#TraitorTrump trying to pull all strings. We’ll be safer when he’s in prison.
Trump is telling loyalists to kill new speaker candidate's prospects in the cradle: report https://www.rawstory.com/trump-2666036301/
Hey, pollsters out there! Do a poll of Republican-controlled districts in NY to see how Republican voters would feel about making a deal with Democrats.
A majority might be okay with it under the right circumstances.
#uspolitics #politics #uspol #USPolPolls #Speakerofthehouse #housespeaker #speaker #GOP #polls
But that's not really how the #House rules work: any representative doesn't have to make a deal to either vote or withhold their vote.
If Democrats really wanted the House to reopen they could simply stop voting to stand in the way. That doesn't require any dealmaking.
When you start talking about deals, though, that gets REALLY complicated since this is more than just the Speaker. There are committee assignments and House Rules on the table at that point, which is a giant Gordian Knot to address.
@DemocracyMattersALot
@volkris @DemocracyMattersALot
Oh, that's weird. I thought it was a matter of getting 217 votes for one person. If Dems don't vote, Republicans still have to get to 217, don't they?
It seems like Dems and Reps could make a deal to vote for the Whip (Tom Emmer) for Speaker, with an agreement to fund the government at already agreed upon levels, plus provide funding for Israel and Ukraine. Leave everything else as it is.
#uspolitics #uspol #housespeaker #Speakerofthehouse #speaker
@dswidow @volkris @DemocracyMattersALot
No, 217 isn't a set threshold in the House rules. It's a simple majority.
It's 217 if everyone is there to vote.
There was talk of democrats being able to vote present, to lower the threshold.
@chiclet @volkris @DemocracyMattersALot
Ah, thanks for the explanation.
Well, I can see Dems doing that if the Speaker nominated is not a vile nutjob like Jim Jordan. And regardless, there's no point in Dems helping fill the Speaker position if they don't get a promise of a funded government, and funding for Ukraine and Israel.
The rule is that it's a majority of people who have voted for any particular candidate.
So any representative is welcome to either vote present or not vote at all. It's up to them.
But part of the deal is whether you like any particular candidate or not, are you willing to keep the democratic process seized? Are you willing to keep the House shut down, the congress unable to pass or even debate legislation because you don't like the particular person serving as Speaker?
That's a pretty extreme position to take, but it is the position that the Democrats have taken at this point.
As far as I'm concerned all of these politicians are assholes, but we keep re-electing them. So whatever.
Let's just be clear that the assholes we are electing are shutting down Congress.
@volkris @dswidow @DemocracyMattersALot
That's certainly the argument Reps are trying to make. That it's the Dems voting AGAINST their nominee for speaker, and holding up the House. I don't buy it.
It's the same BS argument that they make when they shutdown the government with poison pill amendments that they know won't pass, but will say Dems are blocking it.
The reality is that there is NO SUCH THING AS voting AGAINST a speaker candidate. They vote for a speaker.
And Dems have been voting for Jefferies.
Why are Republicans not voting for Jefferies? He's got more votes than any other.
@chiclet @volkris @DemocracyMattersALot
Right. So we just need enough Repubs to vote "present" to lower the threshold, then Dems can vote Jeffries in as Speaker with 212 votes!
You're absolutely right in saying this goes both ways, that either party membership could vote for the other party.
But.
I would say there is a little bit of a difference in that the Democrats voted unanimously for this moment, as they allied with the Republican extremists to shut down the House.
That's significant to me, and it sort of breaks the symmetry between the two parties.
It's one thing to say that both parties should work with the other to get things going, but it's another to point out that only one party voted overwhelmingly to shut down while the other voted overwhelmingly to keep going.
@volkris @chiclet @DemocracyMattersALot
I just don't get your logic. We don't want a maga wingnut as Speaker, full stop.
If some Republicans can be reasonable and agree to fund the government at already agreed upon levels, and put up a Speaker who has a clue, then I'm sure the Dems will vote for him.
Well, the logic is based on looking at what's already happened, looking at the way people have already voted.
200 Democrats voted to set the stage for a maga wingnut as Speaker with such intention that they were willing to shut down the entire legislative process to do it.
That doesn't sound like a group ready to negotiate to me.
It also sounds like you're buying into some false information about how the spinning levels are set in Congress. I've seen that going around too, and it's just not how Congress works.
