2015 American Politics Thread: The 114th Congress Is in the House!

https://twitter.com/jonfavs/status/652206597876256769

lol

uh, doesn't the speaker have to be a sitting congressperson?!?!? what's with the romney and gingrich stuff?

speaker only has to be over 25, like w/ car rentals

2015 American Politics Thread: The 114th Congress Is in the House!

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/10/will-democrats-elect-the-next-gop-speaker.html?mid=facebook_nymag

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rock-bottom-things-could-get-worse-for-house-gop/article/2573742

I don't see why Democrats would help elect a Republican - once in office he'd still kowtow to his caucus and it's not like Republicans wouldn't back him if the Democrats tried to unseat him.

well whaddya know

The Constitution does not require that the Speaker be an elected House Representative, though all Speakers have been an elected Member of Congress.

yeah allen west picked up some protest votes last time around and he'd already lost his seat

similarly there are rumours of a draft eric cantor movement afoot which would be so fucking hilarious

would imagine any deal between moderate republicans (which is who again exactly?_ and dems would carry with it certain concessions on what would be brought to the floor for a vote (ie no hastert rule), debt limit, etc. even then think any republicans that went w/ it would be guaranteeing they'd be primaried next year, which in theory might be benefit enough for dems - either those republicans get picked off by some tea party maniac that can't win in the general (presuming tea party challengers have picked off any moderate/establishment gop congressmen they stood a chance at beating by now)(which may be a presumption too far - cantor just lost last year) or the moderate wins and their support is depressed. i'm not sure how i'd feel about a ryan speakership (other than him declining it so far as well as opting out of running for president might mean he really is the brains of the gop), it could obv destroy him (someone somewhere was comparing it to the king's hand in game of thrones and saying ryan's not stupid, he saw what happened to ned stark) but there is the possibility that he unites the party enough and manages to pass and sell a conservative agenda more effectively than any recent gop speaker. idk. do think even if he does stay out it would be funny if dems voted for him anyway and see if they can spook some republicans into voting for him. it's not like you have to have the permission of the person you're voting for speaker to vote for them, i'm pretty sure john lewis didn't give john barrow permission to vote for him so the gop couldn't use 'he voted for pelosi!' against him.

it would be funny if dems voted for him anyway

i have a hunch the outcome of this will be boring and disappointing but i'm praying for lols of this level

didn't vox run an explainer on the history of speakership voting after it came up in house of cards lol

I'm already tired of the Republican and mainstream media Paul Ryan lovefest. Maybe he will turn down the chance to run for speaker too.

the Washington press will act like it's 2011 again. It can't wait.

he's already showing off his replacement gavel
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/811195/thumbs/s-PAUL-RYAN-WORKOUT-large640.jpg?6

you know, 'rock bottom' even for vile entities is not always helpful in the grand scheme

would imagine any deal between moderate republicans (which is who again exactly?_ and dems would carry with it certain concessions on what would be brought to the floor for a vote (ie no hastert rule), debt limit, etc. even then think any republicans that went w/ it would be guaranteeing they'd be primaried next year, which in theory might be benefit enough for dems

otm. Pelosi is smart and ruthless enough to extract serious concessions, and depending on the districts Republicans would be at risk of being primaried as RINOs - neither of those are things the "establishment" GOP would be willing to risk.

Anyone have a link to what the whip count is if the Freedom Caucus decides not to vote for the GOP nominee on the floor? Would Dem nominee win with a plurality?

Dem nominee couldn't win without GOP votes and come on the GOP is not going to hand over control of the House to the minority

oh wait I see what you're saying - is the Dem caucus larger than the GOP caucus less the Freedom Caucus and could they elect their own speaker that way

Right

Dems have 188, who I'm sure would go for Pelosi
GOP has 247 though, so even less 40 Freedom Caucus members, they still outnumber the Dems by a substantial margin.

218 is required for the majority. so like I said upthread, Dem nominee would need GOP votes, which is just not gonna happen. Now, the GOP nominee *could* win if they jettison the Freedom Caucus in favor of Dem votes, but (as also discussed upthread) this is political suicide on a scale the GOP just won't consider imo.

I mean, if the Freedom Caucus really were crazy/stupid enough to prefer going down in flames voting for a "true conservative" type candidate, and enough non-caucus members wanted to grab some of the glory, I guess that could happen? But as unlikely as that is, it's even more unlikely they would let that status quo last for long - I mean they are crazy but once Pelosi was actually in charge of what gets to the floor, how many blocked Republican bills would it take before they either came to their senses or found their constituents back home going "wtf are you doing"?

More likely - which is to say, still extremely unlikely - would be the establishment GOP and Dems agreeing on some kind of "compromise" Republican candidate, who would have to be a really fucking convincing moderate for the Dems to be remotely interested. I mean in the end, once the Speaker is in office, there is very little the minority voters could do to control them and nothing would keep them from basically behaving like Boehner until the Freedom Caucus gets wise and the process starts over again. It would make more sense for the Dems to stonewall the whole business and say "you can't unite your own party around a speaker when you have a huge gerrymandered majority in Congress, let's let America watch this play out for a while."

If that were to happen, the GOP would just whine that Dems are obstructing the course of the government.

lol I can't see that flying except in the heart of the right-wing echo chamber. I mean the US was pretty clearly able to suss out who was obstructing what when it came to things as dramatic as the Gingrich/Clinton budget shutdown. I think "the Republicans have a majority but can't manage to agree on a speaker so nothing is getting done in Congress" is bite-sized enough to carry the day.

Important to keep in mind: GOP voters don't want their congressmen to govern – they want congressmen to obstruct.

^^^

probably won't be satisfied until they burn down the capitol building tbh

Yeah I think they believe Washington is total waste of time. They also unabashedly like having their biases confirmed, so.

would be the establishment GOP and Dems agreeing on some kind of "compromise" Republican candidate, who would have to be a really fucking convincing moderate for the Dems to be remotely interested

no way would Pelosi go for this, she would extract real, concrete concessions (probably in the form of legislation being passed ahead of the speaker election, but I'm just guessin/spitballin), otherwise its in her and the Dems interest to let them twist in the wind

judging by their past behavior the Freedom Caucus would like to vote for a conservative who will lose, brag about that for a while, then get mad at the speaker in 6-9 mos, force him to quit, and do it all over again.

i don't know why they can't work out which dozen or so of the FC will vote for the "moderate establishment" candidate so they can get on with it. but a lot of these people seem too fanatical to be calculating

that's what i'm saying, afaik there has been very very little cross-party voting shenanigans when it comes to speakership, and i doubt it would start now. i don't know exactly why but i'm sure the logic is pretty airtight

It's this guy, writ large:
http://www.criminalelement.com/images/stories/-2015-Jul-Sep/show-me-a-hero-alfred-molina.jpg

seems that Ryan would walk away from presidential viability (whatever he has) if he were to take the speakership. don't know the historical record, but given the membership he'd front for. assume that's part (most?) of what's driving his no.

funny details:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/blindsided-by-mccarthy-divided-gop-struggles-to-find-boehners-successor/2015/10/08/5078a374-6de8-11e5-aa5b-f78a98956699_story.html

There had been reasons to doubt that. Last month, McCarthy had embarrassed Republicans by suggesting that the House committee to investigate the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, was designed to score political points. Two days before, a back-bencher who opposed McCarthy circulated a vague letter asking whether any top Republicans had committed “misdeeds.” One day before, McCarthy had been formally rejected by the House’s hard-right caucus.

McCarthy walked into a third-floor ballroom at the Capitol Hill Club, a bastion of the Republican establishment just south of the Capitol. Waiting for him were dozens of conservatives, including the crucial House Freedom Caucus — a group which says it has about 40 members (the exact number, and the full caucus membership list, are both secret). The Freedom Caucus had pledged to vote as a bloc if 80 percent of them could agree on one candidate.

omg how does the party, or congress at all, permit this. lmao

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2FX78pw3BP8/VP3Aj_7hu3I/AAAAAAAAYK4/qdf9hPNZcPk/s1600/Sideshow%2BBob%2BRoberts%2B-%2BRepublicans.JPG

huh the "backbencher" who sent the vague letter about hanky-panky was this dude:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2006/01/three-conversions-walter-b-jones

"We are The Freedom Caucus! We believe in freedom! ps no one is allowed to know who we are"

why are they even part of the GOP, they're functionally a different outfit at this point xxps

how does the party, or congress at all, permit this.

by being a bunch of weak-minded, short-sighted feebs?

the first rule of fight club

why are they even part of the GOP, they're functionally a different outfit at this point

^^^ this. they can't be counted on for votes, at all, which would be the only reason to keep them in the party. But if the GOP cuts them loose, then they have revealed how weak a hand they actually have.

sorry i keep doing this but it's so much fun

In interviews on Thursday, Jones said he didn’t have any hard proof of misconduct by McCarthy or any of the other candidates. Given a chance to confront McCarthy about possible misdeeds at the forum Tuesday night, Jones instead confronted him about an occasion where one of McCarthy’s staffers had been rude to one of his own staffers about the renaming of a post office.

tbh i agree, the rudeness over a post office is more important than mccarthy dicking down another rep

Meat Loaf for Speaker

xxp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmX5z59xeuI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmX5z59xeuI

The U.S. has repeatedly attacked civilian facilities in the past but the targets have generally not been affiliated with a European, Nobel Peace Prize-winning humanitarian organization such as MSF.

Below is a sampling of such incidents since the 1991 Gulf War.

https://theintercept.com/2015/10/07/a-short-history-of-u-s-bombing-of-civilian-facilities/

"We are The Freedom Caucus! We believe in freedom! ps no one is allowed to know who we are"

― I Am Curious (Dolezal) (DJP)

lolll

If the GOP was to take steps to 'cut loose' the Freedom Caucus, what might those steps be?

I am going to refer to them as the Klan Kaukus