Who will be the new Speaker of the House?

[Surrealistik]

I hear you. She's kept the caucus together, that's the job of Speaker. Vision is not the requirement. The forward looking don't get anywhere if they can't bring the old fogies along, and that's what she does.

The problem is she actively works to undermine and thwart the forward looking, or at the very least stands as a not-inconsiderable obstacle in their way; for this reason alone she's a poor Speaker, nevermind her baggage in terms of abyssal favourability and what she broadly stands for, which are both notable problems in their own right.

If Pelosi gave any kind of sign she was willing to turn a new leaf and seriously work towards and with the agenda of party progressives, I'd be infinitely more inclined to give her a chance, but so far that just hasn't happened, and I doubt it ever will until she faces a serious challenge to her leadership.

 

[Phys251]

After winning back the House for the first time in eight years, the Democrats would be absolute idiots to fall for the infighting that the Republicans so desperately want them to engage in. Give Pelosi the gavel and get to work already.

 

[Surrealistik]

After winning back the House for the first time in eight years, the Democrats would be absolute idiots to fall for the infighting that the Republicans so desperately want them to engage in. Give Pelosi the gavel and get to work already.

So we can lose it again; sounds like a plan.

If letting Pelosi and friends run the show were such a great idea, we wouldn't have been in this mess to begin with.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

So we can lose it again; sounds like a plan.

If letting Pelosi and friends run the show were such a great idea, we wouldn't have been in this mess to begin with.

The only way we lose it is if a bunch of conservative Democrats, led by Tim ryan, undermine Pelosi’s caucus

 

[Surrealistik]

The only way we lose it is if a bunch of conservative Democrats, led by Tim ryan, undermine Pelosi’s caucus

Or y'know, let Pelosi call the shots in tandem with what her donors and likeminded buddies think is acceptable, which is precisely the sort of thing that lead us to one of the greatest, most historic losses of US federal political power of all time.

By the way, I'm no fan of Tim Ryan; the man is just a different brand of poison, but I doubt whether he'd turn out much worse than a proven loser like Pelosi.

That said, neither of them should get the gavel; it's time for new blood that actually respects and understands the zeitgeist that is presently carrying the party, and will continue to do so into the future.

 

[Phys251]

So we can lose it again; sounds like a plan.

If letting Pelosi and friends run the show were such a great idea, we wouldn't have been in this mess to begin with.

:roll:

Save the purity tests for when they won't cost us another presidential election.

 

[Surrealistik]

:roll:

Save the purity tests for when they won't cost us another presidential election.

Or rather, how about we avoid going all in on the proven loser corporate blowhard Dems for when they won't cost us another presidential election... like they just did? Why should we reward the abject failure of Pelosi's faction with power she's proven herself unworthy of?

 

[JMR]

The problem is she actively works to undermine and thwart the forward looking, or at the very least stands as a not-inconsiderable obstacle in their way; for this reason alone she's a poor Speaker, nevermind her baggage in terms of abyssal favourability and what she broadly stands for, which are both notable problems in their own right.

If Pelosi gave any kind of sign she was willing to turn a new leaf and seriously work towards and with the agenda of party progressives, I'd be infinitely more inclined to give her a chance, but so far that just hasn't happened, and I doubt it ever will until she faces a serious challenge to her leadership.

I understand your position...I just don't recognize where all this has happened. In which area has she not given serious regard to progressive members of the party?

I don't really care about her favorability, because I think that is largely a function of FOX news. No one really pays attention to the actual goings on.

 

[Phys251]

Or rather, how about we avoid going all in on the proven loser corporate blowhard Dems for when they won't cost us another presidential election... like they just did? Why should we reward the abject failure of Pelosi's faction with power she's proven herself unworthy of?

:lamo

How many House seats did Our Revolution candidates flip? Name one. Just one.

 

[Surrealistik]

I understand your position...I just don't recognize where all this has happened. In which area has she not given serious regard to progressive members of the party?

I don't really care about her favorability, because I think that is largely a function of FOX news. No one really pays attention to the actual goings on.

There is no way Fox News alone dictates a favourability rating that's underwater among the general populace by well over 20 points; it's just not possible or plausible, and if they were, this flipping of the House wouldn't have been possible, and we should moreover essentially give up on reclaiming any chamber of power.

On the marijuana issue and healthcare alone she's been an enduring thorn in our side, nevermind ridiculous, tone deaf nonsense like this ( https://observer.com/2017/02/nancy-pelosi-cnn-town-hall-appearance/ ) and it would be the height of naivety to expect she won't let those views colour her agenda setting as Speaker. I expect at best foot dragging, and at worst naked obstruction.

Again, the day she comes out in firm support of things like Medicare for All, national legalization of marijuana, electoral reform, and some form of paid post-secondary education is the day I give her a chance; we don't have to agree on everything, but I expect her to be on board with the fundamentals; it's up to her to show me that she's learned something from this recent political upheaval.

 

[JMR]

There is no way Fox News alone dictates a favourability rating that's underwater among the general populace by well over 20 points; it's just not possible or plausible, and if they were, this flipping of the House wouldn't have been possible, and we should moreover essentially give up on reclaiming any chamber of power.

On the marijuana issue and healthcare alone she's been an enduring thorn in our side, nevermind ridiculous, tone deaf nonsense like this ( https://observer.com/2017/02/nancy-pelosi-cnn-town-hall-appearance/ ) and it would be the height of naivety to expect she won't let those views colour her agenda setting as Speaker. I expect at best foot dragging, and at worst naked obstruction.

Again, the day she comes out in firm support of things like Medicare for All, national legalization of marijuana, electoral reform, and some form of paid post-secondary education is the day I give her a chance; we don't have to agree on everything, but I expect her to be on board with the fundamentals; it's up to her to show me that she's learned something from this recent political upheaval.

I agree to some extent, but she is also letting you know what is and what is not possible in the world of actually passing legislation.

 

[Surrealistik]

:lamo

How many House seats did Our Revolution candidates flip? Name one. Just one.

A pretty good summary:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...emocrats-midterms_us_5be9a4cce4b044bbb1a6c979

Moreover, the progressive moment wasn't even really established when Democrats got absolutely trashed in 2016 and prior, and absolutely held no leadership power whatsoever, so who else would be responsible for those embarrassing losses?

 

[Surrealistik]

I agree to some extent, but she is also letting you know what is and what is not possible in the world of actually passing legislation.

I would disagree with that.

Remember Clinton talking about how Medicare for All was straight up impossible? Now it's increasingly a touchstone and pillar of the party. National legalization of marijuana now seems all but an inevitability.

Again, incumbency is nothing; the will is everything. When you combine broadly popular legislation and ideas with an effective and persuasive representative, you win and gain the political capital and clout to make substantial changes; it's that simple.

 

[Phys251]

A pretty good summary:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...emocrats-midterms_us_5be9a4cce4b044bbb1a6c979

Moreover, the progressive moment wasn't even really established when Democrats got absolutely trashed in 2016 and prior, and absolutely held no leadership power whatsoever, so who else would be responsible for those embarrassing losses?

You did not answer my question. I want the name of one single Our Revolution candidate who flipped a House seat. Just one name.

 

[Individual]

If for no reasons other than the entertainment factor and recognition of the colour (RED) which truly represents the Left/Democrat party, my choice would be:
https://www.lifegate.com/app/uploads/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-boston.jpg

 

[Surrealistik]

You did not answer my question. I want the name of one single Our Revolution candidate who flipped a House seat. Just one name.

Why would you have me answer a question that you A: clearly know the answer to, and B: is utterly irrelevant? I'm not sure why it matters whether a candidate endorsed by a single group flipped a seat.

The group a candidate belongs to doesn't matter, and never has in my view; the policies a candidate stands for does, and by any reasonable metric, progressives flipped seats this November.

 

[Tom Horn]

sort of tough given she's not in the House


you do understand that is a requirement to be the Speaker of the HOUSE?

as is to be from this nation to be president

 

[Phys251]

Why would you have me answer a question that you A: clearly know the answer to,

Because if you can't admit the truth to one lowly DP member, then how much worse will it be for you when the media cranks up the scrutiny far beyond anything I could possibly muster? Example, this: https://www.businessinsider.com/progressive-insurgents-lost-big-in-the-midterms-2018-11

and B: is utterly irrelevant?

Nope. It matters. If you guys can't look within yourselves to figure out why you cannot flip seats when we were able to flip DOZENS, then that is you guys' problem and you guys' problem alone. Leave the reckless finger-pointing to tRump supporters, 'mkay?

 

[Surrealistik]

Because if you can't admit the truth to one lowly DP member, then how much worse will it be for you when the media cranks up the scrutiny far beyond anything I could possibly muster? Example, this: https://www.businessinsider.com/progressive-insurgents-lost-big-in-the-midterms-2018-11

I have no problems with admitting the truth that Our Revolution specifically didn't flip seats; as I said, I'm not sure what the relevance of the question is.

Moreover, I'm not sure how failing to win red states, in some cases deeply red states (while closing the gap substantially) somehow translates into progressive failure.

Ojeda for example, closed a massive gap of a 44 point differential to a mere 12, the greatest gain of _any_ candidate in the midterms in probably the most hostile riding in the country all without budging an inch from his progressive principles which is more or less miraculous, but I suppose to you, that's an unqualified hands down fail because it's politically expedient/convenient to consider it as such.

Nope. It matters. If you guys can't look within yourselves to figure out why you cannot flip seats when we were able to flip DOZENS, then that is you guys' problem and you guys' problem alone. Leave the reckless finger-pointing to tRump supporters, 'mkay?

Since when were you under the impression that Our Revolution was somehow the sole totality of the progressive movement? As per that article I linked you, progressives did indeed flip many seats, and the only way you could at all conclude otherwise is to apply rather disingenuous, self-serving metrics to claim progressive wins as centrist ones, nevermind wholesale discounting of substantial inroads progressives have made into some of the most hostile ridings in the country. Lastly, the simple fact is that there were many more centrist/conservative candidates than progressive ones, so it shouldn't surprise that, in the end, they had more flips.

And since when did wins in 2018 absolve your camp of complete and total responsibility for your historic failures in 2010 onward? Or somehow suggest that the best way forward is to stick to the same sort of policy/approach that resulted in those failures? It's not sufficient to be less bad than the Repubs, and even if it was, we can do far better.

 

[Xelor]

Which brings up the obvious question: Why are you here?

To collect information about the communications and thoughts, and patterns thereof, of people (not specific individuals, but folks in general) who participate in Internet forum discussions.

 

[Hawkeye10]

To collect information about the communications and thoughts, and patterns thereof, of people (not specific individuals, but folks in general) who participate in Internet forum discussions.

You do miss points with depressing regularity.

 

[Phys251]

I have no problems with admitting the truth that Our Revolution specifically didn't flip seats; as I said, I'm not sure what the relevance of the question is.

Good. The point is, all their bluster of revolution and progressivism and anti-bladda-bladda-whatever they're going on about nowadays means nothing if they can't flip a single House seat out of dozens of opportunities. Or if that's not simple enough, they're talk. All talk. So little action, except of course when they want to kneecap fellow Democrats. Kind of makes you wonder whose side they're on.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Will Pelosi hold on?

Will they pick a guy like Schiff?

Will they go with a hardcore Progressive like Grijalva?

Nadler?

Haleem Jeffries?

Luis Gutierrez?

Elijah Cummings?

I picked Schiff, but only because he's the only one in Congress that I like even less than Pelosi, so it very well could be him knowing my luck.

 

[Surrealistik]

Good. The point is, all their bluster of revolution and progressivism and anti-bladda-bladda-whatever they're going on about nowadays means nothing if they can't flip a single House seat out of dozens of opportunities. Or if that's not simple enough, they're talk. All talk. So little action, except of course when they want to kneecap fellow Democrats. Kind of makes you wonder whose side they're on.

Oh brother, more 'they're actually Russian/Republican plants/dupes/tools/etc' conspiracy theory nonsense again.

I think you have to come to an understanding that OR just happens to be one segment of a much broader movement and are not the face of, nor are even representative of the totality of progressives; the failure of OR to flip seats is not somehow indicative of the failure of the broader movement which has made substantial progress and has grown massively and exponentially in terms of power and size in the two (2) years it has existed, above and beyond its wins this mid-term.

Moreover, though flipping seats is certainly the main thing, it's not everything, and I am happy to see centrists/blue dogs displaced by progressive candidates with a better finger on the pulse of the general electorate, or at the very least their constituencies who will fight for substantive change and popular policy over donor approved incrementalism; for the first mid-term ever of a 2 year old movement (particularly one that has been fighting an uphill battle against cradle strangling, wagon circling establishment Dems), this has absolutely been an excellent showing.

 

[Phys251]

Oh brother, more 'they're actually Russian/Republican plants/dupes/tools/etc' conspiracy theory nonsense again.

LMAO I said nothing of the sort. Please, try to read the words that are actually on the screen, not the ones that the aliens are planting...somewhere.

I am arguing from facts. It is not my fault that you do not like these facts. But then again, this is what I have come to expect from your camp.

I think you have to come to an understanding that OR just happens to be one segment of a much broader movement and are not the face of, nor are even representative of the totality of progressives; the failure of OR to flip seats is not somehow indicative of the failure of the broader movement which has made substantial progress and has grown massively and exponentially in terms of power and size in the two (2) years it has existed, above and beyond its wins this mid-term.

OR's decisive failures are just one piece of the puzzle. Another is this (I'm posting it again in hopes that you'll actually read it this time and not dismiss it just cause you don't agree with it):

https://www.businessinsider.com/progressive-insurgents-lost-big-in-the-midterms-2018-11

And then, you finally blow your cover:

Moreover, though flipping seats is certainly the main thing, it's not everything,

ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING ME. Well there you go, folks. This one clearly didn't think that the most important midterm election in decades was a must-win election. This one has badly misjudged who the real enemy is.

Get out of the way. Get the **** out of the way and let those of us who actually want to win keep winning. Cause we figured out how to win, and we're gonna do it again. You didn't.