Hakeem Jeffries is very good at controlling his caucus and knows far more about what is best for the Democrats than I do. He has the assistance of savvy, seasoned Dems like Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer. I trust him to handle this with Dems’ best interests at heart.
If/when he asks some members of the Democratic House to vote “present” or even “aye” for a Republican Speaker, I will take at face value it is the best we can do in this insane moment. Until then, let Republicans twist in the wind in the bed they made for themselves. Mixed metaphor notwithstanding.
Let me throw this conspiracy theory out there. This is all a plan to make the government completely non-functioning but each Republican can say, “Not my fault. It’s his fault.”
Not to sound like an echo here, but they aren’t a majority. It’s clear that the Freedom Caucus is essentially a third political party in this context. So in reality, the Democratic Party has the majority, since once you remove the FC members there are fewer Republicans than Democrats.
Yes, that is technically true. There is no true majority which is why there is a stalemate, because the vote requires a majority (unlike most public office elections in the US).
They should consider revising the rules in the future to allow for a plurality vote, because while we have had a two party system of one kind or another for just about all of the nation’s history, you can’t discount the possibility and occasional existence of viable third parties, and that should not cripple government.
The proposal that the Dems should support the GOP candidate because the GOP won a majority actually sounds like good Marxist-Leninist political theory: democratic centralism, where once the vote is in, the minority has to support the majority.
GOP adopting Marxist-Leninist theory; truly, we live in strange times.
Long term, that’s probably necessary. The Canadian House of Commons ran into this issue after WWI - all the house rules assumed two and only two parties, but when the party system fractured due to social upheavals, the rules had to be changed to take into account that there could be more than two parties.
If Jordan gets elected, I think we’ll be seeing worse gridlock than McCarthy faced. Because he won’t have only 17 members of his own party fighting him.
It’s pretty obvious that there are three parties in the House. It’s just that the formalities have not been made. The current status seems to be similar to a minority parliament situation in a parliamentary government, where the R’s form the government with a minority of seats, but with the support of a third party (Let’s call them the Trumpista Party, or T’s)
What would happen in a parliamentary system is that without the support of this third (T) party, the minority (R) government would fall on a budget vote. This would trigger the Governor General to go to the D’s and ask if they have the numbers to form government. If they do not, this would trigger a new election.
Thus, this sort of idiotic stalemate could never occur.
Not to jinx it, but I still don’t think he can corral enough votes among the self-described “moderate” Republicans. I hope I’m right on this one, because if Jordan gets it, he’ll spend the rest of the term to November running a non-stop chaos campaign. It will inflict a hell of a lot of damage on the country.
House Republicans have picked Rep. Jim Jordan as their new speaker nominee, though it is unclear if the Ohio Republican can win enough support to secure the gavel in a full House vote as the conference faces a leadership crisis.
Yes, Jordan’s in the same position as Scalise was, and Scalise’s bid fell apart, so that could still happen. BUT, and this is why I am nervous and have been posting my nervousness:
The main reason that McCarthy got booted and Scalise’s bid got scuttled, is because there is a contingent of GOP crazies that willnotcompromise. As long as they stick together, they can fuck everything up. Jordan is one of the crazies. Now that Jordan is the new nominee, those crazies will presumably back him on the floor, which means that the few “moderates” will have to stand firm and refuse to vote for him, much like the crazies did for McCarthy and Scalise.
Will they have the fortitude to do that? Over multiple votes without another immediately obvious candidate? I have strong doubts.