>

It’s a real thing. I watched a video of him the other day. Not hugely involved in politics so really only saw pictures attached to articles and as soon as he spoke I was like huh, didn’t expect that.
People said the same thing about Pelosi, that a few far left Congresspersons would hold out on the first ballot or two. They didn't, as that kind of gamesmanship is bad for your party. We're likely in the same position here. The GOP knows that McCarthy will get it, and any games just weakens your own party  at this point. >

Do you mean in the 2019 or 2021 Speaker Election? The 2019 speaker election was a pretty different scenario because Dems had a substantially greater majority. The 2021 election was different because of the incumbency advantage among other factors. Also, I don't remember those elections too well, but I remember that progressives seemed to indicate they wouldn't support her at some point, but not 2 days before the election like Republican firebrands are doing. 
While it may hurt the party for Republicans to vote against McCarthy, members of the freedom caucus have largely taken the position that they oppose both establishment parties. And the games the freedom caucus have played have resulted in the ouster of the last two Republican speakers. >

There are certainly differences, but the political calculus is still the same. A failed speakership vote where the outcome is all but concluded shows weakness in the party. Boebert is an example for people who are on the far right, so they are likely realizing they need to "reign in" the extremism after the "disappointing" midterm results.
Talk is easy, action isn't. We'll see tomorrow, but failing the vote isn't likely to win anyone friends and does little to enact any change. >


A failed speakership vote where the outcome is all but concluded shows weakness in the party.

Sure, but I think there is actual weakness in the party. A strong party doesn't have such terrible mid-term results, a strong party doesn't have their most recent presidential nominee suggesting he might run third party, a strong party doesn't have 18 senators joining the opposition to deny their own party control of spending bills. 

Boebert is an example for people who are on the far right, so they are likely realizing they need to "reign in" the extremism after the "disappointing" midterm results.

That's one way to look at it. But following 2012, the general message of the Republican autopsy was that they'd have to move to the center in 2016. They chose not to do that and they won the election. It's not unbelievable to me that those who oppose McCarthy believe doubling down will be beneficial. 

Talk is easy, action isn't. We'll see tomorrow, but failing the vote isn't likely to win anyone friends and does little to enact any change.

Ehh, sure. But voting for McCarthy doesn't really do much for those who oppose him either. >


That's one way to look at it. But following 2012, the general message of the Republican autopsy was that they'd have to move to the center in 2016. They chose not to do that and they won the election. It's not unbelievable to me that those who oppose McCarthy believe doubling down will be beneficial.

They won in 2016, lost 2020, and severely underperformed in 2022 after implementing those ideas. In 2016 they gambled.on those ideas. 2022 has shown those ideas aren't as popular as they thought.

But voting for McCarthy doesn't really do much for those who oppose him either.

It shows a stronger party. It doesn't publicly show how weak their party is, which is a benefit for all Republicans. >


They won in 2016, lost 2020, and severely underperformed in 2022 after implementing those ideas. In 2016 they gambled.on those ideas. 2022 has shown those ideas aren't as popular as they thought.

To bolster your point, they also lost in 2018 pretty badly. 
Still, I wasn't saying that it actually is a good idea for them to double down on those ideas. I think it's very possible though that 4 Republican members of the House still think it's a good idea tomorrow at noon. Additionally, it's not necessarily the case that they really care about their party; the group that opposes McCarthy really seems to hate "the establishment" more than anything else. 

It shows a stronger party. It doesn't publicly show how weak their party is, which is a benefit for all Republicans.

A strong Republican party that coalesces around the best leaders doesn't benefit a group that wants Trump to be president again. >


I think it's very possible though that 4 Republican members of the House still think it's a good idea tomorrow at noon.

Quite frankly, if your view boils down to "It may happen", then what's really to change? >

Well, I'm not just saying, "It may happen," I'm saying, "it will happen." You're saying that it's a terrible idea, but I don't think that that fact proves I'm wrong. If the actual members who have indicated they'd oppose McCarthy had a history of talking the talk, but not walking the walk, that'd influence my view. Or if they individually had more to gain from this vote, that'd change my view. But as it stands, this group has a history of supporting Trump, which we both seem to recognize as generally bad for the party. I don't think the mere fact that it's a bad idea really indicates that they won't vote against McCarthy >

McCarthy has met with Boebert, Jordan, Gaetz & Perry within the past few hours.  He's just going to promise them leadership positions (probably Jordan for Judiciary) to bribe them for votes.  They won't hold a vote until they know the result. >

Jordan already was in the bloc supporting McCarthy, and Boebert/Gaetz weren't signatories on the recent anti-McCarthy letter. 

They won't hold a vote until they know the result.

Idk if they can, or how long they can do that. Each representative's term is supposed to start tomorrow and they cant start their term without a speaker. >


A recent omnibus bill passed the Senate with 68 votes; 18 of those being relatively moderate Republicans.

And none of those 18 moderate Republicans Senators will be voting in the election for the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Republican Senators as a whole are more moderate and unorthodox than Republican representatives in the House. Senators are protected by their 6 year terms and the fact that they higher profile from the more extreme parts of the Republican party. Moderate Republican House members are mostly lost re-election to Democrats in 2018. The new 2022 Republican House members from swing districts are candidates that survived a 2022 Republican primary election, in which turnout is highest amongst "hardcore" Republicans, and then (in general) won the general election because people wanted to vote for Republicans/against Democrats but not as an endorsement of that specific candidate. So extreme Republican candidates for House weren't weeded out in the same way as extreme Republican candidates for the Senate, b/c there is a lot less media coverage of House races.
And voting for your caucus's leader to be speaker of the House isn't even like an extreme thing to do, esp if the charge is being led by the other flank of the party. So the idea of defections of moderate flank of the party doesn't make any sense. There aren't many moderate Republicans, and not voting for McCarthy would be a pretty radical thing for a moderate Republican to do. >

His voice doesn’t match his face. >

Is that euphemism or a real thing you think about him?