>

That's stopping no matter what.
This is delicious. There are no good options for McCarthy. 


Adjourn and try to do some more backoffice deals and try again. Needs 218 votes to do that


Keep iterating this same vote over and over and slowly peel off Gop Opposition to eventually get to McCarthy. Oof, brutal "win" for McCarthy. But that is his best case scenario. 


Step aside and let Rs put up another name 218 can get behind. 


It is now a game of chicken. He lost 19 defectors in the first round. He needs 15 to come over to his side. >

Or democrats could try to peel off 6 R's. Sure, it's less likely, but in pure numbers it's in their favor, lol >

What happens in an R controlled congress with a D speaker!? >

Mostly the usual. Speaker puts votes up. People vote. Things happen. It'd be harder to get the votes together to make anything happen but that's all, really. Theoretically, at least. >

Yeah, true.  I'd wonder next about the re-electability of those 6 Rs at that point, but hey - they'd get 2 years to figure something out >

The Dems would probably have to pick one of those 6 to be speaker… it’s not going to be Jeffries. But if we can get someone less extreme and put Dems in more favorable committee assignments then it could still be a good thing. >


But if we can get someone less extreme

The extreme ones are the ones not backing McCarthy >

Sure. But there’s still a lot of Republicans that Dems would prefer a lot better than McCarthy. >

They all retired or got gerrymandered out by their own party. >

UPDATE: Tuesday, Jan 3, 2023 · 10:50:46 AM PST · Joan McCarter
Lots of milling around while they figure out what happens next. This is the first time in 100 years that a speaker wasn’t chosen in the first round
​
LOL Schadenfreude. >

So there’s no rule that forces an end to the process, could theoretically go on forever? What usually encourages people to change their vote, deal-making of some kind? >

Yep, no rule. They keep voting till someone has 218, nothing else can happen. >

Until someone has a majority of votes.  Big difference. >

Majority of named votes, present reduces the needed vote count. But we are getting pretty pedantic here. >

Maybe. This is an unusual situation, I could see it being resolved by some people abstaining. >

Possibly but I think that requires nuanced thinking and literally the whole problem is being caused by MAGA dipshits utterly lacking in that capacity.
I think they will dig in quite a bit longer and this will be ended by concessions not by abstentions.
The MAGA fucks are not angling for voters and support, they are in safe MAGA districts. They are angling to be closest to Trumps sweaty taint when they asskiss which presents entirely different dynamics. >

Let's hypothetically say MTG puts her name in the hat for speaker, and lord only knows why the Republicans look like they might get behind her, then I could see dems abstaining to let Mccarthy cross the finish line without explicit dem support. 
That particular hypothetical is unlikely, but the basic shape of that idea is how abstention might become important in this vote. That, or if they keep going and people leave to go to sleep, someone might sneak in during late night voting. >

The dems would be fools to help the GOP. If they want to let MTG make them all look like fucking buffoons never interrupt the enemy when they are making a mistake should be the play. >

I don't disagree, but I suspect some house members might. >

19 defections away from McCarthy. >

Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic Leader, got more votes (212) than McCarthy! 😆 >

Evidently, Jordan is trying to get all of his defectors over to McCarthy. >

Of course Gym Jordan is, Kevin promised him a choice committee chairmanship. >

And to probably stop the Ethics probe into him from the Jan. 6 committee.