• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Choosing Pelosi for Speaker represents a step backward but what other choice do Democrats have?

Amelia

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
10,351
Reaction score
8,061
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Choosing Pelosi for Speaker represents a step backward but what other options do Democrats have? They need someone tough to fight Trump.

That's the problem. Democrats spent Obama's 8 years failing to strengthen the grass roots and cultivate new talent, and now they have a shallow bench from which to fight Trump's existential threat to America.


Pelosi will be the next speaker. She will do a good job against Trump in the limited way a Speaker can. And then come 2016 she will be almost as effective as Hillary in energizing rightwingers to get out to vote. It's still going to be an uphill climb to end the abomination of the Trump presidency.
 

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
44,985
Reaction score
26,899
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Choosing Pelosi for Speaker represents a step backward but what other options do Democrats have? They need someone tough to fight Trump.

That's the problem. Democrats spent Obama's 8 years failing to strengthen the grass roots and cultivate new talent, and now they have a shallow bench from which to fight Trump's existential threat to America.


Pelosi will be the next speaker. She will do a good job against Trump in the limited way a Speaker can. And then come 2016 she will be almost as effective as Hillary in energizing rightwingers to get out to vote. It's still going to be an uphill climb to end the abomination of the Trump presidency.

Can you provide the name of the person who would be more effective as Pelosi at marshaling votes?
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
84,600
Reaction score
64,076
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Choosing Pelosi for Speaker represents a step backward but what other options do Democrats have? They need someone tough to fight Trump.

That's the problem. Democrats spent Obama's 8 years failing to strengthen the grass roots and cultivate new talent, and now they have a shallow bench from which to fight Trump's existential threat to America.


Pelosi will be the next speaker. She will do a good job against Trump in the limited way a Speaker can. And then come 2016 she will be almost as effective as Hillary in energizing rightwingers to get out to vote. It's still going to be an uphill climb to end the abomination of the Trump presidency.

Pelosi was instrumental in pushing the PPACA through legislation. As for your point, I don't understand the role she served in weakening local Democratic presence.

As to your final point, if Pelosi were swapped out for somebody who didn't galvanize Republicans quite so much, Republicans would spontaneously galvanize themselves against that person. There is nobody that Democrats can pick to be speaker that Republicans won't condemn. In no way should the next speaker be chosen based on what Republicans think about him or her.
 

Amelia

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
10,351
Reaction score
8,061
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Can you provide the name of the person who would be more effective as Pelosi at marshaling votes?

Psst, the point of my thread is that Democrats don't have a viable alternative to Pelosi.

Which is a symptom of Democrats' past negligence and a problem for Democrats' future prospects.
 

Unitedwestand13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
20,721
Reaction score
6,276
Location
Sunnyvale California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Psst, the point of my thread is that Democrats don't have a viable alternative to Pelosi.

Which is a symptom of Democrats' past negligence and a problem for Democrats' future prospects.

Well I guess democrats should elect a fresh faced, bright eyed young lad who is a media darling and is seen as a potential star of the party... oh wait...

The Republican Party tried that approach with Paul Ryan, and he failed miserably at the role of house speaker.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
84,600
Reaction score
64,076
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Psst, the point of my thread is that Democrats don't have a viable alternative to Pelosi.

Which is a symptom of Democrats' past negligence and a problem for Democrats' future prospects.

That's one possible way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that Pelosi is so good at what she does that nobody else looks viable by comparison.
 

Anagram

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
8,858
Reaction score
5,411
Location
St. Louis MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Pelosi was instrumental in pushing the PPACA through legislation. As for your point, I don't understand the role she served in weakening local Democratic presence.

As to your final point, if Pelosi were swapped out for somebody who didn't galvanize Republicans quite so much, Republicans would spontaneously galvanize themselves against that person. There is nobody that Democrats can pick to be speaker that Republicans won't condemn. In no way should the next speaker be chosen based on what Republicans think about him or her.

Obviously. But isn't it a matter of degree? Pelosi is basically exactly of what Republicans want to paint Democrats as, a super-rich, old, San Francsico liberal. Plus most people's opinions of her have already set in. https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/m6fydzdamg/econTabReport.pdf Independents and Republicans have fair to strong dislike of her and even only about 2/3s of Democrats have a favorable opinion. I'd have to think there is somebody that would be less effective to galvanize people against.

Whether that trade off is worth it for someone who can't fundraise or marshal votes so well is up to the Democrats. No doubt she's really good at both. But even though Republicans certainly would try and demonize whoever the Democrats put up there (and vice versa), I don't think they'd all be demonized equally.
 

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
38,437
Reaction score
13,696
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Choosing Pelosi for Speaker represents a step backward but what other options do Democrats have? They need someone tough to fight Trump.

That's the problem. Democrats spent Obama's 8 years failing to strengthen the grass roots and cultivate new talent, and now they have a shallow bench from which to fight Trump's existential threat to America.


Pelosi will be the next speaker. She will do a good job against Trump in the limited way a Speaker can. And then come 2016 she will be almost as effective as Hillary in energizing rightwingers to get out to vote. It's still going to be an uphill climb to end the abomination of the Trump presidency.

From what I understand in the R Party, House, they can only hold the Chair/ Ranking member(not sure on the last) for 3 terms. Then newer blood moves up.

Democratic leadership in the House is blocked as they go by seniority in the House.
The leadership is filled up by old people. Mnay have been waiting years to move up. No room.

Now is Pelosi best qualified to tie Trump in knots- to broker deals. Yes. But the Leadership needs to change, younger members, to head up Committees. That may not happen in this House, well I am sure it will not.

I think this should be her last term as Speaker.

Now how they do that without making her a lame duck, I have no idea


https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/10/politics/democrats-age-problem/index.html
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
84,600
Reaction score
64,076
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Obviously. But isn't it a matter of degree? Pelosi is basically exactly of what Republicans want to paint Democrats as, a super-rich, old, San Francsico liberal. Plus most people's opinions of her have already set in. https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/m6fydzdamg/econTabReport.pdf Independents and Republicans have fair to strong dislike of her and even only about 2/3s of Democrats have a favorable opinion. I'd have to think there is somebody that would be less effective to galvanize people against.

Whether that trade off is worth it for someone who can't fundraise or marshal votes so well is up to the Democrats. No doubt she's really good at both. But even though Republicans certainly would try and demonize whoever the Democrats put up there (and vice versa), I don't think they'd all be demonized equally.

Well, that's the job. I certainly don't see the benefit of swapping her out for somebody who may appear more likeable but less able to fundraise and marshal votes. Fund raising and marshaling votes are important.
 

Anagram

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
8,858
Reaction score
5,411
Location
St. Louis MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Well, that's her job. I certainly don't see the benefit of swapping her out for somebody else who may appear more likeable but less able to fundraise and marshal votes. Fund raising and marshaling votes are important.

Of course they are. But so are winning elections.

From my point of view I'd certainly trade off some fundraising and whipping skills for a great amount of elect-ability for my preferred politicians. Always a question of how much of each, but fundraising and whipping aren't important at all if you have 10 members of Congress for instance.
 

Amelia

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
10,351
Reaction score
8,061
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
And the point remains, Democrats have no idea who they could turn to if not Pelosi.

It's a problem that they have so few options.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
84,600
Reaction score
64,076
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Of course they are. But so are winning elections.

From my point of view I'd certainly trade off some fundraising and whipping skills for a great amount of elect-ability for my preferred politicians. Always a question of how much of each, but fundraising and whipping aren't important at all if you have 10 members of Congress for instance.

The Speaker's role is to deliver legislative results, and that comes from taking 231 cats and successfully herding them in one (hopefully positive) direction. If House Democrats aren't united under a common goal and the result is chaos, it's that that will determine future electability. A Speaker who's unable to focus the energy of House Democrats isn't going to deliver electability just by having a more affable personality to Independents and Republicans.
 

Anagram

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
8,858
Reaction score
5,411
Location
St. Louis MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The Speaker's role is to deliver legislative results, and that comes from taking 231 cats and successfully herding them in one (hopefully positive) direction. If House Democrats aren't united under a common goal and the result is chaos, it's that that will determine future electability. A Speaker who's unable to focus the energy of House Democrats isn't going to deliver electability just by having a more affable personality to Independents and Republicans.

You aren’t going from Pelosi level fundraising and whipping to 0 though. Presumably there are some Dem caucus members who can do that almost as well. Is there no point where you’re willing to trade off?
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
68,745
Reaction score
35,103
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Choosing Pelosi for Speaker represents a step backward but what other options do Democrats have? They need someone tough to fight Trump.

That's the problem. Democrats spent Obama's 8 years failing to strengthen the grass roots and cultivate new talent, and now they have a shallow bench from which to fight Trump's existential threat to America.


....That's one way to put it. Another might be that overreach created a backlash that wiped out a rising generation of Democrat politicians.
 

ipsofacto

Banned
Joined
Jun 30, 2016
Messages
732
Reaction score
161
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, that's the job. I certainly don't see the benefit of swapping her out for somebody who may appear more likeable but less able to fundraise and marshal votes. Fund raising and marshaling votes are important.


Then why bother having a government at all? Just let the wealthy run government directly.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
84,600
Reaction score
64,076
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You aren’t going from Pelosi level fundraising and whipping to 0 though. Presumably there are some Dem caucus members who can do that almost as well. Is there no point where you’re willing to trade off?

I really don't understand what you think I'm "trading off." You're saying (I think) that she's unappealing to Independents and Republicans and that will negatively affect electability. I disagree, because it's my position that her ability to deliver a sound and focused legislative agenda is what will determine future electability.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Of course they are. But so are winning elections.

From my point of view I'd certainly trade off some fundraising and whipping skills for a great amount of elect-ability for my preferred politicians. Always a question of how much of each, but fundraising and whipping aren't important at all if you have 10 members of Congress for instance.

There is already a growing movement in the democratic party to vote against her.
they are also already being threatened if they do.

cow tow the line or else kind of thing.

nothing changes with the democrats.
putting pelosi in will be the best thing for republicans besides nominating clinton again.
 

Chillfolks

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
12,641
Reaction score
6,259
Location
VA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Pelosi expects her white privlage to be enough to propell her back in to the speakers seat. The Democratic Party is eager to prove her right, except for a few hold outs. The Democratic Party will happily show off the number of minorities they have in their party, but those same minorities need to know their role and realise the Democratic Party leadership is still a whites only club in the House.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I really don't understand what you think I'm "trading off." You're saying (I think) that she's unappealing to Independents and Republicans and that will negatively affect electability. I disagree, because it's my position that her ability to deliver a sound and focused legislative agenda is what will determine future electability.

She can't deliver anything unless the senate and trump sign off on it.
which means she will have to play ball.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
84,600
Reaction score
64,076
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
She can't deliver anything unless the senate and trump sign off on it.
which means she will have to play ball.

Trump and the Senate can't have their legislative agenda unless the House signs off on it, which means they will have to play ball.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
68,745
Reaction score
35,103
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm unclear on exactly what happened, but what wiped out the Democrats leading up to 2016 was a decision (though I honestly don't know whose decision it was) to centralize Democratic power in DC and away from local communities. I'm embarrassed to admit that I didn't even know about it until I listened to John Favreau's extremely cogent post-mortem, "The Wilderness."

Tell me, Cardinal, what do you think would happen, electorally, in 2020, if Republicans used the lame duck session now to cram through a social security and medicare reform package that resulted in people being thrown off their benefits?
 

Anagram

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
8,858
Reaction score
5,411
Location
St. Louis MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I really don't understand what you think I'm "trading off." You're saying (I think) that she's unappealing to Independents and Republicans and that will negatively affect electability. I disagree, because it's my position that her ability to deliver a sound and focused legislative agenda is what will determine future electability.

Then I guess I disagree that Pelosi, fundraising and whipping prowess aside, is the best bet for electability. There has to be a reason so many of the Ned Democratic caucus members thought it prudent to promise never to vote for her. It certainly isn’t because they doubted her ability to enact a focused legislative agenda.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
84,600
Reaction score
64,076
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Tell me, Cardinal, what do you think would happen, electorally, in 2020, if Republicans used the lame duck session now to cram through a social security and medicare reform package that resulted in people being thrown off their benefits?

I don't know why you're asking me that.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trump and the Senate can't have their legislative agenda unless the House signs off on it, which means they will have to play ball.

Not really. bills start in the house.
the senate might draft their version but in the end
for her to get anything done she will have to play ball.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
84,600
Reaction score
64,076
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Then I guess I disagree that Pelosi, fundraising and whipping prowess aside, is the best bet for electability. There has to be a reason so many of the Ned Democratic caucus members thought it prudent to promise never to vote for her. It certainly isn’t because they doubted her ability to enact a focused legislative agenda.

Well, if they don't want a focused and sound legislative agenda then I'd have to question what it is they do want. Pelosi was instrumental in pushing through the PPACA, one of the most significant legislative acts of the 21st century. If that doesn't mean anything to them, what do they want?
 
Top Bottom