Stupak bloc

Vote on the rule passes the House, 224-206; harbinger of final vote

by: Chris Bowers

Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 18:34

Update 8:38 p.m.: Nate Silver has the differences between how folks were committed, and how they voted on the rule:

Among those Democrats projected to vote NO on final passage, five voted YES on the procedural vote: Jason Altmire, Marion Berry, Larry Kissell, Collin Peterson, and Harry Teague.

Among the four Democrats that the Times listed as undecided, Jerry Costello voted YES, but Rick Boucher, Dan Lipinski and Lincoln Davis (whom other sources regard as a solid no) voted NO. Bobby Rush, who was technically undecided as of this morning but was not listed by the Times that way, voted YES.

Harry Mitchell, projected to vote yes on final package, voted NO on the rules bill.

That projects to 218-220.

Update 2: Pelosi says Senate bill vote after 10 pm. Reconciliation after 11 pm.  All times eastern.

Update: At least three Dems who have announced they will oppose the bill--Tanner, Teague, Altmire--voted for the rule.  Final vote on Senate bill will get 221 or fewer supporters.

****

The House just passed the rules of debate on the reconciliation bill, 224-206, with one member not voting.  The final vote will be very similar.  A couple of Dems might drop off in the belief that it will somehow help them win re-election.

(Update--The roll call has now been posted on line, and can be found here.)

The debate will last for two hours.  Vote on the reconciliation bill will happen no earlier than 8:30 p.m., eastern.

If there are 224 votes in favor of the bill now, then either they didn't need the Stupak bloc, or the bloc was larger than the 6 reported yesterday.

This is an open thread for the ongoing debate.  Watch it live online at C-SPAN.

Discuss :: (31 Comments)

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.

Discuss :: (31 Comments)

More health reform updates

by: Chris Bowers

Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 17:29

Zach Space a no
After a wave of otherwise good news today for the Democratic leadership, Zach Space becomes a "yes to no."  Dang.

Stupak bloc down to 6?
Both Roll Call and The Hill are reporting the Stupak bloc is down to only six members.  Their sources are Bart Stupak and Marcy Kaptur.

If true--and that is a big if-then it is fantastic news.  In such a scenario, David Dayen posits that the leadership would only need one more "no to yes" vote to secure passage (although, now with Zach Space, two more "no to yes" votes would be needed).

However, until the four to six members who have supposedly left the group actually make some public statements in support of passage, I will remain wary.

Voting will start around 3pm, eastern, tomorrow
MSNBC gives us the timing for tomorrow's action:

From the House Democratic Caucus meeting, this from House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (D-CT). He says "shortly after 2, we will have an hour of debate on the rule." This is the rule to allow reconcilation to get to the floor.

They would then vote on the rule, sans deem and pass. He then says there will then be "two hours of debate on the bill."

The third vote, on the Senate bill, will take place sometime later in the day.  If it succeeds, President Obama will sign it into law that night.

With Syracuse playing Gonzaga at 12:10, tomorrow should be a nice calm, relaxing day.

Tea partiers on Capitol Hill getting really ugly
As covered in Quick Hits (see here and here), things are getting really ugly on Capitol Hill.  The bigotry is laid bare once again.  Conservatives sure are good at helping you choose sides.

Discuss :: (14 Comments)

Still a showdown with Stupak

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 19:31

There have been no new vote announcements in over an hour.  At this point, anyone making an announcement will probably wait until tomorrow morning (such as Solomon Ortiz, a key "Stupak curious" member who will hold a press conference tomorrow morning).  There appears to have been a Friday afternoon rush to make the news while people were still paying attention.

Currently, I have ten "yes to no" votes, and seven "no to yes" votes.  That would mean the leadership needs two more "no to yes" votes to pass the bill.

Eight or nine of "yes to no" votes are Stupak bloc: Cao, Carney, Costello, Donnelly, Driehaus, Lipinski, Rahall, and Stupak.  Lynch might even be in that group, too.  Additionally, Berry, Dahlkemper, Kaptur and Ortiz are still "Stupak curious," potential members of the bloc.

The Stupak bloc is the only obstacle to passing the bill at this point.  Pelosi and Stupak talked for ten minutes today.  Additionally, Jeffery Young reports a cryptic, if still worrying sign:

Pro-choice female Dems are shuttling in and out of Pelosi's office and they won't say why.

Rep. Diana DeGette says "we're not happy."

At the same time, there are still enough undecided votes to pass the bill without the Stupak bloc.  Further, some members of the Stupak bloc might be wavering, such as Rahall, Costello and Cao.  Yet further, I agree with Nate Silver that "there's perhaps also a half-Stupak (face-saving BS to get 2-3 votes)."  We don't have to break the whole Stupak bloc, just two or three of them.  And it is possible that can be done with bullshit rather than caving.

One idea is that anyone who is a "no" on this bill, and who voted against the Stupak amendment, should receive the most pressure.  This means Adler, Arcuri, Boucher, Herseth Sandlin, Kissell, Kratovil, McMahon, and Minnick.  These eight could put an end to Stupak's influence, once and for all, but they choose not to do so.

Discuss :: (29 Comments)

From 2006-2008, DCCC spent $14,421,187 on Democrats who will vote "no"

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 15:03

It turns out that the biggest support of Democrats who will vote "no" on health reform is not the health insurance industry, but the Democratic Party itself.  Just take a look through the independent expenditure archive at Swing State Project, and compare them to David Dayen's latest whip count.

From 2006-2008, the DCCC made $14,421,187 in independent expenditures on behalf of elven members of the House of Representatives who are currently either "hard no" votes, or confirmed Stupak bloc, on the health reform bill.  Those eleven members of Congress are Adler (NJ-03), Arcuri (NY-24), Bright (AL-02), Childers (MS-01), Donnelly (IN-02), Driehaus (OH-01), Griffith (AL-05), Kissell (NC-08), Kratovil (MD-01), Minnick (ID-01), and Shuler (NC-11).

Additionally, the DCCC spent $21,328,946 on eleven members who are currently undecided: Altmire (PA-04), Carney (PA-10), Dahlkemper (PA-03), Ellsworth (IN-08), Kosmas (FL-24),  Hill (IN-09), Kanjorksi (PA-11), Mitchell (AZ-05), Perriello (VA-05), Space (OH-18) and Teague (NM-02).

The DCCC also spent a pile of money on the special elections featuring Travis Childers,  Bill Foster, Scott Murphy and Bill Owens in 2008-2009, although I could not find exact figures on how much they spent.  A safe assumption is that another $10,000,000 was spent in those campaigns, upping the overall total to around $45,000,000 on Democrats who are opposed, or undecided, on the health reform bill.

Furthermore, the DCCC spent $6,703,898 on just Dahlkemper, Donnelly, Driehaus and Ellsworth, all of whom are either Stupak bloc or "Stupak curious."

And to top it off, the DCCC is still actively raising money for nine "no" votes, (Adler, Arcuri, Bright, Childers, Driehuas, Kratovil, McMahon, Minnick, and Nye) along with a slew of undecideds (Carney, Dahlkemper, Foster, Hill, Kosmas, Mitchell, Scott Murphy, Owens, Perriello, Space and Teague).

The DCCC is the easily the largest source of funds for the Democrats who are holding up the health reform bill.  And, they show no signs of turning off the spigot for 2010.

There is a lot of buzz in the blogosphere about how Progressives in Congress are bad negotiators.  I'd have to say that serving as the Democratic Party serving as the primary source of funding source for the opposition to its legislative agenda takes bad negotiation up a couple orders of magnitude.

Oh yeah--and two committee chairs, Peterson and Skelton, oppose the health reform bill, too.  Sweet.

Update: Perriello is now a "yes" vote. So, the "undecided" numbers go down by $720,548.

Discuss :: (18 Comments)

Another member of the Stupak bloc confirmed

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 13:15

Representative Joe Donnelly confirms that he is a member of the Stupak bloc.  From an interview with a local paper yesterday:

President Barack Obama wants Congress to vote yes or no on a comprehensive reform measure from the Senate. Donnelly likes a lot about the bill, but its language on abortion is a "fatal flaw." For him, it is a deal breaker. "I would not vote for it," he said. He figures there will be a vote within a month or so. The abortion language is unpopular with "a significant" number of congressmen. It has the potential to kill the bill, he said.

We jumped the gun on a couple of stories yesterday, but this is different.  This is a direct quote from Donnelly, and it came only yesterday.

That makes seven confirmed, and eleven potential, members of the Stupak bloc:

Definite Stupak bloc (7)
Marion Berry (AR-01)
Joseph Cao (LA-02)
Kath Dahlkemper (PA-03)
Joe Donnelly (IN-02)
Steve Driehaus (OH-01)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Bart Stupak (MI-01)

Not Stupak bloc (3)
Dale Kildee (MI-05)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Jim Oberstar (MN-08)

Rumored, but unconfirmed, Stupak bloc (11)
Chris Carney (PA-10)
Jerry Costello (IL-12)  
Mike Doyle (PA-14)
Brad Ellsworth (IN-08)
Baron Hill (IN-09)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Paul Kanjorski (PA-12)
Alan Mollohan (WV-01)
Solomon Ortiz (TX-27)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Charlie Wilson (OH-06)

Additionally, via Greg Sargent, via Greg Sargent, Representative Jim Marshall confirms he is a "no" (he was a "no" in November), while Jim Matheson says he is undecided (he was a "no" last time).  All together, I believe this makes the current vote count 195 in favor, 195 opposed, according to David Dayen.  I am counting Altmire, Baird and Gordon as "yes" votes, at least for the time being.

Discuss :: (5 Comments)

Heath reform voting counting, Tuesday

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 12:14

Three important items on health reform vote counting today:

1. No Senators opposed to reconciliation
With Blanche Lincoln's primary-challenged induced flip, not a single Democratic Senator is opposed to using reconciliation to finish health reform.  With 50+ Senators publicly open to a reconciliation "fix" to the Senate health bill, procedural issues are not really contentious anymore.

Now, all that stands in the way of health reform passage are substantive disagreements over the content of health reform legislation.  Either 216 House Democrats and 50 Senate Democrats (plus Biden) will be able to agree on the contents of a health reform package (in which case it will pass), or they won't (in which case it won't pass).

2. House vote count tally: 197-192
David Dayen has an excellent House health reform vote count up at FDL Newsdesk.  Based on public statements and past votes, dday has the count at 193-191 in favor, with the rest undecided.

This is an excellent count, but I think it is possible to tweak it a bit more by allocating the "lean no" and "lean yes" votes.  Mike Arcuri sounds like a "no," putting the count at 193-192.  James Oberstar is a "lean yes", putting the count at 194-192.  Also, while they both tell The Hill that they are undecided, Brian Baird, and Bart Gordon sure sound a like "yes" votes, putting the count at 196-192.  , Jason Altmire also sounds like a "yes" vote, putting the count at 197-192.

Dayen lists the 42 undecided members (plus the "lean" votes I allocated here), and places them into useful categories.  The Hill has more information.

3. Stupak bloc update
The Stupak bloc of November "yes" votes who are threatening "no" votes unless the reproductive rights language is made more restrictive remain the largest undecided bloc.  Here is the current progress on figuring out who is, and who is not, in the bloc:

Definite Stupak bloc (6)
Marion Berry (AR-01)
Joseph Cao (LA-02)
Kath Dahlkemper (PA-03)
Steve Driehaus (OH-01)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Bart Stupak (MI-01)

Marion Berry is a setback.  He did not appear to be part of the bloc according to his voting patterns.

Not Stupak bloc (2)
Dale Kildee (MI-05)
Jim Oberstar (MN-08)

Oberstar is an important reversal.  Last month, he stated that he was in the Stupak bloc.  Yesterday, however, he told The Hill he was leaning yes on the Senate bill.  If Oberstar can be flipped, others can be flipped, too.

Rumored, but unconfirmed, Stupak bloc (13)
Chris Carney (PA-10)
Jerry Costello (IL-12)  
Joe Donnelly (IN-02)
Mike Doyle (PA-14)
Brad Ellsworth (IN-08)
Baron Hill (IN-09)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Paul Kanjorski (PA-12)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Alan Mollohan (WV-01)
Solomon Ortiz (TX-27)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Charlie Wilson (OH-06)

It shouldn't be this hard to find out who is in the Stupak bloc.  You would think that members of Congress who are taking a stand based on deeply-held beliefs would have no problem confirming their principled stand to the public.  You would be wrong.

Discuss :: (22 Comments)
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox