324
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2023
324 points (96.6% liked)
politics
19244 readers
3180 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
A couple dozen cry babies can't have the worst candidate imaginable, so the country gets to be paralyzed. And the nominee who was the best chance we had for getting past the stalemate had to be torpedoed almost immediately because he dared to support certifying the election, and wasn't "sufficiently loyal" to Trump. Oh, and he doesn't hate the gays. So despite literally being the guy responsible for trying to drive votes for the party's agenda and having helped get numerous other Republicans elected, his past history of not always licking their boots means he might as well be a damn dirty Democrat!
Honestly, if I was one of the moderate / establishment / non-insurrectionist / swing district Republicans in the house, I'd get together with a few of the others who have been holding out against the crazies and see if I can get 5 votes for Hakeem Jeffries in the next secret ballot. A nice shot across the bow and a reminder that they don't have to surrender to the demands of 20 extremists when there are 200 people on the other side of the aisle that might be willing to compromise.
Not that it would change many minds of course. The nutcase caucus will continue to try seize control and demand absolute obedience because they have nothing to lose. This just makes them more popular with their supporters, and shutting down the government is a net gain from their point of view.
It's possible that a small number of Republicans might negotiate with Democrats, but as we've seen, Trump and pals will try to target anyone who dares defy them. Can't have our leaders putting the good of the country ahead of loyalty to the only faction of the party that they care about. And while some might be willing to commit career suicide, they've already purged a quite a few members for having principles, there's only so many left.
Of course, that same sense of self preservation is one of the things preventing the more moderate Republicans from caving. They know damn well that they need to keep a healthy distance from the more toxic members of the party. So they'll probably be inclined to continue walking a tightrope for as long as they can.
As such, it's the great spineless middle of the party that I suspect will have to finally decide to actually do something useful. They all know that they'll be the ones taking the blame if a government shut down does happen, and the longer it goes on the worse it will be for them. Sooner or later, that starts looking like a bigger problem than whatever retaliation they might get from their own party for the crime of bipartisanship, especially if there are plenty of others joining them and giving each individual representative cover for doing the right thing. And if they cross the MAGA "No" line and install a speaker that by necessity works with both parties to actually get things done, the intransigent members of the party might suddenly find that they are irrelevant and inconsequential.
That's not quite gonna work the way you think it will. These secret votes are not binding, and are just a way for party leaders to try and gain some consensus.
And while McHenry is almost powerless, the one power he does have is to schedule a Speaker vote in the full House (which is binding). Or, more importantly, hold the House in recess and not hold a vote. If there is any indication that a handful of Republicans might be supporting Jeffries, then there will be no vote in the full House until those people are found out and sufficiently dealt with.
Any Republicans thinking seriously about leaving their party are better off not tipping their hand until a full vote is scheduled, then voting for Jeffries at the last possible minute.
I am aware that the secret ballot is non-binding and just serves as a way for Republicans to get a feel for which candidates their party can support. If Jeffries getting 5 votes actually affected anything, there would be no way that I could convince anyone in this hypothetical to go along with the plan.
This is would be a warning. The relatively small number of representatives that have been able to paralyze the house are only able to do so because they have enough votes to prevent any nominee from getting by on Republican votes alone. But their unwillingness to support their party's nominees and the way they've treated their own party members as the enemy is only increasing the divide.
The extremists are overplaying their hand because they need the whole party to go along with their bullshit, while the moderates can block just as effectively, but can also cross the aisle. Realistically, that would mean finding a compromise that Democrats could support. But theoretically, if a group of 5 or more moderates were determined to put an end to this and felt strongly enough about preventing a particularly bad nominee from getting pushed through, they could hand the speakership over to the Democrats without warning.
Putting in 5 votes for Hakeem Jeffries in the secret ballot would be a way of warning the party that it needs to pick a nominee that can be supported by the majority, and particularly the moderates. It would be telling the MAGA holdouts that they have to choose between a compromise candidate that they can support or they'll get one that the Democrats can support
I wouldn’t expect Republicans to actually make a deal with Democrats to make Jeffries the speaker. I think the deal they would have to negotiate would be to get Democrats to support a Republican who is less objectionable to both sides, and who isn't going to be held hostage by the whims of whoever wants to be the least reasonable.