| Party | Candidate | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | Hakeem Jeffries (NY 8) | 212 | 49.1% |
| Republican | Jim Jordan (OH 4) | 200 | 46.3% |
| Republican | Steve Scalise (LA 1) | 7 | 1.6% |
| Republican | Kevin McCarthy (CA 20) | 6 | 1.4% |
| Republican | Lee Zeldin | 3 | 0.7% |
| Republican | Tom Cole (OK 4) | 1 | 0.2% |
| Republican | Tom Emmer (MN 6) | 1 | 0.2% |
| Republican | Mike Garcia (CA 27) | 1 | 0.2% |
| Republican | Thomas Massie (KY 4) | 1 | 0.2% |
Note: official party nominees in bold.
You're describing the "majority leader" and the "majority whip". Not the speaker.
The speaker's role can and should be akin to that of a judge, with the majority and minority leaders as litigants.
That's not the actual role of the Speaker. They are, and always have been, responsible for wheeling, dealing, and cajoling other members in order to pass legislation. They are the carrot to the Whip's stick.
To take one example, Nancy Pelosi was a very effective Speaker but she was not a dispassionate "judge". She was in every way a power broker, like Tip O'Neill (another very effective Speaker).
If the Speakership worked as you suggest, with no real power to push an agenda, then few people would want the job. It would be like the President of the Senate (aka Vice-President), a job which is usually a consolation prize.
Nancy Pelosi didn't need to take a dispassionate role; she had the support of a partisan majority. Same thing with Tip O'Neill and the overwhelming majority of past speakers.
The last speaker only had a partisan majority because Matt Gaetz managed to drag the party to the right.
The next speaker will only enjoy a partisan majority if Matt Gaetz manages to drag the party even further to the right.
We disarm Matt Gaetz, and stop the rightward swing of the Republican Party by making the speakership an apolitical role.
Hakeem Jeffries should be the one announcing and supporting our "hero" candidate.
If Matt Gaetz could drag his party to the right, then Jim Jordan would already be Speaker. The reason Jim Jordan isn't Speaker tonight is that some members of the GOP are resisting further moves towards extremism.
If they can ultimately be won over to extremism, then Jordan won't need support from Democrats.
If they prefer bipartisanship to extremism, then they must find a Speaker who will actually work with Democrats.
But bipartisanship means supporting legislation that advances at least some Democratic priorities. "Stopping the rightward swing of the Republican Party" and "making Matt Gaetz less influential in the GOP" is not a Democratic priority. At all. Democrats don't care about internal GOP squabbles. If anything, painting the GOP as extremist would help Democrats in 2024.
Finally, nothing in the House is apolitical. So supporting an "apolitical" candidate doesn't help Democratic priorities either, since an outsider "hero" is powerless to push through any legislation, much less push through something that will help Democrats.
It absolutely should be. We should be sabotaging right-wing extremists any chance we can get.
Democrats sabotage right-wing Republican extremists by trying to get people to vote for Democrats.
Not by trying to get people to vote for different Republicans. Or otherwise help Republicans make themselves more appealing.
You've got it backwards. Gaetz is the one making the Republican party more appealing to Republicans. Undercutting Gaetz makes the Republican party less appealing, not more.
Democrats don't care whether the Republican party is appealing to Republicans.
Democrats only care whether the Republican party is appealing to voters in general. And they believe, for good reason, that people like Gaetz make the Republican party less appealing to voters in general.
If that is true, it is an incredibly shortsighted and foolish belief.
The objective should be to achieve the policy positions of the Democratic party, regardless of which party is currently in power.
The way to do that is to promote our policies when we are in power, and to push the Republicans toward our policies (and away from their lunatic fringe) when they are in power.
Allowing the Republicans to constantly run further and further away from our positions makes things worse, not better. I am honestly horrified that Democrats could possibly consider this a good thing.
I think and I hope your vile argument misrepresents the Democratic party position.
Yes, the objective of Democrats is to achieve Democratic policy goals. That's why Democrats have, in fact, already indicated that they are willing to support a bipartisan GOP Speaker who will make a deal with Democrats to help achieve some of those goals.
What they are not willing to do is support a GOP politician who offers nothing to Democrats in order to defeat a different GOP politician who also offers nothing to Democrats. It's a distinction without a difference, because either way Democratic policies will not be achieved.
In other words, there is no reason to support GOP politicians who are not willing to help Democrats. There is no reason to support someone like McCarthy in order to defeat someone like Gaetz. Because neither one wants to help Democrats achieve Democratic goals. Their superficial difference - i.e. steadfast opposition to Democrats based on expediency (McCarthy) vs extremism (Gaetz) - is irrelevant.
Irrelevant to the issue at hand: I never suggested supporting a GOP politician.
I suggested an apolitical outsider: someone other than a congressman. A person untainted by political aspirations. I suggested a Medal of Honor recipient, but we could go with an astronaut, or the head of a major charitable organization, or someone else with an awe-inspiring origin story who hasn't yet managed to piss off half the country.
They've asked the GOP to nominate someone the Democrats can support. That's the wrong approach. Anybody the GOP nominates will automatically be considered a partisan hack by many of the Democrats. Any division in the Democratic ranks would be very damaging. Democratic leaders would have an extremely difficult time trying to wrangle all Democrats to support any candidate the GOP puts forward.
We want the opposite. We want 212 Democrats voting for this person. That means we have to nominate this person.
This person's unassailable record needs to scare the GOP leadership into believing 6 or more of their own members may defect. An MoH recipient can do that.
As soon as they believe that, GOP leadership has to jump on the bandwagon and back this person as well.
It would be incredibly damaging to the GOP for all of their members to shun an MoH recipient. Current and former military would crucify them.
The Speaker is a highly political job. They decide which bills will get a floor vote and which bills will not get a floor vote. One of their first decisions will be whether to bring a budget bill with Ukraine funding to the floor, or a budget bill without Ukraine funding. They will need to decide one or the other before anyone votes for them as Speaker.
If an "apolitical" outsider plans to include Ukraine funding, they would put many Republicans in a tough spot. So why exactly should they have support from those Republicans? If they plan not to fund Ukraine, why exactly should they have Democratic support?
Likewise, will the "apolitical" Speaker bring pro-choice bills or anti-choice bills to the floor? Pro-LGBTQ or anti-LGBTQ? Pro-union or anti-union? Pro-environment or anti-environment? And so on. Whichever they choose, it will cost them support.
Legislators favor certain bills, and they won't vote for a Speaker who won't bring those bills to the floor. Even if they have a Medal of Honor.
Several decorated war heroes have gone into politics, including GHWB, McCain, and Inouye (who actually had a MoH himself). They didn't automatically get bipartisan support based on their military record. If 212 Democrats somehow nominated and voted for someone with a Medal of Honor, that person would immediately be labeled a Democratic war hero, like Inouye. And they would get as many Republican votes for Speaker as Inouye would have: zero.