The new next guy who likely will not get to 217 votes is Rep. Mike Johnson of Louisiana. Importantly (at several different levels): unlike Emmer, Johnson voted against certifying Biden's election.
So I was gaming this out today. Here is my (emphatically amateur) analysis:
* Because the GOP majority is so narrow, any candidate can only afford to lose 4 Republican votes for Speaker (assuming Democrats remain united in opposition to any Republican)
* There are at least eight hard-core MAGA types who are more interested in committing arson (burning down the House) than governing. Emmer having voted to certify Biden's election meant that his candidacy was DOA with this crew. But the number of those susceptible to a social media blitz by Trump, echoed by the right-wing media complex, could easily be 3-4 times that number or more.
* Scooted all the way over at the other end of the clown car, there are something like 14 GOPers in Congress who were elected to districts which Joe Biden won in 2020. This was the core of those who refused to approve Jim Jordan's candidacy. Makes sense: these are Republicans from moderate, suburban districts (like mine) where neither arson nor Trump's name play particularly well.
* Not incidentally, the latter group are the reason that the GOP is the majority party today. More often than not, that is how it works: the GOP achieves majority status only by electing a few members who are less conservative than the party as a whole; or Democrats achieve majority status only be electing a few members who are less liberal than the party as a whole.
* I think the conventional wisdom is that, sooner or later, enough of the moderate bloc will cave to the MAGA wing to choose a MAGA-ish Speaker, either because the moderates genuinely wish for the House to engage in governing, or because their own re-elections hinge on being able to demonstrate to their own swing-district voters that they accomplished something in Congress.
But - what is the upside to the moderates acquiescing to a MAGA type becoming Speaker? I don't think much will get done; the MAGA wing has little or no interest in governing. They are interested in getting invited to appear on Fox News. The MAGA brigade will have absolutely no hesitancy about allowing the country to default on its loan obligations next month and shutting down much of the federal government. That's the kind of thing that makes them a hero to the Tucker Carlsons and Sean Hannitys of the world. But it's also the kind of thing that causes Congressional districts that went for Biden in 2020 to also go for a Democrat in the House in 2024.
Putting a MAGA type in charge also probably spells the end of US support for Ukraine - another bad outcome for Congressional reps from moderate, swing districts. What about support for Israel? MAGA traditionally has been more pro-Israel than pro-Ukraine, but more recently, Trump and Netanyahu have been feuding. And more generally, foreign policy is not a MAGA area of interest. MAGA is all about the culture war, all the time. Oh, and all about Trump, all the time.
What I am saying is: the moderates whose districts hold the key to control of the House have no incentive to cave to the MAGA wing. If they don't pick a Speaker, nothing gets done in the House. If they do pick a Speaker but it's MAGA type - then still nothing gets done in the House. Maybe best to let Patrick McHenry have a little more authority between now and the end of next year. The way things are going now, it doesn't seem likely that the GOP is going to have to worry about selecting a Speaker after the next election.
Jim, I am sure you are right about the arsonists. And it makes me so angry that the arsonist-in-chief is still burning things down from the sidelines. With a bunch of his accomplices flipping on him and (I assume) making a deal to testify against him to stay out of jail, his chickens may be coming home to roost. Of course I've said that before. Liz Cheney said that he is an existential threat to America, and I don't think she is wrong. But I also think his luck is finite, and there is such a thing as natural consequences. I agree that letting McHenry have some actual authority as acting speaker might be the best outcome right now.
It's very disturbing that the MAGA group don't seem to think that there are any consequences to things such as defaulting on the debt. These members of congress are not uneducated people. Most of them have college degrees. Some of them have law degrees from institutions such as Harvard and Yale. And as far as foreign policy, if the US abdicates a leadership role, are they fine with Putin and Xi taking up the slack?
One thing worth noting: the math doesn't work for the GOP. Any Speaker candidate can only lose four GOP votes. But there are at least eight hardliner votes on one side of the spectrum, and judging by James Jordan's crash-and-burn, there are 20+ who, so far, are holding firm on the other side of the spectrum. So how does the logjam get broken up?
The conventional wisdom, which may be right, states that the eight MAGA nut cases have the right wing media complex on their side, so they will ultimately prevail. But how influential is Tucker Carlson in a moderate suburban district?
The United States can still have a leadership role in world affairs. It can seek peace instead of hegemony, instead of imperial domination. Are we purely reacting to moves by China and Russia or are they to some extent reacting to us? If we think military confrontation is the only language they understand, that's the only language we'll speak. That sets up a positive feedback loop and things escalate. There are calls from Republicans for disengagement. Of course, this springs from a mindless contrarianism but maybe the American people are weary of this constant state of war. We have to change our foreign policy.
Trump is controlling the House debacle. Democrats could have shut down him and his agents of chaos by giving Emmers (or some other unobjectional Repub) enough votes in exchange for assurances that their legislation would be allowed up for votes and a government shutdown is averted.
However the Democratic strategy seems to be to allow Republican chaos to inflict suffering on as many people as possible in hopes they'll vote out Republicans next year.
I get that working with Republicans right now is a revolting idea. But it's not GOP butts being hauled out of the fire; it's the butts of people who rely on government agencies for their safety and welfare at home and abroad.
Nobody's working for the American people right now as far as I can see.
What I was reading on Politico was that some Democrats were open to working with the Rs on Emmer, but they were looking for a deal, and the Rs weren't willing to make any concessions. I don't see the Ds making a deal about a candidate who was an election denier. And I wish Trump had a piece of duct tape on his mouth. And his Twitter finger (I mean "X").
I think emotion among House members has at least as much to do with this as cold, objective strategizing. My suspicion is, if Hakeem Jeffries and his Democratic leadership proposed to his conference that they try to find a "sensible center" bipartisan majority to pick someone like Emmers, he'd have a full-blown revolt within his own caucus, because there isn't much regard or trust for any Republicans.
Even within the GOP caucus, emotions are ruling in some cases. The dislike of McCarthy wasn't all performative; some of it was genuine. And I don't know if there is any Republican member of the House, anywhere, who isn't hated by four or more members of the caucus. It's just like high school, all over again. I had about 375 people in my graduating class. I am sure at least 5 or 6 of them hated me, too :-)
For sure, he's influential. Even if he isn't trying to pull strings himself (and he certainly did to kill off Emmer's candidacy), fear of him, his organization and his influence with voters is enough to cow most of the GOP conference.
If Trump was completely in control, Jim Jordan would be Speaker today. That 25 Republicans defied him on that is pretty notable. It's questionable how long that defiance will last.
Katherine, interesting info from Politico. Much as I feel I need to stop caring about politics, it's hard to let go.
Anyone know where the one-rep-can-trigger-a-recall rule that allowed Goetz to start this mess stands? Will a new GOP speaker be subject to EZ removal?
Ooohh! 25 out of 221 Republicans voted against Jim Jordan, that worm. Just about 1 in 10. Scuze me if I don't stand up and cheer the GOP for its gutsy defense of the American Way.
We can either have a working democratic system or we can have this dysfunctional two-party fiasco. Both parties want their party in control with the other one as a powerless foil. In a multi-party setup, bi- and tri-partisanship, reaching across the aisles would become necessary. In a way, we already have more than two parties. We need to encourage the splintering of the parties and introduce ranked choice voting. This setup has broken down. It will never work again. As Jean says, they really don't care about us and our little problems.
Stanley, I would favor ranked choice voting. But how would we get there, would it require a constitutional amendment? Jean, I know! I'm not very impressed that there's only 1 in 10 courageous Republicans. About the one-rep-trigger rule, if I am remembering correctly, it was put in place for McCarthy to be able to get the speaker seat. And look where it got him. As far as I know it's still in place.
Well, that was a sickening display of House members on both sides essentially cheering on their own dysfunction and making stupid little comments. Acting like it's party time in the middle of this shambles. Disgraceful. Make way for MAGA Mike Johnson.
I have to say I'm surprised it happened this fast. Definitely not a cause for celebration, but maybe now they'll get some work done? (Not holding my breath).
Here is a profile of Johnson (of whom I don't think I had heard, prior to this week), from the NY Times Capitol Hill reporter Catie Edmonson:
"Republicans united to elect Mr. Johnson in a 220-209 vote.
"It put a socially conservative lawyer who opposes abortion rights and same-sex marriage, and who played a leading role in congressional efforts to overturn the 2020 election, second in line to the presidency.
"Elected to Congress in 2016, Mr. Johnson is the most junior lawmaker in decades to become speaker.
"He may also be the most conservative. An evangelical Christian, Mr. Johnson is the former chairman of the Republican Study Committee and sponsored legislation to effectively bar the discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity at any institution serving children younger than 10 that receives federal funds.
"He served on former President Donald J. Trump’s impeachment defense team, played a leading role in recruiting House Republicans to sign a legal brief supporting a lawsuit seeking to overturn the 2020 election results and was an architect of Mr. Trump’s bid to object to certifying them in Congress on Jan. 6, 2021."
Axios reporting that Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO), who apparently voted against both Scalise and Jordan, saying that Johnson was able to win because he's a likeable person and he hasn't been around long enough to make enough enemies to derail his candidacy. Those factors worked for Barack Obama in 2008, too.
"I would favor ranked choice voting. But how would we get there, would it require a constitutional amendment?"
Each state can choose to implement it. One or two already have. I wouldn't doubt that it would require state constitutional amendments or similar direct-democracy plebiscites to get some states to come around to it.
His candidacy lasted all of four hours.
ReplyDeleteThe new next guy who likely will not get to 217 votes is Rep. Mike Johnson of Louisiana. Importantly (at several different levels): unlike Emmer, Johnson voted against certifying Biden's election.
So I was gaming this out today. Here is my (emphatically amateur) analysis:
ReplyDelete* Because the GOP majority is so narrow, any candidate can only afford to lose 4 Republican votes for Speaker (assuming Democrats remain united in opposition to any Republican)
* There are at least eight hard-core MAGA types who are more interested in committing arson (burning down the House) than governing. Emmer having voted to certify Biden's election meant that his candidacy was DOA with this crew. But the number of those susceptible to a social media blitz by Trump, echoed by the right-wing media complex, could easily be 3-4 times that number or more.
* Scooted all the way over at the other end of the clown car, there are something like 14 GOPers in Congress who were elected to districts which Joe Biden won in 2020. This was the core of those who refused to approve Jim Jordan's candidacy. Makes sense: these are Republicans from moderate, suburban districts (like mine) where neither arson nor Trump's name play particularly well.
* Not incidentally, the latter group are the reason that the GOP is the majority party today. More often than not, that is how it works: the GOP achieves majority status only by electing a few members who are less conservative than the party as a whole; or Democrats achieve majority status only be electing a few members who are less liberal than the party as a whole.
* I think the conventional wisdom is that, sooner or later, enough of the moderate bloc will cave to the MAGA wing to choose a MAGA-ish Speaker, either because the moderates genuinely wish for the House to engage in governing, or because their own re-elections hinge on being able to demonstrate to their own swing-district voters that they accomplished something in Congress.
But - what is the upside to the moderates acquiescing to a MAGA type becoming Speaker? I don't think much will get done; the MAGA wing has little or no interest in governing. They are interested in getting invited to appear on Fox News. The MAGA brigade will have absolutely no hesitancy about allowing the country to default on its loan obligations next month and shutting down much of the federal government. That's the kind of thing that makes them a hero to the Tucker Carlsons and Sean Hannitys of the world. But it's also the kind of thing that causes Congressional districts that went for Biden in 2020 to also go for a Democrat in the House in 2024.
Putting a MAGA type in charge also probably spells the end of US support for Ukraine - another bad outcome for Congressional reps from moderate, swing districts. What about support for Israel?
MAGA traditionally has been more pro-Israel than pro-Ukraine, but more recently, Trump and Netanyahu have been feuding. And more generally, foreign policy is not a MAGA area of interest. MAGA is all about the culture war, all the time. Oh, and all about Trump, all the time.
What I am saying is: the moderates whose districts hold the key to control of the House have no incentive to cave to the MAGA wing. If they don't pick a Speaker, nothing gets done in the House. If they do pick a Speaker but it's MAGA type - then still nothing gets done in the House. Maybe best to let Patrick McHenry have a little more authority between now and the end of next year. The way things are going now, it doesn't seem likely that the GOP is going to have to worry about selecting a Speaker after the next election.
Jim, I am sure you are right about the arsonists. And it makes me so angry that the arsonist-in-chief is still burning things down from the sidelines. With a bunch of his accomplices flipping on him and (I assume) making a deal to testify against him to stay out of jail, his chickens may be coming home to roost. Of course I've said that before. Liz Cheney said that he is an existential threat to America, and I don't think she is wrong. But I also think his luck is finite, and there is such a thing as natural consequences.
DeleteI agree that letting McHenry have some actual authority as acting speaker might be the best outcome right now.
It's very disturbing that the MAGA group don't seem to think that there are any consequences to things such as defaulting on the debt. These members of congress are not uneducated people. Most of them have college degrees. Some of them have law degrees from institutions such as Harvard and Yale.
DeleteAnd as far as foreign policy, if the US abdicates a leadership role, are they fine with Putin and Xi taking up the slack?
One thing worth noting: the math doesn't work for the GOP. Any Speaker candidate can only lose four GOP votes. But there are at least eight hardliner votes on one side of the spectrum, and judging by James Jordan's crash-and-burn, there are 20+ who, so far, are holding firm on the other side of the spectrum. So how does the logjam get broken up?
DeleteThe conventional wisdom, which may be right, states that the eight MAGA nut cases have the right wing media complex on their side, so they will ultimately prevail. But how influential is Tucker Carlson in a moderate suburban district?
The United States can still have a leadership role in world affairs. It can seek peace instead of hegemony, instead of imperial domination. Are we purely reacting to moves by China and Russia or are they to some extent reacting to us? If we think military confrontation is the only language they understand, that's the only language we'll speak. That sets up a positive feedback loop and things escalate. There are calls from Republicans for disengagement. Of course, this springs from a mindless contrarianism but maybe the American people are weary of this constant state of war. We have to change our foreign policy.
ReplyDeleteTrump is controlling the House debacle. Democrats could have shut down him and his agents of chaos by giving Emmers (or some other unobjectional Repub) enough votes in exchange for assurances that their legislation would be allowed up for votes and a government shutdown is averted.
ReplyDeleteHowever the Democratic strategy seems to be to allow Republican chaos to inflict suffering on as many people as possible in hopes they'll vote out Republicans next year.
I get that working with Republicans right now is a revolting idea. But it's not GOP butts being hauled out of the fire; it's the butts of people who rely on government agencies for their safety and welfare at home and abroad.
Nobody's working for the American people right now as far as I can see.
What I was reading on Politico was that some Democrats were open to working with the Rs on Emmer, but they were looking for a deal, and the Rs weren't willing to make any concessions. I don't see the Ds making a deal about a candidate who was an election denier. And I wish Trump had a piece of duct tape on his mouth. And his Twitter finger (I mean "X").
DeleteI think emotion among House members has at least as much to do with this as cold, objective strategizing. My suspicion is, if Hakeem Jeffries and his Democratic leadership proposed to his conference that they try to find a "sensible center" bipartisan majority to pick someone like Emmers, he'd have a full-blown revolt within his own caucus, because there isn't much regard or trust for any Republicans.
DeleteEven within the GOP caucus, emotions are ruling in some cases. The dislike of McCarthy wasn't all performative; some of it was genuine. And I don't know if there is any Republican member of the House, anywhere, who isn't hated by four or more members of the caucus. It's just like high school, all over again. I had about 375 people in my graduating class. I am sure at least 5 or 6 of them hated me, too :-)
"Trump is controlling the House debacle"
DeleteFor sure, he's influential. Even if he isn't trying to pull strings himself (and he certainly did to kill off Emmer's candidacy), fear of him, his organization and his influence with voters is enough to cow most of the GOP conference.
If Trump was completely in control, Jim Jordan would be Speaker today. That 25 Republicans defied him on that is pretty notable. It's questionable how long that defiance will last.
Katherine, interesting info from Politico. Much as I feel I need to stop caring about politics, it's hard to let go.
DeleteAnyone know where the one-rep-can-trigger-a-recall rule that allowed Goetz to start this mess stands? Will a new GOP speaker be subject to EZ removal?
Ooohh! 25 out of 221 Republicans voted against Jim Jordan, that worm. Just about 1 in 10. Scuze me if I don't stand up and cheer the GOP for its gutsy defense of the American Way.
We can either have a working democratic system or we can have this dysfunctional two-party fiasco. Both parties want their party in control with the other one as a powerless foil. In a multi-party setup, bi- and tri-partisanship, reaching across the aisles would become necessary. In a way, we already have more than two parties. We need to encourage the splintering of the parties and introduce ranked choice voting. This setup has broken down. It will never work again. As Jean says, they really don't care about us and our little problems.
DeleteStanley, I would favor ranked choice voting. But how would we get there, would it require a constitutional amendment?
DeleteJean, I know! I'm not very impressed that there's only 1 in 10 courageous Republicans.
About the one-rep-trigger rule, if I am remembering correctly, it was put in place for McCarthy to be able to get the speaker seat. And look where it got him. As far as I know it's still in place.
Well, that was a sickening display of House members on both sides essentially cheering on their own dysfunction and making stupid little comments. Acting like it's party time in the middle of this shambles. Disgraceful. Make way for MAGA Mike Johnson.
DeleteI have to say I'm surprised it happened this fast. Definitely not a cause for celebration, but maybe now they'll get some work done? (Not holding my breath).
DeleteHere is a profile of Johnson (of whom I don't think I had heard, prior to this week), from the NY Times Capitol Hill reporter Catie Edmonson:
Delete"Republicans united to elect Mr. Johnson in a 220-209 vote.
"It put a socially conservative lawyer who opposes abortion rights and same-sex marriage, and who played a leading role in congressional efforts to overturn the 2020 election, second in line to the presidency.
"Elected to Congress in 2016, Mr. Johnson is the most junior lawmaker in decades to become speaker.
"He may also be the most conservative. An evangelical Christian, Mr. Johnson is the former chairman of the Republican Study Committee and sponsored legislation to effectively bar the discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity at any institution serving children younger than 10 that receives federal funds.
"He served on former President Donald J. Trump’s impeachment defense team, played a leading role in recruiting House Republicans to sign a legal brief supporting a lawsuit seeking to overturn the 2020 election results and was an architect of Mr. Trump’s bid to object to certifying them in Congress on Jan. 6, 2021."
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/10/25/us/house-speaker-vote-mike-johnson?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20231025&instance_id=106081&nl=from-the-times®i_id=87407961&segment_id=148276&te=1&user_id=7bba122dbc8acf5289c69a5c9f2867a2
TrumPuppet culture warrior. Going back to not caring now.
DeleteTrying to get to not caring now. Think I'll listen to some more paleobotany fossil podcasts.
DeleteI don’t care anymore. I have far bigger, personal worries to deal with than worrying about the decline and fall of the American democracy.
DeleteAxios reporting that Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO), who apparently voted against both Scalise and Jordan, saying that Johnson was able to win because he's a likeable person and he hasn't been around long enough to make enough enemies to derail his candidacy. Those factors worked for Barack Obama in 2008, too.
Delete"I would favor ranked choice voting. But how would we get there, would it require a constitutional amendment?"
DeleteEach state can choose to implement it. One or two already have. I wouldn't doubt that it would require state constitutional amendments or similar direct-democracy plebiscites to get some states to come around to it.