He's still 20 votes short. A friend texts:
Are there smart insiders like Pelosi who know where this is all going?
As an experienced political pundit, I would say ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Beats the hell out of me.
As near as I can tell the smart insiders are all hanging out on the House floor where they're getting drunk and trying not to laugh too loudly. Seems as good a plan as any.
Anyway, I'll put my money on Steve Scalise with p = 1%. What do I know?
There's drinking on the House floor? That's pretty much the only thing going right for Repubs now.
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/
Stuff it in your taco, ho bot.
@clarajeffery@journa.host -- your old boss is on Mastodon, although she doesn't use it.
My impression is that most people outside of right wing trolls have set up accounts there and at Post as backups if twitter becomes untenable.
Most of tech birdsite has moved on.
Half of journalism, econ, poli-sci, and law birdsite voices are at least cross-posting. Popehat has exclusively moved to Mastodon.
The deep laggards are sports and Ukraine war birdsite, possibly because most of them are conservatives and don't see any problems with how birdsite is operating under melon tusk.
And then there are the majority of baby boomers. Short of being forced by a sudden liquidation of birdsite assets, they'd rather die before voluntarily finding a new platform.
As a datapoint, I've only looked at
MuskratTwitter once today, following a link in to a video about Green Marge shouting about something.Nobody I care about is on there anymore.
I just lurk there but most of the center-left people that I follow are still there because the other platforms just are too difficult and cumbersome to really use (and certain of them are nearly impossible to lurk on). But I do agree that there's a steady drain to other sites and, if one improves itself sufficiently to basically resemble Twitter, I have little doubt that the trickle will become a flood.
My distinct impression, as a baby boomer, is that most baby boomers have very little social media presence on any site.
Has a share via Mastodon link appeared on motherjones.com, or is it still just the incumbents?
Just the incumbents.
I mostly haven't checked in with the other sites because I figure spending less time on social media—if Twitter continues to implode—wouldn't be a bad thing. For me there's just no sense of urgency. I didn't start using Twitter frequently until the pandemic hit (had extra time on my hands). I seemed to do just fine pre-Twitter, and I'd imagine I'll be fine post-Twitter.
I figure eventually the dust will clear in a year or two or three, and it will be apparent which apps or services make sense to spend time on. But for now, the Twitter alternatives seem clunky and not worth it.
"Me? Why, I've never even considered it!" stammered Steve Scalise.
"He's running," concluded observers.
Well, George Santos would be more appropriate, but if we can't have him, Scalise is a good second choice for the face of the Republican Party. Just a very quick Google search turned up stuff like this:
"Scalise gave a speech at a conference for a white supremacist group founded by Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke in 2002."
And:
https://theweek.com/speedreads/440133/steve-scalise-reportedly-said-like-david-duke-without-baggage
1, 2, 6 strikes you're out at the old ball game.
Or something like that.
????????????
Somebody yesterday mentioned Elise Stefanik. When the dust settles, that who I think it's going to be.
Stefanik is the type to read the room and work the back channels while outwardly smiling and supporting McCarthy. I wouldn't be surprised if she gets it, which might not be the worst outcome. With her it is all about gathering power, and she won't go for the truly crazy stuff if she thinks it will harm her ambitions.
No, she's not "Jewish space lasers" crazy. But there is plenty of spectrum between that and being a fanatic Trump supporter, which she is. Who knows where she falls on that spectrum?
Power-hungry and unscrupulous, she is nevertheless a hell of a lot smarter than McCarthy. I wouldn't touch her with a 39 and a half foot pole, but whether Ms. Grinch gets to be No. 2 in the line of succession is out of our hands.
It's hard to imagine any substantive (ie, something Biden will sign into law) legislation getting through the GOP House. So I don't really care which nutter they decide upon, except on the issue of the debt ceiling. I have a queasy feeling about that issue, and really wish Democrats had deal with it when they had the votes....
It's hard to imagine anything getting to Biden's desk for him to veto, or not. Aside from genuinely "must pass" legislation, the House isn't going to pass anything that will get through the Senate. Even with the "must pass" stuff, there are enough crazed bomb thrower types in the House that we can't be certain that even the must pass stuff will pass.
Any possibility that the Dems try to cut a deal with enough Rs to elect a compromise Speaker? They'd only need 7 Republicans to vote with them. They are already closer to electing a Speaker than the Rs are.
I was wondering just that... Alternatively, wouldn't it make sense for Democrats to vote for Mr. McCarthy at this stage? Wouldn't the GOP completely fruitless infighting likely to continue under his helm?
No, because there is an actual path to speaker Jeffries. Precedent is that at some point they change the election to win by plurality. Then we have to wait to see if enough nutjobs still refuse to back McCarthy.
Humor me (I am not well read on american politics): if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that democrats would approve a speaker election rules change from a majority to a plurality vote, in the hope of splitting the Republican voices enough to elect a democrat as speaker? That would be quite an outcome. ^^
When have they rules changed to go with plurality? Or was it that some members started voting “present” reducing the total out of which one half was required?
In 1849 and 1855. See https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2022/Items/Dec30-1.html
I’ve been wondering if there isn’t quiet conversation going on to form a coalition government. I could see 10 or 20 Republicans joining with the Dems to elect some Republican who isn’t totally nutz. In return the Dems would get something in return. Maybe they’d get an up or down vote on any bill put forth by the Democratic leadership, or maybe with limited chance for amendment. At least government could function at some level. There are probably a lot of bills that would pass with 212 Ds and 6 Rs that couldn’t get 218 Rs.
I don’t think they will change the rules to allow for a plurality. That would require 218 votes. However, the current rule is a majority of those voting. So if 12 Republicans simply abstain from voting ( or maybe just vote Present, not sure about this ) then Jeffries wins the majority of those voting. Maybe 12 of them would do this just to piss off the others? Maybe they could also get better committee assignments?
I think McCarthy is toast. He has been so wounded by six losses I don’t see how he can run that show. Plus I wonder how much he has given away to the crazies?
Democrats need to not trust any promises to be delivered in the future. Republican promises are as worthless as Lucy promising this time to not pull away the football. They are the party that waits until Dems are attending a funeral before ramming through legislation they couldn’t pass otherwise (as happened in NC). They have given no indication that they will fulfill any promises.
I don't see any possibility of compromise; the Democratic ask would have to include things like no frivolous impeachments or endless phony investigations, and that is all the GOP wants to do, other than cut taxes for the rich and gut the IRS.
Whenever some mentions Scalise my furst thoughts are always "needed better aim."
Anyhow who cares? House doesn't need to get it's shit together until debt ceiling. Plenty of countries take some time to form a government. It won't do any harm if this goes on for a while.
Assuming nothing horrible happens in the meantime. I seem to recall pretty terrible shit happening in this country that required immediate response from both houses of Congress, shit like 9/11 and the Great Recession.
I haven't been sharing the glee in watching the endless loop of Kevin losing another vote. As Adams said, we're a government of laws, not of men, and the fate of one Speaker wannabe is not that important. The bigger takeaway from this week is that the House is dysfunctional. This is just the beginning of what may be the most insane Congress in our history.
If anyone knows how raising the debt ceiling passes later this year, I'm all ears. But I don't see it. Joe Biden may need to mint that trillion-dollar coin.
It might be under serious consideration. I read a very short article in which AOC is quoted as saying that she’d support a Republican candidate if debit limit is resolved, Democrats get some chairmanships, and there’s an equal number of Republicans and Democrats on each committee (can’t remember where, sorry).
Mitch
You know why this is nuts?
Trump on his infamous phone call to Zelensky talking about $400M in military aid and the delay: "Do us a favor though"........
AOC sounds just like that
The Dems should have ended this after the embarrassment peaked which I think was around round 4. Now AOC has muddied the waters and made the MAGAts dig in. This is NOT going to end well for anyone but especially republicans.
What a mess this has turned into.
Pushed Trump, lying Santos, and DeSantis all off the front pages.
A snafu and fubar all rolled into one!
And Donald's words didn't sway anyone....so good news?
Remember when House Republicans were steamin' mad about their Senate colleagues going ahead with Democrats to fund Gov't through the end of the fiscal year during the lame duck session? Was it really that obvious back then that we'd be in such a mess now?
Would that be a Snafubar?
An obvious end game is to wait a week, then follow precedent and reduce the conditions of winning to a plurality of the vote. Forcing the nutjobs to choose between voting for McCarthy and voting for Jeffries. The democrats will support this because there's decent odds that enough nutjobs would back Jeffries.
Unless they can muster the votes to adjourn for an entire week, which seems unlikely, they have to keep at this.
When was this precedent to lower the requirement from a majority to a plurality? I’ve seen no source for this assertion. It seemed to not exist that time they held like 133 votes for a speaker in the mid 19th Century.
From a Republican perspective, there's some risk involved in doing that. It's quite likely that some nut jobs would back Jeffries, some nut jobs would vote "present", and some "moderate" Republicans in the 18 Biden districts would either choose to vote "present" or even vote for Jeffries—it wouldn't take a lot of movement to to end up with a Democratic speaker presiding over a technically Republican congress.
No, the wackaloon caucus will burn the whole place to the ground rather than vote for either McCarthy or a Democrat. Until McCarthy concedes and agrees to commit political seppuku by backing some compromise candidate amenable to both the wackaloons and the few remaining Republicans who want, you know, a functioning party that can pass legislation and win future elections -- i.e. someone who doesn't exist in real life -- we're going to be stuck right here in the Groundhog Day from hell.
This is just so, so great.
We have one of the biggest douchebags in the house standing up, getting a pie in the face, and asking for more, on an infinite loop.
If they could get Rand Paul in a dunking booth on the other side, this would be the perfect American carnival.
One would assume that after returning from their dinner break, the House would again take up a vote. It was, after all, Rep. Tom Cole who first called for the dinner break.
Nope. Instead, Tom Cole called for a recess until noon Thursday.
Republicans accomplished nothing and wasted everyone's time. The GOP set themselves up for failure and refuse to get out of this loop.
Coming soon to C-SPAN: "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Quorum."
????
Good on ya!
McCarthy reminds me of the Jets, starting 0-6. Don’t know if anyone told him but it is boring to start that way. Hope he is scouting the draft board, it is about all he has left.
Republicans trying to put out an offer of some kind of compromise character is a scheme to get the Democrats to reject the offer so they can then say it's all the Democrats fault, they won't accept a good faith compromise candidate.
Of course it won't be a good faith compromise candidate, it will be some jerk who could never be acceptable but who most people probably haven't heard of, and he'll act like he's the innocent victim.