John Boehner to resign.

[elucidator]

Moderate and reasonable Republicans wouldn’t have this problem, or at least not nearly so bad a problem, if they hadn’t got greedy. With the help of modern technology and demographics, the gerrymandered a political map that ensures that not only do they want the support of the knuckle-walking Trogs, they need them, they must have them.

They tweaked, they twerked. They carefully sculptured districts that would give them just enough of an edge to get them over the magic number, the famous “50% plus one”.

Most conservatives are, well, conservative. The “radical conservative” is as much an oxymoron as the “extreme centrist”. For years upon years, they kept promising the TP cadres that just one more election, just one more big push, and then no more socialized medicine, no more gay marriage, prayer everywhere, no more abortions, you know the drill. They were assuring conservatives that they would resist change, and promising the TP they would demand change.

But it never happened. And now the people who used to be grumpy are insanely angry, now they want change, and they want it now! Which is the very definition of radical.

Their acute and intelligent demographic analysis has painted the Republicans into a corner. The moderate conservative depends mostly upon an equally moderate and conservative Republican voter base. But to get over that essential “50% plus one” line, they also must have the minority of radical Republicans to win the close races they engineered the system to create! Which is to say, they wouldn’t be so dependent on the extreme right if they hadn’t made it so they would be!

The most underreported story ever is how the Republicans got a million less votes in the House races, but still managed to gain a huge victory. Their problem is not so much that the TP will put up an opposing candidate in the primaries, though that is a problem. What’s the worse problem is that the TP crowd won’t go vote for the moderate righty candidate, they aren’t listening to the old sales pitch any more.

Its not that they will be crushed beneath a huge wave of Dem voters, but that they will lose just enough of the TP crowd to lose the close ones, in races engineered to be close but to favor the right.

Ooopsy-daisy.

[Ravenman]

@ElvisL1ves

Two main reasons: A. The country would be better off in innumerable ways by having reasonably adult supervision in Congress, and B. The Speaker would be so much in their debt as to be beholden to them.

This is redonkulous. A Republican Speaker who was indebted to Democrats would not be re-elected to his seat in Congress.

The party-before-country view dominating today’s GOP does not necessarily exist elsewhere, as your anecdotes about the Dems considering exactly that attests.

I’m not sure how one can hold your position on opposing “party before country” and read Steny Hoyer’s quote and find it to be anything but another example of party before country.

[YogSothoth]

I wish Boehner didn’t resign. There was still one thing he could have done effectively as a speaker on the outs, the only thing that the position would excel at during this time, and that is test the strength of the Teahadists. I wished instead of resigning he would have sent one bill after another through the House, each one something supported by Democrats + Sane Republicans. Each time it would pass, the howls from the extremist right will be there, but each time at least he would get a chance to see if they could actually remove him as Speaker. Plus we’d get some decent bills done at the same time. Now the new speaker will always have that hanging over his head. Only time will tell how he responds, either by caving to them, or working them for the good of the country.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Ravenman

This is redonkulous. A Republican Speaker who was indebted to Democrats would not be re-elected to his seat in Congress.

Depends on him and his district, as well as how well he kept the indebtedness discreet.

I’m not sure how one can hold your position on opposing “party before country” and read Steny Hoyer’s quote and find it to be anything but another example of party before country.

I read it as “Hell, we tried, but couldn’t work anything out with that blubbering drunk anymore. Let’s see who else steps up over there, and how collegially he’s going to deal with us, and maybe we’ll have a chance at moving the country forward with him.”

[Ravenman]

It’s charming how you are essentially arguing that Republicans want to work with Democrats, it’s just that Democrats have to reach out a little more, like by voting to elect a Republican Speaker.

That whole “things would be better if Dems just tried a little harder” message usually comes from Mitch McConnell. I had no idea an actual liberal would espouse it.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Ravenman

It’s charming how you are essentially arguing that Republicans want to work with Democrats, it’s just that Democrats have to reach out a little more, like by voting to elect a Republican Speaker.

No. If the majority party has deep divisions, they *have *to work with the minority sometimes. The minority cannot elect a Speaker on its own, of course, but can work the majority’s divisions to get a better situation for themselves. That appears to be what they’re trying next - whoever emerges from the GOP caucus, or wants to, is going to have to come to the Dems, and the Dems will be waiting when he does.

That whole “things would be better if Dems just tried a little harder” message usually comes from Mitch McConnell. I had no idea an actual liberal would espouse it.

And none did.

They tried as hard as they could, but Boehner would not reciprocate except when forced. The frustration expressed in the earlier quotes was palpable.

I am mystified at your continued misunderstandings, and am wondering if it is worth continuing to engage you, frankly.

[RTFirefly]

@Ravenman

I’m not sure how one can…<snip>…read Steny Hoyer’s quote and find it to be anything but another example of party before country.

Let me at least give it a try.

I believe that for our democracy to work properly, it’s got to sink in with a critical mass of voters that the GOP has basically gone over the edge.

Our media isn’t going to tell them this. Whether it’s because the GOP has done a great job of working the refs, or whether it’s just the way they are, our media has a major case of BothSidesDoIt-ism. No matter what, they feel obligated to portray the two parties as mirror images of one another, with every instance of GOP extremism surely balanced by something a Dem did sometime.

If the Dems cast their 188 votes for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker, and force the GOP to fight its own internal battles, that fight may help some more people see just what the GOP has become. In the long run, that’s not only good - it’s necessary.

If the Dems throw a life preserver to the more ‘moderate’ GOP candidate for Speaker, none of that will happen.

There will be a short-term cost to the nation for such an approach, but as long as reasonable people keep voting for the Republicans because they think the Republicans are reasonable (and dammit, I know some of these people), we’re all in trouble.

[Ravenman]

@ElvisL1ves

No. If the majority party has deep divisions, they *have *to work with the minority sometimes. The minority cannot elect a Speaker on its own, of course, but can work the majority’s divisions to get a better situation for themselves. That appears to be what they’re trying next - whoever emerges from the GOP caucus, or wants to, is going to have to come to the Dems, and the Dems will be waiting when he does.

And none did.

They tried as hard as they could, but Boehner would not reciprocate except when forced. The frustration expressed in the earlier quotes was palpable.

I am mystified at your continued misunderstandings, and am wondering if it is worth continuing to engage you, frankly.

I’m trying to figure out how to make some bet with you as to whether the next Republican Speaker is going to make a habit of reaching out to Dems on some issues, as you suggest in your first paragraph. I would love to lay down some money on how we both think this is going to proceed, and I think your notion that the next Speaker is going to want to, or have to, rely on Dems more than Boehner is absolutely totally fucking bonkers. That being said, I can’t figure out how to make our different predictions into a bet that would have a clear winner and loser. If you were interested, and have some ideas, I would love to have a wager on this.

I think I understand you completely fine. I don’t think I’m misunderstanding your points. It’s just that I think what you’re suggesting is about as realistic as the aforementioned European backpacking trip by the Republican caucus.

[Procrustus]

@RTFirefly

If the Dems cast their 188 votes for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker, and force the GOP to fight its own internal battles, that fight may help some more people see just what the GOP has become. In the long run, that’s not only good - it’s necessary.

If the Dems throw a life preserver to the more ‘moderate’ GOP candidate for Speaker, none of that will happen.

I see your point. On the other hand, if 188 Democrats and 150 Republicans say “we’re forming a sane coalition to run the House, and the TP types are now shut out,” I think the point will be made too. The Republicans would get to pick the speaker, and Pelosi could be part of “leadership.” They could just do normal “keep the lights on” legislation.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Ravenman

I’m trying to figure out how to make some bet with you as to whether the next Republican Speaker is going to make a habit of reaching out to Dems on some issues, as you suggest in your first paragraph.

It’s *required *on the must-pass items, such as CR’s, if the votes aren’t there inside the caucus, which they aren’t. Boehner did it when he was required to, and so will the next guy.

I think I understand you completely fine.

Then why do I have to keep explaining basics?

[RTFirefly]

@Procrustus

I see your point. On the other hand, if 188 Democrats and 150 Republicans say “we’re forming a sane coalition to run the House, and the TP types are now shut out,” I think the point will be made too. The Republicans would get to pick the speaker, and Pelosi could be part of “leadership.” They could just do normal “keep the lights on” legislation.

The problem is, the views of the 188 Dems and even the most sane, moderate 150 House Republicans are diametrically opposed, beyond keeping the lights on.

For instance, part of the upcoming battle over the budget (or second CR) is about the GOP’s desire to relax the sequester to increase military spending without increasing domestic spending, versus the Dems’ insistence that it’s got to be both or neither. The 150 most sane GOPers and the 188 Dems are going to be on opposite sides of that battle, and that dispute might keep the lights off even if the TPers went comatose between now and Christmas.

[Ravenman]

@ElvisL1ves

Then why do I have to keep explaining basics?

I’m really not trying to be annoying here, but your “explaining basics” has nothing to do with political reality. The idea that the next Speaker is going to count on Dems to pass certain things, at a rate equal to or more than Boehner did, isn’t an explanation of the “basics.” It’s a prediction that is absurd. Totally out of touch. Disconnected with the world we live in. Fantasyland. Wrong, and extremely so.

Just take a look at the press after Boehner’s announcement: the threat of shutdown has gone to nearly zero, based on Boehner counting on Democratic votes to pass a short-term funding bill. At the same time, the odds of getting a long-term budget deal have just nose-dived, because the new Speaker can’t stroll into office in early November and promptly cut a deal with Dems to increase spending. There’s no way he can do that – if he did, he’d have a shorter Speakership than Bob Livingston.

[ElvisL1ves]

@RTFirefly

The problem is, the views of the 188 Dems and even the most sane, moderate 150 House Republicans are diametrically opposed, beyond keeping the lights on.

I think you’re overestimating how hard the positions are there, and how impossible compromise and dealmaking are anymore. You did restrict your point to the Dems and the GOP sanes, not the TP’ers, but you’re ascribing TP behavior to them all anyway. If that’s the case, then what do you define as “sane”?

[wonky]

@Procrustus

I see your point. On the other hand, if 188 Democrats and 150 Republicans say “we’re forming a sane coalition to run the House, and the TP types are now shut out,” I think the point will be made too. The Republicans would get to pick the speaker, and Pelosi could be part of “leadership.” They could just do normal “keep the lights on” legislation.

How many of those 150 Republicans would still be in office in two years? Because I’m guessing this is the fundamental difference in opinion/prediction. I think they would be primaried hard and many would lose. Do you think so, or do you think they’d be reelected?

I hate to say I agree with the thinking of Republicans, but I’m betting the House members and I both think they’d be at extreme risk of losing their seats if they did that. Now, I don’t know if that’s better or worse for Democrats, but I know that most people don’t like to take stands that will lose them their seats.

And I think RTFirefly is right that those Dems and Reps also don’t agree on much.

[Ravenman]

@ElvisL1ves

I think you’re overestimating how hard the positions are there, and how impossible compromise and dealmaking are anymore. You did restrict your point to the Dems and the GOP sanes, not the TP’ers, but you’re ascribing TP behavior to them all anyway. If that’s the case, then what do you define as “sane”?

Hey, remember two years ago during the shutdown, the Democrats tried to find sane Republicans to sign a discharge petition that would force a vote on a clean funding bill, without the “gut Obamacare” provision added in?

I don’t believe they ever found a Republican to sign the petition, even days into the shutdown. The idea that anyone here is overestimating “how hard the positions are” quite simply doesn’t seem to line up with recent history.

[RTFirefly]

@ElvisL1ves

I think you’re overestimating how hard the positions are there, and how impossible compromise and dealmaking are anymore. You did restrict your point to the Dems and the GOP sanes, not the TP’ers, but you’re ascribing TP behavior to them all anyway. If that’s the case, then what do you define as “sane”?

I said “most sane,” IOW, on the scale of GOPness, they’re more sane than the others. That’s not saying that I’d consider any of them ‘sane’ without the comparative.

[ElvisL1ves]

But you’re saying they’re just as uncompromising as the TP’ers. What then makes them more sane?

[CarnalK]

Their goals?

[TheSeaOtter]

Surprising no one, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy has announced his candidacy for the speakership.

[RTFirefly]

@ElvisL1ves

But you’re saying they’re just as uncompromising as the TP’ers. What then makes them more sane?

Their disagreements with the Dems involve real policy differences about real things, rather than being based on a video so extensively edited as to amount to fiction.