As I write this there are already nine Republican votes against Jim Jordan for Speaker of the House. He can only afford to lose four, so it looks like he's not going to win on this round, at least.
UPDATE: Yep, he lost, receiving only 200 votes out of the 217 he needed. Tough luck, Jim.
Couldn't they just skip it???
Well, everyone has their fingers crossed for something, in my particular case, its that Trump, and Trump alone thank goodness, has the charisma to con the rubes into thinking he's actually going to do something for them. The whole "wall" thing is a prime example.
But what the rest of these clowns, including Jordan, and especially Gaetz, have instead is this real desire to fuck government up. And its one thing to talk about shutting government down, its another thing to actually do it. Repubs have walked this line for awhile, but now they are learning the downside of actually crossing it.
Its a vote loser. Which is why the Dems are happy to sit around at the moment with popcorn.
There is something to the idea of fucking the government up, but not with the results Republicans are looking for. Our entire government system has been captured by the wealthy and corporations and serves their needs, not the needs of the citizens. It needs an overhaul. So MAGA and I agree on that piece, but we don't agree on the misogyny, patriarchy, immigration, religion, and disenfranchisement of minorities part.
that's not "fucking up" the government, that's improving it.
"Which is why the Dems are happy to sit around at the moment with popcorn."
No, I don't think so. Dems are not sitting around eagerly awaiting a return to power so they can pick up the pieces. Dems do in fact care about the country. It's not all politics. You saw it in 2020, with Pelosi pushing through strong relief despite the help it might offer Trump's election chances. Likewise, Jeffries is making it clear he does NOT want a Jordan speakership. It would be bad, even disastrous, for the country.
Jeffries:
https://x.com/PodSaveAmerica/status/1714281106642530758?s=20
"Paging all traditional Republicans and so-called moderates, it's time to get off the sidelines and get in the game before it's too late, because your party is on a path to burn down the House of Representatives."
He's not pulling any punches.
I mostly agree, but Pelosi didn't agree to another stimulus check in October, which would have handed the election to TFG
13 Republicans voting for other than Jordan. I think this is getting close to a number which will increase, not decrease on the next vote (which Jordan intends to call, apparently).
That just means they will increase the seriousness of their violence threats.
And also lose their jobs to the MAGA cult, assuming they don’t lose their lives first.
Maybe there *is* a god!
Jim Jordan is the only person I've ever seen who actually looks like he's wearing the skin of his latest victim.
ha!
Twenty R votes for NotJordan. I would expect that number to increase if there is another roll call today. Looks like the Republicans will caucus. I don’t think Jordan is going to like what he hears there.
Democrats should all vote for McHenry.
At worst no Republican join.
If enough Republicans join, then McHenry becomes the Speaker, but it is clear to everybody that this is just temporal.
I don't see how Democrats can lose anything, may gain some resolutions (Ukraine, Israel), and will get more demonstration how disfunctional the Republican party is.
Democrats should continue voting solidly for Jeffries, unless and until a Republican faction offers specific, guaranteed concessions to Democratic priorities.
Why?
Because the Republicans won’t make even the most trivial concessions to get that Democratic support. Any Republican speaker will necessarily gravitate toward the Trump/MAGA orbit. Which means The Democrats would be reinforcing Republican opposition to things like Ukraine aid and the social safety net in return for more MAGA posturing.
Why should Democrats pay the price for saving the Republican Party?
Democrats don't pay any price, as I explain in the initial messgae.
If McHenry actually gravitates to MAGA positions, Democrats can just vacate him.
He cannot pass an legislation that Democrats object to anyway, because it will die in the senate. On Ukraine he may actually help passing a useful resolution. Also maybe on Israel and CR.
There is no realistic scenario in which Democrats lose anything from voting for McHenry.
"Democrats can just vacate him."
No, if they do that they'll shoulder all the blame for house disfuntion and the disasters is causes. Now they have leverage for concessions and if they don't get them, then the nation watches the GOP shitshow continue until the 2024 election.
"No, if they do that they'll shoulder all the blame for house disfuntion and the disasters is causes. "
That is just bulshit.
If the Speaker gravitate to MAGA, he must be doing things that are clearly strongly against what Democrats stand for, and therefore vacating him is the obvious thing to do, specially when he is from the other party.
In the case of McHenry, it will be easy to say "we thought that he is not going this stuff", because McHenry until now was not a MAGA.
If they are really worried about it, they can say upfront:"We voted for him because we hope that he will be cooperative on essential issues. If he does not, we will need to vacate him."
All Republicans must at least pretend to be MAGA for purposes of political or even actual survival. They can gain nothing by voting for anything good or anything that Democrats favor; they can only lose. So why would McHenry be a good choice for Democrats to invest their political futures in since he's not going to give them anything for their support.
"; they can only lose"
Really?
Give me a realistic scenario in which they lose anything by voting for McHenry.
" So why would McHenry be a good choice for Democrats to invest"
Democrats don't need to invest anything. They just vote for him, and then say "we expect cooperation".
If he doesn't cooperate it gives Democrats a good issue to campaign: "we try to cooperate, they didn't".
There is also is non-zero (but small) chance that he can pass some resolutions on essential issues like Ukraine and Israel, and maybe even CR. But even if he doesn't, what damage he can cause?
i already gave you a realistic scenario and you just said "that's bullshit". so....
I suspect, who knows, Jordan will succeed after a few more rounds of voting.
Jordan is more radical/closer to Trump than Kevin McCarthy. For my value set, the US is worse off with this transition of speakers. I wish the Democrats, reluctantly , would have voted for McCarthy.
This is a fight. I completely understand not liking fights, but do not go around telling people to concede.
Thinking like that is how you end up living in tyranny. If you want to preemptively concede, go play somewhere. You're not involved.
I think you are wrong; I think Jordan reached his high-water mark on the first ballot. Twenty votes against offers enough cover for others to bail.
Don't blame the Democrats for this mess. It was the GOP majority who changed the rules allowing Gaetz, by himself, to begin the process to vacate the Speaker, and it was 8 GOP members who sealed his fate.
"the US is worse off with this transition of speakers" that may be so, but if it happens, it will be because practically all the GOP House Members end up voting for that scum bag. It could not happen if the so called "moderates" stood their ground.
Not over yet, so hang on to your knickers.
"I wish the Democrats, reluctantly , would have voted for McCarthy."
So he could stab them in the back again?
How he would do that?
He cannot pass any legislation that Democrats object to, because of the senate. What other ways he can stab them in the back?
So, they were supposed to vote for him in exchange for no promises or concessions? Just out of the goodness of their hearts? And people wonder why the Dems have no spine.
"So, they were supposed to vote for him..."
Not "supposed". It would have been a good idea.
" Just out of the goodness of their hearts?"
No. It would have been a good idea to vote because:
1) It would help convincing undecided voters that Democrats are responsible party hat try to do their job.
2) It may actually help passing some useful resolutions (Ukraine, Israel, CR).
3) It would highlight how broken the republican party is.
Hell no. That like saying that Goebbels or Goering ain't so bad compared to Himmler. This is not a choice the Democrats should make. And that's not even considering that McCarthy is an untrustworthy liar, supported all the Drumpf election lies and voted to overturn the result, pushes all the same Democrats are socialist/groomer/woke/haters of America BS as Jordan, just in a somewhat quieter voice and a suit jacket, and refused to offer the slightest concession whatever--nada, bupkis, zip--in return for the Democrats saving his speakership, even though even today he is still incredibly blaming Democrats for the entire Republican farce.
I think that the threat of a primary challenge from the hard right will eventually grind down all the anti-Gym Republicans. But in what way would Democrats be better off with McCarthy? He made deals with Biden that he reneged on and he can't be trusted to deliver on any promises.
The dynamic in the GOP is such that even though MAGA is apparently a minority even within that party, they control the primaries and that means they control the party. So, in a very real sense, we're in a fight to the death with the Republican Party. Either there's no more of them or we're eventually going to end up with an authoritarian like Trump running the country.
I am not sure about that. These guys won in Biden districts like mine. NYS is redistricting anyway so I except then all to get booted. However, If they appear moderate they could win by regaining those that have abandoned the Trumpilini’s. My guess is the same dynamic is in play with the rest of the 20 ( without the advantage of redistricting). So primary then just hands the seat to us. The Trumpista’s are as dumb as stumps though so who the F knows. Guess it was a lot of words to say - I’m not sure.
The problem is that you can’t win the general election as a Republican if you’re not the party’s nominee. And the way things stand, basically it’s mostly MAGA-nutters and other hard right types who come out to vote in the Republican primaries. Plus, that’s who the billionaires who own the party will support in the primaries. That’s the dynamic which has been driving the Republican Party since the rise of the Tea Party.
Add to that the prevalence of armed, violent extremists in the Republican Party and you have a situation where moderation is definitely political suicide, and perhaps even literal suicide.
Angels are just a mass of incredible pervs,
https://twitter.com/Gracebal0/status/1713147757228106066
Come now. Gym Jordan as Speaker is the gift that keeps on giving.
Like I said before, conservatives are stuck in a filtered news ecosystem so most of them have no idea that Gym Jordan was implicated in Ohio State's ongoing sexual abuse lawsuits.
Once on the dais, he's going to fuck up when answering questions and he'll end up resigning.
gaetz was documented paying underage girls for sex. he's only become more prominent in the GOP. he's the reason jordan is on the cusp of becoming speaker. so i have zero expectation anything jordan does or has done will force his resignation. but it sure might help dems retake the house next year.
That's true. Plus, it's also true that the Democrats aren't spreading the word on Gym's various scandals and they're especially not talking about his covering up for a molester who preyed on college kids.
yeah, i'm not sure why they aren't going after him and gaetz more aggressively and that shit. i wish they would. also still can't comprehend how gaetz wasn't indicted.
You don't think that Daddy's money had something to do with that? My guest thought when reading that Gaetz had married was that it was an attempt to make him appear more adult & responsible - perhaps at his father's suggestion.
I don't expect to hear of much real justice in Florida.
Oh ye of little faith in the universal power of karma.
Now the big discussion in House Republican circles is, can't they just give additional powers to the pro tem nominated by the dead hand of Qevin McCarthy? Bingo! No need to vote further! An unelected Speaker ought to be just fine!
And all because the party that was once known for "faling in line" doesn't anymore. And it's not out of "conscience" (what's that??), but pique and vandalism.
I think the Democrats are in the right place for not voting for anyone. It isn't time for that yet.
I have heard that Jeffries has offered support for a speakership that incorporates rules changes that would allow bills and amendments with majority support to be given a vote on the floor regardless of what the Speaker wants. This seems a reasonable deal, but of course it would have to be made with someone they trust to do as agreed. Those people still exist, even though they usually aren't in the limelight.
Anyway, I could see that happening, but only after Jordan throws in the towel, and maybe McCarthy makes a second try, which also fails.
"...be made with someone they trust to do as agreed."
Why?
If the Speaker doesn't do what they agreed, the Democrats just move to vacate.
This requirement for trust is just stupid.
Just to be clear: the Democrats can’t remove a speaker without Republican support for the same reason they can’t make a Democrat speaker. The Democrats are the minority party in the House. One thing that means is that if they choose to make a Republican speaker and he doesn’t honor whatever deal he made, there’s absolutely nothing they can do about it.
Yehouda was promised there would be no math when he/she/it decided everything was so simple.
You seem to confirm it.
In case it is not obvious, Snark doesn't count as math.
Perhaps not. But math counts as math. Per NBC News:
“ To win the gavel, a candidate needs support from a majority of the House members present, meaning the eventual speaker will need 217 votes if every one of the current members votes and does so for a candidate by name. There are 433 members, with two vacancies, so a majority is 217.”
There are only 212 Democrats. They cannot elect or remove a speaker without Republican support. https://pressgallery.house.gov/member-data/party-breakdown
They can still vote for some Republican and invite republicans to join, and I explictly suggested that in another reply.
At worst republicans don't join, so Democrats can say "we tried to cooperate and they refused". For undecided voters that is a useful messgae.
Which MAGA lunatic do you think the Democrats should selflessly elevate to the speaker? And since you seem to accept that all the Democrats are going to get as their reward will be betrayal and whining privileges, why exactly would anyone want to do that and what responsibility will the Democrats bear for advancing the Trump/MAGA agenda?
Yes. Plus, not honoring a deal with Dems that everybody in the House knows about will be a badge of honor that by itself will almost guarantee surviving a motion to vacate.
You (and others) keep talking about a deal. I am suggesting voting without a deal. Vote and say what they want, and if it doesn't work vacate.
I mentioned a deal in response to Mitch Guthman saying above that if Ds made a deal to elevate an R and the R acted contrary to it, Ds couldn't do anything either to enforce it or to get rid of that speaker. Which I think is accurate because even with all 212 D votes to vacate, Rs would close ranks around any R who stabbed Ds in the back.
I don't think Ds can do very much on their own, in terms of tactical voting that the American public won't understand (especially not political journalists), to make this box the Rs have put themselves in any tighter than it is now.
Underneath it all, this isn't really a parliamentary situation. Think instead of two gangs of 9-year-olds shoving each other around, trying to control the playground. How would Gang A respond if their Ralphie shouted out that Tommie of Gang B should be in charge but just for a little while?
".."Rs would close ranks around any R who stabbed Ds in the back. "
We haven't figure out what "stabbing in the back" means. How would a Speaker "stab the Ds in the back"? What damage can a Speaker do, which is worse than the current situation?
"Think instead of two gangs of 9-year-olds shoving .."
The Democrats can try to prove that they are not 9-years olds.
So what?
if republican can unite on a Speaker., then this will be the Speaker, That is obvious. The question is what happens until then.
Democrats don't need to make a deal, they can just vote for one of the least insane of them, and just declare what they want. If it doesn't work, it is not worse than the current situation, and helps to convince undecided voters.
Meanwhile, I think the current state of affairs very dramatically underscores just who is responsible for not getting stuff done in Washington. We have one party that can't agree on who their leader is, and can't negotiate a settlement behind closed doors.
Every vote taken where Jordan leads but doesn't win makes him look more feckless and weak. Republicans would love to shift the blame to Democrats, but if they bring it up, all Jeffries needs to do is, "we can make some deal, let's talk" and they will run for the exits.
Thing is, our system of government - with all the checks and balances - demands that parties negotiate and compromise. And that is exactly what the Freedom Caucus hates - negotiation and compromise.
Authoritarian to the core, is what Jordan is, and losing is very bad for him. Let him lose some more. Don't save him from himself.
Since "free will" cannot be described with any precision, I'd say that means it doesn't exist.
Go ahead. Define free will. What are the components that make it so? Most might say free will is the conversation you have with yourself ("I'll drink chocolate milk") but what is controlling that thought? A homunculus?
Starting with the language capable part of the brain, dig deeper. A reductionist approach gets you to neurons firing and, below that, chemical reactions - which are mechanical. If that's your "free will", it's not particularly impressive.
You are in the wrong thread.
https://jabberwocking.com/free-will-is-mankinds-biggest-myth/comment-page-1/
See my first reply about the definition.