It’s virtually certain Pelosi will be speaker. The only half-hearted challenge was from Marcia Fudge, and she gave up when Pelosi offered her the chairmanship of a new committee. Showing that nobody can deal better than Pelosi.
The idea isn’t to get Trump’s respect. It’s to get the respect of Trump’s followers.
But it’s irrelevant, because the number 1, 2, and 3 candidates for the Speakership are all named “Nancy Pelosi”.
Given the events of the last couple of days, in which
–Marcia Fudge, one of the few people expressing possible interest in challenging Pelosi, agreed to support Pelosi (as suranyi pointed out above);
–Alexandria Ocasia-Cortez, enthusiastic new leftist/progressive, expressed support for Pelosi;
–Brian Higgins of NY, one of the dozen-plus signers of the anti-Pelosi letter, changed his mind and announced his support for Pelosi;
–Barack Obama, remember him?, backed Pelosi for Speaker;
it’s really difficult to see how Pelosi is going to be replaced.
There are 234.5 Democrats and 200.5 Republicans. If the vote is:
200 Republicans + 18 Democrats : Gabbard
217 Democrats : Pelosi
Then it will be Gabbard. Losing just 18 votes could kill Pelosi. It doesn’t take much, it just takes someone willing to use the Republicans to their own ends.
Pelosi would fold and give in to the demands of the Problem Solvers’, I think. But they have to raise a candidate who could grab those free 200 votes. At the moment, they haven’t. And so they haven’t accomplished much, yet.
You’re assuming that the Republicans have enough competence to vote as a bloc, on anything. They have a hard enough time doing that on the things they actually want-- They’re not going to do it to vote for a Democrat for Speaker.
Does the Speakership require a majority vote or only a plurality?
A majority (of the votes cast) is required. If no candidate gets a majority, they vote again (and again…) until someone does.
There’s no way Tulsi Gabbard gets all 200 Republicans to vote for her.
If the alternative is Pelosi? Can Pelosi guarantee that as voting continues into 2nd and 3rd and 4th rounds with no one taking the lead that the Rs won’t back some offbeat Dem just to be a bunch of assholes?
I mean, if you know to can’t win, why not make sure that the other team loses too?
Pelosi will be the next Speaker. Fudge dropping out of the challenge and throwing her vote behind Pelosi cements it. Pelosi won’t need Republican votes, either.
At this point, it’s about 5 Democratic white men who are her primary opposition. It’s not going down very well with their constituents. Seth Moulton got an earful from Pelosi supporters at a recent meeting he held with his.
Ocasio-Cortez put it best, essentially saying that change for change’s sake is not a good strategy. Unless Pelosi’s Democratic opposition can offer an alternative and explain why that person is a better choice, Pelosi has it. And she deserves to have it.
As I said, “it’s really difficult to see how Pelosi is going to be replaced.”
Who are the 18 Dems who are not going to vote for Pelosi? Marcia Fudge, as mentioned, is going to vote for her. So is Brian Higgins, who actually signed a letter saying he wouldn’t. The progressives, most notably Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and a woman from WA whose name I’m blanking on, have agreed to support her. It would be helpful if you would list the 18 who you think will refuse to support her, as most of the information I’ve seen pretty strongly suggests there aren’t that many.
On another note…Tulsi Gabbard? I mean, Tulsi Gabbard? Feels like there have been several posts lately about her, and I don’t get it. Has she been on Rachel Maddow’s program recently or something? I remember the first I heard of her was on a Maddow show, where RM fawned all over Gabbard for having abandoned a (mostly ceremonial) post with the DNC (?) so she could endorse Bernie Sanders. From Maddow’s general demeanor you’d have thought Gabbard deserved to be in a new edition of Profiles of Courage or something, and then she ended the show by half-predicting that Gabbard’s endorsement would lead to dozens more endorsements from ex-military folks. (It really was Maddow at her worst.) Anyway, I read the rationale for Gabbard being a stealth candidate in an earlier post, and I have to say I remain quite unconvinced on all sorts of levels.
Yeah, this is insane troll logic. Every one of those 200 Republicans would be opening themselves up to a right-wing primary challenger running ads that they voted for a Sanders-supporting DEMOCRAT to be Speaker of the House. Sure they can respond with, “Oh, you see on the 4th ballot I voted tactically to deny blah, blah, blah. . .” See how far that gets you in a Republican primary.
Pelosi will win on the first ballot. There is no realistic alternative.
And yes, Pelosi will be the next speaker. The opposition to her in the Democratic caucus is almost entirely theater. Sure there are a few members genuinely opposed to her, but the rest are just looking for some sort of concession (plumb committee assignment, guarantee to bring up some legislation) that they can tout back to their constituents to show how effective they are. And she’s doing exactly what she should, cutting those deals one-by-one to build up the sense of inevitability that she’ll be elected speaker.
how long should she remain there? Until she is 6 feet under? It’s not just her, but a lot of the people in Congress stay there way too long. It’s like they think they have a divine right to their seat. I am 100% in favor of term limits for Congress. And please don’t tell me “elections are term limits”
Elections are term limits. Seriously, even tho you dont want to hear it. . But in order to pass said limitations your need a Constitutional amendment. That aint gonna happen.
Pelosi shoudl stay as long as she is effective.
she’s so effective the last time she was speaker the Dems lost 63 seats. I guess I’m strange because that’s not effective to me.
The Speaker has nothing to do with Elections, as has been pointed out several times here. It’s her job to get laws passed, and at that Pelosi has been the most effective Speaker in recent memory.
You could also blame the loss of seats on Obama, and that would be slightly more correct.
If she is the very effective Parliamentarian for managing your lower House and avoiding chaotic self-harming political gestures, if she can keep you focused on the strategic deployment of the tactics to destabilize and keep on his back foot the bigoted person who is your president, then you should keep her…
It will take great focus and cleverness, and avoidance of political gestures that are too Left and provoke the center against you to be successful in ridding us all, the whole world of him. He is a danger.
I thought she was this great fundraiser which I think is related to elections is it not? Or does she raise all that money to buy milk and cookies for local kids?