>

No self respecting democrat would support a Jan 6 apologist.  Or subpoena dodger
McCarthy nuked every bridge with the Democrats with his antics the past few years. No Dem is ever going to vote for him unless they want to be primaried into oblivion. >

Many people are missing this. McCarthy himself made vile jokes about resisting the urge to hit Pelosi with the Speaker's gavel once he took it. Zero chance the House Democratic leadership is going to be interested in throwing him a lifeline, especially after today. >

He's also already promised the MAGA wing the moon, several outlying solar systems and the asteroid belt. He can't pivot back to the center without losing the fringe. 
He doesn't have the support. Full stop. This is like trying to patch a hole without enough material. >


He doesn’t have the support. Full stop. This is like trying to patch a hole without enough material.

Yeah, and he’s lost support over the course of the day. It’s practically a vote of no-confidence. That’s a signal that he should withdraw, if not entirely resign his seat. What influence does he have after all this humiliation? He can get a cushy lobbying job easy. >

Maybe it's just a pride thing at this point.
I have no idea why any sane person would want it. Just about every R house majority leader nowadays hates being in the position 2 seconds after they get it. >

Pretty much since Boehner. I didn’t like the guy, but he could tell it was getting impossible. Kevin McCarthy put his name in and then retracted it, saying that leading a fractured Republican Party was impossible and Boehner stayed longer to cover for him and with no good replacement. Paul Ryan became speaker and then bounced out of Congress pretty fast himself. 
Boehner was in a similar position - the tea party was impossible to deal with and still please the middle republicans. Honestly Trump’s been the only one since George W who had really been able to do it, and George had the benefit of his dad and 9/11 to help him, plus evangelicals loved him because he really was one unlike trump >

With how little the repubs actually got done congressionally during Trump, I don't think there is anything that makes that caucus of flying monkey's work. >

If Democrats have any interest in compromising with moderate Republicans on a Speaker, it would be someone with mainstream respectability who is publicly open to cooperating with Democrats, keeping the government funded, refraining from "investigate the investigation"-type stupidity, etc. Colin Powell is dead, of course, but it would be a figure along those lines. It would not be Kevin McCarthy. >

Is anything stopping the entire dem caucus (212) to vote for, say, Liz Cheney and see how long it takes to get enough defectors to elect her (or whomever) Speaker? >

Cheney lost her seat in 2022 so she's out. And I'm not sure if Ds want to make a play for someone whose only moderate credential is being anti-Trump in contrast to their rather long history of being a hard right Conservative anyway. >

There no requirement for the speaker to be a member of the House. >

I know. I meant "out" as in "effectively zero chance". But honestly I think the base would view a Cheney nom as similar to a D nom and immediately retaliate against any supporters of it. Yes it's dumb but Cheney was clearly rejected by R voters this year purely for her anti-Trump stance. R house members aren't touching that shit. >

The wider public would love it >

I think they'd laugh at it but she isn't popular amongst many groups after they look at her longer than 5 seconds. It's easy as hell to find a reason to dislike her with her history.
But does it MATTER? She's not winning it. >

I think there is a chance. Democrats would look reasonable and willing to put the country above politics. As would moderate Republican in Governance Group. While hard right Republicans look so petty fighting among themselves which would hurt them more. 
Same time she would be beholden to the people who put her there so it would effectively be a Democrats in control. >


Democrats would look reasonable and willing to put the country above politics

Can everyone with a bipartisan fetish please, please just stop and think of the incentives for both parties involved here?
Their voters will actively punish them for doing this, and there's not much reason for them to work together anyway. D voters are sick and tired of Rs getting away with shit after Obama flopped the bipartisan approach and no R ever tries to play bipartisan ever now.
I don't think I have to explain R voters. >


Can everyone with a bipartisan fetish please, please just stop and think of the incentives for both parties involved here?

This isn't this about defeating the MAGA and MAGA suck ups by embarrassing the shit out of them.
Want to look for example what happened here in Canada. 
Alberta with the UCP. We have Danielle Smith as Preimer right now but she's toxic to most Albertans. Red Tories (centrist conservatives) joined Notkey's NDP and we are likely going to see the most conservative province in Canada elect an NDP government. 
Also similar story when Blue Tories  sided with the truckers. People got fed up and Red Tories joined over to the Liberals and we are actually looking at Liberals holding power for another decade. 
Public wants stability. They will reward those who provide it and punish those who created chaos. 
Plus if you use that majority to reform the election process towards run off voting it will be like Alaska where MAGA dies.