Well it would actually be better if these two wings weren’t in the same party, because that is the reason it’s verbotten for the one that has more in common with the democrats to make deals with the democrats.
If the Republican Party and the Freedumb Party were separate, it would be Jeffries negotiating for Republican support to get over the line, not Republicans negotiating for Democratic support.
That has been my working litmus test to differentiate the “reasonable” Republicans from the insane ones.
Would it be better to come out full blast on the first vote to show strong opposition? Why take all this time? I assume it has to do with not wanting to accidentally elect Jeffries as Speaker, but I don’t understand these rules.
What’s the difference between Jim Jordan and the King of Jordan?
Ok, this is too obvious, but…
One refuses to talk with Biden, tacitly condones terrorism, holds medieval religiously-motivated beliefs about the role of women and LGBT rights; the other is the King of Jordan.
Matt Glassman, Senior Fellow at the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University, discusses the fundamental forces shaping this struggle for the Speakership on Nate Silver’s blog:
At the center of this are the votes coming immediately after the House Speaker election, when the package of rules create a stable majority procedural coalition, or aspire to.
In the modern House, the Speaker almost always has a partisan majority that gives him this deferential backing to create a procedural coalition . That is, backbench members vote in lockstep on procedural matters such as what bills to consider and what rules to consider them under, even if they are opposed to the actual legislation. They do this because the benefits they receive from the party, such as committee assignments, electoral support, and the help of other party members on bills they do like, outweigh the small costs of occasionally having bills on the floor they oppose. Bucking the party on procedural votes is a serious transgression.
…
Consequently, anyone looking to be Speaker—McCarthy, Scalise, Jordan, or otherwise—needs to not only find a way to win a majority on the floor during the election of the Speaker, but also needs to secure a party settlement that brings the various factions into an ongoing procedural coalition. Absent the creation of that stable coalition, every vote on a special rule to bring legislation to the floor is a potential failure. And that’s because every procedural vote in the House is essentially a revote on the Speakership. If the procedural coalition collapses, the Speakership collapses.
The author doesn’t admit this possibility, but this is why Jeffries’ power sharing proposal makes sense: if you want bipartisanship, just electing a talented deal cutting Speaker (which McCarthy wasn’t) isn’t sufficient. You need a block that will vote for your rules, even if they vote against the bills themselves.
There’s more in the article, including commentary on the Freedom Caucus’s win/win strategy. When they topple McCarthy they win: Gaetz gets TV attention which is what his goal is. But if GOP leaders cross the aisle and cut a deal with the Dems, they also win: they get to rant against the GOP leadership. That’s the whole FC shtick: they like attacking the GOP leadership. Gaetz is self-funding via small donations, but only with TV appearances and the perception that he’s fighting the man.
I suppose a Jim Jordan victory would be problematic for them, after they take their victory lap. At least until Jordan cuts a deal with the Dems, at which point they would have a new enemy.
Recommended.
Jordan told a reporter that there will be no more votes today but be expects to have another floor vote tomorrow.
American parties traditionally have had wings. As long as the 1960s, both parties had liberal, moderate, and conservative wings. The wings tended to work with their compatriots across the isle.
The parties still have wings, but the definitions changed. Basically, every single Republican is to the right of every Democrat. As a result, the interactions, even between “moderates” and “moderates,” are limited. The Republican Party, as a whole, has demonized the Democratic Party, as a whole, as its enemy. Little to no incentive exists to work bipartisanly because the majority of Republicans are so far right they can barely work with their own “moderates.” And those are so far right that Democrats would have to give up every principle to go along.
People have been talking ever since Trump got elected that the Republican Party might need to split into two parties. Sheer inertia says no. Too much power is invested in the Republican brand and Trump remains the head of a cult.
Nothing will change until the 2024 election. If Trump loses and the Democrats take back Congress, the party might break. Any other scenario gives them hope. Hey, losing might give them hope - in the form of anger. This is America: we don’t play by Canadian rules.
Payne did end up voting (for Jeffries, of course) in the end.
My redraft will be called The Wrath Of LoneRhino.
I should send you my ongoing Facebook list of “Things to be introduced as amendments in the upcoming Constitutional Convention everyone thinks we need to call” list. Hmmm…sounds like an idea for an IMHO thread.
Somewhere, Ed McMahon just said: “Yes!”
Congress has adjourned for the day; it will meet again at noon tomorrow
I have a feeling the workday has barely begun for a lot of House members & their assistants.
Apparently Jordan’s state of mind is, “Thank you, sir. May i have another?” He planning on a third round of voting tomorrow at noon.
He told reporters late Wednesday afternoon that there would be no further votes Wednesday, but he plans to remain in the race for a third ballot Thursday.
For some of them, that work appears to include sending threatening texts to other Congressmen’s wives.
Including Grifting the Rubes. They fundraise by throwing sabots in the gears of government.
(The rubes would not get this reference. sdmb folks will though)
I don’t know what he thinks his play is. One or two aside, it’s not like his opponents are making specific demands that he could cut a deal to get their vote. His bullying didn’t work, and he doesn’t have any goodies like a plumb committee assignment to entice them (what the hell can he hope to offer Kay Granger?). McCarthy and Scalise may be supporting him, but they’re obviously not pressing their colleagues to do so. I guess he just thinks he can wear them down over time.
Basic threatening members and their families has not worked. Perhaps he’ll graduate into actions - actually gunning down someone might get the others to change their tune.
Why can’t the imbeciles have lots of votes in the same day like with McCarthy? Jesus, one a day
… this is going to be extra special stupid, even by Republican standards.