The article I linked is a story from yahoo news about how the most conservative Republicans in the House want to impeach the IRS director and are already planning to impeach Clinton as well as several other far right agenda items. It doesn’t give an exact number, but says that " several dozen" very conservative representatives are looking to set the agenda on these and other items. The current makeup of the House is 248 Republicans and 192 Democrats. Let’s say that several dozen means about 48, leaving a round number of 200 “regular” Republicans. How can a small group like that force such crazy actions on Paul Ryan?
It looks like the source I used for the number of representatives included non voting members. Wikipedia has the current breakdown at 246R and 186D. Not that much of a difference.
They can threaten to vote with the Democrats on some issues. That would put the total over half the House, allowing them to block or embarrass Ryan. Or they simply could threaten not to vote for him as Speaker in the new Congress, since he needs a majority for that. I’m sure there are many subtler ways a sizable minority could make his life miserable.
The hardliners’ block exert power by denying the established leadership the actual 218-vote majority on things that the latter need to pass. This was a major PITA for Boehner since in effect it was a threat that if he wanted to pass something without the hardliners, he’d need to replace their votes with Democrat votes, and therefore to make concessions to the Democrats, and then they’d go after him for doing that.
I guess I’m old fashioned in thinking that making a few concessions to or compromising with the Democrats would actually be a good thing. Is it that the “regular” Republicans no longer want to consider that option?
Republicans have spent decades claiming every single thing the Democrats want to do would lead to the immediate destruction of America. “We are only going to let them destroy the country a little bit” becomes a very hard sell after that.
A little cognitive dissonance is normal for Republicans. They would have no problem telling themselves “just the tip” when dealing with Democrats. No, it’s getting primaried that worries them the most.
I can see being primaried as a problem for the representatives from Wyoming or a rural district in Alabama, but what about the Republucans that represent suburban districts in places like NYC, Columbus Ohio, or Philadelphia? Are those representatives likely to be primaried from the right?
I have no idea what you mean by “regular” Republicans. Obviously, a group that wants to impeach Clinton before she even takes office doesn’t want a compromise. The various Gangs of Eight types who have tried bipartisanship have all been shut down. The House leadership apparently has little interest in compromising with the Democrats. Haven’t they attempted more than 60 times to repeal Obamacare rather look at the small changes needed to improve it? As Ambrosio Spinola says, it is not in their best personal interests to compromise. Republican voters want ideological victories. Keeping the government from functioning in any way outside those ideological walls is a fine thing to them.
So who in today’s political world are you talking about? How many “regular” Republicans are there? How much power do they have? How safe are their seats? Who isn’t vulnerable to a primary challenge today? Aren’t they all thinking of what happened to Eric Cantor?
By “regular” Republicans I mean those that aren’t members of the House Freedom Caucus. Freedom Caucus - Wikipedia According to that link they have 41 members. I assume there must be some significant differences between the Freedom Caucus members and the other Republicans, or there would be no need to have the Freedom Caucus if they really are all the same. In terms of what is best for them individually, that’s part of what is up for debate. The Rush Limbaugh Republicans in rural Alabama, Wyoming, Mississippi, etc. do demand ideological purity. But what about the soccer mom Republicans living in the suburbs of large cities in blue states, or the Wall Street Republucans that would be better of with a functioning government? I assume those Republican voters would prefer their representative to be willing to compromise rather than shut the government down.
I hope so and that’s probably why for all their talk the Republicans have great care to not force another shutdown. However, the choices then become “do nothing” or “compromise with Democrats.” It’s clear that “do nothing” is the preferred option.
The past couple of years are irrefutable proof of that, IMO. How do you explain them if that’s not the case?
And it just kinda spirals from there. Say 31 Freedom Caucus members choose to vote against a continuing resolution (CR) that Ryan is trying to push through. He makes concessions to the Dems to get their votes. But by doing so, he loses more GOP votes, so he needs to make more concessions, lose more votes…and looks like a total Quisling to the GOP base that once thought he was their guy.
It’s not the character of the district, so much as the character of the Republicans in the district. And pretty much anywhere, a sizable chunk of them get their news from Fox News, and their opinions from talk radio. So yeah, they’re all in danger of being primaried if they show signs of insufficient conservatism.
And of course, if you’re a GOP Congresscritter representing a moderate district, and you swing hard right to survive a primary, that makes you vulnerable in the general election.
For several years now, the House Republicans have imposed on themselves an entirely made-up rule that they will not pass anything that doesn’t have support from a majority of Republicans, even if a measure would easily pass with both Republican and Democratic votes.
They keep ratcheting up that one principle that they have left, to oppose anything that has Democratic support.
Let’s face it. We’re in for 8 years of “The party of No” trying to prevent the government from accomplishing anything whatsoever, so they can make Hilary Clinton look bad. I foresee a refusal to approve ANYbody that she nominates for ANY office at ANY time. Because (insert crazy conspiracy theory here). It does not matter if it makes sense. It does not matter if it damages the country. Hell, it does not even matter if it damages the Republican party as a whole.
They might as well start impeachment hearings on January 20, 2017, and run them continuously nonstop from then on; one after another after another.
Sadly, I think the probability of this happening is pretty high if Clinton wins. At least there is a chance the Democrats might take the Senate for the next two years and can at least get Clinton’s nominees through. I’m assuming that would mean Schumer getting rid of the filibuster entirely in that scenario.
And the evidence from the Tea Party dominated congressionals of 2010-2014 and the 2016 Presidential primary suggests that a “mainstream republican” IS vulnerable in a “moderate” “safe” district because the rabid hardliners WILL show up to vote for the screaming rightwing loon in the primary, while the moderates go “huh, there was a primary?”