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.
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.
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.
Kosmas, one of 39 Democrats to oppose a similar bill in November, said in an exclusive interview with the Orlando Sentinel that she decided to change her mind because the latest version addressed some of her previous concerns about its effect on small businesses and the federal deficit.
"I'm going to vote for healthcare reform," she said. "I know this is not a perfect bill. But in the scheme of things, it provides the best options and the best opportunities for my constituents."
This is now seven confirmed "no to yes" votes, against ten solid-seeming "yes to no votes." If the leadership can actually pick up just two more "no to yes," and hold down the rest of the no's, then they could pass the bill 216-215.
This is a net of two three votes for "Yes to No." Without losing anymore yes votes, the Democratic leadership needs to pick up at least two more "no" vote from November to pass the bill
This is looking more positive than it was even just an hour ago. Getting Brian Baird would be huge for passing the bill without the Stupak bloc.
Rep. Allen Boyd has flipped from no to yes on #hcr, @ryangrim is told.
But, as has become the pattern, health reform takes a step back at the same time. Jason altmire, who had been a good "no to yes" possibility, remains at no:
Congressman Altmire will vote against the health care bill.
Altmire is the sort of vote that could have broken the Stupak bloc. Losing him is a big deal.
Here is where the "yes to no" and "no to yes" votes stand. Remember that, at most, there can only be one more "yes to no" than "no to yes":
(Note: even if he is undecided, Cao will never cast the deciding vote in favor. As such, he should be considered a "Yes to No" for the duration of the vote count)
The results in a net of three votes for "Yes to No." That means the leadership needs to pick up two more "no" votes from November to pass the bill
With the exception of Arcuri, and possible exception of Lynch, everyone in the "yes to no" group is in the Stupak bloc. Really, this is a fight to find enough "no to yes" votes to overcome the Stuapk bloc.
The best remaining "no to yes" possibilities who did not vote for the Stupak amendment are Baird, Kosmas, and Scott Murphy. The leadership needs two of those three, plus not to lose any "Stupak curious" members (Berry, Cuellar, Dahlkemper, Ellsworth, and Kaptur), or any other "yes" votes (like DeFazio and Rush) to pull this off. Or, they need to start breaking some of the harder "no" votes, or more dedicated Stuapk bloc members.
Really feels like threading a needle. At this point, it is safe to predict that there will be less than 220 votes for the bill, even if it passes.
This morning, during an appearance on Good Morning America, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) reaffirmed that he might vote for the Senate health care bill if Democrats pass the Stupak abortion amendment as a separate measure. Stupak said that Democrats have shown a "renewed" interest in tying his amendment to the Senate bill
ABC News' Jonathan Karl reports: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was asked about Bart Stupak's suggestion that there could be another bill to address abortion funding and she said, "I haven't heard any of that."
"If you don't want federal funding for abortion... and you want to have a health care bill," she said. "This is it."
Leaving the he said / she said aside for the moment, Stupak still appears to hold the balance on the bill. He may not have a dozen members anymore, but the vote is so close he doesn't need that many anymore to sink the bill.
To pass the bill, the leadership needs to have only one less "no to yes" votes than "yes to no" votes. Right now, "yes to no" is running at least four ahead, and at least six of the "yes to no" votes are cited the lack of the Stupak amendment as their main rationale.
What this means is that, at least based on public whip counts, there isn't a clear path to passage at this point without either getting the Stupak group to cave, or caving to the Stupak group. And it isn't even clear if Democrats could make a deal with Stupak if they wanted to, given both opposition in the Senate, the threat of losing new "no to yes" votes such as Betsy Markey, and the rules on reconciliation generally.
I don't have any particularly deep insight into this, or any clever solutions. It is just worth noting that the Stupak situation is far from settled at this point.
Representative John Boccieri just announced at a press conference that he will vote "yes" on the health reform bill. This is significant, because Boccieri voted "no" back in November.
He becomes the fourth confirmed "no to yes" vote. However, there are still eight "yes to no" votes, meaning the leadership still needs at least another three Representatives who voted "no" in November. Here is the running tally:
(Note: even if he is undecided, Cao will never cast the deciding vote in favor. As such, he should be considered a "Yes to No" for the duration of the vote count)
The results in a net of four votes for "Yes to No." That means the leadership needs to pick up three more "no" votes from November to pass the bill
While Boccieri is a step forward, Peter DeFazio has emerged this morning as another November "yes" vote who could flip to "no" this time around.
Rep. Pete Defazio tells @ryangrim he's a NO unless they re-insert geo. disparity fix for Medicare http://bit.ly/dt1rog
What a slog. One step forward, one step back, lots of Reps looking to get in the headlines by saying they are undecided or about to announce their vote.
There are a lot of whip counts on the health reform bill right now. In the midst of the confusion, let me suggest a simplified metric on the progress of the health reform bill:
Tally the number of confirmed "No" votes who switched from voting yes in November;
Tally the number of confirmed "Yes" votes who switched from voting no in November;
Subtract #2 from #1.
If the resulting number is equal to, or less than, 1, then the bill looks good for passage. If the result is greater than 1, passage is in danger.
With droves of members of Congress still playing coy with the public, this should make things easy.
(Note: even if he is undecided, Cao will never cast the deciding vote in favor. As such, he should be considered a "Yes to No" for the duration of the vote count)
The results in a net of five votes for "Yes to No." That means the leadership needs to pick up four more "no" votes from November to pass the bill
Hopefully, that simplifies things, and makes it easier to understand the run of play. Then again, some of these supposedly "hard yes" and "hard no" votes have flipped before, so even this count is prone to confusion.
Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) is a firm "no" on health care reform -- in large measure because he opposes the idea of any kind of excise tax on Cadillac plans, even one that's delayed for years and years.
That puts the vote count at 204 in favor, and 211 opposed, with leaners. Pretty dicey on passage, to say the least, especially when you look at the 16 undecided, non-leaning votes in the count:
Jason Altmire
Melissa Bean
Chris Carney
Travis Childers
Henry Cuellar
Kathy Dahlkemper
Brad Ellsworth
Bill Foster
Marcy Kaptur
Jim Matheson
Harry Mitchell
Solomon Ortiz
Earl Pomeroy
Nick Rahall
Zack Space
Harry Teague
Additionally, I now expect Stephen Lynch to receive loads of concessions on future legislation. By voting against this bill, be becomes more powerful in future negotiations, right? So, let's track his rise to power after this vote.
1. CBO score still not out, deadline tonight. In order to pass the bill by the Easter recess, and avoid any further delays that could sink the bill, the Senate needs to take up the bill next week.
In order for the Senate to take up the reconciliation bill next week, President Obama has to sign the Senate bill into law before he leaves the country for a five day trip on Sunday.
In order for President Obama to sign the bill into law before he leaves the country, the House needs to pass the bill by Saturday night.
And, in order for the House to pass the bill by Saturday night, the CBO needs to release its score of the bill tonight, 72 hours before the House votes.
However, its Wednesday, and there is still no score. While one is expected tonight, the holdup is a pretty serious one. As Jonathan Cohn explains, the reconciliation bill might not reduce the deficit during the second decade after its enactment, which is required in order to pass the bill through reconciliation.
Hard to imagine that this is something which can be fixed in a single day, and without a public option.
2. Two "lean yes" votes move to undecided Reps Marcy Kaptur and Jason Altmire had been in the "lean yes" category of David Dayen's whip count. They don't sound like "lean yes" votes today, though.
Kaptur said she's spoken to Rep. Dale Kildee (D-MI), another pro-life Dem who's signed off on the Senate's abortion language, but didn't find his reasons persuasive.
Sounding more like a no than he was last week. On March 16, Altmire told Fox Business Network that he has major problem with Democrats' apparent "deem and pass" strategy, calling it "wrong."
Just now, Representative Dennis Kucinich announced he would vote yes on the Senate health bill and the reconciliation fix to that bill. Greg Sargent:
"In the past week it's become clear that the vote on the final bill will be very close," Kucinich, who voted No last time because of the lack of the public option, said at a presser moments ago, adding that he would have to vote "not on the bill as I would like to see it, but as it is."
"However, after careful discussions with President Obama, Speaker Pelosi" and others, Kucinich said, "I've decided to cast a vote in favor of the legislation."
This brings the total "yes" and "lean yes" supporters of the bill up to 208. Eight away from passage.
Update: More from Greg Sragent. Kucinich switched out of "compassion," didn't receive any specific promises:
"I left it with a real sense of compassion for our president and what he's going through," he said. "We have to be compassionate towards those who are called upon to make decisions for this nation. It's not an easy burden that he's taken up.
Kucinich said Obama didn't make any promises to take up the public option later.
"What he committed to was to continue to work with me on the broad concerns that I have," he said. "He didn't make any specific commitment."
Donna Brazile flags an interesting quote from Kucinich:
"I have taken a detour in supporting this bill, but I know the destination."
Representative Dennis Kucinich is holding a press conference tomorrow at 10 a.m., eastern, to announce his vote on the health reform package. On Countdown tonight, Howard Fineman reported that Kucinich is now a "yes."
There is no guarantee this is true. But, if true, there are many implications:
Only eight away from passage. Given the three other Democrats who came out in support of the bill today (Maffei, Doyle and Kirkpatrick), the "yes" and "lean yes" totals on the package would rise to 208, only eight away from passage.
Kucinich told Obama that he wants a full ERISA waver and a public option in exchange for his vote. And if he actually gets an ERISA waver, it will be the biggest victory of the entire health care debate. As Jon Walker says, "ERISA is the 900 pound Gorilla that has fucked up America's health care system something good."
I definitely don't agree that it would be the biggest victory in the debate. After all, this is just the possibility of state single payer, not actual single-payer (and no, Pennsylvania is not close to enacting single-payer). By contrast, Bernie Sanders has scored public primary care for 22 million people. But, it would still would become another way that progressives strengthened the bill.
Does Kucinich bring anyone with him? While Kucinich is the last House Progressive holding out on the bill, and thus can't bring anymore votes with him, it is worth asking whether his support brings along any progressive activists. If Kucinich won at least one of his demands, such as the ERISA waiver, will any of the not insignificant amount of progressive activists supporting Kucinich come along with him? Or, will those activists reject Kucinich, too, because he didn't win all of his demands? (or many his demands were never enough in the first place for some).
This is certainly the most interesting vote update of the day. I wasn't going to watch before, but now Kucinich's press conference has become a must-see.
Representative Ann Kirkpatrick, who had been one of the key undecided votes, said she would vote for the health reform bills today: The Hill got her statement:
"In my first year in Congress, I have always put the needs of my district first -- that's why I stood up to the President and congressional leadership and opposed the auto and bank government bailouts, the cap-and-trade bill and billions in deficit spending. I am doing so again by voting for this reform package. Health insurance reform is critical to ending denials of coverage based on pre-existing conditions, making sure our children can get the care they need and protecting our seniors from unaffordable prescription drug costs. I will be working to improve the bill moving forward, including addressing the potential costs for AHCCCS and eliminating politics-as-usual special deals like the Cornhusker Kickback."
According to David Dayen's whip count, Kirkpatrick is the 207th "yes" or "lean yes" vote. That puts the bill nine votes from passage, although the final nine will not be easy.
The most difficult potential votes remaining are the following thirteen:
John Barrow (GA-12)
Chris Carney (PA-10)
Travis Childers (MS-01)
Jerry Costello (IL-12)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Lincoln Davis (TN-04)
Brad Ellsworth (IN-08)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Jim Matheson (UT-02)
Solomon Ortiz (TX-27)
Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL)
Zack Space (OH-18)
Harry Teague (NM-02)
Unless it can scrounge up votes form the "hard no's" and "lean no's," the leadership will need the support of seven of these thirteen to pass the bill. It isn't going to be easy:
A very conservative group. The mean Progressive Punch score for these members on crucial votes in 2009-2010 is only 38.1%, and the median is only 34.3%. Only three of these thirteen had scores over 40%, and only two had scores over 50%. No one had a score over 60%.
These thirteen members vote more like Republicans than like Democrats.
It's a good thing that Stupak amendment can't be changed in reconciliation. Given the Representatives who are still on the fence, it is pretty easy to see the House leadership just cutting a deal on Stupak to pass the bill.
New to Congress 8 of the 13 were first elected in 2004 or later. Two were first elected in 2004 (Barrow and Cuellar). Three were first elected in 2006 (Carney, Ellsworth, Space). Three were first elected in 2008 (Childers, Kirkpatrick and Teague).
While that doesn't seem like money very well spent by the DCCC, it should also be a strong point of leverage. Any groups who helped them get elected can really put the hammer down this time.
Majority voted for the health reform bill in November. 8 of the 13 voted for the health reform bill back in November. Only Barrow, Childers, Davis, Matheson and Teague did not.
This is a pretty right-wing group, but securing a majority of them it possible. The key is probably for groups that supported them in 2008, including the White House, to throw the hammer down and make this vote a pre-condition for support in 2010. They vote more like Republicans than like Democrats, but only have the benefit of being in Congress due to support from Democratic and progressive groups.
According to David Dayen's latest whip count, the 17 most important votes who are not leaning in one direction or the other are as follows:
5 undecided potential "No to Yes" votes John Barrow, Travis Childers, Lincoln Davis, Jim Matheson, Harry Teague
3 undecided potential "Yes to No" votes that are "Stupak-curious" Jerry Costello, Henry Cuellar, Brad Ellsworth
9 other undecided potential "Yes to No" votes Chris Carney, Mike Doyle, Bill Foster, Ann Kirkpatrick, Harry Mitchell, Solomon Ortiz, Earl Pomeroy, Nick Rahall; Zack Space
With leaners, the vote count currently stands at 205 in favor, and 209 opposed. That would mean the House leadership needs 11 of these to pass the bill.
I have to wonder why The Hill doesn't just declare health reform dead. Their current whip count totals show 215 votes against, 158 in favor, with 58 undecided. If this whip count is accurate, it means that in order to pass health reform, the Democratic leadership needs to score all 58 of the undecided votes, and not lose a single current "yes" vote.
Given this, The Hill needs to ask itself a two-part question:
If they believe their own whip count totals, then why haven't they run a big news story on how health reform is near death? Scoring 58 unanswered undecided votes is virtually impossible. Why aren't they talking about the imminent death of health reform? their current headline implies Dems are close to passage:
If they don't believe their whip count totals, and as such don't think the bill is all but dead, then why are they still publishing their whip count totals?
Either The Hill doesn't believe their own whip count, or they think health reform is just about dead. They can't have it both ways.
Even though there are more votes opposed than in favor, this is still actually pretty good news for those who want to pass the bill. There are two main reasons for this:
Anyone who isn't publicly leaning no, who isn't associated with the Stupak bloc, and who voted "yes' last time is probably actually a "yes" vote. If a member of Congress doesn't meet any of those three criteria, given the time they have had to make areal stand, then they are just posturing for media coverage and face time with the President.
Without even including today's Budget Committee vote, there are 207 members who are either no or leaning no. Additionally, of the 22 members who were in the undecided camp before the Budget Committee vote, only 12 are either "Stupak curious" (4) or voted "no" last time (8). That makes for a maximum of 219 "no" votes.
If the Budget Committee's votes are to be believed, then there are actually only 217 "no' votes maximum, as both Merrion Berry and Marcy Kaptur make their break with the Stupak bloc official.
With 216 needed for passage, that means the leadership only have to pick off four the twelve remaining undecided members who are "Stupak" curious or who voted "no" last time. With the Bugdet Committee votes, they would only have to pick off two opposed Democrats.
While there is still much work to be done, the momentum is on the side of passage right now. Those who seek to stop it can only lose three (or even one) more votes. The way things are going, that is a real longshot.
Charlie Wilson , D-Ohio, who in November supported a Stupak-sponsored abortion amendment to the House-passed health care package ( HR 3962 ) and passage of the amended bill, is among those who has reconsidered his position. He said Thursday he is willing to vote for the Senate bill. Wilson said that while he would welcome any additional guarantee that no federal funds would be used to pay for abortions, he will not withhold his support if the bill is not changed.
"I'm opposed to abortion, and I think the language in there is pretty clear that it is not something that pays for abortion," he said [...]
Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, said she wanted the abortion language changed, but stopped short of saying it is a deal-breaker for her. "I would not easily give over my vote for the bill" if changes are not made, she said.
An aide to James L. Oberstar , also previously thought to be in Stupak's group, said the Minnesota Democrat is undecided. "He hasn't ruled out anything, including voting for the Senate bill if that's an interim step to a better compromise," said spokesman John Schadl.
A spokesman for Steve Driehaus , an Ohio Democrat, said his boss has not changed his position opposing federal funding for abortion but had not decided how to vote. "He'll decide how he'll vote once he knows exactly what the House will be considering," press secretary Tim Mulvey said in an e-mail.
Unless a member of Congress says they will vote against the bill without the Stupak amendment, then that member of Congress is not in the Stupak bloc. These four members--Dreihaus, Kaptur, Oberstar and Wilson--all equivocate here. There is simply no "Stupak or else" language coming from their offices. They are not Stupak bloc.
Possible Stupak bloc (8) Chris Carney (PA-10)
Jerry Costello (IL-12)
Mike Doyle (PA-14)
Brad Ellsworth (IN-08)
Baron Hill (IN-09)
Alan Mollohan (WV-01)
Solomon Ortiz (TX-27)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Dem public option doubletalk highlights weakness of netroots "whip count" strategies -- Senators are very willing to lie.
Apparently, they can lie about holding to their right-wing demands, too. Or call it "wiggle" room, if you will. Whatever you call it, one thing I have learned over the past few years is that many members of Congress, especially the moderate ones, are not leaders. They avoid taking public positions, leave themselves tons of wiggle room, and outright flip their positions all the time. It definitely is a weakness of the whip counts, but it is still useful to try that shine a light on Congress through those counts.
Here is where the Open Left public option whip count stood in the Senate as of late November, 2009:
Oppose bill with any public option (3): Mary Landrieu; Joe Lieberman; Blanche Lincoln
Open to an opt-in public option (1): Ben Nelson.
--Note: Not a worthwhile public option to support
Wouldn't filibuster an overall bill with a public option (2):Evan Bayh; Kent Conrad (never threatened to filibuster).
--Note: Neither would vote for a public option either as an amendment or stand alone bill.
Liked the opt-out (1): Mark Pryor.
--Note: Unclear if Pryor would support non-opt-out
Wouldn't vote against an overall bill with negotiated rates public option (3): Mark Begich ("not a dealbreaker," via constituent letter); Max Baucus (claims to want public option, supposedly voted against it only because it doesn't have 60); and Mark Warner.
--Note: Never promised support as an amendment or as a stand-alone, but wouldn't vote against a bill with one
Even now that Paul Kirk is no longer in the Senate, this count shows 49 supporters for a negotiated rates public option, plus one more if it is an opt-out (Pryor). With Biden, that is enough for passage.
Further, if the public option was included in the bill sent to the floor, rather than added as an amendment, three more votes--Begich, Baucus and Warner--could be counted on. That leaves room for defections, such as the one Jay Rockefeller recently made (although I still think Rockefeller is a potential "yes" vote).
Given this count, in theory, there should be plenty of votes to pass a public option through reconciliation. This is especially the case if an opt-out, negotiated rates public option was included in the bill sent to the Senate floor--something which Harry Reid did back in 2009. So, why doesn't it appear that Senate Democrats will pass a reconciliation bill with a negotiated rates public option?
Glenn Greenwald argues this is an example of bad faith. Senators Dick Durbin's office claims they are not going to allow any amendments to the bill the House sends them, but would whip for a bill that included a negotiated rates public option. The basic idea is that they don't want to blow up any deals on votes once the bill reaches the floor, and they don't want to give Republicans an opening to filibuster the bill through endless series of amendments.
While I am well aware that the White House is not pushing for the public option at all, I am still not willing to call it bad faith just yet. This is because no one has proven that there are 216 votes in the House for a reconciliation "fix" to the Senate health reform bill that includes a negotiated rates public option. There were 220 proven votes in the House back in November, but since that time three "yes" votes are no longer around, and an undetermined group of Stupak voters has also been lost.
Until someone proves that the House has 216 for a reconciliation fix with a public option, then the argument coming out of Durbin's office cannot be disproven. Adding a public option to the reconciliation bill in the Senate might well blow up a deal with the House, and cause the package to go down. This is especially given that in order to pass the bill, House leaders are going to have to cull about a dozen votes from the 37 remaining Democrats who voted "no" in November.
So yeah, it is possible that the Democratic leadership is acting in bad faith on the public option, but it hasn't been proven yet. The post shows that the votes should be there in the Senate. No one has made the same case for the House, but that will be the focus in the last-ditch effort for the public option over the next few days.
In the latest game of public option hot potato, Senator Dick Durbin says he will whip hard for a reconciliation bill that includes a public option. However, the caveat is that he will only do so if the House sends a reconciliation bill to the Senate with the public option in it. If the House sends the Senate a reconciliation bill without a public option, then Durbin will whip aggressively against adding one in the Senate. From a Durbin spokesperson:
"I want to be crystal clear: Sen. Durbin and the rest of the Senate Leadership will be aggressively whipping FOR the public option if it is included in the reconciliation bill the House sends over. Conversely, the Leaders will whip against any attempt to alter or amend the bill if the public option is not in it (or as your email says - whip against adding the public option as an amendment in the Senate.)
The reason is simple. There can be no amendments - good or bad - to the reconciliation bill once the House passes it and sends it to the Senate. The House will not do step one (passing the Senate healthcare bill in the first place) if they do not have assurances that the fixes they want (i.e., the fixes in their reconciliation bill) will be passed unchanged by the Senate."
This is the same point I argued last week: the public option must be in the reconciliation bill that the House sends to the Senate in order to have any chance. Because of the leaderships twin desires not to blow up any deals on votes once the bills reach the floor, and their desire to stop the Republican strategy of filibuster by amendment, they are not going to allow any strengthening amendments to the health reform bills to pass. This includes a public option amendment.
However, it is highly unlikely that there is a public option in the House reconciliation bill. Two weeks ago, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said it was off the table. So, the only way to get it in the bill is through the Budget Committee markup of the bill (which will happen next week sometime), after someone proves that there are 216 votes for a reconciliation fix that includes a public option. That isn't much time, but it also isn't entirely impossible.
Now, given that the House is apparently going to have to find the votes for health reform without the Stupak bloc, there are good reasons to think that the House does not have 216 votes for a health reform reconciliation fix without the public option. The Democratic leadership is going to have to find votes for passage among a number of Representatives who voted against the House health reform bill back in November. You can see the list of those members here, and it is not a pretty one when you are looking for about a dozen votes in favor of a health reform bill that includes a public option.
That is the task ahead for the public option--find 216 votes in about five days. CREDO and the PCCC have already sent out action alerts urging people to start this last ditch effort. If you haven't already received an email from them, visit their websites, and join in.
Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) became the 41st senator to say that he would back the public insurance option as part of a health care bill moved through reconciliation.
Nelson, asked by HuffPost if he would vote for a public option on the Senate floor, was unequivocal. "Yes," he said firmly. "I've already voted for it in the committee, in the Finance Committee."
Only Blanche Lincoln is opposed. Kay Hagan, Mark Warner and Jim Webb have not taken a stance.
2. On the public option That makes 41 Senators in favor of passing a public option through reconciliation. Additionally, Tom Harkin, Claire McCaskill and Herb Kohl all support the public option, and support reconciliation, but just haven't stated they would support a public option in reconciliation. So really, the number of public option supporters is 44.
Back in 2009, the other supporters of some sort of non-trigger public option were Robert Byrd, Tom Carper, Kay Hagan, Paul Kirk, Jay Rockefeller, Mark Warner, and Jim Webb. Additionally, there were three other possibilities who we never nailed down one way or the other: Max Baucus, Mark Begich, and Mark Pryor.
We would need six of those ten to pull it off. Kirk is no longer in the Senate, and Rockefeller now claims to be opposed. However, I still think we can get Rockefeller to vote in favor if it comes up for a vote. Would such a strong support kill the public option if the House sent the Senate a reconciliation bill with one?
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:
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.
