McCarthy "is open" to bring Speaker again.

I believe that Jim Jordan would be worse than Scalise because Jordan would most likely do Trump's binding no matter the request. Although I agree that they would most likely both be bad.

I really like your Hitler vs. Mussolini analogy and think it applies even better to the Trump vs DeSantis race.

 

And in this corner emerges Rep. Austin Scott!

 

"By a vote of 124 to 81, Mr. Jordan defeated Representative Austin Scott of Georgia, an ally of the ousted former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who had decided just hours earlier to seek the nomination. Mr. Scott had effectively put himself forward as a protest candidate against Mr. Jordan."

Cool, cool, cool, cool.

 

Then, instead of electing a Speaker, they went home for the weekend. Tells you a lot about where they're at...and not.

 

They know he doesn't have the votes and I don't think he will get them by Tuesday either.

Give me Speaker Hakeem Jeffries.

 

Jefferies won't get the Speakership prior to 2025. Although it is possible that before this is all said and done, he may get more total Speakership votes than any single Republican does during the whole of 2023 and 2024 combined.

 

Not only do I not think that's going to happen, I don't think any power-sharing agreement will be brokered. There is just too much reason to suspect that any deal the Democrats make with the Republicans will be reneged upon by the same.

The reason why I'm skeptical their will even be a Speaker selected is that the two main factions in the Republican Caucus want to mutually exclusive things. The main group wants to work its agenda. The "Freedom Caucus" wants to burn it all down. Where is the middle ground there? (Hint: there isn't one.)

 

If the courts decide that some legislation can pass without a speaker, for example keeping the government funded, then we might not see a new speaker before 2025. Otherwise, I think that a deal will have to be made, if Republicans can't elect a Speaker on their own. For example, a rule could be put in place that Jefferies might be allowed to call for a vote on the Speaker seat to be vacated.

 

The Speaker needs 217 votes with the makeup of the current House. 212 Democratic votes are guaranteed.

It may be easier to peel off 5 moderate Republicans than to find a candidate that the extremely divided Republican conference will all support, given the experience of McCarthy and Scalise.

 

The House makeup is extremely partisan by nature. For example, I believe the Speaker assigns, how many from each party is assigned to a committee. Then the party leaders assigns who is on each committee and who in their party leads their caucus in the committee. So, the Speaker has great partisan power that trickles down through the committees. I can't imagine a majority party giving the minority that power.

 

Normally I would agree. There are 15 Republicans who are leaving the House, and might be willing to vote for a Democratic Speaker on their way out the door.

There are also some moderate Republicans who might choose a Democratic Speaker over a House that can't function at all.

 

If the Democrats are smart they won't insist on a Democrat Speaker. A non- fire eater Republican will do but whoever gets the job, his cojones won't be his own...

 

All that doesn't mean I wouldn't love to see a Speaker Jefferies though. I'm willing to wait for 2025 though.

 

It has apparently begun.

DEMOCRATIC MINORITY LEADER Rep. Hakeem Jeffries says that “informal conversations” are taking place that could lead to a “bipartisan governing coalition” to elect a House speaker.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/hakeem-jeffries-informal-conversations-bipartisan-speakership-1234854700/

 

A couple of Republicans are hinting at this, too. But I think it's just smoke. They're trying to pressure the Republicans to get their act together by scaring them about a power-sharing deal with Democrats.

Republicans who go for it will get dumped in primaries. So might Democrats. Plus, there's no reason to think there are enough on each side to create such a deal. Finally, why would Jeffries risk all the solidarity his caucus enjoys just to enter into a deal the Republicans will (inevitably) renege on?

Expect a compromise candidate or no Speaker at all.

 

Well over half of the Republican caucus would have to vote for such deal. For example, if 200 Republicans voted for a bipartisan deal then I doubt many would lose in the primaries because of it?

Although, I do agree that they're trying to pressure the Freedom caucus into softening their demands, especially when the rumblings come from Republicans. Any kind of bipartisan deal would make the Freedom caucus group completely powerless.

 

I don't know. True, pressing the Ultra Right is a possibility but those folks really don't seem to give a rat fart. They'd just as soon burn the place down and brag about "owning the libs".

There's a lot of frustration and anger in the House GOP, much from members who came there to govern, or so they say. A dozen or more come from districts Biden won, too. Not so much fear of a primary challenge in those places and the idea of freezing the MAGA wackos out altogether might be tempting.

We will see.

 

For the bipartisan solution to work it has to be, well, bipartisan.

Even if some fed-up Republicans decide they want to bypass the Crazy Clown Caucus, they'll still need to find willing Democratic partners. To do that:

• They have to be there
• Jeffries has to be willing to risk his party's solidarity
• There has to be a helluva deal
• There has to be a rock-solid, enforceable guarantee the Republicans will hold up their end of the deal

I don't recall there ever being a Speaker elected like that. Personally, I think it is a pipe dream.

 

It has never happened in the US congress. It has happened in state congresses though.

https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2023/01/08/how-some-state-legislatures-are-turning-to-bipartisan-solutions-in-speaker-fights/