ObamaCare: Don’t call it a whip count
[Posted by Karl]
Given the good analyses from Jay Cost and David Dayen (and the inferior efforts of the establishment media), I have not seen a need to do a “whip count” on the ObamaCare vote the Democrats want to have on Friday or Saturday. Moreover — as Jay notes — the public statements of Congressmen almost always leave wiggle room to be bought off or sufficiently threatened by the top Democrats.
However, these informal analyses are useful as a frame for looking at the actual whipping. Dayen sharply noted that Maj. Whip James Clyburn said yesterday that they have “been working this thing all weekend,” and even named names of those he hopes to flip: Reps. Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania, Brian Baird of Washington state, John Boccieri of Ohio and Bart Gordon of Tennessee. With the exception of Altmire, both Cost and Dayen classed these members in the most persuadable category. So that weekend of work by Clyburn and his deputies made little to no progress. But with the most likely “yes” to “no” flips coming from the core of the Stupak pro-life bloc — perhaps as few as six — Clyburn may not have much work to do.
As a keystone Stater, Cost probably knows Altmire’s district better than Dayen. The fact that the NRCC has stopped targeting Altmire’s vote is troubling, but the NRCC’s assessment of others — e.g., Luis Gutierrez as a “no” — suggests their assessments are imperfect). [Correction: Contra Dayen, the NRCC is still targeting Altmire. Thanks to Jay for making me double-check that.] Baird and Gordon are retiring (As is Bart Tanner, who at last report intended to remain a “no” vote.) Also (fwiw) Nate Silver is skeptical about Boccieri flipping. If Altmire and Boccieri are not already silently onboard with Clyburn, it might be tough for the leadership to get traction on the final, crucial votes.
I tend to agree with Silver on the state of play today:
It seems to me that there are sort of two equilbiria: either essentially all of the non-Stupak yes votes hold, in which case health care passes very narrowly (perhaps with exactly 216 votes) — or the floodgates open, there are a few key defections about half-way into the roll call, and anybody with a grievance deserts the bill, in which case all of the sudden it might struggle to get 200 votes. (Of course, Pelosi doesn’t have to hold a vote, and would probably want to avoid such an embarrassing outcome — but it’s not out of the question that she could push the measure to the floor not knowing the result, and that things could totally unravel during the roll call.)
If I was forced to bet, I would bet on Pelosi. If she can get within two or three votes, she and Pres. Obama can wield the “you don’t want to be the Democrat who killed ObamaCare” club, because members will not know as much as the leadership about the whip count. And she may be able to get that close with the backroom deals that will get inserted when the bill goes to the Rules Committee without adequate time for discovery by the public. Then again, Rep. David Dreier, ranking Republican on the House Rules Committee, says the Dems are still 10 votes short, and that number might be growing, so what do I know?
—
Bonus coverage: Not even Dayen noticed this from Clyburn:
Clyburn expressed doubt that the House would vote by Thursday. He said lawmakers might have to stay in Washington right up to Easter Sunday, wrangling over their differences, and he wasn’t certain the showdown vote would take place by then.
“The chances are good, but I wouldn’t bet on it,” he said.
That is out of step with Pelosi, who told reporters and bloggers today:
“Time is important for us here, because this city is the city of the perishable and every special interest group out there who doesn’t want this to pass–including the entire Republican party–benefits from any delay,” Pelosi told those in attendance. “Delay is our enemy.”
And it’s out of step with Pres. Obama. The White House originally floated a March 18 deadline for the House vote on the Senate bill. After House leaders essentially dismissed that deadline, Pres. Obama delayed his overseas trip to impose an artificial deadline. My working assumption has been that Pres. Obama — and now Pelosi — very much want to pass the bill before members get a chance to go home and take heat from their constituents. Clyburn, the guy tasked with rounding up the votes, seems to suggest they might delay the Easter recess to keep members in town — which (even as a threat) might also suggest where the Democrats are on their whip count.
–Karl
What a pathetic and disgusting example of non – democracy in action. Bribe, threaten, lie – anything goes, as long as the proles get into line.
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/15/2010 @ 5:01 pmPelosi’s comments remain meaningless. I can’t tell if she feeds the media BS to obfuscate what she is really up to, or if she’s really as incompetent as she appears.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/15/2010 @ 5:16 pmSPQR, can’t it be both?
John Hitchcock (f3cd7b) — 3/15/2010 @ 5:20 pmshe may be able to get that close with the backroom deals that will get inserted when the bill goes to the Rules Committee without adequate time for discovery by the public.
Of course, those deals, as part of the reconciliation bill, are unlikely to ever make it into law. The Senate bill will. So it would be a foolish Congressman who thought those deals were worth the paper they’re printed on.
Subotai (a40355) — 3/15/2010 @ 5:28 pm“…were worth the paper they’re not printed on.”
TFTFY!
Easter Recess…
What will be the hotter LZ?
AD - RtR/OS! (913281) — 3/15/2010 @ 5:38 pmTo go home before, or after, voting for this POS?
Yeeesh, woman. He’s not in office anymore.
Uncle Pinky (22f482) — 3/15/2010 @ 6:10 pm“Delay is our enemy.”
I thought he was Dancing With the Stars. Jeez, he’s been gone longer than the evil BushCo.
Chris (6b0332) — 3/15/2010 @ 6:13 pm“If she can get within two or three votes, she and Pres. Obama can wield the “you don’t want to be the Democrat who killed ObamaCare” club, because members will not know as much as the leadership about the whip count”
They could also hold the vote open for a few hours, buying themselves time to twist some arms. Its what the hammer would have done.
imdw (2b5cca) — 3/15/2010 @ 6:23 pmClyburn’s moment of candor has created a huge problem, and has now resulted in Dem. House Caucus Chairman Larson coming out and saying they have the votes now to pass the bill later this week.
The problem caused by Clyburn’s statement is that it gives wavering Dems pause to wonder if they are signing on to a losing vote.
Pelosi controls when the matter goes to the floor for a vote. If they have 216, it’ll be sent to the floor on Thurs. If they have less than 216, it’ll depend on who the undecideds are — if there are “persuadeable” undecideds, and they are only 2-3 votes shy, then they problably go to the floor for a vote and twist their arms out of their shoulders to get those extra votes.
But, if you are 10 votes short, and you think there are only 6-8 persuadeable votes, you don’t go to the floor — you keep working on shrinking that number.
Clyburn’s comments suggest that this last scenario is most accurate right now. He mentions working right up to Easter Sunday before taking a vote — that’s 3 weeks longer that was envisoned by the leadership and the WH as recently as earlier today.
If the House Whip thinks he needs 3 more weeks to whip the vote to get in a position to assure passage then he’s not even close right now.
The message the Dem leadership has been trying to send for 2 weeks is one of “inevitability” — forcing those wavering Dems who might be persuaded to get off the fence now so the process can go forward.
Clyburn punched a big hole in that strategy.
Shipwreckedcrew (96a8a6) — 3/15/2010 @ 6:24 pmThe message the Dem leadership has been trying to send for 2 weeks is one of “inevitability” — forcing those wavering Dems who might be persuaded to get off the fence now so the process can go forward.
On a side note, it’s interesting you use “inevitability” to describe this because it does seem this spin of “inevitability” is also being used as a way to manipulate and pressure public opinion. The majority of Americans want the brakes put on this, but perhaps if there is a continual force feeding of the “inevitability” of this bill from Dem leaders, it may provoke a collective stand down.
Obviously the public’s opinion is way down the priority list but every pol knows that if the whole process goes through, there will be much less fallout if the sheep are meek and resigned to it.
Dana (1e5ad4) — 3/15/2010 @ 6:58 pmI think they will pass it. A 43% approval is enough for them to justify it. Remember, these guys are weasels, and are probably just holding out for the right deal from Rahm.
(Those 43% would be almost the permanent dependent majority bills like this are designed to create.)
Patricia (e1047e) — 3/15/2010 @ 6:59 pmHow many zeroes will the last bribe have?
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 3/15/2010 @ 7:57 pmWhen the history of this debacle is written, it will be traced back to two words: “We won”; thereby ending the honeymoon.
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 3/15/2010 @ 8:01 pmNever in our history have we been required to pass a law
krusher (548790) — 3/15/2010 @ 9:16 pmin order to find out what is in the law. Follow-up question:
Are ammo sales still sky-rocketing?
Stupak stated tonight on Greta that he thinks they do not have 200 firm yes votes right now. That puts them at least 12 votes behind what Fox analysts has been saying they have.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 3/15/2010 @ 9:26 pmComment by krusher — 3/15/2010 @ 9:16 pm
YES!
AD - RtR/OS! (913281) — 3/15/2010 @ 9:44 pmConsidering how his popularity is going maybe Obama can promise Dem Congressmen that, if they vote for the bill, he WON’T campaign for them.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 3/15/2010 @ 9:54 pmI think Stupak is being overly optimistic to try to counteract the leadership’s assurances that they have the votes. I suspect the estimates by Rep. Clyburn and Fox News are closer to the truth.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/15/2010 @ 10:05 pmI have a crazy idea – why won’t the Republican plus Blue Dog majority kick out the leadership and replace it with Blue Dogs? Then they could call for a vote and soundly defeat the Senate bill, then pass a rule change banning Slaughter maneuvers.
This horror could be over.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 3/16/2010 @ 5:18 am