Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Some Illinois angles on the Georgia runoffs
Next Post: Hinz digs into Census numbers
Posted in:
* Daily Herald…
Some of the 19 Democrats who have vowed not to vote for Madigan say a prolonged selection of the speaker is a sacrifice they are willing to make. Madigan has no clear path toward reelection as long as the 19 Democrats from the 73-member caucus continue to withhold votes from him.
Democratic Rep. Daniel Didech of Buffalo Grove, one of the 19 not voting for Madigan, said he is undecided whom he will back and is willing to hold out for the right candidate.
“My hope is that by (Jan. 13) someone will have the 60 votes, but we’re also prepared for the possibility that nobody will,” Didech said. “If we have to be on the floor for an extended period of time before somebody gets 60 votes, that is something we are prepared for.”
Democratic Rep. Terra Costa Howard of Glen Ellyn, another member of the “not Mike Madigan” camp, said she believes a prolonged speaker selection process is “what will be necessary to provide systematic change for the state of Illinois.”
* Politico…
House lawmakers were finally given a bit of information about what to expect when they return to Springfield on Friday: Pack extra undies because you’ll be there for the long haul.
This means House Speaker Michael Madigan knows he won’t be able to muster 60 votes in a behind-closed-doors Democratic caucus meeting before Wednesday. That’s the witching hour for lawmakers to be sworn in for the next General Assembly. The state constitution requires them to immediately pivot to a vote for speaker on the House floor. And in public. […]
With 19 Democrats standing firm against Madigan and possibly half a dozen new lawmakers deciding they won’t vote for him either, it appears impossible to resolve the speakership quietly — even though a majority of the Black and Latino caucuses are firmly behind him. […]
It will be a test of wills and, maybe, negotiation. Will Madigan intimidate by forcing people to look him in the eye? Or will he placate and offer something in return for sticking with him?
There could be a point he decides to step aside. Caesar didn’t live forever, after all. If that happens, watch for the Black Caucus to make a commanding move to take the gavel, leaving all other players in the dust.
The only unsilly part of that story is the last sentence. As it stands right now today, the BC has the power to eventually seize the gavel. Its members just need the opportunity and the will. That’ll come.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jan 6, 21 @ 9:45 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Some Illinois angles on the Georgia runoffs
Next Post: Hinz digs into Census numbers
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“The only unsilly part of that story”
That story was a good example of how to stretch a two paragraphs of content into five. Kudos to them for that.
Comment by NIU Grad Wednesday, Jan 6, 21 @ 9:55 am
==”I do have a very strong path to 60 votes,” Kifowit said.==
Not as silly as that in the DH.
Comment by Precinct Captain Wednesday, Jan 6, 21 @ 10:14 am
“ABM” - Anyone But Madigan.
(No Repubs though)
Comment by low level Wednesday, Jan 6, 21 @ 10:29 am
This has probably been asked before but what would happen if 20 or so reps come out and say, “we will only vote for MJM”? How does it play out if no one gets 60 votes?
Comment by Test Case Wednesday, Jan 6, 21 @ 10:38 am
How does it play out if no one gets 60 votes?
They keep voting until someone does get 60 votes. So it could be lots and lots of voting. And since someone will need to cave in, this is why I refer to it as a game of high stakes “chicken”
I wonder how long they will have between roll calls.
Comment by Fav Human Wednesday, Jan 6, 21 @ 11:01 am
Madigan will never give in. People need to realize that.
Comment by Powdered Whig Wednesday, Jan 6, 21 @ 11:17 am
===Madigan will never give in. People need to realize that. ===
So, people should just give in because he’s gonna hold his breath until he turns blue?
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 6, 21 @ 11:19 am
=== people should just give in because he’s gonna hold his breath until he turns blue?===
What is he… 9?
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jan 6, 21 @ 11:19 am
Still don’t see the 19 cracking.
“Pack a lunch”
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jan 6, 21 @ 11:23 am
=== So, people should just give in because he’s gonna hold his breath until he turns blue? ===
I never said that. They have to beat him outright. Giving in is not in his nature. The only way to remove him is to beat him. Period. Many people might not like that fact, but it is what it is.
Comment by Powdered Whig Wednesday, Jan 6, 21 @ 11:25 am
And to that end, if nobody else has 60 votes, why is it on the Speaker to give in and step aside? That doesn’t make sense. Someone has to get to 60 or else there will be stalemate. I think its naive to expect that he will step aside when nobody else has the votes.
Comment by Powdered Whig Wednesday, Jan 6, 21 @ 11:27 am
===I think its naive to expect that he will step aside when nobody else has the votes. ===
Nobody else will have the votes *until* he steps aside. You’re either deliberately misleading people or hopelessly naive.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 6, 21 @ 11:30 am
===why is it on the Speaker to give in and step aside? That doesn’t make sense.===
In essence, Madigan is running for re-election, and has no Vote of Confidence.
Actually…
“why is it on the Speaker to give in and step aside? That doesn’t make sense.”
… that’s quite a pathetic way to seemingly support him, lol
Comically… “yeah, well, it’s pathetic, but he’s holding his breath until he gets a pony”
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jan 6, 21 @ 11:31 am
===why is it on the Speaker to give in and step aside?===
Because a functioning democracy depends on people who are willing to be good losers? Have you not looked around?
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 6, 21 @ 11:44 am
“Someone has to get to 60 or else there will be stalemate”
Indeed. And there’s precedent for that, not just in Illinois but other states around the country.
Check out the Senate transcripts from Jan 1977. They voted until February. That was when the “Crazy Eights” - 8 Dems that would not vote for Tom Hynes merged. A certain fiiture mayor of Chicago was included in that group.
But more to the point, PW, I don’t know why anyone would think prolonged stalemate is odd or somehow impossible. It’s very posssible and I’d say quite likely at this point.
“It’s the best show on earth” former Rep Zeke Giorgi (D- Rockford)
Comment by low level Wednesday, Jan 6, 21 @ 1:10 pm
Powdered Whig is Pat Ward from the 13th Ward. Very loyal to MJM. Look him up….Metra scandal of MJM asking for promotions etc.
Comment by Chicago (R) Wednesday, Jan 6, 21 @ 1:35 pm
== Very loyal to MJM. ==.
So what? Loyalty is a good thing. I think there are many who are loyal yet still understand the time has come.
I’ll always admire the way he rallied Illinois Democrats in the mid ‘90s to help make this a very blue state now. Kids these days don’t understand how competitive this state used to be.
My thing is: had he only retired once Rauner was defeated, and defeated badly, none of this would have happened or mattered. None of it.
Comment by low level Wednesday, Jan 6, 21 @ 1:58 pm
I am not Pat Ward. Get a life.
Comment by Powdered Whig Wednesday, Jan 6, 21 @ 2:04 pm
The longer it plays out, the more media attention it would receive and the more public opinion would be a factor. So you can decide who is most likely to benefit from that.
Comment by Anonanonsir Wednesday, Jan 6, 21 @ 2:45 pm
- Powdered Whig - Wednesday, Jan 6, 21 @ 2:04 pm:
I am not Pat Ward. Get a life.
Thanks, Pat, I have a life.
Comment by I Have a Life Wednesday, Jan 6, 21 @ 4:00 pm