2022 Midterm Election MEGATHREAD

[Barrister]

Are these recalcitrant assholes going to lose all of their committee assignments?  That's what has happened in the past to party members who won't cooperate in this case.

But the thing is McCarthy needs their votes in order to become speaker.  If it was just 1 or 2 recalcitrant assholes he could take that approach.

[The Minsky Moment]

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the House from operating before electing a Speaker.  As long as there is a quorum.  The issue is that if a majority can't muster enough votes to elect a Speaker, you probably can't get agreement on the set of procedural rules to follow for that session either, or anything else.

[OttoVonBismarck]

As with evangelicals for a lot of GOP-aligned libertarians (especially big donor level people), I think they're probably closer to achieving their goal than ever because of the judges who've been appointed. There is, I expect, going to be a torching of the administrative and regulatory state which is what those people wanted - just like the evangelicals wanted Roe v Wade overturned. It may not be principled but I think it's lining up to deliver their policy agenda.

But that isn't actually a political movement of voters, this is basically a very small number of wealthy capitalists--and their goals are now in direct contradiction with the sort of activist use of government power you're seeing from the likes of DeSantis--who want to be able to punish corporations for doing things they don't like. There is no chance that the anti-regulatory state people want to see Republicans able to interfere in their business decisions, but that is precisely what some Republicans are pushing towards. Whether they succeed is hard to say, but they are certainly pushing. Note that no less than entities like Blackrock are facing specific, targeted legislation in a dozen or so red states to "punish them" for offering investment products that disagree with Republican politics. Again, that's as far from libertarianism as it gets.

And the Cato types and their legal project won't protect them because the judges they paid for tend to genuinely believe that while the Federal government should barely exist, State governments should barely be constrainable by any power, so they will have little recourse to activist red state activities.

[OttoVonBismarck]

McCarthy could step aside, yes--but I don't know how well it would solve the problem. Jim Jordan appears to have genuinely been serious that he doesn't want the Speakership--and it is still unclear he would have the support of moderate Republicans (again, with a margin of 5 you need almost unanimous agreement to get to a Republican Speaker.) In normal operations, the leadership elections that occurred within the caucus, when McCarthy won those, the losers would agree to vote for him unanimously come the floor vote. It isn't unusual to have a few defections from wingnuts even then, but usually the time to offer dissent is in those caucus leadership votes. Basic political strategy then says you vote for your guy in the open floor vote because it is a vote that's also open to the other party, and just this exact problem can occur if you don't toe the line. The unusual thing is the losers in the caucus leadership elections before this week have decided to take their vote to the floor.

It also appears some of the moderate Republicans are incensed, and probably not looking at this point to compromise much more on rules. They would probably be willing to compromise on a different Speaker candidate, but not likely one that looks like the sort of people who are holding the party hostage right now. It would likely be someone like Steve Scalise, who in most meaningful ways is the same as McCarthy.

[Maladict]

Why doesn't Jordan reject his nomination, if he doesn't want it?

[Valmy]

Why doesn't Jordan reject his nomination, if he doesn't want it?

He did. That is why they are voting for this Byron Donalds guy from Florida instead.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Why doesn't Jordan reject his nomination, if he doesn't want it?

He has voted for McCarthy and said he doesn't want it. I'm not sure procedurally he can stop other people from saying his name. He also probably does not want to be too involved in this fight--he's a flamethrower who himself likes the position of being able to attack Democrats and generate news for himself in the conservative press. The job of Speaker actually involves a lot of grueling legislative operations work that Jordan has no experience with and as far as I can tell zero interest in--Jordan has never been involved in a substantive piece of legislation in his entire 16 year career. Being able to run a committee that he can weaponize against Democrats is his jam, not trying to herd cats as a member of the House leadership.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The Freedom Caucus Chair (Scott Perry) has gone on a long rant now about how "no one" outside of the House wanted recent spending bills, how they were elected because "Washington is broken and they want to fix it."

It's interesting how divorced from reality this is. Most of the recent spending bills were incredibly popular, and Perry's caucus has never shown a single iota of interest in trying to fix anything, his ilk believes the government should largely cease to exist, which is an extreme position out of line with almost the entire country.

But because they represent far right, safely gerrymandered districts, they only have to cater to the extremist fringe that votes in Republican primaries, and then can go into the well of the House and pretend they represent a major majority.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Perry was also involved in the January 6th coup attempt and went on a rant about how the Republican party is really the party of black people because they supported them during Reconstruction 150 years ago, crazy how deranged these people are.

[Valmy]

After hearing that speech by Perry I am not even sure why we are having a vote. They don't sound any closer to voting for McCarthy than they were in the previous vote.

[Jacob]

Can someone explain why McCarthy isn't stepping aside? Is it just that they've not found an alternative candidate who has the votes?

The GOP got 222 seats, while the Democrats got 212. You need 218 votes to become speaker. McCarthy can get 202-3 votes from the GOP, with 19-20 GOP members voting against him. If McCarthy steps aside, someone else has to get 218 votes from somewhere.

Just because those 19 members of the House of Representatives won't vote for McCarthy doesn't mean they can get another 199 votes for whomever they prefer. Apparently Jim Jordan (of sexual abuse of student athletes fame) was put forward as an acceptable candidate, but Jordan supports McCarthy.

But yes, it's "just" that they haven't found an alternate candidate. It'll be a bit of a challenge for "them" (whoever they are) to find a suitable candidate.

[Zanza]

The Freedom Caucus Chair (Scott Perry) has gone on a long rant now about how "no one" outside of the House wanted recent spending bills, how they were elected because "Washington is broken and they want to fix it."

It's interesting how divorced from reality this is. Most of the recent spending bills were incredibly popular, and Perry's caucus has never shown a single iota of interest in trying to fix anything, his ilk believes the government should largely cease to exist, which is an extreme position out of line with almost the entire country.

But because they represent far right, safely gerrymandered districts, they only have to cater to the extremist fringe that votes in Republican primaries, and then can go into the well of the House and pretend they represent a major majority.

When you elect clowns, you get a circus...

[Barrister]

Can someone explain why McCarthy isn't stepping aside? Is it just that they've not found an alternative candidate who has the votes?

The GOP got 222 seats, while the Democrats got 212. You need 218 votes to become speaker. McCarthy can get 202-3 votes from the GOP, with 19-20 GOP members voting against him. If McCarthy steps aside, someone else has to get 218 votes from somewhere.

Just because those 19 members of the House of Representatives won't vote for McCarthy doesn't mean they can get another 199 votes for whomever they prefer. Apparently Jim Jordan (of sexual abuse of student athletes fame) was put forward as an acceptable candidate, but Jordan supports McCarthy.

But yes, it's "just" that they haven't found an alternate candidate. It'll be a bit of a challenge for "them" (whoever they are) to find a suitable candidate.

Something similar happened in 2015.  The same Mike McCarthy was the nominee for speaker, but the Freedom Caucus refused to support him.  Eventually the outgoing speaker, John Boehner, asked Paul Ryan to be the compromise candidate as someone who was acceptable to all sides.  Ryan reluctantly took the position and held it until the 2018 election where he did not run.

But it's unclear that there's any compromise candidate that would be agreeable to all sides.  Ryan had the clout as the former VP, but obviously Pence (even if he were in Congress) is a far more divisive figure within the GOP.  The Freedom Caucus is a lot crazier now as well.

[Admiral Yi]

We're getting a taste of what a third party would look like.

[Sheilbh]

But yes, it's "just" that they haven't found an alternate candidate. It'll be a bit of a challenge for "them" (whoever they are) to find a suitable candidate.

Yeah. It just feels profoundly humiliating if you're McCarthy (although maybe he's inured to that after Trump), to have to go through this vote repeatedly when there seems like a very limited chance you have the votes.

Best case scenario, you become the weakest Speaker in living memory. Worst case scenario, you're just repeatedly humiliated on national TV for a few days.

Not strictly linked to this - but I feel like the Republicans don't really have someone who can count votes at this point or they're just not able to even talk to each other.