Can anyone confirm it’s true that if there are 11 present votes from the Rs, Jeffries could take it with 212?
(Saw it on Twitter from multiple people, but no sources.)
I think it has to do with the fact that you don’t need 218, you just need a majority of NAMED votes and “present” doesn’t count toward that denominator. So if the R’s “lose” enough from the denominator then 212 could be the majority.
According to my H, who is gleefully streaming CSPAN at the dinner table, there are at least 28,000 people watching this along with him (via YouTube) right now at 8:12 pm Eastern.
Can anyone confirm it’s true that if there are 11 present votes from the Rs, Jeffries could take it with 212?
(Saw it on Twitter from multiple people, but no sources.)
I think it has to do with the fact that you don’t need 218, you just need a majority of NAMED votes and “present” doesn’t count toward that denominator. So if the R’s “lose” enough from the denominator then 212 could be the majority.
Post by curbsideprophet on Jan 4, 2023 21:05:58 GMT -5
Has anyone seen an article explaining how McCarthy could win with people voting present?
I understand the number of votes needed drops with the number of presents. Are they hoping they can convince enough of the 20 to flip to Kevin and get the others who refuse to vote for him to vote present? It seems Jeffries would be the one to benefit from present votes. Kevin seems like he has a ways to go to get to 213 (assuming Dems remain united and Jeffries will continue to have 212 votes).
Has anyone seen an article explaining how McCarthy could win with people voting present?
I understand the number of votes needed drops with the number of presents. Are they hoping they can convince enough of the 20 to flip to Kevin and get the others who refuse to vote for him to vote present? It seems Jeffries would be the one to benefit from present votes. Kevin seems like he has a ways to go to get to 213 (assuming Dems remain united and Jeffries will continue to have 212 votes).
I think it’s a much harder uphill climb to get McCarthy in with that strategy vs Jeffries for the reasons you mentioned. I also think this is one time that the united stubbornness of the Dem caucus is going to come in handy. I predict it will be a lot easier for their people to keep them in the chamber than on the GOP side. The motivations are just too good.
ETA: the mistake is thinking these clowns are playing a strategy. They have no plan they’re just hanging each other out to dry.
Politico has an update on overnight negotiations....some of the concessions sound ridiculous (1 person no confidence vote....so we could basically be back here again soon??))
We shall see if they worked. I think they go back at Noon ET today.
Post by seeyalater52 on Jan 5, 2023 8:16:54 GMT -5
The 1 person no confidence vote is part of what I’m talking about in terms of destabilizing leadership to the point of non-function. Consider that every single bill the body tries to pass under such a ridiculous practice would be hostage to a single defector. We could be playing this speaker game of chicken over and over for the next 2+ years and all legislation passed (or not passed) will be worse off for it.
This to me is a worse scenario than a “more conservative” than McCarthy speaker. (Although still not convinced that is even a thing.)
Post by seeyalater52 on Jan 5, 2023 8:22:03 GMT -5
I know it’s WP so folks may not all be able to read (sorry if I had a subscription I’d gift link it!) but thought this article was fascinating for those who were following Gaetz’s drama with the architect over use of the Speaker’s office.
I know it’s WP so folks may not all be able to read (sorry if I had a subscription I’d gift link it!) but thought this article was fascinating for those who were following Gaetz’s drama with the architect over use of the Speaker’s office.
I know it’s WP so folks may not all be able to read (sorry if I had a subscription I’d gift link it!) but thought this article was fascinating for those who were following Gaetz’s drama with the architect over use of the Speaker’s office.
Why do we even have laws if they don't mean anything?
"The inspector general’s report said its office took its findings to the U.S. attorney’s office, which then brought in the FBI, the report said. But after five months of “discussion and collaboration,” the bureau declined to investigate. The U.S. attorney’s office then assigned “an internal criminal investigator,” and after 10 months, opted to forgo a federal prosecution."
I am livid that the rich get away with whatever they want and keep getting jobs they aren't qualified for while so many Americans are barely scraping by with a Federal Minimum Wage of $7.25/hour.
A vote on term limits: This is a key demand of Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), who has proposed a constitutional amendment limiting lawmakers to three terms in the House. 🤔
It’s so gross. Trading Votes for committee assignments so they can obstruct shit. Didn’t Trump say his top priority was draining the swamp? And here we are, politicking in clandestine midnight meetings. 🤮
Does anyone know why the Rs are so hot to trot about term limits now? My dumbass Trump supporting neighbor has something taped to her trashcan about term limits.
A vote on term limits: This is a key demand of Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), who has proposed a constitutional amendment limiting lawmakers to three terms in the House. 🤔
I could get behind term limits in theory (I realize it's complicated) but 6 years seems really short, and making it a Constitutional amendment seems very problematic.