This German newspaper article (translated by Deepl) claims that Democrats will defend Johnson against attempts by the right of his party to unseat him as speaker. I don’t know the ins and outs of US politics, therefore I ask: What do you think?
Doubtful. The same speculation occurred during the last speaker crisis. In general you would need a coalition of democrats and republicans willing to vote together to preserve his speakership. Voting with a large bloc of democrats would be politically dangerous for most R’s, and I’m not sure D’s are going to perceive much benefit in supporting McCarthy anyway. It’s not like he’s particularly moderate or left-leaning. And dysfunction in the Republican caucus is probably a political win for them, so they’d have to perceive a benefit bigger than that one as well.
If he was willing to offer some significant concessions then maybe but I don’t see that happening either.
He’s (surprisingly) demonstrated a willingness to actually get some things done. I never would have thought that he would given all we were hearing about him before, but he’s not been a complete roadblock to governing, so the question is do Dems take this small concession that he’s actually willing to govern or take a chance that the Republicans put someone in there who is more hostile and prone to standoffs.
I tend to agree, though. Politically, it doesn’t make a lot of sense for Dems to support him, or for Republicans to side with Democrats, which their base will absolutely loathe, so if he gets put on the chopping block it’s likely that no one will save him on either side.
There is some benefit in not letting perfect be the enemy of good. There is also overtones window shift. Accepting his leadership as normal will tend to normalose it.
If the bar is only as high as let’s not be completely useless and dysfunctional, they are better off politically ,and the country is better off, by letting the crazy side show their craziness as a negative. They will shown the people, and by extension, more moderate Republicans.
The reason the crazies took over is that they offered political advantage by courting the racist, bigoted vote. Moderates held their nose and went with it. They feared losing power on an individual basis as well as collectively. All politics is loacal. So if the crazies mean your voters stay home or are more likely to flip, you are more likely to disagree with them and push the out. If they are winning you elections, that’s not going to happen.
That goes to my overton window shift point. The amount of shift is still a spectrum. What are now moderate Republicans may not have been considered moderate before, but there are degrees before batshit.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Doubtful. The same speculation occurred during the last speaker crisis. In general you would need a coalition of democrats and republicans willing to vote together to preserve his speakership. Voting with a large bloc of democrats would be politically dangerous for most R’s, and I’m not sure D’s are going to perceive much benefit in supporting McCarthy anyway. It’s not like he’s particularly moderate or left-leaning. And dysfunction in the Republican caucus is probably a political win for them, so they’d have to perceive a benefit bigger than that one as well.
If he was willing to offer some significant concessions then maybe but I don’t see that happening either.
He’s (surprisingly) demonstrated a willingness to actually get some things done. I never would have thought that he would given all we were hearing about him before, but he’s not been a complete roadblock to governing, so the question is do Dems take this small concession that he’s actually willing to govern or take a chance that the Republicans put someone in there who is more hostile and prone to standoffs.
I tend to agree, though. Politically, it doesn’t make a lot of sense for Dems to support him, or for Republicans to side with Democrats, which their base will absolutely loathe, so if he gets put on the chopping block it’s likely that no one will save him on either side.
There is some benefit in not letting perfect be the enemy of good. There is also overtones window shift. Accepting his leadership as normal will tend to normalose it.
If the bar is only as high as let’s not be completely useless and dysfunctional, they are better off politically ,and the country is better off, by letting the crazy side show their craziness as a negative. They will shown the people, and by extension, more moderate Republicans.
The reason the crazies took over is that they offered political advantage by courting the racist, bigoted vote. Moderates held their nose and went with it. They feared losing power on an individual basis as well as collectively. All politics is loacal. So if the crazies mean your voters stay home or are more likely to flip, you are more likely to disagree with them and push the out. If they are winning you elections, that’s not going to happen.
There is no such thing. The GOP has made sure of that for the past 15 years.
That goes to my overton window shift point. The amount of shift is still a spectrum. What are now moderate Republicans may not have been considered moderate before, but there are degrees before batshit.