Why the Democrats Can’t Pass A Bill Without a Public Option, By the Numbers

[babylonsister]

Why the Democrats Can’t Pass A Bill Without a Public Option, By the Numbers
By: Jane Hamsher Wednesday November 11, 2009 12:21 pm


Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman are running around saying that they’ll kill any bill that has a public option. Quite predictably. And everyone in the media (and on the Hill) are kowtowing to them, saying that this means that it will have to go. Their calculus is that progressives in the House will want health care passed so badly that they’ll eventually cave and vote for a bill that doesn’t have one.

Now, maybe this is true. But as someone who counts votes like other people count sheep, I’m not getting it. Someone is going to have to explain the math.

There are 258 Democrats in the House now that Garamendi and Owens have been sworn in. There are 177 Repubilicans. Everyone voted on the bill, which means 218 is a majority. If all the Republicans vote against a bill, that means they can only lose 40 Democratic votes and still pass a bill (258 – 40 = 218).

According to Jim Clyburn’s own count, the Stupak amendment only bought them 6-10 votes. And in the end, there were 39 Democratic “nay” votes on the final bill. Because Republican Joseph Gao voted “aye” that meant they could allow 41 Democratic “nay” votes and still pass it.

So they threw the biggest piece of red meat culture-war social conservatism issue at the ConservaDems they possibly could — and abortion means a heck of a lot more to the conservative base than something as new as a “public option.” It’s been deeply ingrained for decades. And they still only picked up 10 votes maximum. This is after PhRMA has spread so much money around the Democratic caucus that they’ve lured just about everybody over to the “pro” side they possibly could. If they tossed the public option out, MAYBE — just MAYBE — they could pick up another 10 votes. And that’s really, really optimistic.

But let’s say they could. Who do they lose when they do that? Do they lose more than they gain?

I think they do. Because progressives only have to muster 1 more vote against the bill for every one that leadership picks up when they lose the public option. Can the progressives hold 11 votes against any bill without a public option? Even if Gao stays in the “aye” column, I think they can do it. In reality, I think they only need to muster more like 5-8, because the GOP is going to go straight at everyone who is vulnerable between now and then, and will probably be able to recruit strong challengers to many in the post November election period, which is when that kind of thing starts to happen. Which should scare some of the freshmen, and probably some sophomores too, into the “no on anything” column.

So the absolute best, most optimistic outlook for passing a bill in the House without a public option means that 13 or fewer progressive votes could stop it. Well, here are 16:

more...

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/11/11/why-the-democrats-cant-pass-a-bill-without-a-public-option-by-the-numbers/

[babylonsister]

1. .

[BzaDem]

2. Your entire analysis rests on the proposition that progressives are going to vote against anything.

That is a completely mistaken premise. Progressives are not going to vote against anything (beyond Kucinich). They might claim they will, but their threat is not credible at all. Getting universal healthcare has been a progressive priority for a century. There is no way progressives are going to vote down an unamendable conference report if it achieves universal or near-universal coverage, regardless of what is in it. If Ben Nelson writes a bill that achieves universal or near-universal coverage, progressives will vote for that bill.

(This does not apply to blue dogs. Many blue dogs would happily cast the deciding vote against a conference report, since universal healthcare is not a high priority for them. Similarly, the pro-life caucus happens to not particularly care much about healthcare reform. At the very least, they care much more about their pro-life views than healthcare reform.)

Progressives cannot solve this problem by making threats. Everyone knows what progressives value most. Universal healthcare is one of these values. They can't pretend that they value some particular part of the reform package more than passing a reform package in general, since it isn't true and everyone knows it. The only way progressives can solve the problem is by getting a majority of progressives elected to Congress, just like there are a majority of fiscal conservatives in the house and a majority of pro-life members in the house.