Hillary working with a House of Reps elected with help of deplorables

[rob in cal]

  Assuming the GOP holds its house majority, it will be interesting to see how she gets along with a body that will have countless members whose base will have a huge chunk of deplorables within it.
I would think many members will over time start playing up her comments that about half the GOP electorate being composed of deplorables, as part of the reason they can't work with her.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No Democratic President will ever be able to "work with" a Republican House.

[rob in cal]

  Yeah, that's one of the issues that has been lost in this campaign, the whole issue of how Hillary will try to enact her agenda with a House that doesn't support it.  Expansion of executive orders with a more friendly supreme court might be in the cards.

[Person Man]

  Yeah, that's one of the issues that has been lost in this campaign, the whole issue of how Hillary will try to enact her agenda with a House that doesn't support it.  Expansion of executive orders with a more friendly supreme court might be in the cards.

But the infighting in the party means that there are a quarter of them that didn't back Trump. With 200 Democrats and 49-51 in the Senate, maybe with 5 or 6 non-Deplorable Republicans and 20 or 30 non-Deplorable in the House, Hillary might be able to form a centrist coalition the way Merkel has in Germany.

[Mr.Phips]

If Republicans have the House, nothing will get passed.  It will look just like the last six years.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

  Yeah, that's one of the issues that has been lost in this campaign, the whole issue of how Hillary will try to enact her agenda with a House that doesn't support it.  Expansion of executive orders with a more friendly supreme court might be in the cards.

Issues like that have been minimized by the fact that her opponent is an actual monster. Very few Hillary voters think she's likely to get anything significant passed.

[Classic Conservative]

That's why my main focus is the Senate, so we can stop all appointee to the Supreme Court for the next four years.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

That's why my main focus is the Senate, so we can stop all appointee to the Supreme Court for the next four years.

At least you're intellectually honest enough not to even bother pretending to give a fig what the Constitution says

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

That's why my main focus is the Senate, so we can stop all appointee to the Supreme Court for the next four years.

If I was in the position republicans are in now I would at least try to negociate a compromise candidate(though I would still try to squeeze out every concession I could).

[SWE]

That's why my main focus is the Senate, so we can stop all appointee to the Supreme Court for the next four years.

At least you're intellectually honest enough not to even bother pretending to give a fig what the Constitution says

What aspect of the Constitution is being violated?

[Badger]

  Yeah, that's one of the issues that has been lost in this campaign, the whole issue of how Hillary will try to enact her agenda with a House that doesn't support it.  Expansion of executive orders with a more friendly supreme court might be in the cards.

But the infighting in the party means that there are a quarter of them that didn't back Trump. With 200 Democrats and 49-51 in the Senate, maybe with 5 or 6 non-Deplorable Republicans and 20 or 30 non-Deplorable in the House, Hillary might be able to form a centrist coalition the way Merkel has in Germany.

nope. look up the Hasert rule.

[Torie]

  Yeah, that's one of the issues that has been lost in this campaign, the whole issue of how Hillary will try to enact her agenda with a House that doesn't support it.  Expansion of executive orders with a more friendly supreme court might be in the cards.

But the infighting in the party means that there are a quarter of them that didn't back Trump. With 200 Democrats and 49-51 in the Senate, maybe with 5 or 6 non-Deplorable Republicans and 20 or 30 non-Deplorable in the House, Hillary might be able to form a centrist coalition the way Merkel has in Germany.

nope. look up the Hasert rule.

There is no law that Pubs need to honor that rule.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

That's why my main focus is the Senate, so we can stop all appointee to the Supreme Court for the next four years.

At this point I wouldn't be surprised the Republicans would simply let all the seats go vacant if there's a Democratic President.

[Badger]

  Yeah, that's one of the issues that has been lost in this campaign, the whole issue of how Hillary will try to enact her agenda with a House that doesn't support it.  Expansion of executive orders with a more friendly supreme court might be in the cards.

But the infighting in the party means that there are a quarter of them that didn't back Trump. With 200 Democrats and 49-51 in the Senate, maybe with 5 or 6 non-Deplorable Republicans and 20 or 30 non-Deplorable in the House, Hillary might be able to form a centrist coalition the way Merkel has in Germany.

nope. look up the Hasert rule.

There is no law that Pubs need to honor that rule.

They surely won't get rid of it while they're in the majority. That means Clinton will have to deal with Ryan (good luck) instaed of a handful of swing Republicans.

[Gass3268]

That's why my main focus is the Senate, so we can stop all appointee to the Supreme Court for the next four years.

McConnell would look like a fraud if he didn't let Clinton make the appointment. Also there are already a handful of Republcans that have said they would support someone like Garland the next time around.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

That's why my main focus is the Senate, so we can stop all appointee to the Supreme Court for the next four years.

At least you're intellectually honest enough not to even bother pretending to give a fig what the Constitution says

Nothing in the Constitution says that there has to be nine justices.  And, nothing compels the Senate to approve the president's nominees, and it is likely that Hillary would never nominate someone acceptable to Republicans.

[Torie]

  Yeah, that's one of the issues that has been lost in this campaign, the whole issue of how Hillary will try to enact her agenda with a House that doesn't support it.  Expansion of executive orders with a more friendly supreme court might be in the cards.

But the infighting in the party means that there are a quarter of them that didn't back Trump. With 200 Democrats and 49-51 in the Senate, maybe with 5 or 6 non-Deplorable Republicans and 20 or 30 non-Deplorable in the House, Hillary might be able to form a centrist coalition the way Merkel has in Germany.

nope. look up the Hasert rule.

There is no law that Pubs need to honor that rule.

They surely won't get rid of it while they're in the majority. That means Clinton will have to deal with Ryan (good luck) instaed of a handful of swing Republicans.

Any Pub can choose to ignore the Hasert rule, and I certainly would if a Pub in Congress. Hey, you're a Pub. Wouldn't you ignore the rule if elected to Congress?

[SWE]

  Yeah, that's one of the issues that has been lost in this campaign, the whole issue of how Hillary will try to enact her agenda with a House that doesn't support it.  Expansion of executive orders with a more friendly supreme court might be in the cards.

But the infighting in the party means that there are a quarter of them that didn't back Trump. With 200 Democrats and 49-51 in the Senate, maybe with 5 or 6 non-Deplorable Republicans and 20 or 30 non-Deplorable in the House, Hillary might be able to form a centrist coalition the way Merkel has in Germany.

nope. look up the Hasert rule.

There is no law that Pubs need to honor that rule.

They surely won't get rid of it while they're in the majority. That means Clinton will have to deal with Ryan (good luck) instaed of a handful of swing Republicans.

Any Pub can choose to ignore the Hasert rule, and I certainly would if a Pub in Congress. Hey, you're a Pub. Wouldn't you ignore the rule if elected to Congress?

It's not really up to individual representatives, though.

[Slander and/or Libel]

  Yeah, that's one of the issues that has been lost in this campaign, the whole issue of how Hillary will try to enact her agenda with a House that doesn't support it.  Expansion of executive orders with a more friendly supreme court might be in the cards.

But the infighting in the party means that there are a quarter of them that didn't back Trump. With 200 Democrats and 49-51 in the Senate, maybe with 5 or 6 non-Deplorable Republicans and 20 or 30 non-Deplorable in the House, Hillary might be able to form a centrist coalition the way Merkel has in Germany.

nope. look up the Hasert rule.

There is no law that Pubs need to honor that rule.

They surely won't get rid of it while they're in the majority. That means Clinton will have to deal with Ryan (good luck) instaed of a handful of swing Republicans.

Any Pub can choose to ignore the Hasert rule, and I certainly would if a Pub in Congress. Hey, you're a Pub. Wouldn't you ignore the rule if elected to Congress?

They can ignore it, but why would a handful of moderate Republicans form a caucus with all of the Democrats? Why would they expect that this would get them closer to their preferred policy preferences?

And they'll obey the Hastert Rule, generally, because of what happened to Boehner. Let's say the bleeding isn't too bad and the Republicans only lose half of their margin against the Dems. That would mean that any 15 Republicans would be able to withhold consent for any candidate for Speaker, assuming no Democrats break ranks and for some reason vote for a Republican.

[Torie]

 Yeah, that's one of the issues that has been lost in this campaign, the whole issue of how Hillary will try to enact her agenda with a House that doesn't support it.  Expansion of executive orders with a more friendly supreme court might be in the cards.

But the infighting in the party means that there are a quarter of them that didn't back Trump. With 200 Democrats and 49-51 in the Senate, maybe with 5 or 6 non-Deplorable Republicans and 20 or 30 non-Deplorable in the House, Hillary might be able to form a centrist coalition the way Merkel has in Germany.

nope. look up the Hasert rule.

There is no law that Pubs need to honor that rule.

They surely won't get rid of it while they're in the majority. That means Clinton will have to deal with Ryan (good luck) instaed of a handful of swing Republicans.

Any Pub can choose to ignore the Hasert rule, and I certainly would if a Pub in Congress. Hey, you're a Pub. Wouldn't you ignore the rule if elected to Congress?

They can ignore it, but why would a handful of moderate Republicans form a caucus with all of the Democrats? Why would they expect that this would get them closer to their preferred policy preferences?

And they'll obey the Hastert Rule, generally, because of what happened to Boehner. Let's say the bleeding isn't too bad and the Republicans only lose half of their margin against the Dems. That would mean that any 15 Republicans would be able to withhold consent for any candidate for Speaker, assuming no Democrats break ranks and for some reason vote for a Republican.

I wasn't talking about electing the Speaker. That is not what the Hasert rule is about. That rule is about all the Pubs voting the same way on a bill that the majority of the Pub caucus votes, at least when the "whip" is cracked. Any Pub is free to ignore the rule. Sure they may be sent into political Siberia, but that might be a good place to be when the majority of the Pub caucus goes off the rails.

In practice, the Rules Committee controls what goes to the floor, so often things are killed that a majority of the House wants to get passed, so the Hasert rule has an indirect impact to that extent. The "fix" for that is for Mainstreet moderate Pubs who actually want effective governance, rather than propping up the status quo due to gridlock, to sign discharge petitions that force bills to the floor overruling the Rules Committee. Some of these gutless wonders who are Mainstreet Pub types need to get into the habit of signing discharge petitions more often. Sure some of them may be primaried, but wouldn't it be nice if more politicians were focused on doing what is right, rather than just thinking about their re-election?

Many of the House Mainstreet Pubs need to starting taking massive doses of courage pills.

[Slander and/or Libel]

  Yeah, that's one of the issues that has been lost in this campaign, the whole issue of how Hillary will try to enact her agenda with a House that doesn't support it.  Expansion of executive orders with a more friendly supreme court might be in the cards.

But the infighting in the party means that there are a quarter of them that didn't back Trump. With 200 Democrats and 49-51 in the Senate, maybe with 5 or 6 non-Deplorable Republicans and 20 or 30 non-Deplorable in the House, Hillary might be able to form a centrist coalition the way Merkel has in Germany.

nope. look up the Hasert rule.

There is no law that Pubs need to honor that rule.

They surely won't get rid of it while they're in the majority. That means Clinton will have to deal with Ryan (good luck) instaed of a handful of swing Republicans.

Any Pub can choose to ignore the Hasert rule, and I certainly would if a Pub in Congress. Hey, you're a Pub. Wouldn't you ignore the rule if elected to Congress?

They can ignore it, but why would a handful of moderate Republicans form a caucus with all of the Democrats? Why would they expect that this would get them closer to their preferred policy preferences?

And they'll obey the Hastert Rule, generally, because of what happened to Boehner. Let's say the bleeding isn't too bad and the Republicans only lose half of their margin against the Dems. That would mean that any 15 Republicans would be able to withhold consent for any candidate for Speaker, assuming no Democrats break ranks and for some reason vote for a Republican.

I wasn't talking about electing the Speaker. That is not what the Hasert rule is about. That rule is about all the Pubs voting the same way on a bill that the majority of the Pub caucus votes, at least when the "whip" is cracked. Any Pub is free to ignore the rule. Sure they may be sent into political Siberia, but that might be a good place to be when the majority of the Pub caucus goes off the rails.

In practice, the Rules Committee controls what goes to the floor, so often things are killed that a majority of the House wants to get passed, so the Hasert rule has an indirect impact to that extent. The "fix" for that is for Mainstreet moderate Pubs who actually want effective governance, rather than propping up the status quo due to gridlock. to sign  discharge petitions that force bills to the floor overruling the Rules Committee. Some of these gutless wonders who are Mainstreet Pub types need to get into the habit of signing discharge petitions more often. Sure some of them may be primaried, but wouldn't it be nice if more politicians were focused on doing what is right, rather than just thinking about their re-election?

Many of the House Pubs need to starting taking massive doses of courage pills.

I know what the Hastert Rule is about, and I know that it's not about electing the Speaker. But not "following" the rule was one of the grievances cited against Boehner when he was ousted.

The Hastert Rule is that the Speaker won't bring something to the floor unless it has the support of the majority of the majority. It's not about whipping members once something has been brought to the floor.

I'm saying that part of the incentive to obey it is that the caucus has shown that they're hungry for blood, and with only a small majority, a tiny handful of representatives could serve as a block on any potential Speaker. That gives them the power to extract all sorts of concessions.

[Torie]

  Yeah, that's one of the issues that has been lost in this campaign, the whole issue of how Hillary will try to enact her agenda with a House that doesn't support it.  Expansion of executive orders with a more friendly supreme court might be in the cards.

But the infighting in the party means that there are a quarter of them that didn't back Trump. With 200 Democrats and 49-51 in the Senate, maybe with 5 or 6 non-Deplorable Republicans and 20 or 30 non-Deplorable in the House, Hillary might be able to form a centrist coalition the way Merkel has in Germany.

nope. look up the Hasert rule.

There is no law that Pubs need to honor that rule.

They surely won't get rid of it while they're in the majority. That means Clinton will have to deal with Ryan (good luck) instaed of a handful of swing Republicans.

Any Pub can choose to ignore the Hasert rule, and I certainly would if a Pub in Congress. Hey, you're a Pub. Wouldn't you ignore the rule if elected to Congress?

They can ignore it, but why would a handful of moderate Republicans form a caucus with all of the Democrats? Why would they expect that this would get them closer to their preferred policy preferences?

And they'll obey the Hastert Rule, generally, because of what happened to Boehner. Let's say the bleeding isn't too bad and the Republicans only lose half of their margin against the Dems. That would mean that any 15 Republicans would be able to withhold consent for any candidate for Speaker, assuming no Democrats break ranks and for some reason vote for a Republican.

I wasn't talking about electing the Speaker. That is not what the Hasert rule is about. That rule is about all the Pubs voting the same way on a bill that the majority of the Pub caucus votes, at least when the "whip" is cracked. Any Pub is free to ignore the rule. Sure they may be sent into political Siberia, but that might be a good place to be when the majority of the Pub caucus goes off the rails.

In practice, the Rules Committee controls what goes to the floor, so often things are killed that a majority of the House wants to get passed, so the Hasert rule has an indirect impact to that extent. The "fix" for that is for Mainstreet moderate Pubs who actually want effective governance, rather than propping up the status quo due to gridlock. to sign  discharge petitions that force bills to the floor overruling the Rules Committee. Some of these gutless wonders who are Mainstreet Pub types need to get into the habit of signing discharge petitions more often. Sure some of them may be primaried, but wouldn't it be nice if more politicians were focused on doing what is right, rather than just thinking about their re-election?

Many of the House Pubs need to starting taking massive doses of courage pills.

I know what the Hastert Rule is about, and I know that it's not about electing the Speaker. But not "following" the rule was one of the grievances cited against Boehner when he was ousted.

The Hastert Rule is that the Speaker won't bring something to the floor unless it has the support of the majority of the majority. It's not about whipping members once something has been brought to the floor.

I'm saying that part of the incentive to obey it is that the caucus has shown that they're hungry for blood, and with only a small majority, a tiny handful of representatives could serve as a block on any potential Speaker. That gives them the power to extract all sorts of concessions.

Yeah, electing the Speaker gives rogues of any stripe a lot of power. But it can work both ways. If the Pubs go for one of the deplorables for Speaker, some Pubs might threaten to put in a Dem as Speaker. Jim Cooper for Speaker!

[Slander and/or Libel]

  Yeah, that's one of the issues that has been lost in this campaign, the whole issue of how Hillary will try to enact her agenda with a House that doesn't support it.  Expansion of executive orders with a more friendly supreme court might be in the cards.

But the infighting in the party means that there are a quarter of them that didn't back Trump. With 200 Democrats and 49-51 in the Senate, maybe with 5 or 6 non-Deplorable Republicans and 20 or 30 non-Deplorable in the House, Hillary might be able to form a centrist coalition the way Merkel has in Germany.

nope. look up the Hasert rule.

There is no law that Pubs need to honor that rule.

They surely won't get rid of it while they're in the majority. That means Clinton will have to deal with Ryan (good luck) instaed of a handful of swing Republicans.

Any Pub can choose to ignore the Hasert rule, and I certainly would if a Pub in Congress. Hey, you're a Pub. Wouldn't you ignore the rule if elected to Congress?

They can ignore it, but why would a handful of moderate Republicans form a caucus with all of the Democrats? Why would they expect that this would get them closer to their preferred policy preferences?

And they'll obey the Hastert Rule, generally, because of what happened to Boehner. Let's say the bleeding isn't too bad and the Republicans only lose half of their margin against the Dems. That would mean that any 15 Republicans would be able to withhold consent for any candidate for Speaker, assuming no Democrats break ranks and for some reason vote for a Republican.

I wasn't talking about electing the Speaker. That is not what the Hasert rule is about. That rule is about all the Pubs voting the same way on a bill that the majority of the Pub caucus votes, at least when the "whip" is cracked. Any Pub is free to ignore the rule. Sure they may be sent into political Siberia, but that might be a good place to be when the majority of the Pub caucus goes off the rails.

In practice, the Rules Committee controls what goes to the floor, so often things are killed that a majority of the House wants to get passed, so the Hasert rule has an indirect impact to that extent. The "fix" for that is for Mainstreet moderate Pubs who actually want effective governance, rather than propping up the status quo due to gridlock. to sign  discharge petitions that force bills to the floor overruling the Rules Committee. Some of these gutless wonders who are Mainstreet Pub types need to get into the habit of signing discharge petitions more often. Sure some of them may be primaried, but wouldn't it be nice if more politicians were focused on doing what is right, rather than just thinking about their re-election?

Many of the House Pubs need to starting taking massive doses of courage pills.

I know what the Hastert Rule is about, and I know that it's not about electing the Speaker. But not "following" the rule was one of the grievances cited against Boehner when he was ousted.

The Hastert Rule is that the Speaker won't bring something to the floor unless it has the support of the majority of the majority. It's not about whipping members once something has been brought to the floor.

I'm saying that part of the incentive to obey it is that the caucus has shown that they're hungry for blood, and with only a small majority, a tiny handful of representatives could serve as a block on any potential Speaker. That gives them the power to extract all sorts of concessions.

Yeah, electing the Speaker gives rogues of any stripe a lot of power. But it can work both ways. If the Pubs go for one of the deplorables for Speaker, some Pubs might threaten to put in a Dem as Speaker. Jim Cooper for Speaker!

Yeah, all a function of the growing disunity and the fact that especially newer members feel no allegiance to the GOP establishment, so feel free to buck the party leadership at will. I think it's not that Boehner or Ryan are bad at being Speaker, necessarily, so much as that it's a job that, at present, nobody could be good at.

[Person Man]

  Yeah, that's one of the issues that has been lost in this campaign, the whole issue of how Hillary will try to enact her agenda with a House that doesn't support it.  Expansion of executive orders with a more friendly supreme court might be in the cards.

But the infighting in the party means that there are a quarter of them that didn't back Trump. With 200 Democrats and 49-51 in the Senate, maybe with 5 or 6 non-Deplorable Republicans and 20 or 30 non-Deplorable in the House, Hillary might be able to form a centrist coalition the way Merkel has in Germany.

nope. look up the Hasert rule.

There is no law that Pubs need to honor that rule.

They surely won't get rid of it while they're in the majority. That means Clinton will have to deal with Ryan (good luck) instaed of a handful of swing Republicans.

Any Pub can choose to ignore the Hasert rule, and I certainly would if a Pub in Congress. Hey, you're a Pub. Wouldn't you ignore the rule if elected to Congress?

They can ignore it, but why would a handful of moderate Republicans form a caucus with all of the Democrats? Why would they expect that this would get them closer to their preferred policy preferences?

And they'll obey the Hastert Rule, generally, because of what happened to Boehner. Let's say the bleeding isn't too bad and the Republicans only lose half of their margin against the Dems. That would mean that any 15 Republicans would be able to withhold consent for any candidate for Speaker, assuming no Democrats break ranks and for some reason vote for a Republican.

I wasn't talking about electing the Speaker. That is not what the Hasert rule is about. That rule is about all the Pubs voting the same way on a bill that the majority of the Pub caucus votes, at least when the "whip" is cracked. Any Pub is free to ignore the rule. Sure they may be sent into political Siberia, but that might be a good place to be when the majority of the Pub caucus goes off the rails.

In practice, the Rules Committee controls what goes to the floor, so often things are killed that a majority of the House wants to get passed, so the Hasert rule has an indirect impact to that extent. The "fix" for that is for Mainstreet moderate Pubs who actually want effective governance, rather than propping up the status quo due to gridlock. to sign  discharge petitions that force bills to the floor overruling the Rules Committee. Some of these gutless wonders who are Mainstreet Pub types need to get into the habit of signing discharge petitions more often. Sure some of them may be primaried, but wouldn't it be nice if more politicians were focused on doing what is right, rather than just thinking about their re-election?

Many of the House Pubs need to starting taking massive doses of courage pills.

I know what the Hastert Rule is about, and I know that it's not about electing the Speaker. But not "following" the rule was one of the grievances cited against Boehner when he was ousted.

The Hastert Rule is that the Speaker won't bring something to the floor unless it has the support of the majority of the majority. It's not about whipping members once something has been brought to the floor.

I'm saying that part of the incentive to obey it is that the caucus has shown that they're hungry for blood, and with only a small majority, a tiny handful of representatives could serve as a block on any potential Speaker. That gives them the power to extract all sorts of concessions.

Yeah, electing the Speaker gives rogues of any stripe a lot of power. But it can work both ways. If the Pubs go for one of the deplorables for Speaker, some Pubs might threaten to put in a Dem as Speaker. Jim Cooper for Speaker!

Yeah, all a function of the growing disunity and the fact that especially newer members feel no allegiance to the GOP establishment, so feel free to buck the party leadership at will. I think it's not that Boehner or Ryan are bad at being Speaker, necessarily, so much as that it's a job that, at present, nobody could be good at.

Is there a chance that a right-left coalition might emerge between Ryan and Clinton ala 1981?

[Slander and/or Libel]

Is there a chance that a right-left coalition might emerge between Ryan and Clinton ala 1981?

Personally, I really doubt it. There may be a split on the right, but everybody on any side of that split is still closer to each other than they are to Democrats.