Red Racing Horses
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

OH-8: Boehner's Speakership At Stake Tonight

by: BostonPatriot

Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 18:24:22 PM EST


The House Republican Caucus, which formally re-elected John Boehner as Speaker several weeks ago, is holding a meeting tonight during which Boehner could be ousted from his post. The Twitterverse is buzzing that Boehner may not have the votes to survive a leadership challenge, although we've yet to hear anything definitive from any reliable source. Regardless, we'll be monitoring things closely tonight.

If Boehner survives tonight, tomorrow's swearing-in of the 113th Congress will become a must-watch event. The new Congress always begins with the Clerk of the House calling the roll, during which each Member announces their vote for Speaker. If enough Republicans defect from Boehner, he could fall short of the 218 votes needed for election--unless Democrats prop him up. Either way, Boehner would be in significant trouble.

If Boehner is out, he would most likely resign his seat in Congress, creating a vacancy in the deep red OH-08 in exurban Cincinnati. It's not too early to start thinking about a potential special election in that district.
BostonPatriot :: OH-8: Boehner's Speakership At Stake Tonight
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

OH-8: Boehner's Speakership At Stake Tonight | 54 comments
Speaker
Who was the last speaker to be ousted?

27, Republican, PA-6
Before Newt?
Arguably Jim Wright.

R, MA-7/MD-7/moving to WV-1
[ Parent ]
arguably Livingston from Louisana
a scandal broke when it was clear Livingston would have been the next speaker following Next deciding to step down and he resigned from the house.


41 Male Republican, Maryland Heights, MO (MO-2). Previously lived in both Memphis and Nashville.
[ Parent ]
cant really see him ousted until 2016
Who really wants to deal with obama and reid?

26, R, PA-01.



[ Parent ]
State Senators
State Sens Bill Coley, incoming Senate President Keith Faber, and Bill Beagle represent large chunks of OH-08.  

From suburban Chicago's North Shore, now living on suburban Philadelphia's Main Line. Back home until July.
Bruce Rauner for Governor!
Austria!
Though he didn't rep any of the new OH-8 AFAIK he's still known in the Dayton market. It would also be nice karmic justice.

R, MA-7/MD-7/moving to WV-1
[ Parent ]
Not so.
Springfield and Clark County as a whole was transported to the 8th district. It has a population of 138,333.

From suburban Chicago's North Shore, now living on suburban Philadelphia's Main Line. Back home until July.
Bruce Rauner for Governor!
[ Parent ]
Cool.
Didn't remember that. He should definitely run then, especially with a lot of Hamilton candidates likely to run and split the southern part of the district's vote.

R, MA-7/MD-7/moving to WV-1
[ Parent ]
You mean Butler candidates?


From suburban Chicago's North Shore, now living on suburban Philadelphia's Main Line. Back home until July.
Bruce Rauner for Governor!
[ Parent ]
Eek, yes
Of course Hamilton is not in Hamilton County, but the next county over. Makes perfect sense!

R, MA-7/MD-7/moving to WV-1
[ Parent ]
Oh please
Look up where "Houston County" and "Austin County" Texas are.

22, Libertarian Republican CA-14
Liberals dream things that never were and ask why not.  Conservatives shout back "Because it won't work"
[ Parent ]
And Richmond County, VA
Hamilton is more confusing because they're so close though. I always equate Hamilton to Cincinnati, but I often forget the county is for the immediate area and the city is an exurb.

There's also the similarly-named Harrison, which is in Hamilton County.

R, MA-7/MD-7/moving to WV-1

[ Parent ]
There are a number of these
Lincoln, NE is not in Lincoln County. Des Moines, IA is not in Des Moines County. Jackson, MS is not in Jackson County. Boise, ID is in Ada County which borders Boise County. Cheyenne, WY is in Laramie County but Laramie is in bordering Albany County. Those are just ones involved with state capitals that I thought of off the top of my head-there are lots of others too.

41, R, NE-1.
[ Parent ]
Anyone else find it a little funny
That 2 of the named possible replacements are Cathy McMorris-Rodgers and Tom Price, who each represent districts of former house speakers?

22, Libertarian Republican CA-14
Liberals dream things that never were and ask why not.  Conservatives shout back "Because it won't work"
Cool coincidence
Ralph Hall is too old. Kay Granger is pro-choice. Frank Lucas, anyone?
[ Parent ]
Granger
Kay Granger is most certainly not pro-choice. She is pro-embryonic stem cell, but she is certainly not pro-choice.

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/...

Lifelong Republican, TX-17

[ Parent ]
She's a Hutchison clone
Pro-choice in that she doesn't want to overturn Roe vs. Wade, but in favor of most restriction on abortion. The WISH List, which is the counterpart of the Susan B. Anthony List, considers her pro-choice: http://www.thewishlist.org/Gra...
[ Parent ]
Wouldn't that be enough?
In favor of most restriction, yet no full overturn of Roe v Wade sounds like an acceptable position to the majority of the country?

German citizen - Conservative by heart, non native english speaker
[ Parent ]
I hope not
I favor the exact opposite - the complete repeal of Roe v Wade but no restrictions on abortion.
[ Parent ]
Not Lucas
Cole or Mullin. The old OK-3 was chopped up in 2002.

R, MA-7/MD-7/moving to WV-1
[ Parent ]
My mistake
Some states are tough to trace a line of succession in. We'll go with Cole in this scenario.
[ Parent ]
Rodgers, Price, Granger
are all people I think could work - Granger more so, b/c she hasn't been in leadership for some time and could be more acceptable to the more moderate/establishment wing then Tom Price.

German citizen - Conservative by heart, non native english speaker
[ Parent ]
Meeting was over at 7, yes?
I guess he didn't resign.

R, MA-7/MD-7/moving to WV-1
I think it's ironic
that Boehner is the party leader in trouble while Nancy Pelosi is apparently still safe as Democratic leader after losing the House a second straight cycle.
Apples to Oranges
While replacing Pelosi wouldn't seriously affect Democrats chances of taking the House, replacing Boehner might do something about the dysfunctional and uncommunicative state of the House GOP caucus. If we consider the House Democratic caucus on the same metrics as Boehner is being negatively judged, we see the House Democratic Caucus is highly cohesive and leadership has excellent synergy (both with each other and the miscellaneous wings of the caucus.)

(-9.38, -7.49), Blood type "O", social anarchist, KY 01, "When smashing monuments, save the pedestals. They always come in handy."


-- Stanisław Lem
[ Parent ]
Kinda, yes
but Pelosi has always been an effective vote counter plus she's a fundraising prodigy - and I think Democrats remember the good ol' times when she was calling the shots in the House. Age aside, there is little reason for her to step aside, because the "Scary Nancy" theme of 2010 certainly has lost it's golden touch.

German citizen - Conservative by heart, non native english speaker
[ Parent ]
Democrats
don't kick out their party leaders. There's never been a Democratic leadership coup. Jim Wright resigned purely due to a personal scandal and Tom Foley was ousted by voters. And, in both cases, the rest of the leadership team simply moved up in rank.

Robert Michel was the GOP leader in the House through eight straight losing cycles.

Democrat, NC-11

[ Parent ]
Republicans v. Democrats
It may have to do with Republicans being about individualism and Democrats emphasizing collectivism. When you believe it takes a village you understand that everyone doesn't do it your way. When you believe you're responsible to make it happen, then you have less tolerance.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2
[ Parent ]
At least
The house is secure, or as secure as this dysfunctional group can be:

http://twitter.com/thinkprogre...

An anti-public union, market-loving moderate.

Only way national legislation on gerrymandering would happen
Is if

A. It became an explicitly partisan issue, rather than benifitting Democrats some places and Republicans others. This has happened. Almost all Democrats now blame gerrymandering for their minority status, and view the GOP majority as illegitimate.

B.Being in the minority became so unpleasant that VRA reps would even be willing to accept slightly more challenging races in exchange for a shot at the majority. Also happening now, if not to those reps, than to their voters.

I think if the Democrats stumble into a majority they will force "bipartisan" comissions nationally on the Washington model. That way they can still protect incumbents, but also ensure they have a seat at the table.

Also, if the GOP tries to break up electoral votes in Ohio/PA etc, this sort of reform will become a litmus test issue in every democratic primary in the country.

25 NH-01/London/MA-07

Centrist Foreign Policy Realist - Tory in the UK, RINO locally

[ Parent ]
A is not true at all
Even if every Democrat blamed gerrymandering for being the minority, most of them have their seats because of the practice.  Which Democrat would sacrifice their own safe seat for the good of the party?  Probably around none.  B is not the case either.  PA Redistricting 2011 showed that.  And the voters? Maybe college educated liberals, but most urban or rural voters from both parties have no understanding of the process.  A national popular vote for President is much more likely than gerrymandering reform.
[ Parent ]
Simple Equation
Democrat "Wins Elections aka gets lots more votes" = Republican Becomes President by winning maj of electoral votes in states he loses = Republican stole election meme on the lips of every democrat(and 90%+) of black voters in the country

That will be an easy equation to explain to Democratic voters. Everything will be subordinated to that, but only after it happens. Not before.

Right now it only affects the house. When legislation democrats hate, which targets democratic constituencies is implemented because of the system and the Presidency is at stake, local interests will be ignored, and those who dont get out of the way will be swept away including those like Brady. They will be seen as enabling not the election of white republicans over white democrats in Western PA, but of enabling the election of a Republican to the White House.

25 NH-01/London/MA-07

Centrist Foreign Policy Realist - Tory in the UK, RINO locally

[ Parent ]
we'll see
The Democrats tried the "Republicans stole the election" in 2000.  Has it caused any change in the way anything is done? No.  And that was the VERY easy way to explain it to Democratic voters.  This is also the second time you've attempted to make this some kind of racial issue that is going to fire up African-Americans especially.  It is funny that you think that there will be some massive taking to the streets by mostly African-Americans to claim the scalps of VRA Reps who stand in the way of Gerrymander reform.  I mean, I guess it could happen if SEIU buses in and pays enough people.  
[ Parent ]
I do think the African American Community can move rapidly
We've seen a 20+ point swing on Gay Marriage in the last 9 months.

Right now Republican policies are not inimical to urban machines. Those policies are a minimal threat as long as Democrats have the Senate and the Presidency, but that would not be the case with a GOP trifecta.

The machines right now can separate control of the House v. Control of the Presidency. If Brady's behavior had threatened the ability of the party to win the Presidency, I think he would have faced a revolt from his lieutenants, since they would lose more pork and benefits from losing the Presidency than they would gain from their local control. Ie. no minority rep is going to be able to deliver enough pork in those VRA seats to compete with the consequences of a Republican president in terms of the amount of money and benefits their constituents are seeing.

25 NH-01/London/MA-07

Centrist Foreign Policy Realist - Tory in the UK, RINO locally

[ Parent ]
Gerrymandering
Ah, Democrats. They will never believe that they could lose fair and square and that America doesn't prefer them. It must be fixed. I can't get DRA to work properly with some states but I've done some neutral redistricting and here is what I've come up with. The numbers are districts that'd flip worth 1 and toss-up districts worth 0.5.

Maryland R+2
Mass same
Indiana Same
Wisconsin D+0.5
Michigan D+2.5
North Carolina D+2
Georgia same

That's D+3.  When I go to Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Florida, and Texas and hit the arrows to move the map, the map just keeps moving. I don't think Democrats would net more than 4-5 out of these states, however. Democrats need to deal with the truth.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
Gerrymandering
If that were the outcome, I would be totally fine with it.  I would much prefer losing to court maps due to Democratic "self packing" rather than due to gerrymanders that go beyond that.  And thats for both sides.

32/M/D/NY-01 DKE:Socks The Cat

Hillary/Booker 2016
[ Parent ]
Both sides love the gerrymander
as long as they're the ones calling the shots ... hence why I doubt you'll see a huge national discussion on it in the very near future.

German citizen - Conservative by heart, non native english speaker
[ Parent ]
Misleading
Different districts mean different candidates and different environments. Democrats held 7 seats in 2010 in North Carolina, and its likely they would have had incumbents in running in all of them, plus making a challenge against Ellmers.

Ohio would have had an entirely different playing field with a different map, as would have Pennsylvania.

The best way of looking at this is looking at states that did have Court maps, where the Democrats generally over-performed in competitive seats.  

25 NH-01/London/MA-07

Centrist Foreign Policy Realist - Tory in the UK, RINO locally

[ Parent ]
Evidence suggests otherwise
Different districts does mean different candidates and different environments. That means no one knows anything for sure, but you have to make assumptions about the districts in a neutral environment. You're assuming all the incumbent Democrats would've run and not retired and that they would've run well. You have no basis for that.

You're ignoring all the incumbent Republicans. You can't assume Shuler would've run and run great, but Ellmers would've been awful. You also can't assume a map that would've been as favorable to the Democrats as the 2001 North Carolina was. Brad Miller won his district because he drew it.

You provide no evidence that Democrats did well in court maps.

Arizona - Democrats ran behind Obama in 6 of 8 districts.

Nevada - All four Democrats ran behind Obama.

California - 11 out of 12 Democrats in competitive districts ran behind Obama.

Colorado - Everyone except Degette ran behind Obama and she wasn't in a competitive seat.

Minnesota - Democrats did well here, with 5 running ahead of Obama. Of course that includes Bachmann, Peterson, and McCollum. Bachmann and Peterson aren't good for extrapolating because they are extremes each way and McCollum is in a non-competitive district.

New Jersey - Democrats ran behind Obama in all districts where Obama got 61% of the vote or less.

Oregon - Democrats ran ahead of Obama in 4 of 5 districts.

Washington - Democrats ran behind Obama in 6 of 10 districts.

Overall, House Democrats ran 1.4% behind Obama in the 2 party vote. In 2008, however, they beat Obama by 2.0%. Considering how Obama did this year, Democrats were a big disappointment. I think I'm being generous with the districts.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
Well
In New Jersey, those districts were I believe all against Republican incumbents. As was the case in five districts in Arizona. In California, the Democrats won those districts, either against strong candidates in open seats or against incumbents.

Yes Democrats ran behind Obama. But Obama won nationally quite comfortably when everything was said and done, with nearly a four point margin. Democrats won two Romney districts in Arizona, and did well enough to sweep the competitive seats in California with the exception of the 31st and 10th, and both districts had Republican incumbents.

25 NH-01/London/MA-07

Centrist Foreign Policy Realist - Tory in the UK, RINO locally

[ Parent ]
You're moving the bar all over the place
Democrats didn't have a candidate in CA-31. You're thinking of CA-21, a competitive open seat that they lost.

In some cases there were Republican incumbents. Sometimes Democrats have to run against Republican incumbents. There were 3 Republican incumbents in Arizona. Yes, Democrats won all those districts, but if we're eliminating all the districts Democrats won and all districts with Republican incumbents we're going to get a small sample size that a) won't prove much b) wouldn't be representative of the districts that Democrats would have to run in with non-partisan redistricting.

Yes, Barack Obama won by nearly 4 points nationwide, but that's not a big margin for a Presidential race and certainly not bigger than the 7+ point margin in 2008 that Democrats exceeded by 4 points.

2008: Obama 7, Democrats 11
2012: Obama 4, Democrats 1

Your initial hypothesis was "The best way of looking at this is looking at states that did have Court maps, where the Democrats generally over-performed in competitive seats. " That proved to be wrong, so now you want to eliminate all the court maps and go with two commission maps, California and Arizona.

Democrats did well in Arizona, exceeding Obama in 2 of 3 competitive districts, although we probably shouldn't forget that they were running an incumbent and a former congresswoman, while the Republicans ran three challengers or that in two of those races the Republican + Libertarian vote exceeded the Democratic vote.

Democrats did win seats in California but those seats turned out to be so heavily Obama that winning seats was easy. Winning CA-47 by 13 points when Obama won it by 23 isn't an indicator that Democratic House candidates would've won elsewhere. The Democratic incumbent running against unfunded no name won CA-16 by 15 when Obama won it by 19. Democratic congressional performance in California was a disappointment when you compare it to how Democratic the districts were.

I really think I'm being kind by saying Democrats lost 7-8 seats due gerrymandering.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
Word of caution?
We all love political drama, but one thing keeps me wondering: Twitter is busy with these rumors, partly driven by American Majority Action which has stated that it's is goal to oust Boehner.

I have yet to read something about this on FoxNews (other then this vague article) and Politicol, or the Hill, which arguably have good sources on Capitol Hill ...  

German citizen - Conservative by heart, non native english speaker

It's nothing but rumors
I put the thread up because I figured there would be a lot of Boehner-centric discussion tonight and wanted to have a defined place for it. I, for one, will not feel that Boehner's speakership is secure until the roll call tomorrow.
[ Parent ]
Time
When is the roll call expected again tomorrow?

The thing I also find notably absent is from other "conservative leaders" for Boehner's head. I'd have expected RedState to lead the charge, yet there is silence.

German citizen - Conservative by heart, non native english speaker

[ Parent ]
Per the Constitution of the United States
the Senate and House convene with a live quorum at 12 noon EST There will be some other business to take care of and then the House roll call will begin after that.
[ Parent ]
The rumor of Boehner resigning
kind of reminds me of the rumor about Todd Akin dropping out of the Senate race. He never had any intention of doing so, but somebody put the rumor out there in order to get people thinking about it and hopefully force the issue and actually make it happen. And just like with Akin, it doesn't look like it's going to happen.

41, R, NE-1.
[ Parent ]
You're propably right
I just watched Ron Meyer - the leading man behind the rumors, it seems - constantly beating the fact that they had 20+ members willing to vote against Boehner ...

but listening to him, I find it very doubtful, to say the least. He won't get the unanimous GOP support tomorrow, that much is clear tome, but I doubt he'll lose 17+ Republicans and/or that a serious challenger emerges.

German citizen - Conservative by heart, non native english speaker

[ Parent ]
Foolish
Boehner led his party into victory two cycles in a row. He did the best he could do with the situation, which was pretty dire. Boehner should use this opportunity as Bill Kristol suggests to re-start regular order in the Congress, and now push Obama on spending cuts, which everyone knows needs to happen, but Obama has ignored completely for his entire Presidency.  

R, MA-3
That's what he indicated
at least according to this article: http://thehill.com/homenews/ho...

Basic theme: Enough with the one-on-one talks, let's get the House to work it's will again (kinda for which they're getting paid for, non?).

Or, like Eric Ericson put it: "If monkeys can bang out Shakespeare by randomly banging on keyboards, perhaps our legislators can actually legislate competently for once. Random chance might work in America's favor."
(http://www.redstate.com/2012/12/28/just-do-it/)

German citizen - Conservative by heart, non native english speaker

[ Parent ]
what the heck is functional
Other than simply adding spending and debt?

I cant find fault with anything boehner is doing.

26, R, PA-01.



[ Parent ]
Does Ken Blackwell live in OH-08?
I know he was Mayor of Cincinnati and ran for what was OH-1 in 1990.
Probably not
Cincinnati is in the 1st and 2nd districts.  The 8th is the suburban areas north of it, and the rural and suburban areas North and West of Dayton.

22, Libertarian Republican CA-14
Liberals dream things that never were and ask why not.  Conservatives shout back "Because it won't work"
[ Parent ]
So this was a flop
Seems to be a single disgruntled activist making things up with help from Landry. At this point I'd be surprised to see more than half a dozen defections tomorrow.

R, MA-7/MD-7/moving to WV-1
Yup
It kinda mirrors the opening day of the 112th Congress where people were wondering just how many defections Pelosi would have to suffer. In the end, Shuler's challenge was little more than a hickup.

If Boehner goes the route of "letting the House (read: all Republicans) work it's will" and let them amend everything to their liking and sending stuff to the Senate, he'll avoid of serving as the scapegoat for everything.

German citizen - Conservative by heart, non native english speaker

[ Parent ]
OH-8: Boehner's Speakership At Stake Tonight | 54 comments
About
Elections have consequences -- from the race for President to the race for one seat on a city council. The political economist Max Weber wrote that the state possesses a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. But in the United States, the state is divided into myriad federal, state, and local entities. And the elections to fill those entities are the products of the fascinating interactions between campaigns, party affiliations, voter turnout, and the media spotlight. Red Racing Horses analyzes those elections -- from a Republican-leaning perspective -- to keep a close eye on the process of electing officials, and to offer our perspective on the election-related issues of the day. Thank you for visiting, and we hope you'll enjoy the blog.

Inside information? Problems logging into your account? Complaints? Compliments? E-Mail us at redracinghorses@yahoo.com
Search




Advanced Search

(C) RedRacingHorses
Powered by: SoapBlox