Jan.06

electoral-vote.com

Dem 51

   

GOP 49

Lucky Number Seven (or Eleven) for Kevin?

Nope. It's déjà vu all over again. The House held another five votes for speaker yesterday, and got no closer to choosing someone for the job.

Here are the votes in each round:

The changes that took place on Wednesday are akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Some of the Republican members who had been voting for Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) shifted their support to Rep. Kevin Hern (R-OK). Halfway through the day, Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) left for a medical appointment, which is why House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) dropped down to 200 votes (though Buck has warned repeatedly that he only promised to vote for McCarthy for five rounds, so he could possibly jump ship at any time). In three of yesterday's five rounds, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) voted for Donald Trump. Presumably this was meant to please the Dear Leader, but we'd say it actually was more of an embarrassment. First, because nobody else voted for Trump. Second, because there is normally a big round of applause when a candidate's vote totals are announced by the clerk of the house. When the votes for "the honorable Donald John Trump" were announced, however, there was only anemic applause, at best.

And speaking of Trump, we know that his ability to influence the speaker election is roughly equal to his ability to let an insult roll off his back without firing back. So, he isn't going to be the wild card here. But how about the right-wing media? After all, Republican politicians tend to bow before Fox, et al., as well. In this case, however, the right-wing media is just as divided as the House Republican Conference is. Most obviously, Sean Hannity is pushing for Republicans to unite behind McCarthy, while Tucker Carlson is egging on those Republicans who want to burn it all down. So, the right-wing media isn't going to be the wild card here, either.

And speaking of burning it all down, the 2-year anniversary of the 1/6 insurrection arrives today. And, whaddya know? The House members who cheered the insurrectionists (and may possibly have been aided and abetted them) are the same people who are throwing a wrench in the works right now. In other words, they are once again waging war against the government. The difference this time is that it's from within. And we are hardly the only ones to make this observation. For example, in a piece for Slate headlined "Another January, Another Attempt at Destabilizing the Government," Dahlia Lithwick writes:

Except, of course, the events of Jan. 6, 2021 and Jan. 3-? of 2023 are not at all unrelated. Nor are they sequential points along a continuum that is leading us to a better place. Instead, they represent the locomotive and the caboose of the same train: Each is a point along a terrifying line of governmental failure; each is a subversion of the principles of lawful transition of power. But certainly they are moving in the same direction, and there should be no joy found in watching the present and past pancaking back on itself. In many ways, the events of this week should be as frightening to us as the events of two years past, if not more so. This, too, is an insurrection. That it's coming—quite literally—from inside the House in 2023 should no more be grounds for popcorn and selfies from Democrats than the Capitol insurrection was in 2021. This is a profoundly serious systems failure, Trumpism without the relative coherence of Trump, and a triumph of nihilist anti-government fan fiction. And this go-round, those forces have a vote that is big enough to gum up the entire operation.

Or how about this from The Philadelphia Inquirer's J. Scott Applewhite, headlined "On 2nd anniversary of Jan. 6, Trump's disciples succeed in shutting down the Capitol":

One of the ironies in this remarkable week—and there have been so many—is that McCarthy has proved to be both an enabler of Jan. 6 and its ongoing zeitgeist, yet also its victim. If the spineless Californian had followed his basic instincts in the hours following the insurrection—when he blamed the violence on POTUS 45 and claimed to colleagues he would ask Trump to resign, stating "I've had it with this guy"—he might have become a leader. Instead, McCarthy flew to Mar-a-Lago just weeks later to lick the boots of the failed coup leader and then empowered the most extreme members of his caucus. Instead of cutting out the cancer that was revealed two years ago this week, he allowed it to metastasize and strangle the chamber he wished so pathetically to lead.

Assuming that these MAGA members are not indicted, then the only people with power to rein them in are the voters that sent them to Washington and/or the other Republican officeholders. The voters, of course, are quite happy with the Matt Gaetzes and Paul Gosars of the world. And as to the other Republican officeholders, polarization is so ingrained at the moment that they are unwilling or unable to consider the alternative to the MAGA 20, which would be working with the moderate Democrats to get past this mess and, maybe, to get some stuff done.

McCarthy, for his part, continues to demonstrate that the only strategy he'll consider here is "accommodate the insurgents." Reportedly, he has agreed to drop the number of members needed for a motion to vacate down to one, and also to increase the hard-right's membership on the House Rules Committee, which would make it easier for them to kill legislation they don't like. This is about as complete a surrender as he is capable of proffering.

And yet, giving the MAGA militia the two biggest things they want does not appear likely to solve the logjam. First, it's not clear whether these boons were offered on Wednesday night or Thursday night; different sources give different timelines. However, if it was Wednesday night, then the scheme has already failed. Second, a majority of the Republicans in the House would have to agree to the motion-to-vacate rule change, and it's not clear that can happen. There would be enormous risk of this same exact fiasco happening again, and possibly at a critical juncture.

As a way of putting it all together, we thought we'd do a rundown of the people most likely to be the next speaker of the house, in our view, from most to least likely:

1. Kevin McCarthy: McCarthy is still the most likely speaker, because he represents the "stick with the status quo" approach, and he's the only person who does. For every other approach ("pick a McCarthy ally," "pick a moderate who can gain Democratic support," etc.), there are multiple potential options. So, it's not quite plausible for any one of them to overcome him, quite yet.
   
   That said, we think the Californian is now a bit less than 50% to become speaker. Maybe 40%? The first problem is that history is against him. In all of U.S. history, you know how many times a member has finished second in the first round of voting, and then gone on to be elected Speaker? Once. And that was well over 200 years ago (Frederick Muhlenberg in 1793).
   
   It's true, as everyone knows at this point, that disputed speaker elections have been a rarity since the Civil War. However, there have nonetheless been 14 of them over the years, and there are really only two dynamics that we see in them. The first is that the early frontrunner makes a few concessions, picks up a few votes, and goes on to victory. The second is that there's a "time for a change" sentiment, and none of the top vote-getters in the first round end up victorious. McCarthy is really falling victim to both dynamics. He can't make enough concessions to a crew that believes it is time for a change.
   
   More to the point, however, is this: McCarthy might be able to flip the votes of some of the holdouts. For example, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) is apparently gettable. However, there are at least five Republican members—Bob Good (VA), Matt Rosendale (MT), Matt Gaetz (FL), Lauren Boebert (CO), Andy Biggs (AZ)—who say they are a hard "no," and that isn't changing. McCarthy's strategy is to buy off the insurgents who can be bought, and then rely on peer pressure to flip enough additional votes for him to reach the promised land. Both halves of that strategy seem dubious to us.
   
   
2. Steve Scalise: If it's not McCarthy, then Steve Scalise (FL) is allegedly the fallback option. He's a little more right-wing than McCarthy is, and he's not McCarthy, so giving him the speaker's gavel would be a double win for the MAGA maniacs.
   
   However, we wonder if Scalise is too close to McCarthy for the tastes of the MAGA 20, or is too right-wing (and, specifically, too racist) for the more moderate Republicans. If either of these things is true, then his goose is cooked.
   
   
3. Elise Stefanik: Although there isn't much talk about her, to us, Elise Stefanik (NY) is more plausible than Scalise if the new speaker is to be a non-McCarthy member of House leadership. She used to be a moderate, and so may have more cachet with the moderates than Scalise. And she's now pretty whackadoodle, and so many have plenty of cachet with the MAGA types. She's also been around for much less time than McCarthy/Scalise, which means less time to make enemies. Finally, the Republicans have been trying to make clear that they're not just a party for white men (they're also for white women!), and so have been trying to get some women members into high-profile roles in the Party. This would help on that front.
   
   
4. Fred Upton: Several times, we've written that a compromise option could be a "placeholder" Republican; someone who will do the job for now, but will not be a long-term obstacle to the ambitions of Republican House members. Our guess was that the most likely placeholder would be Dean of the House Hal Rogers (KY), but it would seem that former representative Fred Upton (MI) is the pick, should it come to that. This is the only plausible way that the House ends up with a speaker who is not a member, we'd say.
   
   
5. Don Bacon/Young Kim/Brian Fitzpatrick: Although Upton is moderate as compared to the far-right elements of the Republican Conference, he's not actually all that moderate. The Democrats might not be open to voting for someone as conservative as he is, or they might not be keen on the idea of a non-member running the show. Don Bacon (NE), Young Kim (CA) and Brian Fitzpatrick (PA) stand out to us as the current members most likely to lead a coalition House.
   
   
6. Byron Donalds/Kevin Hern: If the MAGA 20 had unified on an alternative candidate, and had voted for that person over and over, then that person might have gained some momentum, and might be worth taking seriously. But that is not what has happened; the MAGA 20 are all over the place. So we mention Donalds and Hern because their names are now in the conversation, but we just don't see a path for them.
   
   
7. Hakeem Jeffries: From here on out, it's "no freaking way" candidates whom we mention just for the sake of completeness. It is a strange quirk of the American system of governance that Jeffries has been the leader for all 11 rounds of balloting, and yet has no chance to win. It would take a bad B-movie plot, like the shrimp at the next meeting of the Republican conference is tainted, and so all of a sudden 50 Republican members are down with food poisoning and are unable to vote.
   
   
8. Adam Kinzinger/Justin Amash: Fred Upton is an outsider that Republicans would theoretically like and Democrats would theoretically tolerate. These two former members are the other side of the coin: Democrats would theoretically like them and Republicans would theoretically tolerate then. However, the folks who are talking about Adam Kinzinger (IL) and Justin Amash (MI) are overlooking one small thing: The current Republican members would not tolerate them. They are as toxic as it gets for the GOP base, outside of Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Liz Cheney (R-WY). Any Republican member who supported Kinzinger or Amash for speaker would almost certainly be ending their own career in Congress.
   
   
9. Jim Jordan: Just to reiterate what we've already written this week, Jordan is too much of a firebrand, and he has too much baggage (looking the other way while a molestation scandal unfolded under his nose). He may have gotten some Day 1 votes, but he's never going to be speaker.
   
   
10. Donald Trump: We have written many, many times that there is no way Republicans allow Trump to take over the House. They won't say it out loud, but most of them want him to go away.
    
    The one path, which we noted this week, was if the MAGA crew put Trump forward and the other members were just too frightened to oppose him. But yesterday's voting, in which the former president got just 1/20th of the MAGA vote and inspired zero enthusiasm, confirmed that even that narrow path is not actually there.

They are going to be back at it today at noon ET. If McCarthy can't get across the finish line today, then he goes from "deep trouble" to "Marianas Trench-deep trouble." (Z)