Please be patient and understanding when interacting with others, and avoid getting frustrated or upset if someone does not respond to your posts or if a discussion does not go as you expected. Remember that everyone is entitled to express their own perspectives. Furthermore, even when you don't entirely agree, try to benefit in some way from it.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 2
It will be quite interesting, to say the least, to see what happens with the Speaker of the House elections today. Leaving aside Kevin McCarthy's merits (or lack thereof), it's a fascinating example of collective action problems. All of the members want a Speaker to be chosen - it's not really hyperbole to suggest that a Speaker must be chosen - but it is equally certain that there is no single candidate that 218 Republicans will all prefer. How that gets worked out will be really intriguing to watch.
Albaby
No. of Recommendations: 2
Interesting for sure. McCarthy is being blocked by the hardcore MAGA Republicans. There is some speculation the MAGA wing wants one of their own like Jim Jordan and will continue to Block McCarthy until they get their way. There is also some speculation centrist Republicans could join with centrist Democrats and elect a moderate Republican. That scenario seems a bit far fetched, but we'll see.
No. of Recommendations: 1
I've even heard scenarios - admittedly very VERY far fetched scenarios - in which Hakeem Jeffries could be elected Speaker!
No. of Recommendations: 2
Interesting, yes. But I don't get it. He seems to be being blocked by hardcore right-wingers, even though he also is a hardcore right-winger. Is he somehow not "pure" enough, similar to progressives saying (for example) Biden isn't progressive enough? What I've read about McCarthy, he's a die-hard Trumpie who thinks Jan 6 wasn't a big deal, and certainly doesn't blame Trump for it, and didn't think a commission to investigate was appropriate.
I don't get it. I'm enjoying it (i.e. the turmoil), but it doesn't make sense to me.
I also don't get how they keep voting over and over, for the same guy, expecting a different result. Is it just bullying until McCarthy is elected? That's not how elections are supposed to work. May as well be Saddam claiming he won an election with 90% of the vote...may as well not have the election at all.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I also don't get how they keep voting over and over, for the same guy, expecting a different result. Is it just bullying until McCarthy is elected? That's not how elections are supposed to work. May as well be Saddam claiming he won an election with 90% of the vote...may as well not have the election at all.
They are in backrooms trying to cut deals. The holdouts want plum committee assignments and chairs, which presumably already have been promised to other Members of Congress. Each side is hoping the other will crack first. I think it is a good chance it won't be the MAGAs. They seem to delight in burning things to the ground.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Interesting, yes. But I don't get it. He seems to be being blocked by hardcore right-wingers, even though he also is a hardcore right-winger. Is he somehow not "pure" enough, similar to progressives saying (for example) Biden isn't progressive enough?
Somewhat.
McCarthy generally is an "establishment" kind of guy, at least to the eyes of the more extreme members of the Freedom Caucus crowd. As such, he's not willing to use "nuclear option" kinds of tactics to achieve certain goals. There's a subset of the GOP that thinks that they'd achieve more of their goals if they, for example, just let the U.S. crash into the debt ceiling rather than agree to raise it unless they got their wish list satisfied.
So the objectors don't trust McCarthy to go scorched earth the way they want. Some of them are holding out for rules changes that will allow them to force him out at a moment's notice if he doesn't do what they want. Some of them are so distrustful of him that they won't accept him even if he gave them the rules they want. And some of them just dislike him personally because they know he thinks they're awful.
The strategy both sides are employing is to keep ding the same thing over and over, hoping that external forces pressure the other side to fold. McCarthy's hoping enough of the MAGA crowd will get pissed off at the Freedom Caucus and start telling them to cave; the Freedom Caucus is hoping enough McCarthy supporters will get tired of the GOP looking the fool on the nightly news and tell Kevin that it isn't happening.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Apparently they are at 6 and counting.
Really...it's obvious enough people don't want him. Choose someone else. Not that I care about the far right wing, but it doesn't seem like any way to run a serious political party.
https://news.yahoo.com/kevin-mccarthy-loses-vote-h...It's basically saying "you're going to get him whether you like it or not, so deal with it!". Which isn't how our system is supposed to work, with the understanding that the parties can actually do anything they want internally.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Some of them are so distrustful of him that they won't accept him even if he gave them the rules they want He keeps giving them more and more, and it will never be enough. The semi-amusing thing is that even if they get everything they want, it won't be enough because he will have damaged himself with everyone else and taken away nearly any bargaining chip he might have used in the future to corral reluctant members.
I am not predicting anything, but in Pennsylvania they just made a Democrat Speaker of their House, even though there are more Republicans seated.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/04/us/pennsylvania...I can also envision (though I am not saying it likely) that Democrats could be convinced to support a moderate Republican rather than Kevin, but only after Republicans have humiliated themselves for weeks or possibly months.
Where this ends is hard to say. McCarthy won't blink, the extremists are, well, extremist nihilists so' they won't either. This could go on forever, or Kevin could give them everything they want (including the ability to fire him at a moment's notice, which would be fatal anyway) and get the job, temporarily.
No. of Recommendations: 3
for example, just let the U.S. crash into the debt ceiling
Perhaps they should talk with Liz Truss about this, and see how this kind of conservative financial thinking ends...
Alan
No. of Recommendations: 5
Really...it's obvious enough people don't want him. Choose someone else.
A fair chunk of the party doesn't want to. The stakes are higher than that.
There's a bit more at issue than just the identity of the Speaker. The anti-McCarthy faction wants to increase their ability to affect the direction of the GOP over the next two years. Letting them pick a Speaker gives them a vast amount of power over that Speaker. No matter who it is. Winning the fight is what gives them the power, not whether there's any real policy difference between McCarthy and the non-McCarthy Speaker. Sure, some of them probably have personal beef with McCarthy. But at the end of the day, they benefit enormously from being able to walk into the Speaker's office and remind him that they put him in that chair - and can take him out.
For some of the party, this is in some ways a Fight Worth Having - a test of how much power is going to be given to/seized by the Freedom Caucus. If you let them win this fight, you've pretty much lost every future legislative fight - over the debt ceiling, over spending bills, over any must-pass legislation.
That's because what these folks want - what they need - is to hobble the ability of the Speaker to pass bills with Democratic votes. They have a few dozen members, which is enough to stop any bill that Democrats also object to. But it's not enough to stop bills that Republicans support and could get Democratic votes (like, say, a bill to raise the debt ceiling). They need to be able to force the Speaker to not bring them to the floor. They need to be able to force the Speaker to let them lard those bills up with poison-pill amendments. They need a veto.
Albaby
No. of Recommendations: 0
I see.
So the proper response would be "well, if you won't go our way then we'll nominate someone that enough Dems can get behind to get him/her elected". I suspect the dissenters would rather McCarthy than a moderate Dem.
Interesting that for once the Reps aren't in lock-step. They almost always vote in a unified block, while Dems are like herding cats (or, as the famous quote goes, "I don't belong to an organized political party; I'm a Democrat").
No. of Recommendations: 2
So the proper response would be "well, if you won't go our way then we'll nominate someone that enough Dems can get behind to get him/her elected". I suspect the dissenters would rather McCarthy than a moderate Dem.
That's certainly the threat (though the threatened Speaker would likely be a moderate Republican, not a moderate Democrat). But the Democrats aren't going to bail the GOP out of this mess without getting something in return. They'd be perfectly happy to cast 212 votes for Jeffries and let the GOP twist in the wind until the spring. They'd want some sort of power-sharing agreement where the Dems support a GOP Speaker, and the rules get revised to give the Democrats some prerogatives they wouldn't normally have under a Republican Speaker (like being able to introduce legislation or beefed up committee powers). It is by far the least likely outcome, since any GOP member-elects that cut that kind of deal would be ostracized from the party and the new Speaker would be utterly unable to function.
For now, though, it looks like the "I Could Do This All Day" phase of posturing is continuing. They're running the seventh ballot now, and there will be no Speaker on this one (I counted at least five Donalds votes).
No. of Recommendations: 3
This seems to me to be a leadership moment for Hakeem Jeffries.
He calls some respected, moderate, organized, established, across-the-aisle Republican Congressman/woman and says: overnight, I could corral thirty Democratic votes for you as Speaker.
He says: My conditions are bipartisanship, compromise, old-fashioned horse trading. We spend the next two years wrangling BUT we move the ball forward.
The middle 75% of the electorate -- the part composed of mature grownups, who are beyond sick of this nonsense -- will be relieved. You will be reelected.
And our allies will exhale.
And our country will be better than it is now. Because, you know, the legislative branch would actually be doing its job for the first time in far too long.
Would the GOP reflexively cut off such a "traitor"? The current GOP lockstep members would try. But were I (ha!) the R congressman that Jeffries called, I'd stake my political career on the current frustration being enough to tip the scales for enough to follow me.
Likewise, there would be gnashing of teeth on the far left.
It would depend on Jeffries not being greedy, at all.
--sutton
not a Congressman, thankyouverymuch
No. of Recommendations: 4
Would the GOP reflexively cut off such a "traitor"? The current GOP lockstep members would try. But were I (ha!) the R congressman that Jeffries called, I'd stake my political career on the current frustration being enough to tip the scales for enough to follow me.
Maybe that's where we end up. But we're only on Day 4 of the stalemate. The Members are frustrated, and there's been some negative media coverage - but really, only political junkies are really tuned into this. I think it has to drag well into next week, when staffers start going unpaid and Members are going onto talk shows and still having to wryly acknowledge that they aren't actually Congresscritters yet until they get sworn in, that the pressure will really start to build.
My new favorite take on this, forwarded to me:
"This never happened when I was Speaker."
- George Santos
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm not following this particularly closely. Usually the headline "11th vote underway" pops up, but I've stopped reading the actual articles after the first few votes. They seem to be saying the same thing, just incrementing the number.
But if I understood one of the first articles correctly, aren't they hoping that members of Congress go home and then hold a snap vote? If some aren't present, then the number of votes they need changes. I'm imagining them sleeping in their offices.
No. of Recommendations: 2
But if I understood one of the first articles correctly, aren't they hoping that members of Congress go home and then hold a snap vote?
No, not really. Rather, McCarthy's strategy involves peeling off holdouts by giving in to some of their demands. He pulled an additional dozen of them by conceding to their request that a single Member can call for the Speaker to be removed.
I'm not sure that there's anyone that could convene the House out of adjournment to call a snap vote, once it's been adjourned to a specific time the next day. There isn't a Speaker. Heck, there aren't any Members. The Clerk is running these proceedings, since under the House Rules she has the authority to assemble the Members-elect and oversee the election of a Speaker. And she's not going to initiate any parliamentary tricks like that.
There were only seven votes for someone other than McCarthy (and Jeffries) in the last round - down from 20. Looks like McCarthy's just going to try to wear down the last ones with offers and concessions.
