I was just reading over the procedure for electing a speaker and learned that when they first convene the first order of business is establishing a quorum. The second order of business is electing a speaker which they must do before they move on to anything else.
The person who will presides over the House until a speaker is elected this January is…
Cheryl L. Johnson.
Which I’m sure some of you were expecting.
Here’s her Wikipedia page for the tiny minority of SDMB readers who are not familiar with Cheryl L. Johnson.
I could see some of them holding out for, say, two votes, possibly using those “failures” to try to extract more demands from McCarthy. But I would guess that they will fall into line by the third vote, if it came to that. But I still think it is much more likely that all of that horse-trading will happen behind the scenes, and they will vote McCarthy in quickly.
All of that is pure, 100% speculative opinion worth the price of the paper it is printed on
I suspect most would agree that his winning on first vote is more likely than any other single outcome.
But if he doesn’t? Personally I wouldn’t be brave enough to go with any absolutism.
This current crop has a few who really would see the House being able to do nothing as a second best option and as true to their no compromise brand. And there may be a few more mainstream Republicans who are not willing to vote for McCarthy if it means giving in to every extreme demand. That really could be an impossible stalemate that allows for them to consider other impossible options.
Likely not. If he does not win on the first try, and they seem to be true to no compromise, if the Farthest Right overplays, someone else may try to win by getting some D support, making deals that direction.
Especially since the rebels don’t even need to vote for McCarthy to let him become Speaker – they can abstain on a subsequent ballot, which would allow him to be elected and the diehards could still say they never voted for him.
Why in the world would Ryan come back when he’d be facing a Freedom Caucus worse than the one he faced when he last was Speaker?
Agreed. And the Dems are not going to save the Republicans from themselves on this issue.
A large portion of the membership on both sides looks at McCarthy and sees a man who so painfullythirsts for the Speakership, so bad he can almost taste it, and they will want to make that be the taste of ashes when he gets there.
Politico does an interview with one of the “Never Kevins”, Bob Good, who says that they have a plan to go for a different candidate: nominate Biggs on the first ballot as a protest, then when it goes to a second ballot, nominate their real candidate, widely rumoured to be Steve Scalise.
We also learned that Good & Co. are formulating a plan for the Jan. 3 speaker vote. Anti-McCarthy members are currently plotting to back Rep. ANDY BIGGS (R-Ariz.) on the first ballot, he said, to prove McCarthy can’t get the gavel. But once the second ballot is called, they’ll begin coalescing around another, unnamed candidate — a GOP lawmaker most have already agreed upon, Good said, but will not name for fear of hurting this person’s candidacy.
Nothing. If the Democrats make demands, they will be unable to stop Kevin McCarthy, because they will fail to attract the few needed GOP votes.
A Republican speaker who was elected with hundreds of Democratic votes, and who, as a non-member, doesn’t have to worry about being primaried, would, in my view, act either as a moderate Republican, or even like the non-partisan speaker of the British House of Commons.
But what if I’m wrong, and the new speaker, say, blocks a citizenship for dreamers bill from coming to a vote, just as Kevin M. Is planning to do? Well, as I understand it, the speaker can be easily removed by a majority vote. So nothing would be lost as a practical matter.
Politically, Democrats would benefit electorally by showing that they tried for bipartisanship.
As to how practical this is, it might take no more than a request from Hakeem Jeffries to change the practicality equation.
Would the precedent mean that Jeffries threw away his chances at eventually becoming speaker? I’d say no, because the next turn of the wheel probably won’t leave the House so evenly divided, and Jeffries seems to be extremely popular in his caucus.
Yeah, this is a one-off. Improbable but still possible.
For those who insist that it is impossible, let me posit this: If a few Long Island districts had gone the other way and the R majority were much slimmer, 218-217 or 219-216, this would not only be possible but I’d bet on it. Can you imagine if Jeffries could deliver the speakership to Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger merely by finding one GOP turncoat?
I’m not going to say it’s impossible – if the last few years of American politics have taught me anything, it’s to never say some outcome is impossible. And coalitions like this have happened in state legislatures. Back in 2009 in Texas, a coalition of Democrats and rebel Republicans ousted the incumbent Republican Speaker.
But I think it’s highly, highly unlikely that this could happen in Congress, even with the narrow margin, for a couple reasons:
Who are these “moderate Republicans” who would support this? Like, name them. Of the ten House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump for the Capitol insurrection, only two managed to get reelected this year. Even if you can find five who might be open to this maneuver, collaborating with Democrats to name a “centrist” Speaker would be political suicide. They will be radioactive in a Republican primary, and not any more loved by Democrats. The illustrative example is Republican Congressman Peter Meijer, who voted to impeach Trump. His reward? He lost his primary when Democrats intervened to support his conservative opponent, reasoning that the opponent was more likely to lose the general election (they were right).
What’s in it for Democrats? They can prevent a Republican House from launching endless investigations and impeachments, but so what? House Republicans can make noise, but they can’t do anything. This election just showed that MAGA craziness is a losing proposition. A Speaker beholden to the craziest of the crazies and launching constant whack-a-doodle witch hunts is likely to be a political boon for Democrats in 2024. Meanwhile, if they manage to pull off this maneuver, they’ll now be held accountable for any failures. How is this new Speaker going to pass a budget when he or she needs the votes of both the “Squad” and moderate Republicans?
See posts 5 and 6. This group has at least threatened to flex their muscles too:
Just as preferring to have the House do nothing to compromise is brand for Freedom Caucus, pragmatism in service of conservative fiscal aims is their brand. They won primaries and generals with that brand.
