this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2023
122 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19144 readers
3166 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
122
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by jordanlund to c/politics
 

So here we go again...

Please direct all comments and links regarding the actual VOTING to this thread.

Edit Confirmed, Mike Johnson is the next speaker after running the table of all present and voting Republicans, 220 to Hakeem Jeffries 209.

If you'd like to know more about Mike Johnson, here's a good link:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/25/who-is-mike-johnson-republican-2020-election

I'll leave this pinned for 24 hours so everyone can catch up, then take it down.

1st vote count is in:

Hakeem Jeffries - 212 (217 needed to win)
Jim Jordan - 200
Steve Scalise - 7
Kevin McCarthy - 6
"Others" - 7

Jordan could have only lost 4 votes, he lost 20.

2nd vote:

Jeffries - 212
Jordan - 199
Scalise - 7
McCarthy - 5
Zeldin - 3
"Others" - 7 (one each)

Edit 3rd vote is in, House in recess.

Jeffries - 210
Jordan - 194
Scalise - 8
McHenry - 6
Zeldin - 4
Donalds - 2
McCarthy - 2
"Others" - 3 (1 each)

Matt Gaetz has vowed to oppose expanding the powers for McHenry:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4265284-gaetz-will-do-everything-possible-stop-empowering-mchenry/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] YoBuckStopsHere 27 points 1 year ago (4 children)

It's a long shot, but Moderate Republicans and McCarthy supporters could cast a vote for Democrat Jefferies as a FU to the Freedom Caucus. They would likely be able to get things done as a result.

[–] alvvayson 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Honestly, I'm really don't understand why this didn't happen last time.

Surely there have to be a few Republicans in Blue leaning districts that just barely got voted in and are at risk of losing their seat next election.

There is just so much to gain by putting country above party under those circumstances.

[–] assassin_aragorn 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They'd lose their primaries. Republicans have gotten to the point where if you can win a primary, you can't win the general unless it's a red state.

[–] AutistoMephisto 5 points 1 year ago

It's really shitty how they let that happen. But they had multiple opportunities to prevent it and took literally none of them.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Oh sweet summer child

[–] dhork 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

That will never happen. It's much more likely IMHO for Democrats to throw some votes at a moderate Republican to get them over the line. Not Kevin, probably not Steve Scalise.

Becoming Speaker is only part of the story, though. The Speaker sets the agenda (meaning the day's schedule) but that agenda is subject to a vote and needs a majority every single time. So any Democrats who support a Republican (or vice versa) would have to be relied on to vote in favor of that speaker's scheduling, otherwise nothing can be scheduled.

[–] YoBuckStopsHere 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] dhork 5 points 1 year ago

Yes, it is very unlikely to happen, but still more likely than any Republicans voting for Democrats.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The only way one side is voting for the other's nominee is if they get a deal with some real concessions. I don't see it happening.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Meanwhile in Canada we just got free (covered) dental care for youth, and will be getting a pharmacare plan because 1 party needed the others support to govern and gave concession.

Imagine what they could actually do in the US if they actually worked together out of this madness.

Edit: There's gotta be hundreds of things moderates in both parties could agree to as concessions for joint support.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Gotta try this guy at least a dozen times first.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Jeffries was picked by the House Democrats. It's not a long shot, it's 100% fever dream impossible that any Republicans would just vote for the Democrat option.

The long shot is getting a group of half moderate Republicans and half moderate Democrats and picking a Republican speaker who is moderate. That's not going to happen either.

The barely realistic possibility of bipartisan Speaker votes is a few moderate Democrats vote for a Republican candidate.

[–] jordanlund 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Jeffries is probably closer than Scalise.

When they finally do a vote, I can see the ranking of Jeffries #1, Scalise #2, whoever else is dumb enough to run #3.

With none of them getting 217, but Jeffries hitting 209 or 210.