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

[Amelia]

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.

Backward in time. Backward to the old generation -- but the only practical generation they have because they didn't cultivate a realisitic intermediate generation. Backward to the rejected status quo in a populist era.

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).

That Pelosi is the only alternative Democrats feel they have to their "green beans" is the sad state that I am commenting on.


It is imperative to beat Trump, and right now Pelosi is the Democrats' best weapon, but that is a sad state of affairs. She, like Hillary, represents the past in a time when people are craving change. But she is all the Democrats have. Heaven help America.

 

[jnug]

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.

Nobody moving from Ranking Member to a Committee Chair is remotely interested in running for the Speaker's position. So all those folks are out before you even get off the dime in thinking about possible alternatives to Pelosi.

 

[JANFU]

I doubt anything will get done. which is fine.

You are fine with 2 years of nothing passing. Well consider spending bills

 

[MovingPictures]

:lamo

I'm here all night.

 

[justabubba]

new democratic congresscritters show up insisting they will only support someone 'new' as speaker
anybody really believe fudge would do a better job? if so, why
unless there is a better alternative than nancy, then accept that she is the best among your demo ranks
which itself should say the party needs to expand its ranks to begin cultivating a new generation of leaders

but why the hell is no one talking about replacing that useless ****wit, schmuck schumer
in his instance pick any demo senator's name out of a hat and it will certainly be a step up as minority leader

 

[Amelia]

Unh-huh, right. So age is a liability? Or does that only apply to elderly women?

That's not what I said. But of course it is true -- age is a liability.

Still valuing our elder statespeople is one thing. But not having a viable crop of 40- to 60-year-olds to turn to is bad news.



I hope Bernie Sanders won't run again because he is too old. I'm sad that Biden will be almost 80 in 2020 because that makes it no longer realistic to bank on him even though he would have stomped the hell out of Trump if the Democratic money machine hadn't basically shut him out in their hurry to line up behind Hillary. I'm sorry Elizabeth Warren didn't take her chance in 2016, because in two years she will be 71, and yes 70-something is too old in any normal year. And I hope Democrats can survive Pelosi and Hillary sucking the air out of Democrats' efforts to inspire the left to get out to vote in numbers large enough to make up for all the rightwingers who are inspired by Pelosi and Hillary to vote.


Democrats didn't cultivate a viable bench of fresher talent. They're starting to now, but they're having to play catch-up, and the nation is paying for Democrats' failure to do the obvious basics. How long we will have to pay? Unclear. And that it is unclear that Democrats will be able to beat Trump in 2020 is ... sad.

 

[Xelor]

Backward in time. Backward to the old generation -- but the only practical generation they have because they didn't cultivate a realisitic intermediate generation. Backward to the rejected status quo in a populist era.



That Pelosi is the only alternative Democrats feel they have to their "green beans" is the sad state that I am commenting on.


It is imperative to beat Trump, and right now Pelosi is the Democrats' best weapon, but that is a sad state of affairs. She, like Hillary, represents the past in a time when people are craving change. But she is all the Democrats have. Heaven help America.

What I think would be the right thing to do is for Dems to name Pelosi speaker, benefit from her guidance, and then, when it's time for the CA-12 Dem primary, she announces she retiring, or she could wait even longer and withdraw a week or two ahead of the primary, taking the steam right out of Trump's/the GOP's "anti-Pelosi sails" after they've spent whatever energy condemning the Speaker of the House who's not going to be there and who isn't on the POTUS ticket either. In other words, set herself up as the "whipping boy"/"sacrificial lamb," which would have no impact really on her ability to lead in the House.

After all, CA-12 is so heavily Dem, that all it needs is a Dem on the ticket -- a sitting mayor, council member, state rep/senator, etc -- who shows up to campaign.

 

[Amelia]

What I think would be the right thing to do is for Dems to name Pelosi speaker, benefit from her guidance, and then, when it's time for the CA-12 Dem primary, she announces she retiring, or she could wait even longer and withdraw a week or two ahead of the primary, taking the steam right out of Trump's/the GOP's "anti-Pelosi sails" after they've spent whatever energy condemning the Speaker of the House who's not going to be there and who isn't on the POTUS ticket either. In other words, set herself up as the "whipping boy"/"sacrificial lamb," which would have no impact really on her ability to lead in the House.

After all, CA-12 is so heavily Dem, that all it needs is a Dem on the ticket -- a sitting mayor, council member, state rep/senator, etc -- who shows up to campaign.

That would be good.

Let her take her victory lap. Let her stare Trump down with her steely gaze. And then yield the floor to the Democrats who had better stirring up some national interest by late 2019.

 

[roughdraft274]

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.

This is essentially a fact. It's the same way that who ever the democrats elect to run for president, the very next day some right wing organizations will come out with studies showing that they were the most liberal person in the senate/house/governor. Electing a white male from a more purple/red state might alleviate the problem a little, but would only be a tiny bit. I'm in complete agreement that the dems need to start training up a new leadership and giving more power to the younger factions of the party, but not giving the speakership to Pelosi is going to essentially change nothing. It might make more of a difference if Pelosi were somehow the most polarizing figure in politics, but as of right now Trump has that **** locked up and in a stranglehold. Anybody thinking of voting Dem is going to be thinking of the Trump horror show or the local candidate that they are voting for or the local candidate they are voting against. Not Pelosi. That's not in the equation because there are too many other larger variables.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Nobody votes based on who the Speaker of the house is. Pelosi is a skilled knowledgeable political operator, with contacts undreamed of by raw newbies.

 

[cpwill]

The question answers itself, so again, I don't know why you're asking me that.

So, to be clear, you are saying that Republicans would get pretty much wiped out?

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

 

[cpwill]

Chances of that happening are nil

Concur. But what would be the electoral result?

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

 

[JANFU]

Concur. But what would be the electoral result?

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

More Dems elected. I recall a demographic over laid with Social Security/Food stamps/Medicaid and other entitlement programs. A larger number of recipients were in Red States vice Blue.
Now how would that break down to House/Senate. I do not know.

 

[Greenbeard]

“A step back” to the last time the House passed comprehensive health reform (including, in Pelosi’s House, a public option), financial reform, greenhouse gas emission restrictions and modernization of the grid, protection for the DREAMERS, a minimum wage hike, student loan reform, a CHIP reauthorization that didn’t require holding the nation’s children hostage for months on end sounds fine to me.

 

[j brown's body]

The argument that Pelosi is the only Democrat capable of serving as an effective House Speake is particularly bad for the Democrats is undercut by the fact that the Republicans have no one to serve in this capacity.

Granted, the Republicans goal is to destroy government, so incompetency is no barrier to success for them.

 

[RileyCoyote]

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.

How about instead of fighting trump with old dinosaurs in congress the left come up with some better ideas? How about they focus on implementing programs that work and benefit society, not failed systems that only grow government and dependency? The democrats, coming up with ideas so good they have to be forced upon us at gunpoint since....we started making laws. And yes, the republicans suck just as bad, but not quite, really close though.

How about selling your ideas about fixing problems and direct attention to positive ways of governing that will benefit me and want me to vote for you instea of constantly screaming at the sky about beating the bad, fat, orange man that is improving the lives of Americans. Can you do that? Why do I want to be lead by a bunch of nuts who are mad at the world 24/7/365?

 

[Amelia]

How about instead of fighting trump with old dinosaurs in congress the left come up with some better ideas? How about they focus on implementing programs that work and benefit society, not failed systems that only grow government and dependency? The democrats, coming up with ideas so good they have to be forced upon us at gunpoint since....we started making laws. And yes, the republicans suck just as bad, but not quite, really close though.

How about selling your ideas about fixing problems and direct attention to positive ways of governing that will benefit me and want me to vote for you instea of constantly screaming at the sky about beating the bad, fat, orange man that is improving the lives of Americans. Can you do that? Why do I want to be lead by a bunch of nuts who are mad at the world 24/7/365?

Vote for me?

LOL. Give me a break. (a) You wouldn't be voting for me. (b) Your claim that Trump is improving Americans' lives makes it very laughable that you would vote for Democrats under any circumstances.



Argue with someone else. On this position we mostly agree. Except for part about how bad the Republicans suck. And still you're lobbing your little stink bombs at me.

It's ironic that you follow me around saying stupid things even when we agree. You truly are a waste of my time.

#Ignore

 

[justabubba]

How about instead of fighting trump with old dinosaurs in congress the left come up with some better ideas? How about they focus on implementing programs that work and benefit society, not failed systems that only grow government and dependency? The democrats, coming up with ideas so good they have to be forced upon us at gunpoint since....we started making laws. And yes, the republicans suck just as bad, but not quite, really close though.

How about selling your ideas about fixing problems and direct attention to positive ways of governing that will benefit me and want me to vote for you instea of constantly screaming at the sky about beating the bad, fat, orange man that is improving the lives of Americans. Can you do that? Why do I want to be lead by a bunch of nuts who are mad at the world 24/7/365?

your words ring hollow when reflecting upon the fact that the republicans have controlled the white house, senate, and house for the past two years and have accomplished ****

 

[jnug]

A 78 year old whip. That is what Pelosi wants? Clyburn??? Holy Cow.....I know you can count votes for yourself Nancy. But you're really making it easy for your critics to say you just do not want any young talent around you.

 

[Ikari]

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

Pretty sure that's the entire point of the OP, the Dems don't have anyone but the standby status-quo. I think we are seeing some movement in the DNC base towards a more progressive platform the likes Sanders calls for. Pelosi isn't this, Pelosi is status-quo corporate Republocrat. She's the best the DNC has because the DNC wasn't cultivating it's newer members or prepared for the shift in attitude from its base constituents. She may be able to offer resistance now when needed, but she's not what they need to push forward.

We'll see how effective she ends up being against Trump.

 

[pilot16]

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.

But so will Pelosi. She cant refuse to consider anything since she will be painted as an obstructionist. I heard one of the tv talking heads say the main reason most dems will vote for her is because she is old fashioned and is fairly moderate (much like Hillary was). Somebody younger will be more interested in pushing a further left agenda like Medicare for All etc. They know she wont. She has said she will protect the ACA. They dont want to gamble on running far left in 2020 with so many moderates and NeverTrumpers having voted for democrats in 2018 midterms. They will move to the center so they dont lose those votes.

 

[jnug]

I think Pelosi will be an effective Speaker. There is no reason to believe she won't be. But there ARE House dems that are not 78 years old that could fill the roll of whip. What does Clyburn have in common with these people? The average age in the 116th Congress will be 45, not 75!

 

[mike2810]

The problem any speaker has is most politicians have lost sight on what is good for America. Even our current President seems to have forgotten that he is not the only one with good ideas/policies. The Speaker, members of House and Senate need to find a way to work with each other and the President. If they don't the outcome will be the continual grid lock on any significant policy changes and budget proposals.

So tired of it.

 

[pilot16]

Backward in time. Backward to the old generation -- but the only practical generation they have because they didn't cultivate a realisitic intermediate generation. Backward to the rejected status quo in a populist era.



That Pelosi is the only alternative Democrats feel they have to their "green beans" is the sad state that I am commenting on.


It is imperative to beat Trump, and right now Pelosi is the Democrats' best weapon, but that is a sad state of affairs. She, like Hillary, represents the past in a time when people are craving change. But she is all the Democrats have. Heaven help America.

There are a few others out there that could lead. But they want and need experience to battle Trump. What I am more concerned about is Pelosi should be announcing she will be mentoring several new members of the House to move into future leadership positions. Currently the 3 dem leaders, Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn are all almost 80 or over.

 

[Cardinal]

But so will Pelosi.

That was my point. By being in control of one of the chambers of Congress, Democrats will have to work with the Republicans as much as the Republicans have to work with the Democrats.