The Longest and Most Contentious Speaker Election in House History... 1856, or NOW ??
Could history repeat itself here ?
"At the conclusion of the longest and most contentious Speaker election in House history, the House elected Representative Nathaniel Banks of Massachusetts as its presiding officer for the 34th Congress (1855–1857). Sectional conflict over slavery and a rising anti-immigrant mood in the nation contributed to a poisoned and deteriorating political climate. As a sign of the factionalism then existing in the House, more than 21 individuals initially vied for the Speaker’s post when the Members first gathered in December, 1855. After two months and 133 ballots, the House finally chose Representative Banks by a vote of 103 to 100 over Representative William Aiken of South Carolina. Banks, a member of both the nativist American (or “Know-Nothing”) Party and the Free Soil Party, served a term as Speaker before Democrats won control of the chamber in the 35th Congress (1857–1859). Banks retired from the House to serve as governor of Massachusetts."
https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1851-1900/The-longest-and-most-contentious-Speaker-election-in-its-history/
also https://www.politico.com/story/2009/02/house-ends-longest-ever-speaker-fight-feb-2-1856-018286
That speaker election was complicated by the conflict over slavery. The Republican party was brand new, and had no majority. The Whig party was dying off, with most of the Northern Whigs folded into the Republican party. The Democratic party at the time was split into northern and southern pro-slavery wings. No faction had a majority.
Because of my personal interest and study of the civil war and the period leading up to it, the situation today, with its very slim GOP margin in the House, made me recall this situation from history, where the House failed to elect a speaker and organize for several months.
“There are, by my count, at least eight to ten Republicans who are adamant that they will not support Kevin McCarthy for Speaker," @JonKarl says of possible GOP House majority. "This is going to be a long, brutal process when they...make that vote." https://t.co/8eqtjqhWmT pic.twitter.com/nc1i7a3QuB— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) November 13, 2022
If that is accurate, and those 8 to 10 Republicans exist who will refuse to support McCarthy for speaker, and they hold the line-- McCarthy cannot be elected speaker without buying them off somehow.... he will not have 218 votes.
OR, Democrats could hold the balance of power in the election of the next speaker. (Votes for speaker do not happen in a party vaccuum-- the Democrats also get to vote.)
If McCarthy really wants to be speaker, he may have to make some kind of deal with enough Democrats to get him to 218!
(I am not advocating either for or against that... just laying out the possibilities here.... but I don't have much faith that McCarthy would keep his promises. I hope that the GOP Freedom Caucus is successful in changing the rules, so that any "motion to vacate the speakership" will again be legal. That would certainly complicate matters.)
Also, it has been noted elsewhere... that it might be possible to elect Liz Cheney as Speaker of the House, if Democrats could find a handful of Republicans to vote for her, along with them. (The speaker does not have to be an elected member of the House-- and just think of how that would make the heads of the Trumptards EXPLODE-- not to mention that of TBL *The Big Loser* himself!)
If the contest drags on without a result for a while, I would suggest that those Republican votes for Liz Cheney might be found within the New York GOP delegation, especially those who won in majority-Biden districts...
The consequences of failing to elect a speaker of the House, include inability to organize it, inability to assign members to committees-- basically everything becomes a complete standstill, so far as I know...
To me, the possibilities of this situation are DELICIOUS!
= new reply since forum marked as read
DISAPPOINTING !!!!
😂 😂 😂 
