politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
McCarthy was kicked out because he worked with Democrats to prevent a government shutdown.
This is not a group of people who wants to work with Democrats on any issue what-so-ever. If they end up just working with Democrats anyway (in a way that gives Democrats more power than under McCarthy), then what the hell was the past 2 or 3 weeks for at all?
Then again, maybe the MAGA Republicans are actually that short-sighted and unable to see the long term (erm... 2weeks?) trends of politics...
Exactly. To them, working with Democrats is akin to exposing themselves to ebola.
MAGA Republicans probably aren’t as short-sighted themselves as we’d think, but their stances need to be able to turn on a dime since Trump ~~dictates~~ influences their views.
I dunno. After recent years, I would expect them to prefer being exposed to ebola than work with Dems. Especially if doing so "stuck it to them", so to speak.
Bleeding to death out of every orifice to own the libs. Feels right.
The thing is, there are still a handful of Republicans willing to work with Democrats, and with the 214 votes the Democrats can offer, it only needs three more Republicans to cross the aisle in a power-sharing agreement. So it's not that far-fetched. It's a question of which Republicans will find the courage to defy the extremists in their party.
You misunderstand the current state of politics.
Simply reaching out and talking with Democrats causes various Republicans to lose office. Its literally political suicide. Next year is an election year, and the House needs to win every 2 years to stay in office. They simply don't have any political cover and their careers will immediately end if they do what you suggest.
Then we have the same problem in 2025 when the new Congress appears, except everyone who worked with Democrats was voted out. Etc. etc. This has been going on for like 15+ years, from Boehner to Paul Ryan and more. This shit is the culimation of a decade-worth of radicalization of the Republican voter base.
Not in districts where Republicans win by narrow margins. Only in districts that are reliably red. Not every Republican seat is perfectly safe.
Losing Republican votes is more deadly than losing Democrat votes that you never had to begin with.
Just look at the last damn decade man. Literally every moderate Republican has been forced out of office in the last decade. The remaining moderates know what will happen if they fall on the sword like you think.
Its safer for a purple-state Republican to go MAGA than for a purple-state Republican to pretend that any Democrat would vote for them and try to reach out to the left. Losing 10% or 20% of the MAGA voters is suicide, and possibly even puts up a primary challenge to kick you out before you've even reached the main election.
The problem with your analysis is that it fails to take reality into account. A Republican congressman in New York (can't remember his name) specifically called out the extreme end of the party as SpaceGhost pointed out above.
House Republicans in particular are not a monolith and the numbers are very tight.
I think the argument here is that a moderate Republican who works across the aisle gets primaried in his district at the next election by a MAGAt, who wins the primary on the (few) angry Republican voters in a low-turnout Primary. Sure, that MAGAt goes on to be demolished in the General and a Democrat wins that seat, but the end result is the Moderate Republican is kicked out of office.
That's a risk, yes. But some of them have kept their seats because they crossed the aisle and the Democrats in their districts didn't work that hard to unseat them. So no, it's not a foregone conclusion. I'll concede it's becoming more common, but we don't need a lot of Republicans to defy their leadership. Just a handful.
Yep. But asking a congress-critter to put their job at risk by working with the Other Side (tm) is usually a bridge too far. Unless we intend on supporting the aisle-crossing Republicans by, say, voting for them in the primary, it's a bit hard to expect them to risk that cushy job (and all the payola and influence that comes from it) by working with us. I'm HOPING that 6 of them work with us, for sure, but I'm EXPECTING them to not break ranks with their MAGAt colleagues.
I would disagree only partially. Because we know these folks are going to vote for whoever has the (R) in their name.
It's also not like Democrats couldn't get members to switch parties, then support them in their election. This is not as much political suicide, as it is a leap of faith. I could understand why republicans would not want to give up what they have for something new and unknown.
Yet, 3 republicans will make that leap if things become dire...... speaking of which.... How's the world doing in our political absence?
But those candidates who reach out will be primaried, and gerrymandering has pushed the primaries to the extremist candidates.
Yep. My rep, John Duarte is a republican and kind of has Obama-era GOP vibes; not quite MAGA, but also not exactly turning his back on MAGA either. I didn't vote for him, and don't plan on voting for him (largely due to his policy proposals), but he's a reasonably professional run-of-the-mill congressman. He's worked with democrats on a number of issues; I suspect it's in part due to the fact that his district is pretty purple and he won with margins so thin, you could see right through them.
Only 9 Republicans voted to oust him
Needed only 1 to MTV though.