Messages posted by: LongOdds

Katechon wrote:

Will Pelosi get the 216 votes she needs?

Jay Cost is counting and updating…

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2010/03/counting_the_heads_of_house_de.html

***

Someone have brung to my attention that the timing of the no-voting Eric Massa suddenly having to resign under suspicion of sexually harassing a male staff member wa, er, *interesting*.
And right after that, Rachel Maddow goes to town on Stupak, accusing him of covering up payment-in-kind in the form of subsidized rent at his K-Street house:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/03/05/rachel-maddow-is-shrill/

Lots of arms-twisting vis-a-vis no-voting Democrats?…
Pelosi and her crew are ruthless, methinks.

She will get the *job* done!

I've sold a bit of my shares coze I suspect the contract will go down a little, but I firmly plan to buy it back, only cheaper.

Yeah, Massa was a "no" vote the first time around, so unless they were going to flip him, it's good to get him out now. The magic number will be 216. It was going to be Republican Deal's retirement that brought it down to 216, but GOP leadership convinced him to hold off on retiring until this is over. Pelosi is a very effective majority leader. Much moreso than Dennis Hastert if you ask me. She is probably the most effective house leader since Gingrich. (On the other hand in the Senate, Lott and even Frist were both more effective than Reid, who is not as terrible as some leftist bloggers make him out to be, just mediocre and uninspiring).

The stuff we're seeing from Stupak is the kinda bluff we always see from moderates before big votes. I doubt he will bring people with him that didn't vote "no" last time. He is trying to bargain for something.

I cautiously predict that the House will pass the bill, only because Pelosi will go LBJ on waffling house members when it gets near the magic number.

Even though Reid is underwhelming, the Senate side should be fairly easy. Nate Silver said Senators like McCaskill, Bill (NOT Ben) Nelson, Robert Byrd are the folks to listen to, as they would be around that 50 vote threshold (or in Byrd's case, he's a reconciliation hawk). If they sound like they might be opposed then it could be trouble, but so far they seem a-go. Ironically, I think Bunning's one-man fillibuster actually helped bring the Dems together a bit.

ChrisVanNiekerk wrote:

So where are we at? Very close to the finishing line. The ball is in Pelosi's trusted hands with Obama backing her up. With Reid they will determine how they can get enough votes, what they need to include in the final bill and when it is time to call for a vote and finally seal the deal... There will be a lot of negotiating. As part of that process, some brazen legislators will hold out for better terms and publicly express their reservations in front of cameras. The media will of course play all of this up to the hilt to add to the drama. Was there ever such excitement about the making of legislation? But does anyone here seriously doubt the outcome? If so, on what basis? Is this contract, currently trading at 50, anything other than easy money?

I'm hoping (and confident) of this legislation passing, but never underestimate the changing nature of politics. What seems like a sure bet this week, can be turned on its head next week. Look at Scott Brown.

That said, I would put the odds of this bill passing around 70%, which is where I could see the contract at. But you never know what could happen tomorrow.

The hell is going on?

I go offline for 2 days and the contract peaks at 90 (now hovering around 60). This is after it's stayed at about 30 since January. Did I miss some big news?

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/03/01/pelosi_catches_break_on_health_care.html

With Republican Deal's retirement, the numbers have shifted enough in the House that 216 (not 217) is the new magic number. The math just got easier. With things this polarized, even one vote can make the difference.

Just a heads up, but it seems someone is repeatedly shorting the stock. Today it has shot up to around 45 twice only to fall back down to 30ish each time. Sort of suspicious with no major news to report.

LongOdds wrote:

I guess we'll have an idea about what's going on when he gives us his State of the Union address. Might be a good idea to go long on the healthcare contract before he gives it, as there will probably be a jump depending on what he says.

I was right. The price shot up to 55 today (and then promptly dropped back to where it is). Hope people got in on the action while it was hot.

Pelosi just said on MSNBC she now has the 218 votes needed to pass the Senate bill, something that would have seemed unpalatable to her caucus just a week ago. I don't know how she did it, considering the original house bill only passed by 220 in a much more favorable environment. Say what you want about Pelosi, but she is great at whipping her caucus. This and Ben Nelson (!) saying he's open for reconciliation means I am now considering buying a stake in this contract.

JohnRemington wrote:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/lincoln-bayh-nelson-wont-support-passing-health-care-fixes-via-reconciliation.php

Lincoln, Bayh, and Nelson now officially reject reconciliation to pass HCR.

Doesn't matter. They were never going to be on board anyway, as it was hard enough getting them to be part of the 60 vote coalition for the actual Senate bill. It will be a lot easier whipping up 51 votes for reconciliation than it was whipping all 60 votes for a health bill last year. Read this article by Nate Silver.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/evan-bayh-to-oppose-procedure-that.html

Abacus wrote:

I've been in the forums since 2004, Blaze, so perhaps it should be I asking you the questions. There are no official rules as to what they can be used for.

Regardless, what specifically did I advocate?

Abacus, I'm happy to talk with you, but stop with the "I was here first" crap. No one likes that. Chris and blaze are both prolific posters who have demonstrated they know what they're talking about. And if you've been in the forums since 2004, how come your register year is 2007? Lurking doesn't count.

Yes, I do think Coakley's Curt Schilling error cost her votes. You and I both know how serious Bostonians take their baseball. It showed her as out of touch, and Brown effectively turned into a question of whether she was out of touch with MA as a whole. The race went from a dead heat to Brown +5 around that time. I don't think that was a coincidence. Yes, I do think the national atmosphere contributed to Coakley's loss, but again I believe a stronger candidate who cared about voters could have overcome it. Kennedy was just as liberal as Capuano. You have not made a compelling argument for why Capuano would lose.

As to your question of whether I had money on Brown, I try to disassociate my politics from my money. I went long on Brown when he was around 30-40 and that was also the time I accepted the trend and knew Coakley would lose. As a trader I was happy that day, but as a Democrat, I was bummed.

Chris, equal blame for the bill stalling in the House can be directed towards the "progressive caucus." These nuts are so pure they would rather have nothing, than the Senate bill. They will literally cut off their nose to spite their face. Look at comments from Anthony Weiner, Carolyn McCarthy, Paul Grijalva and my own representative, Barney Frank. They want to kill the bill or start over with a bunch of small bills (which will never work, because (a) health reform works as a machine with many parts, not as separate patches to the old system ... and (b) to come up with a whole slew of new bills would take months).

Then you have Stupak, the Blue Dogs, the egomaniacs, and the chickenshits who already voted for the bill, but won't vote for it again, because all that matters to them is staying in office (as opposed to passing actual legislation while in office).

It's a mess. I would still say the odds are stacked against the bill. Obama needs to meet with the hold-outs one on one, really engage them and assuage their fears about what the Senate and the White House will do after.

Abacus, I live in MA. Coakley ran a horrific campaign. I'm sorry, but if Capuano was the nominee, he would have won by a comfortable margin. No one goes on a week vacation during an election. No one belittles voters like her remarks about shaking hands outside of Fenway... and then compounds the damage by calling one of the greatest RedSox players of all time a hated Yankee. She was a walking, talking disaster zone. If "maccaca" could sink George Allen, then I think Coakley was sunk in part by her many gaffes. Maybe she would have won anyway if she ran in a Democratic year, but almost anyone else would have won in her place. You also have the unpopularity of Governor Patrick and the complacency of the Democratic establishment in MA, and it's easy to see how this could have happened.
I would also remind you that while we haven't had a Republican Senator in a long time, we do elect Republican Governors quite often (most recently, Romney), so GOP wins in this state aren't as unheard of as the MSM would lead some to believe. And Brown did run a very good campaign and was a like-able, personal candidate... while Coakley came off as cold, guarded and fake. No one voted FOR Coakley. They just voted AGAINST Brown. And in the end, you can't win a campaign voting AGAINST someone. That didn't happen with Bush in 2004, nor with Obama in 2008 and it certainly didn't happen with Brown in 2010. The side with the energy and enthusiasm for their candidate always wins no matter where it is.

comradem wrote:

I hope you conservatives get real fired up, start thinking you can take back the house and senate and install President Palin. Yup, bid up those prices boys, so the rest of us can take you to the cleaners. Game on!

I wouldn't joke about the GOP retaking the House. I wouldn't have said so a month ago, but I think (at least where things stand today) it's a possibility. And no offense, but we saw what happened the last time you dared people to bid up a long shot contract.

Well... I'm getting a bit more pessimistic every day (and with every kneejerk statement I see). Never underestimate the Democrats' ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

ChrisVanNiekerk wrote:

I have built up a sizeable long position on this one and will be surprised if this does not come through by the end of March.

The problem is Congress acts like an ADD kid, only able to focus on one piece of legislation at a time. If by March they're still focused on healthcare reform at the expense of discussing a serious jobs package, their numbers are going to be even worse than they are now. This needs to be resolved in the next couple weeks, or it won't be resolved at all.

I guess we'll have an idea about what's going on when he gives us his State of the Union address. Might be a good idea to go long on the healthcare contract before he gives it, as there will probably be a jump depending on what he says. Ultimately though, I have no idea if Dems have the political will to pass this now. Probably not.

Obviously I meant "sucks to be you more" in a political sense. I hope you have nothing but good times ahead in your personal life.

As to the "Gang of 14", that was around the time Senate Majority Leader Frist threatened to use the "nuclear option", which the Dems have not threatened since Obama took power. The Bush administration also cynically used intimidation and fear to get certain bits of national security legislation passed, such as Patriot Act and the Iraq war authorization. Obama has not engaged in those Orwellian politics, but still been exposed to them through the use of "death panel" lies. I just wish there could be an honest discussion about the pros and cons of health care reform in Washington without those in opposition peddling in outright lies aimed at scaring the public. And there's nothing wrong with stopping the insurance industry from turning away people due to pre-existing conditions. Believe it or not, Obama is not trying to pass a reform bill, because he secretly wants to bankrupt the country or is a socialist manchurian candidate in disguise. There are really good elements in the bill that would help a lot of people who might otherwise suffer more or even die.