Not commenting on how many lawmakers are in this category (because I don't know), but isn't that ridiculous? If you've been unable to show up to votes due to health, just retire! These octogenarians / nonagenarians holding on to their seats with one foot in the grave has to end.
They can, and some absolutely will. But extended absenteeism and surprise vacancies due to health issues are more likely to be with the oldest members of congress.
As this Morning Digest makes clear, with a 217–215 split Speaker Mike Johnson cannot afford even a single defection! Unlike the Senate, there is no tie-breaker in the House – and according to House rules, in the case of a tie vote, the question before the chamber "shall be lost".
Good luck to Johnson herding his flock of MAGA sheep and other critters! I jest, of course… For I am sincerely looking forward to lots of outright lost votes as well as tied-and-thus-lost votes in the House, decisively slowing down Trump’s legislative agenda, creating huge frustration for Agent Orange, and hopefully triggering high blood pressure well above safe levels.
Which means once again Leader Jeffries has to have the opposition in solid form (so far, Democratic unity has been remarkable; Jeffries nickname should be 'The Catherder' imo)
Heather Cox Richardson’s latest "Letters From an American" is very informative about recent events in South Korea, where President Yoon Suk Yeol tried to impose martial law but was forced to back down. An interesting nugget:
“A member of the conservative People’s Party, Yoon was elected to a five-year presidential term in 2022 after a misogynistic campaign fueled by young men who saw equal rights for women — whose average monthly wage is 67.7% of that a man — as reverse discrimination that is taking away their own rights and opportunities.”
Since clearly neither American nor South Korean voters have the ability to put their problems into perspective, then maybe... we shouldn't expect them to? Maybe we should stop lecturing voters about how other people have it worse than they do*, and start trying to make things better for everyone regardless?
Not sure what you mean here. Seems to me that South Korean voters did precisely that: When faced with the "problem" of President Yoon’s declaration of martial law, they "saw it in the historical perspective", recalling the last time martial law was declared. After decades of democracy, South Koreans today were not willing to relive what happened then.
The last time martial law was imposed in South Korea was in 1980, when special forces under a military dictatorship attacked pro-democracy activists in the city of Gwangju, leaving about 200 people dead or missing. On that occasion military rule did not end until 1987!
Thanks for the note about the House. I have had Obamacare much on my mind. There is one 2017 medical paper that estimated repeal would mean additional deaths of 35,000 per year. (IIRC Dr. Woolhandler, also a single payer advocate, was lead author.)
At that time a number of Repub US House representatives were in districts that Biden won, and some of those voted against repeal. So how many of the current Repub held House seats are in Harris districts?
I think another Obamacare repeal attempt may be an important example for showing more precisely how much power House Repubs actually have. The vote was quite close in 2017 with a 241R-194D House. Repubs passed the repeal of Obamacare only by 217-213 because 20 Rs defected to join all Ds.
There’s plenty of things they can do administratively (primarily through state waivers) to wound it. Thankfully we have more governorships than in 2017 which will help a bit
It's also easier to get their party on board for smaller ways of chipping away at it. And democrats will be less resolute in fighting those things. The public typically ignores the "thousand cuts" approach to making existing programs worse, so electorally it's safer for them, too.
The Affordable Care Act repeal attempt by the House GOP was a major fail even while the party's majority was by 47 seats.
It's going to be much harder for the House GOP to pull off a repeal this time around even if it tries even attempting at chipping away. The tiny margin of seats the House GOP has over House Democrats gives me serious doubt they're going to even get anything done with this.
Take for instance Rep. David Valadao. He survived re-election a few weeks ago but voted for repealing the ACA back in 2017. He had handfuls of constituents reaching out with questions about his vote and if their healthcare was going to be taken away. He ended up losing re-election in the 2018 midterms.
Mike Lawler is another moderate House Republican like Valadao who is likely going to face serious pressure like Valadao did if he's going to consider voting yes on another ACA repeal. If he votes YES, he doesn't have a chance at winning re-election in 2026.
Yeah, this makes no sense he would have had and may still have if he reverses course quickly a strong shot at the nomination. Short of just wanting to sabotage Dems don't see the logic behind this.
That's for them to work out, but first they should try to reach out and start communicating very soon. He has a phone and aides, yes? He apparently wants to do a listening tour in the article I saw, presumably to get a reading of the state.
The state party can't stop people from running in the primary. With such a big price at least one person will collect enough signatures to run in the dem primary.
Not running a major party candidate only really works in deep blue/red states where there is no hope for one party. Or with an independent incumbent like Bernie Sanders.
Question: Is the House rule that allows a single representative to propose vacating the speakership being preserved? If changed, does anyone know what the new threshold is? Or won’t we know the rules until the new Congress is sworn in and seated in 2025?
I ask because I wonder if this yet another weapon in the Democratic arsenal. In other words, at critical times when there is insufficient Republican attendance, Democrats can "gum up the works" by proposing to remove Speaker Johnson – and threatening to elect Hakeem Jeffries as Speaker.
Yes, I realize it may be more advantageous to simply continually highlight Republican dysfunction...
I have 3 free trial subscriptions to The DownBallot to anyone interested; not to influence you, but I highly recommend the Discord connected to it(if interested just let me know); the price imo is well worth it
CLOSE ELECTION: Simon Rosenberg on the Hopium Chronicles:
"To get a sense of how close we came to winning the House, here are the final results in the three closest races Republicans won:
. IA-01 Miller-Meeks +0.19% – 799 votes
. CO-08 Evans +0.73% – 2449 votes
. PA-07 Mackenzie +1% – 4215 votes
"If 3732 people in these three districts had voted for the Democratic candidate rather than these three Republicans, then Hakeem Jeffries would be the next Speaker."
(In the Presidential race, if 116,000 voters in MI, PA, WI had voted for Harris rather than Trump she would have won.)
I really think this will be a pyrrhic victory for the GOP. They barely won in the most anti-incumbent environment in recent memory, and that was their best performing candidate. Trumpism isn't going anywhere, but Trump is, and that's proved a very poor formula for them. We held up well enough in the Senate and are well-poised to have a trifecta in 2029 if we get even a close to normal backlash against Trump. They also won't get any significant legislation through the House. The only real variable is how many of Thomas, Alito, and Roberts step down.
FRANCE: The government of center-right PM Michel Barnier is unlikely to survive today’s No Confidence vote in the French parliament. President Emmanuel Macron chose Barnier to avoid handing power to the left-wing alliance that became the largest bloc after the last parliamentary election.
There is a possibility that Parliament may opt to censure Mr Barnier rather than removing him. Even if he receives a no-confidence vote, Barnier would lead a caretaker government until President Macron appoints a new PM. Live coverage:
Barnier is done. Wonder what Marcon will do - go left or right. Unlikely for him to call for a snap Presidential election that will put him out of power.
Macron cannot call a new parliamentary election. At least one year has to pass after the last parliamentary election, which was in July. I suppose Macron could resign, triggering a new presidential election, but that seems a recipe for even greater chaos!
(EDIT: Macron has stated that he would not resign, regardless of the outcome of the no-confidence vote against his PM and his government.)
What happened today is unprecedented; not since 1962 has a French government been felled by a no-confidence vote.
The alternative seems to be for President Macron to actually cooperate with the center-left alliance, New Popular Front (NFP), rather than seeking to appoint yet-another Prime Minister that governs at the mercy of Marine Le Pen’s extreme-right National Rally (RN). That, however, would require serious compromise and breaking new ground, as France has no tradition for coalition government.
EDIT: Another point to note is that the national budget, which PM Barnier forced through by measures that bypassed a parliamentary vote, is now defunct. In other words, one way or another, France’s politicians will be forced to come to an agreement and find a resolution.
In oral arguments for United States v. Skrmetti, the MAGA majority on the court are likely to uphold Tennessee's anti-trans law banning gender-affirming care for trans youths. How broad or narrow the scope would be the real question.
Isn’t it the case that several House Democrats are frequently absent due to health concerns?
Not commenting on how many lawmakers are in this category (because I don't know), but isn't that ridiculous? If you've been unable to show up to votes due to health, just retire! These octogenarians / nonagenarians holding on to their seats with one foot in the grave has to end.
Umm, lots of people under 80 can be absent due to illness.
They can, and some absolutely will. But extended absenteeism and surprise vacancies due to health issues are more likely to be with the oldest members of congress.
I think that the members who were sick last year have unfortunately both passed away.
As this Morning Digest makes clear, with a 217–215 split Speaker Mike Johnson cannot afford even a single defection! Unlike the Senate, there is no tie-breaker in the House – and according to House rules, in the case of a tie vote, the question before the chamber "shall be lost".
Good luck to Johnson herding his flock of MAGA sheep and other critters! I jest, of course… For I am sincerely looking forward to lots of outright lost votes as well as tied-and-thus-lost votes in the House, decisively slowing down Trump’s legislative agenda, creating huge frustration for Agent Orange, and hopefully triggering high blood pressure well above safe levels.
There's a number of "no on principle" types in the caucus. Thomas Massie in particular comes to mind.
Depending on the issue, such as free speech, yes.
The House will have to follow the Senate's lead per usual, because it's shown repeatedly they are unable to even craft legislation let alone pass it.
That all said, I think Trump in the face of Congressional impasse will just pull a Yoon Suk Yeol and try to ram his policies sans any Congress.
…and on another front, rather than legislating, Trump may well try to simply accelerate the insolvency of the Social Security Fund.
Which means once again Leader Jeffries has to have the opposition in solid form (so far, Democratic unity has been remarkable; Jeffries nickname should be 'The Catherder' imo)
I would love to be a fly on the wall during Hakeem’s mentoring sessions with Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi.
I am a bit sad that Flojaune Cofer lost her bid to become mayor of Sacramento. She seemed like such a breath of fresh air!
Heather Cox Richardson’s latest "Letters From an American" is very informative about recent events in South Korea, where President Yoon Suk Yeol tried to impose martial law but was forced to back down. An interesting nugget:
“A member of the conservative People’s Party, Yoon was elected to a five-year presidential term in 2022 after a misogynistic campaign fueled by young men who saw equal rights for women — whose average monthly wage is 67.7% of that a man — as reverse discrimination that is taking away their own rights and opportunities.”
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/december-3-2024
Quote of the day:
“I’m fucking blasted and hanging out in the weirdest scene because history happened at a deeply inconvenient hour. So it goes.”
– Sarah Jeong, Journalist (overly inebriated, yet rising to the occasion in Seoul)
I know it’s not how it works, but give her the Pulitzer for that one
Since clearly neither American nor South Korean voters have the ability to put their problems into perspective, then maybe... we shouldn't expect them to? Maybe we should stop lecturing voters about how other people have it worse than they do*, and start trying to make things better for everyone regardless?
*Unless they're a CEO or billionaire
Not sure what you mean here. Seems to me that South Korean voters did precisely that: When faced with the "problem" of President Yoon’s declaration of martial law, they "saw it in the historical perspective", recalling the last time martial law was declared. After decades of democracy, South Koreans today were not willing to relive what happened then.
The last time martial law was imposed in South Korea was in 1980, when special forces under a military dictatorship attacked pro-democracy activists in the city of Gwangju, leaving about 200 people dead or missing. On that occasion military rule did not end until 1987!
I'm referring to how South Koreans actually voted, and the quote in your original comment.
I see your point! Thanks.
Thanks for the note about the House. I have had Obamacare much on my mind. There is one 2017 medical paper that estimated repeal would mean additional deaths of 35,000 per year. (IIRC Dr. Woolhandler, also a single payer advocate, was lead author.)
At that time a number of Repub US House representatives were in districts that Biden won, and some of those voted against repeal. So how many of the current Repub held House seats are in Harris districts?
I think another Obamacare repeal attempt may be an important example for showing more precisely how much power House Repubs actually have. The vote was quite close in 2017 with a 241R-194D House. Repubs passed the repeal of Obamacare only by 217-213 because 20 Rs defected to join all Ds.
They only have limited bites of the Reconciliation apple they aren't going to repeal the ACA.
Naw they'll just wound it more likely and make it not work well on purpose.
With at least 20 seats fewer than in 2017?
There’s plenty of things they can do administratively (primarily through state waivers) to wound it. Thankfully we have more governorships than in 2017 which will help a bit
It's also easier to get their party on board for smaller ways of chipping away at it. And democrats will be less resolute in fighting those things. The public typically ignores the "thousand cuts" approach to making existing programs worse, so electorally it's safer for them, too.
The Affordable Care Act repeal attempt by the House GOP was a major fail even while the party's majority was by 47 seats.
It's going to be much harder for the House GOP to pull off a repeal this time around even if it tries even attempting at chipping away. The tiny margin of seats the House GOP has over House Democrats gives me serious doubt they're going to even get anything done with this.
Take for instance Rep. David Valadao. He survived re-election a few weeks ago but voted for repealing the ACA back in 2017. He had handfuls of constituents reaching out with questions about his vote and if their healthcare was going to be taken away. He ended up losing re-election in the 2018 midterms.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/05/obamacare-repeal-valadao-california-republicans-239149
Mike Lawler is another moderate House Republican like Valadao who is likely going to face serious pressure like Valadao did if he's going to consider voting yes on another ACA repeal. If he votes YES, he doesn't have a chance at winning re-election in 2026.
MI-Gov: Duggan's running as an independent. Huge headache in arguably the marquee gubernatorial race of the cycle.
Crazy stuff! And tbh quite unnecessary in an R midterm
Why? His positions are bog-standard Democrat and “I brought back Detroit after it’s bankruptcy” is a powerful message in a primary
Yeah, this makes no sense he would have had and may still have if he reverses course quickly a strong shot at the nomination. Short of just wanting to sabotage Dems don't see the logic behind this.
The brain worm strikes again.
yeah I'm fucking perplexed and disappointed. His team didn't think he could beat Benson in the primary.
Yet they believe they can win a three-way race with her as the Dem nominee?
idk man
They should negotiate with him about this. Plenty of time to defuse the bomb.
What's to negotiate? We're not going to guarantee him the nomination.
That's for them to work out, but first they should try to reach out and start communicating very soon. He has a phone and aides, yes? He apparently wants to do a listening tour in the article I saw, presumably to get a reading of the state.
Wonder if the state party chooses to endorse him and not run a candidate?
No, he'll finish third.
Mike Duggan may well finish third. The danger is that he may well help a Republican candidate finish first.
The state party can't stop people from running in the primary. With such a big price at least one person will collect enough signatures to run in the dem primary.
Not running a major party candidate only really works in deep blue/red states where there is no hope for one party. Or with an independent incumbent like Bernie Sanders.
What a weird, disappointing, and potentially hugely problematic decision.
Why do i have a negative connotation with this guy? Did he endorse a republican?
Not that I’m aware. And he’s been an excellent Mayor
He's been fairly inoffensive on that front as far as I know.
His policies seem to be really helping the city too.
Question: Is the House rule that allows a single representative to propose vacating the speakership being preserved? If changed, does anyone know what the new threshold is? Or won’t we know the rules until the new Congress is sworn in and seated in 2025?
I ask because I wonder if this yet another weapon in the Democratic arsenal. In other words, at critical times when there is insufficient Republican attendance, Democrats can "gum up the works" by proposing to remove Speaker Johnson – and threatening to elect Hakeem Jeffries as Speaker.
Yes, I realize it may be more advantageous to simply continually highlight Republican dysfunction...
New Congress sets new rules, and with Gaetz and his hate-boner for McCarthy gone, I’d imagine it doesn’t survive
A reminder that the current rule had been the historical norm before Pelosi changed it. I would not be surprised to see it persist.
I have 3 free trial subscriptions to The DownBallot to anyone interested; not to influence you, but I highly recommend the Discord connected to it(if interested just let me know); the price imo is well worth it
President Joe Biden (D) is following Illinois’s lead in proposing a phasing out of the subminimum wage for workers with disabilities. But will this proposal survive the 2nd go-around of the Trump Administration? https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-minimum-wage-workers-with-disabilities_n_674f3088e4b097a06d9bae37
CLOSE ELECTION: Simon Rosenberg on the Hopium Chronicles:
"To get a sense of how close we came to winning the House, here are the final results in the three closest races Republicans won:
. IA-01 Miller-Meeks +0.19% – 799 votes
. CO-08 Evans +0.73% – 2449 votes
. PA-07 Mackenzie +1% – 4215 votes
"If 3732 people in these three districts had voted for the Democratic candidate rather than these three Republicans, then Hakeem Jeffries would be the next Speaker."
(In the Presidential race, if 116,000 voters in MI, PA, WI had voted for Harris rather than Trump she would have won.)
I really think this will be a pyrrhic victory for the GOP. They barely won in the most anti-incumbent environment in recent memory, and that was their best performing candidate. Trumpism isn't going anywhere, but Trump is, and that's proved a very poor formula for them. We held up well enough in the Senate and are well-poised to have a trifecta in 2029 if we get even a close to normal backlash against Trump. They also won't get any significant legislation through the House. The only real variable is how many of Thomas, Alito, and Roberts step down.
FRANCE: The government of center-right PM Michel Barnier is unlikely to survive today’s No Confidence vote in the French parliament. President Emmanuel Macron chose Barnier to avoid handing power to the left-wing alliance that became the largest bloc after the last parliamentary election.
There is a possibility that Parliament may opt to censure Mr Barnier rather than removing him. Even if he receives a no-confidence vote, Barnier would lead a caretaker government until President Macron appoints a new PM. Live coverage:
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/ckgxw9wj241t
How long would Barnier be able to steer a caretaker government? Until July elections next year?
Barnier is done. Wonder what Marcon will do - go left or right. Unlikely for him to call for a snap Presidential election that will put him out of power.
Macron cannot call a new parliamentary election. At least one year has to pass after the last parliamentary election, which was in July. I suppose Macron could resign, triggering a new presidential election, but that seems a recipe for even greater chaos!
(EDIT: Macron has stated that he would not resign, regardless of the outcome of the no-confidence vote against his PM and his government.)
What happened today is unprecedented; not since 1962 has a French government been felled by a no-confidence vote.
The alternative seems to be for President Macron to actually cooperate with the center-left alliance, New Popular Front (NFP), rather than seeking to appoint yet-another Prime Minister that governs at the mercy of Marine Le Pen’s extreme-right National Rally (RN). That, however, would require serious compromise and breaking new ground, as France has no tradition for coalition government.
EDIT: Another point to note is that the national budget, which PM Barnier forced through by measures that bypassed a parliamentary vote, is now defunct. In other words, one way or another, France’s politicians will be forced to come to an agreement and find a resolution.
In oral arguments for United States v. Skrmetti, the MAGA majority on the court are likely to uphold Tennessee's anti-trans law banning gender-affirming care for trans youths. How broad or narrow the scope would be the real question.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/04/skrmetti-supreme-court-case