Next Speaker of the House? (15 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.

 

[coldseat]

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.

The Democrats don't have these problems when in control of the House. If Americans want a functioning government, just elect more Democrats. Republicans need no help from Democrats on embarrassing themselves.

Name the "moderate Republicans" that will work with Democrats to elect a moderate Republican Speaker. Who are they?

These fantasy moderate Republicans don't exist. At least not right now.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

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.

Hard disagree on all of this. It's going to take 217 votes to elect a speaker. No moderate Republican has stepped forward or expressed any interest, period, and you expect Democrats to reach out and find this person that they can all rally around when Jeffries is only 5 votes away. It's much easier, in theory, to get 5 moderate purple/blue district Republicans on board than it is to get the entire Democratic caucus to go against tradition to vote across the aisle. I'm willing to bet there are 5 reps out there that are sick and tired of the bullshirt from Jordan and company that would be willing to back Jeffries. That's who the Democrats should be trying to find.

 

[Incumbent]

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.

It matters who created this mess, and how they created it, because it defines expectations about where we can go from here. If Democrats have to swoop in to save the House, there has to be something tangible in it for them, otherwise, it's not their responsibility to save Republicans from themselves, or to have to fall on the sword when Republicans settle on whichever of their extremists enough of them can ultimately tolerate.

If there is a *genuine* moderate Republican coalition willing to work with Democrats, then they need to put something together to win over that bipartisan support. That responsibility isn't on the minority party.

 

[MT15]

Same, same

 

[Optimus Prime]

Same, same

persistence beats resistance

 

[J-DONK]

Hard disagree on all of this. It's going to take 217 votes to elect a speaker. No moderate Republican has stepped forward or expressed any interest, period, and you expect Democrats to reach out and find this person that they can all rally around when Jeffries is only 5 votes away. It's much easier, in theory, to get 5 moderate purple/blue district Republicans on board than it is to get the entire Democratic caucus to go against tradition to vote across the aisle. I'm willing to bet there are 5 reps out there that are sick and tired of the bullshirt from Jordan and company that would be willing to back Jeffries. That's who the Democrats should be trying to find.

Democrats should never in a billion years vote for a Republican speaker. You can't trust Republicans to not immediately backstab Democrats. It's vote for a moderate Democrat for speaker, or languish in your own consequences.

 

[Booker]

The thing is, while I'm sure there are moderate Republicans that could garner support from across the aisle, this will not happen for the simple fact that any Republican who sought the speakership via help from the Democrats would instantly be labeled a RINO and face a primary next year. Ain't gonna happen.

 

[Taurus]

The thing is, while I'm sure there are moderate Republicans that could garner support from across the aisle, this will not happen for the simple fact that any Republican who sought the speakership via help from the Democrats would instantly be labeled a RINO and face a primary next year. Ain't gonna happen.

A Rep from Utah could do it. Maybe a few other spots where a wild-eyed MAGAt has little chance.

 

[Optimus Prime]

The thing is, while I'm sure there are moderate Republicans that could garner support from across the aisle, this will not happen for the simple fact that any Republican who sought the speakership via help from the Democrats would instantly be labeled a RINO and face a primary next year. Ain't gonna happen.

Don't think it would be just the person running that would be at risk

it would also be any Republicans who voted for that person knowing that it was part of the Democrats plan

 

[Booker]

Don't think it would be just the person running that would be at risk

it would also be any Republicans who voted for that person knowing that it was part of the Democrats plan

Exactly. They've spent the last 30 years establishing with their base that Democrats are communist, marxist, gun grabbing, baby killing pedophiles -- to turn around and work with them would be political suicide.

 

[Lapaz]

It matters who created this mess, and how they created it, because it defines expectations about where we can go from here. If Democrats have to swoop in to save the House, there has to be something tangible in it for them, otherwise, it's not their responsibility to save Republicans from themselves, or to have to fall on the sword when Republicans settle on whichever of their extremists enough of them can ultimately tolerate.

If there is a *genuine* moderate Republican coalition willing to work with Democrats, then they need to put something together to win over that bipartisan support. That responsibility isn't on the minority party.

I agree that Democrats should get something in return. My suggestion is that any legislation that has bi-partisan support must be brought to the floor for a vote.

Democrats can keep waiting to find 5 Republicans to vote for Jeffries, but I don't believe they'll get them. I think Republicans will eventually unite behind a far right candidate, and that Republican will continue to blackmail Democrats into giving up things to open the government. It isn't a smart play to keep gambling that Republicans won't be able to unite behind a candidate. A unity candidate is the best case scenario, and it should be a Republican. I don't know if you could get all Democrats to support a Republican, but I'm willing to be that you could get a majority of Republicans and enough Democrats to support a moderate Republican to get to 217. If a moderate Republican got enough Republican support, I think most Democrats would be willing to vote present to lower the threshold. That would have to include an agreement from a trustworthy Republican to allow bi-partisan legislation.

 

[Lapaz]

Don't think it would be just the person running that would be at risk

it would also be any Republicans who voted for that person knowing that it was part of the Democrats plan

There are some Republicans in blue districts with open primaries that wouldn't have to worry about being primaried by a radical.

 

[Incumbent]

I agree that Democrats should get something in return. My suggestion is that any legislation that has bi-partisan support must be brought to the floor for a vote.

Democrats can keep waiting to find 5 Republicans to vote for Jeffries, but I don't believe they'll get them. I think Republicans will eventually unite behind a far right candidate, and that Republican will continue to blackmail Democrats into giving up things to open the government. It isn't a smart play to keep gambling that Republicans won't be able to unite behind a candidate. A unity candidate is the best case scenario, and it should be a Republican. I don't know if you could get all Democrats to support a Republican, but I'm willing to be that you could get a majority of Republicans and enough Democrats to support a moderate Republican to get to 217. If a moderate Republican got enough Republican support, I think most Democrats would be willing to vote present to lower the threshold. That would have to include an agreement from a trustworthy Republican to allow bi-partisan legislation.

I also think Republicans will eventually vote through a far right nominee and there isn’t anything Democrats can do to stop that. McCarthy wasn’t some bipartisan, fair-minded leader, so to think there’s an opportunity here to move the House in a more reasonable direction is fantasy. I wish you were right, but there have to be Republicans willing to make a compromise with Democrats and nothing suggests that’s a realistic option. You’re just falling for the narrative that this is somehow on Democrats to salvage.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

There are some Republicans in blue districts with open primaries that wouldn't have to worry about being primaried by a radical.

Name that candidate! You can't because that candidate doesn't exist.

The D's cannot nominate this fictional candidate because they would garner 0 Republican votes and the R's would not put such a candidate forward. I would throw a "gumbo party" if I am wrong on any of those scenarios but I won't be holding my breath.

 

[Incumbent]

Name that candidate! You can't because that candidate doesn't exist.

The D's cannot nominate this fictional candidate because they would garner 0 Republican votes and the R's would not put such a candidate forward. I would throw a "gumbo party" if I am wrong on any of those scenarios but I won't be holding my breath.

Yeah, I'd love to be proven wrong. I'd gladly welcome it.

 

[Lapaz]

Name that candidate! You can't because that candidate doesn't exist.

The D's cannot nominate this fictional candidate because they would garner 0 Republican votes and the R's would not put such a candidate forward. I would throw a "gumbo party" if I am wrong on any of those scenarios but I won't be holding my breath.

I definitely can name a few, but I have to gather the info. I checked a couple of sites on voting records and compared it to their 2020 votes, and there definitely are some. I’m busy now, but I will out a list together after I’ve crossed referenced them again. However, I’m not in Congress. It goes beyond just that cross reference. It has to be someone with integrity that is trusted by Democrats to keep his word. That’s about relationships and behind the scene agreements. I think Democrats know who those Republicans are.

 

[MT15]

This is doublespeak. GOP will not take any responsibility for their own mess.

 

[MT15]

hmmmm