six.  So, take all ten off the board, allocating six to "yes" and four to "no."

  6. That allocation leaves both counts at 212-214. The five undecideds are Baird, Lincoln Davis, Kanjorksi, Pomeroy and Tanner.  Only Kanjorksi and Pomeroy were "yes" votes last time, meaning the leadership needs two of the "no" votes.
Some, including Republican members of Congress, are speculating that the recent "no" announcements from Space, Matheson, and Nye are indications that Democrats have the votes, and are releasing members they do not need.  Others speculate that since Pelosi did not schedule more votes tonight, then she did not need to keep members on the floor for more arm-twisting.  All of that is pure speculation.

No matter the speculation, the above numbers show that passing #hcr is impossible without those four folds from the Stupak bloc.  Whoever those Reps actually are, and whether they have actually folded, remains unclear.  But, if all ten were to remain in the bloc, then the "no" votes both Dayen and the New York Times agree upon rise to 217. That would be enough to prevent passage.

So, this is still pretty much just about the Stupak bloc.  The compromise to win them over is going to be an executive order of some sort, the language of which has not been released. Whether this turns out to be capitulation to the Stupak bloc remains to be seen. Either way, if #hcr passes tomorrow, this will have been the final move to bring it over the finish line.

The last move for Republicans is going to be on the motion to recommit, which David Waldman explains in great detail here.  The motion to recommit vote will take place after the vote on the rule of the debate, a vote which will happen at around 3pm.  It is possible that they could try and insert the Stupak amendment themselves during this vote.  And really, given how Stupak has been the only obstacle to passage for a few days now, attempting to re-insert the amendment sure seems like the smart move for the GOP.

That's it for now.  See you all tomorrow!  This is an open thread.

Update--Loretta Sanchez?
Oh, and Loretta Sanchez is now a worry, too.  She has skipped town and probably isn't coming back.  Even if she does, she is probably a no.  That means yet another vote is needed for passage.

Chris Bowers :: On eve of vote, it's still about the size of the Stupak bloc

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
On eve of vote, it's still about the size of the Stupak bloc | 31 comments
Medicare payments deal struck today (4.00 / 3)
This is what appears to have gotten DeFazio back on board and reassured others who were unhappy about the language on correcting the geographical disparity in Medicare reimbursement rates. From a joint press release issued by Senator Tom Harkin and Representatives Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), and Leonard Boswell (IA-03):

[Representatives Dave] Loebsack, [Senator Tom] Harkin, [Leonard] Boswell and [Bruce] Braley have been outspoken advocates for changing the way Medicare pays health care providers for services, from its current fee-for-service system into a quality and value-based system.

Loebsack, Harkin, Boswell and Braley helped negotiate a compromise adding language to the health care reform bill that provides an immediate $800 million to address geographic disparities for both doctors and hospitals, as well as written guarantees from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for further action to reform Medicare reimbursement rates that do not qualify for reconciliation under the Byrd Rule. The Senate bill previously only provided a Medicare reimbursement fix for doctors.

The House reconciliation package maintained automatic implementation of a value index as part of the reimbursement structures for doctors, beginning in 2015.  This language was secured in the Senate bill with the help of Harkin and is based on Braley's Medicare Payment Improvement Act, introduced in June 2009. Under the fixes secured in the Senate bill and the House reconciliation package, Iowa doctors will see five percent increases in current Medicare reimbursement rates in both 2010 and 2011.

The full release w/more details is at Bleeding Heartland.

I think this will help several Democrats in battleground districts. While Republicans lose credibility by screaming, "Government takeover!!" Democrats can point to more money coming soon to doctors and hospitals in the area.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

Pelosi's running a tight ship (4.00 / 2)
I'm not seeing any leaks from her Office, or really any of the other Democratic leadership on where the whip count sits.

Interesting strategy.  It's not obvious to me why if they had the votes, they would want to prolong the dramatic tension.  If they don't have the votes locked down, does it help to project inevitability?

If they said they had the votes... (4.00 / 2)
...some of the more vulnerable members might start demanding a pass...

They also don't want to telegraph to the enemy what's going on.

Even if she had 225 votes, she wouldn't say anything...  I think... I hope...

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 ]
At this point (4.00 / 4)
you have to be pretty impressed by Pelosi.  

There were a couple of suggestions I read in the last hour that the GOP thinks she has the votes.

I think...I hope...

[ Parent ]
yeah (4.00 / 2)
Saw that, but thought it might also be a ratfuck - maybe they're hoping a few extra Dems feel safe to declare they're no's because they think the vote's in the bag.

Anyway, it's remarkable that no aides on the Dem side are saying anything even anonymously.

[ Parent ]
That in itself (4.00 / 2)
is a sign of competence.
[ Parent ]
... (4.00 / 1)
I think they realize what huge deal this is... this is one of the biggest pieces of legislation passed in 30 years, plus the fact that it isn't passed to deal with  (or take advantage of)  a national emergency like the Stimulus bill or Patriot Act were.
[ Parent ]
It's a solid strategy (4.00 / 1)
To provide multiple targets.  If the count is certain and announced, that says exactly how many votes the opposition needs to try to win over.  Without knowing for sure, the effort has to be spread out among several possibilities.  This is the same reason why Stupak never gives firm numbers or a roster of the votes supporting him; not because he is a liar but to try to avoid being picked off one by one, as has been happening anyways.  Doing otherwise is idiocy unless your votes are rock-solid and can withstand the pressure.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Bill Clinton is supposedly making calls (4.00 / 1)
maybe to Marion Berry and Loretta Sanchez? Just guessing.

She is gutless to skip town. If she's against the bill she should show up and vote no.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

... (4.00 / 1)
I'm donating to her next primary opponent first... even ahead of Stupak.  At least he had the balls to stick to his guns, as evil as they are.
[ Parent ]
yet again reminding us that the PASS ANYTHING crowd values a "victory" (4.00 / 1)
over women's rights

thanks bro!

[ Parent ]
Kaptur leaning in favor (0.00 / 0)
That suggests that the Execute Order (4.00 / 2)
idea is going to win over many or even most of the Stupak block.

That means Pelosi has the votes.

[ Parent ]
Baird, Tanner--both retiring; Kanjorski, Pomeroy--previous yes votes (0.00 / 0)
These should be gettable votes, bring the total to at least 216. Lincoln Davis has a tough reelection fight so they might cut him loose.
Loretta Sanchez (4.00 / 1)
If you have every heard her interviewed, she comes off as one of the least intelligent members of Congress, which is really saying something.  She literally might not be able to comprehend the gravity of what she is doing.  You could tell her she is condeming tens of thousands of people to die, and she might not have a clue what you were talking about.  

I once saw her giggle her way through an interview about immigration reform, which is supposedly the issue that she is most passionate about.

A vote against Health Care Reform is a vote for ten 9/11s every single year!

Sanchez 'not coming back'? (4.00 / 1)
I simply cannot see the leadership allowing this to happen.  There are no planes where she is?  And if she is gonna vote no, maybe Pelosi figures to keep her away.  Then you have 215-215.  And someone or two or three will change to yes.

Although who the hell knows?

But I think whip counts at this point are pointless.  I can't believe they would hold the vote not knowing it will pass.

[ Parent ]
Doing us a favor (4.00 / 1)
If she's a no, then stay away and don't vote. In fact, if that weasel Lynch can't bring himself to vote yes, I wish he's take the Sanchez route and also just not vote, or vote present. Then 215 could win.

Remember, she did take out B-1 Bob Dornan, so she does get credit for that...

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

[ Parent ]
Does that work? (0.00 / 0)
I didn't think it worked like that... 216 is needed to pass because of the total number of reps... Didn't think it was related to the number that showed up?
[ Parent ]
Can't Vote Present or No (0.00 / 0)
My understanding is that they need a majority of the members who are "present."  

I'm not sure if that's the case in the Senate.  For example, they definitely require 60% of the members of the Senate to end filibusters.      

A vote against Health Care Reform is a vote for ten 9/11s every single year!

[ Parent ]
You may be right about 'present' (0.00 / 0)
e.g. 216-214 w/2 present may not pass. However, 216-214 w/2 not voting would pass.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans
[ Parent ]
FWIW Republicans aren't skipping town (4.00 / 1)
like Sanchez. Every last 178 of them will be there to vote no this evening. And by all counts at least 35 Democrats are going to vote with them; the only question is who will be the lucky 35 Democrats that get to vote no and keep their seats in November; and who are the unlucky 10 that will lose.

I can't think of why Ron Kind, David Obey, and Steve Kagen here in Wisconsin deserve to lose their seats, except that they voted for this bill. But they will, poor guys. We'll probably lose Feingold and the governorship too, here in Wisconsin. But what they heck; as long as Obama scores his little insurance bill.

"There's many a slip between the cup and the lip" (4.00 / 1)
Its seven months to November, and health care could easily settle into the public consciousness as "a good thing" between now and then.

One enormous change is the conversion of Obama into a street-fighter, which I never thought he was. Let's hope he keeps that new-found skill. Ever since he faced down the Republican caucus in their meeting, he has been growing in stature. He is becoming the sort of President who can re-energise the base that he seemed to be losing.

Oh, the Dems will lose seats - but because they are the incumbents in a recession. It will not necessarily be down to Obamacare.

[ Parent ]
I Just Wish (4.00 / 4)
Obama had been a street fighter for Single Payer or Medicare for All.
I wish Obama had been a street fighter against the war machine and the criminals who tortured others and the criminals in banking.
Instead, he's a street fighter for mandated insurance and the anti-choice clowns. What a waste of talent.  
[ Parent ]
I have read the writing on the wall (0.00 / 0)
Obamacare spells doom for many a Democrat this fall....
[ Parent ]
This is why you win elections (0.00 / 0)
not just to win the next election.  Chet Edwards said it best, we do not care about his political future.  At least not as much as passing HCR.

A vote against Health Care Reform is a vote for ten 9/11s every single year!
[ Parent ]
Who wrote it? Rove? (0.00 / 0)
A huge majority of Democrats approve of this bill. 85 percent of MoveOn, for God's sake.  Either you are a Republican or someone who thinks the Democratic Party is entirely comprised of David Sirota, Jane Hamsher and Paul Rosenberg.
[ Parent ]
if only that it were (0.00 / 0)
maybe then they would actually do things that they promised to do
[ Parent ]
The Best Possible Reason to Lose (0.00 / 0)
It's true that many Democrats will lose their seats this fall.  We can agree to disagree over whether more or fewer will lose if HCR passes (I think substantially fewer).  

However, even if we accept your premise that more will lose and that having voted for HRC will cause their defeat (which I also disagree with), this is the best possible reason to lose an election.  Politicians lose elections every cycle for reasons that are out of their control.  

The opportunity to lose an election because they voted to pass one of the most important pieces of legislation in our country's history-- legislation that will literally save hundreds of thousands of lives in our lifetimes-- this is a once in a generation opportunity for these guys, and they will be able to hold their heads up high for the rest of their days knowing that at least on one day, on one vote, they were a part of history, a part of greatness!

A vote against Health Care Reform is a vote for ten 9/11s every single year!

[ Parent ]
OK Chris, let's do some smart work here on OL (0.00 / 0)
and think about the next step in HCR.  If the bill passes, what's the next step in the process of fixing what was passed?  If it fails, what is the next step then?  A scaled down plan B from Obama, or Grayson's Medicare for All bill?

We always get this extreme myopia about "votes" and the fate of individual bills.  This is not a smart way to plan a movement and get to your eventual goal.  They can tie you up in votes for months, what we lack is a plan regardless of success/failure of any one bill.

So what do you see as our plan?  No matter what happens at 3 pm today, everyone knows this fight is not over.  Please enlighten us with your insight.

You didn't ask me but (4.00 / 2)
this is a question that is near and dear to my heart.

The next step is the state level. This bill requires state legislation to implement.  That means that we can improve on it by ensuring that individual states enact strong reforms (possibly adding things that we wanted that got stripped out, to the extent that is allowed). It also means that the other side can frustrate these policies by enacting reforms in individual states that undermine reform.  They are mobilized, and no doubt ready to fight it out. I don't think we are.  

If this bill failed, the state level would need to be part of the response as well. Having even a few states enact a real public option or even single payer would very much change what is seen as possible at the federal level. That isn't to say that all efforts would need to be redirected to the states, but certainly state level activism would need to be major part of it.

This bill got much worse (regardless of whether you still think its a good bill) because we needed to appease conservative Democratic members of Congress, many of whom represent red states. Blue states can do better now at the state level since those same dynamics won't apply (or will apply less.)  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
Thanks for the response (0.00 / 0)
David.
[ Parent ]
On eve of vote, it's still about the size of the Stupak bloc | 31 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