By now we’re all watching the landfill conflagration that is the house republican caucus. They managed to fail to elect a speaker on the first ballot in over 100 years. They couldn’t even elect a speaker on the first day.
What struck me the most from day 1 was a little detail. It was that leader McCarthy went from losing 19 republicans on the second ballot to losing 20 on the third. The first two votes are not surprising. The freedom caucus nuts had enough votes to block McCarthy and they did so. That creates the ‘ok, you’ve had your protest vote and made your point’ moment.
It is telling to McCarthy’s weakness that he was unable to convince three or four members to vote ‘present’ and the rest to come back to the fold on the second vote, giving cover to the ‘I refused to vote for McCarthy for speaker’ line. Losing support on the third, it will be extremely telling how the first vote of the day goes. I am sure McCarthy’s team will have spent a long sleepless night desperately lobbying for support.
Now to game theory out the House Democrat’s strategy.
At the strategic level:
Republicans own this. The republican party has an outright majority in the House and claims a mandate to enact their agenda. In particular, they have promised loudly on conservative cable news that they will use the tyranny of the docket to unilaterally block any and all Democratic participation, margins and governance be damned. That can only work with a unified caucus that actually believes in not governing and burning everything to the ground.
The problem for republicans is that they don’t all believe in burning everything to the ground. Much of the caucus goes along because they’re afraid of the current power structure, and the threat of a primary from the right. They would change what they are doing if they can get a permission structure to do so.
And time is not on the republicans’ side. Wednesday is critical. If they cannot select a speaker on day 2, then the news cycle can really take off. The message almost writes itself. “Republicans fall flat on the very first order of business. How can they govern? Would the House be better off under Democrats?” The more dysfunction appears in public and the more griping quietly to reporters, the worse things will get.
At the tactical level:
Republicans have made this an existential issue for Democrats. The current front runner for speaker has made it clear that under his speakership, Democrats will not have a seat at the governing table, and that the house is not intent on actually governing. Sticking it to the republicans is strongly in the interest of every democrat. That favors democrats sticking with a strategy they all support.
The simplest such strategy is ‘Vote Hakeem’. That’s it. Everyone is on board, understands it, and no one is asked to hold their nose. And there is a clear benefit the longer the speaker fight drags on. The longer the majority party in fights, the more and more bitter those fights become, and the worse for all of them in the press and shattered relationships. If McCarthy would have had an unenviable position, a Gym Jordan or Boebert speakership would be a farce.
The longer the voting drags on, the more the pressure builds. The more the republican party will crack. The issue is not to ‘end’ the debate over the speakership or compromise on some ‘palatable’ choice. The issue is to keep the pressure on and let republicans self-destruct on TV, in front of the entire nation. The incentive structure for Democrats currently is to hold the line.
There is a second tactical benefit to holding the line. It allows democratic leadership the opportunity to dictate the terms of a power sharing agreement with republicans. The first 7 republicans who agree to vote for Hakeem can name their committees to chair and have power sharing defined in the rules of the house for the docket. If the republicans do implode, that opens the door for as few as 7 ambitious republicans to leapfrog the traditional leadership structure and claim some real power.
So what is next?
I’ve seen at least a few very serious people suggesting that Democrats should wield some power to put a republican of their choice for speaker. That is a shortsighted approach that presumes that McCarthy is going to win the speakership, or some kind of perspective that because the majority of the House is nominally republican, that they are somehow entitled to the speakership. Neither of those arguments is true. Democrats can win the speakership without a single republican vote. Democrats win the speakerhship if as few as 14 republicans vote ‘present’, or only 7 defect.
If republicans can coalesce around a candidate by vote 5 or 6, then the ‘humiliated and weak’ republican speaker narrative comes to pass.
If republicans implode, then odds of a democrat taking the speakership is as likely as any other republican.