mtutiger

To his last point, I just wonder how hard his support really is... it's clear that he's not well liked by a lot of his colleagues, but there is a bit of a "vote yes, hope no" thing going on. And him losing 10+ votes after the PR onslaught yesterday may create a permission structure to jump off the ship (ie. "He can't get to 217, we need to find someone else who can") I think he probably gets there in the end at this point. But after the way yesterday went, I'm a bit surprised that the picture isn't clearer at the moment

Guessing its higher than that. At least that's what Jake Sherman is saying

Jim's made some gains today, but looks like he's still short... 10ish votes maybe?

A lot of them are leveraging for outcomes as well. Rogers is probably the best example of that... he may have been promised items in exchange for the vote. Whether that comes to pass is another matter, Jordan is pretty untrustworthy lol

A lot of it comes down to the incentives for these pols as well... even if you don't agree with them, a lot of them care about the institution, whereas the hard right crowd doesn't... the Ann Wagner types of the world basically aren't on the same playing field because their opponents in conference literally do not care about outcomes (such as a shutdown, which we are on track for in about 35 days or so). I see what is happening on that side of the aisle and am left thinking that the entire system is sort of broken... a system where you are incentivized to grift and score cable TV hits over actual governing isn't much of a system.

I'm gonna guess that's ballgame haha

Still not a guarantee, but this was a necessary domino to fall for Jordan

Actually not surprised at all. I think it's one thing to implicitly believe the holdouts will fold... it's another thing to gleefully galivant to any microphone or social media network accessible at any given moment to express your plan. At some point, you are hitting at people's pride.

This is a big reason that some of the biggest opposition to Jordan is reportedly coming from House GOP leadership from the Armed Services committee (Mike Rogers being the figurehead for that set). The fact that Rogers has expressed little to no openness to Jordan and the fact that Rogers supports funding for Ukraine is probably not a coincidence.

I know, it's Meidas Touch and all, but.... Woof

See my post above.

A couple of thoughts: 1.) The fact that the GOP frequently rewards performance artistry doesn't mean that there aren't pols in office who have the rope to go against Jordan on a vote like this. Frank Lucas (who was one of the introducers of Austin Scott yesterday) and Kay Granger are two to come to mind: they lead powerful committees and bring home the bacon for their constituencies... they have their jobs for as long as they want them. 2.) To the extent that primaries matter, a lot of it also depends on how hard Trump or other powerful figures are willing to work to get between constituents and their reps. I am skeptical that they even have the juice to get people to care that much over Jim Jordan or him being Speaker.... especially given how polls have shown a lot Rs (around half) don't even think McCarthy should have been removed in the first place

Yep

Wow... not sure any amount of Jim Jordan charm will make that work

It's the arrogance of Jordan and his crowd that sort of gets me.... not that I love Scalise or anything, but he basically did a backdoor shiv on Scalise and then turns around and, for the last 24 hours, has been acting like he clearly was the only option and the caucus would be lucky to have him. The GOP is in such a ditch right now that it's always smart to assume the worst outcome will eventually come to pass (and maybe it still will here, who knows).... but that assumption just sort of obscures just how terrible Jordan has handled this on a personal level with a lot of these members, many of whom aren't out in front of cameras all the time and are actually interested in doing policymaking. Austin Scott was token opposition, but he's a pretty good example of that kind of member.... people don't realize it because they aren't out in front of cameras all the time, but there's a decent amount of those kinds of members in the House of Representatives, in both parties. They go out and are good soldiers on votes, even controversial ones, but ultimately they are there because they care about ag policy, energy policy, etc. Someone like Jordan as Speaker would be an anathema to that kind of member. And the result here is just case in point.

Yup... 81 voting against while standing next to token opposition is a hill to climb

Jordan is gonna need to dial up another one of his "charm offensives"... woof

Caveat being that I dont agree with his politics, but Scott v Jordan is quite a "workhorse vs. showhorse" matchup in terms of legislative styles.

Must be more of that "charm offensive" lol

lol

Well, yah Don, no kidding... it's easier to fundraise off of grievance when you are aggrieved, and it's easier to be aggrieved when you are in the minority. And they'll gladly sacrifice your 50/50 toss-up seat to further that purpose!

As I stated before as well, I think people underestimate the anger that the more "mainstream" GOPers (ie. Fitzpatrick/Bacon/the NYers) have toward those eight for the situation they find themselves in. And I think we see that in being too predisposed on figuring out what those eight want without considering that the eight broke the seal on using that kind of leverage to get what you want in this Congress. Put another way, the assumption is that everyone will just roll over for whatever the eight wants, but after what the eight actually did to create the situation in the first place, it's not clear to me the incentives line up for people to just give the eight whatever they want in this situation.... it was different back in January 2023 when McCarthy did the 15 rounds, it's a different world now. Pretty much in the same boat. I'm mostly ambivalent to how thing plays out.... I do think it'd be interesting if one of the Moderate GOPers took the dive and decided to stand and see about negotiating something with Democrats, but that's not something I expect in our system to happen.

By holdouts are you referring to the eight who ousted McCarthy, or the new cavalcade that's coming out against ever voting for Scalise? That's part of the problem here: there's a lot of people in the holdout camp at the moment, and their "demands" aren't necessarily all coherent or in alignment with other holdouts.