Ouster of the House Speaker

[j44ke]

This is a pretty good overview on the history of House battles. The era of Gingrich and the budget fight he led is a teachable moment for the current Republicans and an example of the sort of tangible benefits available to the Democrats.

[theflashunc]

So you concede that the ouster isn’t 100% due to the GOP as you posted above, and would involve agency on the part of the Democratic Caucus? B/c otherwise your hypothetical would fall flat.

I’m not saying the Dems need to come to the aide of McCarthy, but there is a tangible difference between casting abstaining votes vs. actively abetting the 8 GOP rebels. There’s nothing preventing Gaetz from keeping on filing motions to vacate. If the whole point is to demonstrate how big of a clown show House GOP is, then Gaetz and his ilks constantly agitating for chaos would do just that.

And the main point of my original post remains. What tangible benefit do the Dems get out of this GOP infighting? I see little benefit to the nation and to the Dems, and the main effect seems to be proverbial eggs on the face of GOP. But disgrace and ignominy just don’t seem to bother those who are shameless (a lot of the House GOP). So what is the tangible gain here?

It's 100% due to the GOP. If they could unite around someone with a 218 votes, the Democrats could write in Mickey Mouse and it wouldn't matter. It's not on the minority party to help the majority party govern itself. Never has been. Never will be.

And what do Democrats gain from any aid at this hour? The GOP are not rational negotiating partners. They refuse to honor really any agreement that they come up with. McCarthy's debt ceiling framework in the Spring being the latest example.

The simplest answer is 6 GOP members crossing the aisle, voting for Jeffries and getting back to standard order in the House. Yet here we are. It's not a functioning political party in any real sense. It's a cult of grievance.

The guy they can't get through today is the guy who was the party whip. The guy literally in charge of counting votes before stuff hits the floor....can't count votes before his own speakership nomination hits the floor.

You can't make up how deeply broken this party is.

[spopepro]

I think pre-trump the democrats would have voted against vacating stating a rational thought about doing the right thing by the people even at their own political cost. But remember how folks felt about the first 2 years of the Obama administration where D majorities were had an not much got done? Remember people asking "what is the purpose of going high when the opponent goes low if it only results in constant conceding?" I think current Ds are actually following what their constituents currently desire: not to sacrifice potential advantages just to smooth things over. And I still think others are just exercising personal beef.

It also is always worth remembering that one person should have never be allowed to motion to vacate. If someone changes rules for personal power they deserve the result. In some ways a vote to vacate could be seen as a vote against bad rules that should have never been made.

[BBB]

You have to be able to represent a client without perjuring yourself or contributing to your client's criminal behavior. That is difficult to do with Trump. Most top firms won't represent Trump because basically they can't. He's radioactive. His unwillingness to pay for representation is just the tip of the iceberg.

Thanks! I guess it was a question that suggested an answer. Well to do man is all sorts of legal trouble and he 'hires' a lawyer who conducts a press conference in front of a sex shop (for example). The question about the cab rank rule was a bit more pointed in the sense that absent a conflict or problems with scheduling, barristers in the UK or Australia have to take on the job if asked. It ensures even unpopular cases get representation. But, as you suggest, Trump is well beyond that and even with the cab rank rule, barristers can't do the sorts of things you mention.

[echappist]

It's 100% due to the GOP. If they could unite around someone with a 218 votes, the Democrats could write in Mickey Mouse and it wouldn't matter. It's not on the minority party to help the majority party govern itself. Never has been. Never will be.

You are moving the goal post. "It" has always referred to the ouster (see the very title of the thread), not the inability of the House GOP to elect a speaker after the ouster.

The ouster simply could not have happened had the Democratic Caucus chose to abstain (as opposed to voting to vacate, which was what actually transpired).

And what do Democrats gain from any aid at this hour? The GOP are not rational negotiating partners. They refuse to honor really any agreement that they come up with. McCarthy's debt ceiling framework in the Spring being the latest example.

The simplest answer is 6 GOP members crossing the aisle, voting for Jeffries and getting back to standard order in the House. Yet here we are. It's not a functioning political party in any real sense. It's a cult of grievance.

You actually danced around the question of what the Dems gain from ousting McCarthy as speaker.

And your "simplest answer" is anything but.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

This whole situation is somewhat reminiscent of Dems spending money to boost the chances of ultra-conservative challengers in certain GOP primaries. At least in that scenario, there is a potential payoff (higher likelihood of a Dem win). I'm not seeing anything like that here.

I think pre-trump the democrats would have voted against vacating stating a rational thought about doing the right thing by the people even at their own political cost. But remember how folks felt about the first 2 years of the Obama administration where D majorities were had an not much got done? Remember people asking "what is the purpose of going high when the opponent goes low if it only results in constant conceding?" I think current Ds are actually following what their constituents currently desire: not to sacrifice potential advantages just to smooth things over. And I still think others are just exercising personal beef.

It also is always worth remembering that one person should have never be allowed to motion to vacate. If someone changes rules for personal power they deserve the result. In some ways a vote to vacate could be seen as a vote against bad rules that should have never been made.

Could you give two examples of said potential advantages? And these needs to be somewhat realistic, in contrast to the pie-in-the-sky potentiality of perhaps some GOP members would join the House Dems.

[theflashunc]

There's no moving the goal post. Why would they vote present on the vote for McCarthy's staying? Why make it any easierf for the guy three days after he torched them on national TV after coming to his aid for a clean CR. After he abandoned the framework of the debt ceiling deal? All Kevin needed to do what was he needed to do in the Spring, get 218 votes. Couldn't do it. Not the Dems problem.

Dems gain just a furtherance of the point that the last 6-7 months have made plain: The GOP cannot govern. They're incapable of doing so. Either through avarice, self-interest or cowardice in an unwillingness to stand up to the craziest elements of their caucus.

[christian]

It should be said that the election of a Speaker by the majority of the House isn't a constitutional requirement. It's just a rule of the house they could change immediately. If 6 moderate Republicans said, "We'll vote with all the Democrats to change the house rules to allow the next speaker to be elected by a plurality," they would force the Republican caucus to coalesce around a speaker who could gain more votes than Hakeem Jefferies. Or the a plurality of 212 votes for Hakeem Jefferies would win. But there aren't 6 moderate Republicans who have the cojones to do that, because they're too afraid of losing their seats. Which is sad, because it's actually an excellent way for the moderates to shut up the arsonist wing of the Republican party and get a speaker they prefer.

So tell me again why 212 Democrats should step up and save the Republican clown show? If McCarthy had offered any concessions at all, maybe Democrats would have played ball, but "I may be untrustworthy, but I'm better than the self-avowed white supremacist or the sexual abuse abettor..." Yeah, I dunno.

[bcm119]

.....Time for one party in DC to start acting like adults.

A lot of your argument seems to hinge on this, which we all know will never happen. All of the reasons cited here for the dems to vote in favor of ousting McCarthy seem to be based on vengeance for McCarthy acting like the tool he is, not on a lesser of two evils strategy. I don't understand what we've gained by ousting him besides satisfying headlines. We are now more likely to see a lengthy gov shutdown and further from funding Ukraine, two outcomes that will hurt the people the dems are supposed to be helping. I see this as the dems putting politics above people. But maybe the take by @vertical_doug is correct and I need to crank up my own cynicism.

[spopepro]

Could you give two examples of said potential advantages? And these needs to be somewhat realistic, in contrast to the pie-in-the-sky potentiality of perhaps some GOP members would join the House Dems.

I can't and that's why I said potentially. This hasn't ever happened before, so everyone is swimming in uncharted waters and nothing is causally direct. The impression I have is that the potential seen is currently worth it. It could, of course all blow up horribly but enough folks thought the alternative was in no way a sure thing either.

[christian]

I see this as the dems putting politics above people.

Politics requires compromise and a trustworthy partner. If McCarthy had offered an up-and-down vote on a clean CR through year-end 2024 and an up-and-down vote on another $300B in Ukraine funding to the Democrats in return for their support to remain as Speaker, he'd assuredly be the Speaker now. McCarthy showed that he was completely unable to whip the Republican party, and unwilling to compromise with the Democratic members of the House. At that point, he was a dead man walking anyway; what did he have to offer anyone?

[bcm119]

Politics requires compromise and a trustworthy partner. If McCarthy had offered an up-and-down vote on a clean CR through year-end 2024 and an up-and-down vote on another $300B in Ukraine funding to the Democrats in return for their support to remain as Speaker, he'd assuredly be the Speaker now. McCarthy showed that he was completely unable to whip the Republican party, and unwilling to compromise with the Democratic members of the House. At that point, he was a dead man walking anyway; what did he have to offer anyone?

By this logic it only makes sense to ouster him if there is a reasonable chance that his replacement would be a more compromising, trustworthy partner. They barely elected McCarthy because he wasn't a big enough clown to satisfy the crazies, what has changed?

[theflashunc]

By this logic it only makes sense to ouster him if there is a reasonable chance that his replacement would be a more compromising, trustworthy partner. They barely elected McCarthy because he wasn't a big enough clown to satisfy the crazies, what has changed?

Democrats didn't elect McCarthy.

And what's the first thing the GOP did when McCarthy was ousted? Boot two Democratic reps from their offices, one of whom was attending to Dianne Feinstein's memorial.

To crib from Succession: The GOP are not serious people.

This is a GOP problem that the GOP needs to solve. Dems cannot keep bailing them out with responsible actions only to get slapped for it repeatedly.

The simplest solution remains 5-6 GOP reps who represent Biden districts vote for Jeffries.

[bcm119]

Democrats didn't elect McCarthy.

Of course not. But are they going to settle on a more functional speaker in round 2? What is the evidence they'd elect someone more conducive to progress in governing now?

The simplest solution remains 5-6 GOP reps who represent Biden districts vote for Jeffries.

That's the simplest solution, but is it the most likely?

[j44ke]

Of course not. But are they going to settle on a more functional speaker in round 2? What is the evidence they'd elect someone more conducive to progress in governing now?


That's the simplest solution, but is it the most likely?

The Republicans are welcome to select a speaker with an increased chance of success at leading the House. Who would that be? McCarthy was miserable at leading the house and thoroughly so. Who then would be better than he was? And what is the path to getting that person installed as Speaker? If no one is better than McCarthy who was miserable then isn't that a really big problem for the Republicans? And the Democrats are supposed solve that? I am sure they are willing to entertain suggestions, but the last one was Scalise, the House whip who can't muster votes.

This whole thing with blaming the Democrats for not solving the Republicans' dysfunctions is simplistic and frankly ridiculous. Maybe in some high school debate club this is a productive academic discussion but in real life it makes no sense whatsoever. It is like blaming the table for the broken glass on the floor. Ball is in the court of the majority party in the House. They have to construct a solution that is amenable to a majority of representatives - however that majority is constructed - and get this fixed so the business at hand can be completed.

[Saab2000]

The elephant in the room is still DJT. The GOP are either subservient to him or scared of him or both. This is evident in the so-called ‘debates’ where they don’t hammer him as an opponent but pander to him and he’s not even present. Chris Christie, a former Trump enabler, is one of the only ones who has the stones to say the right thing now. Where was he in 2016 and 2020? Helping and enabling him is the correct answer.

They still don’t get that loyalty to him is a one-way street. They’re scared of being primaried. I think when he’s out of the picture, whenever and however that happens, some return to normal partisan bickering can happen. Before then his worshippers will try to out crazy each other.

[Scott G.]

[snip]
The simplest solution remains 5-6 GOP reps who represent Biden districts vote for Jeffries.

Or the Reps and Dems pick a R-normie and elect him together, like what happend in the Ohio House
speakers race.

[christian]

By this logic it only makes sense to ouster him if there is a reasonable chance that his replacement would be a more compromising, trustworthy partner. They barely elected McCarthy because he wasn't a big enough clown to satisfy the crazies, what has changed?

Replace, "compromising, trustworthy" with "capable" and I agree. Kevin McCarthy's problem was that once it was clear he can't whip Republican votes and won't work with Democrats, he's effectively saying he won't be able to do -anything- to move legislation or keep government operating. At that point, why should any member of the House support him. They might as well vote for an impressive sample of Amanita muscaria.

So at that point, why not oust him? There appear to be 4 possible outcomes of an ouster:

1. Republicans install another speaker who speaks for the conference and can move legislation with only Republican votes; this leads to movement on legislation and conference/compromise with Senate. Government keeps operating. Legislative outcomes aren't what Democrats would ideally prefer, but are not fundamentally different from what they'd have with McCarthy.
2. Moderate Republicans recognize they actually hold the power in this scenario and take the power away from the arsonist wing of the party and install a Republican speaker / change the rules with the help of Democrats. Government keeps operating. Legislative outcomes are potentially better for Democrats, or at least no worse than they'd have with McCarthy.
3. Republicans realize McCarthy is as good as they're going to get, re-install him. Ut eiusdem semper, Democrats are no worse of than before. Government stops operating as funding bills expire. No legislative achievements.
4. Republicans are unable to install another speaker and demonstrate what a clown show they've become. Government stops operating as funding bills expire. No legislative achievements.

I'd argue both scenarios 1 and 2 are better for the country. 3 is what came before. 4 is no different than what came before given Kevin McCarthy's diminished stature within the Republican conference. The fact is, if Kevin McCarthy can't whip votes from his own conference and doesn't think he can move legislation with Democrats without losing the entire support of the Republican conference, he's more useless than a toadstool. What I would say is this - stop blaming 212 Democrats, and start asking yourself why there isn't a single Republican congressman who has 5 friends who can utterly demolish the power of the arsonist cabal.

[echappist]

This whole thing with blaming the Democrats for not solving the Republicans' dysfunctions is simplistic and frankly ridiculous. Maybe in some high school debate club this is a productive academic discussion but in real life it makes no sense whatsoever. It is like blaming the table for the broken glass on the floor. Ball is in the court of the majority party in the House. They have to construct a solution that is amenable to a majority of representatives - however that majority is constructed - and get this fixed so the business at hand can be completed.

Quick clarification. I hope my posts are clear that my intent is not to do what you stated in the emphasized portion of your post. Nor would I be voting for any GOP politicians any time soon.

My point is merely that why take a gamble when the potential gains are small and when one doesn't have to gamble. It's kinda like betting big when one has unsuited mid-cards and sees two of the same suit on the flop, matching one of the cards held. Sure, the moves sees a few at the table fold; and there could be a big potential payoff (hitting the flush), but there's a much higher likelihood of holding a busted flush. In the alternative, one could just check on the bet and see how things pan out before deciding whether to bet big.

That's my sole disagreement (or rather puzzlement), and there is no blame being assigned.

If ouster would have led to more permanent and meaningful changes, I would say go ahead by all means. Kinda like how forcing a no-confidence vote can trigger snap elections in parliamentary systems. At least then, there's something important to play for.

Replace, "compromising, trustworthy" with "capable" and I agree. Kevin McCarthy's problem was that once it was clear he can't whip Republican votes and won't work with Democrats, he's effectively saying he won't be able to do -anything- to move legislation or keep government operating. At that point, why should any member of the House support him. They might as well vote for an impressive sample of Amanita muscaria.

So at that point, why not oust him? There appear to be 4 possible outcomes of an ouster:

1. Republicans install another speaker who speaks for the conference and can move legislation with only Republican votes; this leads to movement on legislation and conference/compromise with Senate. Government keeps operating. Legislative outcomes aren't what Democrats would ideally prefer, but are not fundamentally different from what they'd have with McCarthy.
2. Moderate Republicans recognize they actually hold the power in this scenario and take the power away from the arsonist wing of the party and install a Republican speaker / change the rules with the help of Democrats. Government keeps operating. Legislative outcomes are potentially better for Democrats, or at least no worse than they'd have with McCarthy.
3. Republicans realize McCarthy is as good as they're going to get, re-install him. Ut eiusdem semper, Democrats are no worse of than before. Government stops operating as funding bills expire. No legislative achievements.
4. Republicans are unable to install another speaker and demonstrate what a clown show they've become. Government stops operating as funding bills expire. No legislative achievements.

I'd argue both scenarios 1 and 2 are better for the country. 3 is what came before. 4 is no different than what came before given Kevin McCarthy's diminished stature within the Republican conference. The fact is, if Kevin McCarthy can't whip votes from his own conference and doesn't think he can move legislation with Democrats without losing the entire support of the Republican conference, he's more useless than a toadstool. What I would say is this - stop blaming 212 Democrats, and start asking yourself why there isn't a single Republican congressman who has 5 friends who can utterly demolish the power of the arsonist cabal.

The respective probabilities the four scenarios are not the same. Ouster actualizes the possibility of the first two, but both are still low probability events.

As for scenario 3, given how thin-skinned some of these politicians are, I don't think it's necessarily the same as before (which is to say, McCarthy holds a grudge). On the surface, things might appear the same, but below the surface, more animosity.

[HorsCat]

Or the Reps and Dems pick a R-normie and elect him together, like what happend in the Ohio House
speakers race.

This seems the most realistic approach to me. There is no way the GOP will give the gavel to a Democrat; nor should they, regardless of how thin their majority is.

As for the notion that the Democrats bear any responsibility for this, it was McCarthy who gave the GOP terrorists a hand grenade. Of course one of them was bound to pull the pin and lob it; the only thing that surprised me was that it took 10 months. If you didn't see this coming, please DM me; I'm selling a bridge that connects Brooklyn to Manhattan for a very special price, today only --> it's a can't lose investment opportunity.

As well, the notion that McCarthy is "better" than Scalise or Jordan or any of the other terrorists, is laughable on its face. McCarthy cannot be trusted any further than my toy poodle could throw him. He offered the Democrats nothing in return for their vote. His abject humiliation couldn't have happened to a more deserving guy.

[bcm119]

Replace, "compromising, trustworthy" with "capable" and I agree. Kevin McCarthy's problem was that once it was clear he can't whip Republican votes and won't work with Democrats, he's effectively saying he won't be able to do -anything- to move legislation or keep government operating. At that point, why should any member of the House support him. They might as well vote for an impressive sample of Amanita muscaria.

So at that point, why not oust him? There appear to be 4 possible outcomes of an ouster:

1. Republicans install another speaker who speaks for the conference and can move legislation with only Republican votes; this leads to movement on legislation and conference/compromise with Senate. Government keeps operating. Legislative outcomes aren't what Democrats would ideally prefer, but are not fundamentally different from what they'd have with McCarthy.
2. Moderate Republicans recognize they actually hold the power in this scenario and take the power away from the arsonist wing of the party and install a Republican speaker / change the rules with the help of Democrats. Government keeps operating. Legislative outcomes are potentially better for Democrats, or at least no worse than they'd have with McCarthy.
3. Republicans realize McCarthy is as good as they're going to get, re-install him. Ut eiusdem semper, Democrats are no worse of than before. Government stops operating as funding bills expire. No legislative achievements.
4. Republicans are unable to install another speaker and demonstrate what a clown show they've become. Government stops operating as funding bills expire. No legislative achievements.

I'd argue both scenarios 1 and 2 are better for the country. 3 is what came before. 4 is no different than what came before given Kevin McCarthy's diminished stature within the Republican conference. The fact is, if Kevin McCarthy can't whip votes from his own conference and doesn't think he can move legislation with Democrats without losing the entire support of the Republican conference, he's more useless than a toadstool. What I would say is this - stop blaming 212 Democrats, and start asking yourself why there isn't a single Republican congressman who has 5 friends who can utterly demolish the power of the arsonist cabal.

This seems like the closest thing to an actual explanation of dem strategy I've seen, but I'm working with a high school debate-level brain here. Of course, the key to any strategy based on these scenarios is the probabilities of each one occurring, which is unknowable to an extent.

We keep saying republican dysfunction is "not the democrats' problem", but it actually is every US citizens' problem, and it may become the people of Ukraine's problem too. So it seems worthwhile to try to understand why the dems were willing to fan the flames of that dysfunction beyond the obvious schadenfreude of watching your political opponent make fools of themselves on the global stage. Maybe we're just taking the scenic route to neutralizing the arsonist wing of the right.