Motion to vacate Speaker Mike Johnson thread

[100% pro-life no matter what]

This is beyond stupid.  It's right to fund our allies and be a strong presence in the world.  Mike Pence and Mike Johnson are two of the most sincere Christian men in politics, and it's sad to see them called "traitors" or- worse- "fake Christians".

Also, there's not one person on the planet who could manage this caucus with this slim of a majority.

[Woody]

This is beyond stupid.  It's right to fund our allies and be a strong presence in the world.  Mike Pence and Mike Johnson are two of the most sincere Christian men in politics, and it's sad to see them called "traitors" or- worse- "fake Christians".

Also, there's not one person on the planet who could manage this caucus with this slim of a majority.

How is it Christian to prolong and send young men to die for a war with a foregone conclusion?

[OSR stands with Israel]

This is beyond stupid.  It's right to fund our allies and be a strong presence in the world.  Mike Pence and Mike Johnson are two of the most sincere Christian men in politics, and it's sad to see them called "traitors" or- worse- "fake Christians".

Also, there's not one person on the planet who could manage this caucus with this slim of a majority.

How is it Christian to prolong and send young men to die for a war with a foregone conclusion?

Ask the Russians that question given they are the ones who are prolonging and sending young Russians to die in a war they started.

Also before you respond with the bs "they are defending Christianity" , I will just respond by saying that they are literally sending Chechen Extremists to murder Christians in Ukraine so that talking point is utter bs too. Putin is a barbarian and we should keep sending aid to Ukraine until he negotiates in good faith or he is defeated.

[emailking]

Is this you saying DC and Puerto Rico are going to become states? Because that didn't happen the last time D's had a trifecta, despite certain guarantees that were made...

[emailking]

Dems should vote Jeffries for speaker, not a far right lunatic like Johnson

I don't think they will vote for Johnson as speaker, but they may vote not to boot him (a yes/no vote).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Boehner survived the first 2015 Speaker vote without incident because of a couple dozen Democratic abstentions/absences, so they wouldn't even have to vote against a motion to vacate per se.

How is it Christian to prolong and send young men to die for a war with a foregone conclusion?

It's only "a war with a foregone conclusion" if we stop sending aid, like you and MTG want us to, because you and MTG like and are rooting for Putin.

[7,052,770]

Is this you saying DC and Puerto Rico are going to become states? Because that didn't happen the last time D's had a trifecta, despite certain guarantees that were made...

I mean, it's kind of a moot point because this obviously isn't happening, but in the scenario where Republicans hand over the speakership and a working majority, the votes ought to be there. It was literally just Manchin opposed in 2021 and they don't need his vote in the Senate anymore.

Or maybe Sinema would kill it out of spite. Yeah, she'd probably like that.

[Ferguson97]

This is beyond stupid.  It's right to fund our allies and be a strong presence in the world.  Mike Pence and Mike Johnson are two of the most sincere Christian men in politics, and it's sad to see them called "traitors" or- worse- "fake Christians".

Also, there's not one person on the planet who could manage this caucus with this slim of a majority.

How is it Christian to prolong and send young men to die for a war with a foregone conclusion?

It’s not a foregone conclusion.

Remember when you people swore that Ukraine wouldn’t last a month?

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Is this you saying DC and Puerto Rico are going to become states? Because that didn't happen the last time D's had a trifecta, despite certain guarantees that were made...

I mean, it's kind of a moot point because this obviously isn't happening, but in the scenario where Republicans hand over the speakership and a working majority, the votes ought to be there. It was literally just Manchin opposed in 2021 and they don't need his vote in the Senate anymore.

Or maybe Sinema would kill it out of spite. Yeah, she'd probably like that.

"out of spite"

https://news.gallup.com/poll/260129/americans-reject-statehood.aspx

Here's a poll showing a majority of Democrats oppose statehood for DC. Self-defined Liberals too btw. Say what you like about Sinema, but she's clearly much more in tune with public opinion (as opposed to self-interested electoral rotten-boroughing) here.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Is this you saying DC and Puerto Rico are going to become states? Because that didn't happen the last time D's had a trifecta, despite certain guarantees that were made...

I mean, it's kind of a moot point because this obviously isn't happening, but in the scenario where Republicans hand over the speakership and a working majority, the votes ought to be there. It was literally just Manchin opposed in 2021 and they don't need his vote in the Senate anymore.

Or maybe Sinema would kill it out of spite. Yeah, she'd probably like that.

"out of spite"

https://news.gallup.com/poll/260129/americans-reject-statehood.aspx

Here's a poll showing a majority of Democrats oppose statehood for DC. Self-defined Liberals too btw. Say what you like about Sinema, but she's clearly much more in tune with public opinion (as opposed to self-interested electoral rotten-boroughing) here.

Btw, maybe more appropriate for the DC statehood thread, but interesting regional split here -- Easterners way more likely than any other region to favor statehood (38% vs 28% in the West, 25% in the Midwest, and 25% in the South). It really would be just such a spit in the faces of Americans to add a city full of bureaucrats and IRS agents as a state. I don't think most Democrats appreciate how much anger and disgust it would create. Especially if done without a single Republican vote. Probably would lead to a cycle of retaliation, too.

[Beet]

Is this you saying DC and Puerto Rico are going to become states? Because that didn't happen the last time D's had a trifecta, despite certain guarantees that were made...

I mean, it's kind of a moot point because this obviously isn't happening, but in the scenario where Republicans hand over the speakership and a working majority, the votes ought to be there. It was literally just Manchin opposed in 2021 and they don't need his vote in the Senate anymore.

Or maybe Sinema would kill it out of spite. Yeah, she'd probably like that.

"out of spite"

https://news.gallup.com/poll/260129/americans-reject-statehood.aspx

Here's a poll showing a majority of Democrats oppose statehood for DC. Self-defined Liberals too btw. Say what you like about Sinema, but she's clearly much more in tune with public opinion (as opposed to self-interested electoral rotten-boroughing) here.

That is an old poll. Here is the latest one:
https://truthout.org/articles/poll-plurality-of-americans-would-support-d-c-statehood-if-backed-by-residents/

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Is this you saying DC and Puerto Rico are going to become states? Because that didn't happen the last time D's had a trifecta, despite certain guarantees that were made...

I mean, it's kind of a moot point because this obviously isn't happening, but in the scenario where Republicans hand over the speakership and a working majority, the votes ought to be there. It was literally just Manchin opposed in 2021 and they don't need his vote in the Senate anymore.

Or maybe Sinema would kill it out of spite. Yeah, she'd probably like that.

"out of spite"

https://news.gallup.com/poll/260129/americans-reject-statehood.aspx

Here's a poll showing a majority of Democrats oppose statehood for DC. Self-defined Liberals too btw. Say what you like about Sinema, but she's clearly much more in tune with public opinion (as opposed to self-interested electoral rotten-boroughing) here.

That is an old poll. Here is the latest one:
https://truthout.org/articles/poll-plurality-of-americans-would-support-d-c-statehood-if-backed-by-residents/

Nope, it's a wording difference. That poll lead with "If the residents of Washington, D.C. voted in favor of it" adopting the liberal framing of this being a representation question and emphasizing a point usually taken to favor DC statehood. The Gallup poll was more neutral (and hence better aligned with historic polling.)

[Beet]

Is this you saying DC and Puerto Rico are going to become states? Because that didn't happen the last time D's had a trifecta, despite certain guarantees that were made...

I mean, it's kind of a moot point because this obviously isn't happening, but in the scenario where Republicans hand over the speakership and a working majority, the votes ought to be there. It was literally just Manchin opposed in 2021 and they don't need his vote in the Senate anymore.

Or maybe Sinema would kill it out of spite. Yeah, she'd probably like that.

"out of spite"

https://news.gallup.com/poll/260129/americans-reject-statehood.aspx

Here's a poll showing a majority of Democrats oppose statehood for DC. Self-defined Liberals too btw. Say what you like about Sinema, but she's clearly much more in tune with public opinion (as opposed to self-interested electoral rotten-boroughing) here.

That is an old poll. Here is the latest one:
https://truthout.org/articles/poll-plurality-of-americans-would-support-d-c-statehood-if-backed-by-residents/

Nope, it's a wording difference. That poll lead with "If the residents of Washington, D.C. voted in favor of it" adopting the liberal framing of this being a representation question and emphasizing a point usually taken to favor DC statehood. The Gallup poll was more neutral (and hence better aligned with historic polling.)

But 85% of D.C. residents voted in favor of statehood in 2016. That is important context isn't it?

And I don't know what "historic polling" you're referencing. Here's another more recent poll than your 2019 one showing 74% of Democrats support DC statehood

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/washington-dc-statehood-national-support-congress/

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ukraine can probably hold out indefinitely on the level of support it received in 2022 and 2023. And in the long run, Russia would run out of resources long before the West does - you'd have to be delusional to deny this. The question is whether it will keep receiving that level of support, and that's entirely in our hands.

[Ancestral Republican]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/rotten-borough

Rotten borough, depopulated election district that retains its original representation. The term was first applied by English parliamentary reformers of the early 19th century to such constituencies maintained by the crown or by an aristocratic patron to control seats in the House of Commons. Just before the passage of the Reform Act of 1832, more than 140 parliamentary seats of a total of 658 were in rotten boroughs, 50 of which had fewer than 50 voters. See also pocket borough.

Sounds exactly like DC. Every day I'm thankful Atlas Blog is graced with such uncommon wisdom.

[MasterJedi]

Ukraine can probably hold out indefinitely on the level of support it received in 2022 and 2023. And in the long run, Russia would run out of resources long before the West does - you'd have to be delusional to deny this. The question is whether it will keep receiving that level of support, and that's entirely in our hands.

Ukraine needs shells specifically.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Is this you saying DC and Puerto Rico are going to become states? Because that didn't happen the last time D's had a trifecta, despite certain guarantees that were made...

I mean, it's kind of a moot point because this obviously isn't happening, but in the scenario where Republicans hand over the speakership and a working majority, the votes ought to be there. It was literally just Manchin opposed in 2021 and they don't need his vote in the Senate anymore.

Or maybe Sinema would kill it out of spite. Yeah, she'd probably like that.

"out of spite"

https://news.gallup.com/poll/260129/americans-reject-statehood.aspx

Here's a poll showing a majority of Democrats oppose statehood for DC. Self-defined Liberals too btw. Say what you like about Sinema, but she's clearly much more in tune with public opinion (as opposed to self-interested electoral rotten-boroughing) here.

That is an old poll. Here is the latest one:
https://truthout.org/articles/poll-plurality-of-americans-would-support-d-c-statehood-if-backed-by-residents/

Nope, it's a wording difference. That poll lead with "If the residents of Washington, D.C. voted in favor of it" adopting the liberal framing of this being a representation question and emphasizing a point usually taken to favor DC statehood. The Gallup poll was more neutral (and hence better aligned with historic polling.)

But 85% of D.C. residents voted in favor of statehood in 2016. That is important context isn't it?

And I don't know what "historic polling" you're referencing. Here's another more recent poll than your 2019 one showing 74% of Democrats support DC statehood

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/washington-dc-statehood-national-support-congress/

Maybe, but even if so what context you chooses to provide matters. For example, that the Founders wanted an independent seat of power to ensure the independence of the Federal Government from any one state is also relevant context, and yet it wasn't mentioned. Similarly, the fact that Marion Berry was re-elected as Mayor of DC after smoking crack might also be deemed relevant context, and yet it wasn't mentioned either. By providing context normally employed by the pro-statehood side, but not the anti-statehood side, the Economist/YouGov tilted the poll.

Similarly, as CBS itself states for the next poll:

"The poll [was] conducted by Data for Progress and the progressive advocacy coalition Democracy for All 2021 Action and shared first with CBS News"

And the wording was "Would you support or oppose granting statehood to the more than 714,000 people who live in Washington D.C., so they can elect voting Senators and Representatives, just like Americans in every other state?"

I don't think I even really need to explain what makes this poll junk, but in case I do: Data for Progress/"Democracy for All 2021 Action" conducted an agitprop poll to share with CBS to create a headline about support for DC statehood at a time when Congressional Democrats were pushing for DC statehood. Even aside from any manipulation of cross-tabs/who was called etc, the wording of the poll was thus designed to skew the responses strongly in favor of DC statehood. Just as it wouldn't be a fair poll if I called voters up and asked them:

"Our Founding Fathers intended for Washington D.C. to be an independent seat of federal authority, not a state. Would you support or oppose granting statehood to Washington D.C., where one in every five residents is a bureaucrat, and which takes trillions of dollars from American taxpayers every year?"

It isn't a fair poll when you slant the wording leftwards either.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/rotten-borough

Rotten borough, depopulated election district that retains its original representation. The term was first applied by English parliamentary reformers of the early 19th century to such constituencies maintained by the crown or by an aristocratic patron to control seats in the House of Commons. Just before the passage of the Reform Act of 1832, more than 140 parliamentary seats of a total of 658 were in rotten boroughs, 50 of which had fewer than 50 voters. See also pocket borough.

Sounds exactly like DC. Every day I'm thankful Atlas Blog is graced with such uncommon wisdom.

If anything is a rotten borough it’s Wyoming

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ukraine can probably hold out indefinitely on the level of support it received in 2022 and 2023. And in the long run, Russia would run out of resources long before the West does - you'd have to be delusional to deny this. The question is whether it will keep receiving that level of support, and that's entirely in our hands.

Ukraine needs shells specifically.

We do need to ramp up shell production for sure, but between Europe and the US (plus other friendly countries like South Korea) the basic infrastructure for it is there. Hopefully the political will is there as well.

[Bacon King]

said this before Johnson became speaker and I still believe it. Looks like B has come to pass and now it's either A or C

Practically speaking if Emmer or any other Republican is actually willing to negotiate with Democrats their only sensible option is working with Jeffries directly, who can negotiate on behalf of the entire caucus

The reality of the situation is Emmer asking for the support of five Democrats will cause way more than five Republicans to flip against him for the sin of "collaborating with the enemy"

This is the only viable path forward:

1. GOP Speaker nominee "works with Democrats" to strike a grand bargain w/ sufficient concessions
2. In exchange, Jeffries instructs the full Democratic Caucus to vote Present - not only in the Speaker election but in any subsequent motions to vacate.
3. GOP Speaker only needs >50% support of his own Conference to take and hold the Speaker's gavel. Not only is this a much more viable threshold it's also symbolically important (Hastert Rule)



frankly with where we are right now, these are the only likely outcomes:

A. Agreement with Democrats as I described above
B. They find a random backbencher anomymous enough to reach 217 who will be vacated as soon as they inevitably make a remotely controversial decision
C. Enough Republicans resign in frustration to give Democrats a majority until the resulting vacancies are filled
D. No Speaker until next term

[7,052,770]

For example, that the Founders wanted an independent seat of power to ensure the independence of the Federal Government from any one state is also relevant context, and yet it wasn't mentioned.

The "Founders" envisioned that DC would just be a few buildings for housing Congress and the president, and that's it. If they had known that DC would grow into being the anchor of one of the largest and most important metropolitan areas in the country, and larger in population than several states, they would certainly support the DC statehood bill that passed the House last session (which maintains a neutral federal district consisting of just a few buildings and gives statehood to the residential parts). I mean, we literally revolted from England over a lack of representation.

I avoid using "The Founders intended..." by principle because they had a diverse set of views and there's not much they would all agree on, but this is one of those rare times it works. None of the Founders would support DC (as it currently exists) being locked out of Congressional representation entirely.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

For example, that the Founders wanted an independent seat of power to ensure the independence of the Federal Government from any one state is also relevant context, and yet it wasn't mentioned.

The "Founders" envisioned that DC would just be a few buildings for housing Congress and the president, and that's it. If they had known that DC would grow into being the anchor of one of the largest and most important metropolitan areas in the country, and larger in population than several states, they would certainly support the DC statehood bill that passed the House last session (which maintains a neutral federal district consisting of just a few buildings and gives statehood to the residential parts). I mean, we literally revolted from England over a lack of representation.

I avoid using "The Founders intended..." by principle because they had a diverse set of views and there's not much they would all agree on, but this is one of those rare times it works. None of the Founders would support DC (as it currently exists) being locked out of Congressional representation entirely.

Jefferson was not Secular he was a Dixiecrat, the Whigs were secular but they weren't Ds, they were compassionate conserv, Lincoln would have supported DC Statehood but not George Washington whom was more conserv than Lincoln

Jefferson and Washington were aristocrat not Secular until Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and FDR of course

[Ancestral Republican]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/rotten-borough

Rotten borough, depopulated election district that retains its original representation. The term was first applied by English parliamentary reformers of the early 19th century to such constituencies maintained by the crown or by an aristocratic patron to control seats in the House of Commons. Just before the passage of the Reform Act of 1832, more than 140 parliamentary seats of a total of 658 were in rotten boroughs, 50 of which had fewer than 50 voters. See also pocket borough.

Sounds exactly like DC. Every day I'm thankful Atlas Blog is graced with such uncommon wisdom.

If anything it’s a rotten borough it’s Wyoming

Yup. DC is something like 20% larger than Wyoming, is growing, has the densest population and plays host to a huge amount of American jobs, culture, and education.

Wyoming is mostly empty and has one (1) bachelor's degree granting institution.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

For example, that the Founders wanted an independent seat of power to ensure the independence of the Federal Government from any one state is also relevant context, and yet it wasn't mentioned.

The "Founders" envisioned that DC would just be a few buildings for housing Congress and the president, and that's it. If they had known that DC would grow into being the anchor of one of the largest and most important metropolitan areas in the country, and larger in population than several states, they would certainly support the DC statehood bill that passed the House last session (which maintains a neutral federal district consisting of just a few buildings and gives statehood to the residential parts). I mean, we literally revolted from England over a lack of representation.

I avoid using "The Founders intended..." by principle because they had a diverse set of views and there's not much they would all agree on, but this is one of those rare times it works. None of the Founders would support DC (as it currently exists) being locked out of Congressional representation entirely.

Glad to argue this point elsewhere. I don't agree. Point remains here that offering that as context would -- while strictly true, even if you can argue whether that would still apply today -- bias respondents. The Gallup poll remains the best test of public opinion on the topic.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I don't see the motion to vacate pass on middle of Eday