• 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?

I don't know why you're asking me that.
Do you think that Republicans would get wiped out, were they to do so; if they were to unilaterally alter people's benefits in a massive way, in such a way as to toss millions of people off of what they had?

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
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.

"Not really"? Are you saying Trump and the Senate don't have to play ball with the House in creating legislation?

Do you think that Republicans would get wiped out, were they to do so; if they were to unilaterally alter people's benefits in a massive way, in such a way as to toss millions of people off of what they had?

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

The question answers itself, so again, I don't know why you're asking me that.
 
"Not really"? Are you saying Trump and the Senate don't have to play ball with the House in creating legislation?



The question answers itself, so again, I don't know why you're asking me that.
they really don't. whatever crap the house democrats try to pass will get shot down or removed in the final version of the bill
to get it through.
 
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?

Probably someone who could also push through the PPACA without the electoral disadvantages of Pelosi. Pelosi did it, but there are probably others who could. Possibly others who isn't such an electoral drag and wouldn't require more than half of the new Democratic members who took over a Republican district to promise to never support them.
 
they really don't. whatever crap the house democrats try to pass will get shot down or removed in the final version of the bill
to get it through.

And whatever the Senate changes will get sent back to the House to approve. So it looks like if the Republican Senate and the Democratic House want results, they're going to have to play ball with each other.
 
Probably someone who could also push through the PPACA without the electoral disadvantages of Pelosi. Pelosi did it, but there are probably others who could. Possibly others who isn't such an electoral drag and wouldn't require more than half of the new Democratic members who took over a Republican district to promise to never support them.

Can you measure this "electoral drag" and tie it to Pelosi directly?
 
Can you measure this "electoral drag" and tie it to Pelosi directly?

Of course I can't. Can't work it out specifically at all. Just drawing conclusions based on what I see Republicans (using Pelosi as an attack wherever they can) and Democrats (promising they'd never vote for her) doing and what I think it is about Pelosi that makes these attacks effective and whether they would be as effective against some other Speaker (not being a rich, old, liberal from San Francisco would probably be harder for Republicans to demonize).
 
538 has a ten hour old longish look at this:

Democrats essentially have four options:

1)Stick with Pelosi.
2)Choose someone else from leadership, such as Clyburn or Hoyer.
3)Choose someone else who wants the job, such as Fudge, who is right now basically running for speaker.
4)Or choose someone like Schiff, who will likely only become a speaker candidate once Pelosi is out of the running.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/who-could-become-speaker-of-the-house-if-pelosi-doesnt/

It should not be Pelosi or a radical, it must be someone who is able and who has been around long enough to know the lay of the land...ten years in Washington would be good.
 
She can't deliver anything unless the senate and trump sign off on it.
which means she will have to play ball.

Limited viewpoint- Trump needs the House to pass a Bill.
It works both ways, cuts both ways. Shameful if Bipartisanship is thrown overboard.
Nothing gets done
Now can McConnel and Pelosi work together- yep- Can Trump do that as well? Remains to be seen
 
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?

Chances of that happening are nil
 
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.



Ooops. I meant 2020. Doh.
 
What threat does Trump pose to you and your negative outlook on life?
 
Of course I can't. Can't work it out specifically at all. Just drawing conclusions based on what I see Republicans (using Pelosi as an attack wherever they can) and Democrats (promising they'd never vote for her) doing and what I think it is about Pelosi that makes these attacks effective and whether they would be as effective against some other Speaker (not being a rich, old, liberal from San Francisco would probably be harder for Republicans to demonize).

I think what you're seeing from Democrats is a sense of trauma from a devastating loss in the last election followed by two uninterrupted years of trolling by Republicans over every conceivable issue important to them, and they just really, really don't want to see that happen again. No, I can't measure that and can't tie the two things together any more than you can, but that's just my feeling.

In my opinion, seeing a re-empowered Democratic chamber of Congress act from a position of strength and toward a positive end will remind them that what the House does as a whole is more significant than their feelings about Pelosi herself. And if Pelosi presides over a fragmented and chaotic House that results in yet another Democratic loss? At that point there will be no god or demon that will save Pelosi, a fact I'm sure she's well aware of.
 
Limited viewpoint- Trump needs the House to pass a Bill.
It works both ways, cuts both ways. Shameful if Bipartisanship is thrown overboard.
Nothing gets done
Now can McConnel and Pelosi work together- yep- Can Trump do that as well? Remains to be seen

I doubt anything will get done. which is fine.
 
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.
No matter who we pick, the right-wing will paint them as the devil, and they would become the next Pelosi.

Personally, I'd prefer Schiff, but knowing Pelosi drives the wingers absolutely crazy, I'm happy to support her leadership, even if she isn't my first choice. I guess that's because I'm beginning to have that conservative mentality of "'whatever pisses the other side off is good!", and want to see them get a taste of their own medicine.
 
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.

Red:
How, exactly?


Blue:
In light of Trump's and his coterie's ability and willingness to vilify anyone and everyone, and Trumpkins' penchant to believe any BS he spews, she will be neither more nor less "energizing" to right wingers than anyone else.

Besides, all she's got to do is (1) let someone more charismatic be the "frontman," and (2) that which she's excellent at: leading the House and keeping her caucus in-line, focused, and effectively performing knowledge transfer to the "green beans" who right now are all what young folks always are -- tons of idealistic zeal and single mindedness, but not nearly enough prudence, experience and restraint to "walk, talk and chew gum all at once" (nevermind that they probably also don't know not to chew gum in public).
 
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.

Unh-huh, right. So age is a liability? Or does that only apply to elderly women?
 
No matter who we pick, the right-wing will paint them as the devil, and they would become the next Pelosi.

Personally, I'd prefer Schiff, but knowing Pelosi drives the wingers absolutely crazy, I'm happy to support her leadership, even if she isn't my first choice. I guess that's because I'm beginning to have that conservative mentality of "'whatever pisses the other side off is good!", and want to see them get a taste of their own medicine.

If Pelosi were not as effective as she were--particularly in the 111th Congress--then the Right would not hate her nearly as much. Notice that you almost never hear Chuck Schumer's name come up in the same sentence?
 
Personally, I'd prefer Schiff, but knowing Pelosi drives the wingers absolutely crazy, I'm happy to support her leadership, even if she isn't my first choice. I guess that's because I'm beginning to have that conservative mentality of "'whatever pisses the other side off is good!", and want to see them get a taste of their own medicine.

I hate that people think like this, and I know you're right that there are definitely conservatives who think like that too. But I think the schadenfreude is one of our bigger problems as a country.
 
No matter who we pick, the right-wing will paint them as the devil, and they would become the next Pelosi.

Personally, I'd prefer Schiff, but knowing Pelosi drives the wingers absolutely crazy, I'm happy to support her leadership, even if she isn't my first choice. I guess that's because I'm beginning to have that conservative mentality of "'whatever pisses the other side off is good!", and want to see them get a taste of their own medicine.

:lamo
 
If Pelosi were not as effective as she were--particularly in the 111th Congress--then the Right would not hate her nearly as much. Notice that you almost never hear Chuck Schumer's name come up in the same sentence?
Bingo.

She pulls Democrats together in the House and is willing to stick to her guns and follow through on her threats, something Schumer is too afraid of ever doing.

The Senate is where the DNC needs serious new leaderships. Personally, I think we need an attack dog like Schiff or Swalwell, who are willing to play Republicans at their own games.
 
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

Regardless of GOP House rules some of which are outright silly, the GOP was left begging the awful Paul Ryan to take the job. They had nobody...literally nobody and Ryan resisted because while he was all they could even think of for the post, he didn't want it.
 
I hate that people think like this, and I know you're right that there are definitely conservatives who think like that too. But I think the schadenfreude is one of our bigger problems as a country.
I hate that I feel that way too.

I don't base my vote on such idiocy, but if the Trumpists have to now to deal with someone who they hate with the intensity of a thousand suns, then now they know how the rest of us feel.

It's long past time for Republicans to start showing respect for the rest of the country.
 
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.

I think it boils down to she is leader of the old guard and they want changes.
Some Dems ran stating they would not Vote for Pelosi
If they fold, well they will pay for it in 2020
Going by memory but takes 218 to win.
16 IIRC have stated they will not vote for her
Thing is, no one has stepped up to run against her. Will someone step up?
The Dems have to be careful they do not go into a revolt, major change /dysfunction happened when the T Party elected substantial numbers( 2010-or 2012) not sure

So if no one steps up or even if one does???
Then the 16 refuse to endorse Pelosi, that would then take 2 Rs to vote for her
We could very well see that.
House now at 200 Rs and 232 Dems- subtract 16 Dems, she would be at 216 -
Thing is the Dems need to be cohesive and IMHO Pelosi has that ability, as an earlier poster mentioned of herding cats.
Last what changes does she offer to the Dems??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives#Selection

Although no rule exists, based on tradition and practice from the earliest days of the nation, to be elected speaker a candidate must receive an absolute majority of all votes cast for individuals, i.e. excluding those who abstain. If no candidate wins such a majority, then the roll call is repeated until a speaker is elected. The last time repeated votes were required was in 1923, when the Speaker was elected on the ninth ballot.[9]
 
Back
Top Bottom