In thinking about the question posed by
@timschochetto start the thread, I think much of it hinges on how one should interpret a "no" vote on the bill. As best as I can explain:
1) Some people, like timschochet, seem to be looking at the vote as a take-it-or-leave-it type situation. Democrats are the majority and are the only party that can even bring a bill to the floor. Republicans should know they aren't going to get the bill that they want. It's either the Democratic bill or nothing. If it's just a binary choice like that, even Republicans who oppose certain parts of the bill should still vote for it because there is widespread agreement that something needs to be done and this bill is better than doing nothing. One unflattering way to interpret the Republican no votes is as an expression that "the downsides of this bill are worse than the upsides" which is a view that seems prettty easy to criticize when the bill would help alleviate so much suffering.
2) Most Republicans, on the other hand, seem to be looking it more as "this bill is much different from the bill that I would choose, so I am going to vote against it." They know that it will pass and they want their "no" vote to be perceived as a "I didn't vote for THESE parts of the bill." If they can get people to buy that narrative, then they get the advantage of being able to criticize any parts of the bill that prove to be unsuccessful or unpopular, while still giving the impression that they would have voted for the bill if only that stuff wasn't in there.
I don't think there's a clear answer about how a "no" vote should or will be interpreted. Both interpretations seem pretty reasonable. I'd imagine that mainstream media will largely present it as #1 (look at these horrible Republicans who won't vote to help people!) while right-wing media will largely present it as #2 (look at these horrible Democrats who put all this bad stuff in the bill!)
The people will be similarly divided.