The Health Care Whip Count
Dems are aiming to pass health care legislation, once and for all, by Easter recess. But for all their optimistic talk, one thing remains clear: They don't have the votes just yet. Then again, they don't have a bill yet, either.
The first step of what promises to be an arduous process will come when Dem leaders unveil the package of proposed measures to fix the legislation and make it more palatable to some House lawmakers. Once the Senate demonstrates it is able to pass the bill via reconciliation, the House will vote on the Senate legislation.
Still, the math for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Maj. Leader Steny Hoyer and House Maj. Whip James Clyburn isn't adding up at the moment. In order to keep an ongoing tally, Hotline OnCall brings you our whip count, the list of Dems who may be vulnerable to overtures from Dem leaders and the WH -- or to overtures from GOPers who continue to believe they can defeat the bill.
We've broken Dems into 4 categories based on their votes on the original health care bill, passed in Nov., and on the Stupak amendment, a measure to toughen abortion language that passed with overwhelming GOP support and 64 Dem votes.
Dems believe they have a total of 15 to 20 targets, "no" votes the first time around who can be persuaded to switch their positions. Those in the first category, members who voted against the bill and against the Stupak amendment, may be their easiest targets. Those in the second category, who voted against the measure but for the amendment, will be harder to win over.
GOPers are not without their own targets. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) claims he has up to a dozen votes among the second group, those who voted for health care but who are willing to vote against it if abortion language isn't strengthened. The third category include those members who voted for both the bill and the amendment, and the reservoir from which Stupak is likely to find his backers.
Finally, the fourth category will be harder for the GOP to win over. They include 16 House Dem freshmen, some liberal, some centrist, who voted for the measure but against the Stupak amendment. The most effective argument to win over these members will be an appeal to their re-election chances.
Then again, the one member who voted for the bill and now says he will vote against it -- Rep. Mike Arcuri (D-NY) -- falls into this category, suggesting the GOP's target list is far wider than we lay out here.
A reminder of where we stand now: Health care legislation passed by a 220-215 margin on Nov. 7. Since then, Reps. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Robert Wexler (D-FL) and Eric Massa (D-NY) have resigned. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) passed away. Of that group, Abercrombie, Wexler and Murtha voted in favor. Massa voted against. Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao (R-LA), who voted for the bill, has said he will vote against.That means Pelosi has lost 4 votes, bringing her to 216. Because there are only 431 members of the House, thanks to the vacancies, Pelosi needs exactly that number to pass reform. Arcuri's decision today brings the number of yes votes down to 215 -- one below the number needed to pass.
Enter Stupak, who claims to have a dozen total votes against the bill if abortion language remains the same. For each member Stupak has convinced to switch their vote, Dems will need to convince another "no" voter to vote yes the second time around.
As always, we will update the list over the course of the next month, as health care legislation moves through Congress. Check out the full chart after the jump.
Dem Targets: No On Reform, No On Stupak (15) Member District Comments John Adler* NJ03 Worried about cost controls Brian Baird WA03 Retiring Rick Boucher VA09 Allen Boyd FL02 Chet Edwards TX17 S. Herseth Sandlin SDAL Larry Kissell* NC08 Suzanne Kosmas* FL24 Frank Kratovil* MD01 Spox: Would vote no^ Dennis Kucinich OH10 Betsy Markey* CO04 Mike McMahon* NY13 Walt Minnick* ID01 Scott Murphy* NY20 Glenn Nye* VA02
* - denotes freshman
^ - Source: "The Plum Line"
Dem Long Shots: No On Reform, Yes On Stupak (21) Member District Comments Jason Altmire PA04 Worried about Senate votes John Barrow GA12 John Boccieri* OH16 Dan Boren OK02 Bobby Bright* AL02 Ben Chandler KY06 Travis Childers MS01 Artur Davis AL07 Running for AL GOV Lincoln Davis TN04 Bart Gordon TN06 Retiring Tim Holden PA17 Jim Marshall GA08 Jim Matheson UT02 Charlie Melancon LA03 Running for SEN Collin Peterson MN07 Mike Ross AR04 Heath Shuler NC11 Ike Skelton MO04 John Tanner TN08 Retiring Gene Taylor MS04 Harry Teague* NM02
* - denotes freshman
GOP Targets: Yes On Reform, Yes On Stupak (40) Member District Comments Joe Baca CA43 Marion Berry AR01 Retiring/Abortion concerns Sanford Bishop GA02 Dennis Cardoza CA18 Chris Carney PA10 Jim Cooper TN05 Jim Costa CA20 Jerry Costello IL12 Henry Cuellar TX28 Kathy Dahlkemper* PA03 Joe Donnelly IN02 Mike Doyle PA14 Steve Driehaus* OH01 Brad Ellsworth IN08 Running for SEN Bob Etheridge NC02 Baron Hill IN09 Paul Kanjorski PA11 Marcy Kaptur OH09 Dale Kildee MI05 Jim Langevin RI02 Dan Lipinski IL03 Stephen Lynch MA09 Mike McIntyre NC07 Mike Michaud ME02 Alan Mollohan WV01 Richard Neal MA02 Jim Oberstar MN08 David Obey WI07 Tom Perriello* VA05 Earl Pomeroy SDAL Nick Rahall WV03 Silvestre Reyes TX16 Ciro Rodriguez TX23 Tim Ryan OH17 John Salazar CO03 Vic Snyder AR02 Retiring Zack Space OH18 John Spratt SC05 Bart Stupak MI01 Abortion concerns Charlie Wilson OH06
* - denotes freshman
GOP Long Shots: Dem Freshmen (16) Member District Comments Mike Arcuri NY24 Will switch to no^ Gerry Connolly VA11 Alan Grayson FL08 Debbie Halvorson IL11 Martin Heinrich NM01 Jim Himes CT04 Mary Jo Kilroy OH15 Ann Kirkpatrick AZ01 Dan Maffei NY25 Gary Peters MI09 Chellie Pingree ME01 Jared Polis CO02 Mark Schauer MI07 Kurt Schrader OR05 Dina Titus NV03 Paul Tonko NY21
^ - Source: WKTV
HR House whip count
Ben Chandler (KY) was a No vote.....I live in his district and I really believe his no vote was for cover.....that he told Pelosi she will have his vote if she needs it......he is in a genuinely safe district....."Blue Dog" in name only, imho
John Yarmuth,Democrat, (3rd Kentucky)has just seen Humana Healthcare announce thousands of layoffs, mostly in his district. If he votes for this deadly bill, he surely will lose to one of his GOP opponents, probably UPS pilot and serving officer Todd Lally.
Dina Titus is a true believer--she will not change to "No". She has been trying to destroy the Republic in Nevada for a long time.
Sandlin (D-SD) said publicly last week she'll vote "no" if the Senate uses reconciliation, so I don't know whether she should be counted as "targeted" in group 1.
I just do not understand women in America. I well remember the time before Roe v. Wade; women with money could fly to states that permitted abortion or fly overseas; poor women had babies. Do you want to return to this? Why are you letting these male politicians gut the freedoms that we in the sixties worked so hard to get for you? Do you think it is impossible that things can go back to the way they were? Well, sister, believe me - they surely can - and you have the power to stop it, if you will.
The problem is, Sen. Kent Conrad says that the Senate can't pass reconciliation if the House hasn't passed the Senate bill first:
They'll pass it, with Stupak voting for it. This is the opportunity of a lifetime (or two), and they'll throw Bart a bone he can use for cover.
To respond to Jim, let's not let morality get in the way here. The genocide of America's most helpless - unborn babies - is something that our nation will be harshly judged for. "Freedom" to kill babies is not exactly a noble cause. It is ruthless cowardice. It's legal? So was killing jews under Hitler. Hooray for Jim who helped secure this "victory." What a hero.
I personally think that when push comes to shove, my representative, Chet Edwards, will vote yes. After all, he was Nancy Pelosi's personal choice to be Obama's VP during the campaign. I think he would have been a better choice than Biden. That said, I can't stand this guy. He's one of the slickest politicans out there and is a master of walking the fence (ex - voted to bring cap & trade to a final vote, then voted against it when his vote wasn't needed). He's also one of the most pro-abortion advocates in the nation and was instrumental in getting abortion services in the heart of Waco McLennan County Texas - home to the largest Baptist University in the world. And Waco keeps on voting for Chet. I do wonder if Chet voting yes for Obamacare will finally be the straw that gets him fired. Only time will tell...
From comments in the press recently, seems that Baird, Altmire, and Gordon are leaning more yes than no. I agree that Sandlin is a no.
Also, I understand your category 3 is based on yes bill yes Stupak, but it is overly broad. Other sites have narrowed the likely Stupak list much more, with 10 or 11 votes actually in play. IF the Stupak group reaches compromise langauge, you will likely have a group 5 of disrguntled members of the House progressive caucus, who will threaten to vote no but will ultimately (in my far from omniscient opinion) vote yes. Particularly if Stupak langauge is dealt with in separate bill and not reconciliation sidecar, as expected.
Bart Stupak will vote for it and so will all his followers, there is no longer anyone to stand up for America or for our rights. It is inconcieveable that we have stood up as Americans just to continually get shoved around by this boy in office that calls himself president. He is disgusting, his administration is corrupt, and he is a bully. Boys like this in my school were always the ones who ran and told on everybody when someone promised to whip his ass. An extraordinary potentially educated idiot and all you people who voted for him should feel real stupid about now. Thanks for plunging this coultry into SOCIALISM! This is not what my father fought in WWII for.
Rep. Patrick Murphy (PA-8) refused yesterday to say he would vote Yes again, and that was with President Obama campaigning for it in his backyard. He has pretended to be a Blue Dog for 4 years while voting with the liberal majority 95% of the time, and he has a tough rematch now against the man he barely beat in 2006. This is a true swing district, which did vote for Obama in 2008 but still has a majority of registered Republicans. If Murphy votes Yes again he is guaranteed to lose in November, but I don't see his name on any of these lists. I'm sure there are a few other Democrats who represent Republican-leaning districts and do not want to end their careers with this vote.
In addition, Nancy Pelosi is not stupid, and she knows she cannot pass this bill by a single vote or else every member of her caucus will get slammed with attack ads for being "the deciding vote." She has to have at least a two-vote margin. That is looking like a very tall order today.
You list omitted Judy Chu who was elected in 2009 to fill the position vacated by Hilda Solis here in CA's 32 congressional district. She needs to run for election again this November. she might also be vulnerable.
"...then again, they don't have a bill yet, either"
Of course they do. Step one is to pass the Senate bill. There isn't any step two. Once the Senate bill is passed, it's all over. Obama care will be the law, and nobody in either house is going to want to reopen this can of worms. The only reason they're doing this reconciliation dance is so Stupak and his ilk can pretend to be surprised and betrayed when the changes they pretend to insist on don't happen.
You left off AZ #5 Mitchell and AZ #7 Giffords both of them are in need of a "NO" vote to be reelected. They have more Repulicans +3 to +6 in their districts.
There was a time snake oil salesman were tarred and feathered and run out of time. Is it possible to find tar these days?
Stupak doesn't even have his facts right on the Senate bill.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/03/09/2222673.aspx
As for this:
"The genocide of America's most helpless - unborn babies - is something that our nation will be harshly judged for."
Seriously pal. Get YOUR Church out of MY State. You are infringing upon MY CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT as an American citizen to live a life free from religion. Tell it to the Constitution.
Oh, and Tom, I find your "example" of abortion being like what the Nazis did to be totally obnoxious and abhorrent.
Thanks for using my deceased and murdered relatives as pawns in your pathetic political game.
Can someone explain to me how its morally ok to vote against the health care bill because of concerns over the abortion language, knowing full well that tens of thousands of people will surely die for the lack of health care, and knowing full well, that no more abortions will occur with either the house or senate language that has been approved? I'm sorry, I respect the view that abortion is morally unacceptable, but how do we reconcile that with the lives lost ..the children, the moms and dads, and grandparents who die without health care every single year.
Something tells me the math is even worse then these numbers suggest although there really is no way to accurately measure this.
sonya
define socialism and then explain how the healthcare bill is socialist (but public schools, public-funded defense, public-funded security, i.e. police, are not).
your father did not fight in WWII against socialists, he fought against fascists. he wanted to make sure people like bush/cheney wouldn't come to power.
Abortion cannot be genocide, because fetuses do not share in common a genetic type which distinguishes them, as a group, from a genetic majority, as a group. In fact, every fetus shares half their genes in common with the person who makes the decision to abort, or maybe all their genes with the two people who make the decision. The argument that a fetus is a unique individual who merits full legal protection is worthy of consideration, although I'm not convinced. Use of analogies like genocide is pure fabrication, desperately trying to get some political tractions from an indifferent populace.
However, the Stupak amendments represents the simple fact that there are enough voters in enough districts who do believe abortion is wrong, to give the position some political leverage. That's life in a democratic republic. I'd rather have pro-life Democrats exercising that leverage -- who at least care about working families on other important issues -- than pro-life Republicans, who would also vote to grind working families into the mud in the interest of corporate prosperity.
As far as abortion, why don't women learn to either keep their clothes on or else use birth control?
Abortion is a lame excuse for lack of self control, why can't the man use a condom as well?
If this passes health care delivery will forever be stuck in 2010. R & D will dry up and fade away.
Government is force, not freedom, and this bill, should it become law, will make health care more expensive, vastly decrease its quality, and weaken America beyond recognition. Lberals who say "people are dying" ain't seen nothing yet.
RE: The moms and dads, and grandparents who die without health care every single year": What guarantee do you supporters of this awful forced socialist bill have that your health care will improve? Improve over what, every Tom, Dick, Harry and his dog can get free health care now by walking into an emergency room or applying for aide...just because Obama says Obamacare is going to work, name one thing that he has done to prove that, other than flap his mouth. There are better ways to fix it, tort reform, cross state lines and let health care purchase compete...oh, those are Republican ideas -- no good. If you think your grandma and grandpa are dying now, wait until your big brother starts rationing Obamacare for seniors. I hear it's already happening. Yes, and if you want an abortion, then pay for it your self. Don't reach in my pockets for my money to pay for the murder of your child.
The jokesters are out and it's not even a full moon. I hear there are a lot of poor Democrats up there on the Hill. And, there's that other poor Democrat Teddy who just lost "his seat". Oh, I bewail their poverty and am so glad they've been voted in so now we can pay them millions of tax $$'s in luxury retirements, provide fabulous perks (those overseas business trips, private jets, private islands, "Swiss" bank accounts) and help support their generational offsprings. They support the poor, beaten down unions/union bosses, and lobbyists who make sure they are elected. "In the interest of corporate properity"; what about in the interest of government prosperity. How did Obama,, the good Republican, get to be a millioniare? I wonder who the person who referred to 'corporate prosperity' works for, for someone who sleeps in a cardboard box? Which world do you live in?
"I'd rather have pro-life Democrats exercising that leverage -- who at least care about working families on other important issues -- than pro-life Republicans, who would also vote to grind working families into the mud in the interest of corporate prosperity."
Seems to me a lot of folks are putting emotion before logic.
Not allowing government subsidy of abortion-covering insurance plans is NOT infringing on your right to freedom of religion. Abortion is not a religious issue. It`s moral. Period. Religion and morality generally go hand-in-hand (depending on the religion...), so it`s no surprise that the majority of the opposition are religiously involved. You aren`t having religion forced on you. It`s very simple.
Furthermore, if more women had something called responsibility and stopped having unprotected sex because it`s fun and makes them feel good, this wouldn`t be such an issue. Am I saying people shouldn`t be able to do what they want? Of course not. I`m saying they should exercise some discretion and common sense before having a frivilous good time on their backs, and then turning around and expecting the general public to aid them in their time of self-imposed misfortune. I should fund their reckless life-styles because Christians disagree with it?
If more states passed conceal & carry laws, you`d likely have far fewer rape cases, but I guess I`m forgetting the Liberal argument that guns are dangerous - much like nitroglycerin. The trigger and safety are just for show, and the gun will probably kill people by itself if you own one, and you should be afraid of them. Don`t forget that most gun crimes are committed using guns legally purchased and registered by the perpetrator. (That`s what we call sarcasm).
I`d like to close with a notion so simple it`s generally overlooked: The `evil` health insurance companies run an average profit margin of less than 5%, which is infantesmal compared to other industries. We can address the problems that cause the costs to be so high, or we can point fingers and shout "murderer!" at people who understand this country simply can`t AFFORD to save everyone, while simultaneously supporting the termination of unborn children. Way to think things through instead of parroting Liberal talking-points.
For the record, Ethan, the Constitution does not guarantee you FREEDOM FROM RELIGION.
The FIRST AMENDMENT of the Constitution guarantees that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Nope - nothing about FREEDOM FROM RELIGION.
As to the genocide of innocent babies... it isn't a RELIGIOUS view - it is a scientific view. Check the DNA from any abortion - you'll discover a human being was killed.
We have posted a comprehensive whip count for all Democrats who voted "no" on the original House bill and for those who voted "yes" but have since expressed they may change their mind.
The full table (with links to supporting articles for each vote) can be found here.
Jason Altmire and Bart Stupak will fold if we do not let them know how we feel. They are wavering. Tell them WE DON'T WANT THIS BILL. Hold their feet to the fire.
Will,
You don't even understand the BASIC FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES of the United States of America.
"shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Means no official U.S. religion.
In other words:
FREEDOM OF and FREEDOM *FROM* RELIGION.
Shame on you, pathetic idiot.
KEEP YOUR CHURCH OUT OF MY STATE.
Calm down. You`re both right.
It doesn`t say anything about freedom of religion because the concept was that your rights come from God - whether or not you believe in that sort of thing - and that Congress should not be able to take them away.
The end result? Indirect freeedom. Viola.
P.S. It`s OUR state.
On Stupak: he knows full well that the Senate bill he'd be asked to vote on retains the Hyde language (and in some ways strengthens it), prohibiting federal funding of abortions. What STUPAK wants is language prohibiting women who received ANY federal money from ANY source from using her OWN money to purchase her OWN policy that would cover abortion. That's the difference. Neither the House nor the Senate HCR bills in any manner loosen the restrictions currently in place on federal funding of abortion.
I believe that in the end Stupak will vote yes on the Senate bill.
And as to the prior poster who implies Yarmuth (KY 3rd) would be committing political suicide by voting for the Senate bill (after he's already voted for the more liberal House bill) to be misplaced and wishful thinking, on the poster's part. Yarmuth will absolutely vote for the Senate bill, and he will absolutely be reelected in November.
~j
"Seriously pal. Get YOUR Church out of MY State. You are infringing upon MY CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT as an American citizen to live a life free from religion. Tell it to the Constitution."
Hey Ethan, since you're a Constitutional expert, could you kindly point out where that document authorizes the federal government to force me to buy insurance I don't want?
You don't need to be religious to think that small people shouldn't be cut up, strangled, crushed, and vacuumed up by big people, just because the big people are stronger and can have their way.
Liberalism means widening the circle of care and concern to include more people, particularly the socially weak and helpless. Or used to mean.
For you negative types, remember, many of these politicians chose and paid for Harvard/Yale, spent years working as interns/assistants to congressmen, and have courted various blocks of supporters/contributers for years with an eye toward higher office; many still hold the delusion that the presidency is within reach.
Now, if that is the case, imagine spending this kind of time/money/energy on all this, and now coming face-to-face with the end of your career over one vote on one bill. Say what you will, but politicians are ruthlessly ambitious. How many will want this ambition snuffed out by their own hand? There are many votes where a person can vote and hide in the tall grass...not this one. I'm not saying this bill won't pass. I'm just saying a self-inflicted, career-ending vote isn't that easy for these types of people. And don't think this isn't precisely the current calculation for many of these folks, especially 1st and 2nd termers, or members who are seeking to move up to the Senate or Governor's mansion.
The "cover", I think, will end up being the immense unpopularity of the bill, cost, backroom deals, and the like. There will be NO COVER for the opposite vote. I can see this conference repeated by Dem congressmen: I'm for single payer and national healthcare, just not this bill. I will spend the rest of my career working for what I see as necessary and needed healthcare reforms...I promise you that. Blah, blah, blah.
Anonymous:
The Commerce Clause.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes
Btw, Anonymous, I know you were being sarcastic when you called me an expert, but really the Establishment of Religion clause and the Commerce Clause are basic basic elements of the Constitution -- which is taught in elementary school and middle school.
If you don't know these basic concepts I suggest you find them out so you understand the basis for the country in which you live. A country that has given you SO MUCH in the way of Freedom and Prosperity. The least you owe in return is a basic understanding of our government and our laws.
Very nice website!! I like it...
Ill bet this travesty of bill gets passed on bribes we will never even know about.
Collin Peterson MN7 is a DEFINITE NO...has been all along...
Oberstar's MN8 No. Branch office just told me he if voting YES...believes the bill bans Federal funds for abortion...he and his staff DO NOT understand the language on pg 2071 of this despicable bill!!! Who can get through to them?
This is great post with lot of info. Thank's from healthy dieting team.
There are several issues that make this bill a huge mistake. A womans right to choose? Right to choose what, to delete her future child from existence? My neice had to have a test when she was about 4-5 months into her pregnancy. They stuck a needle in the fluid to withdraw and accidentilly pricked the child, who drew her arm back in pain, as shown on the ultrasound. You cannot tell me this was not a human being suffering. I don't need to tell anyone how painful an abortion would be to the child, who can only be silent. Furthermore, pain receptors are now thought to be formed before the buffers that keep pain unbearable are formed, thus an abortion would be unbelievably painful.
Then there's the cost. I heard Obama say that it will decrease your premiums by 3000 percent. Are you kidding me? That sounds like something my 5 year old would say. The promises he has made have been time after time proven to be untruthful.
This bill is based on "fuzzy math". They are double counting $53 billion from SS taxes, $70 billion from class act premiums, not counting $70 billion in appropriations, $398 billion just from Medicare Part A equalling a $454 billion deficit; then adding the doc fix, all the Medicare raids, this bill has a $787 BILLION deficit, per information from those at the GOP press conference.
Help! Stand up and encourage your Congresspeople to vote NO on healthcare!!
Hi just thought i would tell you something.. This is twice now i’ve landed on your blog in the last 3 days looking for totally unrelated things. Spooky or what?
I wanted to thank you for this nice read!! I undoubtedly enjoying each little little bit of it and I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you post.
healthy dieting