comment: >
  
  Here's the thing, though: Compromise, cooperation, and bipartisanship would be the best outcome. 
  No, it'll never happen, the parties are too divided and the politics are too far apart, and yet compromise, cooperation, and bipartisanship would still be better than the current state of things. 
  It bothers me that we've become so cynical that hoping, not expecting, just hoping for compromise is being described as an "idiot's dream."  Hoping for change? Hoping for better? Hoping for a different outcome because of different circumstances? Only idiots would do that. 
  This is the first time in my lifetime that a Speaker has ever failed to win a vote, yours too, unless you're a century old.  We've never had a chance or a reason to even think about this before, let alone discuss it, but let's tamp those idiot's dreams down.
context: The idea of a "unity speaker" is catnip for screenwriters and bipartisanship fetishists, but wholly at odds with reality because they ignore the nature and the goals of the current Republican Party. >
  
  Yep. It's all over the megathread too. People think this is a real possibility. Completely divorced from the reality of modern politics. This is a unicorn. A fantasy. Nothing more. >
  
  The "idiot dream" would be one of the biggest possible steps forward for American governance. Fuck the alt-right. Get the half of the GOP House that still believes in elections, and find a speaker that they and the Dems can tolerate, and make a coalition House. That's the only sane way to rule such a tightly-divided and insane-at-the-margins group.