Heath Shuler (D-NC) to challenge Nancy Pelosi

[Keystone Phil]

If Phil's referring to health care reform, it's not exactly unpopular. It's at about 50/50 in the polls now.

50/50? I doubt that.

The CNN poll showed 47/48 split between the "retain and expand" and "repeal" options.

That's not necessarily opposing it though. Those favoring a total repeal have always been fewer in numbers than those opposing it.

Whatever the case, I don't think you can honestly tell me that passing that legislation helped Pelosi and the Dems from an electoral standpoint this year.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This will go nowhere. Pelosi was also Democratic leader when the Democrats had their huge 2006 and 2008 gains. The losses in the House have more to do with the pathetic Presidency and the pathetic Senate than the not so pathetic House, anyways.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If Phil's referring to health care reform, it's not exactly unpopular. It's at about 50/50 in the polls now.

50/50? I doubt that.

The CNN poll showed 47/48 split between the "retain and expand" and "repeal" options.

That's not necessarily opposing it though. Those favoring a total repeal have always been fewer in numbers than those opposing it.

Whatever the case, I don't think you can honestly tell me that passing that legislation helped Pelosi and the Dems from an electoral standpoint this year.

It would've probably been worse if nothing at all had been passed.

[Landslide Lyndon]

If Phil's referring to health care reform, it's not exactly unpopular. It's at about 50/50 in the polls now.

50/50? I doubt that.

The CNN poll showed 47/48 split between the "retain and expand" and "repeal" options.

That's not necessarily opposing it though. Those favoring a total repeal have always been fewer in numbers than those opposing it.

Whatever the case, I don't think you can honestly tell me that passing that legislation helped Pelosi and the Dems from an electoral standpoint this year.

Medicare and Medicaid were also unpopular when passed.
Pelosi and the Democrats did what they thought was right, not electorally advantageous.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Phil you need to make up your mind, either people didn't vote Democrat because they didn't like Pelosi, or because they didn't like the Democratic agenda. If you say the agenda was the problem then obviously it wouldn't have mattered who their leader was, they'd have lost anyway. If Pelosi was the main reason people voted Republican and Democrats had done a lot better without her, then your basicly saying people didn't find the agenda that objectable.

[Keystone Phil]

Phil you need to make up your mind, either people didn't vote Democrat because they didn't like Pelosi, or because they didn't like the Democratic agenda. If you say the agenda was the problem then obviously it wouldn't have mattered who their leader was, they'd have lost anyway. If Pelosi was the main reason people voted Republican and Democrats had done a lot better without her, then your basicly saying people didn't find the agenda that objectable.

Uh...Pelosi pushed an agenda that the public didn't like. Pelosi was just especially polarizing while pushing that agenda.

Medicare and Medicaid were also unpopular when passed.
Pelosi and the Democrats did what they thought was right, not electorally advantageous.

I know you don't want to concede a single point to me but, again, this isn't time for party talking points. We're discussing Pelosi and the agenda as an electoral liability. The "what is right" debate is for another time and place and you know it.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Medicare and Medicaid were also unpopular when passed.
Pelosi and the Democrats did what they thought was right, not electorally advantageous.

I know you don't want to concede a single point to me but, again, this isn't time for party talking points. We're discussing Pelosi and the agenda as an electoral liability. The "what is right" debate is for another time and place and you know it.

What I said isn't a talking point, it's the historical reality. Look up what happened at the 1966 midterms.

And I forgot to tell you before that your comparison of HCR with the Iraq War is ridiculous.
Bush didn't campaign on waging war with Iraq .
And HCR hasn't been enacted yet, so it's impossible to know if the voters don't like it. They don't like what they hear (Socialized Medicine!, Death Panels!) but most of them don't have a clue about the actual provisions of the bill.

[Keystone Phil]

What I said isn't a talking point, it's the historical reality. Look up what happened at the 1966 midterms.

It's a talking point because we're discussing its electoral impact and you're refusing to admit that it's unpopular.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You told me it can't be unpopular because it was a popular proposal two years ago. I'm saying that people sometimes change their minds when they find out more about an issue. It doesn't matter if Bush didn't campaign on waging a war with Iraq (which he actually did in 2002 and it's hilarious that you aren't familiar with that or maybe just conveniently forgot). That has nothing to do with my point. The point remains that a policy can be popular at one point and unpopular as debate continues and circumstances change.

[Landslide Lyndon]

What I said isn't a talking point, it's the historical reality. Look up what happened at the 1966 midterms.

It's a talking point because we're discussing its electoral impact and you're refusing to admit that it's unpopular.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You told me it can't be unpopular because it was a popular proposal two years ago. I'm saying that people sometimes change their minds when they find out more about an issue. It doesn't matter if Bush didn't campaign on waging a war with Iraq (which he actually did in 2002 and it's hilarious that you aren't familiar with that or maybe just conveniently forgot). That has nothing to do with my point. The point remains that a policy can be popular at one point and unpopular as debate continues and circumstances change.

1)We presented you with a poll that shows the electorate being split on HCR. It's neither popular or unpopular. Most people admit that they don't really know what's in the bill.
 
2)Bush didn't campaign on war, he was saying to the last minute that it was a last resort (of course we now know he was lying).
The policy wasn't unpopular. What changed from 2008 is that Democrats were in power and blamed for the economy, the sausage making of the bill was very public and dragged on forever, and that millions of dollars were poured by the insurance companies to defeat the bill.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Most of the Democrats that lost were the ones who voted against health care reform.

[Keystone Phil]

1)We presented you with a poll that shows the electorate being split on HCR. It's neither popular or unpopular. Most people admit that they don't really know what's in the bill.

And I told you already that that's one poll and it asks about repealing the bill. It's not the same thing. Again, you conveniently ignore my point.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bush absolutely campaigned on the war in 2002 but, again, that's not the point. The debate about the war shows that an idea can be popular at one point and unpopular later.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...and the fact that most Americans do not support the bill. You cite their support of the general idea of making sure all Americans can get health insurance. That's great. Americans can be in favor of general ideas; when it comes to getting it done, they don't support the President's plan.

Even if they did support the specific plan in 2008 (which they didn't), they can come to oppose the idea after the debate rages on.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Phil you need to make up your mind, either people didn't vote Democrat because they didn't like Pelosi, or because they didn't like the Democratic agenda. If you say the agenda was the problem then obviously it wouldn't have mattered who their leader was, they'd have lost anyway. If Pelosi was the main reason people voted Republican and Democrats had done a lot better without her, then your basicly saying people didn't find the agenda that objectable.

Uh...Pelosi pushed an agenda that the public didn't like. Pelosi was just especially polarizing while pushing that agenda.

Ah but was she the man behind the agenda? Would the agenda be different with another Speaker? The house might have passed a more moderate HCR with a more moderate Democrat as Speaker, but I doubt that HCR would have been any more popular than this one, and I doubt the loss would have been any lesser. Either you're saying the voters failed the entire Democratic agenda, in which case it doesn't matter if their future leader is Pelosi or a horse, or they just failed Pelosi's personal agenda.

So let me ask you again. Was it the Democrat's ideas and policies that failed, or was it their leadership? Do you believe the Democrats would have maintained the House if they had a Speaker Hoyser instead of Pelosi?  

[DrScholl]

Most of the Democrats that lost were the ones who voted against health care reform.

I found that to be very telling. For many, I don't think it matters if they voted yes or no on reform, they were still going to be voted out regardless because of the economy.

[Keystone Phil]

So let me ask you again. Was it the Democrat's ideas and policies that failed, or was it their leadership? Do you believe the Democrats would have maintained the House if they had a Speaker Hoyser instead of Pelosi?  

I think it can be combination of both and if they had a Speaker that wasn't as controversial (Ms. "We have to pass the bill before we know what's in it"), I think the losses wouldn't have been as great.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

As noted though, most of the Democrats who lost were Fake Democrats. Yes sadly we did lose some good Real Democrats (like Perriello, Oberstar and the super-ultra-mega-epic legendary Freedom Fighter Alan Grayson), but it wasn't pro-Pelosi Real Democrats who suffered mostly.

[Keystone Phil]

As noted though, most of the Democrats who lost were Fake Democrats. Yes sadly we did lose some good Real Democrats (like Perriello, Oberstar and the super-ultra-mega-epic legendary Freedom Fighter Alan Grayson), but it wasn't pro-Pelosi Real Democrats who suffered mostly.

Yes because now those types are mostly restricted to very Democratic districts anyway. 

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

This will make the Democrats look even worse when they reelect her over a legitimate challenger. The GOP can claim they never changed in 2012 if the economy is still sputtering.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This will make the Democrats look even worse when they reelect her over a legitimate challenger. The GOP can claim they never changed in 2012 if the economy is still sputtering.

The Republicans are a batsh**t crazy extremist party of nothing but no, and they gained 60+ seats so the last thing the Democrats should do is be even more of useless moderate heroes.

[Keystone Phil]

This will make the Democrats look even worse when they reelect her over a legitimate challenger. The GOP can claim they never changed in 2012 if the economy is still sputtering.

The Republicans are a batsh**t crazy extremist party of nothing but no, and they gained 60+ seats so the last thing the Democrats should do is be even more of useless moderate heroes.

You're right. Run to the other extreme and let's make see another twenty or so seats added to the GOP column.

[Хahar 🤔]

This will make the Democrats look even worse when they reelect her over a legitimate challenger. The GOP can claim they never changed in 2012 if the economy is still sputtering.

The Republicans are a batsh**t crazy extremist party of nothing but no, and they gained 60+ seats so the last thing the Democrats should do is be even more of useless moderate heroes.

You're right. Run to the other extreme and let's make see another twenty or so seats added to the GOP column.

If the Democrats actually stood for something instead of preaching wishy-washy nonsense, they'd do much better.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

This will make the Democrats look even worse when they reelect her over a legitimate challenger. The GOP can claim they never changed in 2012 if the economy is still sputtering.

The Republicans are a batsh**t crazy extremist party of nothing but no, and they gained 60+ seats so the last thing the Democrats should do is be even more of useless moderate heroes.

You're right. Run to the other extreme and let's make see another twenty or so seats added to the GOP column.

Plenty of Democrats who ran to the right did as bad or even worse than Obama in their districts. If they actually tried to debate the issues, call the Republican candidate out on their bullsh!t and of course act like "mavericks" on a few other issues, things could have turned out a little differently. It would be at least be more honorable than running away from your beliefs. Periello might have been beaten (by a very small margin for his district) but instead of most Democrats being apathetic about his loss, they want him to run for higher office because he made a principled stand.

I'm not arguing that Blue Dogs aren't necessary but in some of these races we did so poorly that it was worth a shot.

[DrScholl]

No one cares who the minority leader is, they probably won't even know who it is when 2012 rolls around, you don't build election strategy off the minority leader. The GOP really should more concerned with their own leadership in the House, which doesn't seem all that great.

[Keystone Phil]

The GOP really should more concerned with their own leadership in the House, which doesn't seem all that great.

Yet that apparently doesn't matter...

[Landslide Lyndon]

The GOP really should more concerned with their own leadership in the House, which doesn't seem all that great.

Yet that apparently doesn't matter...

It will matter when they launch the "hundreds of investigations" that people like Issa threaten to do, instead of working to improve the economy.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

The GOP really should more concerned with their own leadership in the House, which doesn't seem all that great.

Yet that apparently doesn't matter...

It will matter when they launch the "hundreds of investigations" that people like Issa threaten to do, instead of working to improve the economy.

Boehner's actually a very different guy than his image suggests. But yes having committees placed in the control of goons like Chaffetz, Issa and King is going to ruin them.