A new Siena poll (810 RVs, 3/15-18, MoE +/- 3.4%) is the first in New York to test the potential Republican primary for governor between former Rep. Rick Lazio (R) and Steve Levy, the Suffolk County Executive and soon-to-be-former Democrat. Lazio leads Levy 45-16 in an initial test, with 40 percent undecided. When Republican voters are informed of Levy's political affiliation, Lazio's lead expands to 60-19, with 22 percent undecided.

Democratic Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, meanwhile, continues to be the early heavy favorite to ultimately win the seat in November.

Governor General Election Matchups
Cuomo 59 (-4 vs. last poll, 3/8)
Lazio 21 (-4)
Redlich 3 (n/a)
Und 17 (+6)

Cuomo 63
Levy 16
Redlich 4
Und 17

Levy's effort to reach the ballot still faces some hurdles. Primarily, he'll have to secure enough endorsements at the state GOP convention in June. Lazio, meanwhile, was endorsed this weekend by the New York Conservative Party, potentially creating a scenario similar to the New York 23 special election where Lazio could appear on the November ballot in the Conservative line, regardless of whether Levy can secure the GOP nomination.

After the jump, numbers on the Senate race in a hypothetical matchup between Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and former Gov. George Pataki, and an update on Gov. David Paterson's (D) situation.

(more...)

Last night's vote was certainly an historic one, which will almost certainly go down in the annals of Congressional history as one of the largest expansions of the social welfare state, along with Medicare and Social Security.  But it is also historic in that it marks the first time that a piece of social legislation of this scale has been passed on a party-line vote (to say nothing of the bipartisan opposition the bill faced in the House).

As others have noted, Medicare passed with the support of 13 Republican Senators and 70 Republican Congressmen.  Social Security passed with the support of 14 Senate Republicans and 77 House Republicans.

But this metric understates the degree of bipartisanship underlying these bills.  In percentage terms, 56% of Republican Senators and 75% of Republican Congressmen voted for Social Security, while 41% of GOP Congressmen and 50% of GOP Senators voted for Medicare.  In a caucus of today's size, that would translate to 23 Republican Senators and 134 Representatives in support of the health care bill had it been crafted to garner as much bipartisan support as Social Security, while 17 Republican Senators and 89 Representatives would have favored a bill with as much bipartisan support as Medicare.

In addition, the Democrats were largely united in favor of these bills.  Using similar metrics, Harry Reid should be congratulated for performing better than Joseph Robinson and Mike Mansfield; he should have lost one vote using Social Security as a benchmark and six using Medicare, rather than the zero he lost.  But if the House Democrats had been as united in support of health care as they were Social Security, they would have lost only twelve members' votes; had they been as united as they were with Medicare they would have lost only twenty-nine votes.

This is significant.  One of the Democrats' underlying assumptions is that last night's health care bill will grow more popular over time, just as Social Security and Medicare did.  But those plans had significant bipartisan support to begin with (and Medicare would have had even more bipartisan support had it been means-tested, as conservatives like Ronald Reagan were arguing for).  The President's health bill may well grow more popular over time, but it is starting out in a much deeper hole than its social policy predecessors.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett (R) leads his potential Democratic gubernatorial opponents by double digits, according to a new Rasmussen survey (March 16, 500 LV, MoE +/- 4.5%). Tested against Corbett were former Rep. Joe Hoeffel, Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato and State Auditor Jack Wagner.

Corbett 49 - Hoeffel 28 - Und 18

Corbett 46 - Onorato 29 - Und 17

Corbett 46 - Wagner 33 - Und 16

A sampling of editorials and news stories from around the country on last night's health care vote:

Editorials

New York Times: "a triumph for countless Americans who have been victimized or neglected by their dysfunctional health care system."

Wall Street Journal: "by ramming the vote through Congress on a narrow partisan majority, and against so much popular opposition, Democrats have taken responsibility for what comes next—to insurance premiums, government spending, doctor shortages and the quality of care. They are now the rulers of American medicine."

Chicago Tribune: "Democrats have their victory - but at what cost?"

Minneapolis Star-Tirbune:  An American cure for an ailing system.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:  "When history came calling, Jason Altmire turned away."

Detroit News: President scores a personal victory, but costly, unpopular health bill isn't a win for the country.

Denver Post: "In their single-minded quest to notch a political victory, Democrats in Congress late Sunday night enacted deeply flawed health care legislation that was propped up on misleading estimates and backroom deals — the repercussions of which will hurt this nation for years to come."

New York Daily News: Obama's big, bold bet.

Los Angeles Times: A historic first step.

San Francisco Chronicle: "As a legislative feat, the Democrats' passage of an overhaul of the nation's health care system without a single Republican vote was a masterpiece of power and persuasion. As a political move, the wisdom of the act will be tested in November."

Washington Times: Death by suicide.

News Stories

The Arizona Republic reports that three Democratic members of the state's delegation risked re-election with their yes votes last night: Gabrielle Giffords, Harry Mitchell, and Ann Kirkpatrick.

Indianapolis Star: Donnelly gives Democrats a key vote.

San Antonio Express News: It was a party line vote for Texas reps.

Seattle Times: All six Washington Democrats voted "aye", all three Republicans "nay."

Detroit News: Experts weighs political fallout from vote.

New Jersey lawmakers key to vote.

Daily Caller: Bart Stupak is either not very smart, or not very honest.

As the burden of passing health care reform shifts from the House to the Senate and squarely on the shoulders of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Tea Party rally is scheduled for this Saturday in Reid's hometown of Searchlight, Nev.

The rally is being held two properties away from Reid's, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reports. It's "a sort of conservative mini-Woodstock in the desert that organizers expect to draw 5,000 to 10,000 people -- maybe more -- from across the country, most of whom want to end the career of Nevada's most powerful politician."

Guy Rocha, a former state archivist, told the newspaper the rally will "be the biggest event that Searchlight's ever known."

Minority Leader John Boehner's office just released the following statement:

WASHINGTON, DC – House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement on a potential Executive Order from the White House on abortion:

“The law of the land trumps any Executive Order, which can be reversed or altered at the stroke of a pen by this or any subsequent President without any congressional approval or notice.  Moreover, while an Executive Order can direct members of the executive branch, it cannot direct the private sector.

“Because of Roe v. Wade, courts have interpreted the decision as a statutory mandate that the government must provide federal funding for elective abortion in through federal programs.  In other words, no Executive Order or regulation can override a statutory mandate unless Congress passes a law that prohibits federal funding from being used in this manner.  Legal experts at the US Catholic Conference of Bishops, National Right to Life Committee, Americans United for Life, and Family Research Council have confirmed this view that if the Senate bill is signed into law, it is a statutory mandate for the new health plans to include federal funding of elective abortion.  The need for an Executive Order is evidence that this is true, and Congressional Democrats know it.  Make no mistake, a ‘yes' vote on the Democrats' health care bill is a vote for taxpayer-funded abortions.”

Just released by White House:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release                           March 21, 2010

STATEMENT FROM COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR DAN PFEIFFER

Today, the President announced that he will be issuing an executive order after the passage of the health insurance reform law that will reaffirm its consistency with longstanding restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion.

While the legislation as written maintains current law, the executive order provides additional safeguards to ensure that the status quo is upheld and enforced, and that the health care legislation's restrictions against the public funding of abortions cannot be circumvented.

The President has said from the start that this health insurance reform should not be the forum to upset longstanding precedent.  The health care legislation and this executive order are consistent with this principle.

The President is grateful for the tireless efforts of leaders on both sides of this issue to craft a consensus approach that allows the bill to move forward.

A text of the pending executive order follows:

Executive Order

- - - - - - -

ENSURING ENFORCEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ABORTION RESTRICTIONS IN THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (approved March ­­__, 2010), I hereby order as follows:

Section 1.  Policy.

Following the recent passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“the Act”), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment.   The purpose of this Executive Order is to establish a comprehensive, government-wide set of policies and procedures to achieve this goal and to make certain that all relevant actors—Federal officials, state officials (including insurance regulators) and health care providers—are aware of their responsibilities, new and old.

The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly-created health insurance exchanges.  Under the Act, longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience (such as the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §300a-7, and the Weldon Amendment, Pub. L. No. 111-8, §508(d)(1) (2009)) remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

Numerous executive agencies have a role in ensuring that these restrictions are enforced, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

Section 2.  Strict Compliance with Prohibitions on Abortion Funding in Health Insurance Exchanges. The Act specifically prohibits the use of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments to pay for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) in the health insurance exchanges that will be operational in 2014.  The Act also imposes strict payment and accounting requirements to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services in exchange plans (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) and requires state health insurance commissioners to ensure that exchange plan funds are segregated by insurance companies in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, OMB funds management circulars, and accounting guidance provided by the Government Accountability Office.

I hereby direct the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop, within 180 days of the date of this Executive Order, a model set of segregation guidelines for state health insurance commissioners to use when determining whether exchange plans are complying with the Act's segregation requirements, established in Section 1303 of the Act, for enrollees receiving Federal financial assistance.  The guidelines shall also offer technical information that states should follow to conduct independent regular audits of insurance companies that participate in the health insurance exchanges.  In developing these model guidelines, the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS shall consult with executive agencies and offices that have relevant expertise in accounting principles, including, but not limited to, the Department of the Treasury, and with the Government Accountability Office.  Upon completion of those model guidelines, the Secretary of HHS should promptly initiate a rulemaking to issue regulations, which will have the force of law, to interpret the Act's segregation requirements, and shall provide guidance to state health insurance commissioners on how to comply with the model guidelines.

Section 3.  Community Health Center Program.

The Act establishes a new Community Health Center (CHC) Fund within HHS, which provides additional Federal funds for the community health center program.  Existing law prohibits these centers from using federal funds to provide abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), as a result of both the Hyde Amendment and longstanding regulations containing the Hyde language.  Under the Act, the Hyde language shall apply to the authorization and appropriations of funds for Community Health Centers under section 10503 and all other relevant provisions.  I hereby direct the Secretary of HHS to ensure that program administrators and recipients of Federal funds are aware of and comply with the limitations on abortion services imposed on CHCs by existing law.  Such actions should include, but are not limited to, updating Grant Policy Statements that accompany CHC grants and issuing new interpretive rules.

Section 4.  General Provisions.

(a) Nothing in this Executive Order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:  (i) authority granted by law or presidential directive to an agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This Executive Order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This Executive Order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees or agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Alrighty, we'll be blogging the health care vote as it unfolds.

12:01 -- The answer to that question will have to wait until tomorrow.  I'm for bed.  Thanks for following!

11:34 -- 220 Democrats for, 33 against.  I wonder who switched votes.

11:25 -- Query why Rahm would get a high 5, since according to Politico he was agitating for an incrementalist approach.

11:24 -- Joe Gibbs' tweet: POTUS watched vote in room aptly named for president who started this - cheers and clapping at 216 - high five for Rahm, hugs all around.

11:23 -- We're voting again, this time on the reconciliation bill. 149 Dem yeas, 15 nays.

11:02 -- That was quick.  Roll call vote is up here.  Dems voting no:  Adler, Altmire, Arcuri, Barrow, Berry, Boren, Boucher, Bright, Chandler, Childers, Davis (AL), Davis (TN), Edwards (TX), Herseth Sandlin, Holden, Kissell, Kratovil, Lipinski, Lynch, Marshall, Matheson, McIntyre, McMahon, Melancon, Minnick, Nye, Peterson, Ross, Shuler, Skelton, Space, Tanner, Taylor, Teague.

I guess Lipinski was the only Stupak holdout in the end.

10:46 -- 219 Democratic yeas, 34 Democratic nays.  We now move on to the vote on the second bill.

10:45 -- And there you have it.

10:44 -- Expect an eruption in two votes.

10:44 -- five votes away.

10:43 -- 209 Dem yeas, 27 Dem nays, 165 Rep nays.

10:40 -- 200 yeas.  16 votes away.

10:39 -- 189 Democratic yeas, 22 Democratic nays, Republicans still unified.

10:36 -- It's interesting that, from what I've read, Costello and Lipinski are the two Stupak Dems who didn't flip.  They're probably from the safest districts of the bunch.

10:34 -- And we're voting now.  This is pretty darned anticlimactic.  All Reps opposed so far, 179 Dems in favor, 20 opposed.

9:49 -- Well, we're getting close to a vote.  Finally.

8:55 -- Needless to say, they are not sticking with their declared schedule of a vote by 6.

7:34 -- Should have a vote on passage of the Senate bill soon.  Until then, just a bunch of speeches on the House floor.

6:34 -- I have to say, the Obama strategy is a pretty good one.  He's doing the easy part (spending) with the Democrats in office.  If the Republicans win -- and they certainly will with the governorships, if not Congress -- they will be tasked with owning part of the hard part (tax hikes/spending cuts).

6:34 -- The final vote on the Rule is 224 to 206.

6:21 -- The rule just passed the House.  220 yeas, 200 nays, with 11 not voting right now.

6:20 -- I'll take this as "Loretta is a yes" -- http://twitter.com/LorettaSanchez/status/10837991634

5:57 -- Kanjorski is a "yes."

5:55 -- Jim Cooper is a "yes."  I think that takes it from a 95% chance of passage to a done deal.

5:48 -- The more I think about it, the worse I think this was for Stupak.  On the one hand, the left doesn't like him now for almost killing the bill, on the other hand, the right doesn't like him because he didn't kill the bill.

5:24 -- Well, the Hill still has Berry, Costello and Lipinski as no votes, with three undecideds (Cooper, Kanjorski and Sanchez).  Stopping it would still be  the equivalent of an inside straight; Republicans would have to win all 6 votes.

4:41 -- The million dollar question is how many Stupak brings with him.  I think this is it, but Berry, Mollohan, and a few others weren't at the presser.  Kaptur was there, but she was already a yes.

4:28 -- If this flips all of the Stupak Democrats, then there are an awful lot of Democrats who announced that they were switching from no to yes, or not flipping, that aren't going to be very happy.

4:25 -- This really creates headaches for Republican governors getting ready to take over in 2010.

4:11 -- Anyway, it's all over but the shouting now.  Kaptur is speaking now.

4:07 -- Reached agreement with the White House.  He is "pleased" to announce that there is an agreement.  Doesn't smile once.

4:07 -- Gene Taylor not looking happy on Fox.

4:06 -- Up there with Dahlkemper, Kaptur.

4:05 -- This is it.  Stupak talking.

4:00 -- Waiting for Stupak to begin his presser.  Politico is reporting that he's reached agreement with the White House.

3:34 -- Apparently Stupak is having a press conference at 4pm.  He's announced this several times already, only to push it back.  This one is described as "firm."  I'm assuming that means that a deal has been reached.

3:22 -- Jay has it right -- this all comes down to the Stupak bloc.  If they can work something out, then they pass this.  If they can't work something out, then they don't pass this.  There are only two or three undecideds left standing, not enough to swing it either way (unless the Administration can only flip some of the Stupak Dems).

2:53 -- The Hill reports that the Democrats don't have the votes yet.

2:52 -- Protesters are still grouped on the Southside of the Capitol, directly outside the windows of the 3^rd floor House Press Gallery. Other than “Freedom!” their chants are inaudible up here, but they are constant nonetheless. The singing of “The Star Spangled Banner” is unmistakable, though. --KYLE TRYGSTAD

2:47 -- Stupak is telling Fox that he's still a "no."

2:44 -- The House is voting on the rule.  So far it's a party line vote.

2:19 -- Foster of Illinois is a yes.  209-211.

2:14 -- Pomeroy of North Dakota is a yes.  208-211.

2:10 -- Larry Sabato had the line of the day.  I'm paraphrasing, but something to the effect that Democrats are probably going to have a very good March and April, Republicans will have a very good November.

1:48 -- Fox reporting that Stupak isn't there yet.  Lincoln Davis is a no.  207-211.

1:40 -- John Tanner is still a no.  207-210.

1:37 -- Hmmmm...Washington Examiner is reporting that they just spoke with Stupak, and he's still a no.

1:17 -- Fox is reporting that Brian Baird is flipping to yea.  207-209.  Waiting on confirmation for Stupak.

12:56 -- MSNBC reporting that Bart Stupak will vote "yes."  If this is true, this is pretty much over, unless the pro-choicers revolt.

12:51 -- Apparently Loretta Sanchez will make the vote. How she will vote hasn't been declared yet.

12:44 -- Last night I listed some famous examples of flippers on the House floor: Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky in 1993, Robin Hayes in 2005.  But I forgot about the most outrageous example.  In order to flip Rep. Nick Smith's vote on the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit bill (Republicans held the vote open for 3 hours), they offered $100,000 to his son's campaign to replace him (Smith was retiring), and promised to defeat his son in the primary if Smith didn't flip.

Moral of the story:  Don't underestimate the pressures these members are under.  Second moral of the story:  Smith's son lost the primary anyway.

12:29 --  We're about 30 minutes away from the House convening.  The schedule is:  2pm, begin debate on the rules; 3pm vote to end debate and vote on rules; 3:15pm begin debate on reconciliation package; 5:15pm vote on the reconciliation package; 5:30pm 15 minute debate on Republican substitute amendment, followed by vote; 6pm vote on reconciliation package; 6:15pm vote on Senate health care bill, assuming reconciliation bill passes.

12:14 -- Health care supporters started the day out down 204 to 209, but got some good news as suspected "Stupak Democrat" Marcy Kaptur announced her support for the bill, and holdout Solomon Ortiz did the same.  That makes it a 206-209 split.

As we race toward today's climactic series of votes on passage of health care reform, Pelosi starts the day a few votes shy of passage.   But it is hardly unheard of for members to flip at the last minute.  Here is a list of key members to watch today.  The bottom line is that Pelosi probably has to flip 3 or 4 already-declared nays to yeas or a similar number of "Stupak Democrats" in order for these bills to pass, in addition to having all the undecideds vote "nay," and hoping there are no wild cards who vote "nay" out of the blue out there.  Each undecided or wild card who votes "nay" has to be offset by an additional Stupak member or "nay to yea" vote.

Undecideds who voted "nay" in November:

Brian Baird (Southwest Washington St.) -- Fiscally conservative Democrat who is retiring.  Wants to see an increased emphasis on cost savings.

John Tanner (Northwest Tennessee)  -- Also retiring.  Made disparaging comments to New York Times about bill.

Lincoln Davis (Southern Tennessee) -- Only "nay" from November who hasn't made some sort of comment on the record.   He represents an R+13 district and may be waiting, hoping the leadership won't need him.

Undecideds who voted "yea" in November:

Bill Foster (Western Chicago exurbs) -- Quasi-Freshman won Dennis Hastert's district in a special election in 2008 against a weak Republican.  Has to worry about the 2010 elections.

Paul Kanjorski (Scranton, PA) -- Scranton-area Congressman is in a tough re-election battle, and represents a district including Sallie Mae.  Does not like the education reform package tacked onto the reconciliation bill.

Mike Michaud (Northern Maine) -- Strangely quiet union Democrat from northern Maine. May have "Steve Lynch issues" (see below).

Solomon Ortiz (Corpus Christi, Texas) -- Hispanic caucus member has been quiet.  He is pro-life, pro-immigrant, and is generally fiscally moderate.  He was a late decider last time, and may be hoping that the leadership doesn't need his vote this time.

Earl Pomeroy (North Dakota) -- Congressman is in the race of his life, is polling poorly in North Dakota.  Probably does not want to vote "yea," though he would still have a hard time walking back earlier "yea" vote.

Stupak Bloc:

These are the ten suspected Stupak Democrats, though the leadership may already have peeled off a few of them:  Costello (Southwest Illinois and East St. Louis), Donnelly (North-Central Indiana, South Bend), Driehaus (Cincinnati and northern suburbs), Lipinski (Southwest Cook county/Chicago), Stupak (Upper Peninsula of Michigan, northern "glove"), Berry (Arkansas Delta), Dahlkemper (Erie, PA), Mollohan (Wheeling and Morgantown WV), Kaptur (Toledo), Rahall (Beckley/Coal Country, WV).

If Pelosi flips all ten Stupak Democrats -- and there are rumors a deal is near (though those rumors have been floating around all week) -- then this is probably effectively over.  Only a revolt among pro-choice members (see below), or losing almost all of the remaining undecideds would prevent passage.  I'd put the odds of that occuring at 5%.

Wobbly Nays:

These are declared "nays" that I suspect the leadership may be able to flip back, though they will be tough:

Steve Lynch (South Boston).  Did not like the "deem and pass" manuever.  Also unhappy with the Cadillac tax.

Mike Arcuri (Utica, NY) -- Rules committe member who almost lost in 2008.  Facing a rematch with 2008 opponent in a much worse political environment.

Michael McMahon (Staten Island) -- Staten Island Democrat who may end up voting with the rest of his delegation.

Rick Boucher (Southwest Virginia) -- Decided fairly late that he was still a "nay."  He'd be  a tough flip, but he generally tries to vote with the leadership.

Wild Cards

Loretta Sanchez (Central Orange County, CA) -- Voted "yea" last time after voting against the rule.  Roll Call reports that she may not even show up for the vote.

Michael Capuano (Cambridge) -- Spoke out against the bill from the left, but has since been quiet.  Will probably vote yes.

The pro-choice caucus -- This is probably the key.  Part of the reason Stupak language was removed from the bill is that some 40 members promised to vote against a final conference report if it contained Stupak language.  If Obama makes some sort of executive order promise in order to bring Stupak on board, keep an eye on Diana DeGette (Denver), Nita Lowey (Westchester County), and Mike Quigley (Chicago).

It has been a roller coaster 24 hours for the President's health care reform effort.  The Democrats have convinced a number of former "no" votes to commit to voting "yes."  At the same time, a few former "yes" votes have flipped over to "no."  Whip counts vary, but the various counts have the yeas and nays at around 208.  216 votes are needed for passage.

This is complicated by the uncertainty surrounding the size of the so-called "Stupak bloc," which is not included in this count.  These are Democrats who normally would vote for health care reform, but want stronger anti-abortion language inserted into the bill.  These Democrats are described as Costello (IL-12), Donnelly (IN-02), Driehaus (OH-01), Lipinski (IL-03), Stupak (MI-01), Berry (AR-01), Dahlkemper (PA-03), Mollohan (WV-01), Kaptur (OH-09) and Rahall (WV-03).  Reports have Stupak saying that his intial bloc of 12 had been sliced in half, but it is unclear whether he was referring to his intial group (which lost members like Oberstar and Kildee), or to the group that he had recently put together  (which added members like Berry and Donnelly).

There are also a few undecided members still lingering out there.  Three remaining "no-to-yess" votes could be found among retiring Reps Baird (WA-03) and Tanner (TN-08), and Lincoln Davis (TN-04).  Baird has been skeptical about the cost provisions and said he wanted to read the CBO report carefully, Tanner had made disparaging comments about the bill to the New York Times earlier in the month, and Davis represents an R+13 district.   They're get-able, but they are tough "gets."

In addition, the leadership has to fret about a few potential yes-to-no votes:  Depending on what reports you believe, those are probably Foster, Kanjorski (who has a tough race and Sallie Mae in his district, and therefore doesn't like the nationalized student loan aspect of the reconciliation bill), Michaud, Ortiz and Pomeroy.  In particular, watch Pomeroy, who is in a tough race in a very Republican state.

The bottom line is that to pass health care reform, Democrats need to make or maintain "yes" votes out of all these members, and then peel off at least a couple of the ten Stupak Democrats (assuming they haven't already done so), or switch some of the other hard nays to yea (watch Arcuri and Lynch).  That's not impossible, but it is a tall order.  In addition, they have to hope that there aren't any other brush fires waiting out there.  To give an example, members aren't certain that Loretta Sanchez will show up to vote, or that she would vote yea again (she voted against the rule last time before finally voting for the bill).  And if the President moves to compromise with the Stupak Democrats, pro-choice members might revolt.

That amounts to a pretty heavy lift for Democrats.  But there is a bigger picture to remember here.  The story of Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky – the deciding “no-to-yes” vote on Bill Clinton's 1993 budget – has been repeated many times.  But what is often left out of the story is that, on the morning of the vote, she was on television stressing to her constituents that she was a “no” vote.  Or consider the case of Robin Hayes, who represented an anti-trade, textile manufacturing district in North Carolina.  In 2001 he cast the deciding vote for trade promotion authority after being pressured so hard he reportedly was crying on the House floor.  Hayes began the week of July 24, 2005 reporting that he was "flat-out, completely, horizontally opposed to CAFTA;” by the 27th, he was a yes.  You can also look no further than the December Senate vote.  As of Friday, December 18, there was no reason to suspect that Ben Nelson would be a “yes” vote for Obamacare, yet there he was on Saturday, announcing proudly his new “Nelson” language and what would later be known as the “Cornhusker Kickback.”  Then again, this has been debated endlessly for over a year and intensely for a few months; it is difficult to see what else members could be threatened with.

In other words, these declarations of "I will vote no" are fairly meaningless to me until the vote is closed.  I'm inclined to believe a statement like Dan Boren's:  “They can break my arms. They can do whatever they want to. They'll never get my vote — ever. They'll have to walk across my dead body if they want my vote on this issue.”  But unless a member makes a categorical statement like that, they are up for grabs in my book.

Some have suggested that the parade of "nays" late Saturday meant that Pelosi has the votes.  Don't buy that.  The parade of "nays" is what you would expect if Pelosi had the votes, but then again, it is also what you would expect if she didn't have the votes.  At the end of the day, I think the President wouldn't be talking about an executive order on abortion rights if this were wrapped up.

Tomorrow should be an interesting day.  These are the members to watch.  When you see movement from these players, pay attention.  Right now I wouldn't put the odds of passage anywhere near the 80 or so that Intrade is predicting.  But given the enormous pressure the President and leadership will be bringing tomorrow, I'd have a hard time putting them much lower than 50%.