The 118th United States Congress

[gehringer_2]

this could be in 'MediaMeltdown' but I was in the car earlier this afternoon and browsed past NPR and they were announcing that 'Scalise would be the new Speaker'. Whoa? The GOP got their act together that fast? Get home later and hit the interwebs and he only has a majority of the caucus no House vote even scheduled. The recent incompetence level at NPR is sad to hear. I know they don't have the money to keep their top people anymore, but they could at least find some cheap inexperienced ones on the way up who have a future....

Edited October 11, 2023 by gehringer_2

[1984Echoes]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

Bargain for whom, though? Whom do you think the Democrats and this moderate wing can agree on?

It's not whom...

It's what: what Dem representation is on committees, subpoena power, procedures for bringing bills to the floor, other House rules, etc...

[1984Echoes]

46 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

this could be in 'MediaMeltdown' but I was in the car earlier this afternoon and browsed past NPR and they were announcing that 'Scalise would be the new Speaker'. Whoa? ...

Scalise won the Republican nomination over Jordan 113-99.

But I don't think it's been brought to a floor vote yet; and Scalise still needs 217 votes to actually get the Speakership.

Now: How does he get from 113 to 217?

That's the trick.

[1984Echoes]

49 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

... Get home later and hit the interwebs and he only has a majority of the caucus no House vote even scheduled...

Oh...

You know...

I should read entire messages and stop jumping to conclusions halfway through...

[chasfh]

27 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

It's not whom...

It's what: what Dem representation is on committees, subpoena power, procedures for bringing bills to the floor, other House rules, etc...

No, whom … whom do you think the republicans are going to get democrats to vote for, if not another democrat. 

[1984Echoes]

At this point it's Scalise. He has the nomination.

But obviously that may evolve if they stick to partisan which will show that anyone nominated by the Pubs will NOT be elected as Speaker... if they stick to partisan.

The more it devolves... and the longer... the more the pressure will increase on the Pubs to quit F'ing around and resolve the Speakership. I'm not certain it will be Scalise... so I don't have an answer as to the final "whom" might be.

It might even be McCarthy...

[Mr.TaterSalad]

 

[pfife]

To me it's super conspicuous the vote on the floor didn't happen.   I think that means he doesn't have the votes...... yet.   

This whole thing of putting **** up to a vote and losing was a myKevin era thing.   There will be one vote on the floor because it won't get to the floor until it's settled.

[romad1]

So, racist Scalise is better or worse than Maga wrastlin' guy?  Nancy Mace is just trying to position herself at Trump's knee with a wet washcloth at the ready.

[mtutiger]

12 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

this could be in 'MediaMeltdown' but I was in the car earlier this afternoon and browsed past NPR and they were announcing that 'Scalise would be the new Speaker'. Whoa? The GOP got their act together that fast? Get home later and hit the interwebs and he only has a majority of the caucus no House vote even scheduled. The recent incompetence level at NPR is sad to hear. I know they don't have the money to keep their top people anymore, but they could at least find some cheap inexperienced ones on the way up who have a future....

Maybe some of it's personnel, but I just wonder if the brand isn't really well-suited for this day and age sometimes.

I still think their commitment to the facts over sensationalism, relative to the competition, is commendable. But I sometimes feel like they report the news like it's still 2003 and not 2023.

[mtutiger]

8 hours ago, pfife said:

To me it's super conspicuous the vote on the floor didn't happen.   I think that means he doesn't have the votes...... yet.   

This whole thing of putting **** up to a vote and losing was a myKevin era thing.   There will be one vote on the floor because it won't get to the floor until it's settled.

If so, we might be waiting for a while before an actual vote!

[pfife]

Just now, mtutiger said:

If so, we might be waiting for a while before an actual vote!

Yes I think so too.   Could be wrong though.   

[mtutiger]

14 minutes ago, pfife said:

Yes I think so too.   Could be wrong though.   

I've been wrong before too, but honestly I'm not sure that any of the names currently in competition can reach 217 with only GOP votes with this composition of the house. 

That's not to say that there's gonna be some eventual grand bargain with Democrats for a coalition Speaker, I doubt it, but I suspect the odds that we are in some sort of Purgatory state with a temporary Speaker for the long haul are higher than we think.

Edited October 12, 2023 by mtutiger

[pfife]

I'm intrigued about how they would appoint or approve a temp speaker and how that differs from a real speaker appointment process.  I suspect a lot of hold outs will feel the same way whether the speaker is temp or a little bit less temp like MyKev was lol

[pfife]

There's a congressman from Arkansas with the first name of French on Cspan and he said as of last night scalise had holdouts and was working to get them to his side, and there would be no floor vote until the outcome was as desired.   Explicitly stated they wanted to avoid the myKev 15 vote debacle.

[oblong]

1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

Maybe some of it's personnel, but I just wonder if the brand isn't really well-suited for this day and age sometimes.

I still think their commitment to the facts over sensationalism, relative to the competition, is commendable. But I sometimes feel like they report the news like it's still 2003 and not 2023.

It's like a pro wrestling journalist who covered it from 1960 onwards and having to deal with the attitude era in the mid 2000s.

[mtutiger]

1 hour ago, pfife said:

I'm intrigued about how they would appoint or approve a temp speaker and how that differs from a real speaker appointment process.  I suspect a lot of hold outs will feel the same way whether the speaker is temp or a little bit less temp like MyKev was lol

To be honest, I'm not sure.... 

But setting aside a coalition, which I'd have to see to believe, I do think the path of least resistance, if it didn't hold up the business of the House, would be to just let McHenry do the nuts and bolts and run out of the clock on this Congress. Because there really isn't a ton of evidence that 217 is achievable at the moment for any of these guys.

[pfife]

18 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

To be honest, I'm not sure.... 

But setting aside a coalition, which I'd have to see to believe, I do think the path of least resistance, if it didn't hold up the business of the House, would be to just let McHenry do the nuts and bolts and run out of the clock on this Congress. Because there really isn't a ton of evidence that 217 is achievable at the moment for any of these guys.

I think in the holdouts worldview there really is no distinction between a temp and permanent speaker because the govt shutdown is so soon, they would need/want to have their chosen permanent or temp speaker for that fight specifically.

[mtutiger]

6 minutes ago, pfife said:

I think in the holdouts worldview there really is no distinction between a temp and permanent speaker because the govt shutdown is so soon, they would need/want to have their chosen permanent or temp speaker for that fight specifically.

By holdouts are you referring to the eight who ousted McCarthy, or the new cavalcade that's coming out against ever voting for Scalise?

That's part of the problem here: there's a lot of people in the holdout camp at the moment, and their "demands" aren't necessarily all coherent or in alignment with other holdouts. 

Edited October 12, 2023 by mtutiger

[pfife]

7 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

By holdouts are you referring to the eight who ousted McCarthy, or the new cavalcade that's coming out against ever voting for Scalise?

That's part of the problem here: there's a lot of people in the holdout camp at the moment, and their "demands" aren't necessarily all coherent or in alignment with other holdouts. 

The holdouts I'm referring to is the gaetz/Bobert hard right gaggle.

I think you're right about the conflicting demands and the agreement for mYkev might be the only way for them to get a speaker.  

I worry about them not being able to support our allies but on the other hand, any legislative calendar days the house gop burns up needlessly and fruitlessly is really good for our nation.

[mtutiger]

Just now, pfife said:

The holdouts I'm referring to is the gaetz/Bobert hard right gaggle.

I think you're right about the conflicting demands and the agreement for mYkev might be the only way for them to get a speaker.  

As I stated before as well, I think people underestimate the anger that the more "mainstream" GOPers (ie. Fitzpatrick/Bacon/the NYers) have toward those eight for the situation they find themselves in. And I think we see that in being too predisposed on figuring out what those eight want without considering that the eight broke the seal on using that kind of leverage to get what you want in this Congress.

Put another way, the assumption is that everyone will just roll over for whatever the eight wants, but after what the eight actually did to create the situation in the first place, it's not clear to me the incentives line up for people to just give the eight whatever they want in this situation.... it was different back in January 2023 when McCarthy did the 15 rounds, it's a different world now.

7 minutes ago, pfife said:

I worry about them not being able to support our allies but on the other hand, any legislative calendar days the house gop burns up needlessly and fruitlessly is really good for our nation.

Pretty much in the same boat. I'm mostly ambivalent to how thing plays out.... I do think it'd be interesting if one of the Moderate GOPers took the dive and decided to stand and see about negotiating something with Democrats, but that's not something I expect in our system to happen.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, oblong said:

It's like a pro wrestling journalist who covered it from 1960 onwards and having to deal with the attitude era in the mid 2000s.

of course the way these guy lie, even to each other, means there is little assurance any deal reached in Caucus even holds all the way to the vote on the floor!

[pfife]

13 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

As I stated before as well, I think people underestimate the anger that the more "mainstream" GOPers (ie. Fitzpatrick/Bacon/the NYers) have toward those eight for the situation they find themselves in. And I think we see that in being too predisposed on figuring out what those eight want without considering that the eight broke the seal on using that kind of leverage to get what you want in this Congress.

Put another way, the assumption is that everyone will just roll over for whatever the eight wants, but after what the eight actually did to create the situation in the first place, it's not clear to me the incentives line up for people to just give the eight whatever they want in this situation.... it was different back in January 2023 when McCarthy did the 15 rounds, it's a different world now.

Pretty much in the same boat. I'm mostly ambivalent to how thing plays out.... I do think it'd be interesting if one of the Moderate GOPers took the dive and decided to stand and see about negotiating something with Democrats, but that's not something I expect in our system to happen.

I think the hard right folks are louder and attention seekers and the media eats that **** up.... but if they can keep a small number consolidated they effectively have veto power over it so I think the coverage is warranted.   But I'm also someone not paying attention to the coverage outside of cspan from 7 to 10am lol

[pfife]

Idk if thus was a joke but speaking of competing interests, Olbermann said on his podcast that George Santos put out a statement that he supports whomever won't expell him from congress LOL

[Mr.TaterSalad]

2 hours ago, oblong said:

It's like a pro wrestling journalist who covered it from 1960 onwards and having to deal with the attitude era in the mid 2000s.

Bonus points for knowing what the attitude era was. And that's the bottom line because Gym Jordan said so!

Edited October 12, 2023 by Mr.TaterSalad