Skip to comments.Washington Post whip count: Already 58 likely yes votes for immigration reform in the Senate
Posted on 06/20/2013 2:43:36 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
They're actually lowballing it, I think, by assuming only 45 safe Democratic votes right now. You’ll lose a couple of Dems on this, but nine? Mark Pryor already did his good deed to impress Arkansas conservatives by voting no on expanded background checks. Joe Manchin doesn’t have to face West Virginians again until 2018. Besides, immigration reform already polls well in general terms and today’s flashy Corker/Hoeven amendment gives fencesitters a way to support the bill while claiming that they held out until there was “real” border security included. Let’s assume that there are really more like 49 Democrats prepared to vote yes, plus the four Republican Gang of Eight-ers, plus Corker and Hoeven, plus the dependable RINOs like Kirk, Murkowski, and Collins. Kelly Ayotte’s already declared her support, and Orrin Hatch made a deal with Schumer during the Judiciary Committee mark-up on visas for high-skilled workers. That’s 60, even by a conservative estimate, and that’s enough to break a filibuster. With that kind of bipartisan political cover, expect a few more Dems to take the plunge — and multiple GOPers along with them.
For some reason, WaPo has Dems Mary Landrieu and Mark Begich as “likely” yeses and Collins as merely a “potential” yes. That seems backwards to me, notwithstanding Collins’s worries about being primaried by tea partiers. But no matter; they’re probably all on board in the end. More from the whip count:
POTENTIALLY YES (6)
Chambliss (R-Ga.) retiring
Johanns (R-Neb.) retiring
Chiesa (R-N.J.) temporary appointee
Isakson (R-Ga.) retiring
McConnell (R-Ky.) up for reelection in 2014
Baucus (D-Mont.) retiring, voted against 2007 bill
Hagan (D-N.C.) up for reeleection in 2014
Johnson (D-S.D.) retiring
Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) retiring, voted against 2007 bill
Tester (D-Mont.) voted against 2007 bill
They forgot that Tom Coburn’s also pledged not to seek another term in 2016. Assuming that he’s retiring too, that leaves seven senators who have nothing to lose by voting yes, plus Christie’s appointee from New Jersey who’s all but a cinch to vote yes as well. That’s 68, with 17 still left on the fence to be gotten. Schumer’s said all along that he wants at least 70 votes for the bill in order to apply more pressure to the House. Think he, O, and Reid will be able to shake loose two more votes from those 17? Manchin’s there, as are bluish-staters Pat Toomey, Dean Heller, and Rob Portman. Jon Tester’s showed that he’s not afraid to be a loyal Democrat despite hailing from a red state by voting for expanded background checks and endorsing legalized gay marriage. Honestly wouldn’t surprise me if they ended up with something like 75 votes instead of 70.
Like I said this morning: This is all fine, and possibly even politically beneficial, if you think the House is prepared to resist the Senate pressure and drive a hard bargain. If not, we’ve got big problems. And by the way, if you’re feeling suddenly optimistic about border security because of the big surge in Border Patrol demanded by Corker/Hoeven, go have a look at the graph DrewM posted. The growth area in illegal immigration in the years to come, according to CBO, isn’t people crossing the border illegally and outrunning the BP. It’s people being admitted perfectly legally under a visa and then quietly disappearing once their visa expires. How does extra Border Patrol solve that problem? It doesn’t, but it makes for an awesome talking point when you’re trying to get 70-75 votes in the Senate.
What the hell difference does it make if you have 20,000 more border agents when the Homeland Security Secretary has Ordered them not to Deport anyone. I believe the Border Agents have a Law suit pending claiming they are not being allowed to carry out Their duties according to the oath they swore.As for the Fence that is already law for some time and the Money allocated and it only has 36 miles built.Why the hell would you believe anything these lying Bastards say
Somehow, someway, We the People MUST DEFEAT this PoS legislation!
In the peoples’ House.
Goofballs that don't understand History or economics are destroying the greatest country that ever was.
Note Rubio's diabolically careful choice of words about this amendment: "We don't want to leave it to Janet Napolitano to design the border plan...."
you can design anything you want, but Nappy, O, etc. call the shots.
I think we can all agree and safely say that what we have today, is border enfarcement.
They can come up with all the laws they want, but when enforcement is spotty, nothing good will come of it.
Reagan signed a decent set of laws. When enforce they work. That’s the problem. They aren’t enforced.
None of these men cared enough about our nation to enforce our immigration laws.
The (legal) flood of GOP money contributed to unseat Mister Rubio in the 2016 Primary (from all over the country, in small donations) will be truly astonishing.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) launched a national petition on Thursday to stop the Senate Gang of Eight’s amnesty bill and send Washington a “strong signal” of the grassroots opposition to the bill.
“This is urgent,” Cruz wrote in an e-mail to supporters. “We must stop this Gang of 8 immigration bill, which would give amnesty to an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants with no guarantee of a secure border.”
“The Senate debate is in the final stages and we need to send Washington a strong signal of the overwhelming grassroots opposition to this amnesty bill from Americans across the country,” Cruz explained.
Cruz urged supporters to share the petition with friends and to “act now—without delay—to help us defeat amnesty and stand for legal immigration!”
O not only did not enforce immigration law; he did exactly the opposite by issuing papers to illegals. I think this was part of a plan to provide an excuse for RINOs to vote for amnesty with the excuse, “We already have de facto amnesty.”
Well if so, why does Congress need to legalize them too? Maybe they are afraid that a GOP POTUS would reverse the policy, but I can’t imagine that happening short of a miracle candidate.
Of course they tried to use that in 2007 too, but GWB did not give out papers to all of them (although maybe he ws tempted).
typical, I wonder how much pork they were offered
We are at the point where elections mean nothing.. The Rube will be well compensated for his treason. We are at the jury box and headed hell for leather to the ammo box, what a damned shame...
I appreciate the comments. One of the things that I’m worried about, is that they have been silently transitioning illegals over the last nearly 25 years.
Note that the number of illegals jumped to nearly 10 million by 2000, but supposedly haven’t jumped anything near that in the subsequent 13 years.
By rights, there should be 25 or so million illegals here.
If there are only 11-12 million here now, then somehow they have been transitioning to something else, legal citizenship.
If this all passes, it will be interesting to see how many register to remain here.
We will have to work hard to prevent passage, even there!
I thought that Kirk was actually against it?
Maybe because he is smart enough to realize that his 70,000 vote margin in 2010 in Illinois is toast if amnesty passes. Maybe because he has some principles worthy of a Republican.
As an Illinois conservative and zealous defender of the 2nd amendment, Kirk generally really, really pisses me off. But if he comes through against amnesty I guess I’ll have to support him in 2016. The alternative is Senator First Chewbacca, or someone equally bad. If he votes for it, I’ll donate to his 2016 primary opponent and vote Libertarian in the general.
This state sucks.
So this is genuinely what Americans want? To give illegals citizenship? Really?
I think these people forgot what their job is- to represent U.S. citizens, not citizens of other countries.
Complete, and total foolish remark (and hurtful to serious conservatives and responsible 2A folks) !