the 2023 speaker of the house voting thread of implosion

[Biff Tannen 45697]

9 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

What is the definition of insanity?  Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

 

212-200-20-1

Again, I don't see why they keep voting.  Just wait until you know you have the votes or quit.  Are they required to vote a certain number of times a day? 

[Francisco 2.0 32405]

1 minute ago, Gengs1 said:

Nah, they need also to keep the crazies from committee seats, only way this will work.

Kevin made promises that he cannot keep since the loons want them so he is stuck and needs to Give up more 

 

Realistically, what all can he give up at this point?  Bates or others will have to chime in here, because it seems he has already given up everything he possibly can.

 

 

[bolverk 29705]

9 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

I would hope the democrats have given the pubs a list of republican speakers they would vote for. That would be a solid win for the Dems. 

This entire process is new to me, because I haven't ever really paid attention to it before. But, hear me out, it's not the job of the Democrats to form a majority to prove they can govern. That's all on the Republicans, who are right now demonstrating that they can't.

Maybe your concern should be whether or not the Republicans have approached the Democrats with a list of prospective speakers to see if any of them would get even a few votes of support.

Edited January 5, 2023 by bolverk
here! hear!

[Js1 85486]

4 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

I would hope the democrats have given the pubs a list of republican speakers they would vote for. That would be a solid win for the Dems. 

I would keep such a list very well close to the vest until/if the "moderates" come to the Dems and start asking what can be done to get the House business moving. 

Continue to vote for Jeffries until 10-15 Biden-district Republicans get desperate and start making googly eyes at the Dem caucus for a compromise candidate.  Don't let those names get out, which would allow McCarthy or the HFC to sink such a compromise candidate.

[Js1 85486]

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Again, I don't see why they keep voting.  Just wait until you know you have the votes or quit.  Are they required to vote a certain number of times a day? 

They are not.

Team Kevin has to somehow believe they can keep embarrassing/shaming the holdouts into giving up by dragging this out and making them look like petulant children. 

You can't shame people with no shame. Especially petulant children with no shame.  They love this shit. 

[DDD Dad 14346]

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Again, I don't see why they keep voting.  Just wait until you know you have the votes or quit.  Are they required to vote a certain number of times a day? 

I think they have to keep going unless a motion to adjourn is passed.

[Dbeasy 15078]

2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

This entire process is new to me, because I haven't ever really paid attention to it before. But, here me out, it's not the job of the Democrats to form a majority to prove they can govern. That's all on the Republicans, who are right now demonstrating that they can't.

Maybe your concern should be whether or not the Republicans have approached the Democrats with a list of prospective speakers to see if any of them would get even a few votes of support.

 

2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I would keep such a list very well close to the vest until/if the "moderates" come to the Dems and start asking what can be done to get the House business moving. 

Continue to vote for Jeffries until 10-15 Biden-district Republicans get desperate and start making googly eyes at the Dem caucus for a compromise candidate.  Don't let those names get out, which would allow McCarthy or the HFC to sink such a compromise candidate.

Ya there is a whole coordinated  timing that is required to even have a chance of something working out. 

[C-Man 27247]

16 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Este

Sure but aren't there 400+ reps who are sick of the 20 lunatics -- you only need 218 of those to pass the rules package?

[Biff Tannen 45697]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

I think they have to keep going unless a motion to adjourn is passed.

If this is true, fine, but is it like every two hours they have to vote?  Who decides when a new vote will occur?

[Js1 85486]

4 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Sure but aren't there 400+ reps who are sick of the 20 lunatics -- you only need 218 of those to pass the rules package?

The Dems shouldn't go along with the rules package if someone doesn't get to 218. 

Fuck that noise. I'd come right out and say that the GOP played games with the Speakership and is not supported by a majority of the House, so why should they support a bogus rules package from a plurality speaker. 

The 2021 rules package had 206 no votes.  The 2019 package was 234-197. 

Edited January 5, 2023 by Js1

[Pancho 44928]

Lulz

 

[Hermanator 7129]

4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

They are not.

Team Kevin has to somehow believe they can keep embarrassing/shaming the holdouts into giving up by dragging this out and making them look like petulant children. 

You can't shame people with no shame. Especially petulant children with no shame.  They love this shit. 

Oh I hope that's his plan. That's about the same as trying to shame an alcoholic into going sober by forcing them to drink bottle after bottle. 

[C-Man 27247]

2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

The Dems shouldn't go along with the rules package if someone doesn't get to 218. 

Fuck that noise. I'd come right out and say that the GOP played games with the Speakership and is not supported by a majority of the House, so why should they support a bogus rules package from a plurality speaker. 

I'm just assuming that some consensus on the rules would have to be agreed to if the Dems are going to help the Republicans get the 20 crazies erased from the equation. If that isn't the case, then, yes, no need for the Dems to help them yet.

[Sbbruin 21866]

3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

The Dems shouldn't go along with the rules package if someone doesn't get to 218. 

Fuck that noise. I'd come right out and say that the GOP played games with the Speakership and is not supported by a majority of the House, so why should they support a bogus rules package from a plurality speaker. 

In other words, if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too, eh?

[Js1 85486]

Just now, C-Man said:

I'm just assuming that some consensus on the rules would have to be agreed to if the Dems are going to help the Republicans get the 20 crazies erased from the equation. If that isn't the case, then, yes, no need for the Dems to help them yet.

IF the GOP switched to a plurality, it would only be because McCarthy had 213 votes.  Or else Jeffries wins with 212.

They won't switch to plurality without the votes, which would negate needed the Dems to get him across the finish line. 

Just now, Sbbruin said:

In other words, if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too, eh?

From my edit above, the minority party doesn't typically vote for the rules package.  At least the last two. 

[Pato del Muerto 52553]

12 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

it seems he has already given up everything he possibly can.

Sounds like real strong leadership 

[cactusflinthead 27601]

 

[bolverk 29705]

2 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

In other words, if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too, eh?

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1291]

Just now, Js1 said:

IF the GOP switched to a plurality, it would only be because McCarthy had 213 votes.  Or else Jeffries wins with 212.

They won't switch to plurality without the votes, which would negate needed the Dems to get him across the finish line. 

None of the 20 holdouts are going to admit to the McCarthy camp that they would change their vote. It's going to take a leap of faith to go for a plurality vote.

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1291]

Honestly, I wouldn't put it past the Gaetz crew to intentionally cast just the right amount of votes for McCarthy to create a tie if they went to a plurality vote. It wouldn't be hard to do, given that the vote doesn't have many hard and fast rules and you can change votes after the initial count.

[956 Worldwide 34746]

1 hour ago, Hermanator said:

The insurrectionist one isn't legit. The guy just misspoke and caught himself immediately. I don't like those fucks but that wasn't anything. 

Don Bacon is saying what all of our hopes should be. That having 20 members of the House being complete obstructionist to both parties will force them to have to work together to make the 20 irrelevant. If they would just cut the histrionics and do that from the start every time we might slow down our descent into failure. That's the most intelligent thing ever said on Fox News

Lol, these 20 never Kevin GQPers are who they are because of Fox News. 
 

Boebert, Gaetz, Luna, Roy, Gosar… these are the faces of the GQP, they’re the ones who skillfully manipulated Fox and the rest of the lunatic media. Fox will never fully back a compromise attempt, that shit is not going to play with the idiots that watch their network. They need assholes to screech on TV. 

[TexasEd 8067]

 

[Sawbonz 27581]

I can’t believe there is not a single moderate republican that can get to 218. The nation is being held hostage by 20 2 year olds 

[Js1 85486]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

I can’t believe there is not a single moderate republican that can get to 218. The nation is being held hostage by 20 2 year olds 

Oh there are a few. But the concessions to get the Dems to help would be more than they are willing to do. 20 years ago, maybe. Not in this era of partisanship. 

[Jameslaw121 4448]

26 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

I would hope the democrats have given the pubs a list of republican speakers they would vote for. That would be a solid win for the Dems. 

Nah - 6 republicans can come forward and vote for Jefferies. This is a mess of their own making by listening to the loons for the last 2 and half year. 

[Gatorubet 30282]

45 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

so she can only buttfuck the vote once, then needs to get in line.  

i’m not proud of my thoughts, and yet…

[Sawbonz 27581]

 

[SydneyCarton 48147]

5 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I can’t believe there is not a single moderate republican that can get to 218. The nation is being held hostage by 20 2 year olds 

[956 Worldwide 34746]

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I can’t believe there is not a single moderate republican that can get to 218. The nation is being held hostage by 20 2 year olds 

The GQP has held every single government function hostage for years, including the faith and credit of the U.S. government. It’s the go-to move. They have deliberately forgotten or want to discard democratic processes. 

There. Is. No. Other. Playbook. 

[cactusflinthead 27601]

 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20469]

SIAP but this is pretty good.

 

 

 

[Huckleberry 33058]

1 minute ago, cactusflinthead said:

 

So Hakeem Jeffries has won more votes for Speaker than anyone ever? What about that one that went for hundreds of votes? 

Jeffries just the most since 1834?

"Won" meaning finished first. 

Edited January 5, 2023 by Huckleberry

[DDD Dad 14346]

 

[SydneyCarton 48147]

2 minutes ago, Jameslaw121 said:

Nah - 6 republicans can come forward and vote for Jefferies. This is a mess of their own making by listening to the loons for the last 2 and half year. 

If Jefferies win, can't they just recall him later and vote for another speaker that is a Pub? 

It seems like the only way to get a candidate to stick is a moderate R where the Pubs AND Dems who voted for the guy stick with that shit for the next 2 years, no matter how many times he gets voted to get recalled. 

I don't really know how all this would work with the rules package though, if a speaker like Jefferies gets elected. 

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

25 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

Realistically, what all can he give up at this point?  Bates or others will have to chime in here, because it seems he has already given up everything he possibly can.

 

 

The 20 are not negotiating in good faith. They don’t want to compromise with him. It’s all about power and they will flex until McCarthy withdraws 

[Gatorubet 30282]

1 hour ago, The Dog said:

I doubt that dishonest ditch pig ever gave a thought to how that nugget would be received by the Democrats, but if there ever was an inkling of an urge for Democrats to bail out Kev, that ship has sailed. 

[HamsterHookah 112]

Gretchen- stop trying to make McCarthy Happen. It's not going to happen!

[Nice Guy Eddie 13517]

While the 20 Republicans are definitely holding the House hostage, the problem is with McCarthy. To be the Speaker, you're supposed to be able to wrangle a majority which he has now failed 10 times to just name his as Speaker. 

The GOP needs to go deeper to the Right to find a Speaker. If he gave concessions to the Dems, it's possible McCarthy could lose the entire GOP. 

[cactusflinthead 27601]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

So Hakeem Jeffries has won more votes for Speaker than anyone ever? What about that one that went for hundreds of votes? 

Jeffries just the most since 1834?

"Won" meaning finished first. 

The 1855 one and the one preceding the Civil War are big outliers. But, I wonder about the others. Was there one guy that was this close and kept his same near majority?

[Js1 85486]

3 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

So Hakeem Jeffries has won more votes for Speaker than anyone ever? What about that one that went for hundreds of votes? 

Jeffries just the most since 1834?

He’s won more ballots for speaker than Nancy. He just never hit 218

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

3 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

If Jefferies win, can't they just recall him later and vote for another speaker that is a Pub? 

It seems like the only way to get a candidate to stick is a moderate R where the Pubs AND Dems who voted for the guy stick with that shit for the next 2 years, no matter how many times he gets voted to get recalled. 

I don't really know how all this would work with the rules package though, if a speaker like Jefferies gets elected. 

I don’t see any situation where any members vote outside their party. Dem or GOP

[bolverk 29705]

 

[HamsterHookah 112]

3 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

While the 20 Republicans are definitely holding the House hostage, the problem is with McCarthy. To be the Speaker, you're supposed to be able to wrangle a majority which he has now failed 10 times to just name his as Speaker. 

The GOP needs to go deeper to the Right to find a Speaker. If he gave concessions to the Dems, it's possible McCarthy could lose the entire GOP. 

Exactly this.

This is what happens when you can't win elections and have the slimmest of majorities. Elections have consequences.

It's beyond obvious the 20 Republicans are wielding their power and will NOT relent (and really, why would they unless they got a sweetheart deal which won't happen)-- the most obvious answer here is McCarthy simply isn't going to work here.

Which is hilarious because he is vainglorious and wants nothing more than the title. 

What I am confused about is why the GOP doesn't cut bait and as you say, go deeper to the right and find a Speaker.

Edited January 5, 2023 by HamsterHookah

[Paul Wesley 3288]

1 minute ago, Jameslaw121 said:

This is a mess of their own making by listening to the loons for the last 2 and half year. 

Agreed, but their own 2013 autopsy said they couldn't win without moderating in a way that added more women, youth, and minorities.  But then Trump proved they COULD win without any more moderates, as long as they added enough whites, olds, and uneducated... all of whom watched Fox all day and were prone to conspiratorial lunacy.  

So here we are.  You can't pick a Speaker without giving real, actual national power to Lauren Fucking Boebert.

I really want to enjoy this more, but I enjoyed it immensely when they picked an idiotic racist gameshow host as their presidential nominee, and it turned out the fucking joke was on me.  

[SydneyCarton 48147]

4 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

While the 20 Republicans are definitely holding the House hostage, the problem is with McCarthy. To be the Speaker, you're supposed to be able to wrangle a majority which he has now failed 10 times to just name his as Speaker. 

The GOP needs to go deeper to the Right to find a Speaker. If he gave concessions to the Dems, it's possible McCarthy could lose the entire GOP. 

That will be just great for America. 

[Huckleberry 33058]

2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

He’s won more ballots for speaker than Nancy. He just never hit 218

Looked it up, Rayburn was elected Speaker 10 times. So after the current 10th vote finishes, Jeffries will have finished 1st in as many Speaker ballots as anyone ever has since before the Civil War.

[Mo Horn 8853]

Hern just got a 4th vote, so someone flipped to him from last time.

[cactusflinthead 27601]

 

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

Holding this many votes is stupid. 

[cactusflinthead 27601]

1923 

Somebody look that up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2023/01/03/last-time-house-speaker-wasnt-elected-first-ballot/

Edited January 5, 2023 by cactusflinthead