They still have a 6-seat lead, and even if two or three resignations follow they'll still have a 1-seat buffer on party-line votes.
The stupid caucus will abuse that buffer.
Each fewer Republican bolsters the absolute crazy wingnut side that torpedoed McCarthy to torpedo whatever else they want so it matters, but only because it makes it even more likely that they will have to compromise with the Democrats.
This is a good thing.
Your statement seems to make sense to me, but I'm not sure how the article's statement is factual then.
If two Republicans vote with the Democrats, the Republicans still have a majority, but the vote is split if three decide to vote with the Democrats. (219 - 3 = 216; 213 + 3 = 216)
I came to the same math, but the article states "on any party-line issues". If its a party-line issue, doesn't that define that all the party will vote on one side or the other?
They still have a 6-seat lead, and even if two or three resignations follow they'll still have a 1-seat buffer on party-line votes.
The stupid caucus will abuse that buffer.
Each fewer Republican bolsters the absolute crazy wingnut side that torpedoed McCarthy to torpedo whatever else they want so it matters, but only because it makes it even more likely that they will have to compromise with the Democrats.
This is a good thing.
Your statement seems to make sense to me, but I'm not sure how the article's statement is factual then.
If two Republicans vote with the Democrats, the Republicans still have a majority, but the vote is split if three decide to vote with the Democrats. (219 - 3 = 216; 213 + 3 = 216)
I came to the same math, but the article states "on any party-line issues". If its a party-line issue, doesn't that define that all the party will vote on one side or the other?