The Master of the Senate II?

This is more fascinating than the NCAA basketball tournament. As usual, Nate Silver has the best breakdown of the current situation. After picking up three more votes today, the odds are now 75% (according to Nate) and 78% (according to Intrade) that the bill will pass. Ironically, this is significantly lower than before the three representatives added their names to the "yes" rolls today. Basically, Pelosi has the mother of all whipping tasks in front of her. She is trying to keep so many different people happy, all with different, and often conflicting, sets of interests, that the mere rumor that she is negotiating with any one group sets off a whole bunch of unpredictable chain reactions. The Medicare controversy for a group of states that swirled up yesterday is one example. But the larger "no" constituencies are clearly the Blue Dog fiscal conservatives and the anti-abortion coalition, led by Bart Stupak. With the CBO's most recent scoring a few days ago, she is probably about as set with the Blue Dogs as she can be (anyone who is going to reject a projected $138B of fiscal savings over the next decade is probably never going to be satisfied with anything resembling this bill). That leaves the Stupak coalition. Word out today is that she's negotiating with them (despite publicly claiming that she is not). The question is, if she strikes a deal with them, will she lose more votes from the pro-choice coalition than she gains? Interestingly, Silver postulates that she may even lose some of the anti-abortion crowd simply by negotiating with them. The theory is that if a potential deal is on the table but doesn't happen, then they will all feel obliged to vote against. If she offers no deal at all, at least some of them can justify voting in favor by claiming that the bill is already sufficiently pro-life. My guess is that she offers up something that they all know full well is largely meaningless, but which they can take to their constituents to prove that they stood firm against abortion funding. Then she'll go back to the pro-choice wing and try to convince them that the deal doesn't really change anything at all.

As is often the case in this country (and most others, outside of Western Europe), a massive, once-in-a-generation policy decision will likely hinge on religious belief. But as pro-lifer Rep. Dale Kildee so eloquently proclaimed earlier this week, “There is nothing more pro-life than protecting the lives of 31 million Americans." That's some pretty persuasive logic to me, but not to someone who believes sentient life begins at conception and will brook no compromise on this issue.

Whatever happens, this is endlessly fascinating, high-stakes political theater. Pelosi and Obama are going to be either heroes or zeroes tomorrow. My question for you: do you buy the Intrade contract at 78? I'm tempted, but my faith in the Democrats' ability to whip their caucus is not boundless, to say the least.