I wasn’t expecting Nevada Senator Dean Heller to be the first senator to express real opposition to the Wealthcare bill. While some think this is a ploy, Jon Ralston disagrees and says it is real. Ralston knows Nevada politics like no one else, and pretty much always gets it right. What adds weight to Ralston’s view is the way Heller presented his position — in Nevada at a press conference, with the governor at his side. This wasn’t some mealy-mouthed “I have concerns” mumble while sprinting down a hallway. Could he be flipped? Sure, but he’s given his opposition in 2018 a great big pile of video clips to use against him if he does back out.
Honestly, what Heller did was genius. He really doesn’t want to be the deciding vote against the bill, and by being the first real vote in opposition, he won’t be. It’s the third real no vote who holds that hot potato.
Heller matters because this play was not expected, and he could set in motion a quick defeat for this version of the bill. When the CBO score comes out Monday or Tuesday, Collins and Murkowski are likely to say they are voting no, same as Heller — “barring major changes to much of the bill.” Collins says she is just waiting for the score before she decides, but she’s sent some pretty strong signals out already. As horrible as the bill is for everyone, it is especially awful for the old, rural and poor in their states (which is most of the population in Maine and Alaska). The blowback would be brutal for them. Collins and Murkowski were always expected to be “no” votes, which left us searching for one profile in courage on the Republican side to be that third vote. Needless to say, we’d be coming up empty.
But if Collins and Murkowski come out as nos along with Heller from that wing, there would then be seven senators who have voiced strong opposition to the bill by late Monday or Tuesday after the CBO score comes out. We know the “strong opposition” of Cruz, Paul, Lee, and Johnson is a joke — they were always going to vote for the bill after a little preening and posturing. But even if the count is not real, it gives Capito from West Virginia and possibly others (Bill Cassidy from Louisiana — a DOCTOR who was not even including in the drafting of the bill), Flake from Arizona, maybe Portman from Ohio or Gardner from Colorado -— a small window of opportunity to jump on the “I’m not voting for it” bandwagon at a moment when they will not be the deciding vote against it.
This would be a very small window, likely 12 to 24 hours — after the CBO score comes out, but before Cruz, Paul, Lee and Johnson can miraculously discover they support the bill after all. You’d have two close to equal factions against the bill if you have 5-6 “moderates” against it along with 4 ultra-conservatives opposing, same as what happened in the House. Neither will agree on changes, they are all already pissed at McConnell for being shut out of the process so he doesn’t have leverage there.
The “moderates” will be threatened like Heller with big ad buys against them, but so what? Murkowski and Collins are safe seats (and safer still for voting against the bill). Voting against it only helps the other folks in Medicaid expansion states too, given its enormous unpopularity even before anyone fully grasps how awful the Medicaid cuts are.
But even if the bill goes down in flames early next week with a CBO bandwagon, I suspect it will be a replay of the House situation where a Zombie bill comes back later this summer and manages to barely pass. Still, a delay of a couple months (or even weeks) would be huge in getting the word out on this bill and pressuring senators not to vote for it. What happens in the hours after the CBO score will tell the tale. If this version of the bill dies a quick death, it’s al because Heller got out in front of the process to provide a little safety in numbers for folks beyond Collins and Murkowski who don’t want to vote for this travesty, but are too cowardly to be the deciding vote. Now they don’t have to be.