view the rest of the comments
politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Or they can vote for Jeffries. Why is it every single time that the Dems have to compromise?
Because every single time, they do.
A compromise would be a "Blue Dog" Democrat elected.
There are less than 5 in the Blue Dog caucus.
That's why it might work.
There are seven
No, a Republican compromise would be to vote for a Democrat other than Jeffries. Just as Democrats might compromise by voting for (or, more likely, abstaining from) a Republican other than Jordan or McCarthy.
Frankly, in terms of party-building the latter would cause fewer headaches for Democrats. After all, no Speaker will have the votes to pass Democratic legislation through this House, so why would a Democrat bother to take the gavel? They would be continually frustrated and up as a punching bag in the 2024 election.
Realistically, the best strategy for Democrats is to support a Republican Speaker who will avoid a government shutdown and who is not an election denier (i.e. won't try to overturn the 2024 election). So McHenry or Emmer are probably the best choices. Let them take the blame for the inevitable further GOP infighting and/or inaction in the House, thus setting up Democrats for outright control in 2024.
This must be a different "Republican compromise" from the usual, which is "you give us everything that we want and we'll stop fucking everything up for a few weeks."
That is the compromise.