I don’t think too many people are thinking about this yet, but there’s an outcome to the midterm elections we can already assume. At least, we can assume it with much more confidence than we can predict whether the Democrats or Republicans will emerge in control of the House and Senate. It is very likely that the majority in the House will be so narrow that it will be difficult or perhaps impossible for anyone to win the Speakership on the first ballot.
It will not be completely shocking if the Democrats fail to win a majority of seats in the House, but it’s almost unthinkable that they won’t gain enough seats to come very close. That means that the Republicans will need close to internal unanimity to elect a Speaker. There’s not much chance of that.
Meanwhile, if the Democrats take the majority, it’s likely to be by a half dozen seats or less. Even if they have a ten or fifteen seat majority, which would require a landslide that is not yet predicted, there are enough candidates and sitting members who have pledged not to vote for Nancy Pelosi that she very well might not be able to grasp the gavel a second time.
Speakers are elected by the whole House, so members are technically able to vote for candidates from the opposing party. That’s what Republican Rep. Tom Reed is threatening to do, perhaps in favor of Minority Whip Steny Hoyer. Hoyer won’t be a candidate on the first ballot unless Pelosi decides not to run, but he’d be the logical second choice for the Democrats. Yet, there are enough younger Democrats who have expressed a preference for a new generation of leadership that Hoyer might not be able to win enough unanimity from his own caucus to prevail on a second ballot without getting some help from Republican members.
The same thing could happen if the Republicans narrowly hold onto their majority and Kevin McCarthy fails (again) to muster support for the Speakership. Some Democrats could cross the aisle to assure that the Speaker comes from the more moderate wing of the GOP.
These crossover scenarios aren’t necessarily likely outcomes of the midterms, but it will not be easy for anyone to get a majority of the House to support them. Different interest groups will emerge to make demands, and some of those demands may have significant bipartisan support. Here’s one example of how that is already shaping up:
[Rep. Tom] Reed co-chairs the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, which last week unveiled “Break the Gridlock,” a package of proposed House rule changes.
He and New Jersey’s Josh Gottheimer, the Democratic co-chair, said in separate interviews their caucus devises bipartisan approaches to divisive issues like immigration, health care and gun safety that hit roadblocks in getting to the floor.
Their package aims to address that dynamic by including a fast-track process for legislation co-sponsored by at least two-thirds of the House; a guarantee each member gets at least one markup of a bill they file to a committee they serve on if it has a co-sponsor across the aisle; a three-fifths threshold to pass bills under a closed rule; and at least one germane amendment from each party for structured rules.
Three dozen — 23 Democrats and 13 Republicans — of the 46-member Problem Solvers Caucus endorsed the package, but not all say their vote for speaker is conditional on support of the proposals. Six of the members backing the package are retiring or running for other office and won’t have a vote for speaker.
Those are procedural demands, but there could be more partisan groups that emerge demanding a vote on this or that bill or issue. On the Democratic side, either or both the moderates and the progressives could withhold support for anyone not of their own group, and that could devolve into a nasty game of chicken or eventually necessitate the moderates to go looking for Republican votes that will come with their own demands. The exact same thing could happen in reverse with Main Street Republicans looking for Democrats to help them ward off a Freedom Caucus Speaker of the House.
The closer the election is, the more likely it will be that electing a new Speaker becomes an extended process involving a lot of possibly cross-party haggling.
Maybe Nancy Pelosi will win on the first ballot, but that outcome looks remote at the moment. Her best chance is that the Democrats win by much more than expected and people are in a mood to give her credit.
A more progressive House Democratic caucus almost guarantees a less progressive House Speaker.
A group like this Problem-Solvers Caucus can get votes cross-aisle for Speaker. Under those conditions markers are going to be given that guarantee a speaker to the left of where Pelosi is now is the best you can get.
Where is the Congressional Progressive Caucus going to go for votes? Cross-aisle?
People howling for Pelosi’s head on a pike — be careful what you ask for, lest you get it.
How ironic that the effect of the purity pony crowd’s Pelosi hate campaign would most likely be to install a house speaker well to her right.
At least we know Putin has not wasted his money.
.
“purity ponies” like this guy?
Hell, according to this Politico article there are 11 DCCC endorsed “Red to Blue” candidates that aren’t backing Pelosi, including the illustrious ex-republican lottery winner Gil Cisneros that they so enthusiastically endorsed in a district near me. I doubt anybody backed by the DCCC falls into the “purity pony” category- more likely they are on the “corrupt blue dog” side of the fence if you ask me.
The people who get voted into party leadership traditionally get there because they are good at exactly one thing: raising money. Unfortunately, this tends to limit the selection to people who aren’t always the best face of the party. Honestly, I think Ted Lieu would be an outstanding choice for speaker should the Democrats win this November and Pelosi doesn’t have the votes, but I don’t know if there is a chance of that happening or not.
I think it is increasingly likely that Democrats will win by “more than expected”. Our unprecedented administration seems poised to elicit unprecedented Democratic midterm turnout.
We’ll have another piece of data next week after OH-12, but at this point, individual House polls are starting to suggest a potential landslide. Ojeda may well be set to take a House seat in WV, for example.
I’d set the Over/Under around 30 (and if I had to bet I’d still take the Over).
After I got an email from Katie Porter that Obama endorsed her, I looked at her CA-45 district.
Mimi Walters is beatable. The primary voter turnout for D candidates was much greater than 2016 and 2014.
And while Walters running as the lone R got the most votes, now all D voters will support Porter.
If I look at the ratio of primary to general election voters in the last two cycles, there is a high probability that Porter will win. If the blue wave materializes, the she will win by a big margin.
Pelosi has been great in a lot of ways, but this is no longer her time. Has nothing to do with purity. She’s halting when she speaks, which as it is is rare. If she wanted to be Whip again, I’d back her all the way.
More importantly, Democrats need a leader who could credibly step into the presidency. The probability of impeachment or resignation is greater above zero than normal. In the same way that Pence depresses our enthusiasm for removing Trump, a popular Speaker would increase enthusiasm for seeing the backs of both of them.
Is there someone with good progressive cred who would appeal across the aisle? Yes — Biden. If I heard correctly, the Speaker doesn’t need to be a sitting member of the House. We’d be moving someone into position that in the event of extraordinary circumstances could heal the country for two years and step aside. And in any case, would be a counterweight every day to the flimflammery of the Republican Party as a whole.
Biden, or anyone, probably couldn’t fulfill the role and run for president at the same time. But Biden’s age is working against him for a four-year term beginning in 2021. As much of a long-shot as it would be, it might be his best one. And he’d be doing the country (another) solid.
Good point.
I like NP a lot. But she has been used as a Republican scare toy for a long time and it would have been nice not to have this phoney issue in some races. Running the Dems races nationally as a kind of parliamentary election with speaker candidates that were good presidential materially could’ve been interesting.
On the other hand, President Pelosi … that would work.
. . . used as a “scare toy” by dishonest Banana Republican propagandists as Speaker. It’s what they do. It’s all they know.
Well, there is Johnny Unbeatable…
. . . of course — I get it.)
But how much pressure would House Republicans be to actually resolve such a situation? Congressional gridlock is there friend right now.
Their reprogrammable meatbag voters are happy with the last two years of governance by Twitter EO from Der Leader. So, other than “investigating” deep state conspiracies against President Stupid, it’s not like they are under an expectation to actually govern.
Heck, if they lose the House, the best move would probably be to ensure Pelosi gets the gavel because it will fire up their voters for 2020 and keep the left in it’s circular firing squad.
I started a comment to Booman’s post above. It grew.
Now a standalone:
The Final Chapter of This Season’s Game of Drones Will Air In November. Bet On It.
Please comment there.
Thank you…
AG
As long as the Hastert Rule stays in effect, this proposal is stillborn. After years and years of relentless GOP bad faith, there is no reason to trust the GOP at all. They just want destroy all opposition.
Man oh man – that’s one rule that ought to be bustable given Hastert’s ugly finish and continuing problems and the current social climate. Keep bringing up that name and his history.