Ocasio-Cortez said that while Republicans "leverage their right flank to gain policy concessions and generate enthusiasm," Democrats shut progressives out.
That's not how the Speaker vote works. It's not First Past the Post. They keep voting until someone gets a majority. Republicans don't have a majority.
The Speaker is elected at the beginning of a new Congress by a majority of the Representatives-elect from candidates separately chosen by the majority- and minority-party caucuses. These candidates are elected by their party members at the organizing caucuses held soon after the new Congress is elected.
If you don't know how this stuff works, that's fine, but don't lash out at the few decent people in politics due to ignorance. Know what they can and can't do for starters.
If no candidate obtains the requisite majority, the roll call is repeated. On these subsequent ballots, Members may still vote for any individual; no restrictions have ever been imposed, such as that the lowest candidate on each ballot must drop out, or that no new candidate may enter.
Also:
In 1923 (68th Congress), in a closely divided House, both major party nominees initially failed to gain a majority because of votes cast for other candidates by Members from the Progressive Party or from the “progressive” wing of the Republican Party. Many of these Members agreed to vote for the Republican candidate only on the ninth ballot, after the Republican leadership had agreed to accept a number of procedural reforms these Members favored.
Republicans would have a majority if the progressive caucus voted against Pelosi, as you're suggesting.
But say they abstain or vote for someone else, sure. How is this supposed to wind up with someone who's not Pelosi, and not a Republican, as Speaker? Right-wing Democrats are happy to let AOC and co. sweat it out, and the gridlock has to end at some point (or if it doesn't, how is that good?).
And if a 45-year-old version of Pelosi is elected in her place, how is that not a net loss?
Many of these Members agreed to vote for the Republican candidate only on the ninth ballot, after the Republican leadership had agreed to accept a number of procedural reforms these Members favored.
Republicans would have a majority if the progressive caucus voted against Pelosi, as you’re suggesting.
What? There is no "voted against". In this case it would be something like Pelosi 216, McCarthy 212, Someone else 6. No one wins, vote again.
There is no way for McCarthy to win.
Right-wing Democrats are happy to let AOC and co. sweat it out, and the gridlock has to end at some point (or if it doesn’t, how is that good?).
Vice versa could be said by right wing Dems. Progressives asserting their power to fuck shit up is what's needed, else they will continue to be "locked in the basement". If it stays gridlocked so what? They've shown that they have power and are willing to use it.
Even in that example this gambit didn’t work.
They accepted concessions, that's essentially what the whole debate about "getting a floor vote on M4A" is. I say that's liberal compromise and we should go for more.
For starters, you don't even get the meager crumbs of that $600 stimulus check or the enhanced unemployment. Having no House leadership would probably shut the government down sooner rather than later, too, which further fucks people over.
They accepted concessions, that’s essentially what the whole debate about “getting a floor vote on M4A” is.
They got nothing. They didn't force a different Speaker, and vague "procedural concessions" that aren't meaningful enough to merit even a cursory description are also nothing.
Similarly, forcing a vote on a bill that is DOA in the Senate (and that the President elect said he'd veto) is gaining nothing. Aren't we materialists here?
They got nothing. They didn’t force a different Speaker, and vague “procedural concessions” that aren’t meaningful enough to merit even a cursory description are also nothing.
Similarly, forcing a vote on a bill that is DOA in the Senate (and that the President elect said he’d veto) is gaining nothing. Aren’t we materialists here?
That's the alternative being presented by Dore and others. It's useless, but still less useless than just granting Pelosi an easy win. The point is if progressives don't push back that's an absolute loss.
if progressives don’t push back that’s an absolute loss
It's an absolute loss either way! Either way you get nothing!
The bottom line is that progressives can't force Pelosi out. At best they can force gridlock and hope the conservative Democrats cave before they do. Guess how that will play out.
My scenario: progressives show they are willing to use their power against establishment dems, even if nothing comes of itand lose, and show everyone how little power they have
You want progressives to die on this hill even though we both agree that would do nothing. When you've vastly outnumbered, you have to pick your battles a lot better.
That's not how the Speaker vote works. It's not First Past the Post. They keep voting until someone gets a majority. Republicans don't have a majority.
It's exactly how the Speaker vote works:
If you don't know how this stuff works, that's fine, but don't lash out at the few decent people in politics due to ignorance. Know what they can and can't do for starters.
Majority. Republicans have no way to get a majority. "Most votes" doesn't equal majority if they don't have >50%.
On page 2 is an example of a Speakership vote that took multiple rounds because no one got a majority.
Also:
Sounds familiar...
Republicans would have a majority if the progressive caucus voted against Pelosi, as you're suggesting.
But say they abstain or vote for someone else, sure. How is this supposed to wind up with someone who's not Pelosi, and not a Republican, as Speaker? Right-wing Democrats are happy to let AOC and co. sweat it out, and the gridlock has to end at some point (or if it doesn't, how is that good?).
And if a 45-year-old version of Pelosi is elected in her place, how is that not a net loss?
Even in that example this gambit didn't work.
What? There is no "voted against". In this case it would be something like Pelosi 216, McCarthy 212, Someone else 6. No one wins, vote again.
There is no way for McCarthy to win.
Vice versa could be said by right wing Dems. Progressives asserting their power to fuck shit up is what's needed, else they will continue to be "locked in the basement". If it stays gridlocked so what? They've shown that they have power and are willing to use it.
They accepted concessions, that's essentially what the whole debate about "getting a floor vote on M4A" is. I say that's liberal compromise and we should go for more.
Now read past the first line of my comment.
Gimme a sec
Ok, added that in.
Ryan grim discussed this with Dore. I'll take his interpretation of it over yours.
For starters, you don't even get the meager crumbs of that $600 stimulus check or the enhanced unemployment. Having no House leadership would probably shut the government down sooner rather than later, too, which further fucks people over.
They got nothing. They didn't force a different Speaker, and vague "procedural concessions" that aren't meaningful enough to merit even a cursory description are also nothing.
Similarly, forcing a vote on a bill that is DOA in the Senate (and that the President elect said he'd veto) is gaining nothing. Aren't we materialists here?
That's the alternative being presented by Dore and others. It's useless, but still less useless than just granting Pelosi an easy win. The point is if progressives don't push back that's an absolute loss.
It's an absolute loss either way! Either way you get nothing!
The bottom line is that progressives can't force Pelosi out. At best they can force gridlock and hope the conservative Democrats cave before they do. Guess how that will play out.
My scenario: progressives show they are willing to use whatever power they have against establishment dems, even if nothing comes of it.
Your scenario: progressives show they are pushovers who won't even try to fight establishment dems.
You want progressives to die on this hill even though we both agree that would do nothing. When you've vastly outnumbered, you have to pick your battles a lot better.