Speaker of the House Vote Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Byron Donalds, come on down

Byron is a second termer with a bank fraud conviction. Perfect for today’s GOP.

Judging from all the applause, Donalds sounds like he might be a lock.

For the MAGA caucus, yes. I predict he won’t take any votes from McCarthy.

Don't quit your day job!

Who did Donalds get that McCarthy had last time? Donalds himself had already voted for Jordan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Significance of sparks voting 'present'?

My guess is he's sick of the bullshit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Significance of sparks voting 'present'?

It reduced the winning threshold to 217 from 218.

[Anonymous]

That "present" vote was a previous McCarthy vote

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was reading about the 1855 stalemate. They eventually resolved that by voting to change the rules to make it a plurality instead of a majority. I could see that being a path here if they can get Democratic buy-in by giving Jeffries concessions.

They'd only do this if McCarthy had more votes than Jeffries, but not enough to reach 218.

The need enough votes to make the change. The people willing to continue voting against McCarthy aren't going to vote for a rules change that paves the way for him to get elected, and there is no reason for the democrats to give the republicans an easy way out of this.

What if McCarthy promised to pass a clean debt-ceiling increase?

Again, this is NOT the Democrats job to fix GOP dysfunction. I get it, Dems always need to be the grownups in the room. But as a parent, you need to let your kids be on their own path, even if it means failing. So please STOP with the "Dems should do this..." nonsense. The GOP is the majority, they need to get their act together or step aside and let the grownups be in charge.

+1. And while I get that this hasn't happened in 100 years and the House can't function without a speaker, it's been ONE DAY. When it's been a week, maybe the Dems can talk. But I will be sort of furious if Dems come to the table anytime soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At some point someone is going to ask for a plurality vote and this is when the Freedom Caucus shuts up, holds their nose, and votes for Kevin.

Dems will oppose that unless they get something significant out of it.

Why would they oppose? Jeffries would be the winner assuming that the FC would never vote for KM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That "present" vote was a previous McCarthy vote

So PP can keep his or her day job, because Donald didn’t get any previous McCarthy votes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That "present" vote was a previous McCarthy vote

Was it a moderate Republican? Because voting present is essentially voting for Jeffries, since he's so close to the threshold.

[Anonymous]

If they lower the threshold too much, Jeffries is elected

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Significance of sparks voting 'present'?

It reduced the winning threshold to 217 from 218.

And because it was a Republican that means one less vote for McCarthy. If 5 more do it or aren't physically present for the vote then Jeffries is elected. Not that that will happen, but that's the math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they lower the threshold too much, Jeffries is elected

So how many Rs need to be 'present' for that fantasy to come true?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At some point someone is going to ask for a plurality vote and this is when the Freedom Caucus shuts up, holds their nose, and votes for Kevin.

Dems will oppose that unless they get something significant out of it.

How would they enforce it? “But you promised!” probably isn’t going to be good enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Significance of sparks voting 'present'?

It reduced the winning threshold to 217 from 218.

Let's see if more of the Republicans vote "present" or bail on the voting... that'd make Jeffries the Speaker 😆

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That "present" vote was a previous McCarthy vote

Was it a moderate Republican? Because voting present is essentially voting for Jeffries, since he's so close to the threshold.

It was Victoria Spartz. I don't know if she's moderate, but she is Ukrainian American and therefore not going to be in the Gaetz coalition. Very interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they lower the threshold too much, Jeffries is elected

So how many Rs need to be 'present' for that fantasy to come true?

5 more.