Don’t Just Count the Votes: What the One Big Bill Teaches Us About Political Intensity
A framework for decoding how political pressure overrides conventional signals of political feasibility.
On July 15, Republican Senator Josh Hawley introduced legislation to reverse key Medicaid provisions of the "One Big Beautiful Bill" he had just voted to pass eleven days earlier [1]. What does it mean when politicians vote against their own stated policy positions? The answer shows how political receptivity works—and why it often defies conventional logic.
The Political Stream Paradox
The passage of Trump's OBBB offers a masterclass in why political receptivity assessment is more art than science. As I detailed in my analysis of Republican electoral vulnerabilities due to Medicaid cuts, this legislation faced significant political headwinds: only 39% public support, vocal opposition from rural hospitals, and internal Republican skepticism about defending Medicaid cuts to fund tax reductions.
Yet it passed. And politicians like Hawley, who clearly understood the policy problems, voted for it anyway.
This paradox illustrates why simply adding up political indicators can mislead analysts. To understand political feasibility, we need to examine the "political stream" - one of three key components in John Kingdon's Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) for understanding how ideas reach the policy agenda and how policies get adopted [3].
Backgrounder: Kingdon's Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) identifies three "streams" of factors that must come together (be “coupled”) for major policy change. The problem stream involves how issues get defined as problems requiring government attention. The policy stream involves the development of viable solutions by policy communities. The political stream involves the political conditions that make action possible or impossible. When skilled policy entrepreneurs successfully "couple" all three streams during an open policy window, significant policy change becomes possible.
The Three-Headed Giant Problem
Think of the political stream like the three-headed giant from the classic comedy movie, Monty Python and the Holy Grail. In the scene, the giant's three heads encounter “brave” Sir Robin and must decide what to do with him. The heads represent different perspectives: one wants to kill him immediately, another suggests asking questions first, and the third proposes a more elaborate approach. They argue extensively about the right course of action, unable to reach consensus, until eventually the stronger voice, advocating lethal action, prevails.
(Need a refresher? The YouTube clip below captures the scene.)
The key insight? The heads don't need to agree on methodology or reasoning - they just need to generate enough momentum to act. But while they debate, Sir Robin escapes. The policy window closes because they couldn't convert their mixed signals into decisive action.
In political analysis, the three "heads" of the political stream are national mood, the balance of organized interest forces, and events within government itself. Like Monte Python’s three-headed giant, these components rarely align perfectly. The critical skill for analysts is learning to assess whether they can generate enough momentum in the same direction despite their disagreements.
Teaching Yourself to Read Mixed Political Signals
Policy professionals need to do more than simply tally up the political indicators: public opinion up or down, interest groups for or against, government officials supportive or opposed. In fact, this binary approach misses the intensity dynamics that actually determine outcomes.
Here's how to develop more sophisticated political assessment skills using the OBBB case:
Step 1: Map the Components, Then Assess Their Intensity
Drawing on my prior post [2]:
National Mood: The polling was brutal - only 39% of Americans supported the legislation, with just 67% of Republicans backing their own party's priority. This represents a clear negative signal, but how intense was that opposition? Was it passive disapproval or active resistance? The Republican polling numbers suggest internal party concerns, but not revolt. Party messaging that the cuts were needed to eliminate waste and abuse further moderated public concerns.
Organized Interest Forces: Rural hospitals were intensely opposed to Medicaid cuts, creating concrete local pressure. Conservative think tanks provided intellectual cover, but their abstract arguments about program effectiveness couldn't compete with warnings about hospital closures. Democratic opposition was unified and effective. The balance leaned negative, but the intensity was concentrated in specific constituencies rather than broad mobilization.
Events in Government: President Trump's Republican pressure campaign created enormous institutional force. His demand that Congress remain in session until passage, combined with the artificial July 4th deadline, generated daily political costs for delay. He publicly called out Republicans who resisted, even threatening to mount a primary challenge to defeat members up for reelection in the 2026 midterm elections [4]. Leadership used procedural leverage and personal persuasion to maintain party discipline.
Step 2: Identify the Dominant Intensity
Rather than simply counting two negative components against one positive, ask: which component carries the most immediate consequences for Congressional decision-makers? Trump's deadline pressure created daily political costs for delay, while public opinion polling and constituent impacts represented more distant electoral risks. Hawley's behavior illustrates this perfectly - he clearly opposed the policy content but calculated that immediate party loyalty outweighed longer-term policy concerns.
Step 3: Consider Policy Sustainability
Strong pressure from government events can force short-term alignment, but can it persist if the underlying national mood and interest group balance remain negative? The answer to this question separates temporary political success from durable policy achievement. Analysts can look to indicators like Sen. Hawley’s bill introduction to that suggest future Medicaid policy developments. Passage via the OBBB is not the end of the Medicaid cuts story.
The Intensity Calculation Framework
When facing mixed political signals, use this framework to improve your political stream assessment:
Immediate vs. Distant Consequences
Which pressures create costs today versus tomorrow? Politicians typically prioritize immediate political survival over abstract future risks. Trump's demand to have the bill on his desk for signing by July 4, or remain in session until it was done, created daily pressure; public opinion creates electoral pressure months away.
Concentrated vs. Diffuse Opposition
Intense opposition from organized constituencies (rural hospitals) often matters more than broad but passive public disapproval. In the OBBB case, compromise softened the blow: a separate fund was created to support rural hospitals. In contrast, concentrated opposition from within your own coalition (Republican members) can be decisive.
Sustained vs. Short-lived Pressure
Can the current intensity be sustained? Leadership pressure tactics work temporarily but may not be repeatable, as friction mounts. Public opinion can shift suddenly, but the positions held by powerful interests tend to persist.
Substitute vs. Complementary Forces
Can one strong component compensate for other weak components? Trump's institutional pressure substituted for weak public support, but this may create vulnerability in the future if the levels of intensity shift.
Practical Application Questions
When assessing political feasibility in your own work, ask these diagnostic questions:
What are the different time horizons driving each component? Hawley prioritized immediate party loyalty over longer-term policy sustainability - a calculation that may prove wise or costly depending on how conditions evolve.
Which decision-makers face the highest immediate costs for opposing a position? Trump's pressure campaign worked because it created immediate political costs for delay that exceeded the more distant costs of supporting unpopular policies.
How sustainable is the current intensity balance? Strong procedural pressure can force short-term decisions, but policies passed through institutional leverage rather than genuine coalition-building face greater long-term vulnerability.
Are you measuring the right indicators? Public opinion polling matters, but leadership pressure, procedural deadlines, and coalition discipline may matter more in the short term.
Questions for Future Observation
Hawley's reversal legislation provides a natural experiment for testing these dynamics. His original vote suggests that government pressure can override policy preferences, but his subsequent reversal bill indicates that this override may be temporary. Watch for signs that the political stream's components are realigning: shifts in public opinion polling, changes in organized interest group positioning, or new events within government that alter the pressure dynamics. Remember that policies are not simply defined by the language contained in an adopted bill. Future legislation can modify this language, and implementation details can shift the on-the-ground effects of a bill’s formal language.
The broader question is whether procedural force can substitute for substantive political alignment over time. History suggests that policies passed through institutional pressure rather than genuine coalition-building face greater vulnerability when political conditions shift.
As you observe future political developments, practice distinguishing between direction and intensity. A component weakly supporting your preferred position may matter less than a component strongly opposing it. The MSF reminds us that political feasibility isn't just about assessing political receptivity in the moment. It’s also about generating enough momentum to overcome natural political resistance over time. That’s especially true when resistance includes legitimate concerns about policy consequences.
This skill - reading political intensity rather than just political direction - separates sophisticated political analysis from simple vote counting. Master it, and you'll better understand why outcomes like the OBBB's passage surprise conventional wisdom while making perfect sense through the lens of political stream dynamics.
Sources
[1] Hawley, Josh. 2025. "Hawley Introduces Legislation to Prevent Future Medicaid Cuts, Invest in Rural Hospitals" U.S. Senate. July 15. Press release: https://www.hawley.senate.gov/hawley-introduces-legislation-to-prevent-future-medicaid-cuts-invest-in-rural-hospitals/
[2] Dolan, Dana. 2025. "Republicans Risk Electoral Suicide Over Medicaid Cuts They Can't Defend." Views Through a Policy Prism. July 12. https://danadolan.substack.com/p/republicans-risk-electoral-suicide
[3] Kingdon, John W. [1984] 2011. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Updated Second Edition. New York: Longman.
[4] Politico, June 29, 2025. “Thom Tillis says he will retire following Trump attacks.” https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/29/thom-tillis-retires-00432045