Republicans first chose their majority leader to be Speaker of the House. Then they kicked him out and chose the new majority leader. Then they chose the founder of the House Freedom Caucus. Now they've chosen Tom Emmer, the majority whip.
They're just going down the leadership list. In case you're wondering, next up is the conference chair, Elise Stefanik.
This will be interesting. Emmer voted to certify the 2020 election (while expressing "some doubts" about its integrity) and Trump has never forgiven him for it. Trump is supposedly lobbying hard against him with key Republicans, so we'll see how this goes. I could potentially see Jeffries releasing some Democrats to vote for Emmer if that would put him over the top. It's probably the best we're doing to do at this point.
Elise Stefanik is a major Trump lickspittle, an election denier, and is compromised by her involvement in the Santos scandals. Making her speaker would be a disaster.
I def don't see jeffries doing that without significant, rock solid concessions of some sort. Any at this point any such concessions would doom emmer amongst his caucus (not that he's not already doomed IMO). Let the GOP stew, very publicly, in their own mess while the electorate watches the ongoing incompetence.
Only political junkies with already formed views really give any fucks about this sort of gaming. (And said junkies then fool themselves into thinking everyone cares like they do).
As a Gov shut down and general paralysis gets in the way of Biden getting some things done and carries economic risk avoiding that while achieving leverage seems rather better a bet.
But the problem with your approach is that Emmer is almost certainly not going to do anything that the Democrats support, such as keeping the budget deal that the previous Republican speaker made or allowing a vote on aid to Ukraine. The basic and consistent Republican strategy has been to assume a hardline MAGA stance and wait for Democrats to fold and agreement to most of what are the MAGA's demands.
At the risk of again sounding like a broken record, the incentives baked into the GOP's structure and indeed into the fabric of the American political system means that the one thing every GOP congressperson fears is a primary challenge from the right. And, consequently, that's all that they really care about for the simple reason that you can't run in the general election if you lose the primary.
In the present context, it means that Emmer might mouth some "moderate" words but ultimately he will toe the MAGA line because he's really got no choice. So, pretty much, Biden ins't going to get anything done anyway because he doesn't control the house and the Republicans aren't going to let him govern if they can stop him from doing so.
Rather than having anyone vote for him, the Democrats would have interesting leverage if they en bloc voted Present
Show of discipline and power. But without explicetely taking a side.
A tactical move (avoid shut down, and have implicit debt to call, as after such de facto the Speaker would depend on them as clearly the crazies like Gaetz would try to dethrone)
That's one way of doing it -- just have enough Democrats vote "present" to lower the threashold to elect Emmer (I think he fell 25-26 votes short today). But as kahner points out, I don't think Dems would consider doing this unless they get some commitments about House rules going forward.
Why do you assume that Emmer would be sufficiently grateful for Democratic support that he would honor the deal made by the previous Republican speaker to keep the government open without also requiring massive cuts in the social safety net and eliminating aid to Ukraine? Since the Democrats, under your plan, would simply have generously and freely given him their votes in return for nothing, why wouldn't he simply assume that they'd continue to do so regardless of whether he took hard-line MAGA positions on all of the important issues?
"Why do you assume that Emmer would be sufficiently .."
I don't, and I don't see from where you got the idea that I do.
The useful resolutions that he may pass are CR, and help for Ukraine and Israel, all of which have large support for in the House (and senate and Biden).
I wouldn't say it is high probability, but it is not zero either, and not voting for him doesn't give higher chance of getting any of these.
BTW: it seems he is not even going to get a vote, because Trump and MAGA are full power against him.
I don’t see how the Democrats making Emmer speaker improves the situation. Emmer is still a Republican and he’s still going to be far more beholden to the Republicans than to the Democrats. His response to Trump’s comments are particularly instructive in this regard. Emmer has pledged fealty to Trump and he’s tried to bolster his credibility with MAGA. So he’s evidently going to take a hardline MAGA stance as speaker.
I also don’t see the political optics as you do, either. On the one hand, the Democrats can posture themselves as the “adults”. But, on the other hand, they’d also look like incompetent and impotent adults who foolishly voted to empower Trump and MAGA when Emmer takes a hardline MAGA stance.
This is a Republican problem and they need to fix it or be made to suffer for it in 2024.
Any new Speaker would be tainted if they required any aid from the Democrats to get elected. The MAGA morons would likely turn around a start a new motion to vacate. Besides, although Emmer seems to be the least despicable GOP nominee for Speaker this session of Congress, why should the Democrats help him unless they are getting something in return.
If Emmer cannot be a Speaker with or without Democrats votes, then Democrats wouldn't get anything from him either way. Voting for him would be a messaging vote, to tell the public "we try to be cooperative".
If he can be a Speaker with Democrats votes (like you, I strongly doubt it), Then Democrats don't lose anything by voting for him, and may get some useful resolutions.
So I don't see what Democrats can lose by voting for him, and I can see potential gains.
"So I don't see what Democrats can lose by voting for him..."
Dems need to vote for Dems. Otherwise, what the fuck good is it being a political party. My entire adult life, Republicans have taken a shit on the table and Democrats have come along to clean up the mess. It's time to say, The GOP can clean up its own mess this time.
Showing backbone wins elections. Playing the party with permanent middle-child syndrome has done Democrats -- and the country -- no good.
"Showing backbone wins elections. "
Any evidence to support this?
I have evidence of the opposite: 10 R congressmen voted to impeach Trump (the second time). Only two are still in office.
But that seems to be a feature of the American political system rather than proof that standing up for yourself and what you believe in isn’t ever rewarded by voters. In order to compete in the general election as the candidate of the Republican Party, it’s first necessary to win the primary. Because the majority of Republicans are MAGA nutters that’s impossible for anyone not of the hard right persuasion.
Please. Cheney is hard-right by any standard. Pro-torture, Obama birther, anti-marijuana legalization, anti-abortion. And she supported Trump, voting in support of his legislation 93% of the time. January 6th is what turned her against him. So allow me to correct your last sentence:
"Because the majority of Republicans are MAGA nutters that’s impossible for anyone not a hard-core Trumpist."
Four decades-plus of compromising Democrats have put the country in a terrible bind. Dems have always been willing to cede ground to join Republicans on the other side. It was Tip O'Neill Dems who gave Reagan his "revolution." Dems caved to support the Bush-Chaney-Rumsfeld lies in backing the disastrous Iraq War. Obama got taken to the cleaners in the sequestration deal with Boehner. What have Dems gained? Not one damned vote. They went from being the dominant party in Congress to being the weak sister who never could get anything done.
It wasn't till the Trump years that Dems have shown they can stick together. It may be Pelosi's greatest achievement. Biden seems to have learned the lesson too.
It may be OK to compromise to get something done. That is, when you're playing offense. But giving in to solve the problem of GOP bad behavior doesn't do any good. It just perpetuates the cycle.
". But giving in to solve the problem of GOP bad behavior doesn't do any good."
Voting for Emmer gives up nothing, and doesn't solve the problem of GOP. If anything that would increase the internal tensions inside GOP.
"Voting for Emmer gives up nothing..."
Hell yes it does, and it creates a terrible precedent. When was the last time members of one party voted for the other party's speaker? Never, at least in anyone's memory (and probably in congressional history). But if Dems do it once, they'll be expected to do it again, and again, and again. (But R's? Never.)
In the immediate aftermath of McCarthy's ouster, there were lots of calls for Dems to step in and work a compromise. (Even though it takes two to compromise, and only one would be acting here.) Since then, the "Dems step in" narrative has been quiet. You're one of the last pushing the idea. Which tells me, the Dem refusal has shifted the narrative to "R's in disarray." That's where it needs to be.
Let me add: In a few months, Dems will be running against the GOP House. They want to paint a clear line between the two parties. Having a Dem-backed GOP speaker makes the line murky and the campaign harder. It would be a stupid move.
Likewise, whatever disaster the next speaker might oversee (shutdown, etc.), Dems don't want their fingerprints on it. Let the GOP own the disaster, if a disaster is what is ahead. Dems have no way to assure there won't be (outside of Jeffries getting the job).
+1
"Hell yes it does, and it creates a terrible precedent. "
Whay is it "terrible precedent"?
Just because it didn't happen before doesn't say it is bad.
The 2018 and 2022 midterms in which Democrats took strong partisan positions and greatly exceeded expectations.
In both cases they were against Trump, which helped them, and in 2022 there was (is) Dobbs.
Present rather than voting for.
That is also a reasonable approach.
In answer to the follow-up question from some of our correspondents:
"What control will we have if we do that? We can't count on his promises anyway."
The answer is pretty simple: We always have the option NOT to vote "Present" when his right-wing adversaries next call for a motion to vacate. When he's already got the gavel, he might be a lot more disposed to placate the Dems in order to keep the gavel.
I wouldn't rely on such Speaker trying to placate Democrats. But passing a CR is in the interest of Republicans too, so he may try to do that that anyway. Resolutions supporting f Ukraine and Israel also have some chance, because most Republicans support tham too.
But if the next Republican speaker is ultimately going to be submissive to the hard right, they won’t want to oust him and the Democrats (who are in the minority) won’t be able to kick him out because they would require Republicans to help and, if he’s submissive to the hard right, they’re not going ro wa t to dump him.
You are never negotiating a major purchase for me, you're terrible at this. Please go look up the word 'leverage', I promise you will find it useful in your life.
No, the Democrats shouldn't do anything to help unless and until they get something of more value the probable majority of the house next election, which is what this is working towards.
I don't think Emmer or any Republican could even get that far. If it looked like Democrats were going to put a Republican over the top, the R's would switch their votes to other candidates and the vote would fail.
That would be a useful campaign issue, to demonstrate to undecided voters how infantile Repulicans are.
+
As if we hadn't seen innumerable examples of that, and worse.
It is not about "we", i.e. people that actaully follow politics. You need to think of what you put in elections ads to convince people that don't follow politics. Showing large number of Republicans declining to vote for a Republican Speaker because Democrats vote for him will be a very good show that they are all infantile, not only the crazies.
I promise you that if Dems put a GOPer over 217 it will be the last thing Dems put in a campaign ad. Who wants to run on this: Vote for me, the Democrat, who put the GOP speaker in his chair.
People vote for Dems because they want Dems to lead. Voting for a R as speaker is not going to win votes for Dems.
Sure, you can EXPLAIN. He was better than the other guy ... blah blah blah. But there's a reason they say, when you're explaining, you're losing.
"Who wants to run on this: Vote for me, the Democrat, who put the GOP speaker in his chair."
Only sane people.
Democrats clearly do it because it good for the US, which is what most undecided voters care about. Undecided voters are the ones that Democrats have a chance to convince to change thier mind, so these are the voters to think about.
What we're seeing among the House Republicans is what social conservative governance in general is like everywhere when there is nothing to restrain them or an imagined threat that unites them. This is why the Middle East is the way it is.
Where is Tom Lehrer when we need him?
Lehrer is in fact still alive (95 years old!), but he has no interest in satire any more. Or at least he didn't when last interviewed. It's a shame, but I can certainly see where he's coming from.
Perhaps Lehrer is discouraged that nothing he could do would come close to competing with the Republican clown show in Congress.
Emmer voted to certify the 2020 election, voted to keep the government open for 47 days, voted for the bipartisan law to avoid a debt default and voted to codify same-sex marriage.
RINO and MAGA are each other's anti-particle.
You can get something useful form matching particle to anti-particle (e.g. PET imaging). Not from MAGA vs RINO.
Apparently the Orange Menace is openly opposing Emmer and the MAGA nutbags in the House are apparently obeying their leader. So another GOP Speaker nomination is likely going up in smoke before the first vote.
Emmer may have had too many human qualities to be Speaker. They need to find someone completely devoid of any empathy, decency, loyalty, patriotism, intellect, and adherence to the Constitution. The GOP have rooms of folks like that, so stay tuned.
Stefanik may be next in the hierarchy, but one of the goopers said today that if Emmer fails, the next step is to look outside of Congress. Well, Emmer just withdrew. So who's the deus ex machina?
Really, it's time for the director to yell "cut" and the producers to pull the plug on this one. Such a repetitive story line.
Rep. Troy Nehls is stumping for TFG himself.
Emmer has withdrawn, so we can stop discussing how Democrats should vote -- there won't be a vote. Even more Noes for the 'mainstream' conservative than for the extremist Jordan. I think there will be a shutdown before there is a Speaker.
Party of losers, still in thrall to the loser of the last election, and two-time loser of the popular vote.
Stefanik must be close to cutting her wrists. After all the grovelling she's done, her colleagues are still committed to anyone-but-Elise.
Either the so-called "moderate" Republicans will eventually fold and vote for a MAGAt like Jordan/Johnson/Donalds, or five or more of them will leave the Republican Party and support Jeffries as independents. I can't see any other way the issue gets resolved.
I think that's right-- loyalty to the R label and only the R label is the core problem and full capitulation to it or departing from it are the only ways to break the endless doom loop. I do think the more likely route to the second option is a splinter group that claims to be truer to the R creed than MAGA, but breaking away is really perilous however it might happen.
About Stefanik, too bad that for all her smarts she doesn't understand that the logic of trumpism is that women can't be in charge. Their proper role is to wear jackets that say "I don't care do you," and that's about it.