With the House GOP in full meltdown, Democrats could offer a way out
The crackup in the House GOP has gotten so bad that some Republicans are now asking Democrats for help in electing a speaker. So far, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the current favorite among the right, hasn’t gotten anywhere close to the 217 votes he needs to secure the job.
With Republicans fractured and in need of saving, what should happen is that a few vulnerable members (such as those representing districts Joe Biden won in 2020) join Democrats in supporting Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), for the position. But that’s unlikely, because any Republicans who dare to do this would see their careers implode.
The next best thing, then, is a deal that both sides can accept. Republicans will have to offer meaningful concessions to Democrats to have any hope of getting their support for a consensus, relatively moderate GOP speaker.
At an absolute minimum, a compromise would tackle the core problem: That a few extreme members can propel the House into total meltdown, rendering it ungovernable. Several high-profile, non-MAGA Republicans, such as Reps. Mike D. Rogers (Ala.) and María Elvira Salazar (Fla.), have publicly called on Democrats to specify what they would need to throw the GOP a lifeline — and Democrats have several ideas in mind.
McCarthy was kicked out because he worked with Democrats to prevent a government shutdown.
This is not a group of people who wants to work with Democrats on any issue what-so-ever. If they end up just working with Democrats anyway (in a way that gives Democrats more power than under McCarthy), then what the hell was the past 2 or 3 weeks for at all?
Then again, maybe the MAGA Republicans are actually that short-sighted and unable to see the long term (erm... 2weeks?) trends of politics...
Exactly. To them, working with Democrats is akin to exposing themselves to ebola.
MAGA Republicans probably aren’t as short-sighted themselves as we’d think, but their stances need to be able to turn on a dime since Trump
dictatesinfluences their views.I dunno. After recent years, I would expect them to prefer being exposed to ebola than work with Dems. Especially if doing so "stuck it to them", so to speak.
Bleeding to death out of every orifice to own the libs. Feels right.
The thing is, there are still a handful of Republicans willing to work with Democrats, and with the 214 votes the Democrats can offer, it only needs three more Republicans to cross the aisle in a power-sharing agreement. So it's not that far-fetched. It's a question of which Republicans will find the courage to defy the extremists in their party.
You misunderstand the current state of politics.
Simply reaching out and talking with Democrats causes various Republicans to lose office. Its literally political suicide. Next year is an election year, and the House needs to win every 2 years to stay in office. They simply don't have any political cover and their careers will immediately end if they do what you suggest.
Then we have the same problem in 2025 when the new Congress appears, except everyone who worked with Democrats was voted out. Etc. etc. This has been going on for like 15+ years, from Boehner to Paul Ryan and more. This shit is the culimation of a decade-worth of radicalization of the Republican voter base.
Not in districts where Republicans win by narrow margins. Only in districts that are reliably red. Not every Republican seat is perfectly safe.
Losing Republican votes is more deadly than losing Democrat votes that you never had to begin with.
Just look at the last damn decade man. Literally every moderate Republican has been forced out of office in the last decade. The remaining moderates know what will happen if they fall on the sword like you think.
Its safer for a purple-state Republican to go MAGA than for a purple-state Republican to pretend that any Democrat would vote for them and try to reach out to the left. Losing 10% or 20% of the MAGA voters is suicide, and possibly even puts up a primary challenge to kick you out before you've even reached the main election.
The problem with your analysis is that it fails to take reality into account. A Republican congressman in New York (can't remember his name) specifically called out the extreme end of the party as SpaceGhost pointed out above.
House Republicans in particular are not a monolith and the numbers are very tight.
I think the argument here is that a moderate Republican who works across the aisle gets primaried in his district at the next election by a MAGAt, who wins the primary on the (few) angry Republican voters in a low-turnout Primary. Sure, that MAGAt goes on to be demolished in the General and a Democrat wins that seat, but the end result is the Moderate Republican is kicked out of office.
That's a risk, yes. But some of them have kept their seats because they crossed the aisle and the Democrats in their districts didn't work that hard to unseat them. So no, it's not a foregone conclusion. I'll concede it's becoming more common, but we don't need a lot of Republicans to defy their leadership. Just a handful.
Yep. But asking a congress-critter to put their job at risk by working with the Other Side (tm) is usually a bridge too far. Unless we intend on supporting the aisle-crossing Republicans by, say, voting for them in the primary, it's a bit hard to expect them to risk that cushy job (and all the payola and influence that comes from it) by working with us. I'm HOPING that 6 of them work with us, for sure, but I'm EXPECTING them to not break ranks with their MAGAt colleagues.
I would disagree only partially. Because we know these folks are going to vote for whoever has the (R) in their name.
It's also not like Democrats couldn't get members to switch parties, then support them in their election. This is not as much political suicide, as it is a leap of faith. I could understand why republicans would not want to give up what they have for something new and unknown.
Yet, 3 republicans will make that leap if things become dire...... speaking of which.... How's the world doing in our political absence?
But those candidates who reach out will be primaried, and gerrymandering has pushed the primaries to the extremist candidates.
Yep. My rep, John Duarte is a republican and kind of has Obama-era GOP vibes; not quite MAGA, but also not exactly turning his back on MAGA either. I didn't vote for him, and don't plan on voting for him (largely due to his policy proposals), but he's a reasonably professional run-of-the-mill congressman. He's worked with democrats on a number of issues; I suspect it's in part due to the fact that his district is pretty purple and he won with margins so thin, you could see right through them.
Only 9 Republicans voted to oust him
Needed only 1 to MTV though.
No concessions offered by Republicans can be trusted. It's the whole reason we're here: because the Republicans insisted that they renege on the agreements when the budget resolution passed.
No agreements.
If the Republicans want to vote for Hakeem, then they can. Otherwise: fuck off
I don't think Democrats have much to win by throwing Republicans a lifeline here. On the other hand, Democrats do have a whole lot to win by letting Republicans continue to show the world that they can't govern. Let them melt to the ground.
Isn't a lack of actual governing the Republicans goal? Sure they want to pass a bunch of hate legislation, but they're also always happy to grind the government to a halt.
It would be good for the country? Or is it "party before county" with the Democrats also?
I like what everyone else is telling you here. This isn't party over country, you concern-trolling jerk. It's a simple fact. Jim Jordan is a piece of crap and the Repubicans have been slapping Democrats in the face every chance they get. They refuse to compromise with us. They make their decisions based on what will piss us off the most. You have no right to tell us who we should vote for.
We just need 5 Republicans to vote for Jeffries and we're out of this mess. He's a good Speaker candidate. He'll get shit done, and live up to his agreements, unlike your side (and yes, I'm assuming you're a Republican, but that's the side you're standing up for, so whatever). When he negotiates a bipartisan budget deal that includes shit neither side wants, he's going to live up to that deal, unlike your side, which wasn't satisfied with the cuts they extracted in the last negotiation and wanted more. You've proven you're not trustworthy, so why do you dare insist we compromise our principles to bail you out of a mess of your own making. We owe McCarthy jack shit because that's exactly how he treated us.
You want our help? Then put something on the table. Take the fucking Hastert Rule of the fucking table. Power-sharing, bitches. It's time because you can't govern with Team Pepe in your ranks. Live up to your fucking agreements. And this shit better be backed by hard policy BEFORE we give you our help because we know you're a bunch of lying, back-stabbing jerks looking for your next chance to 'own the libs'. I think that hard policy will be backing a Moderate Dem as Speaker. You not willing to do that? Then fuck you, fix your problems your own damn self.
Allowing nazis to have any power at all is bad for the country. It would be counter-productive and immoral for normal legislators to support them in any way at all.
When a nazi is doing poorly, you do not assist them. That is suicidal behavior.
I'm done talking with people who call Republicans nazis. It's not productive. It's like talking to Republicans who say "woke agenda".
You mean you're done talking [reality] (https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/gop-popular-front-white-nationalism/)? That you're done talking about the protection of Neo-Nazis and White Nationalists in the military? And about the deep dies Paul Gosar has with Neo-Nazis, Anti-Semites, Islamophobes, and White Nationalists and his sharing of images depicting political violence against Democrats?? Or the guy who insisted that teachers be 'fair' describing Nazism in Indiana Schools? Oh, those sources are biased and just part of the Leftist plan to attack good American Republicans by calling them Nazis, when we all know that Nazis are a Left-Wing party, right? What about Fox News in a rare moment of honesty saying that outright Neo-Nazis, complete with antisemetic rhetoric, and White Supremacists are winning Republican Primaries and running as representatives.
Not all Republicans are Nazis, for sure, but Nazis are voting for Republicans in exchange for their policies and philosophies to gain support in State Houses across the country and in Washington DC. The Right has, as a whole, embraced Trump, who is famously known for retweeting a Mussolini quote and calling it 'very good' when confronted by it. And their goal, honestly, is to completely stop minorities and gays from voting so they can set up, if not a Permanent Republican Majority, then at least a system to block Democrats from making changes until they can steal back power again.
Now, you can take your Concern Trolling and buzz off.
This. THANK YOU.
Maybe without you the conversation can make some progress. Bye Felicia.
You might not think it is productive, but it's true for a great deal of the party.
They're openly nazis though lol wtf
Giving Republicans lifelines every single time is how they have learned that they can behave this way. If they keep doing it it will only get even worse. Why is it that the onus is always on Democrats to compromise/fix things, and not the Republicans?
Yep. This feels like another "why won't Obama lead?!!" type of narrative.
So party over country then.
Is it? Doesn’t the Republican Party hold 221 seats in the House? Isn’t it 217 needed to vote in a new speaker for this Congress?
The republicans shouldn’t need any help from democrats to elect a speaker and democrats should be voting against a speaker candidate who they feel would impede meaningful legislation or work against the interests of their constituents.
My take on it is the Republican Party can’t field a realistic candidate because they are trying to please an extreme subset of the party rather than working with democrats to find a middle ground candidate.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure there are reps from the Dem side that will refuse to vote for any nominee who is republican. I just think it’s disingenuous to accuse the minority party as a whole of practicing party over country when the majority party voted out their previous pick for speaker for working with the other party.
Edit:spelling, because I don’t proof read until after I post.
It is - because the GOP can't get their shit together and Democrats don't want to work with them because it's advantageous to them to watch the GOP crash and burn. But the rest of us are stuck with a worsening credit rating because nobody trusts our government to do shit anymore.
I'd like to see them cut a deal that gets some concessions with moderate Republicans. Maybe a group of moderates from both side who can hash out a budget? That sort of thing. it maybe what they're trying to do - they wouldn't advertise it unless it was likely to work. But we should want the parties working together. That's how things are supposed to work.
Perhaps, just like every other election in the US, the person with the most votes should win. Then I'll bet Republicans could find their asses.
This a republican mess. It's not up to Democrats to clean it up.
You're correct. Democrats are not responsible for cleaning up this mess. But unlike Republicans, Democrats have a vested interest in a functioning government and serving the people. That's not happening while Republicans are milling about trying to grab power for themselves. Democrats can use their infighting against them to force some concessions that would restore the House to some semblance of functionality and resume the business of government.
You know why Jim Jordon didn't get enough votes? Why he has never passed a piece of legislation in his 16 years in the House of Representative? You’re getting a real time explanation by watching his campaign to become speaker. He can't build a coalition. His idea of soft power is twisting arms. Most House Democrats will tell you that they are ready to work with Republicans, no Republicans respond. Takes two to tango.
This has been the problem with Republicans for the last 30 years or so:
"WE'RE THE MINORITY PARTY! You have to do it OUR way or YOU'RE not being 'BIPARTISAN!'"
"WE'RE THE MAJORITY PARTY! You have to do it OUR way! Elections mean things!"
All thanks to that festering cunt Newt Gingrich.
That fat, adulterous asshole started us down the path of extreme partisanship. The world will be a better place when he dies.
The article has some valid points about Dem options, but how can the Dems expect the Magats to act in good faith? As some shitty ex-president said,"Fool me once..."
I think the only way to get a good faith promise out of the Republicans is to insist on a Speaker of the Dem's choice. Could be a Moderate Republican or a Moderate Democrat. But it has to be somebody who has a history of reaching across the aisle and keeping promises. With how the GOP of late has acted, I can't think of a single candidate on the R side of the Aisle.
They don't reach out to the MAGAts. They reach out to the ones voting against Gym and Scalise. The ones like McCarthy who are willing to cut a deal with Democrats in order to do their jobs instead of simply trolling the nation in the name of their Anointed One/God Emperor.
Choosing country over party doesn't really work out for them very well.
They're getting paid more than the vast majority of Americans. So I'm thinking it's working out pretty well, unfortunately.
Not the ones who chose country over party. They quickly get the boot.
Getting some concessions that the Republican majority would almost certainly reneg on would be both a tactical and strategic failure. A functioning government that serves the people is one with far fewer Republicans in it.
Depends on the concessions. A Moderate Democrat as Speaker would be one hell of a concession....
Agreed, but that's our responsibility. House Democrats can't do anything about that until we get out the votes.
It's too late. The Republican majority in the House is going to fuck everything up, with or without a Speaker. Democrats should not be party to that. Republicans in government will move us all from democracy to open government-supported fascism. Appeasement doesn't work against fascism. Cooperation doesn't work against fascism. Appeasement and cooperation only make a person complicit in the outcome.
It's going to get much worse than it already is, but we can't go back the way we came. The only way out is through.
I don't think that's true.
Exactly like the Republicans, Democrats have a vested interest in just creating enough of an appearance of serving the people to get re-elected, but not so much that it interferes with their actual goal of benefitting themselves and their wealthy cronies and patrons.
Republicans can do that fairly straightforwardly, by spinning lies about "deregulation" and "privatization" and such - by overtly pushing for legislation that will benefit the rich and just dressing it up in a sort of costume.
Democrats have a harder time of it because there's no easy way to make legislation explicitly designed to benefit the oligarchy look like it's designed to benefit the people at large. So Democrats' role is mostly just to provide the illusion of opposition - to stand against Republican proposals but not quite manage to defeat them, and to make proposals of their own but not quite manage to pass them.
And as far as that goes, this is a perfect opportunity for them. They can, and certainly will, just make ineffectual noise and accomplish nothing of substance, then blame the Republicans for the failure to accomplish anything of substance.
I see that enlightened centrism has once again reared its ugly head.
This from someone who self-evidently thinks that labels and stereotypes are fit substitutes for arguments.
Yes - I understand that your blind partisanship requires you to believe that opposition to one party requires absolute, unqualified, uncritical and unthinking obedience to the other, but though it's apparently beyond your own grasp, it is possible to both support a party and criticize it.
In fact, in a healthy representative democracy, that would arguably be the norm - the parties would be shifting to accommodate the criticisms of the people rather than presenting themselves as fait accompli and demanding unthinking loyalty and condemning criticism.
But of course, this is anything but a healthy representative democracy.
And that's not a coincidence.
You have utterly failed to offer anything substantial to the conversation. but we appreciate your participation nevertheless.
And right on cue, unintentional irony.
I agree. Let the Republicans twist in the wind till they are begging and pleading for salvation. And don't "ask" for concessions make demand.
People will vote for the extremist candidate regardless of what the current house Republicans do to keep our government functioning. They either grow a backbone and do their job or they keep looking like incompetent fools, which we know they are anyways.
This all assumes the Republicans want a functioning government. They don't. They are quite happy to be gridlocked while the country burns.
Cash upfront. Republicans don't keep their agreements.
Theres no moderate republican in the house.
Well, they still ask them for voting for a Republican speaker. Why should they? Just to cover up Republican incompetence?
Naaaah… let them destroy themselves.
They could, but they're gonna join the rest of us in simply grabbing the popcorn and watching the show.
How many Republicans voted for Nancy Pelosi?
..