Anyway, did anyone notice what's been happening? As I predicted once McCain did a repeat performance of his schtick from "skinny repeal," we've started to see more Senators coming out against Graham-Cassidy. In particular... Ted Cruz!
Observe my total lack of surprise at that one. Why? What have I been saying all along about Rand Paul? It's all just posturing from a drama-clubber who has to call every bill not-conservative-enough. You know who's pissed off that he didn't get in on that action earlier? Ted Cruz. Too bad, Ron Johnson, you shouldn't have signed onto the bill!
Now, look at the coalition of opponents! Susan Collins is strongly intimating that she is against the bill. She hasn't come out as a hard no, but the likelihood that she votes yes, at this point, is low. You would have to bet against her support. For the purposes of this post, let's assume she votes no, which I basically have all along anyway. The no coalition among the GOP, then, includes Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and... Susan Collins.
Does that sound odd to you? With... Bill Cassidy and Lindsey Graham, and the leadership and most of the caucus supporting the bill? It is what we sometimes call an "ends-against-the-middle" division. And it isn't supposed to happen in conventional spatial theory. You are supposed to be able to draw a clear dividing line between the supporters and the opponents of a bill, with supporters on the right, and opponents on the left, or vice versa. What's going on?
Short version: Susan Collins is a sincere opponent of Graham-Cassidy. She actually, truly looks at it, and thinks that Obamacare is better. Remember, her Maine-twin, former Sen. Olympia Snowe, actually voted to report the version that mostly became law out of the Senate Finance Committee. Snowe did vote against the bill on the floor, but Collins's twin was kind of ambivalent on Obamacare versus the pre-Obamacare status quo. Collins doesn't actually hate Obamacare. She really isn't that fond of Graham-Cassidy. Her concerns are sincere.
Rand Paul and Ted Cruz? They don't actually think that the policies of Graham-Cassidy are worse than Obamacare. Graham-Cassidy cuts funding and undercuts regulation. From their perspective, it is better, but not perfect. Why oppose it? Some combination of two factors: a) posturing and signaling their moral purity to conservative activists, and b) not wanting to vote yes on any bill that isn't perfect, making no the default vote, which was precisely the argument of my paper at the MPSA earlier this year.
The result? The coalition of Susan Collins, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, with Ted Cruz freed up to join the no coalition by the demonstration that the bill is doomed anyway. Would Ted Cruz cast the deciding vote against Graham-Cassidy? Fuck no, and I'll have more research on that forthcoming soon, but for now, I'll just leave that as what should be an obvious point.
Anyway, for now, I'll just say that I called it in my MPSA paper this past April. Gridlock, resulting from a bunch of people who just vote no on everything.