On the menu today: Matt Gaetz launches a quixotic effort to bring Kevin McCarthy’s time as speaker of the House to a premature end; why heavily partisan districts enable intransigent lawmakers; reviewing Donald Trump’s call to “take their factories” in Detroit last week; NBC Sports forgets what it’s supposed to be covering; and Gavin Newsom finds the best possible Maryland abortion activist to represent the state of California in the U.S. Senate.
The Matt Gaetz–AOC Alliance
This morning, the editors of National Review observe that congressman Matt Gaetz of Florida “is so upset that Kevin McCarthy cooperated with Democrats on passing a temporary spending measure to forestall a government shutdown, he wants to work with Democrats to topple McCarthy as speaker.”
But don’t worry, conservatives; Gaetz has already picked up one Democratic ally in his effort to oust McCarthy: New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Keep in mind, Gaetz does not have a replacement candidate. He’s trying to get enough Republicans and Democrats to ditch McCarthy in favor of a “replacement to be named later.” A few Gaetz allies floated the name of House GOP whip Tom Emmer of Minnesota, but Emmer is shutting that speculation down: “I fully support Speaker McCarthy. He knows that and I know that. I have zero interest in palace intrigue. End of discussion.”
Gaetz’s effort to replace McCarthy is likely to fail. To remove McCarthy, he will need 218 votes. McCarthy allies say he has the support of more than 200, and the odds are low that even that remainder of House Republicans could come together around one alternative.
Twenty-one Republicans voted against McCarthy as speaker on the first eleven ballots this year, including Gaetz. Assuming he could unite those 21, he would need 197 of the 212 House Democrats to vote to remove McCarthy as speaker — more than 92 percent — and roll the dice on whomever came next. While AOC is on board, most House Democrats are reportedly not all that interested in helping Gaetz remove McCarthy as speaker. Better the devil you know than the one you don’t.
Gaetz is warning that McCarthy will make some concession to the Democrats to keep his role as speaker, and that “He will be serving at the pleasure of the Democrats. He will be working for the Democrats.” Of course, the only reason McCarthy is in this situation is because Gaetz is making a motion to vacate the chair and remove him as speaker.
If at least 218 House Republicans had managed to unite behind a continuing resolution, McCarthy would have had more leverage in this recently completed shutdown fight. Gaetz’s argument is circular; he and his allies refuse to cooperate with McCarthy, weakening the speaker in negotiations with the Senate and White House, and then they complain that McCarthy didn’t negotiate a better deal.
Last week, Hugh Hewitt denounced what he called a “knucklehead caucus” consisting of Ken Buck of Colorado, Andy Biggs of Arizona, Dan Bishop of North Carolina, Ralph Norman of South Carolina, and Matt Rosendale of Montana, alongside Gaetz, the most outspoken, camera-loving of rebels against McCarthy.
An unpleasant fact of life is that the intransigence and counterproductive judgment of these lawmakers is likely a direct consequence of the heavy partisan tilt of their districts — a side effect of drawing of the district lines to maximize partisan advantage. It’s not just that Gaetz and those most aligned with him are from Republican districts, it’s that you must look far and wide to find districts more heavily GOP-learning than theirs.
Gaetz’s first district in Florida scores an R+19 in the Cook Partisan Voting Index; by that measurement, it is the most heavily Republican district in the state of Florida. Trump won this district by 33 points. Gaetz won reelection last November with more than 67 percent of the vote.
Andy Biggs represents Arizona’s fifth congressional district, which scores an R+11 in the Cook Partisan Voting Index and is the second-most-heavily Republican district in the state. Trump won this district by 15 points in 2020, and Biggs won reelection in 2022, 57 percent to 37 percent.
Ken Buck represents Colorado’s fourth congressional district, which scores an R+13 in the Cook Partisan Voting Index and is the most-heavily Republican district in the state. Trump won this district, 57 percent to 41 percent in 2020. Buck won reelection with just under 61 percent of the vote in 2022.
Dan Bishop represents North Carolina’s ninth congressional district. It scores an R+20 in the Cook Partisan Voting Index and is the second-most-heavily Republican district in the state. Bishop won reelection last year with just under 70 percent of the vote.
Ralph Norman represents South Carolina’s fifth congressional district, which scores an R+12 in the Cook Partisan Voting Index and is tied for the second-most-heavily Republican district in the state. Last year, Norman won reelection with 64 percent of the vote.
Matthew Rosendale represents Montana’s second congressional district; the state received its second congressional seat after the last census. It scores an R+16 in the Cook Partisan Voting Index and is more heavily Republican than the state’s other district, which scores an R+6. Rosendale won a three-way race in 2022 with 56 percent of the vote; independent Gary Buchanan placed second with 21.9 percent of the vote.
You notice that few of the 21 Republicans who held out against McCarthy in January were from anything resembling a competitive district. There are a handful of R+6 and R+7 districts in there, but by and large, they’re the most-heavily Republican House districts in the country.
These guys can take just about any stance they want, and as long as they win their primary, they are nearly guaranteed to win reelection. In the districts of Gaetz and some of his allies, the Democratic Party might as well not exist.
Kevin McCarthy may be a safe bet for reelection each cycle — he comes from California’s 20th congressional district, which is R+16 — but as speaker, he operates in a world where Chuck Schumer runs the Senate and President Biden is in the White House. He’s got a limited amount of leverage. We can argue about how well he’s played his hand, but keep in mind that part of his job is protecting the flanks of Republican House members such as David Valadao of California (whose district scores a D+6), Mike Garcia of California (D+4), Michelle Steel of California (D+2), Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania (even), and Don Bacon of Nebraska (even).
Not only do Gaetz and his allies not particularly care about the fates of House Republicans who represent swing districts, they likely can’t even grasp the political challenges of being a Republican representing a swing district. Republicans in swing districts have to come across to their constituents as focused on solutions and results, and be pragmatic, practical, and reasonable. They can’t just shout, pound the table, and do guest-hosting gigs on Newsmax.
The current narrow House GOP majority is built on Republicans holding on to swing districts that Biden won in 2020 and has a good shot of winning again in 2024. Republicans currently hold 221 seats, with one vacancy in Utah’s second congressional district. That majority includes 14 Republicans who represent districts that President Biden won in 2020.
(Keep in mind, you can have close races in not-so-swing districts; Lauren Boebert hung on by 546 votes last cycle in her R+7 district.)
Right now, there are likely many Democrats, and some Republicans, who think those GOP holdouts are being reckless, foolish, and self-destructive, and can’t wait to see them pay the price at the ballot box next time.
Ironically, a bunch of these guys probably won’t appear on a ballot for reelection to the House anyway. Bishop is running for North Carolina attorney general. Rosendale is thinking of running for the U.S. Senate. Norman is thinking of running for U.S. Senate and primarying Lindsey Graham.
There is considerable speculation that Gaetz wants to run for governor of Florida in 2026, but for what it’s worth, the congressman says he’s not thinking about that. He told Axios, “I ran into dozens of former colleagues from my days in the state legislature. They encouraged me relentlessly to consider returning to Florida.” Ah, so it’s just that everybody else loves him so much and wants him to run for governor.
Not only are these guys not worried about their stances hurting them back home, they may not be in the U.S. House of Representatives much longer. If you plan on being somewhere else in the near future, it’s even easier to burn bridges, alienate colleagues, and not care how your actions affect the rest of your team.
What Does Trump Mean by ‘Take Their Factories’?
Someone argued that Trump’s declaration in Detroit last week, “We’re going to take their money. We’re going to take their factories” was not referring to U.S. automakers, but to foreign countries:
For years, foreign nations have looted and plundered your hopes, your dreams, and your heritage. And now they’re going to pay for what they have stolen and what they have done to you, my friends, we’re going to do it together. We’re going to take their money. We’re going to take their factories. We’re going to rebuild the industrial bedrock of this country like it used to be many, many decades ago. By the time this battle is over, the rusted out factories will not be here in Michigan, they’ll be in Beijing, Shanghai, and other parts of the world. Taking it back. We’re taking it back and it won’t be hard. The gleaming new buildings and roaring production lines will be built in Lansing and Flint and Sterling Heights and Grand Rapids and Pontiac, Dearborn and Detroit. [Emphasis added.]
The problem is there is no interpretation of “we’re going to take their factories” that doesn’t involve asset seizure, and referring to foreign nations instead of automakers moves the statement from sounding like socialist to simply nonsensical. How is the U.S. going to “take the factories” of foreign nations? Invade and conquer? What’s our casus belli, that their car companies dared make cars that sold better than the ones made here?
When Trump says “foreign nations,” is he referring to foreign automaking companies who have manufacturing plants here in the U.S.? Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Subaru, Hyundai, Mazda, BMW, Volvo, and Mercedes-Benz, among others, all manufacture automobiles here in the United States, mostly in southern right-to-work states. Is Trump contending that in his second term, the U.S. government would “take” these factories?
The most generous interpretation of Trump’s remarks is he’s contending that under his policies — you know, those policies that he never got around to enacting in his first term — American automakers will take more and more market share from their foreign competitors, and the sales of foreign cars will decline so severely, those factories will someday shut down. But that’s . . . not what he said. He didn’t say U.S. automakers are going to have such a competitive advantage that foreign automakers will get driven out of business. He said, “We’re going to take their money. We’re going to take their factories.” If Trump meant something completely different than what he actually said, that’s not on me, that’s on him.
Say what you mean, mean what you say.
ADDENDA: Last night, California governor Gavin Newsom announced he would name EMILY’s List president Laphonza Butler to fill the seat of the late senator Dianne Feinstein. No doubt Butler is the best Maryland resident to represent California.
Butler is not registered to vote in California. Her Twitter account lists her location as Maryland. On the EMILY’s List filing with the Federal Elections Commission last month, her legal address was listed as Silver Spring, M.D. Judging from those FEC records, she hasn’t lived in California for two years. Her official bio on the EMILY’s List website stated “she lives in Maryland” until last night when that sentence suddenly disappeared.
Remember when Pennsylvania voters decided that Mehmet Oz didn’t have enough of a tie to that state, and concluded that was sufficient to elect a stroke victim? Good times, good times.
All of you thought I was crazy when I called for something like ESPN’s ManningCast, where a separate feed could give the Taylor Swift fans the coverage of her reactions that they’re craving, and the rest of us can just watch the game.
I hope all of you enjoyed NBC Sports’ coverage of Taylor Swift Attending a Football Game last night. In the fourth quarter when the game was tied, NBC Sports’ sideline correspondent Melissa Stark felt the need to update viewers on the fact that Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce gained a lot of new Instagram followers because of his new relationship with Swift. Meanwhile, on the field, the Jets came back from down 17-0 to tie the game 20-20, and Zach Wilson had the game of his life, before two very debatable late penalties sealed the deal for the Chiefs. A conspiracy? Look, the league loves the Swift–Kelce storyline, loves the ratings and the revenue, and it couldn’t have the defending Super Bowl champs losing to the Jets and Wilson with Swift in attendance on Sunday Night Football. A Jets win would have started talk that Swift is the Yoko Ono of the Chiefs.
Thanks to Howard Kurtz for having me on his MediaBuzz program Sunday morning, talking about the media coverage of last week’s GOP debate and the United Auto Workers strike.
Presidential historian, longtime friend of the Three Martini Lunch podcast, and Die Hard aficionado Tevi Troy reminds us that it isn’t too late for Biden to change his mind about running for another term, and in fact, history has examples of presidents choosing to run or not to run for another term late in the process. Harry Truman chose to not run for another term on March 29, 1952; Dwight Eisenhower decided to run for another term in February 1956; and Lyndon Johnson chose not to run on March 31, 1968.