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%.

--------------------------------------------
Follow the RCP Blog on Twitter.
Become a fan of RCP on Facebook.
--------------------------------------------