Who knows what the country will look like in 13 months, but this stunt now is certainly putting the “target” Republicans at risk. No “target” Republicans equals no majority. No majority means that things that are orders of magnitude worse than McCarthy’s debt ceiling deal (or even his last continuing resolution).

But frankly, I’m not sure that people like Gaetz will care. He’ll still be able to preen on TV and Youtube about how the RINOs stabbed him in the back, and he’ll still raise a load of cash doing it.

I whole-heartedly agree about Democrats being about raw power politics only. My take on that is that it means that perhaps now isn’t the best time for Republicans to basically set themselves on fire in protest. If they don’t get their act together, it may be a very, very long time before a conservative party again has an opportunity to govern.

Of course, anything could happen. I’m actually coming to believe that there is a chance that things get so bad between now and next November that Trump could win and R’s could take both houses of Congress. If that happens, and I still think it’s unlikely, it will be intersting to see what the R’s do. Trump has shown no stomach for fiscal reform to date and the temptation of the power of the purse will be great, just as it was last time.

I don’t actually have a problem with the R factions fighting one another and figuring out amongst themselves where they want to be and what hills the caucus is going to die on as they go in to the next session. It is a worthy fight to have.

It is a genuine difference of opinion I think within the caucus on what approach to the Dems is effective as well.

There is an argument to be made that as long as you hold any power to stop legislation, flex that muscle to move the needle in a more conservative direction. (The dems always do in the opposite direction). Call that the Gaetz view. (McConnell does this in his own way, but he I think secretly prefers the minority by a couple seats, where due to the filibuster he still has the power to stop while avoiding the accountability of the majority).

McCarthy was more of the old-school horsetrade type. That model had some efficacy that worked even through the 1990s. I think he was counting on it to save his speakership. You see how well that worked out for him.

Today, the Dems philosophically are all raw power politics, and they want the R’s dead. Way too many Rs in government can’t bring themselves to accept this fact.

If the R team can’t figure out how to start operating more like a single team than a coalition of factions that empowers the extremes, then the D team is going to be the one getting tired of winning.

Everyone has a point at which they encounter a hill worth dying on. The biggest problem I see with the Republican party now is that the smallest and most extreme factions are picking the hill that everyone dies on. And now, in 2023, with Democrats in control of the White House and the Senate, with the real threat of Democrats adding new states and packing the Supreme Court after 2024, with Republicans having a realistic chance of gaining control of Washington next year, given the fact that many of the same holdouts now voted for budgetary largess while Trump was president – now is the time to pick a hill to die on over the budget? It’s crazy.

As before, most of what is going on behind the scenes, no-one knows, and trying to armchair quarterback it is useless speculation.

But because speculation can be fun, or at least be a way to engage the mind over coffee, I’ll assume that DC Congressmen are at least rhyming with the state legislative caucus types with which I am familiar. So, here are the likely major factions within the R party (some descriptions may fit the same legislator):

-Conservative R’s from safe red seat red states, which includes most of the MAGA crowd. Matt Gaetz is here, MTG is here. They want to govern by principles, are happy to throw media bombs, but then it is easy for them to demand that, because that is what their district wants.

-“Business conservatives” (eg low taxes/free market but agnostic/follows the winds of their district on the social stuff, gun control, etc.). They could be in safe red seats, purple seats, or maybe even an-otherwise blue seat. A lot of them will get the “uniparty” label. They hate all of these fights with a passion, and are going to be go along with the “majority of the majority” types.

-“Practical Republicans.” They have principles, but also follow the principle of half a loaf is better than none/don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. They are the ones who can cut deals with the other side to get legislation across the aisle, and are also the ones who will do a lot of bipartisan legislative work that doesn’t touch on the hot button issues of the day. They are usually your workhorses, or are the wonks on a particular policy or procedure area. They also get the “uniparty” label a lot. It is likely only partially deserved.

-Anti-Trump Republicans. Some of them are go-along to get-along types, some are Republicans because that is the historical statistics of the district, or because their parents and cultural peers were, etc. Some of them are “not my class dear” types, and those usually get the country-club label on them. They HATE the name calling, their objections to Trump usually do come down to visceral vs. intellectual differences (you get this a lot in the Midwest–there are a lot of people who hate the idea of bare-bones knuckle fighting politics, and want people to be reasonable and Nice). They want to do the work, be above-the-fray and be a legislator, report back competency to their district. Some of these also grandstand irresponsibly; those tend to have more of a personal hatred of Trump (and which Trump may have deserved if they were the target of one of his attacks or he endorsed a primary opponent, for example).

Religious/cultural conservatives. Usually have rural red districts or if suburban, have some dominant Christian flavor in the local female residents (eg core Catholic or evangelical and/or a big homeschool force or immigrant anti-trans, common sense working class, etc. that is enough to override what I call the female vote from the managerial mom or the Karen class, which is more and more left-wing due to abortion and because most of their jobs are in the field of being or supporting the managerial class (college administrator, HR, marketing, ESG director, lawyer for an NGO, environmental non-profit, etc)).

“Interest group Republican.” Yes, a few of them do exist. It might be the union guy from a downstate region who wants to protect the local refinery, or someone who got squeaked in by school choice moms, or who ran on an anti-corruption platform against someone who got caught doing something bad, or who was the mayor of the largest city in the district, or a schoolteacher who has support of the local teacher’s union, or the mom who was the hockey mom and had a wide social circle that got called into action, or an anti-5G group, a local cop or former state’s attorney running on an anti-drug/anti-crime platform. Whatever it is, they will be someone who has political infrastructure support from some outside group/have name recognition of some sort.

“Target” Republicans (as in election target, not the retail store): they were elected to their seat by 3-5 points or less, possibly from a district that also put one or more D’s in office (either at the federal level or a statewide or county office); or are first-term legislators who perhaps had a weak D candidate but won’t in 2024, or there was a local wave that got them in, etc. They are the most vulnerable to being ousted in 2024. They need to go out of their way to not get the “crazy” label attached to them. Most likely to be a suburban/include a blue city segment or university as part of their district.

EVERY ONE of these types has reasons to have problems with various aspects of the others. Every one is going to have different rank-priority interests that in theory reflect their local district culture. Hence, to say “majority of a majority should rule” is a non-starter, because a vote for “crazy” may hurt the Target R, and a vote for “RINO” may hurt a cultural conservative or interest group R (maybe not in the general, but in a primary).

This is why we have polls that say everyone hates Congress, but everyone re-elects their own Congressman. These are all different points of view, that are in theory somewhat closely aligned with their local districts’ point of view. Demanding that someone cross their district may feel nice when typed across the keyboard, it is a practical impossibility in electoral politics (because that means you either lose to a “more pure” R in the primary or a dem in the general). The R’s don’t have enough seats to sacrifice on principle.

Until you have had lots of doors slammed in your face based on how you or another a candidate voted on something, you really can’t understand why you just can’t go against your district on anything that might be perceived as a big flashpoint issue. (You voted for Bill 123 that said limit bump stocks by gun dealers to no more than 4 per household per day, and I am a second amendment absolutist, I hate you! You voted for Bill 123 but I wanted you to support Bill 456 because we need stronger gun control, I hate you!). Everyone is going to do the math for their districts, and none of it will align perfectly with your policy preferences or rank-order principles. Nor should you expect it to, in a nation of our size and diversity.

The R’s also just don’t have the tribal affinity that the Dems have. Dems far more often operate on fealty to the strong hand vs. R’s — R’s prefer the invisible hand approach, they in theory want to be persuaded into alignment. [As an aside-I remember watching at the beginning of a legislative session the floor photographers taking pictures of each caucus leadership team. The Dems were milling around waiting to be told what to do, and it took them forever to get lined up, with the photog finally talking to certain leaders and then leaders telling others where to stand, and no-one wanted anyone offended based on position. The R’s just managed to get into position by figuring it out themselves who was tallest and getting them at the back, and lines evened out. Encapsulates the differing mindsets, non? Dems usually have their patronage people supporting them at July 4 parades, where R’s depend on their volunteers, etc.].

Now, here are some practical politics.

1) No R’s are going to get the speakership with D votes. It is more likely blue-district R’s would sell out to put a D over the top. Dems will not break rank to vote FOR an R (against, as they did with McCarthy, is no problem for them) because again, their tribal loyalty is extremely strong. Their own rabid bases will likewise attack them if they are perceived as “helping” an R, and those people are WAY more organized and better funded than R bases.

2) The “Target” will have a big gap with the cultural conservative, and vice versa. Statistically (and especially in areas with more vote by mail), in close races, Dems are more likely to beat an R just based on money/organization/fraud/media power. A target cannot afford to lose even 1-2 percent of the vote. They vote for MAGA in a district that Trump lost by 10, that’s your possible 1-2 percent into the loss category.

3) By the same token, a MAGA candidate can’t afford to vote for a RINO if there is a realistic MAGA primary candidate waiting in the wings.

4) That means that the only way your targets can mitigate a MAGA vote (and likewise, conservatives can mitigate a “RINO” vote), is to horsetrade.

So, maybe someone needs to be able to tell their district, “yes, I voted for [crazy conservative], but he confirmed we would get X (or but he put me in charge of the energy committee that will hear permits for our refinery, or whatever, so I will protect our district); “yes, I voted for [whoever is the non-conservative candidate], but he confirmed we will not have any bills limiting abortion rights” or “my bill to protect senior citizens from X will get a floor vote” or “we will have new rules that ensure more bipartisan bills”. Again, whatever, people are going to need stuff for their district. And then as soon as one person gets something, then other people will want stuff too (DOT will get the $$ for the interstate bridge repair). Nature of the beast.

5) The practical R’s want to know how the new leader is going to build a stronger majority and raise the funds to run races competently. And yes, it takes a ton of money and organization, because R’s have to a) overcome the media bias advantage; and b) overcome the organizational advantage that the D’s have; and c) our general messaging incompetence.

This is no small matter. Look at the list of targets on the RNCC list. Many are in expensive media markets because the districts neighbor big cities (CA 9, 47, 49 (San Fran, LA, San Diego) PA 7 (Philly) VA-7 (DC)). To have one 30 second commercial for 20 prime time spots for the week can sometimes run 50-100k. A cable buy on lesser channels will be 50k for 100-200 spots across multiple time slots. To saturate an area of 100k people with Google ads will be 3k/week (depending on the online auction prices). Hiring professional canvassers to cover 1 precinct (most Congressional districts have 500-1000 precincts) will cost ~$150/precinct day, and to truly work a precinct to get the target voters, you have to be there at least 5 times to catch the distinterested/undecided voters. (Yes, R grassroots exists, but sorry, they don’t have the ribald passion the D’s do, and the ones that do are often the ones who will turn off independent voters). To do a true Vote by Mail program costs half a million or more if, again, you want to do it right (targeted mail, targeted canvassing to get the ballots collected, poll watchers and attorneys to do signature challenges as the ballots come in for weeks on end and even after the election depending on how your state laws are structured).

That said, I’m not exactly on board with a lot of the Conservative Inc. talk radio hosts who blasted Gates to bemoan that McCarthy was such a great fundraiser. The bulk of $$ from the lobbying/donor class will ALWAYS go to whoever holds the leader/speaker role, or is the good strategist, or the one who seems to lead a faction, the ones who can control the agenda for the floor or on a committee.

Pelosi likewise was a Speaker who leveraged her position masterfully to fundraise; because she was a good fundraiser in that position, she leveraged that power over her own target members.

BUT, one big structural problem the R’s have in this regard is that the biggest donors for the D’s are their most crazy-partisan (so D’s are happy to follow the $$ left to abort on demand, eat the bugs, eliminate the fossil fuels, cut up kids for big pharma and teachers unions); whereas the biggest federal donors for the R’s are in the mushy middle. That changes the dynamics of your caucus. And to say from far away don’t take K street or billionaire $$ is again nice in theory, bad in practice when you are a Target and know you need to raise $5M to try to keep your seat.

6) EVERYONE is going to want to know what the messaging and plan will be that they can go back to their districts with. It is VERY HARD to have one that keeps all of these diverse interests together.

My picks would be get the agencies under control, to give more power back to the states/people (make DC real estate cheap again!).

Secure the border. (And BTW, this is a HUGE issue in black communities–they are super pissed that the illegals are getting their goodies. A smart strategist would run not R, but “independent” or “equity” candidates in those districts who would then caucus with the R’s for majority power, and also ensure the Green party gets on the close districts with lots of suburban granola women, to shave a couple points off to protect your targets. We don’t have smart strategists at the national level).

Build up our critical infrastructure and economy at home so we have the funds to protect our people, have great jobs, etc.

Honest budgeting.

Cheap energy/energy independence, and message the crap out of that to tie it to inflation (most Dems still think inflation is because of COVID supply chain problems that haven’t been worked out yet).

Judges.

All of those, BTW, were really what Trump’s policies were. Drain the swamp, build the wall, no more foreign wars, no more favoring China at the expense of our own, bring manufacturing back here.

The K street lobbyists HATE the anti-global agenda though. And the judges worked out great if you are pro-life. If you are in a pro-choice suburban district with college-credentialed moms, it hurts your electoral chances.

Anyhoo, in the end, most regular people don’t care about who the R speaker is. (Most don’t even know their own senators or reps). For most people, it is economically irrational to spend much time on politics until about 30-60 days out from an election. (Which is again why the D’s have an advantage–their patronage groups ARE motivated because they are government-subsidized in some way).

As long as someone gets in eventually to get a budget done (and the Speaker pro tem is hopefully urging creation of appropriation bills, and the committee chairs have a responsibility for this, and if they aren’t getting that done, shame on them), none of this who-is-in-charge crap will ultimately matter to the low information voters.

Knowing absolutely zero about what is going on behind the scenes, I’ll spitball 35% odds at this point on Jordan (under the theory that the practicals, Targets and RINOs are more likely to be persuaded by institutional harmony/avoiding bad media coverage), 20% odds on a conservative no-one has heard of, 15% on a RINO no-one has heard of (for both of these, under the theory if no-one has heard of them, not as hard to present them as a compromise without everyone in their districts getting screamed at), 20% McCarthy tries to make a comeback (or some other wonky administrator/workhorse gets the job), 5% a compromise candidate no-one has heard of with a ton of new rules that devolve a ton of power from the Speaker to the committee chairs (which would be a better long-term institutional choice for we the people, but a lot harder to run, so it makes the Speaker job even less appealing than a warm bucket of spit, but whatevs), 5% RINOs cross to D’s to give someone (not Jeffries) power.

We don’t know what the Congresscritters know internally about the true capabilities of the other members. Everyone will suffer from the Dunning Krueger effect. Hopefully Jordan is working the phones all weekend. They’ll have to figure it out, and we’ll hear the post-hoc rationales later, which may or may not be true.

All that will ultimately matter to whoever is the new Speaker in terms of their ability to keep the job, is, will they increase seats in 2024.

And by 5 pm Monday, half of what I wrote probably will be wrong or out of date. LOL.

Geoffrey Britain – You appear to think that the choice is between half a loaf and a full loaf. The choice is actually between half a loaf and nothing.

So I see you are familiar with the Republican Party….

The media is covering it as “Republicans in chaos and discord.”