The best chance to save DACA failed today in the Senate. Three more Republican votes would have been necessary for it to have had a chance, even though it did prove to be the most bipartisan plan out there with anywhere near the support needed to pass the Senate. What happens next is uncertain, although "Congress takes yet another week off with a serious deadline staring them in the face" would probably be a safe guess.

There were four immigration votes held in the Senate today, although one was largely unrelated to DACA and the Dreamer problem. There was a DACA bill from Republicans which closely mirrored the wish list from the White House, there was a centrist DACA bill put together by a large bipartisan group (led by Susan Collins of Maine), and there was a minimalist DACA bill from Chris Coons of Delaware and John McCain of Arizona.

The minimalist bill would have traded the DACA fix for some additional border security money, but would have ignored the other two big items on Trump's wish list (changing family reunification policy and ending the diversity visa lottery). This bill failed with a vote of 52-47 (all of these are procedural votes which require 60 to prevail). This really should be seen as a 53-47 margin, though, since John McCain wasn't present to cast a vote (assuming he'd vote for a bill he himself sponsored).

The centrist bill had the DACA fix, money for both border security and Trump's beloved wall (although not all at once, the way Trump is demanding it), restrictions on the DACA kids being able to sponsor their parents, but no changes to the visa lottery. The official vote for this measure was 54-45, but the actual margin may have been more like 58-42. Again, John McCain was not present, although he probably would have voted for it (I state this with nothing more than a gut feeling on how McCain would vote, I fully admit). The other three votes were from Democrats. The Hill explains:

A few Democrats, including Sens. Kamala Harris (Calif.), Martin Heinrich (N.M.) and Tom Udall (N.M.), withheld their votes until it was clear the measure could not get to 60, and then voted against it.

Udall and Heinrich released a statement explaining the bill would have provided funding for Trump's border wall.

. . .

Harris's last-second vote put her on the opposite side of the tally from several other Democratic senators seen as 2020 hopefuls, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.) and Cory Booker (N.J.).

Harris said after the vote that she "could not in good conscience" support the centrist group's proposal.

"I recognize that my colleagues faced the impossible challenge of crafting a bill that could meet the White House's unreasonable and ever-shifting demands. But regrettably this bill is simply not the answer," she said.

The key phrase in all of that is that they "withheld their votes until it was clear the measure could not get to 60." This is telling, because it suggests that if the bill had gotten 57 other votes, these three may have held their noses and gone along with it anyway. Perhaps, perhaps not -- it's impossible to say for certain, but it is suggestive.

If that is true (and if McCain were present), then the bill really only needed two additional votes. By my back-of-the-envelope figuring, if 46 Democrats voted for the bill, that means that eight Republicans are already on board. Add in McCain and the three Democrats, and the bill would only be two votes shy of passing. Getting two more GOP votes may not be possible, but it certainly is tantalizingly close.

The final Senate vote today was on the White House plan, but it went down by a whopping 39-60. This means at least 11 Republicans voted against it, even with both Trump and Mitch McConnell cheerleading for it.

There was an additional vote on a standalone measure to punish sanctuary cities, but this was seen as a purely political vote to be used in attack ads this November. It didn't address any of the rest of what is being debated within it, so it isn't even really relevant to the DACA discussion.

The clock is ticking for the DACA people. March 5th is currently the day they lose their legal protection. This has been thrown somewhat into limbo by two federal judges ruling that DACA cannot be cut off even after that date, but these are temporary rulings and could be overturned at any time. After Congress returns from their weeklong Presidents' Day holiday break, the pressure to act will be far greater than it already is.

At this point, most of the problem is what Kamala Harris identified as "the impossible challenge of crafting a bill that could meet the White House's unreasonable and ever-shifting demands." Trump is obviously listening closest to Stephen Miller, the immigration hardliner reportedly responsible for coming up with the White House wish list in the first place. But even more importantly, John Kelly also is reported to draw a pretty hard line of his own on immigration.

Trump on his own (without all the puppetmasters pulling his strings) would likely accept anything that crossed his desk. Trump fully admitted as much one month ago (before he was talked into his current "my way or the highway" stance), while meeting with congressional leadership from both parties:

I think my positions are going to be what the people in this room come up with. I am very much reliant on the people in this room. I know most of the people on both sides, I have a lot of respect for the people on both sides, and what I approve is going to be very much reliant on what the people in this room come to me with. I have great confidence. If they come to me with things that I'm not in love with, I'm going to do it, because I respect them.

That, obviously, is not operative any more. But it could become so again, given the mercurial nature of Trump. This is one of the reasons why the bipartisan bill got so much Republican support, even though Trump was loudly campaigning against it at the last minute. If the bill could be tweaked enough to convince a few more GOP senators, Trump could just do a complete reversal and declare victory.

Of course, this is all merely examining what might possibly make it out of the Senate in the next few weeks. The House is an entirely different kettle of fish. Nobody really knows what the bipartisan Senate bill's chances would be in the House, if Paul Ryan ever actually allowed a vote on it (which is also in question). Ryan's already on the record stating he'll only bring up a bill Trump has gotten behind, so that could be an easy excuse to do absolutely nothing, even if the Senate has acted.

The chances for a breakthrough on DACA and immigration policy got worse today, that is indisputable. But then the chances were never all that high to begin with, really. It was somewhat heartening to see eight Republicans vote for a bipartisan bill, but it still fell short of the goal. Three more Republican votes are necessary for the bill to even have a chance, and that would also mean convincing the three Democrats who voted no to flip their votes, as well. Working all this out in the first week of March is still possible, but it's got to be seen as a longshot, at this point.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant