Non-political political question

It renders the Legislative branch irrelevant, except for the few things the Senate can do alone (confirm judges, etc.) But a declaration of war or other legislation requires both Houses, so Congress is effectively dead.

Under normal circumstance I would assume that would mean power would flow to the Executive (Executive Orders being the most obvious) but given the skepticism of the current USSC I’m not sure how far that would go either.

But there is another alternative, as the law requires the Speakers to be voted by “a majority of those voting” (assuming a quorum.)

Some of the members will have to leave for family business, other business, or “just because”. If the 234 now voting became 223, then the 212 currently voting for Jeffries would carry the day. (Of course that assumes that all 11 absences were Republican, which is unlikely.) But you will start to see absences, especially around weekends (like tomorrow) as some of them fly home.

It works the other way too: If McCarthy could corral some of the Do Nothing Caucus and get himself to 213 votes, with enough absences he could prevail - although that would be threading the needle quite carefully indeed.

1 Like

McCarthy doing that might not last when people got back to DC. Not sure where the GOP stands with being able to shut him down with one objection. Sometimes it is a compromise other times it is not an agreed upon compromise. Even the NYT is having a hard time reporting on the compromises.


“they could convince a number of them to, if not vote for McCarthy, then not to vote -”

If they don’t vote, Jeffries will win.


No, I meant that some Dems wouldn’t vote (by agreement)


Dream on. This is too entertaining not to vote. This is not on some sort of submission to allow truly bad behavior.



Setting my joy aside.

Why would the Democrats not vote? Is there leverage? Is there a reason? Is it the economy? What would the country get out of the Democrats not voting? What would help the situation by the Democrats not voting?

I am totally missing how that position would arise.

There’s a reasonable argument that we currently have 4 parties, not two. Far left, left of center, right of center, and far right. You see better evidence of this in the senate, where there are now three independents, one who feels the main party is to centrist, two who feel their former party is too far left.

So we already have what amounts to coalition government.

So as to macro effects, I’m frankly not seeing any in the near term. Congress doesn’t have to deal with any finance issues for a while. The budget has been handled for the fiscal year. So we’re good until the end of Sept. The debt ceiling will come up sooner - some time this Summer. Markets might see the current difficulty with decision making as a foreshadowing of these known future events, so some jitters would be expected. But those are likely going to be short term blips. Once the House comes to a decision, the markets’ memory will fail - as it always seems to do - and other issues will come to the fore.



There is no far left in the US in congress. There is slightly left of center*, slightly right of center, more right of center and the far right. But really there is no far right. I do not know what to call the glamor chasers.

*note I am using the 1970 American lens that is far closer to what is accepted as political reality in the west. Nixon was more liberal than any of this current crop.

What is to prevent the candidate from making concessions and then not acting on them?
That’s kind of a time-honored method of getting elected.


One of the reported “concessions” is to allow only one member of the House to call for a new election for Speaker, at any time, so not honoring promises made to get elected, would result in immediate return to where we are now.



The reason the holdouts want an easy way to remove the Speaker.

1 Like

That is the stated reason. It is totally reasonable. Only Pelosi had it her way to get more done.

The real reason for holding out is to raise money back home.


There’s a bit of a catch 22 in there. They would have to trust an untrustworthy guy to honor his promises to limit his power once he is elected.

It’s kind of an object lesson for all of us. Back in the 1700s some guy noted that those in power govern at the consent of the governed. Just as we are governed by those we elect, the House is governed by those they elect to govern the house.

Choose your governors carefully.



i have heard retiring Michigan congressman Fred Upton’s name mentioned

Ironically, I’ve read a few op-ed pieces argue that we operate under a uni-party. Which goes with the old saying that the current parties are just the left and right wing of the same buzzard that is trying to pick your bones clean.


To a degree. Don’t raise the debt ceiling and I bet Wall Street may be many things, but happy isn’t one of them.


I’m wondering what will happen at the next debt ceiling limit discussions. This small caucus of radicals is swearing to let us default if that is what it takes to reduce spending. Will they really go that far? I mean, they were “Never Kevins”, and yet, here we are, with Speaker Kevin, and it took their help to get here.

1 Like

Wait for the situation to develop. Popcorn and LOTS of butter…

The GOP will split in two, radicals a mid sized group wont help. The others will work with the Democrats. Something like 28 Republicans are moderates that work with the Democrats.

In the 118 the major stuff will still be done by the Democrats.

Democrats will not do anything; just as you saw in the vote for Speaker of the House. The Democrats voted unanimously against allowing the a recess, over and over. When have the Democrats ever been so united. The Democrats will not put forth any legislation for the next two years (in the House) and vote unanimously down any Republican legislation and display the dysfunction of the current House Majority.

The moderates from both parties have a caucus. That caucus will decide what gets done. The Democrats will mostly work with that caucus. The majority of Republicans wont work on a moderate agenda.

The Democrats own demand side economics. The Democrats are very organized. The only things that get done will suit the Democrats. The Senate and the President will only sign off on things they want.

The American public hates slobs. Actually it has just been a lot of laughing lately.