>> the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from massachusetts, miss clark. >> thank you, mr. chair. 212, it is a new york area code. and it is our call for a speaker of integrity, intelligence, and inclusion. 212 is our call for a speaker who will protect our children, our veterans, our planet. 212 is our call for a speaker who will grow the middle class, lower costs, create good paying jobs, and make healthcare affordable. 212 is our call for a speaker who will secure liberty, justice, and opportunity for everyone. well, the unanimous call of 212

house democrats has been answered. by our nominee for speaker, the gentleman from brooklyn, the leader of our house democratic caucus, the honorable hakeem jeffries! [ applause ] leader jeffries has answered our call, but the majority's nominee is disconnected. disconnected from the american people and their values. maga extremism is designed to divide. and it has broken the republican

party. their nominee's vision is a direct attack on the freedom and the rights of the american people. and he's got the record to prove it. the republican nominee has voted against healthcare for children, for veterans, even for 9/11 survivors. he has opposed lowering the cost of insulin repeatedly. he wants to cut social security and medicare. don't take it from me, it was raised on the other side of the aisle, just this week, as a selling point to make him speaker. over his 16 years in the house, the republican nominee has never supported a farm bill. what does that mean? what does that mean? it means he has turned his back

on farmers, on rural communities, and the 11 million children who go to bed hungry in this country. [ applause ] the republican nominee wants a national abortion ban, with no exceptions for rape, incest, or the health of a mother. we want to make our own healthcare decisions, in consultation with our families, our doctors, our faith, not with jim jordan! [ applause ] the republican nominee plotted to overturn the 2020 election, traffics in misinformation, and

is a true threat to our democracy and our constitution. i have had the privilege of working here in the people's house for almost ten years. and i've gotten to know many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. and i know that you hear the same thing that i do. the american people expect us to work together on their behalf. [ applause ] it is not too late for the majority to choose a bipartisan

path forward, to reopen the house, take yes for an answer. [ applause ] majority chooses to engage in a republican civil war that is threatening their own members, instead of engaging with us in the work of the american people is a day that weakens this institution and the standing of our country. we need a speaker who will govern through consensus, not conflict. we need a speaker worthy of wielding that gavel. a leader who will defend democracy, not degrade it.

more than ever, we need proven patriotic people first leadership. and that is why i am proud to nominate hakeem jeffries as speaker of the house. [ applause ]

>> the clerk will now call the roll. >> adams. >> hakeem jeffries. >> jeffries. >> aderholt. jordan. aguilar. jeffries. alford. >> jim jordan. >> jordan. allen. >> jordan! >> jordan. allred. >> hakeem jeffries. >> jeffries. amodei. >> jordan. >> jordan. armstrong. >> jordan. >> jordan. arrington. jordan. auchincloss. >> jeffries. >> jeffries.

babin. >> jim jordan. >> jordan. bacon. >> patrick mchenry. >> mchenry. baird. >> jordan. >> jordan. balderson. >> jordan. >> jordan. balint. >> jeffries. >> jeffries. banks. >> jim jordan. >> jordan. barr. >> jordan. >> jordan. barragan. >> jeffries. >> jeffries. bean of florida. >> jim jordan. >> jordan. beatty.

>> hakeem jeffries. >> jeffries. >> bentz. >> jim jordan. >> jordan. bera. >> hakeem jeffries. >> jeffries. bergman. >> jordan. >> jordan. beyer. >> jeffries. >> jeffries. bice. >> jordan. >> jordan. biggs. >> jordan. >> jordan. bilirakis. >> jordan. >> jordan. bishop of georgia. >> hakeem jeffries. >> jeffries. bishop of north carolina. >> jordan. >> jordan. blumenauer. >> jeffries. >> jeffries. blunt rochester. >> hakeem jeffries. >> jeffries.

boebert. >> jordan. >> jordan. bonamici. >> hakeem jeffries. >> jeffries. >> bost. bost. bowman. >> hakeem jeffries. >> jeffries. boyle of pennsylvania. >> hakeem jeffries. >> jeffries. brecheen. >> jordan. >> jordan. brown. >> jeffries. >> jeffries. >> brownley. >> hakeem jeffries. >> jeffries. buchanan. >> donalds. >> donalds.

buck. emmer. bucshon. >> jim jordan. >> jordan. >> budzinski. >> jeffries. >> jeffries. burchett. burchett. >> jordan. >> jordan. burgess. >> jim jordan. >> jordan. burlison. >> jim jordan. >> jordan. bush. >> hakeem jeffries. >> jeffries. calvert. >> jordan.

>> jordan. cammack. >> jordan. >> jordan. caraveo. >> hakeem jeffries. >> jeffries. >> carbajal. >> jeffries. >> jeffries. cardenas. >> jeffries. >> jeffries. >> carey. >> jim jordan. >> jordan. >> carl. >> jim jordan. >> jordan. >> carson. >> hakeem jeffries. >> jeffries. >> carter of georgia. >> jim jordan. >> jordan. carter of louisiana. >> hakeem jeffries. >> jeffries. carter of texas. jordan. cartwright. >> jeffries. >> jeffries. >> casar.

>> jeffries. >> jeffries. case. >> jeffries. >> jeffries. casten. >> hakeem jeffries. >> jeffries. >> castor of florida. >> jeffries. >> jeffries. >> castro of texas. >> jeffries. >> jeffries. chavez-deremer. mchenry. cherfilus-mccormick. >> hakeem jeffries. >> jeffries. >> chu. >> jeffries. >> jeffries.

ciscomani. >> jordan. >> jordan. clark of massachusetts. >> hakeem jeffries. >> jeffries. clarke of new york. >> hakeem jeffries. >> jeffries. cleaver. >> jeffries. >> jeffries. cline. >> jordan. >> jordan. >> cloud. >> jim jordan. >> jordan. clyburn. >> jeffries. >> jeffries. >> clyde. >> the honorable jim jordan. >> jordan. cohen. >> hakeem jeffries. >> jeffries. cole. >> jordan. >> jordan. collins. >> jim jordan. >> jordan. comer. >> jordan.

>> jordan. connolly. >> hakeem jeffries. >> jeffries. correa. >> jeffries. >> jeffries. >> costa. >> hakeem jeffries. >> jeffries. courtney. >> jeffries. >> jeffries. craig. >> hakeem jeffries. >> jeffries. crane. jordan. crawford. >> jordan. >> jordan. crenshaw. >> jordan. >> jordan. crockett. >> jeffries. >> jeffries. crow. >> jeffries. >> jeffries. >> cuellar. >> jeffries. >> jeffries. curtis. >> jordan. >> jordan. davids of kansas. >> jeffries. >> jeffries.

davidson. >> jim jordan. >> jordan. davis of illinois. >> hakeem jeffries. >> jeffries. davis of north carolina. >> jeffries. >> jeffries. dean of pennsylvania. jeffries. degette. >> jeffries. >> jeffries. de la cruz. >> jordan. >> jordan. delauro. >> hakeem jeffries. >> jeffries. delbene. >> hakeem jeffries. >> jeffries. deluzio. >> jeffries. >> jeffries. desaulnier. >> jeffries. >> jeffries. >> desjarlais. >> jordan. >> jordan. d'esposito. >> lee zeldin. >> zeldin.

diaz-balart. >> scalise. >> scalise. dingell. >> jeffries. >> jeffries. >> doggett. >> well, we just have been hearing the voting and it is clear that once again congressman jordan will not be the speaker. this is the third time. let's go right to steve kornacki, that has been monitoring the vote. steve? >> yeah, again, what we have been monitoring here, these are the republicans who previously voted against jim jordan in the last ballot, has he won any of them over? so far six of them have voted, they have all voted against jordan, just based on the numbers from that quorum call that was taken before this vote,

he could only afford five defections. the sixth means he has no mathematical path if everybody continues to vote as expected. that quorum call and there you go, jake elsie from texas, now seven have been cast, all antijordan. there is no path for jordan to win the speakership on this ballot. not a surprise and the question now just becomes as you look down this list, is he going to win over any of these other names who have previously been voted against him. the only positive thing, if you can say positive thing for jordan so far is as of yet there are no new no votes against jordan. there are a couple of members who we were questioning, wondering early if they might flip on this ballot. they haven't. there still are some we're waiting on and they're going to be coming up pretty soon here. in fact, brian fitzpatrick from pennsylvania is one of them. i think we're four votes away from brian fitzpatrick voting.

so, take a listen here for fitzpatrick. that's one who looked like he could flip. >> okay. so we will keep listening. we'll let everybody know if fitzpatrick also flips. but the bottom line here is that it doesn't look like the math is there for jordan at this point. nothing is a done deal until the vote is official. but, ali, you're there on capitol hill, and you reported earlier that the expectation today is that jordan isn't likely to pick up new support. is that still what you're hearing or could there be a surprise here? >> reporter: yes, that's definitely still what we're operating under, not the idea that jordan is going to lose this vote, which he is, but the margin by which he's going to lose it. i'm looking down at my phone, because steve was right to call out brian fitzpatrick, who, of course, has now just voted for patrick mchenry. that's another loss in the jordan column. but that's also not the only new no vote that we're expecting. i spoke to new york congressman

mark molinaro on his way into the chamber, he said he was fine to vote for jordan for the first two rounds, but that he told the jordan team he was going to be a no on this round. he wants his conference to once again as we have seen them do before, go behind closed doors and try to find someone else to be speaker. molinaro was one of those who was at one point backing the idea of empowering mchenry in bipartisan fashion. he says he's still on board for that, but it is clear the rest of his conference is not. i'll keep looking down just to make sure there is not any new no votes, but as we get later into the alphabet, i see this as a vitaly, i'm look at david valadao of california. as we were watching the floor, he was huddled by people who are previously votes against jordan, and it is an interesting point of internal politics here, you got kevin mccarthy of the california delegation, giving

that nominating speech for jordan, publicly, trying to show his support for the guy who is the speaker designate, valadao is a close and long time ally of mccarthy. but valadao could still flip. he's another one of those names we're watching to go from the jordan yes column potentially to go to the no column. i say potentially. these are just some of the members we're looking at because members of this conference have warned me and some of my colleagues that we could see as many as four or five names flip on this ballot, and i think just to circle back on the entire idea behind this, for molinari, i said you've been for jordan for two rounds, why would you change your mind now when you're stressing to us the conference needs to come together for a speaker. shouldn't you be part of the coming together that jordan is calling for? he said he doesn't think that jordan has the votes and the reason he's flipping to no now is to show there is the very opposite of the momentum that jordan is trying to show. jordan would love to show he's got an upward trending momentum of support.

instead, molinaro will lend to the idea he has the very opposite of that, and what it does is neutralize the idea that jordan is in the same place as mccarthy. technically around the numbers, if you look back to january, jordan is kind of close to where mccarthy was. but mccarthy was always able to show static or consistent positive progress in the direction of his magic number. jordan has been doing the opposite this entire time. and that spells bad news for him. >> and so, with us now is republican strategist and msnbc political analyst susan del percio and former democratic congressman max rose of new york. also joining the conversation is msnbc political analyst brendan buck, former senior adviser to house speakers john boehner and paul ryan. so, guys, as we watch this vote tick up, we just learned another person who was a supporter of jordan in one of the first or second rounds is no longer, fitzpatrick. brendan, you're new to the conversation. what is your reaction to what we just saw?

>> yeah, this is clearly not going to work out for jim jordan. i think the real issue right now is that you have a bunch of jordan supporters who have really defined their time in congress by refusing to accept when we hit bottom, when we hit the end of a road. their entire mantra is that if you just fight harder, you can somehow win. and at this point you need jim jordan to say i can't get there. i need to -- i need to step down. but he has built himself personally and his entire brand and all the people around him never like to give in, they never like to quit. i fear that at some point whenever he does realize he can't do this anymore, he's going to go back to jim jordan ing to start sabotaging s i'm things, i'm going to start blowing things up. i think we can dispose of the idea that jim jordan is going to be speaker. the question is, what does jim jordan do after this? we saw that the effort to empower mchenry failed because of a lot of blowback in the

conference. i fear that if the next pivot is to let's find somebody else, jim jordan is going to sabotage whoever that is. this may be going on for quite a while. absolutely right, no momentum here is big and it is very clear that the moderates, the centrists are sick of the bullying and sending a message they won't be bullied anymore. that's a really helpful sign for the future of the conference. >> just looking at mccarthy's speech, which surprised many, i guess, by its intensity and then also the fact that mchenry is getting less votes than he has in the past. so the mchenry option seems kind of at least for now closed. how do you see this? >> first of all, look, what mccarthy did was shocking. he stood up and said, ladies and gentlemen, i clearly was not crazy enough to be your speaker, but i have just the guy for you. i've got maga incarnate jim jordan to which they all resoundedly cheered.

but he never had the votes. everyone knew, we all knew he never had the votes, so why are they doing what they're doing? i believe that they're doing this because they have got to show their maga base that they're trying. they have to show their maga base that the closest thing to donald trump in the house of representatives, which is jim jordan, they're doing everything they can to make him speaker, and so they'll continue doing this until they are appeased and then they're going to have to find some other option. it will not be mchenry because unless the republicans are willing to be adults and actually treat the democrats as equal partners, in building out this coalition, it is going to be a dark horse. and it might be zeldin, it might be someone else. >> zeldin is not even in congress right now, by the way. >> sure. doesn't have to be. of course. >> to be fair, he's only getting new york delegation -- >> a thousand percent. it may be somebody not getting any votes. it may be somebody who doesn't know where the bathrooms are, but it has got to be someone

that has a caucus, and they realize can check the basic metrics of what a speaker needs to do and that is three things, the base, money, and purple seats. >> the question is -- it is that thesis is true, is there enough that you can say or do to that base that will get them to accept whatever may come forward? >> sure. it has to be very simple. and they actually -- this is the one thing that they have done in an organized fashion as a caucus, and that is bring the extremists in to the tent. remember, jim jordan got his start in congress as the rabble-rouser outside of the caucus that just wanted to set fire to every single institutional norm and they said, rather than do that on the outside, we're going to make you a leader on the inside and the second jim jordan says that's okay, and his maga extremist base says that's okay, from steve bannon's podcast, to all the other flame throwers they

have at their disposal, they'll begin on the course. but they got to find someone, just like every speaker, who can somehow unify their base as well as the swing voters, as well as the money interests. and they have yet to figure that out. >> susan, we'll go back to steve for a moment because there was another person, steve, i understand who flipped from jordan to somebody else? >> no. it is just another vote -- this is john james from michigan. he just -- he's continued to vote against jim jordan, so now you have, again, every previous antijordan vote now, now down to the js, john james continues to vote against him. you've got mike kelly coming up next. alphabetically in terms of previous anti-jordan votes. kelly from a very pro trump district, around erie, pennsylvania. jen kiggans will be shortly after. not expecting any changes here. the question, i believe -- was

that jim jordan voting? dave joyce is about to vote. let me tell you how he votes. dave joyce from ohio just voted for jim jordan. if you remember yesterday, dave joyce was pushing that resolution to extend patrick mchenry's tenure as house speaker. so there was even some question of how he might vote here. but he's continued to vote for jim jordan on that last one. tom kaine from new jersey, one of the ultimate swing stricts, he's voted for jordan twice, he voted for -- he just switched his vote. there is another change. so we now have two previous anti-jordan -- previous pro-jordan votes who flipped. brian fitzpatrick from bucks county, pennsylvania, that is a swing district that joe biden carried, and now i can show you, two is the number, tom kaine jr., a freshman republican, the son of the former governor of new jersey, he barely won his seat in 2022, top democratic target in the upcoming '24

elections. democrats itching to use his two votes against him. but now he's switched. he cast his vote for kevin mccarthy. now, again, it was 22 no votes last time around for jordan. so far all the noes are holding. there you go again. mike kelly continues to hold out. this would be -- if these all hold and so far with the two additional ones that would be 24 no votes. and, again, you were hearing it there, you know, there are more still who we are waiting on and i'm looking at the list here, young kim from california, a swing district, voting right now, she voted for jordan twice and she votes for jordan a third time. from a very close district. nick lalota from long island, a new yorker holding out, his name is going to be called any minute here. he's voted for lee zeldin twice. no indication that's going to

change. we have two so far who flipped from being for jordan and now against him and none flipped back from being against jordan to joining his camp. >> people like valadao of california, talk about a swing district, he's always just either winning or they have to go for a second vote. he has so far been with jordan. that is someone who could flip. >> absolutely. so valadao comes from the central valley of california. this is a district that voted for joe biden by 13 points. and valadao had lost his seat and won it back. there was another surprise earlier, mike garcia who comes from a similar district in southern california, entirely contained within los angeles county, though sort of the outer portions of los angeles county it was the second closest congressional race in the country in 2020. it is a biden plus 12 district. but garcia, who had sent indications that he was ready to look at that mchenry option, he

continued to vote for jordan. so thats with a one we were also looking at as a potential flip here. you have lalota from long island, he's joined in. mike lawler, mike lawler, remember, the republican who took out the chair of the democratic congressional campaign committee last year in one of the biggest upsets of the cycle, he's been voting against jordan. he's voting now and he once again he's voted for patrick mchenry. it is uninterrupted. all of the no votes on jordan still no votes. you mentioned we're waiting on valadao. that's going to come a little bit later. alphabetically here. with dave schweikert from arizona, that's a biden strict, biden won it by a couple points, he's been voting for jordan. will he flip here? will there be a surprise flip? all we have seen, two additional defections from the jordan camp and no additions to the jordan camp. >> keep us posted, steve.

susan, let me ask you, we have seen now several people who had previously voted for somebody other than jordan, namely mccarthy. now switch their votes to mchenry. so, mchenry is picking up votes in this. and jordan is losing votes. we also have brian fitzpatrick change his vote from jordan to mchenry. what did you think is going on there? >> i think people are saying enough and i'm open to talking. i don't think that necessarily people think that mchenry is going to get it, though maybe there could be enough talking within the conference to come up with some kind of consensus with the democrats. but right now, every time i think it is 19 people we see right now, they're saying i'm open for a conversation, what do you got? that's really what they're saying. they're saying crazy is not going to do it for me. i'm close to crazy. i'm open to a conversation. >> does jordan have to step aside? does that have to happen before there could be a conversation on another candidate? >> absolutely not. they can do whatever they want

behind closed doors. brendan brought up an important point about jordan. he will go all-out and torch the place down when he loses. he has the potential to do it, i should say. and that is very concerning, i think, to a lot of republicans who want to govern, again, but now, you know, it is like will he be outside the tent again or just burn down the tent and there is no tent anymore? >> we're at 16 days, 18 hours, 42 minutes and 35 seconds without a speaker of the house of representatives. and kind of like there are a lot of things happening around the world. and certainly a lot of things happening in our country that need to be dealt with. brendan, do you see any solution going forward in the next days, weeks, months? what are we talking about? >> yeah, you know, you would think there would be a lot of urgency to figure this out. i actually -- i don't know they actually feel that at this

point. there is a lot of hurt feelings, a lot of tempers. i know things -- they're going to start feeling like they need to resolve this until you get maybe closer to a government funding deadline, maybe the senate passes a package with money for israel in it, that they feel like they need to do something. remember, despite all of this chaos, 95% of these people are going to get re-elected without a problem. and so for them, and this has been the problem for a long time, this is all a game. it is a game for a lot of them. and they can play as long as they want, because there are no real consequences for it. so, there should be a lot of urgency, there is a lot of things going on in the world and the world is looking at us right now and just hopefully, you know, openly shaking their head if not worse. i think at some point soon they will realize they can't do this any longer. but we're not probably at rock bottom yet unfortunately. >> brendan, we're working to get your video back. we can still hear you, but we lost you for a second there.

so i guess, max, the question being, republicans don't get their act together to get a speaker, at what point do democrats say, okay, we're going to try to work with republicans so that we can get on to governing? >> sure. democrats have been extraordinarily consistent here. remember that the democratic party could say leader jeffries could stand up and say under no circumstances will we partner with the republicans because this is theirs to lose. they haven't said that. they have said we're more than open to partnering, to pass bipartisan legislation and continue to govern or start to govern for the people. but that has to require coming to the table as equal partners, where you will say that, for instance, the rules committee, the rules committee which determines what hits the house floor, that should have equal membership. democrats and republicans, so that we can go back to the day of just not too long ago, a year, two years ago, where the house is passing infrastructure,

the house is passing unprecedented investments in critical emerging technologies, the house can be there for israel, for ukraine, for our allies. that's all the democrats want to do as equals because what the republicans are showing is they have zero capability to govern as adults despite the fact they have the majority. >> and molinaro, one of the representatives that steve was telling us to look out for, how did he vote? >> he voted for lee zeldin. molinaro, don't see his name on this list, because he had been voting for jim jordan on the first two ballots. mark molinaro, another new york republican from sort of the lower catskills, the southern tier, little bit of the hudson valley, very politically competitive terrain, he flipped over, he voted for lee zeldin. so now you got three new votes against jordan on the republican side. we continue to work our way down the list alphabetically with the previous no votes. they all continue to be no votes

against jordan. we have yet to see jordan flip any of these, certainly from the public rhetoric. we heard from the folks left on this list, no reason to think any of them are about to flip over. and just looking at the balance of the -- of where we are in the roll call here, and seeing if there is a big -- yeah, we're still about 40 votes away from john rutherford, the next alphabetically who voted against. we'll let you know if anything between now and then unexpectedly flip away from jordan. again, as it stands, jordan had 22 republicans go against him. the last time around. if all of these continue to be anti-jordan, then he'll be at the least 25 republicans against him this time around, with the three defections so far. as you said, david valadao has been sending signals he could move this number to four, there

are a few other republicans who sent signals they could join that group. so that number may grow here as this vote continues. >> okay, we will check back. do we have brendan back with us? not yet. so, coming back to susan and max here, if not jordan, who? who could get 217 or whatever the number is on that given day in terms of who is there to be able to get the speakership? >> i think when we look at it, i believe it will come down as i said earlier last hour that it will be the minority of both parties that could come together to get to that number. >> who would that person be? >> i think the person right now who is on -- he's on the back burner, but his name came out earlier, tom colette of oklahoma. people find him reasonable and capable and can be a good caretaker.

>> i don't see the republicans ever getting to the point where they're going to treat the democratic colleagues as equals here. i respectfully disagree, i don't think they'll be able to come together for a long-term solution as unfortunate as that is. i do think that what you're going to see is a dark horse candidate come out on the house side. someone like a lee zeldin type, or you could see -- >> from outside the house? >> absolutely. there is nothing stopping it. in the trump era, anything is possible here. it is not as hard to imagine in the end because what you see from 90% of the republican caucus right now is they're going along to get along. if you are willing to vote for jim jordan to be your speaker, then you have basically shown that you will go with the whims of the republican extremist base no matter where it takes you. jim jordan completely threw out the results of the 2020 election because donald trump asked him to.

every single norm that we have ever governed by he has shown zero respect for, and they have all voted for him. so, at this point, i think it could be anybody but who they should select. is that person who can go to swing districts. that's what they're looking for. >> we have brendan back. brendan, so, this is strike three for jim jordan. just thinking of the house rules, and ask anybody who is in power to share power seems especially in the house of representatives pretty much a long shot. but, brendan, is this a situation where jordan can continue to say i want to keep having votes until, you know, 2024? >> he certainly has that option. i don't know what he's getting at. i don't know what he thought he was getting at at having the vote today. he knew he wasn't gaining any

members. the pressure in the conference is not even really building on these people who are objecting to him. remember back to january, when mccarthy was being blocked, there was intense pressure on those 20 people to come around. to be part of the team, and that's how they were eventually able to wear them down. everybody got very upset at the folks who kicked out mccarthy. while there is a lot of tension and a lot of anger going on, i don't feel like there is a lot of pressure on these holdouts, and the holdout number is growing. there is outside pressure. there is bullying from jim jordan. but the rest of the -- >> the threats. >> yes. but the rest of the conference is quite okay with this. this is something i've been saying for a couple of days. there are a lot of people voting for jim jordan that is very happy that jim jordan is ghoet not getting votes he needs. they tell him, thank you, i wish i could do this in my district but i can't. >> let's go back to ali vitali on capitol hill for us.

you have new information. what can you share? >> well, look, i'm glad that brendan asked what the upside of this would have been for people in jordan's world to see him continue to go to the floor and continue to lose, but also to lose votes. that's one of the very questions i asked one of my sources today what is the point of doing this, and what this source said to me is that this is a way for jordan to in their words, keep shining a light on the people who are voting against him. i think all of us know that's a pretty well established list at this point and it does seem like it is a list that is growing, however slowly in the wrong direction for jim jordan. but i think that they are of the mindset that transparency and the public view of the house floor could be something that is worth using in jordan's favor to try to pressure folks to his cause. i don't think it is working. that was one of the theoriesi

was given. at least now we have a operating answer whether or not you agree with it, that's on your panel, but i think the other piece of this too that i think it was congressman rose was touching on, the political ramifications of this, when steve keeps saying that people are from swingy districts in bucks county or near my hometown in new york where mike lawler is currently the representative, these are really swingy areas and watching the ways that these lawmakers have made the political calculations of what it will look like back home, it is fascinating to me that someone like lawler would continue to vote for mchenry or mccarthy and think about the ways that that would play at home, but just a few minutes away from where he lives, molinaro made a completely different calculation in voting for jordan on the first two balloting rounds and then only today coming back in line with three other members of his freshman republican conference, people like lalota and d'esposito. it is fascinating watching the political calculations being done in real time, especially when i talked to folks at the

house democratic campaign arm who say it doesn't matter if someone like molinaro or tim kean vote for jim jordan and flip away from him. they have the ads cut of those people in swingy districts that tilt more blue and purple and making it so it is clear to their voters that these are electeds who voted at one point however many times for jim jordan. so if you're talking about political baggage, in many ways, house democrats look at this and they think the political baggage is sort of baked in the cake for the swing district republicans now. as you chart this vote, not just now in the month of october or what it will look like if we do this in november or january there are political ramifications that no matter what will be on the airwaves in new york and other places, reminding people of a vote for jim jordan and that could be politically problematic. a lot of political problems here in washington right now. but these could last longer into the next year. >> real quick, ali, you said there are some advantages to jordan in doing this, at least

motivation. do you think he is going to call another round of votes after this, if, again, he doesn't succeed and certainly looks like it is a lost cause? >> reporter: these same jordan allied sources continue to reference to me the fact that mccarthy went 15 ballots, i think for them they say he didn't start seeing significant movement or shift until ballot round 12. i take the point. but i think, again, as someone who was there along with you guys, for every painstaking balloting round back in january, mccarthy was never at a point where at every vote he was consistently bleeding support or new people were flipping against him. they were flipping to new people, from byron donalds to someone else if we go back to january, but it was not this level of momentum in the wrong direction. and i think that's one of the key points of difference. again, i'm only explaining what sources say was the operating theory for jordan going back to the floor now. you have to imagine that just continuing to go to the floor and expecting the results to

only get worse has a law of diminishing returns. i'm not in the strategy seat for anybody. i just get to track it, but i think that it leaves the open question for, do you go a ballot round four or let folks go home for the weekend and say we'll pick this up on monday, we'll see what happens. >> diminishing is in politics a different definition than what it could be for others. steve kornacki, there's an update. >> another, pete stauber from minnesota, democratic that has swung toward the republicans in the trump era, he on the second ballot yesterday he broke away from jordan, continues to break away from jordan on the third ballot. he's voting for a colleague, bruce westerman, from arkansas. with we're waiting only one more previous no vote and valadao voted for jordan. we were waiting on david valadao. he just voted. david valadao, moderate

republican from the central valley of california, who had twice voted for jordan, who had issued a statement yesterday suggesting that it seemed like he was ready to move on from jordan to move to this idea of a mchenry temporary speakership, but didn't get off the ground yesterday, he just voted for jordan again. this is a republican from a district that voted for biden by double digits. he's now cast three votes. that's a bit of a surprise he didn't move away from jordan. he's cast three votes for jordan. there is only one other previous anti-jordan vote to come. that's steve womack from arkansas. we are probably about a dozen or so votes away from him. there he is. one other republican between now and getting to womack, brandon williams, who comes from a biden district in the syracuse utica area in new york. he's voted for jordan twice. don't have any indications that he's going to change that, but, again, just we saw as he was talking to ali there, molinaro,

we have seen some new york republicans move around a little bit. he's another one of those new york republicans who comes from a very swingy district. so we see how he votes. we're about six away from him. but, again, barring that, the -- we're getting to the bottom of the list here, getting to the final 15 or so. we have got one previous anti-jordan vote, womack, he's given every indication he'll continue to be anti-jordan on his vote and what that means, work through them all, there were 22 previous anti-jordan votes coming into this. all 22 will have continued to vote against jordan on this third ballot. and right now you got three new -- here is brandon williams. how did he vote? he voted for jordan. so it looks like we'll end up with three new no votes, that would be a total of 25 no votes. and you're talking about those comparisons to kevin mccarthy and his 15-round journey to the

speakership in january. mccarthy never fell below 200 votes on any ballot. with losing 25 republicans here, as it looks like jordan will, he'll be in the mid-190s. not a huge difference, but that's a significant difference from the basement for mccarthy. >> and also there isn't any growth, vote after vote after vote, for jordan, all growth against jordan. so, brendan buck, just back to the question, is this something that we're going to possibly be seeing until november of 2024? >> no, they'll figure out something eventually. i don't know what that is, but they will. >> when? >> october, 2024? >> maybe. if i'm -- whatever the leadership is at this point, mchenry or whatever, i send people home for the weekend. there was a very ugly conference meeting yesterday. there was no value in having them get in a room again today. i think you need to let people breathe and sit on this for a

minute. and come back. i think jim jordan knows he's not going to be speaker. whether that turns into him wanting to exact revenge on people next, i don't know. the important dynamic for the jordan people and why they ultimately will always be okay is they tend to win by losing and that's been their mantra forever. when they lose, it is because, in their minds, the swamp has won or, you know, the elites in washington have won. so they'll come out on top. they'll be able to stay pure. they'll be able to attack their colleagues, they'll probably be able to take some of them out in primaries and this is the cycle we experienced for years and years and years and years now. eventually, they will pull out and use that to their political advantage. the rest of the conference will need to figure out what to do, as usual. maybe that is some relatively new member who is respected by people and hasn't yet developed anybody who hates him yet or doesn't have any rivals yet.

you end up having a speaker who is a relative figurehead and the majority leader ends up being the real leader. or some type of mchenry solution. i think that's the most likely. there's no good option. those are the options we have. none of them are good. none of them are easy. >> we are seeing steve's board filled in. womack did vote against jordan, voting for steve scalise. something brendan said, ali, caught my ear, that is what happens this weekend. there had been discussion possibly, from jordan and his camp, they would keep going and holding votes through the weekend. it got to the point -- you were reporting that some staffers were thinking about, this may not be right for me. i may have to quit. >> reporter: i just want to be clear. i did tweet that. i have heard that from some staffers on both sides are saying, this isn't what i signed up for. i came here to change policy, to impact change, to work with lawmakers in a functioning

house. they are not feeling like they are getting that. my point wasn't that these staffers don't want to work. they are all here to work, and they don't it for very much pay. i do think it's important when we talk about the frustration that members are feeling, many of them don't want to stay here this weekend. they made that more than clear to reporters who are very interested in what they end up doing this weekend, because wove been here as long as the lawmakers have, trying to track their every move. remember that as long as lawmakers are here, and reporters are here, staffers are here. for many of them, this is an active story but it's not one where there is policy making or pushing of paper or even communication strategy. a lot of this is a fly by the seat of your pants moment. for the staffers, i do think -- this has broadly been a concern in the post january 6 era. there's a concern that the vitriol and hyperpartisanship can lead to a brain drain. it was a concern during the trump administration.

people were working in agencies at that point. it's a concern on the campaign side. it's also a concern here in the house and in the senate where when you watch these places become even more tribal. for staff, there's a toll. i think it's important to point that out and make it known that, lawmakers are suffering and frustrated. certainly, reporters are along on that grind with them. for staff, this is real. this is their job. this is their place of work. the staff were here on january 6 and continue to come back to this place. i think it's something important to point out. >> win by losing, i think brendan was talking about that. there's some in that political group that may, indeed, feel that they could win by losing. they would prefer to win, i'm sure. the fact is, it seems as though they will not be winning either

today or going forward. how much does politics play into -- you are a former member. your district is something you keep in mind as you serve your constituents, but also their political reactions to it. >> the campaign never stops. right? if you look at the list of folks who just voted against jim jordan, part of it is a highlight reel of the swing districts. not just every swing district. the swing suburban districts. those are the areas that biden won that jim jordan is particularly toxic in. maga, extremism is particularly toxic. some of the other areas in california that are rural swing districts, they went for jordan because in that maga rural base, it's so strong. they are very fearful about their primary. the primary politics play out.

look, i could harm my general election maybe a little bit, but i have no chance of actually getting there if i go after a guy like jim jordan. they are hoping people will forget. >> they are putting -- if they go home this weekend, they're going to put polls in the field to see if they can survive a primary on the right, those swing districts who voted against jordan. >> part of the threats that some members have been getting, have included we will primary you. >> which we have seen in the presidential election and the last time when some members who had voted for impeachment of trump, they lost. that real threat about getting primaried. i do want to ask, when it comes to the republican party, susan, politico put it this way, there's no longer a cohesive political party. they may be roommates, but they are not married. who is in charge of this party? >> it depends on the day and

maybe what the messaging is. who is in charge right now is donald trump. here is the thing. if you look -- >> he didn't have much influence here. >> i don't think he wanted to get involved. he has lawsuits. he has other things going on. i don't think this is a fight he wanted. i think he misses the headlines. if he thought it could buy him headline attention, he may have. clearly, he didn't. what's interesting is if you look at the democratic side of the aisle, you have progressives and you have moderates. they disagree. but they disagree on policy more than anything else. meaning, they want their ideas to go forward. >> they agree on policy? >> they may disagree on the policy, but they agree on getting policy done. they want to govern. they may see things differently. eventually, they come together. that's how nancy pelosi was such an effective leader. on the republican side of the aisle, when you talk about they are still in the same family, well, they are, but there are

those pre-trump who want to govern, and there are a handful post-trump, like the mike wallers of the world who just want to govern. the majority of the post-trump, they don't care about governing. they win by losing. they want to say no. they have no interest to move forward. >> brendan, i want to ask you, because you were there with ryan, you were there with boehner. boehner was not able to accomplish a lot of things that maybe he wished he could have accomplished, including, for example, just taking an immigration bill to the floor. an impossibility for boehner as well as for ryan, because of the small group that would have essentially gotten rid of him had they done that. where is the possibility of anything being done? >> i think it's a really important point. whoever becomes speaker -- say

somebody emerges and all of a sudden, 220 republicans are excited to vote for them. that person has to oversee the conference and keep them together. it's almost impossible at this point. whatever cohesion we have had before, whatever structures kept us in place before, it has completely fallen apart. everybody is on their own. the idea there's any significant legislating going forward, forget about it. it is whatever the bare minimum that has to be done is. as you said, there are some people in this conference who care only about their primary in their district. they are so hyper obsessed with a narrow slice of the electorate that they can't see straight. there's a comment from eli crane who said, he is representing his voters. he said, i'm representing the american people who want jim jordan. i had to think, in what world are you living that the american people above all other things

congress could be doing, what the american people are demanding is jim jordan? 30% of the country only knows who jim jordan is. probably most don't like jim jordan. that's the mindset a lot of these people have. they convince themselves of their righteousness, that their cause is so good and so right when the american people are behind them. when they are actually focused on a narrow portion of the country. that's why we can't get anything done. >> everything is wrapped up on this particular vote. we can see people milling about, still staying in the chamber. ali, where does this go now? >> reporter: we are waiting to find out. i did talk to congressman marjorie taylor greene who has been a steadfast supporter of congressman jordan. she said that he doesn't have the votes here. now it's back to the drawing board for her party. there is some talk -- this is not firm. this is something that's being floated. we have seen it floated before and not had it materialize. maybe they go back to a

conference meeting. yesterday, as brendan pointed out, it was extremely tense. a lot of anger and tempers flaring in the room. i don't know it would be productive. for those of us wondering, do they stay through the weekend, congresswoman marjorie taylor greene says they might have attendance issues. we will see if that's something that keeps them out of town. i do think that when brendan says everyone is in this for themselves, yeah, there's a "hunger games" vibe up here now. >> thank you all for being with us. that's going to wrap it up for us this hour. >> thank you for the privilege of your time. andrea mitchell picks up with our special coverage right now. right now on "andrea mitchell reports," three strikes for jim jordan. the judiciary chairman suffering his worst defeat yet on the house floor in his flailing quest for the speakership leaving house republicans still searching for a leader.