149

With the House GOP in full meltdown, Democrats could offer a way out (www.washingtonpost.com)

submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by spaceghoti@lemmy.one to c/politics@lemmy.world

67 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The crackup in the House GOP has gotten so bad that some Republicans are now asking Democrats for help in electing a speaker. So far, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the current favorite among the right, hasn’t gotten anywhere close to the 217 votes he needs to secure the job.

With Republicans fractured and in need of saving, what should happen is that a few vulnerable members (such as those representing districts Joe Biden won in 2020) join Democrats in supporting Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), for the position. But that’s unlikely, because any Republicans who dare to do this would see their careers implode.

The next best thing, then, is a deal that both sides can accept. Republicans will have to offer meaningful concessions to Democrats to have any hope of getting their support for a consensus, relatively moderate GOP speaker.

At an absolute minimum, a compromise would tackle the core problem: That a few extreme members can propel the House into total meltdown, rendering it ungovernable. Several high-profile, non-MAGA Republicans, such as Reps. Mike D. Rogers (Ala.) and María Elvira Salazar (Fla.), have publicly called on Democrats to specify what they would need to throw the GOP a lifeline — and Democrats have several ideas in mind.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] dragontamer@lemmy.world 85 points 11 months ago

McCarthy was kicked out because he worked with Democrats to prevent a government shutdown.

This is not a group of people who wants to work with Democrats on any issue what-so-ever. If they end up just working with Democrats anyway (in a way that gives Democrats more power than under McCarthy), then what the hell was the past 2 or 3 weeks for at all?

Then again, maybe the MAGA Republicans are actually that short-sighted and unable to see the long term (erm... 2weeks?) trends of politics...

[-] mrfusion2000@lemmy.world 26 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Exactly. To them, working with Democrats is akin to exposing themselves to ebola.

MAGA Republicans probably aren’t as short-sighted themselves as we’d think, but their stances need to be able to turn on a dime since Trump ~~dictates~~ influences their views.

[-] PunnyName@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago

I dunno. After recent years, I would expect them to prefer being exposed to ebola than work with Dems. Especially if doing so "stuck it to them", so to speak.

[-] Bdtrngl@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago

Bleeding to death out of every orifice to own the libs. Feels right.

[-] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 18 points 11 months ago

The thing is, there are still a handful of Republicans willing to work with Democrats, and with the 214 votes the Democrats can offer, it only needs three more Republicans to cross the aisle in a power-sharing agreement. So it's not that far-fetched. It's a question of which Republicans will find the courage to defy the extremists in their party.

[-] dragontamer@lemmy.world 46 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

You misunderstand the current state of politics.

Simply reaching out and talking with Democrats causes various Republicans to lose office. Its literally political suicide. Next year is an election year, and the House needs to win every 2 years to stay in office. They simply don't have any political cover and their careers will immediately end if they do what you suggest.

Then we have the same problem in 2025 when the new Congress appears, except everyone who worked with Democrats was voted out. Etc. etc. This has been going on for like 15+ years, from Boehner to Paul Ryan and more. This shit is the culimation of a decade-worth of radicalization of the Republican voter base.

[-] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 11 points 11 months ago

Not in districts where Republicans win by narrow margins. Only in districts that are reliably red. Not every Republican seat is perfectly safe.

[-] dragontamer@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Losing Republican votes is more deadly than losing Democrat votes that you never had to begin with.

Just look at the last damn decade man. Literally every moderate Republican has been forced out of office in the last decade. The remaining moderates know what will happen if they fall on the sword like you think.

Its safer for a purple-state Republican to go MAGA than for a purple-state Republican to pretend that any Democrat would vote for them and try to reach out to the left. Losing 10% or 20% of the MAGA voters is suicide, and possibly even puts up a primary challenge to kick you out before you've even reached the main election.

[-] Hominine@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The problem with your analysis is that it fails to take reality into account. A Republican congressman in New York (can't remember his name) specifically called out the extreme end of the party as SpaceGhost pointed out above.

House Republicans in particular are not a monolith and the numbers are very tight.

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] HuddaBudda@kbin.social 6 points 11 months ago

I would disagree only partially. Because we know these folks are going to vote for whoever has the (R) in their name.

It's also not like Democrats couldn't get members to switch parties, then support them in their election. This is not as much political suicide, as it is a leap of faith. I could understand why republicans would not want to give up what they have for something new and unknown.

Yet, 3 republicans will make that leap if things become dire...... speaking of which.... How's the world doing in our political absence?

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] detalferous@lemm.ee 48 points 11 months ago

No concessions offered by Republicans can be trusted. It's the whole reason we're here: because the Republicans insisted that they renege on the agreements when the budget resolution passed.

No agreements.

If the Republicans want to vote for Hakeem, then they can. Otherwise: fuck off

[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 41 points 11 months ago

I don't think Democrats have much to win by throwing Republicans a lifeline here. On the other hand, Democrats do have a whole lot to win by letting Republicans continue to show the world that they can't govern. Let them melt to the ground.

[-] TheSambassador@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

Isn't a lack of actual governing the Republicans goal? Sure they want to pass a bunch of hate legislation, but they're also always happy to grind the government to a halt.

load more comments (26 replies)

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 35 points 11 months ago

This a republican mess. It's not up to Democrats to clean it up.

[-] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 17 points 11 months ago

You're correct. Democrats are not responsible for cleaning up this mess. But unlike Republicans, Democrats have a vested interest in a functioning government and serving the people. That's not happening while Republicans are milling about trying to grab power for themselves. Democrats can use their infighting against them to force some concessions that would restore the House to some semblance of functionality and resume the business of government.

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 25 points 11 months ago

You know why Jim Jordon didn't get enough votes? Why he has never passed a piece of legislation in his 16 years in the House of Representative? You’re getting a real time explanation by watching his campaign to become speaker. He can't build a coalition. His idea of soft power is twisting arms. Most House Democrats will tell you that they are ready to work with Republicans, no Republicans respond. Takes two to tango.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 28 points 11 months ago

This has been the problem with Republicans for the last 30 years or so:

"WE'RE THE MINORITY PARTY! You have to do it OUR way or YOU'RE not being 'BIPARTISAN!'"

"WE'RE THE MAJORITY PARTY! You have to do it OUR way! Elections mean things!"

[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 15 points 11 months ago

All thanks to that festering cunt Newt Gingrich.

That fat, adulterous asshole started us down the path of extreme partisanship. The world will be a better place when he dies.

[-] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 16 points 11 months ago

The article has some valid points about Dem options, but how can the Dems expect the Magats to act in good faith? As some shitty ex-president said,"Fool me once..."

[-] jhymesba@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

I think the only way to get a good faith promise out of the Republicans is to insist on a Speaker of the Dem's choice. Could be a Moderate Republican or a Moderate Democrat. But it has to be somebody who has a history of reaching across the aisle and keeping promises. With how the GOP of late has acted, I can't think of a single candidate on the R side of the Aisle.

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] Nougat@kbin.social 6 points 11 months ago

But unlike Republicans, Democrats have a vested interest in a functioning government and serving the people. That’s not happening while Republicans are milling about trying to grab power for themselves.

Getting some concessions that the Republican majority would almost certainly reneg on would be both a tactical and strategic failure. A functioning government that serves the people is one with far fewer Republicans in it.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 24 points 11 months ago

This all assumes the Republicans want a functioning government. They don't. They are quite happy to be gridlocked while the country burns.

[-] charonn0@startrek.website 17 points 11 months ago

Cash upfront. Republicans don't keep their agreements.

[-] blazera@kbin.social 12 points 11 months ago

getting their support for a consensus, relatively moderate GOP speaker.

Theres no moderate republican in the house.

[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

Well, they still ask them for voting for a Republican speaker. Why should they? Just to cover up Republican incompetence?

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

How many Republicans voted for Nancy Pelosi?

[-] Seraph@kbin.social 5 points 11 months ago

They could, but they're gonna join the rest of us in simply grabbing the popcorn and watching the show.

[-] Rhoeri@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Naaaah… let them destroy themselves.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023

149 points (93.1% liked)

politics

18883 readers

3504 users here now

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.
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.
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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News