During the primaries, it quickly became apparent that Barack Obama would become the Democratic nominee for president. The results tracked certain demographics (education level, race, and the absence of Southern Baptists) so closely that it became possible to model the outcome of future primaries with a relatively high degree of confidence. This, among other things, made poblano a star.
In the end, numbers tell the story. And numbers are something that many people seem to be ignoring in telling the health care narrative.
Assuming the progressive caucus does not fold in the House, there is broad support in that chamber for the reform on which candidate Obama campaigned, and passage is assured.
As should be obvious, the likelihood of filibuster in the Senate is also all but assured. Republicans have nothing to lose and everything to gain by defeating any proposal backed by the administration. Let me be clear. This has nothing to do with a "public option." Senate Republicans would not vote for free beer at this point if it meant giving the administration a victory.
Adding the member of the Connecticut for Lieberman party takes you to the magic 41 number. (That has to be a working assumption. As a senator representing Hartford, Lieberman will never, ever vote against something perceived as damaging to the interests of insurance companies.)
But let's assume for a moment, that somehow procedural maneuvering can get reform passed with 50 votes plus a tiebreaker from the Vice President. How do we get to 50?
(None of this is intended to suggest tactics other than a "100 Senator strategy." Even though many of these Senators are not going to go our way, that's no reason not to make them feel the pressure. But, from a mathematical standpoint, what's the most realistic path?)
There have been a couple of whip counts published by bloggers that are obviously not based on the sort of intelligence available to the Senate "leadership." One was posted by Chris Bowers and lists 43 Senators as likely Yes votes. (One of them is Kennedy.) Another count, posted by poblano, suggests that as many as 17 Democrats are on the fence. The potentially wavering Democrats he identifies are:
- Tim Johnson (SD). Appeared to commit to the plan over the weekend. Should be regarded as a highly likely 'yes' vote.
- Robert Byrd (WV). Has yet to take a position publicly, probably because he's been ill. But Byrd is generally pretty liberal on economic issues, and his colleague (Jay Rockefeller) is a vociferous supporter of the public plan. The potential barrier here, as in Kennedy's case, is likely Byrd's health rather than any philosophical concerns he has about the plan.
- Amy Klobuchar (MN). Howard Dean's website lists her as a supporter. She's been decidedly more ambiguous in e-mails to constitutents, and Minnesota has lots of skin in the health care game in various forms. Still -- although Klobuchar is not as liberal as you might expect from a Minnesota Democrat -- this seems to me like an eminently whippable yea vote.
- Ron Wyden (OR). Wyden's indifference to the public option is a little odd -- he's ordinarily quite liberal -- and may reflect his desire to promote his own health care alternative. Once it came time to vote on the actual, non-Wyden bill, I'd expect him to vote yes on the public option.
- Herb Kohl (WI). Ostensibly supports the public option but with a lot of caveats: that it be "bipartisan", etc. Realistically, any public option that the Senate is considering is likely to be fairly watered down, moving Kohl into the probable yea vote category. But the co-ops concept might also be alluring to him.
Now, here are the senators that Bowers lists as maybes but who I think would be relatively unlikely to vote for the public plan. Not included here are Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins, who he lists as definite no's.
Mary Landrieu (LA). Other sources have her as a 'no'. She may be hedging a bit in constituent e-mails, but given a straight up-or-down vote on the public option, her vote seems highly unlikely.
Johnny Isakson (GA). Republican who is moderate on health care issues. Open Left lists him as a "maybe" based on what I think is a very optimistic read of a statement he made in June. Also, Isakson (along with all other Republicans but Olympia Snowe) sent a letter to the President stipulating his opposition to the public plan. Very little chance he'd vote for a public option.
Kent Conrad (ND). Given that he's probably done more than any other senator to hurt the public option, I don't really see him coming up big for the plan in the clutch.
Ben Nelson (NE). Generally the most conservative Democrat in the Senate, Nelson came out against the public option early on but has since hedged a bit. I don't know that Nelson would vote to filibuster a health care bill on final passage if it happened to include a public option. But, given the opportunity to take a straight up-or-down vote on the provision without bearing the burden of potentially killing health care reform (e.g. if an amendment on the public option had been proposed), I don't think a 'yes' vote is likely.
Evan Bayh (IN). Similar story to Nelson. He's been voting very conservatively (even relative to normal) this year.
Tom Carper (DE). Fairly conservative, and very corporatist Democrat. He takes a lot of money from the insurance lobby and there are also a lot of insurance jobs in his state. Seems to want co-ops instead.
Mark Warner (VA). Takes a ton of money from the industry. Our regression model regarded him as a very unlikely 'yes' vote. Has been somewhat ducking making a commitment on the issue, but some constituent communications suggest he'd much prefer the co-ops plan.
That leaves seven senators who I suspect are the true swing votes in a 50-vote environment. The Democrats would need at least two of these, and possibly as many as 4-5 depending on the health of Byrd and Kennedy and whether someone like Feinstein or Kohl ended up voting against the public plan.
Blanche Lincoln (AR). She's been all over the board on the public option. I don't know if anyone can say with confidence how she'd vote until they take the roll call.
Mark Pryor (AR). Been receiving less scrutiny than Lincoln since he's not up for re-election, but his position has been just as ambiguous.
Mark Begich (AK). Here's a guy who I suspect has fairly liberal instincts and doesn't take a lot of PAC money but is obviously in a very conservative/libertarianish state. Probably among the more gettable of the swing votes.
Jon Tester (MT). Largely the same story as Begich, although he's a bit more of a populist.
Max Baucus (MT). Public statements suggest he supports the public option in principle but he obviously hasn't done very much to move it along in practice. Common sense would dictate that he'd be unlikely to vote for a public option if it wasn't in the bill that came out of the Finance Committee. On the other hand, it's not out of the question that he'd want to save face with some of his liberal critics.
Bill Nelson (FL). "Not even his hairdresser knows," according to the Huffington Post.
Olympia Snowe (ME). Would probably vote for a public option that had a 'trigger' and vote against it otherwise.
Nate sees Isakson and Snowe as potentially "gettable," but I think there is a greater likelihood of the New York Jets winning the World Series. (And, yes, I meant the Jets.) Isakson was the source of the language that Betsy McCaughey demagogued as leading to "death panels," and Isakson joined in the pileon. Snowe always talks a good game but will not be there at the end. I also think he may be exaggerating the extent to which Wyden can be counted on to vote for something that is not corporate welfare. But let's give him his 48. How do we get over the hump?
I'd have to agree with the "Likely Nos," with the possible exception of Mark Warner. That leaves the Democratic "Maybes" of Lincoln and Pryor (D-WalMart), Begich, Tester, Baucus, and Bill Nelson. At least two of these are needed (assuming Mark Warner does not vote Yes), and possibly more if Kennedy can't vote or if there are any surprises. With Baucus doing everything in his power to delay this process, I have to assume he should have been included in the Likely No pile. And if there are any Montana-specific reasons for his intransigence, that makes Tester pretty unreliable as well. If WalMart supports the final bill, it will get 50 votes. If they don't, I think we need two of the three of Begich, Tester, and Bill Nelson.
I also think a lot of the "Yes" votes are currently "Likely Yes" at best; e.g., Jeff Bingaman, who is one of the "Gang of Six" preventing transparent negotiations and who is supporting delay.
Here's the bigger problem. As poblano points out, you need 12 Senate Finance Committee votes to get the bill out of committee.
Likely Yes (7): Rockefeller, Bingaman, Kerry, Schumer, Stabenow, Cantwell, Menendez
Probable Yes (1): Wyden
Swing (4): Baucus, Lincoln, Bill Nelson, Snowe
Probable No (2): Carper, Conrad
Likely No (9): Grassley, Hatch, Kyl, Bunning, Crapo, Roberts, Ensign, Enzi, Cornyn
Even with an extremely unlikely Snowe yes vote, defections by Carper and Conrad leave no room for error. This is the current state of play, and this has to be changed if reform is going to be passed.
All of which underscores how every single Senate vote is critical here. This could conceivably get done without Republicans and the corrupt members of the Democratic Senate caucus, but everything has to come together just right unless Congress fears the pitchforks more than their donors.
Update: According to Chris Bowers, there are now 45 Senators who at least claim to be in the Yes Camp.
He sees the most promising 5 targets to get to 50 as Begich, Tester, Carper, Warner, and Wyden. With the exception of Carper, I can't really disagree with that. Again, Carper could be the pivotal vote here.