Not likely but the writers are not naïve newbs.
B-b-b-b-but that’s impossible!!
Could you point to someone who said that was impossible? Just curious.
And while stating 1 in 100,000 is not quite saying “impossible” it is a difference of no significance.
I’m sure you think I’m overstating in characterizing your generous estimate of 100,000 to 1 = “impossible”
Or, to quote Jim Carrey: “So you’re saying that I have a chance?”
To me it means it is still possible, even if it is extremely remote. Saying something is highly unlikely is not the same as saying it is impossible. Plenty of people thought DJT getting the GOP nomination was highly unlikely. While an argument could be made that was true it still turned out to be possible. Same with this.
I wouldn’t say you are overstating my characterization as much as I would say you are taking it out of context and completely misrepresenting what I was saying. My post, as you quoted, was about Ds helping the GOP elect a Speaker. That is something I still maintain is highly unlikely to happen given the current political situation.
The linked article is about the next Speaker being someone from outside the House. Those are two completely different things. And the quotes pulled by @DSeid are also referencing the same thing. So it appears to me both of you are incorrect.
So again, when and where did anyone say it is impossible for the GOP to put up someone who is not a House member as Speaker?
And even if you don’t like the odds, a 1 in 100,000 chance at something is still a chance at said thing happening. A remote chance. An unlikely chance. But still a chance.
Me. I suppose “impossible” is too strong a word, since technically the Constitution does not say NO!, but realpolitik says it will not happen, and certainly it will never, ever be trump.
That is being pedantic. People do not have to use that exact word- “impossible” to get across that meaning.
Even tho I meet the Constitutional requirements for president, it is - for all intents and purposes- impossible for me to become President.
So, can we get back to reality?
It is possible that a Republican Speaker might garner some Dem support. Maybe enough to offset the worst of the trump/MAGA crazies. It is possible that McCarthy might make some sort of secret backroom deal to get a dozen Dem votes? Sure.
I used the term “highly unlikely” on several occasions in reference to Ds and moderate Rs getting together on electing a Speaker. Saying this is the same as calling it impossible is simply inaccurate. Pointing out the two things are different is hardly pedantic. Saying the chances are 1 in 100,000 was meant to emphasize the very long odds of that happening. Winning the lottery has longer odds but plenty of people buy tickets and clearly don’t consider it impossible to win.
As to the NYT article suggesting a person outside Congress could be recruited or put forward as a candidate - Why would anyone take on this role? The authors acknowledge how fractious this next Congress is likely to be so why would someone want that headache? Plus, Hogan is considering a run for POTUS. I doubt he would see this as helping him unless he truly believes he could reign in the crazies.
Having a secret ballot also strikes me as problematic. Wouldn’t allowing that require a rule change that is subject to a vote?
Quoting myself here to emphasize that I am well aware that some combination of Democratic and Republican house members could get together to elect a more moderate Speaker than McCarthy (which is the notion I was responding to in the above quote). That is, it is technically feasible; it is not impossible in a constitutional sense.
I maintain that, in the political world in which we currently live, and with an appropriate dose of hyperbole, it will neverevernever happen. It is an enticing fantasy based on an earlier era in our government when the two sides did occasionally work together in a true bipartisan manner; a time when “shame” and “honor” were concepts some politicians felt and responded to. We do not live in that era anymore.
It reminds me of the thinking of people who felt that Donald Trump would “rise to the occasion” when he became president. Sure, that was not impossible, per se, but I also felt at the time that it would neverevernever happen 
You’re having it both ways. If it happens (which I’ll concede is very unlikely) you get to gloat, “OK, all you stupid idiots bragging that you saw it coming, well, so did I! I said it was a zillion to one, and that one came through.” And if it doesn’t happen, you get to gloat, “OK, all you stupid idiots who said you saw a way for it to happen, ha ha, I was proven right–it didn’t happen, and it’s never going to happen!”
So you think it’s impossible? 
(bolding is mine)
But no, I won’t gloat if I’m correct and I won’t call anyone an idiot, at least not in this forum since that wouldn’t be appropriate. But unlikely anywhere to be honest. I also won’t say I claimed it would never happen as I never said that. 
And before this becomes too much of a hijack I’m done discussing the “impossibility” of any of this happening. As @DSeid said above, it is most likely McCarthy will get elected on the 1st, 2nd or 3rd ballot. If it goes much beyond that Scalise may stand a chance but we will have to wait and see.
I for one am saying “Hey, wouldn’t it be fun to watch the Cluster-F if he didn’t?”
100% agree. If something happens where McC can’t get over the line then yes, that will be highly entertaining. Cluster indeed.
This is utter nonsense.
- You are literally putting completely fabricated, patronizing future words into my mouth and attributing fake (unappealing) actions to me. It is BS and I will politely ask you to refrain from doing so again.
- I have made my position on this clear enough for Trump to understand, so in the supremely unlikely event that a centrist candidate become Speaker instead of McCarthy, I will indeed have to eat my words. And I will be delighted to do so, since I would be more than happy to see McCarthy fail so spectacularly.
Moderating:
Stop making it personal. You can make your points without doing this. Moreover, this is a hijack to the thread topic. The thread topic is not the literal meaning of the word, ‘impossible.’ To all, drop this sideshow debate now.
Some useful info on the upcoming election from the NY Times (probably paywalled):
On the first day the new House is in session, choosing a new speaker is the first matter of business that lawmakers must take up. It happens even before newly elected representatives are sworn in, and must be resolved before other business resumes.
Every speaker since 1923 has been able to clinch the gavel after just one vote, but there is a precedent in the House’s long history of turbulent elections. In 1855, for example, electing a speaker took two months and 133 ballots to yield Representative Nathaniel P. Banks of Massachusetts the winner, a reflection of a House divided by antebellum factions.
The House clerk will then proceed to an alphabetical roll-call vote. To vote, lawmakers must reply with a name. That could be Mr. McCarthy, Mr. Jeffries — or, if they wish to lodge a type of protest vote, any name of their choosing.
Capitol Hill denizens often use shorthand and say the threshold to become speaker is 218 votes, or a simple majority. But it is not that straightforward: House precedents stipulate that electing a speaker requires a majority of the votes cast by members “for a person by name.”
That means that Mr. McCarthy could still win the speakership even if he does not get to 218 votes, by persuading lawmakers who do not want to vote for him to instead vote “present” or to miss the vote entirely. That is not an uncommon occurrence. In 2015, John Boehner was elected as speaker with 216 votes, as was Nancy Pelosi in 2021.
There is “unlikely”, there is “highly unlikely”, and there are statements of “one in a hundred thousand” and “fantasy” and “never ever ever” … the last are a different universe of statements than the first two other than hyperbole for effect. But whatever.
Why does McCarthy want the headache?
Let’s take the first name floated in that opinion piece: John Kasisch.
He, at 70, has had his political career, and his disgust of Trump and MAGAism, his belief that our current hyperpartisan positions have been toxic, his belief that the good of the country is what matters far above the good of any party, are well known. He could be imagining being noted in history as the Speaker that presided over a bipartisan centrist bloc that rejected MAGAism and hyperpartisanship and helped usher the GOP out of its Trumpist Dark Age, and liking that thought.
Could he even imagine that as a launch for a new presidential run, with Desantis and Trump splitting that portion of the primary voters?
I can imagine him imaging those things and finding it more appealing than his current CNN commentator gig. Which would still be there on the other side.
Hogan could also calculate that the position could launch him to the top of the not Trump or Desantis option list.
They’d each package themselves as making a great sacrifice for the good of the country.
Again improbable, and I have no idea about the mechanics of having a secret vote. But IF McCarthy fails after several votes AND the Bacon led less extreme GOP faction stands firm on not accepting complete capitulation, so other votes occur without a Speaker being elected, then options like that jump up into what is contained within the art of the possible.
And IMHO such an outcome would be even better than a GOP meltdown.
A very detailed article about the lay of the land as of today -
Lots interesting there. Pertinent to this last section of discussion:
Just as clarification for the furriners, if the vote for the Speaker is made before new members are sworn in; does that mean that only returning members of the House (ie Members previously sworn in) can vote or that representatives can vote in the House before they are sworn in as Members of the House?