Who will be the new Speaker of the House?

[Unitedwestand13]

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.

If you think John Lewis should be the Speaker of the house, I would applaud that.

Also I would like to know what Democrat in congress has the ability to lead the caucus

 

[Surrealistik]

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.

It is absolutely a fact that this is a line of argument that has been used by your camp in an attempt to delegitimize us, and repeatedly at that (in fact I had this exact accusation leveled against me by Linc of this forum, a devout blue dog Dem, not too long ago).

And if you were arguing from facts, you would understand and appreciate the nuance of what actually happened during the midterms, and the _fact_ that OR is not _the_ progressive movement, and that it is not somehow an icon or barometer for or of its broader success.

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

OR's failure to flip seats is not a failure in totality, nevermind that again, it isn't indivisible from or exemplary of the progressive movement.

And, yes, I actually read this opinion piece; the argumentation is neither persuasive nor honest, though I can at least give it credit for attempting to balance itself out near the end by pointing out prominent centrist failures. The fact is that it is trying to ascribe abject, unqualified failure to progressive candidates running in tough ridings they were unlikely to win in the first place (an admission made by the article in its very first paragraph), while never acknowledging that more centrist/right leaning candidates may have and in some cases, very likely would have done even worse.

Again Ojeda is notable example; I don't have a crystal ball to peer into an alternate reality where a Blue Dog or centrist won his primary, but I would absolutely bet good money that not a single one of his milquetoast competitors would have come anywhere near achieving the astonishing feat he did despite his ultimate defeat.

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.

Um, so rotating out weak Dems that we feel will be A: less effective and B: pass disagreeable legislation for stronger ones is to somehow work against the party's electoral success, or misjudge who the enemy is?

First of all, the irony of this isn't lost on me as establishment Dems have treated us like the enemy within since day one, doing nothing but wagon circling and cradle strangling wherever they could in a desperate attempt to hold onto power in the wake of one of the greatest electoral losses ever experienced by this party that they are solely responsible for as they hypocritically (and thus laughably) called for 'unity'; this accusation is therefore just pure, shameless projection. Moreover, if it weren't for this blatant and seemingly irrepressible enmity towards us, my mistrust of the Third Way faction wouldn't be nearly as pronounced if at all existent. If you want to talk about the facts, the facts are that they have worked tirelessly to minimize and marginalize us, both openly and behind the scenes, and that this has naturally resulted in a desire for change.

Second, there is no shame or nefarious purpose or intent in turfing bad and disagreeable politicos; why the **** do you think primaries exist genius? We want A: to win, and B: to elect representatives that represent us. It just so happens that means in many cases, turfing weak Dems that happen to trend towards the right and centre; A and B aren't always and forever mutually exclusive (in fact they're usually not), and where they overlap, obviously we should choose to eject incumbent Dems. That having been said, if it were a straight, clear choice between winning, and selecting someone more representative, obviously I'd choose to win, unless of course the to be winner in question had a platform so unpalatable that it essentially defeated the point of doing so.

If anyone needs to get the **** out of the way, it's you guys. Pound for pound, we've got the policy that factually resonates with the broader populace and thus the way back to the White House and Senate; y'know, that you guys lost miserably.

Two years is only the beginning, and this in no way represents the limit of what we can achieve; let's see what happens over the next eight.

 

[Surrealistik]

If you think John Lewis should be the Speaker of the house, I would applaud that.

Also I would like to know what Democrat in congress has the ability to lead the caucus

John Lewis? Count me in.

 

[Anarchon]

Pelosi.

The Congressional Elites will keep their power.

That will piss Trump off like there's no tomorrow.

 

[Surrealistik]

That will piss Trump off like there's no tomorrow.

I think he'd be thankful for the electoral gift personally (and for good reason).

Then again, he isn't exactly bright and is *definitely* myopic.

 

[TheParser]

The Democrats will let Ms. Nancy continue for a while so as not to humiliate her and in order to thank her for her part in the fantastically successful blue wave.

Later, she will resign because of "health reasons" and be replaced by another woman (possibly someone of color).

The Democrats are on a roll. (With the migrants pouring across the border in droves, the Democrats will no longer have to worry about the Republicans, who have no future in the "new" United States of America.)

 

[Mycroft]

That will piss Trump off like there's no tomorrow.

Oh...I don't think so.

1. Trump knows that legislatively the House is a virtual lame duck even before they get started, so it doesn't matter who is Speaker.

2. Trump knows how to "push buttons". I think he'll have fun pushing hers.

3. Trump has gone through 2 years of Congressional Elites resisting his agenda. That's not going to change. Trump will keep on doing what he can.

4. Trump has more to worry about with the GOP Congressional Elites in the Senate screwing him over.

 

[tres borrachos]

Nancy Pelosi.

 

[TheGoverness]

Nancy Pelosi, probably. But I don't want her to be the SOTH. I'd rather have someone like Barbra Lee.

 

[Kreton]

Odds are it will be Pelosi but I hope it is someone else. I think that the best way Pelosi could serve the democratic party is to quietly step away.

 

[TheRepublican]

Pelosi duh

 

[Phys251]

It is absolutely a fact that this is a line of argument that has been used by your camp in an attempt to delegitimize us, and repeatedly at that (in fact I had this exact accusation leveled against me by Linc of this forum, a devout blue dog Dem, not too long ago).

Then maybe you should stop reacting to the slightest bit of criticism and start listening to it for once. For once.

And if you were arguing from facts, you would understand and appreciate the nuance of what actually happened during the midterms, and the _fact_ that OR is not _the_ progressive movement, and that it is not somehow an icon or barometer for or of its broader success.

You want to lecture me about facts despite having none? :lamo

Again Ojeda is notable example; I don't have a crystal ball to peer into an alternate reality where a Blue Dog or centrist won his primary, but I would absolutely bet good money that not a single one of his milquetoast competitors would have come anywhere near achieving the astonishing feat he did despite his ultimate defeat.

Ojeda didn't win.

Um, so rotating out weak Dems

Nice weasel word. :coffeepap

First of all, the irony of this isn't lost on me as establishment Dems have treated us like the enemy within since day one

And there it is again. Proof that you do not understand who the real enemy is.

Second, there is no shame or nefarious purpose or intent in turfing bad and disagreeable politicos; why the **** do you think primaries exist genius? We want A: to win, and B: to elect representatives that represent us. It just so happens that means in many cases, turfing weak Dems that happen to trend towards the right and centre; A and B aren't always and forever mutually exclusive (in fact they're usually not), and where they overlap, obviously we should choose to eject incumbent Dems. That having been said, if it were a straight, clear choice between winning, and selecting someone more representative, obviously I'd choose to win, unless of course the to be winner in question had a platform so unpalatable that it essentially defeated the point of doing so.

If anyone needs to get the **** out of the way, it's you guys.

:2funny:

I really needed a laugh, and man oh man did you just deliver.

Blind faith. That's what you guys have. Blind faith. Progressives did not flip a single House seat and yet y'all have the nerve to lecture us on how to win despite the fact that we just won. Enough with the charade. Y'all have nothing, as can be seen by your complete inability to provide a step-by-step plan for successfully getting us to Socialist Utopia.

Pound for pound, we've got the policy that factually resonates with the broader populace and thus the way back to the White House and Senate; y'know, that you guys lost miserably.

Two years is only the beginning, and this in no way represents the limit of what we can achieve; let's see what happens over the next eight.

WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE! YEE-HAW!! Onto the land of unicorns, faeries, avocado toast, and pixie dust!

 

[Surrealistik]

Then maybe you should stop reacting to the slightest bit of criticism and start listening to it for once. For once.

Excuse me? So the fact that Linc (and other people from your camp) make completely absurd, literally Alex Jones tier accusations means I'm supposed to start listening to you guys?

You want to lecture me about facts despite having none? :lamo

I just laid down several very salient ones in the very post you are quoting. At this point your condescension on 'not having facts' is getting more than a little ironic.

Ojeda didn't win.

Again, you are utterly, and I can only assume willfully, missing the point.

The essence of your hatchet job article was a chastisement of progressives for failing to win in tough ridings per its opening paragraph.

On the whole it is effectively an opinion piece that fails to acknowledge:

A: the incredible inroads made in these ridings, including ones that were nigh impossible to take per Ojeda's where progressives landed some of the greatest point gains in the entirety of the mid terms.

B: the fact that a conservative/moderate alternative likely wouldn't have performed better, and there is evidence to suggest that per the dismal performance of past moderate/blue dog candidates (which to be fair, even this article at least _touches_ on in a sparing admission, though without going into the details that would undermine its own conclusions).

C: the fact that the vast majority of seats flipped by moderates/blue dogs were in areas that were already closely contested; not nigh impossible ridings like Ojeda's or Beto's.

Nice weasel word. :coffeepap

'Weak' isn't a weasel word; it happens to be true.

And there it is again. Proof that you do not understand who the real enemy is.

If you want to talk facts, it is an absolute, demonstrable fact that the establishment wing has worked to thwart and marginalize the party's fledgling progressive elements repeatedly while calling for unity.

How on earth does recognizing this, or wanting to replace establishment Dems with better, more capable candidates mean that I'm incapable or have not identified the Republicans as the enemy? You are being absolutely ridiculous.

Blind faith. That's what you guys have. Blind faith. Progressives did not flip a single House seat and yet y'all have the nerve to lecture us on how to win despite the fact that we just won. Enough with the charade. Y'all have nothing, as can be seen by your complete inability to provide a step-by-step plan for successfully getting us to Socialist Utopia.

Except we did flip seats per the article I quoted; here, I'll post it again for your benefit/reference, since you clearly didn't read it the first time: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...emocrats-midterms_us_5be9a4cce4b044bbb1a6c979

Beyond that, the tremendous progress made by progressives in solid red bastions cannot be denied by anyone reasonable.

Third, these achievements were all done in the time span of less than two years; it took your Third Way/New Dem wing at least 15 to hijack the party from the traditional FDR progressives; given the progress made thus far, we're right on schedule to take it back, and more importantly, be in a far better position to beat the Republicans.

Lastly, I'm not at all sure what you're on about; socialist utopia? How about tried and proven electoral and regulatory reforms, healthcare and post-secondary education programs that have achieved great success in the rest of the developed world? Y'know, the things that have let other countries surpass us in quality of life, longevity, and so on for decades now as our own life expectancy and living standards decline.

WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE! YEE-HAW!! Onto the land of unicorns, faeries, avocado toast, and pixie dust!

It wasn't my camp that caused us to lose every last chamber of federal governance, including the SCOTUS, to Republican majorities over a period of 8 years; that's all on you guys, and acting like an absolute child isn't going to change that fact whatsoever. The Third Way Dem brand of so-called 'pragmatism/realism' is directly and almost wholly responsible for this outcome; not the progressives which didn't even exist as a political force until recently.

 

[Phys251]

Excuse me? So the fact that Linc (and other people from your camp) make completely absurd, literally Alex Jones tier accusations means I'm supposed to start listening to you guys?

I just laid down several very salient ones in the very post you are quoting. At this point your condescension on 'not having facts' is getting more than a little ironic.

Again, you are utterly, and I can only assume willfully, missing the point.

The essence of your hatchet job article was a chastisement of progressives for failing to win in tough ridings per its opening paragraph.

Your projection destroys any credibility you feel that you are entitled to.

On the whole it is effectively an opinion piece that fails to acknowledge:

A: the incredible inroads made in these ridings, including ones that were nigh impossible to take per Ojeda's where progressives landed some of the greatest point gains in the entirety of the mid terms.

B: the fact that a conservative/moderate alternative likely wouldn't have performed better, and there is evidence to suggest that per the dismal performance of past moderate/blue dog candidates (which to be fair, even this article at least _touches_ on in a sparing admission, though without going into the details that would undermine its own conclusions).

C: the fact that the vast majority of seats flipped by moderates/blue dogs were in areas that were already closely contested; not nigh impossible ridings like Ojeda's or Beto's.

Yet again you fail to understand both where the flips happened and who flipped them. The plurality of "flippers" were women in suburban districts. Not progressives in the urban cores. And many of those were seats that used to be safely Republican. For example, Tom Price used to repeatedly win GA-06 by double-digit margins. Now it's been flipped by a woman who ran on gun safety reform as well as healthcare reform (NOT single-payer).

'Weak' isn't a weasel word; it happens to be true.

If you want to talk facts, it is an absolute, demonstrable fact that the establishment wing has worked to thwart and marginalize the party's fledgling progressive elements repeatedly while calling for unity.

How on earth does recognizing this, or wanting to replace establishment Dems with better, more capable candidates mean that I'm incapable or have not identified the Republicans as the enemy? You are being absolutely ridiculous.

Let me repeat your own words back to you so that you can clearly see them for yourself. You said--and this is a direct quote:

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

You said that. You believe that winning back the House was not a primary objective. Your words.

You choose not to understand who the real enemy is. And the Russian trolls take advantage.

Except we did flip seats per the article I quoted; here, I'll post it again for your benefit/reference, since you clearly didn't read it the first time: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...emocrats-midterms_us_5be9a4cce4b044bbb1a6c979

Beyond that, the tremendous progress made by progressives in solid red bastions cannot be denied by anyone reasonable.

:roll:

Let's see. Were Sharice Davids, Jason Crow, Anne Kirkpatrick, or Abigail Spanberger Justice Democrats? How about Our Revolution progressives? What I see from that short list is three out of four newcomers who are women. Women took back the House, just as said to you earlier. Yet again, you confirm one of my points. Women flipped the House.

(snipped to get all this into one post)

Where's your process? Where's your step-by-step solution on how to get there? All I hear from the progressives is platitudes. I NEVER hear a concrete plan that can survive scrutiny. Ever. I am DONE with platitudes. I am DONE with these polls that claim to show support for single-payer when they can't even get it going in the state of Vermont because of sticker shock. If you've got a step-by-step plan on how we might actually get single-payer nationwide then I want to hear it, AND I expect it to stand up to some scrutiny. Because if it can't stand up to a little scrutiny from this lowly DP member, what hope do you guys have at all of surviving the scrutiny of the media?

 

[Surrealistik]

Your projection destroys any credibility...

Which projection?

It's a fact that Blue Doggers/Third Way dems have regularly thrown about Jones tier accusations in attempts to discredit progressives.

It's also a fact that you actively refuse to acknowledge the nuance of what actually happened during the mid-terms, and by and large seem content to discount the facts that run contrary to your narrative. I at least can come to terms with what happened.

Yet again you fail to understand both where the flips happened...

Um, GA-06 was won by Trump on literally the narrowest of margins; 48% vs 47%.

If anything this proves my point that the vast majority of moderate/conservative Dem flips were in closely contested areas, or at least areas that weren't insurmountable in the way so many progressive ridings were; the very ridings your article blasted us for not winning.

Let me repeat your own words back to you...

I don't see how this belies my point whatsoever, or for that matter, can even be remotely construed as asserting that retaking the House wasn't the primary objective.

I literally said, per the very passage you quoted that: "flipping seats is certainly the main thing". How in the actual **** do you look at that and manage to come away with the idea that I don't think retaking the house is the main goal?

This is exactly the sort of willfully disingenuous nonsense that caused me to block you in the first place; already I'm regretting my decision to give you a second chance.

Yes, winning is obviously the main goal; beyond and secondary to that, I'm all for replacing politicos that I feel are or will be electoral liabilities or that can be substituted with more representative candidates without meaningfully threatening Dem electoral fortunes; this isn't difficult to understand.

Let's see. Were Sharice Davids, Jason Crow, Anne Kirkpatrick, or Abigail Spanberger Justice Democrats? How about Our Revolution progressives?... ...Women flipped the House.

You like to deal in facts, so maybe you could provide me with some; where is the evidence that it was their gender and not their policies that won the day?

Moreover, again, it isn't a question of alignment with groups, but an alignment of policy. I don't give a single solitary **** whether they're JDs, or ORs; being a progressive is a function of your policies, not which cards you carry.

Where's your process? Where's your step-by-step solution on how to get there?...

Step by step plans have been provided for such things as medicare for all; the only real obstacles are political ones, namely the Republicans, and the sort of insurer sponsored Dems (like that shill Joe Lieberman or Anthony Rendon) that resulted in the gutting of the ACA, which is what the progressive wing is actively working on clearing.

One of many examples of a breakdown: https://www.unitedmedicareadvisors.com/what-does-medicare-for-all-mean/

If anything needs work, it's the rollout/deployment. To responsibly introduce UHC, a phase in over a period of 5-10 would probably be best to allow the economy to recalibrate, though the current MFA bill has a more aggressive timeline of 4 years (likely due to the risk of political upheaval interrupting rollout if it were longer), where eligibility is gradually expanded.

Personally, in addition to the funding sources stated in the provided link, I believe that we need to roll back the ridiculous Bush and Trump tax cuts which will address $5-6 trillion of the estimated $13.8 - $32 trillion cost over ten years (depending on who you ask; Gerald Friedman on the low end, and Koch/right aligned Mercatus on the high end; my belief is that it's somewhere in the middle at $15 trillion per the Wall Street Journal's review of Friedman's numbers) outright. Further, I don't shy away from the fact that payroll taxes are likely to increase in order to make these ambitious programs possible; yes, it will cost the middle class something, and the burden will not be exclusively borne by the rich, but overall, the typical individual will get more out of the program than he pays into it, and certainly more than what a private insurer would provide.


Moreover, RE: Vermont, one of the key lynchpins of singlepayer/public option and indeed any govt actuated UHC is economy of scale, which gives the govt clout to negotiate prices and control costs, and is the main source of savings outside of administrative reduction; it should therefore be obvious to all but the most partisan that it is unworkable on a state level in the case of tiny economies like Vermont where that economy of scale simply doesn't exist. In California, where it likely could have worked due to the size of their economy, it was immediately spiked by corp Dem (and again, insurer sponsored) Anthony Rendon upon reaching the Senate without any discussion whatsoever of funding.

 

[JMR]

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.

Sometimes it takes a passage of time for legislation to become broadly popular. If Medicare for All had been broadly popular years ago, there would be no Obamacare, or 10 years of Republicans trying to sabotage it. Now people realize what they are up against, and the idea becomes more mainstream. Same with legalization of marijuana. That was certainly not broadly popular 8 years ago.
There are ideas that are now discussed which will be broadly popular 10 years from now. An effective Speaker keeps the caucus in line, to pass whatever legislation can be passed, considering the wall of opposition that exists.

 

[Anarchon]

Oh...I don't think so.

1. Trump knows that legislatively the House is a virtual lame duck even before they get started, so it doesn't matter who is Speaker.

2. Trump knows how to "push buttons". I think he'll have fun pushing hers.

3. Trump has gone through 2 years of Congressional Elites resisting his agenda. That's not going to change. Trump will keep on doing what he can.

4. Trump has more to worry about with the GOP Congressional Elites in the Senate screwing him over.

She's one of his swamp/deep state people he wanted to get rid of. Now she might be back in his face with power. Regardless of how he mitigates it, it's gotta rub him the wrong way.

 

[Phys251]

It's also a fact that you actively refuse to acknowledge the nuance of what actually happened during the mid-terms, and by and large seem content to discount the facts that run contrary to your narrative. I at least can come to terms with what happened.

It's also a fact that you actively refuse to acknowledge the nuance of what actually happened during the mid-terms, and by and large seem content to discount the facts that run contrary to your narrative. I at least can come to terms with what happened, because there's a lot to celebrate!

Um, GA-06 was won by Trump on literally the narrowest of margins; 48% vs 47%.

If anything this proves my point that the vast majority of moderate/conservative Dem flips were in closely contested areas, or at least areas that weren't insurmountable in the way so many progressive ridings were; the very ridings your article blasted us for not winning.

You know nothing about a district that had been going red by double-digit margins for decades. You know nothing about how so many people came together to finish what Jon Ossoff started a year and a half ago. Stop pretending that, yet again, you know things that you clearly do not.

I don't see how this belies my point whatsoever, or for that matter, can even be remotely construed as asserting that retaking the House wasn't the primary objective.

I literally said, per the very passage you quoted that: "flipping seats is certainly the main thing". How in the actual **** do you look at that and manage to come away with the idea that I don't think retaking the house is the main goal?

And yet you turned around and said something else. I think you tipped your hand and I caught you on it.

You like to deal in facts, so maybe you could provide me with some; where is the evidence that it was their gender and not their policies that won the day?

Oh, I don't know, maybe the fact that approximately TWO-THIRDS of them are women? Could have had something to do with it. Just maybe.

(exec. summary of MFA; website: https://www.unitedmedicareadvisors.com/what-does-medicare-for-all-mean/)

Alright there we go. I'll look at this and get back to you. Maybe not tonight though. And just so we're clear, you and I probably have a lot of common ground when it comes to things such as rolling back tax cuts for the superrich. Hell I wouldn't mind seeing us going back to the Nixon tax rates, when they were much higher for the superrich than they are now.

Moreover, RE: Vermont, one of the key lynchpins of singlepayer/public option and indeed any govt actuated UHC is economy of scale, which gives the govt clout to negotiate prices and control costs, and is the main source of savings outside of administrative reduction; it should therefore be obvious to all but the most partisan that it is unworkable on a state level in the case of tiny economies like Vermont where that economy of scale simply doesn't exist. In California, where it likely could have worked due to the size of their economy, it was immediately spiked by corp Dem (and again, insurer sponsored) Anthony Rendon upon reaching the Senate without any discussion whatsoever of funding.

But Vermont couldn't make it work. Not saying they won't, but they didn't. They didn't do themselves any favors by reelecting a moderate Republican governor.

And consider the case of the blue-ish state Colorado, who put single-payer on the ballot, only to have it CRUSHED by the popular vote. The killer was the 10% payroll tax.

 

[Phys251]

Sometimes it takes a passage of time for legislation to become broadly popular. If Medicare for All had been broadly popular years ago, there would be no Obamacare, or 10 years of Republicans trying to sabotage it. Now people realize what they are up against, and the idea becomes more mainstream. Same with legalization of marijuana. That was certainly not broadly popular 8 years ago.
There are ideas that are now discussed which will be broadly popular 10 years from now. An effective Speaker keeps the caucus in line, to pass whatever legislation can be passed, considering the wall of opposition that exists.

This was the genius of Obamacare, to move the Overton window of views on healthcare in America to the left. When it was passed it was considered almost revolutionary; now it is the norm, and single-payer or Medicare for all are not as distant any more. But there remain some giant obstacles to them, as I am trying to point out to Surrealistik. My concerns are not the end result (well at least not for single-payer) but how we get there.

 

[Mycroft]

She's one of his swamp/deep state people he wanted to get rid of. Now she might be back in his face with power. Regardless of how he mitigates it, it's gotta rub him the wrong way.

Without a Senate, she has very little power...and a lot of Party liability.

 

[Surrealistik]

It's also a fact that you actively refuse to acknowledge the nuance of what actually happened during the mid-terms, and by and large seem content to discount the facts that run contrary to your narrative. I at least can come to terms with what happened, because there's a lot to celebrate!

There has thus far been nothing I've refused to acknowledge; again, this is just another childish attempt to script flip; "I know you are but what am I" in so many words.

You know nothing about a district that had been going red by double-digit margins for decades. You know nothing about how so many people came together to finish what Jon Ossoff started a year and a half ago. Stop pretending that, yet again, you know things that you clearly do not.

A district is only as hard to flip as its last major election per 2016 and Ossoff's special election where the margin was essentially razor thin in both cases; at the time of the midterms this wasn't some kind of impenetrable red bastion or even close to being one.

Also the hypocrisy/irony of dismissing Ojeda's accomplishments while exalting Ossoff's despite their mutual failure isn't lost on me.

And yet you turned around and said something else. I think you tipped your hand and I caught you on it.

What are you even talking about? As I literally just demonstrated, I was very clear and explicit that the flips were of primary concern; your seeming refusal or inability to comprehend this isn't my problem.

Oh, I don't know, maybe the fact that approximately TWO-THIRDS of them are women? Could have had something to do with it. Just maybe.

That's not at all evidence that their gender specifically was the primary factor, and somehow outweighed their platform/ideological stances.

Alright there we go. I'll look at this and get back to you. Maybe not tonight though. And just so we're clear, you and I probably have a lot of common ground when it comes to things such as rolling back tax cuts for the superrich. Hell I wouldn't mind seeing us going back to the Nixon tax rates, when they were much higher for the superrich than they are now.

I'm sure we do, and I certainly wouldn't mind a return to the Nixon/Kennedy tax levels.

But Vermont couldn't make it work. Not saying they won't, but they didn't. They didn't do themselves any favors by reelecting a moderate Republican governor.

And consider the case of the blue-ish state Colorado, who put single-payer on the ballot, only to have it CRUSHED by the popular vote. The killer was the 10% payroll tax.

Right, and I explained why they couldn't make it work: because they were, due to the lack of economy of scale and thus bargaining power, unable to realize the savings that makes SP so attractive in the first place.

For similar reasons it wouldn't work well in Colorado.

SP by far works best as a national level project because the federal government, not coincidentally has by far the most negotiating power, and can levy this on behalf of the smaller states that lack it.

 

[Greenbeard]

That's a shame. Because I think we need to run moderate and conservative Dems in matching districts. Look what Conner Lamb pulled-off? Let's truly have a big-tent, and run the best candidates to fit their specific district.

I for one believe there's plenty of room under the Dem tarpaulin, and I welcome it!

It is a big tent, which requires someone who knows how to handle a diverse caucus. In the 111th, 54 members of the Dem caucus were Blue Dogs and Pelosi still managed to get through an impressive legislative agenda.

 

[Surrealistik]

Sometimes it takes a passage of time for legislation to become broadly popular. If Medicare for All had been broadly popular years ago, there would be no Obamacare, or 10 years of Republicans trying to sabotage it. Now people realize what they are up against, and the idea becomes more mainstream. Same with legalization of marijuana. That was certainly not broadly popular 8 years ago.
There are ideas that are now discussed which will be broadly popular 10 years from now. An effective Speaker keeps the caucus in line, to pass whatever legislation can be passed, considering the wall of opposition that exists.

MFA didn't really have a movement behind it at the time of Obama's election, nor did marijuana legalization. However, support for the public option, that Obama campaigned on and for, was immense and consistent: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/public-support-for-public-option/ Unfortunately the donors won in the end when insurance shill Dems, most notably that snake Joe Lieberman, spiked it.

Public support sadly and unfortunately doesn't necessitate passage into law, because big donors and private lobby groups clearly have outsized and disproportionate influence on the legislative process. Moreover, paradigm shifts such as MFA require champions and movements; without them there's no hope they'll see fruition. It is certainly no coincidence that these things became mainstream not long after Bernie Sanders made them pillars of his campaign, and about singlehandedly pushed the Overton window on these issues.

That all having been said, these ideas are already broadly popular now, and thus need no Speaker to somehow bring them in line with what the public will bear ten years down the road (where they'll almost certainly be even more popular).

I mean, let's keep it real: Pelosi isn't foot dragging on these things because she secretly supports these initiatives and is somehow playing the long game/4 dimensional chess to eventually get them passed when the time is right; she's doing it because that's what her donors want her to do and where her personal convictions are, as well as that of the establishment elements of the party more broadly.

 

[JoanDavis]

Whoever the dems pick - that person will be third in line to the presidency. Yep we might get our first female president if (hopefully) trump and pence are impeached and thrown in jail for treason.

 

[JMR]

MFA didn't really have a movement behind it at the time of Obama's election, nor did marijuana legalization. However, support for the public option, that Obama campaigned on and for, was immense and consistent: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/public-support-for-public-option/ Unfortunately the donors won in the end when insurance shill Dems, most notably that snake Joe Lieberman, spiked it.

Public support sadly and unfortunately doesn't necessitate passage into law, because big donors and private lobby groups clearly have outsized and disproportionate influence on the legislative process. Moreover, paradigm shifts such as MFA require champions and movements; without them there's no hope they'll see fruition. It is certainly no coincidence that these things became mainstream not long after Bernie Sanders made them pillars of his campaign, and about singlehandedly pushed the Overton window on these issues.

That all having been said, these ideas are already broadly popular now, and thus need no Speaker to somehow bring them in line with what the public will bear ten years down the road (where they'll almost certainly be even more popular).

I mean, let's keep it real: Pelosi isn't foot dragging on these things because she secretly supports these initiatives and is somehow playing the long game/4 dimensional chess to eventually get them passed when the time is right; she's doing it because that's what her donors want her to do and where her personal convictions are, as well as that of the establishment elements of the party more broadly.

You make your Pelosi objections quite clear. Please share the name of your candidate for the position who is not beholden to donors and the establishment. I'm not thinking that's gonna work out so well, but maybe you see a clearer path.