House Speaker Ongoing Melodrama

[Belsnickel]

(10-04-2023, 12:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: More neutered then?  It's odd that we'd criticize him for compromising to earn the spot in a thread in which he's being criticized for not compromising.

I am not criticizing him for it, just pointing out he was neutered in the role from the start and that it was only normal for the Dems to seek conditions like that to support him.

(10-04-2023, 12:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: But the Dems are on record as largely wanting to eliminate the filibuster.  It's only Manchin and Sinema preventing them at this point.  Unless they are covering for some Dems who don't want to go on record as opposing this.  

They are covering for some others. There is not enough support for it even if those seats were more friendly to it. The one thing they could do is revert the filibuster back to a talking filibuster, meaning the mere threat of it wouldn't hold things up and it would require Senators to actually do the thing. Which, in all seriousness, I am in favor of. At least for legislation and SCOTUS seats.

[*Nately120*]

(10-04-2023, 12:06 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, they're not that reasonable probably, and giving speakership to the minority party is an even steeper move. But in general, I would not know how what comes next betters things for democrats. The extremes in the GOP can take this as a win and now carry considerable power; and this strengthening their position is not ideal. Any next speaker, should one emerge, probably will not be one of the reasonable ones.

That's the issue with our current political climate.  The idea that democrats should cave in because if they don't republicans will make them sorry by putting someone even worse into power.  That's...probably not great for the country but I guess its good red meat for voters these days.  Democrats could do the same thing...vote for Jefferies today or as soon as we take control of the house in 2024 we are going to make Michelle Obama the speaker of the house, or the head of the communist party, or Taylor Swift, or George Sorors, or Nancy Pelosi again.

(10-04-2023, 12:06 PM)hollodero Wrote: On the other hand, being ostentatiously merciful and give McCarthy just the handful of votes to narrowly stay in, imho that would make him look weaker than the Democrats. But maybe that is not true, I don't know.

Mercy is weakness in politics.  Democrats voting to keep the Trump endorsed speaker of the house?  I don't see how that helps them with their base.

[Belsnickel]

(10-04-2023, 12:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You raise a good point that was on my mind as well.  You've effectively handed a win to the more extreme GOP members.  Whomever gets the chair next is going to have to cater to them more.  Maybe the Dems think that's a winning strategy for '24?  A lot of damage can be caused in the interim, and that's assuming the strategy is even successful.

I think that you've hit on the way the Democrats are thinking, which is to say 2024. They are going to utilize the chaos in the GOP to say they are not worthy of the majority.

[*Nately120*]

(10-04-2023, 12:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think that you've hit on the way the Democrats are thinking, which is to say 2024. They are going to utilize the chaos in the GOP to say they are not worthy of the majority.

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.  The GOP has control of one aspect of government and they're using it to fight amongst themselves and sow chaos.  Then again, the majority of their base seems to not care about the government outside doing anything to make sure one specific elderly man who is only legally eligible to participate in the government for 4 years is the head of one non-legislative branch.

Does stuff like this win back the moderates lost between 2016 and 2020?  I wouldn't think so, but who the hell knows.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-04-2023, 12:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think that you've hit on the way the Democrats are thinking, which is to say 2024. They are going to utilize the chaos in the GOP to say they are not worthy of the majority.

Which can, of course, bite you on the ass if the GOP holds, or even expands on their majority.  Regardless, it's a dangerous game to play and a lot of needless suffering will result in the interim.  We're too far out from '24 to really know, but if crime is the major topic at that point, and I have a feeling it's going to be way up there, then the Dems are in major trouble.

[Belsnickel]

(10-04-2023, 12:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Which can, of course, bite you on the ass if the GOP holds, or even expands on their majority.  Regardless, it's a dangerous game to play and a lot of needless suffering will result in the interim.  We're too far out from '24 to really know, but if crime is the major topic at that point, and I have a feeling it's going to be way up there, then the Dems are in major trouble.

I don't know. Violent crime was 6th in the Pew poll this summer. While that is relatively high, it isn't going to top economic concerns. Interestingly, the ability for the two parties to work together was higher ranked than crime. November 2024 is a long way off for sure, but if that trend continues it will be harmful for Republicans who can't get their own house in order and one of the big issues for it being that the group making it all happen is mad about working with the Democrats.

Side note: this is going to have an interesting impact on Virginia elections, as well. What happens in Washington has more of an impact on Virginia elections than a lot of people realize. With so many federal employees and economy so dependent on them, who gets blamed for a government shutdown (or a close call) will throw things off balance, here.

[Luvnit2]

The reality McCarthy lost his job due to crossing the aisle to avoid a shutdown. McCarthy made sure funds were provided for those in Maui and other places. He made sure our soldiers were paid for 45 days. He made a deal with Democrats to make it happen, then those same democrats with not one democrat voted to fire him.

I am not sure how this plays out, but I do know both sides better figure how to reduce the size of government ad reduce our over 33 trillion in debt. Raise your hand if you think the immediate threat of climate change outweighs the US debt crisis.

Tough choices need to be made, 25 years of governing by CR's got us to where we are today. As much as I think the timing for the ouster of McCarthy is bad, the lack of a plan if ousted is just plain dumb, Gaetz is right about our leaders need to govern making fiscal responsibility a priority NOW.

Sadly, I have yet to hear on democrat in congress campaign on fixing our debt and a balanced budget. This means one party is left to do the heavy lifting. Voters will have a choice in 2024, vote for the republican party known (look at red states) for fiscal responsibility or continue to vote in Democrats that have no idea how to balance a checkbook, what alone a budget.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(10-03-2023, 09:21 PM)Nately120 Wrote: My initial guess is that seeing fringe GOPers like Matt Gaetz continue to be far more visible and linked to the GOP than they should be isn't something republican strategists who are looking to recover the independents they lost between 2016 and 2020 want to see.  I don't see how McCarthy taking a record breaking number of votes to be elected speaker and then becoming the first speaker in history to be removed from his position helps the republican party wipe off the circus stink the general public seemed to have soured on during Trump's first term.

2024 is still up in the air, but I'm not sure voters who lean right are content to see the GOP fight itself rather than fight the left.

Also, Trump endorsed McCarthy and he had a historically hard time getting voted in and was historically booted out.  Add in that democrats have the presidency and the senate and the only thing the GOP has is the house which they are using to fight amongst themselves and remove their own party leader, and it might be a bad look. 

How  many voters do you actually think pay attention to these things?

[*Nately120*]

(10-04-2023, 12:42 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: This means one party is left to do the heavy lifting. Voters will have a choice in 2024, vote for the republican party known (look at red states) for fiscal responsibility or continue to vote in Democrats that have no idea how to balance a checkbook, what alone a budget.

I'm pretty sure the GOP left fiscal conservatism in the dust with Barry Goldwater when they realized they could just talk about Jesus and guns instead of curbing spending  Fiscal conservatism is a pipe dream in this two party system. It all comes down to convincing yourself your side goes into debt for a good reason and the other side doesn't.

[CKwi88]

(10-04-2023, 12:42 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Sadly, I have yet to hear on democrat in congress campaign on fixing our debt and a balanced budget. This means one party is left to do the heavy lifting. Voters will have a choice in 2024, vote for the republican party known (look at red states) for fiscal responsibility or continue to vote in Democrats that have no idea how to balance a checkbook, what alone a budget.

Hard LOL at thinking either of the parties are anything about fiscal responsibility. 

[*Nately120*]

(10-04-2023, 01:09 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: How  many voters do you actually think pay attention to these things?

I'd say not many, but I also can't discount that seeing fringe house members in ultra safe seats like MTG or Gaetz or Bobert making all this noise and getting all this air time with R next to their name might play a part in shifting some fence sitters.

On the other side, my wife's family doesn't know much about politics but they know that democrats were manipulating a comatose 90+ year old Jewish woman from Commiefornia.  It's easy for the outliers to get the spotlight and make the party look bad because the people who actually have to worry about their jobs can't compete for the headlines without risking losing a competitive voter base.

[CJD]

(10-03-2023, 08:55 PM)basballguy Wrote: Is there an objective breakdown somewhere that says why this was good or bad for each party?  I haven’t been closely following

Objectively, this is bad for the Republicans because it shows the voters that they are not working well together and, if given power, they will squander it with infighting and pettiness. It is also bad for the Republicans because, as a body, they had to vote a record 15 times (IIRC) to get McCarthy elected in which he made some rather extreme concessions to the Maga caucus, such as allowing a single representative to initiate a vote to vacate (a concession that Gaetz exercised on Monday). During that record number of votes, it doesn't seem like there was anyone else that even came close to potentially being a replacement for McCarthy, so now the Maga Republicans have McCarthy's hand picked replacement McHenry as their temporary speaker and no realistic way to replace him with one of their own in the near future, as neither the Dems or establishment Republicans will sign off on someone like Gaetz or Boebert.

Objectively, it is good for the Republicans, or at least the Maga section of the Republicans, because it is a show of strength/authority over the "RINOs" and will create a lot of social media and, hopefully, voting engagement. If the perception is that the Maga republicans are more effective at wielding power than the RINO Republicans (even if that power is wielded against other Republicans), the general public may be more inclined to choose Maga Republicans over RINO Republicans, thinking they'll be more active in Congress in pushing their agenda and achieve their goals.

Objectively, it is a good thing for the Democrats because this will create chaos within the Republican party as the Maga section continues to scratch and claw for more power at the expense of their RINO associates. Chaos is not what most Americans want in Congress. This makes Democrats look good to the general public because they are united under their leader in the house and do not have rogue voters in their ranks (at least not to the degree the Republicans do). This may result in independents offering them more power via elections. 

Objectively, it is a bad thing for the Democrats because uncertainty is still uncertainty. They knew what to expect with McCarthy, even if they didn't like it, he was a fairly "traditional" politician. If the Maga group finds a way to name a speaker who is more unpredictable like the aforementioned Gaetz or Boebert or some other Maga republican, their lives may become harder. They may even try to get Trump to be the speaker, since the speaker doesn't technically have to be a member of the Congress.

[*Nately120*]

I would fully support democrats and republicans uniting to make Kitara Ravache the next speaker of the house.

[HarleyDog]

(10-04-2023, 01:32 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Objectively, this is bad for the Republicans because it shows the voters that they are not working well together and, if given power, they will squander it with infighting and pettiness. It is also bad for the Republicans because, as a body, they had to vote a record 15 times (IIRC) to get McCarthy elected in which he made some rather extreme concessions to the Maga caucus, such as allowing a single representative to initiate a vote to vacate (a concession that Gaetz exercised on Monday). During that record number of votes, it doesn't seem like there was anyone else that even came close to potentially being a replacement for McCarthy, so now the Maga Republicans have McCarthy's hand picked replacement McHenry as their temporary speaker and no realistic way to replace him with one of their own in the near future, as neither the Dems or establishment Republicans will sign off on someone like Gaetz or Boebert.

Objectively, it is good for the Republicans, or at least the Maga section of the Republicans, because it is a show of strength/authority over the "RINOs" and will create a lot of social media and, hopefully, voting engagement. If the perception is that the Maga republicans are more effective at wielding power than the RINO Republicans (even if that power is wielded against other Republicans), the general public may be more inclined to choose Maga Republicans over RINO Republicans, thinking they'll be more active in Congress in pushing their agenda and achieve their goals.

Objectively, it is a good thing for the Democrats because this will create chaos within the Republican party as the Maga section continues to scratch and claw for more power at the expense of their RINO associates. Chaos is not what most Americans want in Congress. This makes Democrats look good to the general public because they are united under their leader in the house and do not have rogue voters in their ranks (at least not to the degree the Republicans do). This may result in independents offering them more power via elections. 

Objectively, it is a bad thing for the Democrats because uncertainty is still uncertainty. They knew what to expect with McCarthy, even if they didn't like it, he was a fairly "traditional" politician. If the Maga group finds a way to name a speaker who is more unpredictable like the aforementioned Gaetz or Boebert or some other Maga republican, their lives may become harder. They may even try to get Trump to be the speaker, since the speaker doesn't technically have to be a member of the Congress.

I sincerely doubt anything at this point can make the Dems look good. As for the speaker not being required to be a member of Congress? I didn't know that. Thanks.

[*Nately120*]

(10-04-2023, 01:52 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: I sincerely doubt anything at this point can make the Dems look good.

Not voting for a speaker who was endorsed by Trump probably helps them a bit.  Democrats win when they are able to get people enthused to bother to vote and the alternative of supporting McCarthy sends the message that if elected they will vote for and support a Trump lackey and that has "stay the hell home, what's the point?" written all over it.

[CJD]

(10-04-2023, 01:52 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: I sincerely doubt anything at this point can make the Dems look good. As for the speaker not being required to be a member of Congress? I didn't know that. Thanks.

It's all relative. Republicans looking bad makes democrats look good by default because we live in a two party country.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(10-04-2023, 12:03 PM)pally Wrote: Jim Jordan has thrown his hat into the ring for Speaker.  God help us if that moron wins it

That would make for a fun show and serve Dems right for butting in.

[Luvnit2]

(10-04-2023, 01:09 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm pretty sure the GOP left fiscal conservatism in the dust with Barry Goldwater when they realized they could just talk about Jesus and guns instead of curbing spending  Fiscal conservatism is a pipe dream in this two party system. It all comes down to convincing yourself your side goes into debt for a good reason and the other side doesn't.

Please show us your facts. How is NY and California managing their massive tax dollars?

Please by all means show us at any level state of federal liberals doing a great job of managing tax dollars.

[*Nately120*]

(10-04-2023, 02:40 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Please show us your facts. How is NY and California managing their massive tax dollars?

Please by all means show us at any level state of federal liberals doing a great job of managing tax dollars.

NY and CA house major global economies.  Without saying if that makes them good or bad, I'm skeptical they can be run the same way we can run a state like Mississippi.  Although it would be interesting if they also gave a significant portion of their tax money to Brett Favre and The Million Dollar Man Ted DiBiase.

On a more serious note, if people want more republican influence in blue states they shouldn't toss people like Chris Christie aside so they can reheat the Trump leftovers.  I'm a big supporter of Gary Johnson, so I'm not going to bash blue state republicans...I just think seeing Johnson get run out of the party so they can go MAGA weakens the argument that republicans even care about this fiscal stuff.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-04-2023, 01:16 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Hard LOL at thinking either of the parties are anything about fiscal responsibility. 

Kasich was probably the GOP's last chance at turning back to it, and they chose Trump instead.