Two readers offer completely contradictory views on what it means that so many vulnerable and wavering House Democrats chose to vote “yes” on a resolution approving use of the deem-and-pass/demonpass maneuver.

The optimist, a smart, well-plugged in reader:

If a Democrat is planning to vote NO on the bill, it doesn’t hurt to vote YES on Slaughter as some proactive restitution to Pelosi. The majority party has to win a procedural vote. It also keeps Pelosi’s henchmen at bay for a few hours. I note that both Nye and Dahlkemper voted NO, which is truly encouraging.

The pessimist: “How many ‘yes’ on demonpass and will vote ‘no’ on the healthcare bill . . . I’d bet less than 5.”

Today’s result surprised me, because I figured a vote on health-care bill is easier to defend than this maneuver. On health-care, you can argue, ‘Yes, I didn’t like X, Y, and Z, but I liked that the bill wouldn’t allow health-insurance companies to turn down applicants for preexisting conditions,’ etc.

On deem-and-pass, the defense is “Well, it’s legal.” Voters can’t get their heads around passing a bill without voting on it, and they aren’t interested in hearing about how the other guys did it too (considering how nothing that it was used on had as far-reaching impact this bill does). It looks like an attempt to hide one’s vote, and it adds to the notion that this is a bill you don’t want to brag about supporting.

The logic of the House Democrat mind eludes me sometimes.