What is the Democrats' strategy behind not supporting McCarthy?

[Northern_Piper]

Moving away from cream cheese, Politico has an article about what was going on in the Problem Solvers Caucus, which helps explain why the Republican members of that caucus are now ticked off at the Democratic members.

Apparently the GOP members were hoping some Dem members would vote present on the motion to table, reducing the majority needed to pass the motion to table, ie delay the vote on the motion to vacate. They were hoping to buy more time for discussing some structural changes:

Democrats in the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus proposed a possible arrangement whereby a bloc from their party would vote to save McCarthy in return for a more expansive role in operating the House. Some ideas included giving the two parties an equal number of seats on the powerful Rules Committee and changing the rules of the House to make it harder for a splinter faction to eject a speaker.

However, it’s not clear if McCarthy and Jeffries knew about those discussions. It doesn’t sound like McCarthy ever spoke to Jeffries, so the discussions in the PS Caucus likely weren’t going anywhere anyway, so the Dems voted to oppose the motion to table.

GOP members in the PS caucus are upset because they say they thought they were working towards a possible deal. But, unless Kevin at least made a phone call to Hakeem, I can’t see how those discussions could have done anything.

Inside the bipartisan deal that might have saved Kevin McCarthy

[Dr_Paprika]

The Problem Solvers Caucus. Nothing ironic about that name. I presume the guy who named that is also in charge of naming government bills.

[DeadTreasSecretaries]

@Northern_Piper

Democrats in the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus proposed a possible arrangement whereby a bloc from their party would vote to save McCarthy in return for a more expansive role in operating the House. Some ideas included giving the two parties an equal number of seats on the powerful Rules Committee and changing the rules of the House to make it harder for a splinter faction to eject a speaker.

Isn’t the problem there that the “in exchange” could only come from McCarthy, who wasn’t even willing to talk to the Democrats? I still don’t see how the Republicans in the PSC can be that mad when McCarthy just dared them to vote him down.

And if the problem is that McCarthy promised the other Republicans that he would never work with Democrats, then that is a problem with McCarthy himself as speaker and allowing him to be removed is the only path towards the potential power-sharing or power-sharing lite goal.

[Atamasama]

@Broomstick

Here is a gift link to the article you can read for free:

Thank you, you are awesome.

[Northern_Piper]

@DeadTreasSecretaries

I still don’t see how the Republicans in the PSC can be that mad when McCarthy just dared them to vote him down.

I agree. But it’s always easier to blame the other guys than look in a mirror.

What i found interesting about the article was that some on both sides were at least looking at structural changes.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

Can you imagine if the converse of this question was asked:

Why didn’t the problem solver Republicans vote for Pelosi? What is their strategy by not supporting Nancy?

[Dr_Paprika]

Good point. It is a little difficult to imagine that.