New Whip Count Updates: Vote Is Close, Should They Delay ?
Of course these are only estimates and I can’t see them holding the vote unless they know for sure they have the numbers.
But according to the Hill, they are right on the edge with 37 Democrats voting No and at least 19 unclear, including 3 who voted No last time. If the 37 no votes stick and one of the three former No’s stay that way, then that is enough to defeat the bill.
Firedoglake.com also has it very close with 205 Yes, 207 No and 10 leaning No (which would be enough to defeat) plus 9 unknowns.
Again I can’t imagine them holding the vote unless they have the numbers and it may be more of a matter of deciding how many they can let vote no.
Personally I still think they should wait on the vote to give them time to discuss things with constituents, fine tune some of the issues raising concerns (I wouldn’t mind them addressing the Bronze Plan issue, the one thing that is keeping me on the fence).
I know some are opposed to delays because this is an important issue, and I understand that. On the other hand most of the major coverage provisions don’t take effect until 2014 and they could probably pass a separate bill with the things that do go into effect now (IE no pre existing conditions, preventative care, etc).
With the rest of it going into effect in 2014, it wouldn’t really hurt if they passed that in May or June.
9 Responses to “New Whip Count Updates: Vote Is Close, Should They Delay ?”
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by TxJogger12: New Whip Count (23 mins ago) http://bit.ly/cIXG5S...
Again, delaying is impossible because this legislative effort is like a massive train. Once you throw on the breaks you can't just start up again. And it's not like we haven't had an interminable debate on this.
As for the whip count, I don't think it is in doubt, honestly. The only question is WHICH Democrat will vote no. I wouldn't be surprised if it passes by a mere two votes or so – but only because Pelosi released a few vulnerable Dems to vote no. We just don't know which ones.
Think about it – did anybody expect Alan Boyd to go from no to yes? Pelosi almost certainly knew it but released it to give confidence to supporters that movement was getting to the margin.
Only once in recent history has an actual major vote been brought to the floor and failed, and that was the bank bailout. And that was a case of an emergency measure that virtually nobody had time to debate.
For a much as I criticize the bills, I know that the process is well controlled. They wouldn't have scheduled the vote for Sunday unless they knew that they had enough to pass. Whether that victory is monumental, or Pyrrhic, is another story.
The most important thing to watch is not the whip count done by generally sharp folks like Dayen but the schedule tomorrow. If everything goes according to schedule, with the vote on the rule at 2pm, the vote on the reconciliation fix and the vote on the Senate bill then it will pass.
if something gets delayed unexpectedly then you know the votes are not there.
There will NOT be a vote that fails.
I've noticed over the years that when a vote is close, it really means that the voters don't like either side.
Think election 2000; No one wanted either one of those sobs.
There is no such thing as a pyrrhic victory when your legislation helps this many people and improves a woeful status quo this much.
If they are sniveling over risking their careers, they should have bothered with improving the legislation and selling it to the people rather than mucking about – then voting for reform wouldn't be so risky. I don't care about them, or their seats, that much – incumbents do poorly in midterms, and Obama has his veto. I am well aware some democrats will be hurting for voting yes – that is their own fault.
[...] The Moderate Voice is suggesting the vote be delayed, because they are very worried about losing the vote. (And they wrote the post when FireDogLake had the No votes at 208, but FireDogLake is now at 209 No votes.) [...]
For a person who looks at the global warming problem as a complex set of feedback loops, you're looking at the health care bill rather simply.
I'm not worried about the extra insurance per se., but the unintended consequences that are sure to follow. This bill is going to attempt to get poorer people on health insurance, or pay a fine. But it's assuming that the extra money is going to go to the current health care system. I would argue, with quite a bit of recent history on my side, that the money will simply be absorbed by our current providers, many of whom are already extremely overpaid, without a noticeable increase in the amount of care provided. That will hurt the rest of the nation, including the poorer people that it was intended to help. The feedback loops in this case are probably going to make whole mess worse for everyone but the providers. Depending on the events in the next few years, which aren't as predictable, this could well end up being an even bigger mess.
There are a lot of consequences to worry about.
The supporters largely don't know and don't care about these or what's in the bill (if they know at all); the real things that matter (whether or not they'll admit it) are: the Dems are recovering and moving “forward” once more; they are getting through the GOP opposition (at least with this legislation; we'll see about the rest of the year now, which will become the key once this legislation is passed).