comment: >
  
  The vast majority of all Speakers got their election on the first ballot and had it all worked out before the new congress is even seated. I’m afraid this is the first in a century and like the 4th time in all US history where a party was so incompotent that they couldn’t even do that.
  Also, why on god’s green earth would the democrats come rescue McCarthy from his own party when he stands for the exact opposite of everything they do?  The GOP wanted to embrace far right right extremism, Jewish space lasers and conspiracy theories, racism and culture wars and election deniers and CRT? Fine. This is their mess, let them clean it up. Personal responsibility remember? 
  And yes, it’s absolutely beneficial for the democrats to let the right humiliate themselves, voting round after voting round,  so Americans can see just how much of a joke the GOP  is and how incapable of governing  when they can’t even pick their own damn leader. That makes it much easier for Speaker Jeffries in 2024. But if it gets far enough to where the debt celining is reached, I’m sure the left will help Kevin while he’s on his knees begging and get some sweet committee assignments and power sharing out of it lmao.
context: What is happening in the House is a complete shitshow. I have no idea what the endgame is. Maybe McCarthy has to withdraw and the GOP has to nominate someone else. 
  McCarthy just lost vote No. 4. Here comes No. 5.
  Edit: Here comes Vote No. 6.
  Edit: Vote No. 6 will fail. No. 7 or adjournment until tomorrow?
  Edit: Adjourned until 8 PM ET tonight.
  Edit: CNN reports McCarthy doesn’t think vote tonight would be “productive”; “No deal yet.”
  Edit: House votes to adjourn for tonight. They will reconvene at 12 noon ET tomorrow.
  Edit: Day 3 of this circus. Send in the clowns. Don’t bother. They’re here.
  Edit: Boebert is hinting she may nominate Trump for Speaker, per Newsweek article.
  Edit: The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a new result. Here comes Vote No. 7.
  Edit: Here comes No. 8. Will it have the same result as the previous 7? That’s what I’m expecting.
  Edit: Number 9. Number 9. Number 9. Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
  Edit: The Bo Derek vote for No. 10.
  Edit: McCarthy on his way to Defeat No. 11.
  Edit: McCarthy goes down for the 11th time, sort of like a hooker on a Friday night. House now voting whether or not to adjourn.
  Edit: Adjourned until Noon ET tomorrow for another episode of this shitshow. >
  
  The Freedom Caucus hates Kevin McCarthy and wants to humiliate him. That's ultimately the reason this is happening. 
  It probably won't stop until McCarthy steps down or Trump forces the 20 dissenters to give in (he has endorsed McCarthy and reiterated his support earlier today.) >
  
  Why does the Freedom caucus hate McCarthy so much? >
  
  They want some pretty extensive changes to the House rules that McCarthy isn't interested in implementing. They also feel that McCarthy has promoted moderates over more extreme right wing candidates in primaries and they want him to commit to stopping. >
  
  They want more of the candidates that lost them the mid-terms? >
  
  They aren't interested in maintaining political power the "traditional" way. >
  
  Or maybe by more "traditional" ways if you go back far enough. >
  
  Getting so conservative you bring back feudalism. >
  
  Don’t worry, if we just keep getting more conservative through the medieval ages; we  can eventually end up going all the way back to Greco Roman democracy! >
  
  
  All 212 Democrats voted for their own leader, Jeffries, but six Republicans would have to cross party lines for Jeffries to win the Speaker's position. That appears very unlikely to happen.
  
  Not necessarily. In order to win the Speakership the person needs to get a majority of members voting, not of all members. So if 12 Republicans abstain from voting and all the Democrats remain united then Jeffries would win. I don't think there's any chance this will happen, but I wanted to point out that it's technically possible. >
  
  
  So if 12 Republicans abstain from voting and all the Democrats
  
  I'm glad VVilly pointed this out. I have asking myself the same question for two days. I don't think it is terribly underhanded to make a deal with 12 freshmen Republicans to vote present in exchange for choice committee appointments.
  What a disaster the Republican party is right now. >
  
  No one in the GOP is going to do that.  They would be pariahs to their party and be primaried in 2024.  
  The best scenario for the Dems would be them agreeing with a handful of moderate GOP members to vote for someone in the GOP to the left of McCarthy.  Someone who would agree to not do some of the dumber grandstanding like voting for Biden's impeachment or something. >
  
  
  They would be pariahs to their party and be primaried in 2024.
  
  I wonder if any R reps are close to retirement and wouldn't care.  Or maybe someone would promise them a sweet gig in the private sector, like Paul Ryan going to Fox.  The old-boys-network may be working hard to wipe out MAGA. >
  
  I don't see it.  Most people don't retire from this job unless they're literally drooling on themselves.  Most of these guys are not Paul Ryan and are not going to get the status and money in the private sector that they get in Congress. >
  
  Eh, I think it's more that most everybody who had principles and would be willing to do it voted to impeach Trump after Jan 6 and got ejected from the party and congress. >
  
  Freedom Caucus will try to leverage as much out of McCarthy as possible. He has no real counter leverage, so it becomes "how shamelessly will this group hurt norms for their gains"- So how shamelessly will the Freedom Caucus flaunt disrupting norms for gains is the answer. >
  
  McCarthy's counter leverage is letting this play out in the media/news.  As the longer this drags/plays out the worse it looks in the eyes of the public. >
  
  And that helps McCarthy how exactly? >
  
  He can use it to pressure them into voting for him. >
  
  So far the opposite is happening. >
  
  Didn't say it would work. >
  
  Honestly, no one. Speaker of the House is a chamber-wide vote among all members. The Republicans are the majority, but they're so broken and dysfunctional that they can't even come together to use that majority power to elect a Speaker.
  They've elected and enabled bomb-throwers, and so they have bomb-throwers, not statesmen. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. >
  
  it's basically the same thing that Simena and Manchin have been doing in the Senate for years. Granted, by themselves, they can't grind the Senate to a halt like the Freedom Caucus has for the House, but it's similar in that they can demand huge concessions from the party they're supposedly a part of.
  When you're in the minority, it's easy to vote for your leader because you know there's nothing to gain and everything to lose by not presenting a united front
  But when you're in the majority and you get a taste of what it's like to be the spoiler, then things start going wild.
  I predict even if McCarthy gets his gavel, there'll be so many defectors that they can't get anything done, or he has to give away so much that the rest of his caucus won't agree to the terms. Instead of Manchin and Simena, McCarthy is going to have a room full of 200 spoilers ... >
  
  I'd say it's fundamentally different. The bomb-throwers in the House are in absolutely no risk of being primaried or losing a general election. They're in safe deep-red districts.
  Machin and Sinema are among the most vulnerable Democrats in the Senate. >
  
  I would venture that neither of them will be their states Senator next term. >
  
  Sinema is cooked. 
  West Virginia is extremely quirky, so no one knows what happens with Manchin. Last time I was in Charleston, there were yard signs thanking Manchin for standing against Democrats. >
  
  Manchin and Sinema aren't comparable imo. Sinema represents a more progressive district than her voting record and her behavior has been more erratic and dishonest. Manchin, in contrast, represents a blood red district and has been more consistent in behavior than Sinema.
  Basically, Democrats should be thankful they have anyone to work with from West Virginia, but have a real gripe that Arizona resulted in Sinema. >
  
  Sinema straight up betrayed the people who supported her campaign.
  Manchin being a Democrat due to WV’s historical quirks straight up saved Biden’s legislative agenda. Without him as the 50th vote, none of it would’ve passed.
  If Democrats want to be angry at anyone, Sara Gideon and Cal Cunningham blew totally winnable races in 2020. 
  Amy McGrath deserves a dishonorable mention for soaking up over $100MM on an obviously futile senate race against Mitch McConnell. >
  
  
  my McGrath deserves a dishonorable mention for soaking up over $100MM on an obviously futile senate race against Mitch McConnell.
  
  What in god's name was the DSCC thinking sending her so much money? >
  
  It was mostly money her campaign  grifted from donors with digital ads that played on hatred of McConnell and were misleading about the reality of the race. >
  
  Ah that makes more sense. Playin upon the false hope of seeing another Daschle/Cantor situation. >
  
  I could see Scalise being the Speaker since he's loved by Freedom Caucus?
  However I feel like this is a sign of things to come since GOP can't even agree on a Speaker. >
  
  A vote for Scalise is likely coming soon.  He'll get more votes than Biggs/Jordan/Donalds, but a substantial number of moderate Republicans will not vote for him and he'll end up with less than the \~202 McCarthy has been getting.  Then we're right back to where we started. >
  
  I'd be curious if that's the case. >
  
  As a life long republican all I can say is I’m disappointed in the idiots in the so called  freedom caucus.  I live in Ralph Normans district and called the county GOP chair last night.  My message was clear, I’ll vote Democratic in 2024 and will be donating the money I typically give to the local party to the libertarians if Norman is our nominee. 
  At this point I’m actually okay with 6 Republicans voting for Jeffries.  A democratic speaker and a republican majority would at least get the house functioning again.  
  No caucus should be able to hold the house hostage like this.  It’s not what I voted for and I’m more than a little pissed off at these people claiming to be conservative while basically trying to blackmail the GOP.  
  Vote against the 20 is the best choice in 2024. >
  
  Out of curiosity, do you think if enough the voters living in moderate republican districts call their reps they can potentially get them to vote for Jeffries or at least abstain? >
  
  Not a chance.  While I would not mind; most Republicans even the most moderate will not vote for the democratic leader.  Nor by the way will democrats cross the aisle to vote for McCarthy.  No at some point the republicans will bow to the pressure and elect a speaker.  
  Some, a very small number, like me would be okay with a cross party vote, but less than 1 or 2 percent.  The other 98% of the base would lose their mind at the betrayal.  I’d say a similar percentage of democrat voters would support an cross party vote. >
  
  I bet a good number of Republicans would vote for Jeffries if the vote was silent. >
  
  Maybe, and maybe a good number of Democrats would vote for McCarthy if the vote was silent.  That’s a hypothetical without any substance.  
  Politicians are party faithful for the most part.  I don’t see them crossing the aisle.  I might want them too in this case because I’m pissed at these 20 RINOs blackmailing moflicks.  But it’s hard to imagine a scenario where that happens.
  What is likely to happen is a compromise Republican speaker is elected and then the GOP starts punishing the 20.  Not as bad as the democrats punished James Traficant but then he did the unthinkable and actually crossed the aisle and voted for the other party for speaker.
  Still the 20 republicans holding up this congress will pay, the GOP will just be crafty in how they extract that payment. >
  
  What we are witnessing is the death of the modern republican party.
  Republicans shifted to obstructionism over governance in the 1990s with newt gingrich, and then doubled down on this strategy in the 2010s in response to Obama and because it had for the past decades up to that point served their interest well.
  Then came Trump.
  Trump embolded the hardliner right wing base with his rhetoric and forever made them loyal to him. At the same time, Trump also pretty much solidified the polarization divide in american society and more or less turned everyone who is not with trump against him. Those who didn't overtly express support of Trump also were dismissed as against Trump by his base...a with us or against us mentality if you will.
  Republicans liked this because it represented a doubling down of obstructionism with the sweet chefs kiss of pissing the libs off, and they mistakenly interpreted it as a renewal of their version of republicanism instead of what it actually was - the death throes of their party.
  What has happened since Trump lost? He didn't actually recognize it, and attempted a coup. With anyone speaking out against trump excommunicated, republicans defended Trumps actions, turning off even more people and even flipping some. Then came the midterms, and almost every republican candidate that was a hardliner in a swing district or embraced by trump in a swing district lost. In fact, the midterms were historically bad.
  So now the GOP is stuck in this position where they have fostered the hardliners and obstructionist in their party so much that the far right have taken those tactics that they've used against democrats in the past to push their agend, and are using it against the moderates in their own party. So now the republicans are eating themselves.
  There's no where for them to go. If they moderate themselves, then they get called RINOs by the base. If they don't moderate themselves, they alienate anyone not aligned with them in the swing districts that decide congressional majorities, and they fail to actually gain a majority and push an agenda - that is to say if they even had an agenda to begin with which they haven't since 2016. 
  Look at what happened to mike pence, liz cheney, and now Desantis. Desnatis is the best shot forward for republicans and people are questioning if he can even win with Trump still in the picture.
  Republicanism has to collapse and reshape itself into either a new compromise that is agreeable to it's current coalition, or reshape itself in a way that begins to pull away historic democrat voters. I don't know what that winning combo is - it's not my job to figure that out that's what D.C. analyst are for. All I know, is that this isn't sustainable for them. There is no Post-Trump GOP that can exist. >
  
  The US could easily support a "family values" pro worker style party, the majority of the country is still religious, has "traditional" values, and thinks that working should be a virtue that pays well. A good chunk of those people are currently Democrats.  
  Not that I think that is likely to happen, American politics is wild and the die-hard Trump train section has wrangled control of the wheel. >
  
  
  The US could easily support a "family values" pro worker style party, the majority of the country is still religious, has "traditional" values, and thinks that working should be a virtue that pays well. A good chunk of those people are currently Democrats. 
  
  This doesn't happen so long as right-leaning media sources convinces and enlists vulnerable and gullible Americans into their culture war business. >
  
  Capitalists are going to capitalist; it's just what they do.
  If the left thinks it's worth making enemies with social conservatives in the culture war, they're going to lose the class war, as we're currently witnessing. >
  
  I was hoping someone would ask this. Since the Speaker does not need to be a member of the House, I think they should move to external candidates who could be seen as positive by voters for both sides. So I think it should be Dolly Parton. >
  
  She has way too much dignity to ever be fooled into taking that job >
  
  Too bad.  Also too much honesty to ever get voted in even if she wanted the job. >
  
  Indeed. Same deal with Michelle Obama and the presidency. >
  
  If they don't make George Santos the speaker then this country just isn't any fun anymore. >
  
  I understand Santos was previously Speaker of the House for Reagan amd again for W based on his bio, so it just makes sense. >
  
  Given that he was President for two terms after W though would he be eligible for a role in the line of succession? >
  
  The one R with House experience who has proven to unite the GOP: 
  Madison Cawthorne
  /s >
  
  In a way, though, this is every conservative politician's dream; Just keep re-running the election until you get the results you want. >
  
  I honestly don't think there is a downside to this for the GOP. At some point, I would imagine the GOP and right wing news outlets will pivot to blaming the "do nothing Democrats" for the lack of a Speaker. >
  
  I suspect that the Republicans will not unify behind a candidate for speaker until a moderate Republican gives a vote to the Democrats. 
  Then the Republicans will recognize that they need to compromise on a leader. >
  
  There is no plan b that the entire GOP caucus will rally around. Now that the freedom caucus has a taste of power they won’t give it up. They have no legislative agenda. They just want power. >
  
  Just a bit of game theory, if I were in McCarthy's shoes...
  Get a small contingent of loyal Republicans together.  Go to the Democrats and agree to support Jeffries for Speaker if they'll agree to allowing a new speaker vote to be called in the future.  Allow Jeffries to remain the speaker until the Freedom Caucus falls into line, then call a new vote when ready.  If the HFC doesn't support McCarthy, Jeffries remains speaker.
  R's still have the majority vote, so their agenda (or lack thereof) isn't at risk.  It puts the HFC on notice that if they don't fall in line, they get nothing.  Finally, it would be a low risk way of showing Democrats that McCarthy is willing to cross the aisle when it's mutually beneficial and shows he can keep a leash on the extremists when necessary. 
  I sincerely doubt this would actually happen however. >
  
  That would be an interesting play but handing the speakership to Democrats is going to kill whatever semblance of a reputation McCarthy still has with his Republican colleagues. >
  
  Who, indeed. I think what we're seeing here is a reflection of the fact that none of the republicans are fit to lead >
  
  I would like to say six republicans will eventually vote present...but my faith in Republicans is basically 0 at this point. They have ZERO interest in actually governing. It's all a show for their "base" at this point - so I doubt they'll give an inch to Democrats. >
  
  Because you think the democrats would concede the position to the Republicans if they had holdouts?
  Please...
  McCarthy doesn't have the support, so they will just have to find someone else >
  
  Well the answer is that House Dems would never be in this position to begin with. They find common ground for goals that they want for the country even though they’ll bicker to the very end on the details of the actual policies to achieve that. They don’t want to cripple and obstruct the government just for the sake of it.
  That is why Nancy sailed through re-election in 2020 with just a 4 seat majority meanwhile Kevin is on his 6 round of losing the election with 18-19 members against him in a circus not seen in a century >
  
  Oh they re-elected Pelosi to a position she previously held....well there you go
  PS...Dems could vote for McCarthy and that would keep the gov from bring crippled.  But they aren't doing that are they?
  Cause they don't actually care either, it's more important to them to drag this out. >
  
  The vast majority of all Speakers got their election on the first ballot and had it all worked out before the new congress is even seated. I’m afraid this is the first in a century and like the 4th time in all US history where a party was so incompotent that they couldn’t even do that.
  Also, why on god’s green earth would the democrats come rescue McCarthy from his own party when he stands for the exact opposite of everything they do?  The GOP wanted to embrace far right right extremism, Jewish space lasers and conspiracy theories, racism and culture wars and election deniers and CRT? Fine. This is their mess, let them clean it up. Personal responsibility remember? 
  And yes, it’s absolutely beneficial for the democrats to let the right humiliate themselves, voting round after voting round,  so Americans can see just how much of a joke the GOP  is and how incapable of governing  when they can’t even pick their own damn leader. That makes it much easier for Speaker Jeffries in 2024. But if it gets far enough to where the debt celining is reached, I’m sure the left will help Kevin while he’s on his knees begging and get some sweet committee assignments and power sharing out of it lmao. >
  
  I read an interesting opinion article advocating for Brian Fitzpatrick, a pretty moderate republican from the Philadelphia suburbs with a history of bipartisanship.
  He could probably get enough support from democrats and moderate Republicans to win a vote for speaker and block out the extremists in the republican party. >
  
  Donald Trump as Speaker becomes President and Dictator through literal assassination. He would pardon himself and the assassins who put him there.
  Why are we still pretending that the MAGA faction isn't capable of such violence? They are a violent faction of traitors engaged in an ongoing coup d'etat, and for completely insane reasons we are appeasing them. 
  This must stop. Donald Trump must be arrested and jailed to prevent him and his violent faction from literally overthrowing the United States in his name under his banner. 
  That people are seriously considering the possibility that he could be made Speaker of the House tells me that the magnitude of the situation has been woefully underestimated. >
  
  I totally agree.   It's way beyond time for Trump and his accomplices to be indicted. >
  
  Who wants it at this point?  The moment they fail one of the Freedom Caucus's purity tests, their political career is over. >
  
  Elsie Stefanik she's slimy enough for the GOP and would sell her soul to be speaker. >
  
  But y'know who else recognizes that Stefanik is an opportunistic ladder-climbing careerist? The same ones voting against McCarthy. So yeah, she's likewise a non-starter for the Freedom Caucus holdouts. >
  
  This is such a circus 🤡 but ultimately McCarthy will get the votes. They are all just wasting our time and theirs. It’s improbable that Jeffries will win (one can only hope) but ultimately they will drag this till McCarthy gives in which we know he will cuz he sold his soul to Satan already. >
  
  If you listen to conservative media though, it sounds like he already gave in to all their demands, but they still don't want him because they just don't trust him. >
  
  I think /u/GovSchwarzenegger would be a great Speaker and enough Republicans and Democrats like him.  He'd be a great compromise.  I'd love to see him whip that chamber into shape.
  But, even if it could happen, he seems too smart to take the job with the current makeup of the House ;-) >
  
  To steal the idea from Rational Security podcast - Dems nominate a Republican they know they can work with (Cheney or Kinzinger the obvious two).  Get party agreement to vote 212 for them, and then you only 6 republicans to agree to vote for a Republican.
  Either that or after a week of Kevin sweeting it out Jeffries goes to McCarthy with a list of reasonable demands in exchange for support.  Demands like “no one that lost their committee roles after 6/1 get them back”. >
  
  I think they will revive the whole Trump as speaker scenario.  The speaker does not need to be a member of the house. >
  
  Any deal with Democrats surely would include limits on certain investigations that have promised by the GOP, wouldn't it? If Dems support McCarthy, they need to get something. >
  
  Yes they would need to get something but I can't imagine Republicans can go back on their promises to investigate Hunter Biden, the base would revolt, alongside other Reps. That's why I think it's something a bit more inside-baseball like extra committee representation. They could prevent some bad bills from progressing through committee. >
  
  Many of those that I've seen who oppose McCarthy have absolutely no reason to do so, as they align on virtually everything. All I can guess is that they're playing a similar card as Sinema & Manchin did with the Democrats for their own benefit. >
  
  My opinion about Byron Donalds:
  The crackpots thought that putting up a black man might attract Democrats to vote for their candidate 
  😆😆
  If the crackpots start losing votes to McCarthy, then they will, at some point, nominate Trump before they finally give up.
  It will be VERY interesting to see how that vote goes.
  I predict that Trump will not win that vote, and neither will McCarthy.
  I think eventually the crackpots will give up, but what will they get in return? As long as there are at least five of them, they can drag this out indefinitely. >
  
  I did not have "House Republicans cynically put up a black man they're laughing at for Speaker because they know he can't win and he's an amusing distraction while the world burns" on my Neverending 2020 bingo.
  I probably should have, but...wow. That this casual racism is barely even noticed says a lot about just how bad it's gotten. >
  
  Today, when Donalds was nominated, the guy nominating him said that he was angry that it was being suggested that Donalds was a prop.
  He went on to say that "Yesterday, we could have elected the first black Speaker." The Democrats all got on their feet and cheered "HAKEEM HAKEEM HAKEEM!!!"
  Truly one of the priceless moments of this historical event. >
  
  There's no chance for Jim Jordan, but I loved that the word is that the moment Jordan would be speaker, the Clooney documentary about Ohio State/Jim Jordan will be released.
  And the GOP doesn't want any chance of that happening. >
  
  Makes no sense. If Clooney had any sort of "smoking gun" documentary and refused to release it unless Jordan were elected as Speaker... I mean, it doesn't even bear thinking about. There's no sensible actions that would put anyone in that position. >
  
  HBO picked up the documentary from Clooney, based on the idea, in July.
  The comments about the doc were just speculation that whatever state it is in, if Jordan gets speaker, the doc is going to soon follow.  Also that the GOP Is aware of it.
  It wasn't to imply that it will only be released if Jordan is speaker. >
  
  118th Congressional Speaker election, drinking game! 
  Must drink when: 
  
  Donald is stated 
  New pencil is needed
  McCarthy is referred to as honorable 
  team cheers for the elected voting for themself
  Boebert uses “he’s my friend” as character trait 
  Present is used 
  count takers switch 
  Jeffries passes McCarthy or vice versa 
  MGT wears red
  They know the outcome half way through and announce a new vote will be needed but still continue the same vote nonetheless >
  
  They need to go left of McCarthy. Find a Republican that hasn’t said that he will do stupid investigations of democrats. You will get a few Dems voting for that and will save the Republicans the 2 years of embarrassment that they are headed with anyone right of McCarthy. >
  
  Genuine question: why 218? Wouldn't getting more votes than other candidates be enough? >
  
  It has to be a majority of ALL votes that are there and don't vote present, not just more than the other candidates.
  Currently that number is now 217 since one continues to vote present. >
  
  Just a nitpick. It’s actually 217 because a House Democrat of Virginia died shortly after re-election. And now there’s also a GOP rep voting present >
  
  How about the guy who has gotten the most votes in all of the votes thus far. >
  
  While he has no realistic path to winning, I do think it's funny that the person who has led all six votes so far isn't at least temporarily in the Speaker's office, which instead has been occupied by the guy coming in second place. >
  
  I have a related question that might answer the OP's question: What happens when someone nominates Donald Trump as speaker?  How many Republicans would be brave enough to vote against him? >
  
  I don't think it'd be a big deal if people voted against Trump for speaker since 1) He doesn't want to be speaker and 2) They could excuse it as "He's not a House member." >
  
  Wasn't there a cabal who wanted Trump made Speaker? Which, yes, would be legal. >
  
  And put him in line to get back in the WH. Speaker is third in line. And we never know when another insurrection might occur! >
  
  I'm actually pretty surprised people aren't voting for trump yet. seems like a no brainer for the maga Never Kevin crew >
  
  My prediction is if the compromise is reached sooner rather than later, it’ll probably lean in favor towards the crackpot MAGAs. If the Democrats hold out, and the delay goes on longer than comfortably expected, then I think the Democrats will get a compromise more to their liking - something more moderate in approach. >
  
  Republican holdouts want someone FAR right of McCarthy, so they're holding the country hostage. >
  
  I don’t think there’s any non-McCarthy republicans who could get the threshold unless McCarthy pulls himself from the running. In that case I see an “open convention” style of horse race which would be very exciting although unlikely. Probably just gonna end up being McCarthy and he’ll offer these “rebels” what ever token makes them happy once they realize how bad this looks on their party as a whole >
  
  You have 200 guys who toe the Trump line(for job security), you wouldn't want to mess with that because they you invite even more factions. Trump looks dumb, has to endorse another person. They're simply going to have to pay off the freedom caucus. >
  
  Why not kick out all the seditionists and hold an emergency vote within 30 days? >
  
  Sorry if this sounds ignorant, but can someone explain to me why they think moderate Dems won't work with moderate Republicans to vote for someone left of McCarthy (someone who is not an election denier or batshit crazy)?
  If Dems truly care about governance and the long term health of this country, they should take this golden opportunity to compromise with the Republicans so that they're not held hostage by the extremists. >
  
  It's not that they wouldn't. It's that anyone who did (on both sides) would experience repercussions. >
  
  I guess my thought has been that Democrats making deals with Republicans (to vote for a moderate Republican speaker) would be more acceptable to blue voters than Republicans making deals to vote for a Democrat speaker.  However, I wholly admit this is pure conjecture.  I just know that there's research suggesting that blue voters are more willing to compromise with Republicans than the other way around. >
  
  Knowing that there will eventually be a Republican elected Speaker (I know it's tempting to think that 6 Republicans would cross the line, but I can't see that happening in any universe), what if the Dems and the most moderate Republicans picked on of those GOP Reps to be Speaker, and then voted them in with their combined 218 votes?
  Is this not possible? >
  
  Possible but unlikely.    And if the democrats offered those six Republicans their dream committee chair and other enticements....i think its doable.  Jefferies is very well liked in the congress.  Hes not such a hard swallow. >
  
  Oh I just got it.
  The crackpots think that being chairs of powerful committees will shield them from prosecution.
  They think if they can play musical chairs with Committee Chairs, and that they can somehow foil their indictments. 
  BUT, they can't do that unless they can force the Speaker to switch around Committe Chairs when and how they imagine they need that to happen.
  So they need to be able to remove the Speaker to put the person in that office who will go along with this crackpot craziness.
  Now, I don't know if McCarthy would do that or not, but he probably would. Even if McCarthy was willing to do that, though, it still wouldn't work.
  They don't want control of the committees in order to do the work, they just want power to conduct fake investigations of the Justice Department and they think that being the Chair will allow them to claim political persecution if they are indicted.
  These people are terrified of going to prison. They are going to monkeywrench the normal functioning of the government until they get what they think that they need. They will continue to do that until they are sidelined or indicted, and no hair-brained scheme to try to use committee assignments to shield them is going to work. >
  
  Why can't 6 republicans compromise and join the dems for the betterment of the country? >
  
  theoretically they could become independent and caucus with the dems, but they would face all sort of trouble back in their own districts like cheney did. they would have to switch parties or something like that. >
  
  which tells us how awful the average republican voter to be, and that this is what they want. >
  
  Hakeem Jeffries is the only viable option. Fuck McCarthy, the freedom caucus, and whomever else wants to assist Putin. Hakeen Jeffries is the only choice that doesn’t put this nation under immediate threat from foreign agents and governments. >
  
  If McCarthy withdraws (big IF), there are still plenty of other anti-Putin Republicans.  They are in the minority now, but still sizable group. >
  
  I would love if they could get someone with bipartisan support.  
  The partisanship is ruining our country. >
  
  How about any Republican house member with a pulse who did not support Jan 6th?
  Yes, I know.  Too much to ask. >
  
  Your question "If Not Keven McCarthy, Then Who?!" completely misses the point! This "Freedom Caucus" thing, they don't care about the functioning of the government! They don't care about the functioning of the House! They don't care if anything gets done in the House or the Senate or the United States Government, as a whole!
  Two things need to be understood about the "Freedom Caucus." First, it is truly, an empty void of substanceless, performance art! Mere spectacle, meant only to enrage and entertain the constituency, their base, back home. And secondly, this "Freedom Caucus," its all about increasing their power and freedom, at the expense of the freedom and power of everyone else!
  The long term, end goal of the "Freedom Caucus," is to make the House and Congress and our American Government, as a whole, so dysfunctional, so mired in it's inability to do anything, that eventually, America and our American Democracy, will just collapse under it's own weight and dysfunction. These "Freedom Caucus" Republicans, they truly are "deconstructive" Republicans. They have no desire to, nor do they want to make our American Democracy or America, a better nation! These "Freedom Caucus" Republicans, they want to burn our American Democracy to the ground! Their desire, indeed, their goal is to destroy our American Democracy, so that they can, somehow, replace our American Democracy, with some sort of a Fascist, Kleptocratic, Theocracy, that works too, that functions only,  to serve, White, Conservative Christian, Evangelical, Protestants, ya know, just like them! >
  
  GOP Rep. Byron Donalds (FL-19), who could very well be the first Black Speaker of the House in Congress's history.
  Republicans should get behind that and push it as a positive storyline subsequent to the current fracturing, since the immatieral identity fluff sells in today's superficial political consumption culture. >
  
  Except the Republican base doesn’t care about “immaterial identity fluff” and Democrats will oppose him either way… so who is this storyline benefiting? >
  
  Idk, I have seen a lot of people actually supporting Byron both because of his voting history (he has voted against all spending for years) as well as bringing some much needed change to the party and not electing someone who has been in office for decades >
  
  Yup, that's precisely his appeal to Team Red's base. He's younger, not a ladder-climbing careerist (e.g., McCarthy, Stefanik, et al.), and is steadfastly conservative on economic issues. Also, among members of the House Freedom Caucus, he's one of the less obnoxious, more palatable personalities, as well as has a hardscrabble background that would make for an interesting story if he somehow overcame the odds and became Speaker of the House. >
  
  It would benefit everyone if Jeffers was offered the Speakership in exchange for some coveted Committee chairs. We'd have a better chance for a functional House. >
  
  I actually think the reverse is true. Organizing this house is going to be a hot mess for anyone. It’s a poisoned chalice. Democrats should sit back and let republicans make their mistakes. >
  
  They should vote for Dolly Parton, as someone they can all agree, as Speaker of the House. >
  
  I hope or suspect McCarthy will meet the demands of the holds outs. 
  Nothing to earthshaking there, just different.
  For example, requiring 72 hours after a proposed bill is published, before it can be voted on. Giving congress people time to read the bill.
  Allowing amendments to be offered on the floor, for bills.
  Try to narrow focus of bills. Not giant multi thousand pages catchalls. 
  Things like that, mccarthy apparently will not agree too. >
  
  Some of what they’re asking for is semi reasonable, but free reign to pick committees and balanced budgets is insane >
  
  I'm a Republican (don't kill me)
  In all honesty, I think the best Speaker is no Speaker. I can't imagine congress doing anything worthwhile in the next two years regardless of if it's McCarthy or Jim Jordan or anyone else. With such a narrow majority in the House and Democrats in the White House and Senate, the Speaker is going to be a lame duck anyway. Democrats don't have a majority. Republicans are probably not going to come to agreeable terms. Let this be the disaster it deserves to be. >
  
  That's not really possible. The House literally cannot function without a Speaker. They can't even swear in the Representatives without a Speaker. They can't vote of a set of rules, assign committee memberships, etc without a Speaker. Literally NOTHING will happen without a Speaker. And while I agree there won't be much of any substance to come out of this Congress in the next 2 years, there are still a few things they need to pass, like a further spending bill when the current CR runs out. >
  
  Do you know how soon there could be a government shutdown if they can't pass spending bills? >
  
  IIRC the current spending bill goes through the end of FY2023, which is September 30. So the government would shutdown on October 1.
  However, that's just the spending bill. I'm sure there are other bills which need to be passed each year, too. Such as the annual Farm Bill, the Defense Authorization Act, etc. >
  
  Jeffries is the logical choice, which is exactly why he won’t become Speaker. This entire event is a disgrace to “The Party Of Lincoln”. >
  
  How is Jeffries the logical choice when the House is in Republican hands? >
  
  It would be cool if they just asked who the democrats would be willing to vote for in the republican caucus and once they named somebody with enough support on both sides they go for. Not possible in this political environment unfortunately. >
  
  I hope the real MAGA Republicans that are dedicated to small government keep holding out to make sure nothing happens in the Congress. That should help the GOP in the next big election. >
  
  Someone who's not a traitor who enabled/supported the ex insurrectionist-in-chief's treason. >
  
  No one. 
  Hear me out. The government is funded until October. Nothing is going to get accomplished anyway with such a divided government. This would avoid all the silly investigations the Republicans have planned. Fingers crossed No one wins the speaker spot because no house of representatives is better than the Republican one. >
  
  Okay, no speaker until October... but once we get there, then what? >
  
  The progressive arm should have done this to Pelosi in 2020.
  When the insane Freedom caucus ends up getting all their compromises in the end, I don't want to hear from all of you about how Force the Vote wouldn't have worked. >
  
  Probably someone who knows not to call a vote he doesn't know beyond all shadow of a doubt ðey'll win, let alone not to do it several times in a row!
  Pelosi was such a successful speaker because she understood doin' ðat was ðe first and foremost job contained in ðe title, McCarþy has as of writin' ðis comment failed to understand ðis 4 times now!
  McCarþy has demonstrated a complete lack of understandin' of and ability for ðe job he's tryin' to be elected to, and in a manner which makes me doubt he'd be able to learn it on ðe job.
  Likely we'll see more and more congressional fracturin' in ðe Republican caucus if ðis impasse isn't able to be resolved.  Eiðer McCarþy is gonna be able to get his ship in order or we will enjoy an extended iterim term under ðe watch of Speaker Anarchy. >
  
  you keep using ð in place of th -- but shouldn't you use Þ for thorn? >
  
  That backwards 6 looking thing is also a dental fricative. It’s complicated, but they both represent a thorn sound >
  
  Specifically, thorn represents the voiceless interdental fricative, and eth, the voiced. >
  
  Personally, I’d be fine with essentially not having Congress functional for 2 years - less opportunity for them to put all of us over a barrel - but I know that won’t happen. I keep hoping that shitshow displays like this finally open peoples’ eyes to how awful the 2-party system is & how very few of our representatives on either side have an interest in actually serving the American people, but I feel there are too many “blue no matter who” & “red ‘til you’re dead” folks that have voted along the party line they were raised to vote for for that to happen any time soon. There will be back room deals struck that will eventually get someone voted in as speaker, definitely a republican whether that be McCarthy or not. But a guy can hope. >
  
  I'm hoping it'd at least be a Republican who is still pro-Ukraine/ anti-Putin. >
  
  Is there anyone besides Putin himself that isn’t at this point? >
  
  Weren't there something like 80 Republican reps that showed up for Zelensky's visit and applauded him? >
  
  Does that automatically mean anyone not in attendance is pro-Russia & wants to see Ukraine burn? I wasn’t there, & I’m hoping for Putin to die of explosive diarrhea. I also think that Congress is using the war as a means to grow their own portfolios. Never let a crisis go to waste, right? >
  
  
  who labeled himself 'David Duke without the baggage'
  
  Dang Scalies way more based than I thought lol.
  No one really knows how this'll turn out. I'm not sure what impact it really has seeing as the senate is Dem controlled. I suppose some preferential committee assignments?! Basically seems like posturing. >
  
  Do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. >
  
  There is a primetime stunt coming! All previous votes have been filling the slot of the daytime dramas and have been similar in plot lines. But get ready for some Michael Bay style GOP antics coming at you tonight at 8!!! >
  
  They literally ruin everything. But side note, it wouldn’t be pelosi since she’s the one who said she wasn’t interested anymore. Otherwise idk >
  
  What is happening in the House is a complete shitshow. I have no idea what the endgame is. Maybe McCarthy has to withdraw and the GOP has to nominate someone else. 
  McCarthy just lost vote No. 4. Here comes No. 5.
  Edit: Here comes Vote No. 6.
  Edit: Vote No. 6 will fail. No. 7 or adjournment until tomorrow?
  Edit: Adjourned until 8 PM ET tonight.
  Edit: CNN reports McCarthy doesn’t think vote tonight would be “productive”; “No deal yet.”
  Edit: House votes to adjourn for tonight. They will reconvene at 12 noon ET tomorrow.
  Edit: Day 3 of this circus. Send in the clowns. Don’t bother. They’re here.
  Edit: Boebert is hinting she may nominate Trump for Speaker, per Newsweek article.
  Edit: The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a new result. Here comes Vote No. 7.
  Edit: Here comes No. 8. Will it have the same result as the previous 7? That’s what I’m expecting.
  Edit: Number 9. Number 9. Number 9. Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
  Edit: The Bo Derek vote for No. 10.
  Edit: McCarthy on his way to Defeat No. 11.
  Edit: McCarthy goes down for the 11th time, sort of like a hooker on a Friday night. House now voting whether or not to adjourn.
  Edit: Adjourned until Noon ET tomorrow for another episode of this shitshow. >
  
  The Freedom Caucus hates Kevin McCarthy and wants to humiliate him. That's ultimately the reason this is happening. 
  It probably won't stop until McCarthy steps down or Trump forces the 20 dissenters to give in (he has endorsed McCarthy and reiterated his support earlier today.) >
  
  Why does the Freedom caucus hate McCarthy so much? >
  
  They want some pretty extensive changes to the House rules that McCarthy isn't interested in implementing. They also feel that McCarthy has promoted moderates over more extreme right wing candidates in primaries and they want him to commit to stopping. >
  
  They want more of the candidates that lost them the mid-terms? >
  
  They aren't interested in maintaining political power the "traditional" way. >
  
  Or maybe by more "traditional" ways if you go back far enough. >
  
  Getting so conservative you bring back feudalism. >
  
  Don’t worry, if we just keep getting more conservative through the medieval ages; we  can eventually end up going all the way back to Greco Roman democracy! >
  
  
  All 212 Democrats voted for their own leader, Jeffries, but six Republicans would have to cross party lines for Jeffries to win the Speaker's position. That appears very unlikely to happen.
  
  Not necessarily. In order to win the Speakership the person needs to get a majority of members voting, not of all members. So if 12 Republicans abstain from voting and all the Democrats remain united then Jeffries would win. I don't think there's any chance this will happen, but I wanted to point out that it's technically possible. >
  
  
  So if 12 Republicans abstain from voting and all the Democrats
  
  I'm glad VVilly pointed this out. I have asking myself the same question for two days. I don't think it is terribly underhanded to make a deal with 12 freshmen Republicans to vote present in exchange for choice committee appointments.
  What a disaster the Republican party is right now. >
  
  No one in the GOP is going to do that.  They would be pariahs to their party and be primaried in 2024.  
  The best scenario for the Dems would be them agreeing with a handful of moderate GOP members to vote for someone in the GOP to the left of McCarthy.  Someone who would agree to not do some of the dumber grandstanding like voting for Biden's impeachment or something. >
  
  
  They would be pariahs to their party and be primaried in 2024.
  
  I wonder if any R reps are close to retirement and wouldn't care.  Or maybe someone would promise them a sweet gig in the private sector, like Paul Ryan going to Fox.  The old-boys-network may be working hard to wipe out MAGA. >
  
  I don't see it.  Most people don't retire from this job unless they're literally drooling on themselves.  Most of these guys are not Paul Ryan and are not going to get the status and money in the private sector that they get in Congress. >
  
  Eh, I think it's more that most everybody who had principles and would be willing to do it voted to impeach Trump after Jan 6 and got ejected from the party and congress. >
  
  Freedom Caucus will try to leverage as much out of McCarthy as possible. He has no real counter leverage, so it becomes "how shamelessly will this group hurt norms for their gains"- So how shamelessly will the Freedom Caucus flaunt disrupting norms for gains is the answer. >
  
  McCarthy's counter leverage is letting this play out in the media/news.  As the longer this drags/plays out the worse it looks in the eyes of the public. >
  
  And that helps McCarthy how exactly? >
  
  He can use it to pressure them into voting for him. >
  
  So far the opposite is happening. >
  
  Didn't say it would work. >
  
  Honestly, no one. Speaker of the House is a chamber-wide vote among all members. The Republicans are the majority, but they're so broken and dysfunctional that they can't even come together to use that majority power to elect a Speaker.
  They've elected and enabled bomb-throwers, and so they have bomb-throwers, not statesmen. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. >
  
  it's basically the same thing that Simena and Manchin have been doing in the Senate for years. Granted, by themselves, they can't grind the Senate to a halt like the Freedom Caucus has for the House, but it's similar in that they can demand huge concessions from the party they're supposedly a part of.
  When you're in the minority, it's easy to vote for your leader because you know there's nothing to gain and everything to lose by not presenting a united front
  But when you're in the majority and you get a taste of what it's like to be the spoiler, then things start going wild.
  I predict even if McCarthy gets his gavel, there'll be so many defectors that they can't get anything done, or he has to give away so much that the rest of his caucus won't agree to the terms. Instead of Manchin and Simena, McCarthy is going to have a room full of 200 spoilers ... >
  
  I'd say it's fundamentally different. The bomb-throwers in the House are in absolutely no risk of being primaried or losing a general election. They're in safe deep-red districts.
  Machin and Sinema are among the most vulnerable Democrats in the Senate. >
  
  I would venture that neither of them will be their states Senator next term. >
  
  Sinema is cooked. 
  West Virginia is extremely quirky, so no one knows what happens with Manchin. Last time I was in Charleston, there were yard signs thanking Manchin for standing against Democrats. >
  
  Manchin and Sinema aren't comparable imo. Sinema represents a more progressive district than her voting record and her behavior has been more erratic and dishonest. Manchin, in contrast, represents a blood red district and has been more consistent in behavior than Sinema.
  Basically, Democrats should be thankful they have anyone to work with from West Virginia, but have a real gripe that Arizona resulted in Sinema. >
  
  Sinema straight up betrayed the people who supported her campaign.
  Manchin being a Democrat due to WV’s historical quirks straight up saved Biden’s legislative agenda. Without him as the 50th vote, none of it would’ve passed.
  If Democrats want to be angry at anyone, Sara Gideon and Cal Cunningham blew totally winnable races in 2020. 
  Amy McGrath deserves a dishonorable mention for soaking up over $100MM on an obviously futile senate race against Mitch McConnell. >
  
  
  my McGrath deserves a dishonorable mention for soaking up over $100MM on an obviously futile senate race against Mitch McConnell.
  
  What in god's name was the DSCC thinking sending her so much money? >
  
  It was mostly money her campaign  grifted from donors with digital ads that played on hatred of McConnell and were misleading about the reality of the race. >
  
  Ah that makes more sense. Playin upon the false hope of seeing another Daschle/Cantor situation. >
  
  I could see Scalise being the Speaker since he's loved by Freedom Caucus?
  However I feel like this is a sign of things to come since GOP can't even agree on a Speaker. >
  
  A vote for Scalise is likely coming soon.  He'll get more votes than Biggs/Jordan/Donalds, but a substantial number of moderate Republicans will not vote for him and he'll end up with less than the \~202 McCarthy has been getting.  Then we're right back to where we started. >
  
  I'd be curious if that's the case. >
  
  As a life long republican all I can say is I’m disappointed in the idiots in the so called  freedom caucus.  I live in Ralph Normans district and called the county GOP chair last night.  My message was clear, I’ll vote Democratic in 2024 and will be donating the money I typically give to the local party to the libertarians if Norman is our nominee. 
  At this point I’m actually okay with 6 Republicans voting for Jeffries.  A democratic speaker and a republican majority would at least get the house functioning again.  
  No caucus should be able to hold the house hostage like this.  It’s not what I voted for and I’m more than a little pissed off at these people claiming to be conservative while basically trying to blackmail the GOP.  
  Vote against the 20 is the best choice in 2024. >
  
  Out of curiosity, do you think if enough the voters living in moderate republican districts call their reps they can potentially get them to vote for Jeffries or at least abstain? >
  
  Not a chance.  While I would not mind; most Republicans even the most moderate will not vote for the democratic leader.  Nor by the way will democrats cross the aisle to vote for McCarthy.  No at some point the republicans will bow to the pressure and elect a speaker.  
  Some, a very small number, like me would be okay with a cross party vote, but less than 1 or 2 percent.  The other 98% of the base would lose their mind at the betrayal.  I’d say a similar percentage of democrat voters would support an cross party vote. >
  
  I bet a good number of Republicans would vote for Jeffries if the vote was silent. >
  
  Maybe, and maybe a good number of Democrats would vote for McCarthy if the vote was silent.  That’s a hypothetical without any substance.  
  Politicians are party faithful for the most part.  I don’t see them crossing the aisle.  I might want them too in this case because I’m pissed at these 20 RINOs blackmailing moflicks.  But it’s hard to imagine a scenario where that happens.
  What is likely to happen is a compromise Republican speaker is elected and then the GOP starts punishing the 20.  Not as bad as the democrats punished James Traficant but then he did the unthinkable and actually crossed the aisle and voted for the other party for speaker.
  Still the 20 republicans holding up this congress will pay, the GOP will just be crafty in how they extract that payment. >
  
  What we are witnessing is the death of the modern republican party.
  Republicans shifted to obstructionism over governance in the 1990s with newt gingrich, and then doubled down on this strategy in the 2010s in response to Obama and because it had for the past decades up to that point served their interest well.
  Then came Trump.
  Trump embolded the hardliner right wing base with his rhetoric and forever made them loyal to him. At the same time, Trump also pretty much solidified the polarization divide in american society and more or less turned everyone who is not with trump against him. Those who didn't overtly express support of Trump also were dismissed as against Trump by his base...a with us or against us mentality if you will.
  Republicans liked this because it represented a doubling down of obstructionism with the sweet chefs kiss of pissing the libs off, and they mistakenly interpreted it as a renewal of their version of republicanism instead of what it actually was - the death throes of their party.
  What has happened since Trump lost? He didn't actually recognize it, and attempted a coup. With anyone speaking out against trump excommunicated, republicans defended Trumps actions, turning off even more people and even flipping some. Then came the midterms, and almost every republican candidate that was a hardliner in a swing district or embraced by trump in a swing district lost. In fact, the midterms were historically bad.
  So now the GOP is stuck in this position where they have fostered the hardliners and obstructionist in their party so much that the far right have taken those tactics that they've used against democrats in the past to push their agend, and are using it against the moderates in their own party. So now the republicans are eating themselves.
  There's no where for them to go. If they moderate themselves, then they get called RINOs by the base. If they don't moderate themselves, they alienate anyone not aligned with them in the swing districts that decide congressional majorities, and they fail to actually gain a majority and push an agenda - that is to say if they even had an agenda to begin with which they haven't since 2016. 
  Look at what happened to mike pence, liz cheney, and now Desantis. Desnatis is the best shot forward for republicans and people are questioning if he can even win with Trump still in the picture.
  Republicanism has to collapse and reshape itself into either a new compromise that is agreeable to it's current coalition, or reshape itself in a way that begins to pull away historic democrat voters. I don't know what that winning combo is - it's not my job to figure that out that's what D.C. analyst are for. All I know, is that this isn't sustainable for them. There is no Post-Trump GOP that can exist. >
  
  The US could easily support a "family values" pro worker style party, the majority of the country is still religious, has "traditional" values, and thinks that working should be a virtue that pays well. A good chunk of those people are currently Democrats.  
  Not that I think that is likely to happen, American politics is wild and the die-hard Trump train section has wrangled control of the wheel. >
  
  
  The US could easily support a "family values" pro worker style party, the majority of the country is still religious, has "traditional" values, and thinks that working should be a virtue that pays well. A good chunk of those people are currently Democrats. 
  
  This doesn't happen so long as right-leaning media sources convinces and enlists vulnerable and gullible Americans into their culture war business. >
  
  Capitalists are going to capitalist; it's just what they do.
  If the left thinks it's worth making enemies with social conservatives in the culture war, they're going to lose the class war, as we're currently witnessing. >
  
  I was hoping someone would ask this. Since the Speaker does not need to be a member of the House, I think they should move to external candidates who could be seen as positive by voters for both sides. So I think it should be Dolly Parton. >
  
  She has way too much dignity to ever be fooled into taking that job >
  
  Too bad.  Also too much honesty to ever get voted in even if she wanted the job. >
  
  Indeed. Same deal with Michelle Obama and the presidency. >
  
  If they don't make George Santos the speaker then this country just isn't any fun anymore. >
  
  I understand Santos was previously Speaker of the House for Reagan amd again for W based on his bio, so it just makes sense. >
  
  Given that he was President for two terms after W though would he be eligible for a role in the line of succession? >
  
  The one R with House experience who has proven to unite the GOP: 
  Madison Cawthorne
  /s >
  
  In a way, though, this is every conservative politician's dream; Just keep re-running the election until you get the results you want. >
  
  I honestly don't think there is a downside to this for the GOP. At some point, I would imagine the GOP and right wing news outlets will pivot to blaming the "do nothing Democrats" for the lack of a Speaker. >
  
  I suspect that the Republicans will not unify behind a candidate for speaker until a moderate Republican gives a vote to the Democrats. 
  Then the Republicans will recognize that they need to compromise on a leader. >
  
  There is no plan b that the entire GOP caucus will rally around. Now that the freedom caucus has a taste of power they won’t give it up. They have no legislative agenda. They just want power. >
  
  Just a bit of game theory, if I were in McCarthy's shoes...
  Get a small contingent of loyal Republicans together.  Go to the Democrats and agree to support Jeffries for Speaker if they'll agree to allowing a new speaker vote to be called in the future.  Allow Jeffries to remain the speaker until the Freedom Caucus falls into line, then call a new vote when ready.  If the HFC doesn't support McCarthy, Jeffries remains speaker.
  R's still have the majority vote, so their agenda (or lack thereof) isn't at risk.  It puts the HFC on notice that if they don't fall in line, they get nothing.  Finally, it would be a low risk way of showing Democrats that McCarthy is willing to cross the aisle when it's mutually beneficial and shows he can keep a leash on the extremists when necessary. 
  I sincerely doubt this would actually happen however. >
  
  That would be an interesting play but handing the speakership to Democrats is going to kill whatever semblance of a reputation McCarthy still has with his Republican colleagues. >
  
  Who, indeed. I think what we're seeing here is a reflection of the fact that none of the republicans are fit to lead >
  
  I would like to say six republicans will eventually vote present...but my faith in Republicans is basically 0 at this point. They have ZERO interest in actually governing. It's all a show for their "base" at this point - so I doubt they'll give an inch to Democrats. >
  
  Because you think the democrats would concede the position to the Republicans if they had holdouts?
  Please...
  McCarthy doesn't have the support, so they will just have to find someone else >
  
  Well the answer is that House Dems would never be in this position to begin with. They find common ground for goals that they want for the country even though they’ll bicker to the very end on the details of the actual policies to achieve that. They don’t want to cripple and obstruct the government just for the sake of it.
  That is why Nancy sailed through re-election in 2020 with just a 4 seat majority meanwhile Kevin is on his 6 round of losing the election with 18-19 members against him in a circus not seen in a century >
  
  Oh they re-elected Pelosi to a position she previously held....well there you go
  PS...Dems could vote for McCarthy and that would keep the gov from bring crippled.  But they aren't doing that are they?
  Cause they don't actually care either, it's more important to them to drag this out.