Which would take legislation, which would require a Speaker, so . . .
Ignoring any Constitutional questions (separation of powers? bill of attainder? something about changing pay of current Congress?)
Doesn’t this seem likely to follow the same pattern, but with different players?
Emmer wins the caucus vote, but the hard-right crowd holds out to deny him the Speakership. I can’t imagine why they would be OK with Emmer if they weren’t with Scalise or McCarthy.
May be the Democrats can help him out, (voting present) if he’s acceptable to them and makes a deal.
I doubt it. Any promise made just pisses off more GOP members to vote no. And once you lose enough of them you can’t functionally govern, so what’s the point of being Speaker?
At that point you are into full-on coalition government where every vote needs Democratic support and I don’t think the GOP is ready to go there. Even Emmer would rather have Donalds be Speaker (I think…) than give up the power of the majority.
If there was a way to give a very limited set of promises that would get Democratic abstentions, and those promises were palatable to the vast majority of GOP members (so basically just Israel/Ukraine spending), then maybe it could work. But any guarantee on government funding would, I think, torpedo his standing within the GOP caucus. And I doubt just Ukraine/Israel spending would be enough for Democrats to abstain.
I am reading more rumblings from “sane” GOP members about punishing the holdouts if they keep denying the caucus’ choice. So if Emmer wins the caucus vote, I could possibly see the crazies just voting Present to get it over with and minimize the fallout.
It would be a very tricky balancing act to be sure.
This isn’t multiparty parliamentary government-formation. There is no cross-party coalition-forming.
The Democrats will allow the Republicans to flail ineffectually and pay the price. Never mind the fact that even if the Democrats were willing, it would be the kiss of death to any Republican that embraces such an alignment, even if it’s entirely situational and expedient.
Apparently Pete Sessions was the low man on the totem in the first round of voting, garnering a grand total of eight votes.
How about a coalition of no coalition? Let me explain.
The Democrats hold their votes until most/all of the Republicans have voted. Then, looking at the numbers, the Democrats decide which of the Republican candidates they will crown as Speaker, voting in unison to push that person over the top.
So the Speaker knows they owe the Democrats for putting them in power, but they also don’t have any public promises that they have to keep, so the radical Republicans won’t have as much to whine about. The Dems then lurk in the background, saying, “Nice Speakership you have there. It’d be a shame if something were to happen to it…” Forces the Speaker to play at least a little nice, without it being too obvious.
Jack Bergman — gone!
Looks like nobody can get to the top without Democratic help and nobody can get nominated without swearing to never work with Democrats. The moderates will never vote for a Free Dumb caucus candidate and vice versa. There will never be a Speaker, the government will never be funded, and the whole house of cards comes crashing down leading to worldwide anarchy and chaos.
Vote 2 results
Emmer: 90
Johnson: 37
Donalds: 33
Hern: 31
Scott: 14
Bergman: 7
I don’t get it. The Dems help someone become Speaker in exchange for … nothing?
What leverage do they have while they’re lurking “in the background”?
“Gee, I wonder who’s going to be eliminated next…” (Hint: the last time I looked, 7 + 14 < 31)
Edit: apparently, there were 5 votes for others (which I didn’t think was allowed) or “present”; still, 7 + 14 + 5 < 31
Austin Scott eliminated in the third round.
The dreams of Matt Gaetz are coming true.
The Speaker only wins because of the Dem’s votes, which means they only survive with Dem support. Let the new Speaker figure out what it would take to earn that support.
Part of the problem here is, any time the Dems say “We want X”, large groups of Republicans then declare that X is anathema, and they will never support it. So make that the Republicans problem. The Dems should never come right out and declare they want something - they should just vote on the basis of what the Republicans are putting on the table, a straight-up yes or no vote. Then the Speaker has to suss out what will get that Yes vote, and put it on the table, if they want to succeed.
Thank you! I haven’t seen this posted anywhere else yet. Very informative. I find Emmer the least objectionable of the sorry list of candidates for Speaker. None of them are people I’d actively vote for, but sometimes the lesser of evils is the best you can do.
My hope is that Democrats don’t vote for any of these asshats, but i would be okay with them not voting at all or voting present to let a Republican majority choose Emmer. Then the House can reopen, the loony fringe won’t get to throw sand in the gears of the speaker vote, and the Democrats won’t have to take ownership of the pick while simultaneously getting credit for moving things along.
Unofficial third round results:
Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.): 100
Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.): 43
Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.): 32
Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.): 26
Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.): 12
A total of six Republicans didn’t choose a candidate.
It takes 112 votes to secure a bare majority of the conference.
So is it a backroom deal, and the details only emerge after the new Speaker is confirmed? Or do the Dems trust the new Speaker to offer something good after they’ve given their support?
The second option should be a non-starter.
I’m enjoying Mike Collins’ (R-GA) commentary on the process.
On X:
I’m assuming he’s joking, although with the current GOP, Poe’s Law bites hard…