emptywheelNov 12, 2022
Something I'm thinking about (will report back later): If your goal was to best preserve US democracy, is a House w/a GOP+1-5 seats or a Dem+1-2 better. This assumes CCM will win NV.
Show threademptywheel

So here's part of my logic: First, the crazies think they can take over.

There's no way the GOPers in the new swing seats will abide by that.

And any GOP majority will be really fragile, far more fragile than the Dems with the same majority.

Nov 12, 2022 at 11:29amWeb
Show threadpetteriusaNov 12, 2022

@emptywheel

But at what cost, for a hypothetical gain in two years? What good and impactful legislation would be lost with a GOP majority? Understanding that this too is hypothetical.

I think the best way to assure that democracy thrives in the US is to show that it *works*. Trust has to be regained between people and in our institutions. If it's all allowed to break, doesn't that just perpetuate the impression that government is an unserious enterprise for unserious people?

Show threademptywheelNov 12, 2022

@petteriusa A pretty persuasive argument. I think Biden has shown that democracy works.

My hypothesis is that if it can be shown to work WITH THE PARTICIPATION of the GOP, it'd be still better.

Plus, I doubt a GOP majority would stick for 2 years (if it starts with <6 majority).

Show threadpetteriusaNov 12, 2022

@emptywheel

Agreed on bipartisanship, if you can get it done, but you don't need a GOP majority to show that.

It looks like whatever the GOP ends up with at this point is going to be fragile that's for sure.

We're cursed to be living in interesting (congressional) times for another two years it seems.

Show threademptywheelNov 12, 2022
@petteriusa That's part of my point. If it STARTS off GOP, and they realize the only way to keep power is to moderate, and then some GOPers choose to moderate rather than support the crazy.
Show threadRaider of the Lost DocsNov 12, 2022

@emptywheel @petteriusa

Who's going to wind up as whip once the leadership battle settles out? It will be interesting to see how well their leadership can keep the normies going along with the nuts (obviously it won't work the other way around).

Show threadMurphysicalNov 12, 2022

@raider @emptywheel @petteriusa

If they had a 50 seat margin I would be worried about a MTG and Matt Gaetz coalition with power.

Right now it's amazing how little gains the GOP got in a midterm that heavily favored them.

Show threadRaider of the Lost DocsNov 12, 2022

@Murphysical @emptywheel @petteriusa

Oh, for sure, Democrats have to be relieved with the results. I know I am.

But as far as the Lunatic Caucus not being in charge: remember the Tea Party and "Freedom Caucus" days? Because the hardliners utterly refused to compromise with anything, they got leadership to go along with most of their crazy stuff rather than commit the mortal sin of compromising with Democrats. To be a Republican in good standing is to put Party over everything, no matter what.

Show threadPatrick McLaughlinNov 12, 2022

@emptywheel @petteriusa
Worth looking at the NH experience in 2014 — a slim GOP caucus split with two candidates for Speaker, and the Dems backed the “moderate” Shawn Jasper, who thus won. And supported him thereafter, when it was key.

A thin majority and split caucus can play out in surprising ways.

Might happen here again with the likely 203-197 (or thinner) margin.

Show threademptywheelNov 12, 2022
@McPatrick @petteriusa I think something like that might happen. I just don't know which GOPer would want to take that on.
Show threadGabe The EngineerNov 12, 2022
@emptywheel @petteriusa I'd be interested in @Teri_Kanefield's thoughts on it.
Show threadnadezhdaNov 12, 2022
@emptywheel @petteriusa
I doubt GOP moderates will have a chance to join bipartisan legislation if the GOP has even a razor thin majority
1) the Hasert rule will prohibit reasonable legislation from reaching the floor
2) McCarthy (or whoever) probably will have to promise the caucus can vote him out if they get unhappy with him.
The lunatics are going to have major veto power, even if they can’t affirmatively set the legislative agenda.
And the lunatics will be running the committees.
Show threademptywheelNov 13, 2022
@nadezhda04 @petteriusa Right. I think those assumptions all go out the window with a 3 seat majority. I'm suggesting it may be something entirely unprecedented.
Show threadRaider of the Lost DocsNov 12, 2022

@emptywheel @petteriusa

Is that because of defections, retirements, convictions, or what?

Show threademptywheelNov 12, 2022
@raider @petteriusa Not retirements, but defections and possibly indictments (tho a close majority incents someone indicted to stay).
Show threadTrishNov 12, 2022
@emptywheel @petteriusa
My take/hope is that the Moderate house Rs see that Dobbs is unpopular with the people (see numberouse ballot measures) and vote with Ds to codify Roe (assume 51Dem senate, no filibuster) This is strictly a social issue, not financial. Do I have rose colored glasses on?
Show threadCN Ó RaghallaighNov 12, 2022

@TrishMcD1981 @emptywheel @petteriusa

it's very financial- or rather, economic. Lack of abortion access falls heavier on people who can't get to a legal abortion if needed. And the resulting increase in people below poverty level affects programs to help them and health care for them.

and that's just the bare beginning. Lots of educational issues arise - education affects the economy. etc.

NOT "just" social.

Show threadTrishNov 12, 2022
@zatkat @emptywheel @petteriusa
Yes. You are correct. What I was trying to convey(and failed) is that the moderate Rs are “typically” financially conservative (will not support govt spend) but socially liberal (support abortion LGBTQ rights etc). IF there are those moderate Rs out there and codifying Roe is strictly social impact bill (no $$ spend) THEN I think/hope it could pass.
Show threadCN Ó RaghallaighNov 12, 2022

@TrishMcD1981 @emptywheel @petteriusa

I see what you mean.

in that environment arguments about economic effects might be useful- as eduction has effect on economy and lack of abortion access has negative effect on education.

I'd look to add what economic arguments I could to the social points.

Show threadxianNov 12, 2022

@emptywheel @petteriusa It’s still better to win, and Pelosi led razor thin majorities, but it’s also true that Biden can go all Harry Truman on the shitshow McCarthy would preside over if they eke out a several-seat majority.

He’d make Boehner look effective by comparison.

Show threadKatMNov 12, 2022
@emptywheel yeah it's scary when the Republicans can force everyone on the same page but I don't see that happening in the house anymore...Kevin McCarthy is not up to it among other reasons
Show threadDave Troy Nov 12, 2022
@emptywheel I think that’s right; had they picked up 10-15 seats it’d be game over. As it is they will try to ram through stuff like the debt default (and/or hold Ukraine hostage), but that won’t play well. I do worry a handful (2-4) of the 30 Dems (from the letter) might play along with them, for reasons, but that’s less likely without the cover of a greater R margin. Overall this election outcome may keep the doors glued on long enough to get us to the other side.
Show threademptywheelNov 12, 2022
@davetroy I think there will be coalitions on certain issues. The signers of the letter will also work with the nutjobs on surveillance, as they have for years (tho the nutjobs have become far less libertarian, obviously). But that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Show threadDave Troy Nov 12, 2022
@emptywheel yeah. I’m primarily worried about how we maintain long term support for Ukraine for as long as it takes to immobilize and exhaust Russia. That’s likely to be at least another 12 months, maybe much longer. We also need to navigate a long term solution to the debt ceiling. Godwilling, the D’s will hold the House, but I’m absolutely not betting on it.
Show threadGinaNov 12, 2022
@emptywheel
I think the question is will the Republicans try to make the government actually get anything done or just try to make it so the Democrats can't accomplish anything else? It will be easier to be obstructionist if they have the majority in the house, thus giving them speaker. I worry that all they will want, regardless of which party wins the House, is to obstruct and then point to the lack of productivity as the fault of the Democrats.
Show threademptywheelNov 12, 2022
@thekat03 That's sort of my point, though. That's going to be fine for 80% of the GOP caucus. But not a critical 20%, especially the ones who just won in NY and NJ, for example. So what happens when they decide they don't want that in a 220-215 House?
Show threadGinaNov 12, 2022
@emptywheel
I do hope that some fraction of the Republicans in the house are willing to sit down at the table and try to make government work. I am just extremely skeptical. A fair number of those flipped seats were won by redistricting. The most out there Republican candidates failed to be elected, but Republicans have also shown 1) they largely put party before country, despite their "America first" hats, and 2) they totally can obstruct and sell it as the Democrats fault.
Show threadArdeeNov 12, 2022
@davetroy @emptywheel
My fear is once they take over committees, all progress will stop and they’ll just fritter the 2 years away on bogus performative bills that punish blue states.
Show threadMurphysicalNov 12, 2022
@emptywheel it really puts a lot of my worries about non-stop impeachment proceedings to rest.
Show threadForbestonowNov 12, 2022
@emptywheel
My main concern in the short term is that the new members in swing seats (NY ones for example) moderate the BS crazy ones enough to prevent them blowing up the debt ceiling. That would not just be a disaster for the US.
Show threadCourtney FayNov 12, 2022
@emptywheel It definitely used to be that Republicans were rank-and-file. They picked a leader, the leader set the agenda, and everyone got in line whether they wanted to or not. The new brand of crazy that has taken over the party is so much about their own narcissism, they don’t have the capacity to be the rank-and-file Republicans that used to have so much power.
Show threadmicroveldtNov 12, 2022
@emptywheel Democrats are unified in their project to actually govern the country despite their policy differences. The GOP doesn’t care about governing the country.
Show threadsemiquaverNov 12, 2022
@emptywheel with 51 in the Senate and a scant house majority Dems absolutely could pass pro democracy legislation - they wouldn't need Manchin and Sinema - just Manchin *or* Sinema. With a slight R lI would expect a decent amount of bipartisan legislation - but not election related stuff, that would be the one place the R's will certainly hold together. So for democracy I think we want a D house