|
Since the Bennet letter began to pick up steam, I've argued that the effort could realistically produce 50 Senate votes for a public option. Now, for the first time since the Bennet letter surfaced, we have a clear path to 50 Senate votes.
Florida's Bill Nelson makes 41. He is the fourth Senator to join this week.
Why is Nelson's vote so important?
Shortly after I re - started the "Going Public" series in mid - February, I broke Senate Democrats into three categories.
Every Reason To Join: Akaka, Bingaman, Cantwell, Cardin, Casey, Dodd, Dorgan, Durbin, Harkin, Kaufman, Klobuchar, Kohl, Murray, Rockefeller, Mark Udall, and Wyden.
Need Vocal Constituent Support To Join: Baucus, Begich, Carper, Conrad, Hagan, Johnson, McCaskill, Tester, Warner, and Webb.
Can't Imagine A Scenario In Which They Join: Bayh, Landrieu, Lincoln, Ben Nelson, and Pryor. I wrote that "Bill Nelson is most likely with them."
Since then, the efforts of grassroots Democrats have picked up everyone in the first group but Harkin, Kohl, and Rockefeller, two from the second group, and surprisingly, one from the third. We're at the tipping point.
To 45
CS = Constituent Support
PS = Previous Support
OS = Other Senator from their state is on board.
Herb Kohl (Wisconsin) - CS, PS, OS
Past support:
"Ideally, I think health reform should include some type of a public option."
Tom Carper (Delaware) - CS, OS
Faces overwhelming constituent support. He's a DLC champion who reversed himself on signing the Bennet letter in a bizarre way last month. But he's probably smart enough to know that this is not going away.
Tom Harkin (Iowa) - CS, PS
Leading proponent of a public option.
Harkin is one of my "political heroes," an authentic progressive populist, and a Medicare for All supporter. So I naturally have an extremely hard time believing that he would vote against the public option. Judging by his most recent statements, Harkin doesn't think the votes are there on the House side.
Jay Rockefeller (West Virginia) - CS, PS
Also a leading proponent of a public option.
The Final 5
We would need five of the following eight.
Max Baucus (Montana)
If Baucus is the deciding vote against the public option, he would face the an incredibly intense backlash from MT Dems. Thanks to the Gang of Six fiasco, Baucus is rightfully on very thin ice.
Mark Begich (Alaska)
Position unclear.
Kent Conrad (North Dakota)
See Max Baucus.
Kay Hagan (North Carolina)
Past support.
Claire McCaskill (Missouri)
Limited past support.
Mark Pryor (Arksansas)
Open to a public option.
Mark Warner (Virginia)
Not a big fan of a public option. Politically though, he would have no coherent rationale for being the deciding vote against one.
Jim Webb (Virginia)
Past support:
"There is no reason to believe that private insurers alone will meet the public purpose of ensuring coverage for all American at an affordable price for taxpayers," Webb and 15 other senators wrote in an April letter urging that a public option be approved.
Note: I'm not including West Virginia's Robert Byrd because of his health difficulties, though Byrd did support a non - trigger public option in the past.
The problem may very well be the House. But first things first. Because basic accountability is so important, Senators should be straightforward about how they would vote on the merits. To clear this up, the remaining Dem Senators should be asked a simple question, in isolation from what is going on in the House.
"If there is a vote on a public choice, how would you vote on the merits?"
If they say that the votes in the Senate aren't there, they should be asked how they would vote if 49 other Dems were voting yes. This is not a far - fetched scenario. "We don't have the votes in the Senate" is no longer a very convincing argument.
Over to you Tom Carper, Tom Harkin, Herb Kohl, Jay Rockefeller, Max Baucus, Mark Begich, Kent Conrad, Kay Hagan, Claire McCaskill, Mark Pryor, Mark Warner, and Jim Webb.
Resource: The Washington Independent's Senate Public Option Scoreboard
Action: PCCC - Whip Congress
One more thing...
The Top Three Political Reasons Congressional Democrats Should Support Including A Public Option In Health Care Reform
- It's probably the only thing that can really close the enthuisasm gap. We're talking about the difference between a November that is rough, and a November that is a disaster.
- Without it, the individual mandate is politically indefensible.
- Many of those currently on the fence now have either already voted for a bill with a public option in it (on the floor or in committee), or voiced support for it. They're already going to get attacked for it by the right. Using reconciliation is going to make the Republican base freak out regardless of what is in the legislation. The public option has been consistently popular. If Dems are going to go this route, we might as well include important policy supported by a clear majority of the American people. Among voters who will or potentially would vote for Democrats, support for a public option is sky high. A significant number of the most active Dem voters consider it essential.
Whether it's a public option or a Medicare Expansion, including a public choice is the right thing to do... and the smart thing to do.
UPDATE: McJoan reports on Dick Durbin telling Senate Dems that they can't have a vote on the public option. Durbin is arguing that it will jeopardize the whole reconciliation process, and Tom Carper is backing him up. If this argument is revealed to be seriously flawed, this move will backfire big time.
It looks like the votes in the Senate are there, but for whatever reason, some leading Dems don't want the vote to take place. If they don't want a vote on a public choice, they should say why. But "we don't have the votes in the Senate" just isn't credible anymore.
UPDATE #2: Greg Sargent talks to Bernie Sanders, who says he is prepared to introduce a public option amendment.
UPDATE #3: Ryan Grim reports that Durbin will whip votes for whatever comes out of the House. Grim's headline says it best -- the public option is now "a matter of will, not votes." |
