The 118th United States Congress

[Mr.TaterSalad]

16 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

It's about time the middle realize when they have just as much power as the extreme. No-one is going to get 'Primaried' over blocking Jim Jordan.

Couldn't they be primaried for not supporting Trump though and opposing his pick in Jordan? I know it isn't exactly parallel, but look at what happened to Peter Meijer here in Michigan. Now I get that he opposed Trump by supporting impeachment and not just a vote for Speaker, but I could see primary challenges arise against moderates/conservatives who rise up against the freedom caucus folks.

[oblong]

1 hour ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Couldn't they be primaried for not supporting Trump though and opposing his pick in Jordan? I know it isn't exactly parallel, but look at what happened to Peter Meijer here in Michigan. Now I get that he opposed Trump by supporting impeachment and not just a vote for Speaker, but I could see primary challenges arise against moderates/conservatives who rise up against the freedom caucus folks.

I don’t think primary challenge problem exists outside of Trump. The rules for him don’t apply to anyone else. 

[Edman85]

15 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Couldn't they be primaried for not supporting Trump though and opposing his pick in Jordan? I know it isn't exactly parallel, but look at what happened to Peter Meijer here in Michigan. Now I get that he opposed Trump by supporting impeachment and not just a vote for Speaker, but I could see primary challenges arise against moderates/conservatives who rise up against the freedom caucus folks.

And Dems won that seat handily. You have to think there's one sane person somewhere in the GOP that will learn the lesson from that.

[mtutiger]

15 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Couldn't they be primaried for not supporting Trump though and opposing his pick in Jordan? I know it isn't exactly parallel, but look at what happened to Peter Meijer here in Michigan. Now I get that he opposed Trump by supporting impeachment and not just a vote for Speaker, but I could see primary challenges arise against moderates/conservatives who rise up against the freedom caucus folks.

See my post above. 

[chasfh]

I’m starting to wonder whether it wouldn’t be merely hilarious rather than existentially dangerous were Jim Jordan to become Speaker. His Speakership would not only further expose huge fault lines in that party, but his zealotry would be on full display all day every day and shine a bright light on the abject terribleness of the party, neither of which would do any favors for them come next November. Not that I believe the guy would be a completely harmless caged gorilla, but I could see a Congress under him mired in such inertia that we’d be essentially in the same spot we are today, rather than far, far worse by a year. The only pause I have is whether there is some way I’m not thinking of that he could use the office to legitimately destroy America, which I believe is his goal, but I’m having trouble coming up with one, outside of his arranging for the successful assassination of Biden and Harris and taking the presidency himself. Outside of that, could he as Speaker render so much destruction?

[pfife]

I think there's a good amount of merit to your theory but I do wonder about the govt funding coming up as well as Ukraine, both seem like they could be pretty bad under a jordan speakership

[pfife]

It kinda reminds me of democrats helping to elect the absolute worst most extreme candidates in the republic party primary and then rolling them in the general.  

[mtutiger]

4 hours ago, pfife said:

I think there's a good amount of merit to your theory but I do wonder about the govt funding coming up as well as Ukraine, both seem like they could be pretty bad under a jordan speakership

This is a big reason that some of the biggest opposition to Jordan is reportedly coming from House GOP leadership from the Armed Services committee (Mike Rogers being the figurehead for that set).

The fact that Rogers has expressed little to no openness to Jordan and the fact that Rogers supports funding for Ukraine is probably not a coincidence.

[mtutiger]

Actually not surprised at all.

I think it's one thing to implicitly believe the holdouts will fold... it's another thing to gleefully galivant to any microphone or social media network accessible at any given moment to express your plan.

At some point, you are hitting at people's pride.

[1984Echoes]

Hi Stephanie,

Moderate Republican Representative xxxx of XX, District xx.

I will never vote for Fascist Jim Jordan. Not even if Hell Froze over. I wish to live in a Democracy, not a Fascist Dictatorship.

Tell Sean Hannity and Jim Jordan to go **** themselves.

Just wanted to make certain I was not unclear about my position.

Just to reiterate: Jim Jordan can go **** himself.

[gehringer_2]

Jordan has no policy chops (Ryan), he hasn't spent years raising money for his conference (McCarthy, Scalise), has no tact or grace with people (Boehner), and has zero skill as a legislator. I have to believe that every day that goes by before he wins the job, the more the reservations of his opponents will harden.

Edited October 16, 2023 by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

21 hours ago, pfife said:

I think there's a good amount of merit to your theory but I do wonder about the govt funding coming up as well as Ukraine, both seem like they could be pretty bad under a jordan speakership

I might actually be much more worried if a hardcore red hat who does not have visible personality problems—someone who comes off looking statesman-like—were to get the Speakership and then could prosecute all these culture war items successfully and look reasonable doing it. Somebody like, I don’t know, Mike Rogers—a guy who gives lip service about working with Democrats while he votes to overturn the election, and calls for the impeachment of DAs prosecuting Trump, and opposes spending bills that contain “extreme socialist initiatives”, as if there were even such a thing. That’s the guy I would be much more worried about than Jim Jordan or even Steve Scalise.

[mtutiger]

Still not a guarantee, but this was a necessary domino to fall for Jordan

[chasfh]

25 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Still not a guarantee, but this was a necessary domino to fall for Jordan

See, now even here he sounds reasonable, maybe because he's not calling people names or making vague threats or disparaging entire classes of people.

The best outcome we can hope for is a crazy person who turns everyone off for the next year but doesn't actually accomplish anything substantial in his role.

[mtutiger]

I'm gonna guess that's ballgame haha

[CMRivdogs]

17 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

I'm gonna guess that's ballgame haha

 

[chasfh]

17 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

 

I don't think it's a case of the entire center-right media/pundit class not knowing how Republican elected officials will act, as much as they absolutely know privately, but they opine differently in public, because their team's ideological orthodoxy demands they do so. They can't say what they know is the truth before the fact because their media base won't stand for it, and there would be a price they would pay for it.

But flip side, that's perfectly OK, because when reality arrives to proves their punditry was wrong, nobody on their team holds them accountable for it, mass amnesia sets in, they reset the past to fit the present, and they barrel on into the future to do it again and again.

[mtutiger]

17 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I don't think it's a case of the entire center-right media/pundit class not knowing how Republican elected officials will act, as much as they absolutely know privately, but they opine differently in public, because their team's ideological orthodoxy demands they do so. They can't say what they know is the truth before the fact because their media base won't stand for it, and there would be a price they would pay for it.

But flip side, that's perfectly OK, because when reality arrives to proves their punditry was wrong, nobody on their team holds them accountable for it, mass amnesia sets in, they reset the past to fit the present, and they barrel on into the future to do it again and again.

A lot of it comes down to the incentives for these pols as well... even if you don't agree with them, a lot of them care about the institution, whereas the hard right crowd doesn't... the Ann Wagner types of the world basically aren't on the same playing field because their opponents in conference literally do not care about outcomes (such as a shutdown, which we are on track for in about 35 days or so). 

I see what is happening on that side of the aisle and am left thinking that the entire system is sort of broken... a system where you are incentivized to grift and score cable TV hits over actual governing isn't much of a system.

Edited October 16, 2023 by mtutiger

[CMRivdogs]

13 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I don't think it's a case of the entire center-right media/pundit class not knowing how Republican elected officials will act, as much as they absolutely know privately, but they opine differently in public, because their team's ideological orthodoxy demands they do so. They can't say what they know is the truth before the fact because their media base won't stand for it, and there would be a price they would pay for it.

But flip side, that's perfectly OK, because when reality arrives to proves their punditry was wrong, nobody on their team holds them accountable for it, mass amnesia sets in, they reset the past to fit the present, and they barrel on into the future to do it again and again.

TBH I consider the political media/pundit class akin to the folks you watch, read or listen to on sports talk. In fact politics has been treated the same way for years. They/we can talk a good game and assume that we know better than the pros. 
But do we.

One just has to take a look at Wagner's history on the media formally known as Twitter to perceive how she would probably vote. In the end you know she'd cave.  The always do

[mtutiger]

15 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

TBH I consider the political media/pundit class akin to the folks you watch, read or listen to on sports talk. In fact politics has been treated the same way for years. They/we can talk a good game and assume that we know better than the pros. 
But do we.

One just has to take a look at Wagner's history on the media formally known as Twitter to perceive how she would probably vote. In the end you know she'd cave.  The always do

A lot of them are leveraging for outcomes as well.

Rogers is probably the best example of that... he may have been promised items in exchange for the vote.

Whether that comes to pass is another matter, Jordan is pretty untrustworthy lol

[chasfh]

3 hours ago, mtutiger said:

A lot of it comes down to the incentives for these pols as well... even if you don't agree with them, a lot of them care about the institution, whereas the hard right crowd doesn't... the Ann Wagner types of the world basically aren't on the same playing field because their opponents in conference literally do not care about outcomes (such as a shutdown, which we are on track for in about 35 days or so).

I am starting to wonder whether the real big picture on the whole shutdown sht is not that they are trying to get Democrats to take the blame for it, but whether they want to destroy America by making citizens throw their hands up at how terrible government is and get them to stop caring and give up on democracy and voting altogether. Then they can scheme other ways to take and keep power, ways that perhaps strike them as a whole lot more interesting and a whole lot more fun.

[mtutiger]

Jim's made some gains today, but looks like he's still short... 10ish votes maybe?

[1984Echoes]

34 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Jim's made some gains today, but looks like he's still short... 10ish votes maybe?

I'd prefer it if it were 30-ish.

 

 

 

Edited October 17, 2023 by 1984Echoes

[Netnerd]

4 hours ago, chasfh said:

I am starting to wonder whether the real big picture on the whole shutdown sht is not that they are trying to get Democrats to take the blame for it, but whether they want to destroy America by making citizens throw their hands up at how terrible government is and get them to stop caring and give up on democracy and voting altogether. Then they can scheme other ways to take and keep power, ways that perhaps strike them as a whole lot more interesting and a whole lot more fun.

I can’t believe the GOP is that clever. That cynical and selfish? Yes. But not that smart.

[chasfh]

39 minutes ago, Netnerd said:

I can’t believe the GOP is that clever. That cynical and selfish? Yes. But not that smart.

I'd've thought it'd've been more clever to try to finagle the blame onto Democrats than just blowing up democracy, but you might have it the right way around!

Edited October 17, 2023 by chasfh