the 2023 speaker of the house voting thread of implosion

[Brisketexan 106,894]

McCarthy, after each round of voting:

[Ghost of LL 15,698]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

It's a mathematical rule you right-brained ninny heads. 

Let's say Jeffries has 212 out of 434. He can't get a majority by lowering that 212. The 222 doesn't get smaller just because some of the 212 don't vote. 

Unless I'm the ninny head misunderstanding something. 

It's not 434.  The denominator is the number of votes cast for a person.  

[SydneyCarton 49,497]

2 minutes ago, yoladu said:

that dress is incredibly flattering. wow!

I dont think it's the dress, man. She's flattering the fucking dress. 

[Beau Vine 55,864]

47 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

 

gaetz nominates jordan.

 

[SydneyCarton 49,497]

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

didn't he already take the gavel from pelosi and possibly hit her with it?

As always with Republicans, that was just another promise he failed to follow through on, sir. 

[pacman 7,507]

4 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

It's a mathematical rule you right-brained ninny heads. 

Let's say Jeffries has 212 out of 434. He can't get a majority by lowering that 212. The 222 doesn't get smaller just because some of the 212 don't vote. 

Unless I'm the ninny head misunderstanding something. 

No, you are correct. There are a few Rs missing the vote though. Not enough unfortunately.

 

209 for Jeffries

201 for McCarthy

19 for sexual abuse protector

 

215 is magic number is nobody votes on the second run through

Edited January 3, 2023 by pacman

[henrygandorf 29,225]

so we're still at 19 votes against mccarthy.  and jordan voted for mccarthy.

those 19 votes aren't going anywhere.  and mccarthy needs that number to be 4 in order to win.

again, this is not close.

[Foosters 18,280]

4 minutes ago, elfenix said:

9 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Is that a rule? From a procedural standpoint it doesn’t make sense. 

The rules are made up and the points don't matter

[Beau Vine 55,864]

46 minutes ago, TexasHooch said:

How is she involved in this?  Why are they talking to her?  I don't get the angle from either side.

"No, I do not have a 'much younger sister.'"

[Brisketexan 106,894]

1 minute ago, pacman said:

19 for sexual abuse protector

Sir, we're talking about the GQP here, you're going to need to be more specific.

[Blotto 24,018]

2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I dont think it's the dress, man. She's flattering the fucking dress. 

[pacman 7,507]

212-203-19 seems final

needed 217

[horn4life 3,838]

Just flipped to Fox and saw they had "others" rather than have Jim Jordan's name as getting the votes.  Basically Fox is all in on getting McCarthy in.  But funny to me they don't put up the name of the other person getting votes other than McCarthy.  too fucking funny

[pacman 7,507]

Somebody needs to put laxatives in the Jordan voters coffee...put them on the toilet for the whole vote

[Homercles 10,206]

6 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I still can't believe he moved his shit into the Speaker's suite without having the votes lined up.

Why does that surprise you?  These clowns have tried, and often succeeded, just doing whatever they want.  The fact that it is his own party that finally stops the thin skinned bully is both amazingly beautiful and sadly pathetic at the same time. 

[Kyrie Eleison 9,312]

 

[Beau Vine 55,864]

1 minute ago, horn4life said:

Just flipped to Fox and saw they had "others" rather than have Jim Jordan's name as getting the votes.  Basically Fox is all in on getting McCarthy in.  But funny to me they don't put up the name of the other person getting votes other than McCarthy.  too fucking funny

I had Fox on earlier, and they actually didn't seem as batshit crazy as normal and were doing a fairly decent job of reporting.  

[pacman 7,507]

There are kids, young girls, on the floor..with Matt Gaetz in attendance?

Negligent

[Huckleberry 34,644]

4 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

It's not 434.  The denominator is the number of votes cast for a person.  

Whatever the number is, a Democrat abstaining doesn't force a Republican to abstain.

 

Just now, pacman said:

212-203-19 seems final

needed 217

Right here. If 5 Democrats abstain that makes it

207-203-19

which is worse for Jeffries. But if 29 Democrats abstain it becomes

183-203-19

which makes McCarthy speaker. 

[pacman 7,507]

I thought they could swear in new members until they had a speaker? Shouldn't be allowed to vote if not sworn in, imo.

Edited January 3, 2023 by pacman

[Bozo_Casanova 26,851]

8 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Unless I'm the ninny head misunderstanding something. 

You are the ninny head. Until such time as the majority elects to choose a speaker by plurality, the speaker is chosen by a majority of reps-elect voting for a speaker by name. 

[Brisketexan 106,894]

Vision.

Competence.

Leadership.

 

"What are three things that cannot be found anywhere within the current GQP."

 

 

Seriously, the Dems already have their slogan for 2024 for ALL races against GQP candidates: "They can't even govern their own clownshow of a political party, you sure as hell shouldn't trust them to run the country."

['stache 22,133]

So what's the import here? Either way a shitheel is gonna get the job, right? They're basically all the fucking same at this point.

[Hornius Emeritus 12,804]

1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

 

 

 

[Huckleberry 34,644]

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

You are the ninny head. Until such time as the majority elects to choose a speaker by plurality, the speaker is chosen by a majority of reps-elect voting for a speaker by name. 

Walk me through how

212-203-19

turns into a majority for the 212 if the only change is that the 212 gets smaller. 

[RomaVicta 30,583]

51 minutes ago, TexasHooch said:

How is she involved in this?  Why are they talking to her?  I don't get the angle from either side.

She's hot, man. A little too young for Eddie Munster there, but who wouldn't take their shot, dude? Total package.

[Beau Vine 55,864]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

So what's the import here? Either way a shitheel is gonna get the job, right? They're basically all the fucking same at this point.

Was gonna ask...wouldn't Scalise or Gym be a lot worse than McCarthy?

[Gatorubet 30,716]

Just now, Beau Vine said:

I had Fox on earlier, and they actually didn't seem as batshit crazy as normal and were doing a fairly decent job of reporting.  

That was my thought as well.   They just talked about Scalise being the possible choice and mentioned that several of the Jordan voters had McCarthy help them in close elections with money and time.   No fucks given.  McCarthy threatening them this morning was a huge fail. Apparently. 

[The Dog 44,860]

 

[pacman 7,507]

Quote

The last time this happened in 1923, it took nine rounds of voting to settle on a House speaker. Once, in 1855, it took 133 rounds of voting.

 

[Beau Vine 55,864]

Is there any chance that we're in a perpetual 212-203-19 voting hell for months and shit like the debt ceiling expires because the House can't vote to extend it?

Asking for a friend on the ledge...

[Blotto 24,018]

1 minute ago, Beau Vine said:

Was gonna ask...wouldn't Scalise or Gym be a lot worse than McCarthy?

Yeah, we just want them all to lose for the next two years. Nobody is coming off the GQP bench that can win the vote that isnt a complete pos

[Ghost of LL 15,698]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

Walk me through how

212-203-19

turns into a majority for the 212 if the only change is that the 212 gets smaller. 

Ok--I just did the math, and it's not currently possible.  If the Democrats had eight members vote "Present," the vote would be 204-203-19.  That is a total of 426 casting ballots, which means one would need 214 to win.  So, you're right.

 

Now, if a handful of McCarthy votes start going over to Jordan on the next ballot (or start peeling off and go to Scalise or someone else), then this starts to become feasible.

[Hornius Emeritus 12,804]

Just now, The Dog said:

 

Time for Brisket to answer the bell. Pick up the phone, Brisket!

[hayden_horn 11,402]

15 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

algebra aside, a couple of things should now be pointed out:

1. mccarthy has been working on this since november.  they've had 6+ weeks to get this ironed out and are not close.

2. to get as close as he is (not close at all), he had to do some serious horse-trading/give serious concessions.  whomever usurps mccarthy in this process (someone will have to) will not be bound or obligated to satisfy those concessions, and the whole process would quite literally have to start over.

this whole thing is a clown show and i am 100% here for it.  i'm not even returning work emails.

fuckin a right

i had one call this morning before the vote, and now i'm fucking transfixed.

it's amazing watching a self-immolation coincide with a defenestration. all the best westerns have em.

[YGIFS 19,458]

Anybody checking Truth social or twitter?  It's impossible Trump doesn't want to weigh in on this.  I

[Beau Vine 55,864]

David Axelrod on CNN has called the Republicans "nihilists" at least twice.  Lulz.

[Huckleberry 34,644]

1 minute ago, Ghost of LL said:

Ok--I just did the math, and it's not currently possible.  If the Democrats had eight members vote "Present," the vote would be 204-203-19.  That is a total of 426 casting ballots, which means one would need 214 to win.  So, you're right.

 

Now, if a handful of McCarthy votes start going over to Jordan on the next ballot (or start peeling off and go to Scalise or someone else), then this starts to become feasible.

No, it still doesn't. Moving votes around between the 203 and 19 doesn't change the total. You can't turn a minority into a majority only by lowering the minority.

crazypills.gif

[pacman 7,507]

4 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Ok--I just did the math, and it's not currently possible.  If the Democrats had eight members vote "Present," the vote would be 204-203-19.  That is a total of 426 casting ballots, which means one would need 214 to win.  So, you're right.

 

Now, if a handful of McCarthy votes start going over to Jordan on the next ballot (or start peeling off and go to Scalise or someone else), then this starts to become feasible.

No, if Rs votes shift anywhere other than Jeffries, it still doesn't work. Rs votes would have to abstain or say Present for the calculus to work.

Example:

For Jeffries to win at 212, 6 of McCarthy or Jordan votes need to abstain and no D votes can abstain. I don't believe Smith (R) of Neb votes this last round, so you need 5 more.

Edited January 3, 2023 by pacman

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,305]

 

 

 

[HornOnTheBayou 9,062]

@Huckleberry is right. You're taking one away from the numerator and one away from the denominator. In that case, the percentage drops each time.

[Huckleberry 34,644]

The only person the Democrats can make speaker by abstaining enough votes is McCarthy. So that's their lesser of two evils calculus after letting the GOP neuter him for long enough. 

[WBT 20,972]

20 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

It's a mathematical rule you right-brained ninny heads. 

Let's say Jeffries has 212 out of 434. He can't get a majority by lowering that 212. The 222 doesn't get smaller just because some of the 212 don't vote. 

Unless I'm the ninny head misunderstanding something. 

(x-z)/(y-z) < x/y

[henrygandorf 29,225]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

No, it still doesn't. Moving votes around between the 203 and 19 doesn't change the total. You can't turn a minority into a majority only by lowering the minority.

crazypills.gif

i explained this on the last page but you guys are arguing past each other.

if anyone is missing (like this past round) or votes "present" which is a no-vote, then the total number goes down from 434 and the # required to get the majority can also go down.  if all the jordan votes start voting present, then the math changes.

but like i said, the math doesn't work for jeffries unless something drastic happens.

[Gatorubet 30,716]

LOL Fox Co-anchor was just talking about the possibility of the Democrats getting Jeffries to be the Speaker of the House if a few unhappy Republicans go that way.

I’m not sure how many boomer cardiac events that just caused.

[pacman 7,507]

I'd say it might be worth it to negotiate with McCarthy but he isn't worth trusting. The alternative, him giving in to MAGA demands or allowing Jordan to be elected is pretty sickening though.

[hayden_horn 11,402]

1 minute ago, Gatorubet said:

LOL Fox Co-anchor was just talking about the possibility of the Democrats getting Jeffries to be the Speaker of the House if a few unhappy Republicans go that way.

I’m not sure how many boomer cardiac events that just caused.

could you imagine a democratic speaker of a republican house for even one hour?

jesus mary

[SydneyCarton 49,497]

1 minute ago, pacman said:

I'd say it might be worth it to negotiate with McCarthy but he isn't worth trusting. The alternative, him giving in to MAGA demands or allowing Jordan to be elected is pretty sickening though.

I don't think there are any more demands, dude. He's given in on everything we know that has been asked. He agreed to vote the threshold to oust the speaker to 5 votes, he agreed to investigate Biden(s), he agreed to investigate the DOJ, FBI, etc. They're not voting for him because they don't fucking like him. What else could he give in on that he hasn't already?

[pacman 7,507]

How many absentia votes can we get from the Rs if we leak a pre-teen lock-in party is happening at the National Childrens Museum?

[Bateshorn 9,991]

12 minutes ago, Blotto said: