Republicans looked like the clowns that they are today.
They did it with Boener. I’m not sure what the best tactical outcome is for the Dems, but it’s probably something they want to keep in play.
The value lies in fracturing the Republican caucus. Or at least not helping them paper over the cracks. At this point, the Democrats should stick together, and just wait and see what transpires on the other side of the aisle.
My understanding is that as long as Democrats were there voting in unison for Jeffries, the Republicans were in a tighter spot than they otherwise would have been. Is that incorrect?
It is of tremendous value to let Americans see how incapable Republicans are of governing. If they can’t even agree on a Speaker, how will they lead? (This is a redundant question.)
I find it refreshing for a change to see Dems use Republicans’ prior “super power” in a productive way; that is, sticking together. The difference is that Dems are sticking together in their quest to govern in a reasonable, effective way. Republicans stick together only in their quest to cement power for themselves.
This passion play is a good way for everyday Americans to see the difference between the two parties.
Bet McCarthy is kicking himself for grovelling back to Trump in 2021. He lies in the shitty bed of his own making.
The Democrats had to vote for someone, preferably a Democrat, but the vote wouldn’t have worked out differently if they had split their vote between 3 or more Democrats.
However, by not splitting the vote, they show their solidarity and cohesion vs the clusterfuck the Republicans were showing today.
That’s my take on it. As long as the Dems vote in a bloc for their guy, snd have more votes than McCarthy, then the never-Kevins can’t vote for Kevin, and they can’t just vote present, because then Jeffries could win it.
As long as the Dems all turn up and vote as a bloc, the republicans disunity is there for all to see
What I meant was, that the Democrats show up and vote for Democrats as long as the shitshow continued, without leaving. Would their lack of presence have relieved Republicans in some way?
The democrats have no reason to help McCarthy. Remember he stated “ I want you to watch Nancy pelosi hand me that gavel. It will be hard not to hit her with it.”
This was before mr pelosi was attacked.
And that’s the problem, since they all want the power for themselves.
It’s easy to stick together when there is opposition, but once they actually have the power, they fracture.
Yes, because they need a majority of votes.
If the Democrats left, then they only need half of who is left.
There were only a few holdouts against McCarthy, but it was enough. If it was only Republicans left to vote, then he would get in easily.
Yes. The speaker is the person who gets the majority of the votes cast. If every rep votes, that’s 218, but if the Dems leave, then McC can win with 202 of 222 (or whatever).
Yes, by not voting it lowers the amount of votes you need. When boehner was looking at a tight vote some democrats did not attend.
True. And it’s such a great observation.
Thanks you all!
Okay, but then why is Congress polling so poorly? I saw a brief bit on the news this morning with Lauren Boebert (I think) saying much the same thing; that Congress is unpopular and she, and her ilk, are trying to change it. The problem is, I don’t think she has any clue why it’s so unpopular with so many of us. I would like to see more cooperation, more bipartisanship, more compromise. The Freedom Caucus’s (ugh) plans to fix Congress are to do more of the things that have broken it. When that fails, they’ll do it even more! The feedback system is horribly broken.
There have been a couple of previous threads about this issue. I don’t want to get a hijack going here so I’m just linking to them.
Jim Jordan accused of ignoring sexual abuse as a coach
The first couple of posts in both threads should fill you in pretty well.
Some individual GOP members are in a tight spot in that they consider it important to wrap up their leadership contest quickly, and they can’t do it.
This doesn’t, however, mean that the GOP is in a tight spot the way they were when Hershel Walker and Kari Lake won their primaries.
One person in a tight spot is Joe Biden, because the next speaker, chosen with no Democratic input whatsoever, is going to refuse to bring his bills to a vote, even if they could narrowly pass.
I’m going to politely disagree here. I do not believe that the Dems are trying to govern in a reasonable, effective way as an end to an end. They, like the Republicans, stick together in their quest to cement power for themselves. This is easily demonstrable by many scenarios, but the 2016 election certainly sticks out.
(Otherwise, why else would they be propping up so many unlikeable octogenarians and vilifying the actual likeable one from Vermont?)
They like theatrics just as much, wasting so much time on the Trump impeachment and Jan 6 hearings. That’s what they really love doing. And Wall Street wants Congress to be as non functional as possible. So that’s what usually happens.
Anyways, they knew they were close to falling off a cliff, and actually had to do some governing. Good for them.
I’m not hijacking this thread to dispute your point of view. Let’s just agree to disagree.