House GOP in disarray.

[MRS DONNA SHALALA]

https://twitter.com/DougJBalloon/status/1709569662793535747

You literally cannot make this sh**t up.

DougJBalloon is a satire account (created to make fun of NY Times-style both-sidesism) so in this case, yes, it's quite literally made up.

[Sir Mohamed]

https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/1709613849018499205

Quite possibly the very last intelligent, honest republican congressman.

Well, he doesn't have to face the voters again.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

McCarthy blocked the JT Committee that's why Ds voted to oust him as Speaker 208 Ds and 8 Rs

Whomever is Speaker still gonna have to compromise because Biden is Prez or face another shutdown

[Person Man]

I am a Democrat and I want my part to win a trifecta next year. This chaos makes it easier.

But I still want Republicans to elect a sane, moderate Speaker. Why? Because I am an American first. Speaker Matt Gaetz might be better for Democrats in 2024, but not good for our country.

That is why Jeffries should be open to a deal to elect a speaker and change the rules. Because at the moment, Gaetz is basically the speaker if he alone can call for a motion to vacant.

We’re years/decades beyond this. Republicans do not want to elect a moderate (are there even any left in the caucus anymore??) and they do not want to work with Democrats. Period!

Not 5, anyways.

[Dr. Frankenstein]

https://twitter.com/DougJBalloon/status/1709569662793535747

You literally cannot make this sh**t up.

DougJBalloon is a satire account (created to make fun of NY Times-style both-sidesism) so in this case, yes, it's quite literally made up.

I dunno if I should be scared or amused by the fact that I got so used to the insane sh**t the GOP says/does that I did not for one second suspect it might be satire...

[wbrocks67]

If Republicans cared about the institution, they could've just had 5 "moderate" members vote for Jeffries. But they didn't, so I don't want to hear it.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

If Republicans cared about the institution, they could've just had 5 "moderate" members vote for Jeffries. But they didn't, so I don't want to hear it.

Lawler already said he won't do it because Rs won, they tried that already , but he is gonna lose to Carr anyways . The only poll taken had it tied

[Sir Mohamed]

If Republicans cared about the institution, they could've just had 5 "moderate" members vote for Jeffries. But they didn't, so I don't want to hear it.

Doesn't even have to be Jeffries or an actual Dem. I'm sure enough Dems would have gone along or would go along with someone like Fred Upton or John Katko.

[Dereich]

If Republicans cared about the institution, they could've just had 5 "moderate" members vote for Jeffries. But they didn't, so I don't want to hear it.

I don't care how moderate they are, if a congressperson is calling themselves a "Republican" there is exactly one person they cannot in any scenario vote for to be speaker and that is Jeffries. Not voting for the head of the democratic caucus to be speaker is THE defining feature thing that makes a congressman a Republican.

Do people really not get this? If a congressman is willing to vote for Hakeem Jeffries they can't call themselves a Republican. Full stop. I know the REAL wish is that there were no Republicans in Congress at all, but surely everyone here must understand that it was impossible Jeffries (or McCarthy, on the other side) was ever going to get affirmative votes for speaker from the other side of the aisle, yes?

[Smash255]

If Republicans cared about the institution, they could've just had 5 "moderate" members vote for Jeffries. But they didn't, so I don't want to hear it.

I don't care how moderate they are, if a congressperson is calling themselves a "Republican" there is exactly one person they cannot in any scenario vote for to be speaker and that is Jeffries. Not voting for the head of the democratic caucus to be speaker is THE defining feature thing that makes a congressman a Republican.

Do people really not get this? If a congressman is willing to vote for Hakeem Jeffries they can't call themselves a Republican. Full stop. I know the REAL wish is that there were no Republicans in Congress at all, but surely everyone here must understand that it was impossible Jeffries (or McCarthy, on the other side) was ever going to get affirmative votes for speaker from the other side of the aisle, yes?

I would agree with this.  Democrats would not vote for McCarthy and Republicans are not going to vote for Jeffries.   What is potentially possible (though still extremely unlikely) is enough Republicans get so pissed off they just go F*** it and vote Present, and if enough to do Jeffries could get in with 211 votes.   Again, the chances of it happening are very slim, but that is more likely than any Republicans actually voting Jeffries.

[The Mikado]

Dereich is 100% right. If the "coalition government" thing is to be even remotely possible, it needs to be about electing a Speaker Cuellar or Speaker Golden or Speaker Fitzpatrick or Speaker Bacon, not about having a bunch of Rs become Ds (which is what voting for Jeffries means). The compromise Speaker play would still be an unworkable fiasco, but at least it's something we can talk about.

There are simply more Rs than Ds in the House, albeit by a very small margin, and voting for the Democratic Leader for Speaker makes you a Democrat. It's literally the vote that defines who you are  politically. At least with a compromise Speaker fantasy they have a fig leaf rather than surrendering outright.

By the way, I know everyone here loves the "Speaker doesn't need to be a current Rep" rule but it's basically wildly unworkable for it to be someone else. Could people stop suggesting a bunch of ex-reps like Fred Upton?

I'd take 50-1 odds that the next Speaker is a Member of the House of Representatives. It's purely in one weird trick land to think otherwise.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

If Republicans cared about the institution, they could've just had 5 "moderate" members vote for Jeffries. But they didn't, so I don't want to hear it.

Neither party has an incentive to vote for the other side. Had McCarthy made concessions to the Democrats, then MAYBE he could have been saved, but he said no concessions, so they voted against him. If things were flipped, Republicans would have done the same thing.

This notion either side had a duty to save McCarthy out of respect for the institution is lunacy. Republicans are responsible for disrespecting the institution. This isn't a both sides are at fault matter.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

So funny looking back on the 2016 GOP primary and thinking that was the height of GOP dysfunction and in-fighting.

[Landslide Lyndon]

https://twitter.com/TeaPainUSA/status/1709549237367636030

[Sestak]

If Republicans cared about the institution, they could've just had 5 "moderate" members vote for Jeffries. But they didn't, so I don't want to hear it.

I don't care how moderate they are, if a congressperson is calling themselves a "Republican" there is exactly one person they cannot in any scenario vote for to be speaker and that is Jeffries. Not voting for the head of the democratic caucus to be speaker is THE defining feature thing that makes a congressman a Republican.

Do people really not get this? If a congressman is willing to vote for Hakeem Jeffries they can't call themselves a Republican. Full stop. I know the REAL wish is that there were no Republicans in Congress at all, but surely everyone here must understand that it was impossible Jeffries (or McCarthy, on the other side) was ever going to get affirmative votes for speaker from the other side of the aisle, yes?

You are missing his point; the Republicans wbrocks is addressing are the ones who are whining that Democrats have "destroyed the institution" by not voting to keep McCarthy afloat. The point is that these Republicans who complain about Dems refusing to back the Republican leader for Speaker are just as liable because they refuse to back the Democratic leader for speaker.

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

Dereich is 100% right. If the "coalition government" thing is to be even remotely possible, it needs to be about electing a Speaker Cuellar or Speaker Golden or Speaker Fitzpatrick or Speaker Bacon, not about having a bunch of Rs become Ds (which is what voting for Jeffries means). The compromise Speaker play would still be an unworkable fiasco, but at least it's something we can talk about.

There are simply more Rs than Ds in the House, albeit by a very small margin, and voting for the Democratic Leader for Speaker makes you a Democrat. It's literally the vote that defines who you are  politically. At least with a compromise Speaker fantasy they have a fig leaf rather than surrendering outright.

By the way, I know everyone here loves the "Speaker doesn't need to be a current Rep" rule but it's basically wildly unworkable for it to be someone else. Could people stop suggesting a bunch of ex-reps like Fred Upton?

I'd take 50-1 odds that the next Speaker is a Member of the House of Representatives. It's purely in one weird trick land to think otherwise.

I suppose thinking about it more that yes, Speaker Fitzpatrick or Gottheimer or whoever is more likely than Speaker Upton. I mostly suggested him because as a Republican with a good relationship with Biden, he seemed to make the most sense for the role.

[Hindsight was 2020]

https://twitter.com/politico/status/1709974947500576862?s=12

[Person Man]

https://twitter.com/politico/status/1709974947500576862?s=12

In your heart you thought it could never happen. Your head thought otherwise. Imagine him trying to be both President and Speaker.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

https://twitter.com/politico/status/1709974947500576862?s=12

That'd be a good way to lose the Presidential race.

[Person Man]

https://twitter.com/politico/status/1709974947500576862?s=12

That'd be a good way to lose the Presidential race.

Ask yourself what you think will happen and what you feel should happen. With Trump, they are rarely the same in terms of predicting things.

[emailking]

We'll caveat since it's Trump who knows but I also think it would hurt his Presidential chances. It will take time away from campaigning. And it will turn people against him when either he cuts a deal with the Democrats to fund the government (which will come up again next year even if they take care of this year somehow) or when he shuts it down for a month again.

It's also not clear how he'll be able to be a functioning Speaker when he'll be in court all next year.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Republicans: John Fetterman is disrespecting the sacred halls of government by wearing a hoodie and shorts

also Republicans: introducing the new Speaker of the House: a guy who thinks wounded veterans are suckers and brags about sexually assaulting women and is also currently charged with 91 felonies

[Mr. Matt]

https://twitter.com/politico/status/1709974947500576862?s=12

You know what they say about stupid criminals returning to the scene of the crime...

[President Johnson]

https://twitter.com/politico/status/1709974947500576862?s=12

In your heart you thought it could never happen. Your head thought otherwise. Imagine him trying to be both President and Speaker.

In your heart you know he's right.

However, I have my doubts he would actually get the votes. And Trump would almost certainly only agree to put his name up when victory is assured. He doesn't want to be embarrassed.

[Ferguson97]

If Trump becomes second in line to the presidency, they gotta put Kamala in a bunker somewhere for her own safety.