Next Speaker of the House? (2 Viewers)

[MT15]

There’s a lot of doubt that Kevin McCarthy will be able to get enough votes to become Speaker. It certainly won’t happen on the first ballot. Already Boboert and MTG are publicly at odds over it.

Maybe this is worth it’s own thread to watch. One person mentioned is Scalise.

 

[Incumbent]

...moderate Republicans should have just worked with Democrats to elect Jeffries...

 

[superchuck500]

So 22 no votes for Jordan. He's toast.

Wonder if they're gonna go with MaHenry now.

I think it will be someone else - or there may be a push to give McHenry a temporary "elected" status to move legislation while they re-group. I don't think there's (yet) a push for McHenry to elect McHenry in full.

 

[superchuck500]

We’re only in the second round of votes

it took 15 for McCarthy

True but I do think this is different. That was the first order of business after the swearing in a traditionally a time where the House business waits for Speaker election. The state of play now is quite different and far more charged as to the future of GOP leadership in the House.

 

[Lapaz]

yeah... no.

Democrats wouldn’t just be saving Republicans. They would also be saving their agenda, and helping Biden.

...moderate Republicans should have just worked with Democrats to elect Jeffries...

That’s not appropriate, because Republicans have the majority. What is appropriate is for Democrats to work with moderate Republicans to choose one of them as speaker and to get some concessions to allow the minority party to put bipartisan legislation on the floor to a vote. There are several, like Tom Cole or Don Bacon that Democrats could work with.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

House is in recess. It's officially official that we still have no speaker.

 

[Incumbent]

Democrats wouldn’t just be saving Republicans. They would also be saving their agenda, and helping Biden.

That’s not appropriate, because Republicans have the majority. What is appropriate is for Democrats to work with moderate Republicans to choose one of them as speaker and to get some concessions to allow the minority party to put bipartisan legislation on the floor to a vote. There are several, like Tom Cole or Don Bacon that Democrats could work with.

Appropriate has nothing to do with it. Unlikely, sure.

It was mostly tongue-in-cheek, but the idea of bipartisanship shouldn't be carelessly used to berate the side who didn't create this mess.

Enough Republicans have to want to work meaningfully with Democrats to accomplish what you think can be accomplished, are we there yet?

 

[Lapaz]

Appropriate has nothing to do with it. Unlikely, sure.

It was mostly tongue-in-cheek, but the idea of bipartisanship shouldn't be carelessly used to berate the side who didn't create this mess.

Enough Republicans have to want to work meaningfully with Democrats to accomplish what you think can be accomplished, are we there yet?

I saw you were kidding, but I think we should berate Democrats, because they are just trying to get political gain from the situation. It will backfire, because people are smart enough to see that. They will get almost as much blame as Republicans for not being the grown-ups. We know Republican leadership is a mess, and if Democrats work with their moderates, it does sort of bail out Republicans, but it will also lead to helping advance Democratic priorities. I think Democrats will be rewarded for that. I think extremist Republicans would lose. However, if Democrats continue to try to push for Jeffries, eventually Republicans will elect someone much less desirable, and it will weaken democracy further. With a moderate Republican, election reforms could be passed. With an extremist, we may lose everything.

 

[MT15]

I saw you were kidding, but I think we should berate Democrats, because they are just trying to get political gain from the situation. It will backfire, because people are smart enough to see that. They will get almost as much blame as Republicans for not being the grown-ups. We know Republican leadership is a mess, and if Democrats work with their moderates, it does sort of bail out Republicans, but it will also lead to helping advance Democratic priorities. I think Democrats will be rewarded for that. I think extremist Republicans would lose. However, if Democrats continue to try to push for Jeffries, eventually Republicans will elect someone much less desirable, and it will weaken democracy further. With a moderate Republican, election reforms could be passed. With an extremist, we may lose everything.

Dems won’t vote for a R for Speaker. It’s not normally done, what they can do is vote “present”. But they cannot do that now, that would hand the Speakership to Jordan.

If they would vote for a moderate R, there has to be a moderate that will be nominated and get more than a handful of R votes. Can you imagine the bleating from Republicans if Dems would vote with say 6 Rs for a Speaker? The 190 or so MAGAs would be apoplectic. It wouldn’t lead to anything good.

I just couldn’t disagree with you more about assigning any blame to Dems here. They held a similar (identical?) slim majority and got a whole lot done. They have zero part in this mess.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

I think it will be someone else - or there may be a push to give McHenry a temporary "elected" status to move legislation while they re-group. I don't think there's (yet) a push for McHenry to elect McHenry in full.

I could've sworn that I read somewhere that there was a rule that McHenry couldn't seek the permanent seat. Maybe I'm drunk, I don't know. Lol

 

[MT15]

 

[MT15]

I could've sworn that I read somewhere that there was a rule that McHenry couldn't seek the permanent seat. Maybe I'm drunk, I don't know. Lol

Are you on fall break? or just day drinking on a random day off? lol.

 

[bdb13]

We never knew how good we had it with Boehner..

 

[MT15]

Interesting take. That Rs started using propaganda to keep control of their base, and are now victims of their own “fake news”.

 

[MT15]

 

[bdb13]

How very Trumpian of him.

 

[DaveXA]

They're children. Plan and simple.

 

[MT15]

Jordan wants to keep voting, and voting, and voting - apparently



Wasn‘t Jordan the person who told Scalise one vote was all he could have?

 

[Lapaz]

Dems won’t vote for a R for Speaker. It’s not normally done, what they can do is vote “present”. But they cannot do that now, that would hand the Speakership to Jordan.

If they would vote for a moderate R, there has to be a moderate that will be nominated and get more than a handful of R votes. Can you imagine the bleating from Republicans if Dems would vote with say 6 Rs for a Speaker? The 190 or so MAGAs would be apoplectic. It wouldn’t lead to anything good.

I just couldn’t disagree with you more about assigning any blame to Dems here. They held a similar (identical?) slim majority and got a whole lot done. They have zero part in this mess.

No one should care who created the mess. We should only care about how this mess will be resolved. It will either be resolved with an undesirable speaker or a desirable speaker. Maybe McHenry is acceptable, but certainly not as desirable as a moderate Republican. It doesn’t matter if the Trumpist bleat. They should be irrelevant. There is no rule against voting for someone from another party, but it is far more inappropriate to expect moderate Republicans to vote for a Democrat than for Democrats to vote for a moderate Republican, because they are the majority party. If they don’t, Democrats are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Is this just a political game to embarrass Republicans? I think the answer is yes. If Democrats want good government, they can get it by backing a moderate Republican. We already know that most Republicans don’t want good government. There are a few that do, and Democrats should work with that small group.