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.

    • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Reminds me of a scene from Pirates of the Caribbean, where all the gathered pirates just vote for themselves. The deadlock is broken when ONE pirate votes for someone else.

  • Type 1 [Missouri]@midwest.socialOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have moved general discussion and updates to here, as this post references an article which covers only the breaking news that Republicans have failed to successfully elect a speaker with the first ballot.

    • rynzcycle@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      The district they represent. I.e. McCarthy represents California’s 20th congressional district.

  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    82
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Democrats do not look better by letting the Republicans flail. If this is going to be a repeat of the last speakership election, Democrats should intervene.

    There is no constitutional requirement that the speaker of the house be a member of Congress. Democrats should nominate a strong apolitical candidate (perhaps a Medal of Honor recipient), and dare the Republicans to give them anything less than their whole-hearted support.

    Hell, they should publish a list of the next 10 such candidates they will be nominating, inviting the public and media to compare Jim Jordan to a whole list of laudable alternatives.

    Waiting for the Republicans to negotiate toward a position that will appease Matt Gaetz and his chucklefucks serves neither the nation’s interests nor Democratic interests.

    • zarp86@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Republicans do not look better by letting the Republicans flail. If this is going to be a repeat of the last speakership election, Republicans should vote for Jeffries.

      There is no constitutional requirement that the speaker of the house be a member of the majority party in Congress. Republicans should vote for Jeffries since Jeffries has the most votes.

      Hell, they could publish a list of alternatives to Jeffries in the Democratic party, inviting the public and media to compare candidates as they reach across the aisle.

      Watching Republicans waste time until they negotiate toward a position that will appease Matt Gaetz and his chucklefucks shows just how much Republicans don’t give a fuck about neither the nation’s interests nor Democratic interests.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        If this is going to be a repeat of the last speakership election, Republicans should vote for Jeffries.

        To a moderate Republican, the only thing worse than Gaetz is a Democratic political player. The only way a Republican can vote for the Democratic nominee is if that nominee is not a political operative.

        A non-partisan speakership cuts the floor out from under Gaetz and his cronies, allowing the GOP to ignore its lunatic fringe and come back to the center.

        • Tinidril@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          When was the last time the Republicans let anything be non-political? Fucking surgical masks were political for crissakes! The moment a name comes out of the lips of a Democrat, Republicans will make it a partisan issue, no matter who is picked. Division isn’t a bug to them, it’s a feature.

        • HandBreadedTools@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is not how stuff works literally at all lmfao. There is no angle that what you’re saying makes any amount of actual sense.

        • zarp86@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          To a moderate Republican, the only thing worse than Gaetz is a Democratic political player.

          And that’s the problem, isn’t it?

    • minorcoma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      1 year ago

      Bullshit. Why try to cover for their inability to govern? It’s gonna suck, but if these people keep getting elected it will continue to suck for a long time. I’m all for a schism splitting off the radical right.

      It’s their house, and it’s going to be a shitshow, but people voted for this. Maybe it’ll make the party implode, or at least a few reconsider it next time out of embarrassment.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        1 year ago

        Bad take. We aren’t covering for their inability to govern. We are exploiting their inability to govern by forcing them to accept a candidate they don’t really want.

        And if they aren’t willing to accept that candidate, we keep comparing their horseshit speaker to the upstanding hero we could have had.

        6 Republicans who don’t want to reject a war hero either divide the party, or force it to back that reasonable candidate.

        Instead, we’re going to get someone an inch closer to Matt Gaetz. Fuck. That. Shit.

        • hasnt_seen_goonies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I get the impulse, but the difference between a democrat (Jeffries), and someone nominated by a democrat (MOH recipient/etc) to the GOP is minimal if not non-existent.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you’re talking about Republican politicians, I would agree. If you’re talking about Republican voters, I strongly disagree. The reverence our current and former soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have for MoH recipients is stronger than the distrust we have for the major parties. I don’t see Republican politicians being able to spin war heroes into political hacks.

    • snooggums@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      1 year ago

      Fuck off with blaming the Dems because the Republicans can’t get their shit together to nominate a compromise candidate instead of going further right with each nominee.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        “further right with each nominee” IS the compromise. The only thing worse to a Republican than compromising with Gaetz is compromise with the Democrats.

        We don’t want compromise. We want to force the issue. We don’t do that by sitting back and watching them flail around until they give Gaetz something he can call a victory. We do that by eliminating Gaetz from the equation. Relegate him to the back bench.

        • HandBreadedTools@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Let your fuckin voters do that lmfao. People been complaining that the democratic party is too passive and too quick to compromise, yet the moment they have a spine people say “oh no! that was the problem all along!”

          People voted for Republicans, they got Republicans. This dysfunction is exactly what Republican politicians promised their voters.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            People voted for Republicans, they got Republicans. This dysfunction is exactly what Republican politicians promised their voters.

            Yes, I fully agree. So would the Republican voters. The Republicans made a campaign promise of dysfunction, and the Republicans are successfully delivering on that promise. The MAGA crowd love that Gaetz and the chaos caucus are doing this. They are enthusiastic about the direction that American politics are moving.

            What did the Democrats promise? I don’t believe they promised to stand by and watch while the world burns under Republican dysfunction.

            The wrong party is the one keeping its promises.

    • Banzai51@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      The point for Republicans is to flail around until the budget extension runs out. We’re getting another 3 weeks of this.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        At the end of that 3 weeks, we have a GOP speaker a little closer to Matt Gaetz, with the full support of the Republican party. And then he pulls this shit again, and the Republican party shifts a little further to the right. And again, and again, until that slimy weasel is in the white house.

        Or, we divide the GOP right now, either giving them a respectable figurehead with just 6 GOP votes, or we spend the term asking their base why they preferred their loser speaker over honest-to-god heroes.

        Best case, the new speaker is approved almost unanimously, and Gaetz looks like the fuckwit we all know him to be. worst case, the GOP looks even more incompetent than they actually are.

    • Ep1cFac3pa1m@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Republicans failing because they’re bad at literally everything except fear mongering

      “Boy this makes the Democrats look bad!”

      Love seeing Democrats held responsible for Republican foolishness, as if the GOP are children fighting over what kind of cereal to get while the parents do nothing. At some point Republicans are going to have to be held accountable for their own fucking behavior, because although they’re a party full of immature, selfish, posturing, anti-democracy protofascists, they’re also grown adults. Let their failure be a demonstration to reasonable people everywhere of exactly how unfit they are to govern.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        “The buck stops here.”.

        Democrats certainly aren’t responsible for creating the problem, but they certainly can take credit for solving it.

        The only people who benefit from the GOP sorting it out themselves are Matt Gaetz and Donald Trump.

        • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          You live in a unicorn world if you think that the GOP will give any credit to the Dems for allowing them to elect their speaker. They will somehow find a way to turn it against the Dems in the most inane way.

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      strong apolitical candidate

      They would have an even worse chance of winning than Jeffries.

      The Speakership is not an award or purely ceremonial position. The Speaker is a political operative. Their job is to unite a majority and keep it united during subsequent legislative votes. Winning the gavel is just the first test. If they can’t consistently get a majority to vote for stuff, their gavel is useless.

      That’s why Democrats won’t vote for a GOP Speaker unless they strike some sort of bipartisan deal about future legislation. In other words, Democrats will support whoever can offer something to Democrats in exchange.

      An apolitical outsider offers nothing to anybody. They have no chance at becoming Speaker for that reason. And if they accidentally stumbled into the job, they would be unable to pass legislation - so why bother giving them the job?

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The Speakership is not an award or purely ceremonial position. The Speaker is a political operative. Their job is to unite a majority and keep it united

        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.

        • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

              • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Stopping the rightward swing of the Republican Party" is not a Democratic priority. At all.

                It absolutely should be. We should be sabotaging right-wing extremists any chance we can get.

                • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  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.

    • Robin.Net (she/her)@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Republicans could just vote for Jefferies and be done with it. He has the most votes and they wouldn’t need to appease the extreme right or they could work with democrats on finding a good compromise speaker. However, Republicans can’t even compromise amongst themselves, so it is unlikely that they will compromise with Democrats. This is 100% Republicans fault

    • Astroturfed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s cute that you think this would matter at all. The Republicans won’t vote for anyone who isn’t a hardcore republican. Their base wouldn’t give a single fuck about them not voting for someone great the Democrats all voted for.