• SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      93
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honestly, it could be a real power move for some blue state republicans to flip parties. If they could pull a Reagan and say that the Republican Party has changed but they haven’t, they could take both the democratic voters and centrist republicans while losing the MAGAs, and still carry their district.

      That would be something for the history books.

      • GladiusB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        1 year ago

        I doubt they would be trusted at this point. Too many burnt bridges in the MAGA lifetime. They are on life support.

      • dhork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        They don’t even have to flip outright to Democrats, they could simply announce they are now Independent. They are probably getting a Primary challenger regardless, and maybe Democrats pay back the favor by forgetting to run a candidate in that district.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        What share of Republican voters are flexible enough to decide to vote for the Democrats just so they don’t support the Trump/MAGA movement? Because these people would need need to decide to vote Republican come next election and US electors seem to be very entrenched in their support for one party or the other, no matter what…

        • Taako_Tuesday@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s always more people to peel off, but I think a lot of the centrist republicans have already switched. Anecdotally, my dad, a lifelong republican, chose not to vote in 2016, and voted for Biden in 2020. I don’t see a lot of Trump voters switching over after voting for him twice, but maybe some of the moderates who held their votes will decide to vote for democrats in the future

      • Xhieron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        It could, but brass tacks: Who are these people? I mean which Reps could survive jumping ship here with their political careers intact? I’m genuinely curious because I love the idea. I just don’t see it for the same reason I don’t see a single Dem flipping to get a more center Republican speaker.

        If you defect, you basically have to swap parties entirely, because you’re not just signing up for the Speaker. You also have to expect to protect him or her from the next motion to vacate. And the next. So in for a penny, in for a pound.

        This is the same reason it takes a majority to elect the Speaker in the first place: Otherwise you have a House with a Speaker that still can’t actually govern.

        • dragontamer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          1 year ago

          McCarthy was kicked out for working with Democrats to prevent the government shutdown.

          You’re grossly underestimating the RINO / propaganda that causes Republicans to knife each other in the back and demand loyalty.

        • Salamendacious@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s analogous to a conservative commentor saying, “an easy solution would be a few Democrats voting for Jordan.” You and I know that’s about as likely as Hillary stumping for Trump though.

          • kirklennon@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That’s analogous to a conservative commentor saying, “an easy solution would be a few Democrats voting for Jordan.”

            I’m pretty sure that was exactly the point. There have been endless articles asking if Democrats will step in to help Republicans out of the mess they created by voting for a marginally less extreme Republican. This person was flipping that nonsense around and asking why a handful of Republicans can’t just vote for someone who actually wants to govern.

            • Salamendacious@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Two reasons:

              (1) Republicans are knee deep in infighting right now. Working with Democrats is bad enough but voting for one would definitely bring a primary challenger.

              (2) Republicans have the majority in the house. Fair or not, it’s theirs and in my opinion it just isn’t realistic to expect them to give the gavel and the speakers bully pulpit (to borrow the expression) to a Democrat especially at the beginning of a presidential election cycle.

              I haven’t looked at these 20 Biden district Republicans in a lot of depth, only superficially, but I don’t see them switching party alliances and in my opinion that’s the only way they’d vote for Jefferies.

      • flipht@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s no chance of them crossing the aisle to elect a Democrat, yes.

        But there’s also no chance of them siphoning off Democratic votes if they’re unwilling to give anything up, and can’t be trusted even if they offer something juicy.

        So there’s about as much chance that they’ll elect Jeffries as there is that they’ll elect one of their own.

      • fleabomber@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        There are Republicans where they were able to win their seat but Biden won the general. They might be feeling purple.

        • Salamendacious@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Purple? Definitely but feeling Blue? I don’t think so. I think it’s increasingly likely that we could see a republican & Blue dog supported speaker but in my opinion it’ll be a republican with some minority party rights. I can’t see Jefferies getting the gavel this time around. Hopefully 2024 gives it to him.

  • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    199
    ·
    1 year ago

    Jordan’s loss is also a historic first

    Jordan’s 199 votes mark the first time since 1923 that the majority nominee got less than 200 votes.

    • Ha ha
  • Nougat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    143
    ·
    1 year ago

    Important points:

    • Yesterday, Jordan received 200 of the necessary 217 votes.
    • Today, Jordan received 199 of the necessary 217 votes.
    • Some of the people who didn’t vote for Jordan yesterday voted for him today; some of the people who voted for Jordan yesterday didn’t vote for him today.
    • Ha ha
    • Tigbitties@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      Some of the people who didn’t vote for Jordan yesterday voted for him today; some of the people who voted for Jordan yesterday didn’t vote for him today.

      That’s amazing.

  • Eeyore_Syndrome@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    84
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I have to say. I never understood why the grandmother in “Mars Attacks” laughed so hard when they “Blew up Congress”.

    Now I do.

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    1 year ago

    What a silly clown show. I sure hope the Democrats can retake the House; the cons are not fit to lead a popsicle stand.

    • modifier@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      I am hopeful that this will hasten the breakaway of the far right from the republican party into a completely new 3rd party. It seems like this would only help dems.

      • Taako_Tuesday@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        It would only help dems, which is why it’s unlikely. Best thing we can hope for is the republican party is pushed further right, which leads to the democrats absorbing even more center-right politicians, and then we have a few decades of milquetoast Democratic dominance until something big changes the dynamic.

  • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    At this point the only way out of this is for independents to not vote for Republicans but vote for Democrats instead.

    • MimicJar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      At the moment there are no independent representatives in the House. We have two vacancies, but it’s one Democrat and one Republican.

      If you mean in the long run, at the next election, sure; but we can’t wait that long for this mess to be sorted out.

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        At the moment there are no independent representatives in the House.

        Actually, I was speaking about independent voters, not members of the House or Senate.

  • hddsx@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    1 year ago

    Thank you, Rep. Gaetz, for the opportunity to see the GOP in a lose-lose situation.

  • Techmaster@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s absurd that we require a majority vote for house speaker. It should be as simple as whoever gets the most votes. Or you have to vote for A or B for your vote to even be counted. None of this “present” nonsense.

    212 vs 199, ok Hakeem Jeffries wins.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      1 year ago

      Plurality voting is one of the best systems if your goal is to elect someone that most people don’t want.

      • SYLOH@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        This!
        Have two+ really good candidates and an awful one with niche appeal.
        Guess who plurality gives the awful one a great chance at winning.

    • rbhfd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Most likely, this would make the Republicans vote for whoever their candidate is, rather than a minority Democrat winner.

      Not saying I disagree with you per se. I had the same thought when reading this news.

      The current system was probably designed to promote compromise, even across party lines. But we all know how well that’s working out these days.

    • threegnomes
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is such a bad idea. Do you think people would vote the exact same way if this was how it works instead?

        • hglman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          The speaker isn’t a job laid out in law other than being listed as 3rd in succession. It exists at the acceptance of some rules adopted by a majority of the house. Those rules could just as well not include any speaker, it could call for everyone to dress as a banana on Tuesday.

        • Birdie@thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          That implies your government is functioning as it is meant to. Here in the US, it’s not. It’s just not.

    • katy ✨
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Majority vote would lead to even more deadlocks and partisanship

  • Chickenstalker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    1 year ago

    Kek. The US Republican can’t stop shooting itself in the foot, even as its Israeli ally is crying for help. If I am Netanyahu, I’ll get new allies.

        • S_204@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          What % of Israel’s budget do you think the US gives them?

          Of that % how much do you think is tied to purchases of American weapons?

          • HandBreadedTools@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Apparently the US gives military grants that amount to about 16% of Israel’s total military budget. That’s kind of a lot, if I’m reading it correctly.

            • S_204@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              IIRC it’s a bit less than that, something like 3b of 36b.

              To allow the US easy access to intelligence, operational bases and feeding the military industrial complex, that’s really not a ton of cash for the US…

  • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 year ago

    Gymbo is a winner in the meme game. His pissed off face in the first loss will be used for a meme template for the next decade.

    What a piss baby. Just like Greg Abbott