U.S. Speaker of the House Election

[17thfabn]

As of about  4PM (1600) on January 4th 2023 it looks like the U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives is at a deadlock.

In the 6th round vote it appears that Representative Kevin McCarthy's support is eroding as a compromise candidate is sought.  In the first round he was close to getting the Speaker's post. A group of conservative Republicans were said to have demands that McCarthy refused to meet. They were a big enough block that though their numbers were relatively small they are enough to deny the Speakers position to McCarthy.

What I am unclear on: 

Reports say the number required to get the Speakers spot goes down if certain members don't vote. So if no Democrats vote would McCarthy have enough to be speaker? Currently the Democrats are unified behind Representative Jefferies. 

[Murph]

McCarthy did it to himself by backstabbing Trump, Conservatives, principled Republicans, and the list goes on.  He deserves to squirm.  They had a compromise to offer and the arrogant prick turned it down cold.  All he had to agree to was to allow laws to be followed and some (minor) transparency.  He told them to bugger off, HE WAS IN CHARGE HERE!  So, he has no one to blame but himself.  I have no sympathy for him.  

[Harold Jones]

The candidate who gets a majority of the yes or no votes cast is elected speaker.  Right now, if every member is present and voting McCarthy needs 218 votes out of 435 to win.  If for some reason, 35 Democrats voted present or didn't show for the vote, he would win with 201.

[FALightFighter]

29 minutes ago, Murph said:

McCarthy did it to himself by backstabbing Trump, Conservatives, principled Republicans, and the list goes on.  He deserves to squirm.  They had a compromise to offer and the arrogant prick turned it down cold.  All he had to agree to was to allow laws to be followed and some (minor) transparency.  He told them to bugger off, HE WAS IN CHARGE HERE!  So, he has no one to blame but himself.  I have no sympathy for him.  

Posted in the "Insane..Right" thread, but probably makes more sense here.

 

How so? It seems that he acquiesced to the bulk of the demands.

And let's remember that we're talking about <10% of the Republicans, <5% of the HoR overall (19 Republican votes for other than McCarthy initially. Maybe a few more now?)

We gripe about the fringe controlling the debate, but that seems to be exactly what we have going on here.

 

What do we want from the HoR this session? Thinking about it, I want a balanced budget and don't screw anything else up (or fund the executive screwing anything else up). That's really not hard. Would McCarthy do this? I don't know. But we're not doing anything except looking like a banana republic laughing stock at this point.

[17thfabn]

36 minutes ago, Harold Jones said:

The candidate who gets a majority of the yes or no votes cast is elected speaker.  Right now, if every member is present and voting McCarthy needs 218 votes out of 435 to win.  If for some reason, 35 Democrats voted present or didn't show for the vote, he would win with 201.

As I read more that appears to be correct.

Presently the Democrats are enjoying watching the Republicans squirm, so I don't see it happening soon.

On the other hand the Democrats may calculate that they would rather have some one not from the far right wing of the Republican Party so helping McCarthy get in would suit their purpose. Plus from a playing politics stand point they may think if they help McCarthy he would owe them

[Harold Jones]

I think the democrats are following the principle of not interrupting your enemy when he's making a mistake.

McConell seems to have screwed McCarthy by passing the omnibus spending bill.  It means there is nothing of consequence for McCarthy to bargain with, any bills passed by the house will die in the Senate so he has no legislative plums to hand out and while the various investigations he's promised excite some people they aren't all that important to most constituents and aren't going to be much to point to in '24.

 

An interesting thing is that Trumps call for the Republicans to cut the crap and elect McCarthy didn't move a single vote.  

Edited January 4, 2023 by Harold Jones

[Markus Becker]

49 minutes ago, Harold Jones said:

An interesting thing is that Trumps call for the Republicans to cut the crap and elect McCarthy didn't move a single vote.  

Helloooo! Our state media is in full "blame Trump" mode. 

How did the Freedom Caucus react to Trump's Coivd aid spending? Not positive I'd presume.  

[nitflegal]

3 hours ago, FALightFighter said:

Posted in the "Insane..Right" thread, but probably makes more sense here.

 

How so? It seems that he acquiesced to the bulk of the demands.

And let's remember that we're talking about <10% of the Republicans, <5% of the HoR overall (19 Republican votes for other than McCarthy initially. Maybe a few more now?)

We gripe about the fringe controlling the debate, but that seems to be exactly what we have going on here.

 

What do we want from the HoR this session? Thinking about it, I want a balanced budget and don't screw anything else up (or fund the executive screwing anything else up). That's really not hard. Would McCarthy do this? I don't know. But we're not doing anything except looking like a banana republic laughing stock at this point.

I keep flip-flopping in my own brain on how I think about this.  McC is not and has not been a strong conservative voice and certainly has not been the scorched Earrh Pelosi type.  I think the GOP has missed that as much as their base loathes Pelosi and her willingness to destroy her majority to make a signiifcant and permanent win for the left they are also incredibly envious of having someone who can keep their caucus in line and go for broke on important issues.  McC is saying the right things but who trusts him?  If playing kamikazee hardball either gets someone more conservative in the role (who, nobody has been able to answer that well for me?)  or scares McC enough to mimic having s apine it will be to the good.  If it costs the GOP the abillity to run their 21st century Church committee itt will be an awful fail.   Howvere, it would be a lot easier to want people to cut the crap if he hadn't pulled such entitled "my turn" horsesh*t as moving his office before he won the vote.  I think the base has pretty much soured on the low accomplicament GOP feeling enittled to jobs, roles, and riches. . . 

[Josh]

3 hours ago, FALightFighter said:

Posted in the "Insane..Right" thread, but probably makes more sense here.

 

How so? It seems that he acquiesced to the bulk of the demands.

And let's remember that we're talking about <10% of the Republicans, <5% of the HoR overall (19 Republican votes for other than McCarthy initially. Maybe a few more now?)

We gripe about the fringe controlling the debate, but that seems to be exactly what we have going on here.

 

What do we want from the HoR this session? Thinking about it, I want a balanced budget and don't screw anything else up (or fund the executive screwing anything else up). That's really not hard. Would McCarthy do this? I don't know. But we're not doing anything except looking like a banana republic laughing stock at this point.

Not only a fringe, but a fringe of junior representatives in untouchable districts with no repercussions whose claim to fame is being social media bomb throwers. Most of them are conscious of the fact their performance-art-as-politics tactics will accomplish nothing but independent voter animosity. They don’t care; they will get to keep their jobs if they want to or perhaps even better get offers from Faux News to be analysts or anchors.

[Josh]

3 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

As I read more that appears to be correct.

Presently the Democrats are enjoying watching the Republicans squirm, so I don't see it happening soon.

On the other hand the Democrats may calculate that they would rather have some one not from the far right wing of the Republican Party so helping McCarthy get in would suit their purpose. Plus from a playing politics stand point they may think if they help McCarthy he would owe them

The Democrats would rather watch the GOP implode and/or go full baby tantrum to help them in the next election. They can block any legislation via the senate or White House and anyone who takes charge is like to launch Bengahzi x 10 investigations regardless. Independent voters always are down on these kinds of investigations; the Clinton sex scandal being the best example of partisan overreach turning off voters. Having the GOP accomplish nothing but MAGA witch hunts with zero legislation is fine with them; unless they they get Jefferies as house speaker they are happy to have the most rabid conservative win. They aren’t playing for current control; they are playing to pick up all the vulnerable CA and NY seats the GOP won. Anything that makes the House majority look stupid and ineffective is their friend.

Edited January 5, 2023 by Josh

[Skywalkre]

2 hours ago, Josh said:

Not only a fringe, but a fringe of junior representatives in untouchable districts with no repercussions whose claim to fame is being social media bomb throwers. Most of them are conscious of the fact their performance-art-as-politics tactics will accomplish nothing but independent voter animosity. They don’t care; they will get to keep their jobs if they want to or perhaps even better get offers from Faux News to be analysts or anchors.

The concern I've seen from several pundits is how much influence this fringe will eventually have... namely because they're afraid this fringe would be willing to let a debt ceiling vote fail and have the US go into default. 

[Josh]

30 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

The concern I've seen from several pundits is how much influence this fringe will eventually have... namely because they're afraid this fringe would be willing to let a debt ceiling vote fail and have the US go into default. 

Absolutely. Again, they hate government, hate anyone not as "conservative" as they are, regardless of party, and they suffer no consequences during elections. In fact their antics probably boost some of them in their jerrymandered districts. Tea Party x10.

[Skywalkre]

LOL... what a shit show!  So apparently none of these new members of the House are actually sworn in yet... because the first order of business is electing a Speaker and there's no sign of when that will happen.  As such everything has ground to a halt (I guess it's more accurate to say nothing has actually started yet).

Just saw a report that they may try to win via a plurality of votes vs majority... except if that's the case the Ds could actually get the Speakership (per one pundit... but she was unsure as that's never happened before)?  Wouldn't that be rich!  🤣

Another report is saying some high ranking Rs close to McCarthy are telling him this is over and he has no shot.  I still haven't heard a single name of someone else to step up and lead the Rs, though.

I need to go buy some popcorn!

ETA - One R advisor just now stated he has never seen anything like this before.  The last time he could find something similar was back in the late 1800s.

Edited January 5, 2023 by Skywalkre

[Josh]

It has been a century since there was even more than one vote for speaker. Literally 1923. There was however some kind of shitfest in the mid-late 1800's that resulted in over a hundred votes occurring, IIRC.

Even if McCarthy wanted to give in, there are a lot of old school Republicans who are mad as hell that a bunch of kids from the last two elections are attempting to lead them by the nose. No one is giving into them. But I'm sure they aren't giving into anyone. There will have to be some kind of compromise candidate; clearly voting "present" or going with a plurality just gives the Dems the Speaker. Honestly if I were an R strategist, I might go with that so that the shit show that will be the 118th Congress can somehow be laid at their feet on some level. I'm confident the Dems will make no compromises - they don't have to. Anything that goes bad or looks horrible in the House can be laid at the feet of the GOP in 2024, and the more MAGA/scotched earth the Speaker is, the better. The Dems will simply keep voting at 212 until it works or the GOP unfucks itself, and then run all the sound bites from the last few days on loop for the next election.

[EchoFiveMike]

Meh, this mechanism is weak and ghey.  Go down the street to Quantico, draw service pistols or fighting knives and have any who would presume to "lead" can fight for the spot.  S/F....Ken M 

 

[sunday]

I find very funny that, have they try to clean the different state electoral systems, GOP leadership would have enough votes to put McCarthy through without having to rely in "fringe" congressmen.

But, as some Buddhist-Americans say, Karma is a stone female dog.

[BansheeOne]

11 hours ago, Harold Jones said:

An interesting thing is that Trumps call for the Republicans to cut the crap and elect McCarthy didn't move a single vote.  

Looks like a fairly standard radicalization process to me in a party where considerations of ideological purity increasingly trump Realpolitik, and yesterday's radicals are bloody establishment appeasers to today's radicals. It's why the British Conservatives are on their fourth prime minister in as many years, for example.

[DB]

Not so sure about the comparison with the Tories. Firstly, the turning point was Cameron's inability to counter the external influence of Farage on the Brexit vote (which was Cameron's "A bridge too far" after winning the Scottish Referendum), whereas Trump for example became an internal disruptor of Republican politics, exploiting divisions already present.

At the moment there isn't a Trump equivalent inside the Tory party. Instead there has been a fundamental lack of competence and direction, particularly clear since May left.

[17thfabn]

8 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Just saw a report that they may try to win via a plurality of votes vs majority... except if that's the case the Ds could actually get the Speakership (per one pundit... but she was unsure as that's never happened before)?  Wouldn't that be rich!  🤣

Another report is saying some high ranking Rs close to McCarthy are telling him this is over and he has no shot.  I still haven't heard a single name of someone else to step up and lead the Rs, though.

I've seen several other Republicans proposed as possible speakers. REPRESENTATIVE STEVE SCALISE is probably the most likely person. He is currently supporting McCarthy.

I wonder what the mechanism of changing speakers is? If Some how the Democrats got the speaker's position could the Republicans remove Jeffries with a simple majority vote? 

Much is made that "the world is laughing at us". I doubt it. Many countries have three major parties plus several smaller influential parties. They often have extended wrangling over who will be in charge, with horse trading to see which party will be able to put together a coalition. I remember years ago that Italy would have continual changes of government.  

In the U.S. we have in effect four political parties, maybe more. But every one is effectively shoe horned into either Republican or Democrat. 

We have the loony left, union , and mainstream Democrats all in the Democrat Party. The loony right, very conservative, moderately conservative in the Republican Party.  

 

[Josh]

7 minutes ago, 17thfabn said:

I've seen several other Republicans proposed as possible speakers. REPRESENTATIVE STEVE SCALISE is probably the most likely person. He is currently supporting McCarthy.

I wonder what the mechanism of changing speakers is? If Some how the Democrats got the speaker's position could the Republicans remove Jeffries with a simple majority vote? 

Much is made that "the world is laughing at us". I doubt it. Many countries have three major parties plus several smaller influential parties. They often have extended wrangling over who will be in charge, with horse trading to see which party will be able to put together a coalition. I remember years ago that Italy would have continual changes of government.  

In the U.S. we have in effect four political parties, maybe more. But every one is effectively shoe horned into either Republican or Democrat. 

We have the loony left, union , and mainstream Democrats all in the Democrat Party. The loony right, very conservative, moderately conservative in the Republican Party.  

 

Steve Scalise would be an interesting choice in that if he is explicitly not a 2020 election denier. That might disqualify him in the eyes of the insurgents, but on the other hand they just thumbed their nose at Trump, so they might not care about Trump adjacent issues. I still think he'd be too "RINO" for the GOP Taliban. The issue with the Republican party right now seems to be that everyone thinks anyone slightly to the left of them isn't a true conservative. Reagan's 11th commandment completely undone. In fact Reagan himself would be labeled a RINO now.

I doubt the world cares, and as US political crisis's go it is an almost unprecedented one but not really a big deal either. Compared to the Tories in the UK having a Prime Minister of the Month Club or the yearly Israeli coalition dissolution or the Italian government changing more than their underwear, it isn't a big problem. The actual composition of the legislature is decided; it is just being stonewalled in one of its two houses, and in anycase party politics will prevent any meaningful legislation for two years anyway.

The mechanism for changing speakers actually can vary, and in fact the new rule for that is one of the main concessions the MAGA fringe is trying to exact from Kevin. He's already allowed for a motion by five representatives to bring the Speakership to a vote (honestly not sure what the rule was under Pelosi); they want any single representative to be able to bring up that vote. Supposedly. Honestly I think they mostly just don't want McC and feel the need to pretend there's some kind of power they could be given that would seal the deal.

[BansheeOne]

3 hours ago, DB said:

At the moment there isn't a Trump equivalent inside the Tory party. Instead there has been a fundamental lack of competence and direction, particularly clear since May left.

There's clearly that, but I think the last PM selections - particularly Liz Truss' - have shown how candidates need to pass the purity tests of various hardcore minority groups on Brexit, free markets etc. Which favors fellow radicals and the morally flexible, but sets them up to disappoint and fail in the real world. No argument that besides that general similarity, circumstances are very different between various nations.

[Murph]

What I want in a Republican Speaker is someone who plays by the Democrat rules of scorched earth, and utter destruction.  

[Josh]

15 minutes ago, Murph said:

What I want in a Republican Speaker is someone who plays by the Democrat rules of scorched earth, and utter destruction.  

Mitch McConnel?

[Steven P Allen]

I really don't mind if this keeps up for two years.  If NOTHING comes out of Congress for the foreseeable future, we'll all be better off.

[Harold Jones]

23 minutes ago, Murph said:

What I want in a Republican Speaker is someone who plays by the Democrat rules of scorched earth, and utter destruction.  

So you want someone who imposes their will on the House regardless of the views of the other 434 members and their constituents? There was a time when bills were hammered out in committee and presented for debate and a vote by the house, in my lifetime that has been replaced by the speaker and a few lieutenants (really their staffs and the concerned lobbyists) putting together bills that they expect to be rubberstamped by the relevant committee and passed by the party voting in lockstep.  I don't see that the performance of the government has been improved by that.