Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Josh Huder Profile picture
Josh Huder
@joshHuder
Senior Fellow @GAIGeorgetown @McCourtSchool | Podcast: Congress, Two Beers In | Study: Congress; procedure; legislative development.
Apr 18 • 10 tweets • 2 min read
Johnson’s decision to use Rules Committee to advance these foreign aid bills is curious. It is not surprising he doesn’t have the votes in Rules. He hasn’t for weeks. It also makes him uniquely accountable for betraying his right flank in a way a discharge petition doesn’t. Rather than simply allow members to sign the petition, or vote against a PQ, or other maneuver, Johnson has raised the specter of forming a procedural coalition with Democrats to overrun GOP opposition, potentially the most grievous betrayal of partisan politics in the modern era
Feb 28 • 13 tweets • 3 min read
A lot of very smart people have already pointed out lots of problems with this ruling. My problem with it is that the very premise of the ruling is not true.

Physical presence in the chamber has *not* constituted a quorum for all 235 years of congressional history.
Image Until 1890, representatives did not count toward a constitutional quorum unless they *verbally* responded to a roll call vote.

Their physical presence was *not* sufficient. Only vocal participation recorded in a roll call vote constituted a quorum to conduct business.
Feb 16 • 7 tweets • 2 min read
I've been meaning to put this in context since I saw it weeks ago.

This statistic is insane. And I don't think people fully grasp how insane it is. So a brief explainer on why it's insane: Comparing today to 1982 is nuts because in 1982 partisan polarization did not exist.

You would struggle to find a political observer arguing parties were fundamental to elections or governing.
May 31, 2023 • 6 tweets • 1 min read
There's some question about McCarthy's job, particularly given some members discussing the motion to vacate.

As I see it, McCarthy is safe in the short term but not necessarily the long term. Negotiating a deal was always going to turn up the temperature on McCarthy. Gov't spending issues drive a wedge in the party. McCarthy was tasked with negotiating the deal everyone will hate. So it's not entirely surprising some have discussed vacating the chair.
May 28, 2023 • 7 tweets • 2 min read
House Republicans got more from this deal than Democrats but I don’t agree. For one, the deal eliminates/ameliorates future hostage taking opportunities. Debt ceiling lifted. Budgets adopted for next 2 FYs.

The deal ensures fewer high-stakes standoffs. Second, the deal undercuts
reasons to oppose govt spending in the future. Now that Rs have written the budget, they substantially own it. If Rs threaten a shutdown in September, they’ll be standing in opposition to their own numbers.

That’s a harder case to make.
Jan 11, 2023 • 12 tweets • 2 min read
There some rumblings of using a discharge procedure to raise the debt ceiling.

Everything about this would be weird. The discharge process is clumsy and slow and it's not structured to accommodate on-the-fly political negotiations typical of a debt limit suspension/increase. Debt ceilings negotiations normally embody brinksmanship as both parties jockey to avoid blame for acknowledging the country's outstanding debt.

So using the discharge process to raise the debt ceiling would require weird, uncommonly-early negotiations, and lots of planning.
Jan 3, 2023 • 19 tweets • 3 min read
Regardless of what happens today, House rules will be in flux. There are several obstacles in the way of the House adopting a rules package.

That means, the House could be without rules for some time. House rules are adopted after the speaker election and members' swearing in. It's one of the first things the House does after electing officers and notifying the Senate and President of its assembly.
Jan 3, 2023 • 11 tweets • 2 min read
There seems to be a sense that the speakership election is a standoff, where battling factions wait for their opponents to flinch during floor votes. But that's not what this is.

Speakership bids are a bartering games and it appears McCarthy already lost. The floor vote is obviously important. But you can't let that overshadow the fact that most of the game is already over.

Speakers need votes and they trade institutional and political power for support.
Feb 16, 2022 • 12 tweets • 2 min read
Both pieces have major flaws, IMO. Just a few: 1) overestimates staff influence; 2) underestimates party networks; 3) poor understanding of actual staff work.

Thus, their conclusions are really backwards. Undermining staff only worsens this problem. It's assumed congressional staff are policy experts. Most often they're not. They know a lot more than the average person. But particularly in personal offices, staff are young, inexperienced, and have a ton to learn.
May 20, 2021 • 6 tweets • 2 min read
If House cannot inoculate a commission from partisan politics because Republicans won't play ball, I don't see why a select committee is a worse option than a normal committee. In either event, Republicans will yell witch hunt.

A Select Committee may be the best option... @NormOrnstein is right that normally the minority leader helps appoint select committees. That norms emerged after the 1911 reforms. However, House rules still give Speakers the unilateral authority to appoint select committee members (Rule I, Clause 11).
May 20, 2021 • 7 tweets • 1 min read
Transformative legislatures incorporate diverse ideological & political positions into decision making. They are representative of the polity, not some Platonic-ideal policy machine. Goofy stuff gets included in regular order bills because the current arena-style legislature bottles up idiosyncratic positions. It maximizes partisan policy battles and minimizes diverse opinions within each party caucus.
Apr 23, 2021 • 9 tweets • 2 min read
The detonation of the "America's First Caucus" is framed as a "exceedingly rare" event when extreme factions within the party "go too far."

But it is not uncommon. In fact, it accurately describes Republicans evolution over the last 40 years. washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/… Bob Michel lamented Newt Gingrich and the Conservative Opportunity Society "went too far," in the 1980s with caustic and impolitic attacks on colleagues and the institution.

A few years later Gingrich was Minority Whip and, shortly thereafter, Speaker.
Jan 21, 2021 • 10 tweets • 2 min read
Something to keep in mind as Senate power-sharing standoff continues: Time matters a great deal in the credibility of McConnell and Schumer's threats.

McConnell has a temporary advantage that will erode the longer it continues. |1 Democrats' have ambitious COVID plans. Departments and agencies need Senate confirmed nominees. Republicans blockade of the organizing resolution delays this goals because Democrats lack gavels, committee votes, and more, to actually run the chamber. |2
Jan 21, 2021 • 4 tweets • 2 min read
This story reads like it was lifted straight out of @jiwallner's book.

Republicans are playing with fire. Power-sharing negotiations involving the filibuster are delaying an organizing resolution. I.e. Republicans still control committees despite being in the minority. I still don't think filibuster reform is likely. But if delays block Dems from organizing the chamber to fill the admin, for example, Democrats may be tempted to ratchet up the stakes, e.g. adopting organizing resolutions by majority vote.
Jan 21, 2021 • 7 tweets • 2 min read
The more accurate juxtaposition: go big & fast or slow & small.

Securing filibuster-proof Republican support entails reducing the size of the bill. I think there are a few reasons to expect Democrats to skip the big bipartisan deal this time.
politico.com/news/2021/01/2… Democrats want a large package. That's been evident for months but it's especially pressing with a new majority. Leaders don't want their floor time usurped by continual COVID bills.

They have other priorities and that entails clearing the decks for a while.
Jan 9, 2020 • 12 tweets • 2 min read
If you aren't geeking out about this concurrent war powers resolution, you aren't alive. The House is playing constitutional hardball.

The War Powers Act (WPA) contained a provision stating Congress could remove forces via concurrent resolution... Concurrent resolutions (con.res.) pass both chambers but are not signed nor vetoed, therefore they are not law. are They are often used for a "sense of Congress" resolution. (E.g. Congress passes one every year to allow the annual soap box derby to use its grounds.)
Jan 7, 2020 • 10 tweets • 3 min read
This is true. In a different country, AOC and Biden would be in different parties.

But this is a feature of American politics. For most of American history politics operated with multiple, distinct factions crammed in a two party system. politico.com/news/2020/01/0… Republicans had their progressives in the 1900-1920s. Democrats had southerners. Contemporary Republicans have their right-wing.

Current congressional Democrats have their suburban moderates and, as this piece suggests, an increasingly emboldened Left.
May 30, 2019 • 13 tweets • 2 min read
I do not understand the Pelosi has a constitutional responsibility to impeach argument.

For one, no she doesn't. Two, it's not her call. The House decides impeachment. The Speaker has powers but the House is arbiter. If 218 members of her caucus were behind an impeachment inquiry, it'd be happening. It's not. She's not holding back a silent majority.
Jan 16, 2019 • 14 tweets • 3 min read
This needs amendment. For most of congressional history, this fits. Ideological, intra-party attacking members do not typically fair well.

But there is a notable exception. Newt Gingrich. Gingrich also had bold, unorthodox conservative positions relative to his party. He was more socially conservative, bold in confronting those who disagreed, and more openly hostile to those in his party who did not share his policy views.
Dec 20, 2018 • 7 tweets • 2 min read
.@MEPFuller is stupid smart about the House, its leadership, and its political dynamics. You should read this. For me, Paul Ryan always seemed too personally ambitious to excel as speaker. I think that played out. Ryan failed to grasp limits of his ideas and his position. As a result, he often led with out a following, either forcing or enabling others to take the helm.
Oct 11, 2018 • 12 tweets • 3 min read
Something to keep in mind for 2016 House and Senate race: It's important to watch the physical space Democrats win votes, not just raw vote totals. Today, Democrats and Republicans are near parity in terms of House vote share. Republicans won 51.7% of popular House vote in 2016 but won 55.4% of House seats at the start of the 115th. Some of that is due to gerrymandering but not close to all of it.