comment: >
  
  For the Republicans they can end their national embarrassment. There are literally no pros for the Democrats. They will never go for it.
context: Kevin McCarthy is dead in the water if he needs Dems.  One of the concessions the GOP would have to give to get Dems to vote on their side is probably that the Speaker not be Kevin McCarthy.  He either gets the Freedom Caucus on board or he’s done.  McCarthy is a snake despised by Democrats and largely considered to be a traitor over Jan 6 stuff.  Dems will not be his lifeboat >
  
  the idea that the majority of the Republican caucus supports someone who voted against certifying the election on 1/6 should scare more people >
  
  This is what I have been saying since the mid-terms and his goal of Speaker. Why are people forgetting his time as minority leader and his paldom with the freedom caucus. He voted four times nay on certifying the election. He would not call Biden president, he obstructed jan 6 committee, he is one of 5 that has ignored subpoenas and turning over documents, and most of all he incited the terrorist attack and was part of an attempted coup of our govt. >
  
  Establishment Rs know a more Trump aligned Speaker would solidify defeat in 2024. Gaetz, Boebert & co are repeating Roe v Wade. If they actually got what they say they want then they wouldn’t even know what to do with it. >
  
  Makes me want to hop in my car and go to these losers districts and berate the stupid voters on a loud speaker,that gave us these shitbirds 😡. Ughh to it all. >
  
  There really aren't pros and cons here, it's just not a reasonable hypothetical to consider. He'd have to make a number of concessions to Democrats that would lose him more support among Republicans, thereby requiring more Democratic votes and more concessions. That cycle would just continue and isn't feasible for McCarthy. Plus, Democrats have zero interest in bailing out McCarthy and saving him from the monster he helped create.
  What's far more likely, but still vanishingly small odds, would be a handful of the Biden/GOP district Reps deciding to work with Democrats to elect a compromise Republican Speaker. Again, that's not going to happen, either, but it's a hair more likely that McCarthy working with Dems or Dems working with McCarthy. >
  
  Agreed. Dems might be willing to support a moderate republican who would lead a coalition government, but I can't see even one of them voting for McCarthy. He has stabbed them in the back repeatedly and vowed to investigate them. >
  
  McCarthy has already shown he’s an incompetent speaker. He can’t build coalitions, make deals or get anyone to trust him. 
  Why would the democrats vote for that? >
  
  There's been a unstated implication in these suggestions for compromise that only the House Democrats seem to have agency in this crisis. Which is weird to me, because Republicans are the party with the majority, and ostensibly control the chamber. This crisis is wholly the result of the majority conference being unable to compromise with themselves. Democrats can't do anything to fix that. >
  
  These types of questions and "thought" experiments are 100% looking for a way to blame this on the democrats. >
  
  This is a 100% Republican problem that they have to deal with - or six Republicans can cross over and vote for Jeffries.  Those are their only two options.  It's hilarious to think anyone would blame the Democrats for Republican infighting, but they'll sure try... >
  
  Agreed. If the republicans can’t figure it out for themselves then they have to find the votes for Jeffries. 
  I think Jeffries should offer a power sharing agreement with republicans to have them make the move. 
  Otherwise, enjoy the popcorn and the show. >
  
  Whatever promises he would make, the Democrats would never trust him to keep his word. >
  
  He couldn't even if he wanted to; his caucus wouldn't let him. There's nothing McCarthy can offer the Dems. >
  
  Why would the Dems do that? They are committed to showing that all 212 support Jeffries, are a cohesive working unit, and are ready to let him run the House.
  The Reps continue to underscore how petty and tribal they are, and unwilling to come together to find solutions. Same as it's been since Gingrich pissed all over everything. >
  
  McCarthy can reach across the aisle all he wants. No democrat is going to break ranks to help the MAGA Party clean up their mess. This has NOTHING to do with the House Democratic Caucus. They elected their leader weeks ago and have voted for Leader Jeffries 11 times.
  I find it odd that anyone is asking the Dems to vote for Kevin McCarthy. Would you ask republicans to vote for Nancy Pelosi? Of course not. The republican caucus must work this mess out themselves. You are either a political party or an angry mob that somehow got elected. The voters apparently (cough, gerrymandering, cough) wanted a divided government. Now they get that plus a republican party destroying itself. A bonus! >
  
  I don't think this is entirely right. 
  If I was in Congress right now, I would be thinking about offering votes in exchange for giving dems the chair of every committee, along with the motion to vacate that Gaetz has already negotiated. You get Rs with a majority and nominally in charge, but every bill has to get through a D controlled committee. Dems might be able to get some good stuff through, and Republicans have to take the blame for everything they can't get done. If McCarthy reneges on anything, you can hold a vote to kick him out with the votes that obviously already exist to do so. >
  
  I think that's a deal Dems would gladly take, but not with McCarthy.  They will not vote to support someone who denied that Biden is the legitimate president. >
  
  You’re probably right, but frankly it’s their most productive route out of this mess. Continuing to allow McCarthy to make concessions to the hard right seriously puts us at risk of crashing into the debt ceiling. >
  
  It’s not democrats job to bail out McCarthy. The republicans won the majority. It’s their job to figure shit out. There’s no pros whatsoever to helping him out >
  
  Is there a limit to how long this can go on before something happens by default? >
  
  Yes: two years. At which point there will be a new election.
  Practically, it's unlikely that it would go that long because there would be a realization at some point that if they don't do something that their chances of getting elected, even in heavily gerrymandered districts, is going to be rapidly dwindling. >
  
  The government would shut down as budgets need to pass the house, and no business can be conducted until a speaker is elected. >
  
  Not going to waste time thinking of pros and cons because this won't be happening.  
  "Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake."  - Napoleon >
  
  McCarthy has no dignity. What will be left of his" leadership" if he's promised away all his power just to occupy the office? At 57, he's young enough to give it another try in a future election cycle. >
  
  He's young enough, but barring some miraculous resolution to this clusterfuck, he's never going to be nominated again. That would be like Walter Mondale running for President again in 1988. 
  It's possible for a politician to preserve their viability within a party if they step aside before crunch time (like McCarthy himself did in 2015 after Boehner retired and it appeared he wouldn't be able to beat Paul Ryan), but it's almost impossible for a politician to make a comeback as a party leader after such a publicly embarrassing repudiation. >
  
  So desperation is the frosting on McCarthy's last chance cake. >
  
  Well given the way the DNC responded to James Traficant when he crossed the aisle it’s unlikely any dems would agree to cross.  As for the democratic leadership giving any crossers a pass, why would they.  There is no upside for them at all.  
  No this stupidity will continue until the pack of dumbasses get all the concessions they want or until a compromise candidate emerges.  Damage is done however, this will come back to haunt the GOP in 2024.  Mainly in the form of GOP voters who will withhold support from their candidates on both sides of the shit show. >
  
  It's an impossobility. Democrats will never help McCarthy since he has a particularly bad reputation in the House among democrats for a variety of reasons. I could see the Dems making a move to support a moderate candidate once McCarthy steps out of the race. But that will come with its own set of problems. Any Republican who ends up upheld by Dems will be poisoned and will get primaried and removed from office in 2 years. They'd also have to make concessions to Democrats such as committee seats that could end GOP goals regarding investigating Hunter Biden or the Jan 6th Committee. Dems similarly would have their own problems as if they back a republican congressman to speaker this can make them look spineless or hurt their chances in their own districts.
  Compare this to the benefit Democrats see if they just continue backing Jeffries: the longer this goes on the more dysfunctional the GOP looks and if any major political issues happen while this speaker vote is going on Biden and the Democrats will be able to dust off blame and point to the House Republicans for holding the entire country up. Additionally Democrats hold the cards by voting Jefferies every vote instead of, for example, voting present it actually gives more power to the Freedom Caucus and lets them continue causing problems.
  TL;DR: Dems have everything to gain and nothing to lose by refusing to work with the GOP, and in this polarized environment, any Republican working with Dems to govern is screwed. >
  
  It wouldn’t hurt to have starting points for negotiations. 
  
  
  Automatic increase to debt-ceiling when necessary
  
  
  Specific committee chairmanships reserved for Democrats
  
  
  Deny specific committee assignments to specific Republican members
  
  
  Limitations on investigations, e.g., Hunter Biden
  
  
  No impeachment(s)
  
  
  Continue the J6 committee
  
  
  No balanced budget amendments
  
  
  No IRS staffing reductions
  
  
  Full/enhanced civil service protections
  
  
  Any other ideas, purely as a what-if exercise? >
  
  I feel like there’s no leverage after he’s elected Speaker to make him keep his word. And that he wouldn’t have the power to anyway as he obviously is not in control of his party.