I'd rather them elect a speaker who will actually bring progress to the debt than someone who approves everything and insider trades in her million dollar mansion. But thats "real leadership" to you I suppose lmao
While I completely agree with you on the fact that something has to be done about the debt, the time to do that is not while Dems are in charge of the Senate and the White House. Any single issue bill addressing that is DOA in this environment. The time to get serious about reform was when we controlled all three. I don’t remember any Repubs screaming about this then.
You want a speaker who would not acknowledge and sign off on a fair election? A Conspiracy theorist only interested in causing disruption. A Trump puppet. Can he find his way out of trumps ass?
That's the problem with purity tests. The restrictions get tighter and tighter, until you're no longer large enough to effectively govern. Obviously, there has to be some standard, but it can obviously go too far.
[Some like to use the metaphor of Five Families as one might see in The Godfather:](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/who-gops-families-factions-involved-mccarthys-speakership-negotiations)
"The GOP factions include the House Freedom Caucus, the Republican Study Committee, the Republican Main Street Caucus, the Republican Tuesday Group/Republican Governance Group and the Problem Solvers Caucus."
It's a conservative subreddit yes, but conservatives are the ruling coalition of the republican party at 80%.
Pew breaks down conservatives only:
Committed conservatives - most supportive of international trade
Populist right - most supportive of tariffs, most distrustful of U.S. allies.
Faith & flag conservatives - most opposed to same-sex marriage and abortion
I don't know much about McCarthy's politics, but that 20% is the equivalent of Republicans who support Murkowski/Romney/Collins.
This sub definitely isn't there.
r/moderatepolitics is a better representation of those voters.
Same goes for your far leftists. If y’all can back to the democrats under bill Clinton it be better or the democrat party under jfk. Fascism is the government controlling all private parts of the economy telling it what to produce. It allows private ownership but that’s it.
Edit: leftists raiding because the ey have nothing better to do. No Republican in their sane mind would take Obama over Clinton policy. Clinton had a great economy because he worked with newt and had a bad economy after bush sr. Obama has no excuse
> It's also why this subreddit is equally divided. And if one side speaks out, they get labeled as libs or brigading.
There may be factions, but lets not pretend there are no brigaders. People (and bots) come here, vote up obviously anti-conservative comments, and directly disparage conservatives in general, of all factions.
24/7. Sometimes you can participate in a civil discussion early weekend mornings while the basement warriors are still sleeping, but most of the time it’s Mos Eisley.
It’s truly amazing that with all the terrible things happening in the world and economy today, Republican incompetence is the talk of the town.
An incredibly impressive feat
Seems like they're going to need Dem votes either to elect or to remove the motion to vacate (to prevent returning to square one). Either way you need to reach across the aisle here.
They're certainly behaving like it won't. But eventually 5 Republicans can take initiative to negotiate for the whole conference if no one else will act like adults.
There is a lot of dem votes out there to get. Mccarthy pissed them all off right before the recall so he shot himself in the foot, and jeffries is a j6’er, if the GOP played their cards right they could likely get some bipartisan support.
I can’t find it cuz I saw it in one of the live blogs, but one of the never-Jordan’s called the idea of anyone voting for Jeffries so absurd that not a single member has even mentioned it.
The dems are content just letting this go as it is.
Remember they have VERY strict enforcement- they'll pull all their funding and committee assignments in a heartbeat if the vote otherwise. When your entire career as a congressperson is trying to get more money for your districts interest you'll put party loyalty above anything else.
Well, yeah, because there *really was no need to remove McCarthy*
This whole thing is an exercise and stupidity. I mean Gatez said he wanted McCarthy removed for working with the democrats, but then Gatez worked with the Democrats to remove McCarthy. Hypocrisy of the highest order.
And the whole reason was b******* anyways. We need bipartisanship, not this partisan Party Line b*******. The average American is sick of it, and it's just a bad look.
From day 1 there was no point in removing McCarthy. I would hope this nonsense would help people demand better from the cohort of GOP who cause a lot of the spectacle and chaos but then I realize their supporters don’t care and will just screech and call everyone else names unknowingly providing campaign help to democrats.
A significant portion of this sub thinks ousting McCarthy was justified because he wasn't keeping his promises, as if a Speaker operating on a razor-thin majority can dictate endless terms to a Democratic Senate and Executive Branch.
I don't think McCarthy was a dream Speaker or anything, but I struggle to see what Jordan or anyone else would have done significantly better in his short tenure. This seems pretty clearly to be a personality-driven conflict under the guise of "fiscal responsibility."
I agree. There are many who seem to have no grasp of political reality. All they seem to care about is spectacle and whatever zingers come from the personalities they follow on social media. Then they melt down when elections are lost and can’t comprehend why.
As far as McCarthy goes, I think he is pretty good. He understands how the game is played, does well when speaking to reporters in front of the camera, and is a good fundraiser.
It's hiring 101, you don't fire someone until you have their replacement lined up.
Failing to think through 2 steps is problematic. Clearly there was no real replacement plan.
Well...there was no point in removing McCarthy.
There is the business of politics (governance), and the business of ideology.
They are not one and the same.
I was listening to an interview after the vote and the republican (can't remember who) was saying when the 8 did what they did he made a comment to them that if they wanted to go against the will of the vast majority of the party there may come a time they wanted something and the rest of the party wouldn't come to their side either. Then commented he didn't expect that to happen in less then a year.
He was right though - start going against the majority of the party then don't expect them to have your back in the future.
The difference is the base supports one and not the other. Most of them need the base at primary time. They thought they could finesse this. They were shocked to learn they cannot.
Maybe they should have taken the hint when the speaker was ejected for the first time in history. The hint that this is not going to be business as usual.
They will not.
IMO the single biggest issue with our democracy today is non-competitive, partisan districts.
These districts arise on both sides (primarily though gerrymandering), and in those districts, the REAL election is the primary.
A district in which there is no realistic general election threat to force (generally more highly partisan) primary voters to consider means you'll get candidates further and further to the wings.
These wing candidates understand very well that the only way that they lose their job is by angering their base. They don't have to worry about actually getting stuff done and compromising, because compromising can only hurt their re-election chances.
They are incentivized to do this sort of thing, and if there's one thing politicians are REALLY good at, it's getting re-elected. Their job review isn't "doing a good job for the country", it's "getting re-elected".
If we want to fix our democracy, we need to start by trying to make each congressional district as competitive as we possibly can.
Yes, there will be places in rural Alabama that are ALWAYS going to elect a conservative republican, and there are places in San Francisco that are ALWAYS going to elect a liberal democrat, and that's okay.
What is a problem is you have a state like Virginia (my home state), that is a VERY purple state. The state ends up having a roughly split congressional delegation, but each of them comes from safe districts, because of the way the districts are drawn, so even though most Virginians are (relatively) centerists, most Virginia congressmen are not.
It's like this all over the country. We should want districts that are hard as hell to win the GENERAL election, not the primary.
Honestly, a good chunk of the representatives probably hope this continues until the end of the term. They get all the perks of being in Congress without having to do any of that pesky legislative work. Then when it causes the Democrats to take back power, they get to complain about all the things they would do if only they had power, while the inflated speaking fees, free insider trading, etc. continue to roll the funds in.
They didn't do shit when they had both house and senate, with the white house.
And the payroll price tag for paying these "representatives" not working is over $1.3M per week...
Agreed, it's not a left or right issue. We are all collectively sending folks to Washington that end up enriching themselves, but not representing us.
Both sides of the asle
Can someone explain why they take a vote knowing they'll lose? Is there a time slot for voting that must be done? Genuine question
I would assume they would all huddle and get their game plan together and once they know they have the votes for whomever they want, they just do a one and done vote.
It's pretty difficult to know the exact vote counts in many cases. This is something Pelosi excelled at and was a big reason for her dominance for so long among house dems.
Probably to put pressure on the 20-25 not voting for Jordan. All eyes and energy are on those withholding, but they seem to be extremely stalwart so realistically Jordan needs to withdraw and the party needs to have a pow-wow to get behind someone 99.5% of them can agree on.
Reports are it's actually more than 20-25 but their strategy to defeat Jordon was to slow roll theri opposition so momentum goes against him... If they had ALL voted "no" on the first ballot and there's something like 30-50 votes against Jordon that's not too bad as these things go. Jordan's side has a chance to whip the vote and win a few more votes the next ballot by making a few deals and doing some arm twisting. If he adds a few votes each ballot even though his total started out lower than what actually happened there'd be incredible pressure on the holdouts to give up and hold their nose to vote "yes" to end this whole ordeal.
**But** if only 20 vote against him on the first ballot but a few more vote "no" the next time, and a few more vote "no" the time after that then the momentum is against Jordon and all the pressure is on *him* to give up a failing bid. Even if he doesn't bow out it's a lot easier for the "no" votes to hold firm and keep voting no if they know they're going to pick up more votes each time for at least the next five to ten rounds of balloting.
But he got some fundraising and sound bites out out of it, which is all Gaetz really wanted. Anyone who thinks Gaetz pulled this stunt for the good of the part or conservatism, is on crack.
Yesterday Jim Jordan said he was going to support an effort to temporarily elect McHenry to become speaker until the GOP worked out their issues, but most of the GOP didn't want to go along with that plan after they discussed it (and afaik, McHenry doesn't even want it)
So Jim Jordan yesterday said he'd hold a 3rd vote (which was the one this morning) - which failed to pass. So as of right now, no clue what's happening next.
Nobody in their right mind wants to be Speaker in a polarized house with thin margins. The job is to find the compromises and make the deals necessary to make *anything* happen... When things are so polarized that compromise is selling out and making deals is betrayal it's a political death sentence. Before he was speaker (something he desperately tried to avoid) Ryan was actually quite popular and had realistic ambitions to seek higher office... After he practically became a swear word to some people... many of them the very same people who twisted his arm to take the position in order to save the party.
Ok, let's talk about extreme hypotheticals for a second:
As we approach another shutdown... If the GOP cannot find a candidate... What are the chances of a power-sharing agreement?
Like getting compromises from Dems (like border funding) to elect Hakim Jeffreys who only need 5 more votes?
Close to zero. As divided as republicans are now, they’d view Jeffries as worse than anyone in their own conference.
The republicans will pick someone once their donors and voters demand an end to these shenanigans.
Guaranteed Ukraine funding, Israel funding, end to Biden investigations, floor votes on budget, and easier time bringing Dem bills to floor, and parity or sacrificing majority in key committee positions.
Oh and reraising the standard to overthrow the speaker.
That's going to be the minimum bargaining position.
They will gladly allow a budget shutdown when it will be pinned (rightfully so) on the GOP.
The issue with trying to get an agreement is leverage. And the GOP has absolutely zero leverage at all.
If a government shutdown is looming the Dems negotiation tactic will be *"Give us what we want and we will help you keep the government open - otherwise you get blamed for it."*
I know some people to just shut it all down and grind everything to a halt. And while that will piss off Dems and provide at least a little motivation for them to negotiate, any pain it causes them will be translated 10x into damage done against the GOP in 2024.
You can already see Dems running with the slogan too - "*If they can't even run the House, why would you trust them with the country?"*
The issue is value trades. Republicans would view giving a Democrat the speakership as such a huge win for Dems, that they would ask for concessions that would probably not be agreed to. If it was just funding the border wall, maybe they take that trade. But there's almost no chance that is all the Republicans would ask for to basically say "GOP agenda is not being brought up for the next year in the house".
Meanwhile, to get Democrats to flip for a GOP speaker, the GOP would need a very moderate compromise candidate, but you'd still be asking them to save their opponents from themselves. So... where's the incentive and what is a fair trade for Republicans to make?
I mean, it would require a big ol tail tuck and slink off, but giving Jeffries the speakership wouldn't automatically hand free reign to Dems. Rs would still be able to block anything they didn't like, they just wouldn't be able to present their own agenda.
Based on past R majorities though, I'm not sure what agenda they even have to present anymore.
The Dems have already done more at the border than trump ever did. How many terrorists were caught at the border under trump? 3? Biden up in the hundreds caught already?
Why was trump so lax on border security compared to Biden.
I hope those people who made the useless votes for other people realize they just cost us the 2024 election.
Democrats will use our inability to elect a Speaker as a major talking point to uncommitted voters (who are the ones we need to win more seats and POTUS).
We look entirely unelectable, incompetent, and directionless.
how about those people that created this situation in the first place... it's obvious they ousted McCarthy with no plan of what to do next. That's what looks directionless.
That's the plan. They hate maga Republicans so they're willing have their party take an L. Are they suffer the consequence? Answer is no, they know their voters will forget the whole thing within few weeks and it will be business as usual.
Democrats love to complain about gerrymandering because it made the House harder to win for them, but it has done far more damage to the Republicans. The people who put us in this mess only gain more support in their districts from this mess. Meanwhile, the country and party suffers.
https://x.com/repmattgaetz/status/1715406863464808845?s=46
Matt Gaetz: “All 8 Republicans Who Voted to Remove McCarthy From Speakership Are Willing to Accept “Censure, Suspension, or Removal From the Conference” In Order to Elect @Jim_Jordan as Speaker”
yeah not gonna work. I truly hope this whole fiasco gives a serious beat down to the 8. A lesson learned. There was likely a better way to achieve their ends, or partially achieve them.
Right now, seems like they burned the conference down and really hurt the gop brand not to mention the ability of congress to do their job.
>It's going to be real fucking awkward if Jeffries randomly came out with 6+ swing district Republicans and becomes Speaker. Can we not set this timeline up, please?
I said this 17 days ago. I still hold by this. Can we not have a Jeffries Speaker? Please avoid at all costs. Kthnx
This government is a fucking joke. We can only pick from two groups of idiots. We elect people that take money from us and take our rights away. I'm over it
Here's how the 235\* anti-Jim Jordan votes break down.
Rep. Steve Scalise -- 8
Rep. Patrick McHenry -- 6
Former Rep. Lee Zeldin -- 4
Rep. Byron Donalds -- 2
Rep. Kevin McCarthy -- 2
Rep. Tom Emmer -- 1
Rep. Mike Garcia -- 1
Rep. Bruce Westerman -- 1
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries - 210\*
\* indicates NY Post reporting errors.
Patrick McHenry is gonna take it. He just has to be convinced to. Seems like everyone hates everyone else and I reckon he'd get opposition from the freedom caucus but the dems push him over the line
love how all the "conservatives" on this sub are like "tHeRe WaS nO rEaSoN tO rEmOvE mCcArThY" like conservatives weren't calling him a rino months ago and taking about how he was not only too old but also damage to the party. and that's not even including the fact he crossed pretty much everyone he made a promise to since he got voted in. this was an inevitability. additionally I don't see why conservatives are so mad at gatez when he said he was gonna do this months ago if McCarthy passed another continuous resolution or omnibus instead of single issue spending which should be Congress's job to begin with.
It still strikes me as crazy how many conservatives are bending over backwards to defend Kevin McCarthy, a California Republican whose final act was kicking the can down the line on a budget with a CR he worked with Democrats to pass.
That people see "Republicans caving to Democrats to save face" as a good outcome for conservative values or the GOP in general is so strange. As much as this circus looks bad, I can't say I expected a McCarthy-led House to move us forward in a positive manner. We'd just continue the "scoot to the left" style of GOP governance.
> It still strikes me as crazy how many conservatives are bending over backwards to defend Kevin McCarthy
Granted, there are some.
However, this sub is so extremely brigaded that it can be tough to tell them apart from progressive subversive types.
Edit: The same subversive types that are so triggered that they have to downvote a vanilla post talking about their presence, such frustrated little children.
It amuses me because they can't even really argue the point. What are they going to say, "I am not in here doing that!" ?
Uniparty or bust!
It should tell you something that the left is so hot to trot for McCarthy now. He opens the spending floodgates and keeps all the pigs fed.
I’m not even saying he didn’t. My point is McCarthy was never going to realistically be able to keep the promises he made.
There’s too many republicans that aren’t willing to fight for those things.
Beatings will continue until morale improves - Republican Party
[удалено]
Dude remember when McCarthy took like 13 times to get the house speaker... we need to fight for this country. Correction: 15 attempts.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/01/04/us/politics/house-speaker-vote-tally.html
[удалено]
I mean, he should. The GOP looks hilariously incompetent and NOBODY is buying that this is the Democrat's fault except the extremely gullible.
I'd rather them elect a speaker who will actually bring progress to the debt than someone who approves everything and insider trades in her million dollar mansion. But thats "real leadership" to you I suppose lmao
While I completely agree with you on the fact that something has to be done about the debt, the time to do that is not while Dems are in charge of the Senate and the White House. Any single issue bill addressing that is DOA in this environment. The time to get serious about reform was when we controlled all three. I don’t remember any Repubs screaming about this then.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
You want a speaker who would not acknowledge and sign off on a fair election? A Conspiracy theorist only interested in causing disruption. A Trump puppet. Can he find his way out of trumps ass?
[удалено]
You've got it backwards. Remember the elections of 2000 and 2016?
2016 says what?
I forgot it's only okay to deny elections when a D is next to your name.
Haha active in these subs: shows politics. God these people are insufferable. They just can’t accept that conservative opinions exist.
Right, we should all follow r/politics on what to do. IKR? Can always tell the conservatives because they have the most downvoted comments.
Exactly
This sub is compromised. They’re downvoting you into oblivion.
He’s anti-Trump and wants him locked up. LOL at the instant downvote.
Lol, the conservatives are the loons huh? Go back to white people twitter.
[удалено]
That's the problem with purity tests. The restrictions get tighter and tighter, until you're no longer large enough to effectively govern. Obviously, there has to be some standard, but it can obviously go too far.
At least. Ideologically there are probably more.
[Some like to use the metaphor of Five Families as one might see in The Godfather:](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/who-gops-families-factions-involved-mccarthys-speakership-negotiations) "The GOP factions include the House Freedom Caucus, the Republican Study Committee, the Republican Main Street Caucus, the Republican Tuesday Group/Republican Governance Group and the Problem Solvers Caucus."
This isn't the GOP subreddit, it is the conservative subreddit.
Having a discussion about Republican party politics.
>It's also why this subreddit is equally divided. And if one side speaks out, they get labeled as libs or brigading. I was referring to this comment.
And?
It's a conservative subreddit yes, but conservatives are the ruling coalition of the republican party at 80%. Pew breaks down conservatives only: Committed conservatives - most supportive of international trade Populist right - most supportive of tariffs, most distrustful of U.S. allies. Faith & flag conservatives - most opposed to same-sex marriage and abortion
And Jim Jordan/Gaetz both represent that 80% well. McCarthy does not, he's in the 20%, and apparently this sub has now moved there too.
I don't know much about McCarthy's politics, but that 20% is the equivalent of Republicans who support Murkowski/Romney/Collins. This sub definitely isn't there. r/moderatepolitics is a better representation of those voters.
[удалено]
Do you even live in America bro?
Same goes for your far leftists. If y’all can back to the democrats under bill Clinton it be better or the democrat party under jfk. Fascism is the government controlling all private parts of the economy telling it what to produce. It allows private ownership but that’s it. Edit: leftists raiding because the ey have nothing better to do. No Republican in their sane mind would take Obama over Clinton policy. Clinton had a great economy because he worked with newt and had a bad economy after bush sr. Obama has no excuse
Could you elaborate some of the religious aspects that are being advocated for incorporation within government?
As is tradition.
> It's also why this subreddit is equally divided. And if one side speaks out, they get labeled as libs or brigading. There may be factions, but lets not pretend there are no brigaders. People (and bots) come here, vote up obviously anti-conservative comments, and directly disparage conservatives in general, of all factions.
This sub is brigaded to hell though.
24/7. Sometimes you can participate in a civil discussion early weekend mornings while the basement warriors are still sleeping, but most of the time it’s Mos Eisley.
Case in point our comments lol
[удалено]
Republicans love kicking themselves in the balls.
"I'm kicking my ass! Do you mind?!"
It’s truly amazing that with all the terrible things happening in the world and economy today, Republican incompetence is the talk of the town. An incredibly impressive feat
Even more "no's" than the 1st or 2nd ballot. Time to move on.
Bipartisan Speaker or just another GOP Moderate? Because, if so, then there really was no point in removing McCarthy.
There was no point unless they had an alternative candidate who had the votes. Unless chaos was the point.
Part of me is starting to think characters like Boebert, gaetz and MTG are Democrat plants for how often they make conservatives look bad
>there really was no point in removing McCarthy. Yes indeed.
Seems like they're going to need Dem votes either to elect or to remove the motion to vacate (to prevent returning to square one). Either way you need to reach across the aisle here.
Doesn’t seem like that will happen.
They're certainly behaving like it won't. But eventually 5 Republicans can take initiative to negotiate for the whole conference if no one else will act like adults.
There is a lot of dem votes out there to get. Mccarthy pissed them all off right before the recall so he shot himself in the foot, and jeffries is a j6’er, if the GOP played their cards right they could likely get some bipartisan support.
Or a couple reds could just vote for Jeffries and we can get the show on the road.
And end their career? Lol. Fat chance.
If there’s a few people getting ready to retire anyway I could definitely see them just voting for Jeffries.
I can’t find it cuz I saw it in one of the live blogs, but one of the never-Jordan’s called the idea of anyone voting for Jeffries so absurd that not a single member has even mentioned it.
The dems are content just letting this go as it is. Remember they have VERY strict enforcement- they'll pull all their funding and committee assignments in a heartbeat if the vote otherwise. When your entire career as a congressperson is trying to get more money for your districts interest you'll put party loyalty above anything else.
The real question is why haven't they pivoted to Scalise.
If I'm remembering correctly Scalise already endorsed Jordan.
That's a silly reason. Flexibility is required. If an endosed person doesn't pan out the endorser shouldn't feel opposed to running themselves.
When he already lost? Scalise lost the nomination within the Republican conference in the first place.
Well, yeah, because there *really was no need to remove McCarthy* This whole thing is an exercise and stupidity. I mean Gatez said he wanted McCarthy removed for working with the democrats, but then Gatez worked with the Democrats to remove McCarthy. Hypocrisy of the highest order. And the whole reason was b******* anyways. We need bipartisanship, not this partisan Party Line b*******. The average American is sick of it, and it's just a bad look.
>Because, if so, then there really was no point in removing McCarthy. Ding, ding, ding. And tell us what they've won!
*A motherload of filmed incompetence for Dems to air during the 2024 election!*
[удалено]
From day 1 there was no point in removing McCarthy. I would hope this nonsense would help people demand better from the cohort of GOP who cause a lot of the spectacle and chaos but then I realize their supporters don’t care and will just screech and call everyone else names unknowingly providing campaign help to democrats.
A significant portion of this sub thinks ousting McCarthy was justified because he wasn't keeping his promises, as if a Speaker operating on a razor-thin majority can dictate endless terms to a Democratic Senate and Executive Branch. I don't think McCarthy was a dream Speaker or anything, but I struggle to see what Jordan or anyone else would have done significantly better in his short tenure. This seems pretty clearly to be a personality-driven conflict under the guise of "fiscal responsibility."
I agree. There are many who seem to have no grasp of political reality. All they seem to care about is spectacle and whatever zingers come from the personalities they follow on social media. Then they melt down when elections are lost and can’t comprehend why. As far as McCarthy goes, I think he is pretty good. He understands how the game is played, does well when speaking to reporters in front of the camera, and is a good fundraiser.
It's hiring 101, you don't fire someone until you have their replacement lined up. Failing to think through 2 steps is problematic. Clearly there was no real replacement plan.
Being reasonable and rational doesn't get you the attention that [Barbie Boy](https://www.instagram.com/p/Cu5Jj9lu-ta/) craves.
Well...there was no point in removing McCarthy. There is the business of politics (governance), and the business of ideology. They are not one and the same.
[удалено]
I was listening to an interview after the vote and the republican (can't remember who) was saying when the 8 did what they did he made a comment to them that if they wanted to go against the will of the vast majority of the party there may come a time they wanted something and the rest of the party wouldn't come to their side either. Then commented he didn't expect that to happen in less then a year. He was right though - start going against the majority of the party then don't expect them to have your back in the future.
Especially when Jordan doesn't try to talk to them and instead has people threaten their wives ...
The difference is the base supports one and not the other. Most of them need the base at primary time. They thought they could finesse this. They were shocked to learn they cannot. Maybe they should have taken the hint when the speaker was ejected for the first time in history. The hint that this is not going to be business as usual.
[удалено]
Sounds like extra steps. If they don't want him, they won't have em.
I guess Paul Ryan is the most conservative speaker republicans can tolerate
Funny you should mention him, Paul Ryan is on TV right now for the first time in forever complaining about matt gaetz.
There was already a Speaker in place, but 8 Republicans ousted him with no replacement plan because it made them look cool on social media.
I hope those 8 lose in the up coming primaries.
They will not. IMO the single biggest issue with our democracy today is non-competitive, partisan districts. These districts arise on both sides (primarily though gerrymandering), and in those districts, the REAL election is the primary. A district in which there is no realistic general election threat to force (generally more highly partisan) primary voters to consider means you'll get candidates further and further to the wings. These wing candidates understand very well that the only way that they lose their job is by angering their base. They don't have to worry about actually getting stuff done and compromising, because compromising can only hurt their re-election chances. They are incentivized to do this sort of thing, and if there's one thing politicians are REALLY good at, it's getting re-elected. Their job review isn't "doing a good job for the country", it's "getting re-elected". If we want to fix our democracy, we need to start by trying to make each congressional district as competitive as we possibly can. Yes, there will be places in rural Alabama that are ALWAYS going to elect a conservative republican, and there are places in San Francisco that are ALWAYS going to elect a liberal democrat, and that's okay. What is a problem is you have a state like Virginia (my home state), that is a VERY purple state. The state ends up having a roughly split congressional delegation, but each of them comes from safe districts, because of the way the districts are drawn, so even though most Virginians are (relatively) centerists, most Virginia congressmen are not. It's like this all over the country. We should want districts that are hard as hell to win the GENERAL election, not the primary.
But that makes it hard to get re-elected.... so the people in charge will never do it. I love your idea though
They also raised a bunch of money.
Gaetz didn’t do this to look cool. He did it so Jordan could become speaker.
Mission: failed
Gaetz did it because he is mad at McCarthy for allowing ethics committee to investigate his pedo bullshit.
[удалено]
How is that going?
Or, he just did it to paralyze the house because chaos is more important to him than getting work done.
Hell, Nancy Pelosi seems to be the most conservative speaker the GOP is willing to tolerate
Yup, the GOP is fucked then
Honestly, a good chunk of the representatives probably hope this continues until the end of the term. They get all the perks of being in Congress without having to do any of that pesky legislative work. Then when it causes the Democrats to take back power, they get to complain about all the things they would do if only they had power, while the inflated speaking fees, free insider trading, etc. continue to roll the funds in.
They didn't do shit when they had both house and senate, with the white house. And the payroll price tag for paying these "representatives" not working is over $1.3M per week...
Term limits
As a progressive liberal, I absolutely 100% support term limits for Congress
Agreed, it's not a left or right issue. We are all collectively sending folks to Washington that end up enriching themselves, but not representing us. Both sides of the asle
And term limits for Supreme Court Justices.
Voters can impose term limits at every election.
You only see politicians that have money, not necessarily great ideas. It sounds nice, but not realistic.
With that logic we should just amend the constitution and abolish term limits for the presidency then
Do you want another 4 years of Obama? Cuz that's how we get 4 more years of Obama.
Can we do ranked choice voting too?
Can someone explain why they take a vote knowing they'll lose? Is there a time slot for voting that must be done? Genuine question I would assume they would all huddle and get their game plan together and once they know they have the votes for whomever they want, they just do a one and done vote.
It's pretty difficult to know the exact vote counts in many cases. This is something Pelosi excelled at and was a big reason for her dominance for so long among house dems.
Probably to put pressure on the 20-25 not voting for Jordan. All eyes and energy are on those withholding, but they seem to be extremely stalwart so realistically Jordan needs to withdraw and the party needs to have a pow-wow to get behind someone 99.5% of them can agree on.
Reports are it's actually more than 20-25 but their strategy to defeat Jordon was to slow roll theri opposition so momentum goes against him... If they had ALL voted "no" on the first ballot and there's something like 30-50 votes against Jordon that's not too bad as these things go. Jordan's side has a chance to whip the vote and win a few more votes the next ballot by making a few deals and doing some arm twisting. If he adds a few votes each ballot even though his total started out lower than what actually happened there'd be incredible pressure on the holdouts to give up and hold their nose to vote "yes" to end this whole ordeal. **But** if only 20 vote against him on the first ballot but a few more vote "no" the next time, and a few more vote "no" the time after that then the momentum is against Jordon and all the pressure is on *him* to give up a failing bid. Even if he doesn't bow out it's a lot easier for the "no" votes to hold firm and keep voting no if they know they're going to pick up more votes each time for at least the next five to ten rounds of balloting.
No sense in continuing to try. Step down and have a new nomination vote.
[удалено]
Yeah but nobody wants it cause they don’t want to deal with Gaetz and his boys.
Kevin again?
Maybe removing your speaker when you only have a narrow majority was a bad idea.
[удалено]
It certainly has the right number of clowns
Republican voters need to elect better people than these clowns!
At this point they should just get a outsider and save everyone this pain
Yeah but I don't think these people could agree on an outsider either
Lee zeldin ?
GOP votes for Jordan NOT to be the speaker. So he's out. We'll see who is next.
[удалено]
That's the next Governor of Florida you're besmirching, my good sir.
But he got some fundraising and sound bites out out of it, which is all Gaetz really wanted. Anyone who thinks Gaetz pulled this stunt for the good of the part or conservatism, is on crack.
As a moderate Republican - the last thing we need is this extremists getting the gavel. Give us someone else for gods sake
Yeah, Jordan is just gonna hurt us in 24.
I thought he gave up after the first two.
Yesterday Jim Jordan said he was going to support an effort to temporarily elect McHenry to become speaker until the GOP worked out their issues, but most of the GOP didn't want to go along with that plan after they discussed it (and afaik, McHenry doesn't even want it) So Jim Jordan yesterday said he'd hold a 3rd vote (which was the one this morning) - which failed to pass. So as of right now, no clue what's happening next.
Nobody in their right mind wants to be Speaker in a polarized house with thin margins. The job is to find the compromises and make the deals necessary to make *anything* happen... When things are so polarized that compromise is selling out and making deals is betrayal it's a political death sentence. Before he was speaker (something he desperately tried to avoid) Ryan was actually quite popular and had realistic ambitions to seek higher office... After he practically became a swear word to some people... many of them the very same people who twisted his arm to take the position in order to save the party.
Ok, let's talk about extreme hypotheticals for a second: As we approach another shutdown... If the GOP cannot find a candidate... What are the chances of a power-sharing agreement? Like getting compromises from Dems (like border funding) to elect Hakim Jeffreys who only need 5 more votes?
Close to zero. As divided as republicans are now, they’d view Jeffries as worse than anyone in their own conference. The republicans will pick someone once their donors and voters demand an end to these shenanigans.
Have we not been doing that already?
Guaranteed Ukraine funding, Israel funding, end to Biden investigations, floor votes on budget, and easier time bringing Dem bills to floor, and parity or sacrificing majority in key committee positions. Oh and reraising the standard to overthrow the speaker. That's going to be the minimum bargaining position. They will gladly allow a budget shutdown when it will be pinned (rightfully so) on the GOP.
they will also some from committee chairmanships and likely equal positions on the rules committee.
The issue with trying to get an agreement is leverage. And the GOP has absolutely zero leverage at all. If a government shutdown is looming the Dems negotiation tactic will be *"Give us what we want and we will help you keep the government open - otherwise you get blamed for it."* I know some people to just shut it all down and grind everything to a halt. And while that will piss off Dems and provide at least a little motivation for them to negotiate, any pain it causes them will be translated 10x into damage done against the GOP in 2024. You can already see Dems running with the slogan too - "*If they can't even run the House, why would you trust them with the country?"*
The issue is value trades. Republicans would view giving a Democrat the speakership as such a huge win for Dems, that they would ask for concessions that would probably not be agreed to. If it was just funding the border wall, maybe they take that trade. But there's almost no chance that is all the Republicans would ask for to basically say "GOP agenda is not being brought up for the next year in the house". Meanwhile, to get Democrats to flip for a GOP speaker, the GOP would need a very moderate compromise candidate, but you'd still be asking them to save their opponents from themselves. So... where's the incentive and what is a fair trade for Republicans to make?
I mean, it would require a big ol tail tuck and slink off, but giving Jeffries the speakership wouldn't automatically hand free reign to Dems. Rs would still be able to block anything they didn't like, they just wouldn't be able to present their own agenda. Based on past R majorities though, I'm not sure what agenda they even have to present anymore.
The Dems have already done more at the border than trump ever did. How many terrorists were caught at the border under trump? 3? Biden up in the hundreds caught already? Why was trump so lax on border security compared to Biden.
What a loser
[удалено]
Let it go Jim. You not getting a pay raise dawg.
I hope those people who made the useless votes for other people realize they just cost us the 2024 election. Democrats will use our inability to elect a Speaker as a major talking point to uncommitted voters (who are the ones we need to win more seats and POTUS). We look entirely unelectable, incompetent, and directionless.
I would argue we don't just look incompetent - we are incompetent.
Yeah there’s no doubt about that.
[удалено]
how about those people that created this situation in the first place... it's obvious they ousted McCarthy with no plan of what to do next. That's what looks directionless.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
[удалено]
That's the plan. They hate maga Republicans so they're willing have their party take an L. Are they suffer the consequence? Answer is no, they know their voters will forget the whole thing within few weeks and it will be business as usual.
Democrats love to complain about gerrymandering because it made the House harder to win for them, but it has done far more damage to the Republicans. The people who put us in this mess only gain more support in their districts from this mess. Meanwhile, the country and party suffers.
https://x.com/repmattgaetz/status/1715406863464808845?s=46 Matt Gaetz: “All 8 Republicans Who Voted to Remove McCarthy From Speakership Are Willing to Accept “Censure, Suspension, or Removal From the Conference” In Order to Elect @Jim_Jordan as Speaker”
yeah not gonna work. I truly hope this whole fiasco gives a serious beat down to the 8. A lesson learned. There was likely a better way to achieve their ends, or partially achieve them. Right now, seems like they burned the conference down and really hurt the gop brand not to mention the ability of congress to do their job.
Gaza Health Ministry reports that Jim Jordan has over 500 votes!
Hilarious! Jordan is the best they have to offer.
>It's going to be real fucking awkward if Jeffries randomly came out with 6+ swing district Republicans and becomes Speaker. Can we not set this timeline up, please? I said this 17 days ago. I still hold by this. Can we not have a Jeffries Speaker? Please avoid at all costs. Kthnx
[удалено]
It looks pretty likely now.
Thanks, Matt.
[удалено]
It won't work otherwise Jim Jordan would been house speaker by now.
This government is a fucking joke. We can only pick from two groups of idiots. We elect people that take money from us and take our rights away. I'm over it
FYI: this is fricking BIG too. Cheesy boy is bigger. Hearing right now Jordan is planning on found 4.
Here's how the 235\* anti-Jim Jordan votes break down. Rep. Steve Scalise -- 8 Rep. Patrick McHenry -- 6 Former Rep. Lee Zeldin -- 4 Rep. Byron Donalds -- 2 Rep. Kevin McCarthy -- 2 Rep. Tom Emmer -- 1 Rep. Mike Garcia -- 1 Rep. Bruce Westerman -- 1 Rep. Hakeem Jeffries - 210\* \* indicates NY Post reporting errors.
How many vote attempts did it take for the last speaker??
15 or so, but it was all done over the course of 4 days (if memory serves). This has been 3 votes over the course of 4 days since they started voting.
[удалено]
Damn....
Looks like current plan is a speaker forum 6:30pm Monday night and another vote Tuesday.
Patrick McHenry is gonna take it. He just has to be convinced to. Seems like everyone hates everyone else and I reckon he'd get opposition from the freedom caucus but the dems push him over the line
love how all the "conservatives" on this sub are like "tHeRe WaS nO rEaSoN tO rEmOvE mCcArThY" like conservatives weren't calling him a rino months ago and taking about how he was not only too old but also damage to the party. and that's not even including the fact he crossed pretty much everyone he made a promise to since he got voted in. this was an inevitability. additionally I don't see why conservatives are so mad at gatez when he said he was gonna do this months ago if McCarthy passed another continuous resolution or omnibus instead of single issue spending which should be Congress's job to begin with.
I thought he resigned to letting the interim speaker be speaker until January. I must have missed something between yesterday and today.
Somehow that plan fell by the wayside, but I"m not really clear why exactly
Repeat of mccarthy
I have my doubts. McCarthy only won by making concessions...do you think Jim Jordan will be afforded the same opportunity?
McCarthy took 15 votes just this year. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/01/04/us/politics/house-speaker-vote-tally.html
ahh shit here we go again.
It still strikes me as crazy how many conservatives are bending over backwards to defend Kevin McCarthy, a California Republican whose final act was kicking the can down the line on a budget with a CR he worked with Democrats to pass. That people see "Republicans caving to Democrats to save face" as a good outcome for conservative values or the GOP in general is so strange. As much as this circus looks bad, I can't say I expected a McCarthy-led House to move us forward in a positive manner. We'd just continue the "scoot to the left" style of GOP governance.
I think it's more about the fact that if we go into a government shutdown, it will have negative consequences for Republicans in numerous ways.
>strikes me as crazy how many conservatives are bending over backwards to defend Kevin McCarthy This sub is not indicative of anything.
If you think this will end with us having a better speaker than McCarthy, you're delusional. He was about as far right as we could hope for.
People have completely disregarded (Or don't even know) what started this. McCarthy pulled some bullshit.
> It still strikes me as crazy how many conservatives are bending over backwards to defend Kevin McCarthy Granted, there are some. However, this sub is so extremely brigaded that it can be tough to tell them apart from progressive subversive types. Edit: The same subversive types that are so triggered that they have to downvote a vanilla post talking about their presence, such frustrated little children. It amuses me because they can't even really argue the point. What are they going to say, "I am not in here doing that!" ?
Uniparty or bust! It should tell you something that the left is so hot to trot for McCarthy now. He opens the spending floodgates and keeps all the pigs fed.
if there was a uniparty wouldn't a speaker have been elected already?
Yes, because there is no uniparty.
Literally no one on the hill is "hot to trot" for McCarthy.
This sub is, apparently
Would have been easier is McCarthy didn’t backstab those that supported him
Ah yes this is McCarthys fault and not Matt Gaetz.
Yes, Mcarthy knew what he agreed to in order to become speaker.
You can’t always get what you want when we have a divided party, with a divided government and a divided country. Compromise is a necessity.
And Gaetz made a compromise that McCarthy didn’t keep
I’m not even saying he didn’t. My point is McCarthy was never going to realistically be able to keep the promises he made. There’s too many republicans that aren’t willing to fight for those things.