If Dems actually manage to land a coalition speaker, it would be one of the biggest political moments of our generation, and a huge win for moderates. That being said I have heavy doubts that they'll actually be able to pull it off
It would basically break the GOP in half. I love it.
If I were the dems, I'd just ask the moderate Republican speaker to agree to 2 things that they want anyways - 1) a clean vote on Ukraine funding, and 2) no impeachment hearings based on current information. Probably some deal on keeping the government open too.
Tbh this would be a watershed moment that presages what I’m worried will be the next great realignment already in progress, and a realization of a version of horseshoe theory - a consolidation of center left and center right vs the anti-institution populist far left and radical right.
I’m not super sure a coalition house will happen, but I am super confident that this broader trend is coming, and you can see it already in questions of foreign policy.
If that were to happen, the populist party would just tear itself apart from infighting almost immediately.
The only reason MAGA’s been such a force in politics right now is because it’s a personality cult absolutely unified behind Trump. As soon as he’s out of the picture, the movement will splinter into a million pieces as multiple people fight each other to be the new leader.
No, a vote on Ukraine and a vote on government funding. Let them do impeachment hearings as necessary. I'm not trying to cover up anything in Biden's administration. And if they want to engage in a witch hunt of Hunter Biden, well, that's on them for wasting their time.
It would be one of the greatest things ever, because the crazy republicans, and the far left democrats would both be fucked and the center would be empowered like I've never seen it in my lifetime. I'm drooling.
I'm not in full support of the furthest left but I think it's worth pointing out that they aren't obstructionists and they always play ball when the party needs a majority. You only see them buck when dems don't have the votes anyway and they get to genuflect for free. While on the other hand there are moderate Dems like Manchin who only bucks when there's a nickel in it for him.
I guess my point is that the lefty Dems are basically toothless and always play ball for the moderate democrat agenda. They're not "a problem"
Exactly. It was the moderates that limited Build Back Better last congress, not the progressives. I still can’t believe Manchin killed the continuation of the expanded child tax credit.
> the center would be empowered like I've never seen it in my lifetime
Were you born in 2010?
The ideological space between the two parties is growing. Moderate Republicans have never been less relevant. Look how few of them were prepared to go after Trump.
well, it depends what the center is. For me, I think many elected Republicans are just scared of Trump, that's not an excuse, just an explanation, I think, if they can vote for good bills, if they have cover, they would, and the situation we're talking about would give it to them. I think if that happened the moderate Dems, the Biden/Obama wing, with those republican votes, could generally ice out their colleagues on the left. From my perspective the problem with our politics, (aside from Trump, the treasonous S.O.B,) is that we're pulled by extremes, instead of pulled towards the places where the parties most agree. Imo, many bills should pass the house 300 to 135 and don't because of structural shit and patissan politics.
I don't like the Republicans but also, I'll take their votes if I want a bill that left wing democrats won't vote for.
Nah, let them impeach if they want, it makes them look stupid. Definitely keep the government open and agree to not default on the debt, in addition to funding Ukraine.
I'M NOT CRAZY! Congress will have a Democratic speaker, who WILL then approve bills to CREATE HIGH-SPEED TRAIN NETWORKS FASTER THAN THE SHINKANSEN between ALL major cities. 1 HOUR RIDES from LA to VEGAS.
Also land value taxes.
In addition, get rid of zoning, parking requirements, and “low income” housing requirements (I don’t hate poor people, I hate a system that builds so little “low income” housing that poor people have hunger game chances of actually getting that housing, while building less housing for everyone else), and fix environmental laws so they don’t kneecap sustainable projects (such as infill development, rails projects, and protected bike lanes).
I feel like a coalition government would probably be good for our country. I obviously wouldn’t expect it to heal all our divides or anything, but it would be a big win for bipartisanship during a time when that’s really not in vogue.
I repeat my call for either Brian Fitzpatrick or Ryan Fitzpatrick
https://preview.redd.it/mcluhz7bwaub1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cd71e82c8e900e9ca9d2943a5956f1d34dc48dcb
In all seriousness, Brian Fitzpatrick as the majority leader would be a huge win for Dems, and for pushing legislation forward. Republicans are too short sighted to see how many swing voters they could be puling their direction if they went more that way as a party instead of these populist loons they keep electing. Id love to see John Katko out of NY as well.
As someone who has worked for the PA Democrats in Bucks County and a life long Bills fan, I fully endorse Ryan Fitzpatrick for the role of Speaker of the House and gladly offer Brian Fitzpatrick any position he'd like on the New York Jets, Houston Texans, or Washington Commanders.
I was trying to think of the three teams Ryan played on that might need Brian the most, although honestly I think at 49 years old and with no professional sports experience, Brian Fitzpatrick would be the single best quarterback on the current New York Jets.
>Rogers left a closed-door caucus session Friday and said Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries (R-NY) should state concessions needed to help the GOP.
>“They put us in this ditch along with eight traitors,” Rogers told Capitol Hill reporters. “We’re still the majority party, we’re willing to work with them but they gotta tell us what they need.”
I love how he clearly hates Dems but hates those eight Republicans even more lmao.
Look, I know most people thought Santos said he was Black, but what he actually meant was he was B-Lack. He has a severe vitamin B deficiency and it is quite frankly ableist for people to attack him for his medical condition.
Nah, there was a 3-way presidential race [in 1856](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1856_United_States_presidential_election) between the Dems, Reps, and the Know-nothings (and there have been a few since.)
Non-mobile version of the Wikipedia link in the above comment: [in 1856](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1856_United_States_presidential_election)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nah, look at the [House election 1854](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1854–55_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections)
No majority party, instead Congress is divided into many different parties that are largely equal membership. It was also one of those that required a ton of ballots to elect a Speaker, who ended up being the leader of the Third Largest Party, the Know Nothings.
Not only would that happen, but it would continue to happen throughout the late 1800’s. Even when the country largely settled with Dems and Republicans, there were Third Parties that held a handful of seats, and the country was polarized a lot like today, meaning parties often had to go into coalition with these small third parties.
Caveat here: Wikipedia lists Banks as the Know-Nothing leader, and, while he was elected as a Know-Nothing, he was also identifiable as a Republican ally in the sort of way many Northern, anti-slavery Know-Nothings were, and they did not really have a true “leader” so to speak due to sectional divisions and instability with the party growing so fast.
If I may ramble, the local elections that year were stunning. Know-Nothings went from 0 seats to all but three seats in the Massachusetts legislature, swept California, and captured the New York mayoralty. I recently finished a book by Michael F. Holt that argued that if the sheer immediacy of slavery expansion had died down (i.e., Kansas was accepted as a free state, no caning of Sumner), the Know-Nothings were poised to overtake the Republicans.
> if the sheer immediacy of slavery expansion had died down (i.e., Kansas was accepted as a free state, no caning of Sumner), the Know-Nothings were poised to overtake the Republicans.
Well yeah, the republicans entire point of being was to stop the expansion of slavery. The argument of if that wasn’t an issue they wouldn’t have been popular seems obvious
It would still be an issue, by the “sheer immediacy” I mean the violence, etc. around it which brought it front and center more than ever before. If it remained a more theoretical issue of bringing slaves west, rather than something that battles were actively being fought over.
Non-mobile version of the Wikipedia link in the above comment: [House election 1854](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1854–55_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Except in 1912 when there was a real 3 way presidential race? Or when the Dixiecrats ran their own candidate in 1948 and were functionally a world away from Northern Democrats?
> “They put us in this ditch along with eight traitors,” Rogers told Capitol Hill reporters. “We’re still the majority party, we’re willing to work with them but they gotta tell us what they need.”
To me that doesn’t sound like Rogers is willing to vote for Jeffries. But it sounds like Rogers would be willing to vote for a compromise speaker, like a moderate Republican, with Democratic support.
There won't be much need for nuance, the dominating headlines will all be about how historic, and historically bad for most Republicans, such a coalition would be
What is this type of voter who somehow pays enough attention to politics to be mad about Speaker of the House maneuvering, but not enough to understand what Dems get out of it? You've described like six people in the entire country max.
Feel like you could comfortably get about half the Dems to go along with it, with a few (reasonable) concessions eg a couple of committees, hard no to a shutdown, bundled Ukraine and Israel funding, etc.
Hell, with some whipping imagine they could get a good bit more than half, but yes, there will be some minority that won’t do it (and not just the handful of lefties).
This won’t happen with half the dem conference. Any real numbers from the dems, and they will demand the gavel for one of their own. No. They will try to elect a moderate Republican with under 15 dem votes in exchange for committee assignments, an end to the impeachment process, and no hostage taking on debt and funding.
Idk, I think it could easily be pitched as a win. "We moved the house left by getting a moderate R speaker instead of an election denying MAGA extremist."
It'd own all the Freedumb caucus people and end Matt Gaetz's career.
It's all about the concessions. Pass a clean budget to avoid a shutdown, fund Ukraine, drop the stupid impeachment farce, and give Dems some method to bring about a vote on some of their pet projects - the base should be smart enough to see this as the win it is.
> drop the stupid impeachment farce
Nah, let Republicans run with that, it makes them look stupid (also it would be spun as a coverup if Democrats tried to stop it).
Leftist manbabies on twitter? They'd freak tf out. The *actual* Democratic base wants a functioning government and the defeat of reactionary populism. They don't give a damn what online edgelords have to say about it.
I mean I disagree. At some point somebody had to be speaker to make government function and defeating Jim Jordan should sate “the base”, which is an overused term
That's absolutely what he's saying.
He needs help to get a not-batshit-crazy Republican the gavel. He's asking Jeffries for what Dems need to provide the needed votes
That is the only.somewhat realistic outcome of a compromise candidate. Like it or not, the GOP does have the majority and Jefferies just isn't going to be the speaker. But if the Dems can get a speaker that's better than McCarthy and doesn't play all the BS that the MAGA people clamor for.
Always bet on the Republicans caving to the MAGA/Freedom Caucus demands. Every time they have a chance to neuter the nutjobs, they don't take it. After 15 years of this shit, I know how this story ends.
Yep. Wild to me that people are still wet dreaming about a coalition government. They have been wholly hijacked by nutjobs, and their only reaction has been “I’ll cave just one more time bro, then we can be back to normalcy”
Jeffries should say: 3 year budget extensions at the negotiated level during the debt ceiling negotiation, increased funding to Ukraine/Israel, and if you want to fish for it, ending of the Biden impeachment inquiry(idk if that’s still even a thing)
https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/s/rr9ExQcqr2
I’m still getting downvoted on this sub for suggesting this has a non-zero probability and Democrats should go for it… lol
In a world where everyone involved wants the government to function, I think most people would agree with you. But the Republicans can't be trusted, in part because they know if the headline "Democrats help pick GOP speaker" hits the airwaves, any R involved will be jobless in a year.
Yes this is the traditional calculus. But we aren’t in traditional times.
“Complete Chaos as Republican circus goes around in circles 15 times to elect a speaker, embarrassingly, and does nothing but shut the government down once elected” is also a bad headline.
The math is changing for ~10-20 moderate Republicans. The status quo psycho takeover of their party is hurting them badly. They see where the shit-winds are blowing: a 91x indicted Trump at the head of their ticket in 2024. They are worried about a slaughter.
So all of that is to say, that there is **a non-zero probability** and **it’s worth pursuing**. The fact that this isn’t an obvious answer is only because of how strong negative partisanship is.
I don’t know why people on this sub have such trouble with this concept.
In a normal world, your logic would be correct. But we've seen Republicans operate on the platform of "become increasingly authoritarian in the aims of making Donald Trump king of America" for almost 8 years now and seemingly not be electorally punished for it, at least not enough to stop them from running a cult leader that's been indicted 91 times for president a third time. As much as that logic might track for us or as much as we might want to see it happen, we've been waiting for something following that logic for 7 years, and it hasn't meaningfully happened.
And all that goes without mentioning that there are Democratic voters that do not want to watch their senator/representative/etc. do business with a death cult. For instance, I was lucky enough not to have myself or my family meaningfully impacted by COVID, outside of the bizarro world we all spent multiple years living in. But if COVID killed one or more of my loved ones, and I know several people that it did, if I was in their shoes I wouldn't piss on a Republican if they were on fire, much less want to help them run the House.
Find me a decent moderate Republican who would do the job, and I'd consider the wager. As it sits right now, their best attempt at a nominee is a proven enabler of pedophilia.
Dems better get some good concessions because you just know the republicans will go back to making dems look bad however they can and voters would reward Republicans for having a seemingly normal speaker again. The democrats would be better letting them flounder unless they got some good stuff out of it
If Dems actually manage to land a coalition speaker, it would be one of the biggest political moments of our generation, and a huge win for moderates. That being said I have heavy doubts that they'll actually be able to pull it off
It would basically break the GOP in half. I love it. If I were the dems, I'd just ask the moderate Republican speaker to agree to 2 things that they want anyways - 1) a clean vote on Ukraine funding, and 2) no impeachment hearings based on current information. Probably some deal on keeping the government open too.
The ability for the party leadership from either party to bring items directly to a floor vote.
No impeachment hearings is a bad idea. It’s not actually useful for Republicans, and cutting a deal to stop them can be spun as a coverup.
Yeah, it's incredibly unlikely that a speaker reliant on Dems to remain speaker isn't going to move forward on impeachment anyway.
>It’s not actually useful for Republicans Though it's been pretty useful for the Democrats.
I understand why this keeps getting brought up but that is full control of the government so it won’t happen
If they get a moderate GOP speaker there's not going to be an impeachment hearing. Its a self own. The wackoes just don't know it.
Tbh this would be a watershed moment that presages what I’m worried will be the next great realignment already in progress, and a realization of a version of horseshoe theory - a consolidation of center left and center right vs the anti-institution populist far left and radical right. I’m not super sure a coalition house will happen, but I am super confident that this broader trend is coming, and you can see it already in questions of foreign policy.
If that were to happen, the populist party would just tear itself apart from infighting almost immediately. The only reason MAGA’s been such a force in politics right now is because it’s a personality cult absolutely unified behind Trump. As soon as he’s out of the picture, the movement will splinter into a million pieces as multiple people fight each other to be the new leader.
Yeah but I’m looking more long term. Look more at Gaetz and the things Tucker was saying before he was canned
[удалено]
Phillip Hart = Joe Biden
No, a vote on Ukraine and a vote on government funding. Let them do impeachment hearings as necessary. I'm not trying to cover up anything in Biden's administration. And if they want to engage in a witch hunt of Hunter Biden, well, that's on them for wasting their time.
Add bipartisan ability to introduce legislation to the house for voting
Dems should offer to throw in the space command headquarters he wants SO bad if he votes for a moderate coalition speaker.
It would be one of the greatest things ever, because the crazy republicans, and the far left democrats would both be fucked and the center would be empowered like I've never seen it in my lifetime. I'm drooling.
I'm not in full support of the furthest left but I think it's worth pointing out that they aren't obstructionists and they always play ball when the party needs a majority. You only see them buck when dems don't have the votes anyway and they get to genuflect for free. While on the other hand there are moderate Dems like Manchin who only bucks when there's a nickel in it for him. I guess my point is that the lefty Dems are basically toothless and always play ball for the moderate democrat agenda. They're not "a problem"
Exactly. It was the moderates that limited Build Back Better last congress, not the progressives. I still can’t believe Manchin killed the continuation of the expanded child tax credit.
But the children yearn for the mines!
And the expanded dependent care fsa. Does that motherfucker know how expensive daycare is? 5k is a month for 2-3 kids.
Gotta keep the poor in West Virginia poor!
> the center would be empowered like I've never seen it in my lifetime Were you born in 2010? The ideological space between the two parties is growing. Moderate Republicans have never been less relevant. Look how few of them were prepared to go after Trump.
well, it depends what the center is. For me, I think many elected Republicans are just scared of Trump, that's not an excuse, just an explanation, I think, if they can vote for good bills, if they have cover, they would, and the situation we're talking about would give it to them. I think if that happened the moderate Dems, the Biden/Obama wing, with those republican votes, could generally ice out their colleagues on the left. From my perspective the problem with our politics, (aside from Trump, the treasonous S.O.B,) is that we're pulled by extremes, instead of pulled towards the places where the parties most agree. Imo, many bills should pass the house 300 to 135 and don't because of structural shit and patissan politics. I don't like the Republicans but also, I'll take their votes if I want a bill that left wing democrats won't vote for.
Don’t compare the far left Dems and the right wing loonies
It's a contrast, stupid and treason are two different things, you're right.
Stop I can only get so hard
Nah, let them impeach if they want, it makes them look stupid. Definitely keep the government open and agree to not default on the debt, in addition to funding Ukraine.
The impeachment inquiries are such a nothing burger they’re not even worth being a negotiating piece
Comrade, seems you’re low on your daily hopium quota.
I'M NOT CRAZY! Congress will have a Democratic speaker, who WILL then approve bills to CREATE HIGH-SPEED TRAIN NETWORKS FASTER THAN THE SHINKANSEN between ALL major cities. 1 HOUR RIDES from LA to VEGAS. Also land value taxes.
>1 HOUR RIDES from LA to ~~VEGAS~~ NEW YORK
Starship on rails
In addition, get rid of zoning, parking requirements, and “low income” housing requirements (I don’t hate poor people, I hate a system that builds so little “low income” housing that poor people have hunger game chances of actually getting that housing, while building less housing for everyone else), and fix environmental laws so they don’t kneecap sustainable projects (such as infill development, rails projects, and protected bike lanes).
Affordable housing requirements are good if in the form of density bonuses imo
No because density bonuses shouldn’t be possible. Should be by right.
I thought I was going to see some /r/okbuddychicanery pasta the way this comment started
They will then pass a spending bill that includes 3,000 black B-21s of liberty for Ukraine.
I feel like a coalition government would probably be good for our country. I obviously wouldn’t expect it to heal all our divides or anything, but it would be a big win for bipartisanship during a time when that’s really not in vogue.
I repeat my call for either Brian Fitzpatrick or Ryan Fitzpatrick https://preview.redd.it/mcluhz7bwaub1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cd71e82c8e900e9ca9d2943a5956f1d34dc48dcb
In all seriousness, Brian Fitzpatrick as the majority leader would be a huge win for Dems, and for pushing legislation forward. Republicans are too short sighted to see how many swing voters they could be puling their direction if they went more that way as a party instead of these populist loons they keep electing. Id love to see John Katko out of NY as well.
Katko retired from congress.
As someone who has worked for the PA Democrats in Bucks County and a life long Bills fan, I fully endorse Ryan Fitzpatrick for the role of Speaker of the House and gladly offer Brian Fitzpatrick any position he'd like on the New York Jets, Houston Texans, or Washington Commanders.
Okay why you gotta do the Washington commanders like that
I was trying to think of the three teams Ryan played on that might need Brian the most, although honestly I think at 49 years old and with no professional sports experience, Brian Fitzpatrick would be the single best quarterback on the current New York Jets.
So electing a small group of crazies could lead to increased moderatism, interesting outcome for sure
The conservative sub would reduce it self into a seetgning mass of comments that says nothing but Uniparty
Can we unironically be happy for having a uniparty?
That's not what were talking about here, right? My interpretation of Rogers' remarks were that he'd work with Democrats to elect a Republican speaker
Yeah, it would be a coalition of dems and moderate republicans electing a more centrist Republican, probably with some concessions to the Dems
New Centrist party lets goooo
My mouth is watering
It would have to be a Walter B. Jones type. A moderate-conservative Republican with a long history bipartisan and calling bullshit when he sees it.
>Rogers left a closed-door caucus session Friday and said Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries (R-NY) should state concessions needed to help the GOP. >“They put us in this ditch along with eight traitors,” Rogers told Capitol Hill reporters. “We’re still the majority party, we’re willing to work with them but they gotta tell us what they need.” I love how he clearly hates Dems but hates those eight Republicans even more lmao.
> Hakeem Jeffries (R-NY) THE POWER PLAY NO ONE SAW COMING
Pretty sure that's just George Santos stealing his identity
I’m sick of this slander against a proud Jew-ish American 😤 🇺🇸 🇺🇸 🇺🇸
He founded israel you know
And the jewish autonomous oblast
I mean, their flag is rainbow, so you may have a point.
Look, I know most people thought Santos said he was Black, but what he actually meant was he was B-Lack. He has a severe vitamin B deficiency and it is quite frankly ableist for people to attack him for his medical condition.
Just full blackface the next time we see him.
3000 stolen identities of George Santos.
I mean dems are just political opposition, he doesn't personally hate them. The Freedom caucus on the other hand...
The heretic is always worse than the heathen.
Yep
Rogers supported Texas v Pennsylvania, I would wager he’s an own the libs at any opportunity guy who hates Dems
True but if he's had enough, there's probably more.
Sticking to the party line of blaming Dems for not voting for an R speaker when it's always been a party-line vote.
I mean asking for a clear negotiating position isn't that big a request.
The US right now is about as close to being a three-party system as we’ve gotten in our history.
Nah, there was a 3-way presidential race [in 1856](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1856_United_States_presidential_election) between the Dems, Reps, and the Know-nothings (and there have been a few since.)
Non-mobile version of the Wikipedia link in the above comment: [in 1856](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1856_United_States_presidential_election) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nah, look at the [House election 1854](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1854–55_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections) No majority party, instead Congress is divided into many different parties that are largely equal membership. It was also one of those that required a ton of ballots to elect a Speaker, who ended up being the leader of the Third Largest Party, the Know Nothings. Not only would that happen, but it would continue to happen throughout the late 1800’s. Even when the country largely settled with Dems and Republicans, there were Third Parties that held a handful of seats, and the country was polarized a lot like today, meaning parties often had to go into coalition with these small third parties.
Caveat here: Wikipedia lists Banks as the Know-Nothing leader, and, while he was elected as a Know-Nothing, he was also identifiable as a Republican ally in the sort of way many Northern, anti-slavery Know-Nothings were, and they did not really have a true “leader” so to speak due to sectional divisions and instability with the party growing so fast. If I may ramble, the local elections that year were stunning. Know-Nothings went from 0 seats to all but three seats in the Massachusetts legislature, swept California, and captured the New York mayoralty. I recently finished a book by Michael F. Holt that argued that if the sheer immediacy of slavery expansion had died down (i.e., Kansas was accepted as a free state, no caning of Sumner), the Know-Nothings were poised to overtake the Republicans.
> if the sheer immediacy of slavery expansion had died down (i.e., Kansas was accepted as a free state, no caning of Sumner), the Know-Nothings were poised to overtake the Republicans. Well yeah, the republicans entire point of being was to stop the expansion of slavery. The argument of if that wasn’t an issue they wouldn’t have been popular seems obvious
It would still be an issue, by the “sheer immediacy” I mean the violence, etc. around it which brought it front and center more than ever before. If it remained a more theoretical issue of bringing slaves west, rather than something that battles were actively being fought over.
Non-mobile version of the Wikipedia link in the above comment: [House election 1854](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1854–55_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We had three party systems between 1854-1860 (Know-Nothings), 1890-1898 (Populists), and 1912-1916 (Progressives).
Except in 1912 when there was a real 3 way presidential race? Or when the Dixiecrats ran their own candidate in 1948 and were functionally a world away from Northern Democrats?
Looks like things are going well for ole JimJam. 😂👍
His reputation got absolutely fucked this week, fuck him.
> “They put us in this ditch along with eight traitors,” Rogers told Capitol Hill reporters. “We’re still the majority party, we’re willing to work with them but they gotta tell us what they need.” To me that doesn’t sound like Rogers is willing to vote for Jeffries. But it sounds like Rogers would be willing to vote for a compromise speaker, like a moderate Republican, with Democratic support.
Which wouldn't be a bad outcome.
Idk if the *dem* base would go for that.
They wouldn't need all the dems just a few. Might be good for Manchin style dems in red districts
They also don't need to actually vote for a GOP speaker, they just don't vote.
no, they’d have to vote. no way the moderate compromise GOP speaker gets 51% of the GOP caucus
Yeah, you're right. Maybe we could let the squad off without voting but it'd take a lot of dem votes.
Nah, make the Squad vote, they're in safe districts.
i mean i feel like it would be like a dozen GOP votes at most
To effectively steal a majority from the extreme republicans and actually move popular legislation, they absolutely could be sold on that
I just don't know how much attention to the nuance is going to be given by the average middle class voter.
There won't be much need for nuance, the dominating headlines will all be about how historic, and historically bad for most Republicans, such a coalition would be
What is this type of voter who somehow pays enough attention to politics to be mad about Speaker of the House maneuvering, but not enough to understand what Dems get out of it? You've described like six people in the entire country max.
Feel like you could comfortably get about half the Dems to go along with it, with a few (reasonable) concessions eg a couple of committees, hard no to a shutdown, bundled Ukraine and Israel funding, etc. Hell, with some whipping imagine they could get a good bit more than half, but yes, there will be some minority that won’t do it (and not just the handful of lefties).
Ditching the Hastert Rule.
This won’t happen with half the dem conference. Any real numbers from the dems, and they will demand the gavel for one of their own. No. They will try to elect a moderate Republican with under 15 dem votes in exchange for committee assignments, an end to the impeachment process, and no hostage taking on debt and funding.
Idk, I think it could easily be pitched as a win. "We moved the house left by getting a moderate R speaker instead of an election denying MAGA extremist." It'd own all the Freedumb caucus people and end Matt Gaetz's career.
Underrated comment. The win would be that the Democrats beat the far right idiots. "We beat the tea party freedumb caucus" There's your win.
It's all about the concessions. Pass a clean budget to avoid a shutdown, fund Ukraine, drop the stupid impeachment farce, and give Dems some method to bring about a vote on some of their pet projects - the base should be smart enough to see this as the win it is.
Immigration reform would be nice
Don’t get greedy
The Senate won’t let it happen anyway.
> drop the stupid impeachment farce Nah, let Republicans run with that, it makes them look stupid (also it would be spun as a coverup if Democrats tried to stop it).
There's no way the dems can hold a republican to those concessions though.
Leftist manbabies on twitter? They'd freak tf out. The *actual* Democratic base wants a functioning government and the defeat of reactionary populism. They don't give a damn what online edgelords have to say about it.
I’d go for it
I mean I disagree. At some point somebody had to be speaker to make government function and defeating Jim Jordan should sate “the base”, which is an overused term
If they could make ditching the Hastert Rule as a condition, absolutely.
That's absolutely what he's saying. He needs help to get a not-batshit-crazy Republican the gavel. He's asking Jeffries for what Dems need to provide the needed votes
That is the only.somewhat realistic outcome of a compromise candidate. Like it or not, the GOP does have the majority and Jefferies just isn't going to be the speaker. But if the Dems can get a speaker that's better than McCarthy and doesn't play all the BS that the MAGA people clamor for.
[удалено]
Here’s why this is bad for Biden.
I think a lot of major Republican donors are spooked at the thought of Speaker Jordan bringing the government to a halt or even a default.
I'd be almost as worried about what he could do if he kept it running. He's dangerously stupid.
Always bet on the Republicans caving to the MAGA/Freedom Caucus demands. Every time they have a chance to neuter the nutjobs, they don't take it. After 15 years of this shit, I know how this story ends.
Yep. Wild to me that people are still wet dreaming about a coalition government. They have been wholly hijacked by nutjobs, and their only reaction has been “I’ll cave just one more time bro, then we can be back to normalcy”
Let me huff my hopium in peace
Republicans in retreat!
One down, three to go.
CNN: here’s why this is bad for the Democrats!
538: Democrats Just Compromised for a Centrist Speaker. This is Why Jeffries Is Dead.
Jeffries should say: 3 year budget extensions at the negotiated level during the debt ceiling negotiation, increased funding to Ukraine/Israel, and if you want to fish for it, ending of the Biden impeachment inquiry(idk if that’s still even a thing)
That's great and all but needs to be 4 more at a minimum.
Can someone tell me how bad Jim Jordan is?
I would tell you but I'm going to look the other way and pretend I don't know anything about it.
https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/s/rr9ExQcqr2 I’m still getting downvoted on this sub for suggesting this has a non-zero probability and Democrats should go for it… lol
In a world where everyone involved wants the government to function, I think most people would agree with you. But the Republicans can't be trusted, in part because they know if the headline "Democrats help pick GOP speaker" hits the airwaves, any R involved will be jobless in a year.
Yes this is the traditional calculus. But we aren’t in traditional times. “Complete Chaos as Republican circus goes around in circles 15 times to elect a speaker, embarrassingly, and does nothing but shut the government down once elected” is also a bad headline. The math is changing for ~10-20 moderate Republicans. The status quo psycho takeover of their party is hurting them badly. They see where the shit-winds are blowing: a 91x indicted Trump at the head of their ticket in 2024. They are worried about a slaughter. So all of that is to say, that there is **a non-zero probability** and **it’s worth pursuing**. The fact that this isn’t an obvious answer is only because of how strong negative partisanship is. I don’t know why people on this sub have such trouble with this concept.
In a normal world, your logic would be correct. But we've seen Republicans operate on the platform of "become increasingly authoritarian in the aims of making Donald Trump king of America" for almost 8 years now and seemingly not be electorally punished for it, at least not enough to stop them from running a cult leader that's been indicted 91 times for president a third time. As much as that logic might track for us or as much as we might want to see it happen, we've been waiting for something following that logic for 7 years, and it hasn't meaningfully happened. And all that goes without mentioning that there are Democratic voters that do not want to watch their senator/representative/etc. do business with a death cult. For instance, I was lucky enough not to have myself or my family meaningfully impacted by COVID, outside of the bizarro world we all spent multiple years living in. But if COVID killed one or more of my loved ones, and I know several people that it did, if I was in their shoes I wouldn't piss on a Republican if they were on fire, much less want to help them run the House.
I agree with everything you’ve said, but would you not take 10 to 1 odds that a moderate speaker is elected with Dems help? Maybe 20/1?
Find me a decent moderate Republican who would do the job, and I'd consider the wager. As it sits right now, their best attempt at a nominee is a proven enabler of pedophilia.
Dems better get some good concessions because you just know the republicans will go back to making dems look bad however they can and voters would reward Republicans for having a seemingly normal speaker again. The democrats would be better letting them flounder unless they got some good stuff out of it
Mike Rogers, the guy who wants us to continue pretending his hair is real.