Next Speaker of the House? (4 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.

 

[UriUT]

No Republicans worked with Democrats, but Democrats never made any serious attempts. If they wanted a better outcome, they should've offered to support a moderate. Now we got what we got. Saying there was no chance is wrong. Democrats never made it clear they would support a Republican. It was all implication, and/or Jeffries. I think Democrats thought they might actually get a Democratic speaker, and THAT was the true fantasy.

Now I am thinking you are just trolling.

You want the Dems to crawl to the "moderate" repubs ' door with flowers and chocolate to prove that they are serious?

First they can't name names. You should understand why. Secondly they are yelling to the world that they will work with anyone in any way as long as the government stays open. And as a bonus they won't ask for power sharing. I know they ve discussed behind close doors if they were willing to accept an election denier...and that's as far as I know of their demands.

I mean how much more can you ask of the Dems? They are yelling "work with us in anyway". Any further and they are accused of interfering and anyone who are public about the willingness would be attacked further.

These people sent threats and even evicted someone who denied Jordan. You see this but it's the Dems fault????

 

[Lapaz]

Do you really think Republicans are going to abandon their decades old hastert rule? That's what you are proposing here, and why you are getting so much pushback. As MT15 said, it comes across as a fantasy.

I wasn't familiar with the Hastert rule, but I don't think it would've had to be abandoned. Granted, getting 120 Republicans to support legislation would've greatly limited what could be brought to the floor, but that's why they have the majority. True bi-partisan legislation can get votes from both parties. It may not have resulted in the most productive congress, but at least it probably wouldn't have been all party line votes, like I expect now.

 

[Lapaz]

Now I am thinking you are just trolling.

You want the Dems to crawl to the "moderate" repubs ' door with flowers and chocolate to prove that they are serious?

First they can't name names. You should understand why. Secondly they are yelling to the world that they will work with anyone in any way as long as the government stays open. And as a bonus they won't ask for power sharing. I know they ve discussed behind close doors if they were willing to accept an election denier...and that's as far as I know of their demands.

I mean how much more can you ask of the Dems? They are yelling "work with us in anyway". Any further and they are accused of interfering and anyone who are public about the willingness would be attacked further.

These people sent threats and even evicted someone who denied Jordan. You see this but it's the Dems fault????

Yes, that's what I expected, because the Dems had the most to lose. I expect stupid stuff to happen now, and somehow that will be blamed on Democrats.

 

[UriUT]

Yes, that's what I expected, because the Dems had the most to lose. I expect stupid stuff to happen now, and somehow that will be blamed on Democrats.

You missed the part where I said that's counter productive if the Dems pushed too hard......

But message received. Dems are at fault regardless....every time...everywhere...no matter.

 

[Lapaz]

You missed the part where I said that's counter productive if the Dems pushed too hard......

But message received. Dems are at fault regardless....every time...everywhere...no matter.

You didn't receive my message. My message is that the Republicans are at fault for who we got, but the Democrats are at fault for not getting someone better.

 

[coldseat]

I've said no serious attempts were made public, and I think it needed to be public to put pressure on the moderates. All Dems ever said is that they wanted a coalition and some terms met, but that isn't the same as voting for an R. Yes, one can reasonably infer that, but that's not how politics works. Politics is about stirring people up to influence them, not being meely mouthed with implications. Dems screwed up, and can now only hope that Johnson changes his ways, which is a fantasy. As it is, moderate Rs can hide behind a claim that Democrats didn't reach out to them to support an R, when they face re-election in their purple/blue districts. When Republicans tank the economy, they'll get some sympathizers.

If American voters are stupid enough to fall for that crap again (after so many other again's with Republicans), our country will reap those fruits. American voters need to wise up.

Dems didn't screw up.

 

[coldseat]

Yes, that's what I expected, because the Dems had the most to lose. I expect stupid stuff to happen now, and somehow that will be blamed on Democrats.

Actually, Republican moderates had the most to lose. And they basically lost it all by voting for Johnson because of their weakness. They'll also likely lose control of the House in the next election as a result. They should have been more open to working with Democrats.

Dems are in no worse place than they were with McCarthy.

 

[Lapaz]

Actually, Republican moderates had the most to lose. And they basically lost it all by voting for Johnson because of their weakness. They'll also likely lose control of the House in the next election as a result. They should have been more open to working with Democrats.

Dems are in no worse place than they were with McCarthy.

I agree that moderate Republicans in purple/blue districts had the most to lose, but the whole Democratic party lost. 15 months with an extremist Republican leading the House is not good. We'll see if we're no worse off, but based on Johnson's votes, I think we probably will be worse off. McCarthy voted to keep the government open, while Johnson was prepared to let it remain closed. The blackmail is likely to be worse.

 

[Lapaz]

If American voters are stupid enough to fall for that crap again (after so many other again's with Republicans), our country will reap those fruits. American voters need to wise up.

Dems didn't screw up.

I wish they would wise up, but American voters voted in Trump, and he's running even with a decent president. Almost a majority of voters are stupid. They don't look at global affects to see how it affects the U.S. They don't understand how legislation doesn't have instant effects. Then throw in the voting laws that largely favors Republicans, and I think Republicans will be able to benefit, even if they cause the problems.

 

[coldseat]

I agree that moderate Republicans in purple/blue districts had the most to lose, but the whole Democratic party lost. 15 months with an extremist Republican leading the House is not good. We'll see if we're no worse off, but based on Johnson's votes, I think we probably will be worse off. McCarthy voted to keep the government open, while Johnson was prepared to let it remain closed. The blackmail is likely to be worse.

Possibly, but Johnson will have a lot of pressure on him from his own caucus to get the appropriations bills passed and signed into law. His whole caucus is exhausted with the endless fighting (which is why they went ahead and elected Johnson) and they are very aware of how much disarray they appear to be in to the voting public. They don't want more of that disarray and more drama right after electing their new Speaker because that will make them look even worse than they do right now. We'll see what Johnson does with all of that. If he just sticks to his fundamentalism, he will likely have a very short stint as Speaker.

 

[Incumbent]

Johnson, representing my childhood hometown, is a far right caricature, pandering to a constituency being manipulated from the pulpit and by radical media, who doesn’t have answers to problems beyond prayer. See his remarks about the Maine shooting.

His district is home to Barksdale AFB, and many active and retired federal employees. It’s going to be interesting to see how he navigates the government funding issue. It’s one thing to posture as a largely irrelevant noisemaking buffoon on the sidelines, and quite different now that’s he’s ascended beyond his skillset and has the reins in his hands.

From a few weeks ago:

 

[Optimus Prime]

general question - anyone know why it's speaker of the house that is 2nd in line to the presidency succession?

Majority leader of the Senate makes more sense to me than the House speaker

 

[Booker]

general question - anyone know why it's speaker of the house that is 2nd in line to the presidency succession?

Majority leader of the Senate makes more sense to me than the House speaker

My guess is because the House is supposed to be made up of an equal representation of citizens, whereas the Senate is an equal representation of states.

 

[UriUT]

general question - anyone know why it's speaker of the house that is 2nd in line to the presidency succession?

Majority leader of the Senate makes more sense to me than the House speaker

The vp is in charge of the senate..well theoretically…the deciding tie breaker.

 

[Booker]

The real reason Democrats weren't able to work with any moderate Republicans: there's no such thing anymore.

 

[DaveXA]

The real reason Democrats weren't able to work with any moderate Republicans: there's no such thing anymore.

Essentially, Gaetz got what he wanted and we all got played.

 

[J-DONK]

I wasn't familiar with the Hastert rule, but I don't think it would've had to be abandoned. Granted, getting 120 Republicans to support legislation would've greatly limited what could be brought to the floor, but that's why they have the majority. True bi-partisan legislation can get votes from both parties. It may not have resulted in the most productive congress, but at least it probably wouldn't have been all party line votes, like I expect now.

Any legislation passed under a Democrat lead house would still be a compromise. Democrats don't magically have enough votes without a small group of Republicans getting on board. It's hard to see your logic tbh.

Realistically, we are talking about simply keeping the lights on, and possibly passing aid packages. That's as much 'compromise" as I would hope for.

 

[DaveXA]

I'm not optimistic about another CR getting passed. I fully expect to see a shut down if the new Speaker has his way.