Just to provide an update: We're now up to the sixth failed vote after a night away, the House is adjoruned... until 8 pm for some reason at which point they might do yet another vote? No idea. In...
Just to provide an update:
We're now up to the sixth failed vote after a night away, the House is adjoruned... until 8 pm for some reason at which point they might do yet another vote? No idea. In any case, all three votes today were practically identical, with 212 Jeffries, 201 McCarthy, 20 for whoever they bothered to put up against McCarthy, and 1 voting "Present" (which technically lowers the threshold for 'majority' to 217 in the current setting).
This is becoming even more of a mess as things go on.
House Republicans have requested a congressional recess following another failed round of voting for the next Speaker of the House so they can frantically binge-watch old episodes of Schoolhouse Rock and figure out what they're supposed to be doing.
Funny headline, and they're definitely not the worst satirists in the world, but I'd be leery of linking to that particular site. Babylon Bee is a far right website with a history of intense...
Funny headline, and they're definitely not the worst satirists in the world, but I'd be leery of linking to that particular site. Babylon Bee is a far right website with a history of intense transphobia among other things.
Yeah, I've been paying moderate attention to it, and it's been... An absolute unfathomable clusterfuck. It's a garbage fire inside a bigger, garbagier fire. Every couple votes McCarthy and pals...
Yeah, I've been paying moderate attention to it, and it's been... An absolute unfathomable clusterfuck. It's a garbage fire inside a bigger, garbagier fire. Every couple votes McCarthy and pals say "We made a deal, and it's a perfect deal, and it's going to work this time!" and then they run the vote and it's either just as bad as or actively worse for them than the previous.
They finally adjourned for the night after the eleventh vote failed with practically identical numbers yet again. In fact, McCarthy is down from the beginning of the day, because one of the Republicans had to leave for a doctor's appointment or something and won't be back for days. His opposition has been steadfast and hasn't budged an inch, both on the Democrat side and on the far-right side.
Based on the discussion going on right now, which sounds worryingly similar to literally everything they've been saying for the past three days, I predict yet another failure tomorrow. At least one.
Fun fact: With the 11th failed vote, this is now tied for the 5th most failed votes for Speaker with the 17th Congress, which succeeded on vote 12. If they fail that one and secure 5th completely, the next move up the rankings would be at the failure of the 21st vote, as the 16th Congress succeeded on vote 22. The numbers after that get... So much worse. Just so, so much worse. Success on 44, 63... and 133.
I read something similar in another article about this. I don't understand: how can members who aren't sworn in to the House vote for a Speaker of the House they're not sworn into?
The chamber cannot even swear in its members without a speaker.
I read something similar in another article about this. I don't understand: how can members who aren't sworn in to the House vote for a Speaker of the House they're not sworn into?
Matt Gaetz says he'll resign from Congress if the Democratic Party changes tack (breaks ranks) and elects a moderate Republican for speaker. If only it was contractually binding...
I really really want Dems to do this. Not because of Gaetz resigning. I just love the idea of Republicans wasting days making concessions to extremists only for the Democrats to come in and pull...
I really really want Dems to do this. Not because of Gaetz resigning. I just love the idea of Republicans wasting days making concessions to extremists only for the Democrats to come in and pull the speaker slightly to the left of where this all started. The kicking and screaming would be worth more popcorn than the 13 rounds of voting put together.
"If Democrats join up to elect a moderate Republican, I will resign from the House of Representatives. That is how certain I am. I can assure your viewers: That won't happen,"
One point of contention had been the number of representatives it would take to trigger a “motion to vacate the chair” — essentially, a no-confidence vote in the speaker - has reportedly agreed to lower that threshold to just one member.
That sounds like a big change, but it’s really a reversion to how things used to be. Historically, one member has been the normal threshold to trigger a motion to vacate — it was that way until 2019, when Democrats raised it.
A more meaningful concession is McCarthy’s reported agreement to reserve three seats for hard-core conservatives on the House Rules Committee. The Rules Committee is one of the most powerful committees in the House — setting the rules (duh) of debates, choosing which pieces of legislation to bring up to a vote and even rewriting legislation that has already passed another committee. If the Rules Committee maintains its traditional partisan composition — nine members of the majority party, four of the minority — then it could have six McCarthy-aligned Republicans, three insurgent Republicans and four Democrats, which means that McCarthy-aligned Republicans would constitute a minority on the committee. In the words of one conservative activist, that would effectively make the Rules Committee a “European-style coalition government” where the hard-right bloc is like a third party, and McCarthy and his allies would have to negotiate with them (or Democrats) to get anything done.
Is there such a thing as a "moderate" Republican anymore? Particularly in the House? We shouldn't pretend that McCarthy himself is a moderate, he was a full-throated supported of Trump.
Is there such a thing as a "moderate" Republican anymore? Particularly in the House? We shouldn't pretend that McCarthy himself is a moderate, he was a full-throated supported of Trump.
There definitely are. A good example is all the seats Republicans picked up in New York last election. Many of those districts are democratic leaning, if anything. Defying the party is another...
There definitely are. A good example is all the seats Republicans picked up in New York last election. Many of those districts are democratic leaning, if anything.
Defying the party is another thing. That requires a huge personal brand, and house members tend not to have that. Murkowski can tell the GOP to take a hike, for instance, quite literally winning the senatorship after being primaried and running as a third party. I doubt the New York republican freshman can do that.
Defying the party is perfectly acceptable. As the twenty or so house members not voting for McCarthy are happily proving right now. It's voting with the democrats for anything substantial that...
Defying the party is perfectly acceptable.
As the twenty or so house members not voting for McCarthy are happily proving right now.
It's voting with the democrats for anything substantial that will get you in trouble.
This is honestly the funniest comment I've seen all day, and I've been slacking off on the internet a lot today. it's also incredibly sad that it is funny, because in any sane government, this is...
This is honestly the funniest comment I've seen all day, and I've been slacking off on the internet a lot today.
it's also incredibly sad that it is funny, because in any sane government, this is exactly what should be happening. But the idea that American political parties would work together across party lines is about as ridiculous as, I dunno, British ones doing so.
Entire countries manage to do this just fine, Why are ours so broken?
There actually has been a decent amount of bipartisan bills this year. A surprising amount. That being said, with how televised this incident is, there's no way. Any Republicans that work with...
There actually has been a decent amount of bipartisan bills this year. A surprising amount. That being said, with how televised this incident is, there's no way. Any Republicans that work with Democrats will get crucified, and that's only a bit shy of being literal.
I'm trying to wrap my head around two insights from 5thirty8 I've always thought of conservatives as wanting to conserve the status quo. I think this is anti-political-establishment, not truly...
I'm trying to wrap my head around two insights from 5thirty8
The Republicans who voted against him were, on average, more conservative than 98 percent of the 117th Congress (if they served in it) and more anti-establishment than 93 percent
I've always thought of conservatives as wanting to conserve the status quo. I think this is anti-political-establishment, not truly anti-establishment?
Interestingly, unlike the Democrats who voted against former Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2019 — who hailed exclusively from competitive districts — McCarthy’s foes tend to come from solidly red turf.... suggesting they aren’t opposing McCarthy for electoral reasons.
Is that a Nancy Pelosi/ Fox News thing, where Fox News made Nancy became toxic to swing state voters? Is that a gerrymandered/ primary thing, where republican politicians are more afraid of primary attacks than they are of losing the general election?
Conservatism is usually just treated as a synonym to the rightward political coalition in US political discourse. Similarly, "liberals" refers to the leftward coalition, and not libertarianism....
I've always thought of conservatives as wanting to conserve the status quo. I think this is anti-political-establishment, not truly anti-establishment?
Conservatism is usually just treated as a synonym to the rightward political coalition in US political discourse. Similarly, "liberals" refers to the leftward coalition, and not libertarianism.
Is that a Nancy Pelosi/ Fox News thing, where Fox News made Nancy became toxic to swing state voters?
Well, in a way. Pelosi was considered a very progressive speaker when she first became speaker... which was quite a while ago. Fox News and the such have done a good job at presenting her as the ultimate leftist caricature to their viewership, while that image has not persisted among the Democratic base.
In general, representatives in swing states try to make themselves look moderate. Voting against the Speaker when the Speaker already has enough votes is careful strategical politicking - Pelosi knew they were going to do that, and approved. It makes the candidate look moderate, and it's something they can run in advertisements.
For instance, Senator Warnock heavily made use of the fact that he passed a bill alongside Ted Cruz in advertisements for the last senate election in January, and it seemed to be effective for him.
So it's not necessarily that Pelosi was toxic, but that she is an emblem of leftist ideology to a part of the population and this is a way for parts of the party to show "bipartisanship" and moderation without actually doing any damage.
On the other hand, this is just political disunity. The far right part of the GOP wants to flex their power.
He's failed a second vote and just moments ago failed in the third. Jordan actually picked up a vote in the third ballot.
Just to provide an update:
We're now up to the sixth failed vote after a night away, the House is adjoruned... until 8 pm for some reason at which point they might do yet another vote? No idea. In any case, all three votes today were practically identical, with 212 Jeffries, 201 McCarthy, 20 for whoever they bothered to put up against McCarthy, and 1 voting "Present" (which technically lowers the threshold for 'majority' to 217 in the current setting).
This is becoming even more of a mess as things go on.
House Republicans Frantically Binge Old 'Schoolhouse Rock' Episodes To Figure Out What They're Supposed To Be Doing
Funny headline, and they're definitely not the worst satirists in the world, but I'd be leery of linking to that particular site. Babylon Bee is a far right website with a history of intense transphobia among other things.
I have managed to avoid following this too closely, but I just now noticed that CNN is projecting McCarthy to lose the eleventh vote. ELEVENTH.
Yeah, I've been paying moderate attention to it, and it's been... An absolute unfathomable clusterfuck. It's a garbage fire inside a bigger, garbagier fire. Every couple votes McCarthy and pals say "We made a deal, and it's a perfect deal, and it's going to work this time!" and then they run the vote and it's either just as bad as or actively worse for them than the previous.
They finally adjourned for the night after the eleventh vote failed with practically identical numbers yet again. In fact, McCarthy is down from the beginning of the day, because one of the Republicans had to leave for a doctor's appointment or something and won't be back for days. His opposition has been steadfast and hasn't budged an inch, both on the Democrat side and on the far-right side.
Based on the discussion going on right now, which sounds worryingly similar to literally everything they've been saying for the past three days, I predict yet another failure tomorrow. At least one.
Fun fact: With the 11th failed vote, this is now tied for the 5th most failed votes for Speaker with the 17th Congress, which succeeded on vote 12. If they fail that one and secure 5th completely, the next move up the rankings would be at the failure of the 21st vote, as the 16th Congress succeeded on vote 22. The numbers after that get... So much worse. Just so, so much worse. Success on 44, 63... and 133.
I read something similar in another article about this. I don't understand: how can members who aren't sworn in to the House vote for a Speaker of the House they're not sworn into?
Because the rules are made up anyway, not set in any law or constitutional background, so somewhere in there lets them do so to vote for a speaker.
Matt Gaetz says he'll resign from Congress if the Democratic Party changes tack (breaks ranks) and elects a moderate Republican for speaker.
If only it was contractually binding...
I really really want Dems to do this. Not because of Gaetz resigning. I just love the idea of Republicans wasting days making concessions to extremists only for the Democrats to come in and pull the speaker slightly to the left of where this all started. The kicking and screaming would be worth more popcorn than the 13 rounds of voting put together.
Threatening us with a good time
Threats. Idle threats.
For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.
McCarthy is now speaker. Here is what he gave up
This seems like an opportunity for moderate Democrats and Republicans to come up with a coalition government. Any signs of that?
Is there such a thing as a "moderate" Republican anymore? Particularly in the House? We shouldn't pretend that McCarthy himself is a moderate, he was a full-throated supported of Trump.
There definitely are. A good example is all the seats Republicans picked up in New York last election. Many of those districts are democratic leaning, if anything.
Defying the party is another thing. That requires a huge personal brand, and house members tend not to have that. Murkowski can tell the GOP to take a hike, for instance, quite literally winning the senatorship after being primaried and running as a third party. I doubt the New York republican freshman can do that.
Defying the party is perfectly acceptable.
As the twenty or so house members not voting for McCarthy are happily proving right now.
It's voting with the democrats for anything substantial that will get you in trouble.
As McCarthy is finding out.
Yeah, I don't know.
This is honestly the funniest comment I've seen all day, and I've been slacking off on the internet a lot today.
it's also incredibly sad that it is funny, because in any sane government, this is exactly what should be happening. But the idea that American political parties would work together across party lines is about as ridiculous as, I dunno, British ones doing so.
Entire countries manage to do this just fine, Why are ours so broken?
There actually has been a decent amount of bipartisan bills this year. A surprising amount. That being said, with how televised this incident is, there's no way. Any Republicans that work with Democrats will get crucified, and that's only a bit shy of being literal.
Related in the weekly politics post: https://tildes.net/~news/13ws/weekly_us_politics_news_and_updates_thread_week_of_january_2#comment-7nso
I'm trying to wrap my head around two insights from 5thirty8
I've always thought of conservatives as wanting to conserve the status quo. I think this is anti-political-establishment, not truly anti-establishment?
Is that a Nancy Pelosi/ Fox News thing, where Fox News made Nancy became toxic to swing state voters? Is that a gerrymandered/ primary thing, where republican politicians are more afraid of primary attacks than they are of losing the general election?
Conservatism is usually just treated as a synonym to the rightward political coalition in US political discourse. Similarly, "liberals" refers to the leftward coalition, and not libertarianism.
Well, in a way. Pelosi was considered a very progressive speaker when she first became speaker... which was quite a while ago. Fox News and the such have done a good job at presenting her as the ultimate leftist caricature to their viewership, while that image has not persisted among the Democratic base.
In general, representatives in swing states try to make themselves look moderate. Voting against the Speaker when the Speaker already has enough votes is careful strategical politicking - Pelosi knew they were going to do that, and approved. It makes the candidate look moderate, and it's something they can run in advertisements.
For instance, Senator Warnock heavily made use of the fact that he passed a bill alongside Ted Cruz in advertisements for the last senate election in January, and it seemed to be effective for him.
So it's not necessarily that Pelosi was toxic, but that she is an emblem of leftist ideology to a part of the population and this is a way for parts of the party to show "bipartisanship" and moderation without actually doing any damage.
On the other hand, this is just political disunity. The far right part of the GOP wants to flex their power.
Funny how Democrats are the party of unity now.
You Go High, We Go Low