# Hypothetical GOP/Dem coalition House leader **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 14, 2016, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-gop-dem-coalition-house-leader/768489 "2016-10-14T04:59:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2016, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-gop-dem-coalition-house-leader/768489/1 "2016-10-14T04:59:02Z")
Imagining here … a Clinton win, GOP keeps the House by a fairly smallish margin, Trump supporting Representatives pull support from “traitorous weak” Ryan, and there is no one who can unite GOP Representatives to get a majority as House majority leader. Would there be a movement to come up with a leader candidate (be it Ryan or other) that throws the Trump supporters under the bus and makes that “sinister deal” of coalition with the Democratic minority? Assuming a fractured GOP post-Trumptanic, in all but name functioning as two separate parties, what would be the alternatives? ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2016, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-gop-dem-coalition-house-leader/768489/2 "2016-10-14T12:14:11Z")
Trump doesn’t have a coalition of supporters in Congress. Every Republican Congressman he’s attacked and threatened has won his primary easily. Trump likes to think he has the power to oust Republicans who aren’t in his corner, but he doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2016, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-gop-dem-coalition-house-leader/768489/3 "2016-10-14T13:15:20Z")
He has the solid support of 20 to 30% of this country and a very large share of GOP voters. How many House Representatives did he attack who won their primaries? Senate races, if any, need not apply. I can find [one](https://thinkprogress.org/the-one-congress-member-donald-trump-endorsed-just-lost-her-primary-3e14a4c51fb4#.9150fatho), who lost being attacked from the harder Far anti-establishment Right. Most GOP House districts are very solidly GOP and going to vote very solidly for Trump. There are already enough House seats controlled by those who are against the powers that be that it was difficult for the GOP to come up with Ryan as a consensus to the different elements, and some of the less batshit Representatives are in over more extreme burn the whole thing down elements by the skin of their teeth. The hypothetical does not require a large Trump coalition. With a narrow GOP House majority Ryan would need pretty much _all_ of his party voting for him to be Speaker, or some number of Democrats voting for him to make up for those of the GOP who withhold support. Anyway. Fighting the hypothetical aside … _assuming_ a fractured GOP post-Trumptanic, in all but name functioning as two separate parties but having a House majority in name, how would the Speakership play out? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2016, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-gop-dem-coalition-house-leader/768489/4 "2016-10-14T13:39:48Z")
What happens if they don’t elect a speaker? That’s really the question, right? It seems conceivable that they could fail to cobble together a majority, because **astorian** is just wrong about Trump support there. If it’s like not appointing a ninth justice, then they’ll just let it ride. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2016, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-gop-dem-coalition-house-leader/768489/5 "2016-10-14T15:51:24Z")
From what I can gather the House cannot do any other business until they have elected a speaker. From [here](http://constitution.laws.com/house-of-representatives/election-of-the-speaker-process-and-house-rules-governing-election-of-the-speaker): > [@](#): > > The House of Representatives is responsible for the election of the Speaker of the House. This is provided by the United States Constitution, as per Article I, Section 2. The Speaker of the House of Representatives is elected every subsequent time a new House is to convene for the first time. … > > … If there is no majority vote rendered in favor of any one candidate, the election process is repeated until a Speaker of the House of Representatives is elected. Ryan would need to be formally voted on as the Speaker of this session of the House in order to continue in the role and he, or whoever wins needs the 218 votes that are a majority. (He had 236 when he came in.) The hypothetical assumes a narrowish GOP win, say 225 to 210, but enough of the GOP who are no compromise anti-establishmenters (it would in that case only need to be 8 and Ryan already had failed to get 9 GOP votes last time) that the GOP cannot unilaterally elect a Speaker. Going with that specific hypothetical would Ryan (or another GOP candidate) be able to enough Democrats to cross over to support him or her? What would he have to concede to get that and how could he make those concessions without losing more votes from his own side? Would the minority leader and Whip have enough control to prevent any such defections unless the concessions were large enough? Would a Democrat (perhaps not Pelosi) alternatively be able to get 8 GOP Representatives to come over in return for some concessions and in order to allow the House to get on with its business? Or does it stay stuck unable to do any business? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2016, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-gop-dem-coalition-house-leader/768489/6 "2016-10-14T16:02:10Z")
Allow me to correct my OP, as is clear I am actually talking about the Speakership, not the majority leader. Sorry for my sloppy presentation. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2016, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-gop-dem-coalition-house-leader/768489/7 "2016-10-14T16:02:22Z")
It’s a very interesting question. The Dems would obviously have the better bargaining position, and you’re right that anything that would be attractive enough to win enough Dems is likely to make more GOP members bolt. I think the most likely scenario is that Ryan corrals the Freedom Caucus, perhaps after some period of gridlock. They would sooner support treasonous Ryan than any Democrat. But if not, then I suspect that the center of balance would be something other than just winning some marginal number of Dem votes for a Ryan speakership. Instead it would be closer to winning a substantial number of Dem votes for a more moderate Speaker like Rep. Grimm (though he’s maybe too young), or even someone who’s off the traditional spectrum like Rep. Amash who could potentially assemble a completely different coalition. ---
**Author:** ![Folacin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/folacin/32/3195_2.png) [@Folacin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Folacin)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2016, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-gop-dem-coalition-house-leader/768489/8 "2016-10-14T16:03:40Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Going with that specific hypothetical would Ryan (or another GOP candidate) be able to enough Democrats to cross over to support him or her? What would he have to concede to get that and how could he make those concessions without losing more votes from his own side? Would the minority leader and Whip have enough control to prevent any such defections unless the concessions were large enough? Would a Democrat (perhaps not Pelosi) alternatively be able to get 8 GOP Representatives to come over in return for some concessions and in order to allow the House to get on with its business? Or does it stay stuck unable to do any business? Presumably they would eventually elect a speaker. If the compromise candidate ended up being a Democrat, there is no way it is Pelosi - any R who crossed that line would be retired at the next election. I don’t know if D’s would support Ryan or not (or if he even still wants the job). I imagine the compromise candidate would be someone no one is familiar with (kind of like Ford becoming Veep). ---
**Author:** ![Anny\_Middon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bc79bd/32.png) [@Anny\_Middon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anny_Middon)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2016, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-gop-dem-coalition-house-leader/768489/9 "2016-10-14T16:37:14Z")
IIRC Ryan initially turned down the nomination for Speaker, accepting only when he determined that he could have a unifying role. So, if the Trump supporters start declaring they will not support Ryan as Speaker, he might announce that he would not accept a nomination, right? Or is there some reason he really can’t do so? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2016, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-gop-dem-coalition-house-leader/768489/10 "2016-10-14T17:08:52Z")
He may not run in any case. The hypothetical still remains. My guess is that a centrist Democrat (agreed not Pelosi) would be elected, losing a few farther Left progressive Democratic Representative votes but gaining more than enough support from GOPs in suburban districts to win with promises of moderation just not obstructionism. A GOP candidate could only get enough Ds to come on board with the same promise. I think the latter would however be the heavier lift. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2016, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-gop-dem-coalition-house-leader/768489/11 "2016-10-15T01:37:30Z")
Overall I like the hypothetical and agree with **DSeid** ’s logic. It certainly might play out that way. The assumed starting point is not highly likely, but given that starting point the evidence strongly points towards the outcome as posited. One thing’s for sure: If the hypothetical coalition D speaker came to pass that would be the end of the Hastert Rule. Which would itself be a very bitter pill for the Rs to swallow. The knowledge that they’d be giving that up might be enough of a glue to get the two GOP halves to decide that yes, they hate each other, but they hate the even Ds more. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2016, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-gop-dem-coalition-house-leader/768489/12 "2016-10-15T01:54:28Z")
Suppose a compromise Speaker is elected and then reneges on whatever promises were required to get the compromise. Is there anything like a vote of “no confidence” in Parliament to oust him/her before the two years are up? ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2016, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-gop-dem-coalition-house-leader/768489/13 "2016-10-15T02:38:44Z")
> [@Anny\_Middon](#): > > IIRC Ryan initially turned down the nomination for Speaker, accepting only when he determined that he could have a unifying role. Eh, that was pretty obviously political theater. He said he didn’t want the job, but that he’d take it if the GOP consented to a bunch of non-negotiable demands (that he would only accept it if the Freedom Caucus would endorse him and agree to get rid of the rule that allowed them to oust a sitting Speaker). The Freedom Caucaus said no, and it turned out Ryan wanted the job so much that he was willing to forget about the demands. (He would play a similar game this year, when he pretended he might not endorse Trump, and than folded as soon as Trump called his bluff). I doubt the scenario in the OP will play out. A reduced GOP majority in the House would be one where most of the moderates have lost their seats, leaving a more extreme party, and any remaining moderates pretty scared of losing their seats in the next election. They aren’t going to want to have literally the first vote the new Congress makes be an unprecedented compromise with the opposition party. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2016, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-gop-dem-coalition-house-leader/768489/14 "2016-10-15T02:59:43Z")
I think the only plausible situation like this one is that Ryan agrees to get rid of the Hastert rule in exchange for Schumer in the Senate also agreeing to let bills come up for a vote even if Democrats don’t want them, and Democrats agree to vote for Ryan for Speaker if Republicans try to oust him. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2016, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-gop-dem-coalition-house-leader/768489/15 "2016-10-15T03:48:45Z")
> [@OldGuy](#): > > Suppose a compromise Speaker is elected and then reneges on whatever promises were required to get the compromise. Is there anything like a vote of “no confidence” in Parliament to oust him/her before the two years are up? Yes. That is what Boehner had coming, “a motion to vacate the chair”, and thus resigned rather than face. ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2016, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-gop-dem-coalition-house-leader/768489/16 "2016-10-15T10:17:31Z")
So if the House did end up failing to elect a Speaker, and therefore being incapable of conducting any business, and therefore seizing up the entire US Government…what can be done to bypass? Wait 2 years until the next House elections, and hope they crush the GOP? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2016, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-gop-dem-coalition-house-leader/768489/17 "2016-10-15T10:44:47Z")
The HOuse doesn’t have to have a Speaker. THe Senate doesn’t. The Majority Leader would just be effective head of the House. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2016, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-gop-dem-coalition-house-leader/768489/18 "2016-10-15T11:54:25Z")
Incorrect. There is [no option](http://dailysignal.com/2015/01/05/congress-make-history-first-time-since-1923/) for a majority leader to take over the roles of Speaker; it is a Constitutional “shall” not a “may”. The House does have to have a Speaker in order to conduct business. > [@](#): > > the House must elect a presiding officer before taking up any new business. … The election of a House speaker requires that one candidate receive an absolute majority–more than half the votes cast. > > If a majority fails to choose a winner, the House clerk simply calls another vote until the position is filled. Note though that it requires a majority of the votes cast not of all membership. That leaves some some cover of being absent or declaring “present” and not actually having to vote for a compromise candidate yet allowing that person to get elected. A winner can have less than 218 votes. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2016, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-gop-dem-coalition-house-leader/768489/19 "2016-10-27T02:04:13Z")
[First](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/25/can-t-wait-for-it-to-be-over-don-t-kid-yourself.html) I’m reading that addresses the prospect even a bit. > [@](#): > > If the Republicans lose 20 seats in November, they will have about 225 members. (It’s 246 right now.) If only eight or so refuse to vote for Ryan—and remember, the “no-compromise” House Freedom Caucus has some 40 members—then Ryan will not have the 218 votes he needs to hold his position. > > Then what, assuming he does not say “the hell with it” and leave the post? He could try to cut a deal with the Freedom Caucus, giving them more seats at the leadership table, or a promise not to abolish the Hastert rule (which requires a majority of Republicans to sign on to any bill before it moves to passage). He could agree to disdain any compromise with the new president on any significant legislation. He could, to push the scenario one step further, agree to deploy the full “power of the purse”—including refusing to raise the debt ceiling—as a bargaining chip to force Clinton to abandon her legislative agenda. > > Alternatively, he could try to find votes across the aisle, hammering out a deal with enough Democrats to give him the majority needed. (We’ve seen such tactics in state legislative chambers, including New York.) But that would almost surely ensure a spate of party challenges against any Republican House member who went along with so “corrupt” a bargain. Remember, a significant share of Republican voters—maybe a majority—will already have decided that Clinton won the presidency only through a “rigged” system, and polls will show how more party members see Trump as the legitimate voice of the party, not Ryan. So the speaker’s maneuvering room is, to put it mildly, limited. Uh yeah. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2016, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-gop-dem-coalition-house-leader/768489/20 "2016-10-27T02:22:07Z")
How about if enough Republicans declare that governing the country in a sane and effective manner comes before petty partisan politics, and in the interests of the entire country, 10 of them declare themselves to be independents who will vote on whatever bills they feel are best and actually work for the benefit of their constituents and run the freakin’ government. Of course, they’d be punished at the polls and lose their jobs, but hey, a guy can dream. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-gop-dem-coalition-house-leader/768489.md?page=2)