It only took 15 rounds of voting, but Kevin McCarthy finally managed to convince four holdouts to vote present instead of voting for someone else. So he never got the 218 votes he needed, but with four missing votes he only needed 215—which he already had. It was an epic victory.
Don't tell anybody this:
CA's (2010) Prop 20 which Dems did not oppose forcefully enough or subsequently try to repeal took redistricting away from the legislature. w/o Prop 20 CA could have tried to Gerrymander 5 seats and keep the House.
What's the defense for that failure? That a slim GOP majority was unlikely, so why bother considering it?
b/c Dems don't fight hard to the max (legally), you end up with GOP taking the House and other problems (e.g. Dem SCOTUS noms are 6 years older than GOP noms, so fewer opportunities for strategic retirements).
Let me know when the Dems finally realize that goo-goo legislation and sentimentality is for losers.
You're undoubtedly correct that Democrats are foolish to unilaterally disarm on gerrymandering. The party needs to fix this immediately. New York State saw a similar problem. Sheer insanity given what today's Republican Party has become.
I don't know the details of the situation in California, but, perhaps in defense of California Democrats, 13 years ago redistricting reform was widely viewed as a long overdue exercise in clean government. Would another referendum be required to undo it? If so that might be a political heavy lift. I'd imagine prospects for success would be a lot higher if the change could be made via legislative enactment alone.
It’s one thing to gerrymander. It is a whole new level to explicitly undo a proposition in order to enable it.
This is all entirely correct. Dems simply have to get with the program.
NY tried to do redistricting well. But the Republicans Cuomo put on the NY Supreme Court threw it out. Thanks, Cuomo!
https://www.mattball.org/2022/11/our-hero.html
Democrats are not disarming on gerrymandering. There is talk among some Democrats about not gerrymandering (anymore). But from a scattering of articles on the internet, it is mostly talk.
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/585185-democrats-decry-gerrymandering-unless-they-control-the-maps/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/court-rules-ny-democrats-gerrymandered-congressional-map-rcna25549
Of course, Republicans are guilty, also. They have been more guilty recently because they control more state legislatures now. But don't think the Democrats haven't taken advantage of the technique when they are in power.
Gerrymandering has a long history. The term originated from a contorted district drawn in 1812 in Boston!
https://www.history.com/news/gerrymandering-origins-voting
But the technique was used from the founding of this country and before.
This is a bipartisan problem.
Unfortunately, undoing Prop 20 is near-impossible. The time to stop it was in 2010. CA had a rival on the ballot, prop 27, which kept redistricting to the legislature. Whichever prop got the most votes would go into effect. HOWEVER, "clean government" the predominant sentiment, and Prop 20 had a majority while 27 did not.
IIRC Prop 20 was a constitutional amendment not subject to subsequent revision/deletion by the legislature.
Start making more money weekly. This is valuable part time work for everyone. The best part ,work from the comfort of your house and get paid from $10k-$20k each week . Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week.
Visit this article for more details.. http://incomebyus.blogspot.com/
California Democrats already possess seats out of proportion to votes cast in the state.
California Democrats already possess seats out of proportion to votes cast in the state.
I think the point is, Republicans throughout the country maximize the number of seats they hold via highly strategic district mapping, and so, too, should Democrats, unless Republicans agree to the elimination of gerrymandering.
Of course, the status quo is just fine if one's goal is electing the greatest possible number of Republicans. Which to be honest is reasonable given how that party never fails to deliver effective governance.
Let the record show that Republicans in the 118th Congress hold 51% of seats based on 50.6% of popular votes. Democrats held the same 222-seat majority last term with 50.8% of the vote. Give or take a seat or two, the parties earned their majorities.
Give or take a seat or two, the parties earned their majorities.
Unilateral abandonment of gerrymandering by Democrats cost them the House. Also, gerrymandering isn't just a feature of federal elections, but massively so at the state legislature level.
I'm not a fan of gerrymandering. It's a vile practice. It's just that we should remove it nationally, not just piece by piece in such a manner as to maximize MAGA political power (which is what we're doing now).
In short, you may not agree, but I personally think GOP governance is bad. Very bad. I therefore believe Democrats should use very legal avenue available to them to minimize Republican political victories, including gerrymandering (again, until such time as we can eliminate this practice throughout the country).
My point is that gerrymandering did not cost Dems the House in 2022 because two more seats would not have retained the majority.
The original post suggests CA should've elected five extra Dems. That would be five more than the nationwide popular vote would give them. If the only way to humble Republicans is for Democrats to abandon democracy, count me out.
My point is that gerrymandering did not cost Dems the House in 2022 because two more seats would not have retained the majority.
I don't accept your premise that unilaterally ceding redistricting advantages to the GOP only cost two seats.
If the only way to humble Republicans is for Democrats to abandon democracy, count me out.
It has absolutely nothing to do with "humbling" Republicans. If that's the way you think about this, there's probably not much sense in continuing the discussion. (Hint: GOP governance is extremely bad for America, as we're all about to discover).
Agree on all points. Gerrymandering is very bad but until a national ban/standard is set, it's foolish to let red states have all the fun,
At the time I (CA resident) thought Prop 20 was a mistake. To my surprise, all newspapers in CA were in favor except for the Sacramento Bee, which made the same observation discussed here.
I'm in favor of banning Gerrymandering for state offices but Prop 20 was about (at least) Congressional districts. Fun fact: Arnold Schwarzenegger was a Prop 20 advocate.
Additional observation: Why is this significant issue only being discussed in Kevin's comment section? Where the hell is the national press or the Democratic Party on this? Numbers guru Nate Silver reported a few years ago on CA's Gerrymander reform but in a limited way, without noting how it affects the make-up of Congress as long as red states Gerrymander to the max.
It's incredible that nationally-imbalanced Gerrymandering is not a topic, especially in light of the 2022 midterms.
I know purists don't want Democrats to get their hands dirty by (re)embracing Gerrmandering, but we see today an example where GOP control of the House might have been avoided. As it stands now, get ready for two years of insanity with:
debt ceiling crisis
less support for Ukraine
Social Security a bargaining chip
House committee hearings on Fauci, Hunter Biden, FBI, CIA, Big Tech
House as a cat's paw for Ttump
whatever else the Freedom Caucus can come up with
It really sucks when people try to act decently to other people, instead of always going right for the jugular at every opportunity.
Humans would be so much better had they never civilized. Acting like total animals with selfishness and the law of the jungle as our only two guiding principles would definitely result in a better future for this country.
Reposted to a more relevant thread:
Is there any prospect for a rules-change? Do House members even acknowledge there's a problem? What if a national emergency had occurred in early January and legislation were desperately needed? Also, what if this situation had transpired in early 2025: would we have simply delayed certification of the presidential election?
The clown car that is the House GOP makes for a fun occasion to eat popcorn and mock MAGA dysfunction, but there are real constitutional issues at play, and I feel this is yet another blinking neon sign warning us of the dangers flowing from the creakiness of the USA's political-constitutional order.
At minimum they should change the rules to allow members to be sworn in by the clerk. Also, IIRC, members-elect sign an oath when they arrive at the Capitol, so maybe the law (or House rules) could be changed to allow the signature to replace the swearing in. (The public oath-taking ceremony could still take place, of course, in keeping with tradition; its delay simply wouldn't stop House business from occurring, as is now the case).
I'm guessing no reforms will be implemented. Partly because the GOP seems not to be much bothered by government dysfunction (to many of them chaos is a feature, not a bug). And also because Kevin McCarthy is unlikely to support any moves that would make the timely appointment of a Speaker a less pressing matter.
The rules in the House are reset at the start of each two year session. Traditionally the first two things that the House votes on are the Speaker and the House rules that will apply for the duration of the session. The House can vote on rules before electing a Speaker (and has done so in the past), so if a majority of the members want to allow the clerk to swear in members, they could do so. What I'm not clear on is whether Congress has any power to change the default rules (the rules that the House operates under until it votes to change them).
Also, swearing in the members isn't enough to allow normal House business. The House normally operates by referring bills to committees, and then voting on them after they make it through the relevant committee (if they do). If there is no speaker, it is not obvious how bills can be referred to committees, or indeed even how the committees can be created in the first place. The House could pass rules to allow these things to happen without a Speaker, but reaching agreement on what those rules should be would require negotiations that would be difficult to pull off if the House is too divided to elect a Speaker.
“The House can vote on rules before electing a Speaker (and has done so in the past), so if a majority of the members want to allow the clerk to swear in members, they could do so.”
Source? It would logically seem that if the previous congress ended and the new congress hasn’t been sworn in yet, this week there were exactly zero members of the House. Zero members means zero people able to vote on new rules, no?
All these assertions of what could be done even though nobody in living memory remembers them being done that way really need sources if everyone else isn’t just to think “that sounds like bullshit.”
Were you watching? It appears that the threat of physical violence was what pushed the holdouts to not vote, thus allowing McCarthy to win. This portends a rocky session for Republicans. We might yet see a fight break out on the floor.
As long as it's between Republicans. We really don't need another caning of Charles Sumner by Preston Brooks thing. Note that the Republicans have removed the metal detectors at the entrances, so fist fights might be the best we can hope for
If elected republicans want to start killing themselves, I’m ok with it. If enough of them do it, they’d temporarily lose their majority.
It is sad for civilized democracy of course, but it seems less bad than, I don’t know, allowing the global economy to collapse because we fail to pay our credit card on time (i.e. fail to raise the debt ceiling).
Well, the debt is 31T and counting. https://twitter.com/NationalDebt/status/1611472806113329154?s=20&t=qnKVW-gK5LPr8VQu3suF0w
Could Congress budget and not overspend for a couple of years? That would help inflation as well. However, I have been listening to many interviews with Peter Zeihan. He recently wrote a book last June called "The End of the World is Just the Beginning." If he is correct, the cause of worldwide inflation is that the world is adjusting to disruptions in global supply lines. These disruptions started before Covid and the war in Ukraine. He also thinks China is going to collapse in 10 years. We shall see.
You don't understand federal spending. Unlike a family where "spending" sends money outside the household, most federal "spending" goes to people and businesses inside the "family." Most of the debt is held by us. And most of the "spending" therefore increases the nation's productive capacity -- especially if it fixes or improves infrastructure, improves public health, keeps people working, etc. Even Democrats don't seem to understand this.
Could Congress budget and not overspend for a couple of years?
If what you're asking is, could Congress stop borrowing, the answer is yes. It could cut spending and/or raise taxes. But it would have to do so on a massive scale. And it's not going to happen. Thankfully.
A part of total GDP is public spending.
Eliminate the deficit and we're talking at least a 5% cut in total GDP. That would, in turn, trigger staggering cuts in private spending, which would result in a big drop in federal tax receipts, which would again force the federal government to slash more spending, etc.
Forget lower inflation, we'd have deflation and a deep recession that would spread to a massive global recession.
While the Federal Bank would try to step in with 0% rates, it would not be enough. Private spending, after all, is cut during a recession. They could conceivably deliver helicopters of cash to main street Americans, but that would mean expanding its balance sheet by more than $1.4T in the first year alone.
So no, it would not make any sense to try to balance the budget overnight.
It is a mistake to balance the budget in any time frame. The last time we did it, at the end of the Clinton administration, it indeed triggered a (thankfully brief) recession. The fact is, there is a demand for US government debt instruments, and the government can always sell them on the most favorable terms, because historically we have never defaulted.
Some of government spending is investment, but you almost never see reporting on the ROI - unless it is negative, as with Solyndra. Infrastructure projects, funding for education and research, small business programs, and such industrial policy as we occasionally adopt, all contribute to increased productivity, i.e. 'making the pie bigger', i.e. increasing GDP per capita.
So what you all are saying is that we need to keep increasing the debt by a certain amount each year to avoid economic disaster and make life better for our progeny?
I am not saying that debt isn't a useful tool. I wouldn't "own" my house if a bank were unwilling to front the money. Yes, counties may need to incur debt to buy fire engines. Corporations use debt. Many small businesses use a line of credit to smooth out payrolls.
But you all are saying that governments/countries are different because "we owe that debt to ourselves."
What happened in Greece? Why weren't they able to keep spending instead of crashing and burning?
There are so many differences between Greece after the worldwide financial debacle and the US now it's hard to know where to start, but I'll start by saying our overall economy is orders of magnitude stronger and also by noting that Greek debt was in euros, not it's own currency so the Germans had a big say in the Greek economy.
Not only Germans, the Finns and the Dutch were at least as hard on the Greeks; but these were all acting in the interests of their own investors who had bought Greek debt. As RZM notes, Greece owed the debt in euro, so couldn't inflate its way out. In addition, the crisis hit Greece particularly hard because of a) the low productivity of the Greek economy; b) the failure to use the borrowed funds to grow productivity; c) the dependence of the Greek economy on tourism, a sector in which raising productivity is difficult anywhere. Tourism was and is an important 'export' in that it brings foreign spending into Greece, offsetting somewhat the need to import so many manufactured goods.
I see what you are saying about Greece not having its owncurrency. Although, this fact brings another question to my mind. If Greece had its own currency, would it have been able to avert the crisis?
If Greece had its own currency, it could have devalued. That would imply a pay cut for Greek workers, but due to increased exports of goods priced in Drachmas and increased tourism, employment would have been maintained. Without the ability to devalue, the only recourse for unemployed Greeks is emigration, which becomes a downward spiral for domestic economic activity.
So what you all are saying is that we need to keep increasing the debt by a certain amount each year
Well, I can't speak for others, but what I'm saying is that government borrowing by the US is manageable*, and also, many decades of deficit agitprop by right wingers provide ample proof that their fear mongering is just that: scare tactics designed to dupe the electorate into supporting an assault on the the public sector we need for a productive and strong country.
I do think it's prudent to not expand the debt-GDP ratio over the course of the business cycle, but even that rule has exceptions (we massively expanded that ratio in the 1930s through the mid 1940s, for instance, which, yes, set us up for the longest period of widely-shared prosperity in our history).
*My horseback estimate is that the US debt/GDP ratio declined in fiscal '22: the deficit was something like 5.5% of GDP but nominal GDP (which is the figure you want to reference, not real GDP) expanded by something like 10%. There's just no crisis when it comes to US public debt (there never is), although, sure, we may see some austerian policies as the 2020s wear on (Prudent deficit trimming is appropriate in the right conditions, unlike, say, in the 2010s; of course, almost by definition prudent deficit trimming can't occur unless Democrats have a trifecta).
" (we massively expanded that ratio in the 1930s through the mid-1940s, for instance, which, yes, set us up for the longest period of widely-shared prosperity in our history)." - I think winning the 2nd world war without having our cities/industrial base bombed to smithereens was what allowed us the prosperity. FDR's spending did not get us out of the depression. Also, I am sure you know this, but when FDR introduced the Social Security program, it kicked in when people were 65, which was the life expectancy at that time. Now we can live into our eighties and nineties. So some restructuring of the social security program is due.
I think winning the 2nd world war without having our cities/industrial base bombed to smithereens was what allowed us the prosperity.
As I wrote, there are exceptions to the debt-GDP rule, and national emergencies like wars are one of them. However, winning WW2 is not really what "allowed us the prosperity." Essentially, what the country did in WW2 was embark on the mother of all Keynesian stimulus programs. Which was an appropriate policy response to the persistent lack of demand and debt overhand in the 1930s. The US ran the economy extremely hot for about four years (unemployment briefly got below 1%). By the time the war had ended, real GDP was nearly double what it was in December of 41. IOW, even if household balance sheets hadn't improved, the household debt/GDP ratio would have been much stronger (because the denominator had doubled). But of course, household balance sheets had improved, massively so (because of all those pooled savings). Firms were likewise flush. So, sure, the government was carrying a lot of debt by the fall of '45, but the private sector was primed for long-term prosperity. And that's just what we got: nearly thirty years' worth before the oil shocks hit.
I know many will find this hard to believe, but the received wisdom on the right is that Republicans have just engaged in a robust policy debate, which is exactly how democracy is supposed to work! Unlike the Obama/Pelosi Marxists, who have always followed orders like the mindless sheep they are.
Like a debate over whether to legalize slavery or curb stomping, --how to decide . . .
the received wisdom on the right is that Republicans have just engaged in a robust policy debate
The debate arguably was about policy: extreme MAGA vs. off-the-charts, batshit crazy MAGA.
To some extent the "it's not such a big deal" take isn't that crazy. A few days of bargaining, arm-twisting and voting isn't unheard of in these situations. Certainly we see far longer periods of delay in many Westminster-derived polities, and unlike in those, the United States had a functioning executive administration throughout (separation of powers for the rare win!).
The problem, really, is that an idiotic rule means the members-elect can't take the oath of office without first having the speakership question settled, and so the US temporarily had no functioning legislative branch. Insert a rules change, and this won't be problem in the future.
(The underlying problem, of course, is the horribleness of one of the two country's two major parties, and the failure of too many American voters to appreciate the danger.)
The rules worked well for more than a hundred Congresses. Your last parenthetic paragraph is the key to why it was such a mess this time. Most of the other failures occurred in the runup to the Civil War. Not a good portent.
Well, those are the same folks who insisted that an armed mob overrunning the Capitol and searching for legislators to kill was "legitimate political discourse."
I honestly expected this to drag out through the weekend, so now the question is how long will it be until the exact nature of this epic failure reveals itself?
I'll guess Monday or Tuesday.
His speakership might last until the debt ceiling needs to be raised. Up until then they’ll just pass legislation that dies in the Senate, and maybe impeach a bunch of decent people including the president and his cabinet. No big whoop unless you care about good governance and human decency.
Unless he double-crosses the extreme-right, McCarthy is committed not to raise the debt ceiling unless the Democrats agree to absolutely devastating cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other safety-net programs. And to shut down the government if the Democrats refuse on the budget and to crash the economy by defaulting on the national debt if they refuse on the debt ceiling.
Biden either mints the coin or bites the bullet. Neither are really palatable alternatives. But, again unless McCarthy reneges, the die is already cast.
The national debt is 31T and counting. How much is too much for you guys? How much are we paying each year to service this debt? The more debt, the more money needed to pay the interest and the less money for defense, "Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other safety net programs."
Maybe we should raise taxes to pay for the services that voters consistently say they want?
Worrying about the Federal deficit is a total red herring. Comparing the Federal budget to a household budget is an example of the fallacy of composition. (If you personally save a million or two for retirement, your golden years will be much more pleasant. I highly recommend it. But saving a bunch of green paper is not the way for a society to prepare for its future.)
Our children and grandchildren will produce some number of houses and cars and washing machines and cheeseburgers and blockbuster movies and a bunch of other stuff we haven't thought of yet. And all of that stuff will be distributed among people who are alive at the time and none of it will be sent into the past to cover our deficits. What we must do for our children and grandchildren is give them the education and infrastructure--social as well as physical--that will enable them to create their own wealth and prosperity. Baseless, mistaken, and misguided fears about the deficit can't be allowed to prevent us from doing that, or we really will be impoverishing them.
No one understands this until the fire fighters run up to the house yelling, "Only fifteen more payments and we'll have that engine!"
Ha Ha
+10!
Interest on the debt is a different issue, one that is entirely under the control of the Government. You'll notice that interest on Government debt was basically zero for many years, and could always be zero if that's what the Government wants it to be. Rates were only raised this year because bankers whined that they should get a 5 or 6% return on their money parked at the Federal Reserve Bank. (If bankers want a 5 or 6% return on their money let them do something useful with it. Parking money at the Fed deserves nothing.)
But when you don't pay the interest on the debt, isn't that called defaulting? People all over the world buy our debt because we pay our obligations. At least, that is what I hear, especially when there is a problem when the Republicans "shut down" the government trying to get spending concessions before raising the debt ceiling. Democrats scream how irresponsible it is not to raise the debt ceiling cause it puts the United States in danger of default. So not paying the interest on the debt would not be a good thing.
Also, what years were those when we paid no interest on the debt? I know interest rates have been low for years, but not 0. Perhaps this is what quantitative easing achieved (I am still trying to understand precisely what quantitative easing is).
Quantitative Easing was an attempt to jump start the economy by pumping dollars into the banking system. The Fed bought massive amounts of Treasury securities from the banks, paying with Federal Reserve dollars it created out of thin air. The massive bond purchases drove the street prices of government bonds right up to the maturity value of the bonds, which implies an interest yield for the bondholder of virtually zero. For reasons, the Fed started paying interest on reserve deposits, going from 0.15% in March 2022 to 4.25% in December. Nobody made the Fed do this, it was entirely their choice: interest rates are entirely at the discretion of the government.
Also, the government's debt obligation is to pay the face value of the bond, which it always does. Any interest is determined by the price paid for the bond when the Treasury auctioned it to the general public. For example if you win an auction for a $100 bond with a $95 bid, your interest is 5%.
There is probably such a number but it sure seems to me like McCarthy and the MAGAnauts could care less about it. What they want is low taxes and the smallest of governments. much smaller than any other modern civilized government on the planet and that is to maximize their power. If they need to reneg on our promises undermining the full faith and credit of the US Treasury, which is what refusing to increase the debt ceiling does , and thereby causing havoc in the world economy - we are a rather important player - to achieve that goal, then so be it. The GOP response to an insurrection and attack on the Capitol which was either participation or silence makes it clear what a bunch of monsters they are. We have not seen the likes of this since the slave traders seceded. So, repeatedly hammering on what a frightening figure 31 trillion is not a good use of anyone's time.
McCarthy can't make the debt ceiling deal happen. All he can do is bring it to the floor for a vote. Will the Republicans have 218 votes to actually pass such an amendment?
They better hurry up on his portrait. He may be done before it’s done.
Will he beat John Paul I?
He might not even beat Scaramucci.
Forget the portrait! Bring out the lettuce again!
The Republican party in its MAGA incarnation is dead, but still walking.
Impeach, investigate, and shutdown. Is that what we get from the House in the next two years? I certainly hope so. What’s the point otherwise?
Thanks for the view from your mother’s basement.
I was hoping it was sarcasm, but I really can no longer tell.
That’s the agenda. The people voted for it. I didn’t. You didn’t. I have a Republican representative. He should do what my crazy neighbors voted for… investigate, impeach, and shutdown. The only way out is through.
Representatives are NOT supposed to do what the voters that VOTED FOR THEM wanted. Representatives are supposed to represent all the people in their constituency equally (at least all citizens), and also have obligations to the whole United States.
I imagine the Gaetz faction is feeling pretty emboldened, having been the belle of the ball for a week. Makes me look forward to the 24 R convention.
Gaetz and his fellow four or five holdouts make me sick. They just wanted McCarthy out but had no alternative. Idiots.
Yeah, good point. I would say a weakness of these loons is that their "alternative" -- which I think mostly is 1) end gay marriage 2) end abortion rights 3) shut down the federal government -- is so unpopular they can never state it out loud. They can only poke around the edges and be spoilers, as over the past week.
Much as I'd love to continue gloating about Kevin McCarthy and his woes, it seems the reality is that it's kind of a weird system where the majority wins control of Congress but then the minority gets to vote for speaker. If it were only the Rs voting for speaker, obviously McCarthy was the overwhelming winner on the first ballot. However, as I said, I have to think Gaetz & co. are feeling they had a lot of fun in the past week, and got a lot of attention for their "cause", and they like to continue that. Which, logically, means using their power wherever they can to continue making life hard for McCarthy. Re the debt limit, I don't know enough details to understand how this will play out. But it sure looks like basically Democrats in the House will in fact be called on in the future to join the Rs to pass things that have to pass.
What?! The House elects the Speaker of the House. That office has very significant powers over the functioning of the entire House. You would disenfranchise half the membership? Keep in mind that the Constitution never mentions political parties, and many of the founders thought partisan politics a curse.
I am not a fan of being able to abort a child in the womb as a form of birth control. My problem with gay marriage (besides the fact that it redefined an institution that is crucial to a civilization's stability, is that we must reach a compromise (a Christian cakemaker should have the right not to participate in a gay wedding by creating the wedding cake, a religious school should not be required to hire gay teachers, etc.). Also, talk about a slippery slope. It seems like 5 minutes after gay marriage was the law of the land, children were exposed to drag queens, and the only acceptable treatment for children who indicate that they are experiencing gender dysphoria is the "gender-affirming" procedures of chemical castration and bodily mutilation. Soon in some fashion, I agree with the loons. But they took it too far and made the Republicans look like idiots. I am not a fan of government shutdowns. Not that I think they have hurt the country, but it is not a good tactic for the GOP. They always lose and look foolish. But I think the Democrats should try it as a tactic. The media would willingly blame the Republicans for it.
I can think of at least six scenarios in which he loses his speakership.
1) passing a budget
2) raising the debt ceiling
3) vote for aid for Ukraine
4) Scalise, Jordan, Donalds (among others) believes he could topple McCarthy
5) one of the 20 holdouts decides McCarthy crossed them
6) the GOP musters bipartisan support for a bill negotiated in good faith.
Anyone want to take a guess on how long McCarthy lasts under the rules dictated by the gang of 20?
Let's wait until they pass a rules package...
If they stick with the one member can file a motion to vacate....the Dems could have a field day or days.
Yes, that's true. Paging Maxine Waters.
You need to move the red line in the chart so that it reflects the real number of votes needed after accounting for those voting "present".
The best thing the Chip Roy faction got out of this deal is the agreement to vote on appropriations bills individually and not via an omnibus. I don't know why anybody would object to that. Responsible spending is the most critical part of Congress's job, and these Omnibus bills are not a method of spending that is accountable.
What a resounding triumph! Six members of his own party voted "present" so they could still tell their clueless voters that they didn't vote for that establishment RINO. So he wins the speakership with 50.3% of the vote.
Celebrate Good Times, Come On!
Now will he be able to get 218 votes for all those insane rules changes he promised?
Yes, made me think of Kool and the Gang too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GwjfUFyY6M
😉
Yes, the GOP used voter suppression to win an election. This time they suppressed their own voters.
To be fair and not knowing the history that well, some of the provisions gained by the nutbaggers seem reasonable. I thought the situation was ripe for a compromise candidate (Scalise?) but in retrospect I’m guessing nobody wanted the job.
Could the chart be scaled to time c'est-à-dire, is there a relation to the rate of the votes to the changing of the votes? (how quickly were they worn down/paid off)
The twenty holdouts can say proudly that they never voted for McCarthy, because he's a rotten weasel who'll destroy the country. They'll spend the next two years proving and proclaiming they were right -- with McCarthy assisting, of course.
Fine, I take the bait....
Dream for him--nightmare for the Country!
I don't know who is still reading this thread. But this is funny: https://twitter.com/BadLipReading/status/1611934183110365184?s=20&t=dRAYotBANKZDvVDEVAFZ2g