Highlights: Their third speaker pick in three weeks lasted barely four hours. Now, with their desperation on full display, Republicans are trying again.
The House GOP is convening Tuesday night for its fourth internal huddle of the day as it hears from yet another unwieldy field of candidates to lead its broken ranks. No one has demonstrated the ability to do what the three previous failed speaker hopefuls couldn’t: Unite enough Republicans to land 217 votes on the floor.
Two members of tonight’s five-man field have already run and lost. That includes Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), the second highest vote-getter earlier Tuesday.
There’s little hope for relief among the bitterly divided GOP, where the fruitless search for a speaker has become so miserable that some members even floated a return to former Speaker Kevin McCarthy — with Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) as an “assistant speaker.” (The idea has not been taken seriously inside the conference.)
[M]any Republicans fear they’ve reached the point where no candidate can get 217 votes on the floor.
Yeah, that’s why Democrats let them vote the speaker out in the first place, so the party of loose cannon renegades can come face to face with the consequences of being a party of people who are more interested in being the protagonist than in working together. Surprise surprise, the party committed to being a thorn in the side of federal government isn’t able to function as federal government.
I feel like this is exactly what the most disruptive members are wanting. Maybe I’m just being cynical and this is way off point, but it feels to me like they want a non-functioning federal government. This entire shit show is the plan. The wrench in the gears.
It’s more than “the most disruptive” members of the GOP. It wouldn’t take but a handful of reasonable members to vote for Hakeem to get out of this rut. Of course, they probably wouldn’t get elected again, even though not doing so will cause serious damage to the country.
I don’t expect them to put country over party, just like I don’t expect them to put country over their jobs. Too cowardly.
Imagine the opposite and The Squad was preventing Democrats from electing a Speaker until they get a promise to do X far-left thing. Would you really think the “reasonable” Democrats should just send 5 votes to Jim Jordan to get the Speakership finalized?
It’s just an insane idea to think anyone would give the opposing political party power rather than literally anyone from their own party. It’s not a reasonable ask.
At this point I think we are likely to see Democrats make a deal for extra committee seats in exchange for the last few votes to get a moderate elected, eventually, but there is a zero percent chance a Democrat becomes Speaker.
Imagine the opposite and The Squad was preventing Democrats from electing a Speaker until they get a promise to do X far-left thing. Would you really think the “reasonable” Democrats should just send 5 votes to Jim Jordan to get the Speakership finalized?
You think Democrats would turn down an opportunity to work with Republicans and against progressive members of their own caucus?
Manchin and Senima already have
deleted by creator
As a counter-point: every House member goes up for re-election every two years. So lets say the moderate House Republicans vote Jeffries in.
A possible complication: I don’t know, does that stupid “anyone can ask to vote you out of office” rule stay in place? In which case, Jeffries probably doesn’t last a full year (I think the rule says that once moved, the next item of business has to be the vote. And the disruptors would just keep moving the motion).
Regardless of the vote-him-out situation, Jeffries would still be working with a Republican majority that really doesn’t want to be seen working with the Democrats, so I’m not sure how much would actually get done, other than a budget (which, granted, is very important). And then next fall the moderate Republicans are all voted out of office and maybe replaced by more MAGAts.
Is a possible advantage lasting just a few months worth the permanent loss of some Republican moderates? Especially with Biden running for re-election and unlikely to do much that will disrupt his chances?
I’m not good with political math, nor do I know all the possible detailed repercussions, , but it’s something to think about.
Maybe but I really think they thought they could hold the position hostage. That moderates would kowtow to their whims rather than not function.
Well, theyre ideology consists of “not what democrats want.” They aren’t for anything, only against progress or human rights/equality.
To hear them tell it, government is the enemy, incompetent, and worse at anything it attempts. Unless they’re in charge and levying it against their opponents, of course.
They’re in a race to prove themselves right so they can go “sEe???”
But also hate on brown people
The Israel war really puts that on a back foot. They can’t just wait on the shutdown and do nothing. They are being hammered on all sides for our inaction as Israel support is popular in both parties, and it’s crystal clear whose fault not getting aid is.
Diehards wont give a shit, but independents do pay attention to dysfunction. The GOP are such a shitshow of gossiping Hyena’s, the media is all in on displaying it too, which helps tons.
Yeah exactly, they were handed exactly enough rope to hang themselves
Somebody measured twice and cut that rope once.
Me? I measure 3…4…23 times and cut even more times. It’s embarrassing, really.
They fucked around and found out.
“Why would the democrats do this?”
First time in history the minority party is so strong they can dethrone the speaker and leave the entire GOP in shambles.
Eh. It’s more that the “majority” party is just that weak. And incompetent.
Will the GOP have to expel the renegade caucus to function as a party? Tune in next week to find out, as the Dems take center stage in our new format: Plurality Rules!
Do they actually have a mechanism for that? And given how much influence that group has on their party and their size in it’s electorate, who would be expelling who?
There is a mechanism to expel any member of Congress, just needs a 2/3rd vote. So it would need cooperation from Democrats.
Plus the whole issue here is that there isn’t a group of 217 who could govern, unless you include Democrats. Vote out the 8 Republicans who voted out McCarthy and suddenly Democrats have the majority.
There is a mechanism to expel any member of Congress, just needs a 2/3rd vote. So it would need cooperation from Democrats.
I don’t think the Democrats would mind giving a helping hand in such a case.
Short answer is, “yes”, they can expell them from their party. Party leadership isn’t exactly democratic. (Or not necessarily democratic. They could operate by council appointment instead.)
Longer answer is it’s irrelevant- you need a majority of the house to elect a speaker. Expelling them from the party does nothing to change that they too have a vote.
They’d have to have a vote on the floor to impeach and expell the from congress and incidentally, they have to have a speaker to do that
Couldn’t they lost their majority if they starts expelling them?
Yes, which is why it won’t happen
Now that would be interesting!
I wonder how long it will take the Republicans to understand that they are so totally broken as a party that the only way out of this mess is actually put government over party and vote for a Democratic speaker. Luckily, this only takes a handful of Republicans coming to their senses.
Honestly I think this is what they want. Is the end game to starve the beast, regulatory capture, and every other “let’s break the government to show the government doesn’t work”.
If people think any politician involved directly in this debacle right now is really concerned about how they look, they aren’t. Their voters have already swallowed the pill, lined up and pledged undying allegiance.
I think a Democrat speaker would be a horrible idea for democrats. It sounds cool, but it would be bad politically most likely. They could put things up for a vote that they want, but it doesn’t give them majority so they can’t actually pass anything. It just gives Republicans something to blame (in a very stupid way, but a way that’d work for the politically ill-informed) instead of them getting the blame for all of it.
The only “good” option I think is a republican that is picked by the democrats and concessions saying they’ll bring anything to a vote with a certain amount of bipartisan support. Maybe also concessions to vote a certain way for upcoming things, like the budget.
Well, we now know that didn’t happen, either.
Yeah, sadly. They managed to select a Christo-fascist. Good stuff…
At this point I think it’s more likely for centrists dems to bail out the GOP for zero concessions than any republican to come to their senses.
GOP is a cult, you can’t just up and leave a cult.
oh my fucking god please please please please PLEASE stay absolutely fucked to death forever.
Is it Britain that has the vote of no confidence thingy? Let’s do that.
What they need is a so-called “constructive vote of no confidence” like in Germany: You cannot just vote one person out, you have to vote a replacement in to remove the old one.
Das a good idea
It’s a feature of a lot of parliamentary systems in general. It’s honestly nice to have the shake up when things are at a standstill in parliament, even if the sometimes constant elections are annoying at times. It also helps to have more than just two viable political parties, also.
I would love to see a Dem somehow step forward, and for just enough republicans vote to get them in as speaker.
Dems gotta jam a MAGA hat onto Hakim Jeffries and get this shit done!
I like the cut of your jib, but I think I’d much rather see some of the few moderate Republicans in Biden districts eat some crow and vote for Hakim without their beloved political theatre.
This just in! Republicans don’t know what to do and can’t agree on anything without a figurehead dictating everything. More at 11.
