Cleanup in Aisle Lunatic (h/t romad1)

[MIguy]

1 hour ago, Motor City Sonics said:

Knew the knives would be out for McCarthy within a year.   Surprised it took this long.   They're gonna try to vote Trump in as Speaker.  

That would be so hilarious, I'd be voting for it if I were a House Dem.   

[pfife]

I think the dems will vote to remove McCartney and will point and laugh at the gop while they figure out who the next poor mfer is

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, CMRivdogs said:

The wild card in this scenario is who the MAGA's would pick for Speaker. Getz has been pushing for DJT since they took over. DJT may be the only person the crazies might agree on (and you bet he'd jump at the chance.
 

  

That would definitely be a political Kristallnacht.

[gehringer_2]

7 minutes ago, chasfh said:

That would definitely be a political Kristallnacht.

He would probably get bored with it and be completely ineffective but totally obstructionist. OTOH, better there than the WH? Of course Trump would demand to be both.

[mtutiger]

Trump wouldn't have the votes to get Speaker IMO

[1984Echoes]

2 hours ago, Motor City Sonics said:

Knew the knives would be out for McCarthy within a year.   Surprised it took this long.   They're gonna try to vote Trump in as Speaker.  

MAGA Representatives do not have the votes.

It's why Dems should make a deal with Problem Solvers Republicans and vote to elect a moderate Republican Speaker.

Voting ONLY for Jefferies is asinine.

The only thing better than working with Republicans willing to go bipartisan, is getting concessions from McCarthy to keep his Speakership. Like G2 said, start with the Hastert Rule... but don't stop there.

[ewsieg]

19 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

The only thing better than working with Republicans willing to go bipartisan, is getting concessions from McCarthy to keep his Speakership. Like G2 said, start with the Hastert Rule... but don't stop there.

I suspect this is the route we see, assuming Gaetz is around long enough to force a vote on McCarthy.  

That said, Gaetz refused to compromise on anything and now McCarthy has to give in to demands from the Dems in order to keep his seat.  If the dems push to hard, they may end up with nothing as well.  

[mtutiger]

7 hours ago, ewsieg said:

I suspect this is the route we see, assuming Gaetz is around long enough to force a vote on McCarthy.  

That said, Gaetz refused to compromise on anything and now McCarthy has to give in to demands from the Dems in order to keep his seat.  If the dems push to hard, they may end up with nothing as well.  

McCarthy reneged on the debt ceiling deal he cut with Biden, so not sure he can be trusted to follow through.

That's gonna be the issue here... and why I suspect a lot of folks are underestimating the possibility that Dems aren't gonna vote for McCarthy or "take a walk" during Speaker votes to let him off the hook.

Here's a couple of Tweets, both from more vulnerable / conservative members of the Dem caucus on this issue... if members like Golden or Perez aren't on board, he's got a lot of work to do.

[ewsieg]

I don't see those tweets as saying they aren't on board, I see them as invites to come talk to them.  

[CMRivdogs]

 

 

[mtutiger]

16 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

I don't see those tweets as saying they aren't on board, I see them as invites to come talk to them.  

I mean, they are pretty explicitly saying they aren't on board, at least as of now. Hence why I said:

1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

if members like Golden or Perez aren't on board, he's got a lot of work to do.

The point I'm trying to make is that, because of the lack of trust that Democrats have in McCarthy, which McCarthy has himself to blame for really, they should absolutely have a high price for any sort of deal and be willing to take risks in the process.

And even setting aside negotiations, I'm not even clear that the bridge can be built because McCarthy, relying on the confidence and supply of Dems for his Speakership, is likely a dead man walking past this Congress. (And he knows it - he knows there isn't some sort of Sorkin-esque happy ending to be had here)

Edited October 3, 2023 by mtutiger

[pfife]

I think the dems are going to vote for Hakeem Jeffries repeatedly.     I expect then to do so.

[gehringer_2]

who knows if Jeffries has the kind of skill over his caucus that Pelosi did, but the Dems can't let McCarthy stay without getting something, especially the acknowledgement - because the atmospherics do matter. It would be a huge unforced error to let him stay for free. And especially after he was so ungracious after the CR vote as to go out call the Dems obstructionist.

Plus in reality McCarthy is so untrustworthy that anything he pledges is worthless anyway. That's the one thing Gaetz is correct about!

Edited October 3, 2023 by gehringer_2

[pfife]

What could/should they get to make it worthwhile to vote for myKevin?

[mtutiger]

22 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

 

 

He did at least speak with Jeffries, so it's possible that neither side is ready to talk at this point and that it may take actual votes for them to talk turkey... from McCarthy's perspective, it makes sense to find out for certain whether Gaetz has the votes or whether this is all bluster before doing any negotiations.

Having said that, I don't think people really understand the picture well here.... I think people (media and even here in this thread) are looking at it mostly from the Democratic perspective, but it's important to understand the landscape from McCarthy's vantagepoint as well.

McCarthy likely believes (and is probably correct in this belief) that ANY deal with Democrats will be the end of his leadership career past this Congress given the makeup of his caucus and the types of voters who engage in GOP Primaries.  Maybe there comes a point in this process where relying on Dem votes for his confidence/supply becomes the best of a lot of terrible options, but we are a VERY long way away from that at this point.

And maybe the best leverage he has to maintain the job isn't through Dem votes, but through the fact that there very well maybe no other people who can get the requisite votes from the GOP Caucus, and to the extent that there is anyone who could get the votes, they may not want the job because this GOP Caucus / 4-vote House Majority is basically ungovernable.

Edited October 3, 2023 by mtutiger

[mtutiger]

16 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

who knows if Jeffries has the kind of skill over his caucus that Pelosi did, but the Dems can't let McCarthy stay without getting something, especially the acknowledgement - because the atmospherics do matter. It would be a huge unforced error to let him stay for free. And especially after he was so ungracious after the CR vote as to go out call the Dems obstructionist.

Yeah, McCarthy has poked his finger in the eye of the Dem Caucus repeatedly since become Speaker and has proven himself untrustworthy

It's amazing, despite all of this, there is an expectation that the Dems would or should just bail him out. 

Edited October 3, 2023 by mtutiger

[ewsieg]

He pushed himself in a corner to get this job, I suspect he'll back himself in quite a bit more to retain it.  That said, every point each of you make about this pending outcome is legitimate.  I think the democrats can get something out of this, how much I don't know.  There isn't much to lose on their end, if he balks, rather by his own hand or due to the unmanageable filth he's in charge of, it really doesn't hurt the dems.  If he comes through with something promised, it's a bonus.

[mtutiger]

Hmmm

[oblong]

5 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Yeah, McCarthy has poked his finger in the eye of the Dem Caucus repeatedly since become Speaker and has proven himself untrustworthy

It's amazing, despite all of this, there is an expectation that the Dems would or should just bail him out. 

Continuing the trend that dems are expected to behave like it's 1991 and not 2023.  They have to play nice and old school congeniality while the GOP can run amok and break norms.

 

[pfife]

If it takes dem votes to get a speaker of the house, why would dems pick McCartney?  Why couldn't they pick a better republican person? If one exists lol?  Couldn't they make it where they only need 10 or so GOP votes for any particular GOP congressperson?

Edited October 3, 2023 by pfife

[mtutiger]

40 minutes ago, oblong said:

Continuing the trend that dems are expected to behave like it's 1991 and not 2023.  They have to play nice and old school congeniality while the GOP can run amok and break norms.

 

The counterintuitive thing about the situation as well is that the same folks that, it stands to reason, would be the easiest for Kev to peel off (ie. Golden, Gluesenkamp-Perez, other moderate Dems) are the same ones who are the most vulnerable in 2024 and who Kev and other GOP Leaders will work overtime to defeat.

We'll see when the vote happens, but the incentives just don't line up well for Kevin to get off easy here.

[mtutiger]

4 minutes ago, pfife said:

If it takes dem votes to get a speaker of the house, why would dems pick McCartney?  Why couldn't they pick a better republican person? If one exists lol?  Couldn't they make it where they only need 10 or so GOP votes for any particular GOP congressperson?

Which gets back to the point that, despite the GOP holding a majority, we do not even know if anyone can even get a majority of that caucus in the first place.

 

It's sort of similar to the initial Speaker votes that happened, I'm not really sure there's much of a role for Dems at this point other than to give nothing away for free and make the GOP figure this thing out.... whether it be through finding someone internally who they can all agree on or whether it's through the Don Bacon types growing a spine and finding someone they can all work with.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

On 10/1/2023 at 9:35 AM, chasfh said:

Not just to keep the undocs from coming in, but also to keep Texas girls seeking abortions from going out. 

 

**** it, we should declare it illegal for anyone to drive on Telegraph while carrying a gun.

[gehringer_2]

37 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Which gets back to the point that, despite the GOP holding a majority, we do not even know if anyone can even get a majority of that caucus in the first place.

Yup. The calculus the Dems have to do is how do you get out of the girdlock once you let it start, who gets blamed for it, and what is the likelihood that if the GOP does manage to come to a resolution by itself, it's any better than the status quo ante. None of those answers are very clear.

In a rational world, after a dozen or so more inconclusive Speaker votes, a dozen or so Repubs in blue districts would cut a deal with Jeffries, change parties and simply flip the House. But it's a measure of the lack of intellectual imagination that Repubs just can't make the break. The Tribal Identity trumps all logical analysis. Just like all the other never Trumpers who just can't bring themselves to leave the GOP even though this GOP long ago left them.

Edited October 3, 2023 by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

11 hours ago, mtutiger said:

Trump wouldn't have the votes to get Speaker IMO

I think even seriously submitting Trump for a vote is akin to setting Congress on fire.