Next Democratic Speaker of the House

[politicallefty]

I think Nancy Pelosi wants to try for one more term. If it isn't this year, as widely expected, I think there'll be one final push to regain the Speakership for her if it's Hillary Clinton on the top of the ticket in 2016. If it doesn't happen then, I would probably be expecting Pelosi to resign her leadership position after 14 years on the job (and probably her seat in Congress as well). However, I'd much rather see her serve alongside a President Hillary Clinton for at least the first two years.

It's really hard to say who Pelosi's heir apparent will be, as she doesn't have one. Hoyer is older than Pelosi and Clyburn is almost exactly her age. I wouldn't be surprised to see all of them leave at once, setting up some serious leadership fights. Becerra does seem to be the most obvious pick, and I think it's very possibly that Pelosi would fight for him to be her successor. I'd definitely be supportive of him.

[TDAS04]

If Democrats regain control in 2016, Pelosi probably.

[Skill and Chance]

I think the next big opportunity for Democrats will be in 2018 for the House. I think if they lose the Senate, they will probably retake it if they win the White House and don't think they will win the Senate without the White House and vice versa. If they do well in 2016, it will be hard to imagine a Democratic Majority in the House for years. I mean, the last time it took the Democrats 12 years and it took the Republicans 40 but I think that was mostly because of conservative democrats inflating their numbers.

If it happens by the early 2020's, probably Becerra.  The best chance IMO would be 2018 with an unpopular GOP president.  However, because I think the most likely outcome is a moderate Hillary win in 2016 (but not enough to swing the house) and a loss in 2020, I actually think the next Dem speaker of the house will be someone not yet in office, coming into power in the mid-late 2030's. 

I agree with this, but more like mid-late 2020's.

A Republican president from 2016-20 is almost a necessary part of any Democratic plan to win back the house before the 2030's.  I'm not sure if I buy into Hillary doing well enough to flip it on her own.  Democrats either need a reverse 2010 wave in 2018-20 so they get to draw a majority of the seats next redistricting cycle or they will just have to wait for their coalition to broaden or for the GOP to alienate rural voters for some reason.  Right now, they are in as bad a position as the mid-20th Century GOP, although a coalition of non-Tea Party R's and D's working together to pass things for future Democratic presidents is conceivable as happened in reverse back then.

[Blue3]

Redistricting depends on the party in control of the state legislatures, not the House.

And while gerrymandering can put one party at a great disadvantage, it's not fate. The Democrats could take back the House in 2016 or 2020.

[Person Man]

I think the next big opportunity for Democrats will be in 2018 for the House. I think if they lose the Senate, they will probably retake it if they win the White House and don't think they will win the Senate without the White House and vice versa. If they do well in 2016, it will be hard to imagine a Democratic Majority in the House for years. I mean, the last time it took the Democrats 12 years and it took the Republicans 40 but I think that was mostly because of conservative democrats inflating their numbers.

If it happens by the early 2020's, probably Becerra.  The best chance IMO would be 2018 with an unpopular GOP president.  However, because I think the most likely outcome is a moderate Hillary win in 2016 (but not enough to swing the house) and a loss in 2020, I actually think the next Dem speaker of the house will be someone not yet in office, coming into power in the mid-late 2030's.

I agree with this, but more like mid-late 2020's.

A Republican president from 2016-20 is almost a necessary part of any Democratic plan to win back the house before the 2030's.  I'm not sure if I buy into Hillary doing well enough to flip it on her own.  Democrats either need a reverse 2010 wave in 2018-20 so they get to draw a majority of the seats next redistricting cycle or they will just have to wait for their coalition to broaden or for the GOP to alienate rural voters for some reason.  Right now, they are in as bad a position as the mid-20th Century GOP, although a coalition of non-Tea Party R's and D's working together to pass things for future Democratic presidents is conceivable as happened in reverse back then.

That's the one thing that makes a Republican House Dynasty hard to imagine- I just don't see that many Republican house Moderate. Right now, I doubt there are more than half a dozen Republicans that could be reasonably considered moderate. Out of 235, I would say 5 are moderate, about 20 or 30 Mc Cainesque moderate and the rest are pretty much split between George W. Bush clones and nationalists.

The key to the Democratic dynasty of 1958 and 1992 was that they had a cadre of a few dozen Dixiecrats that were useful to the Republican president and could distance themselves from an unpopular Democratic president.  The Republicans don't have that. 

That being said, if they can't distance themselves from an unpopular R president, they will probably not make it. I can see the Democrats retaking the house if they are out of power for more than one or two midterms.

If they can't even win after that, I think they will to hit the reset button as a national party.

My guess is that Hillary will win, be instantly a lame duck and lose in 2020, and that the Republican successor will lose congress between 2022 and 2028. That will be a good run for the GOP. If the democrats have to wait any longer, they will probably be something new.

 
 

[Skill and Chance]

I think the next big opportunity for Democrats will be in 2018 for the House. I think if they lose the Senate, they will probably retake it if they win the White House and don't think they will win the Senate without the White House and vice versa. If they do well in 2016, it will be hard to imagine a Democratic Majority in the House for years. I mean, the last time it took the Democrats 12 years and it took the Republicans 40 but I think that was mostly because of conservative democrats inflating their numbers.

If it happens by the early 2020's, probably Becerra.  The best chance IMO would be 2018 with an unpopular GOP president.  However, because I think the most likely outcome is a moderate Hillary win in 2016 (but not enough to swing the house) and a loss in 2020, I actually think the next Dem speaker of the house will be someone not yet in office, coming into power in the mid-late 2030's.

I agree with this, but more like mid-late 2020's.

A Republican president from 2016-20 is almost a necessary part of any Democratic plan to win back the house before the 2030's.  I'm not sure if I buy into Hillary doing well enough to flip it on her own.  Democrats either need a reverse 2010 wave in 2018-20 so they get to draw a majority of the seats next redistricting cycle or they will just have to wait for their coalition to broaden or for the GOP to alienate rural voters for some reason.  Right now, they are in as bad a position as the mid-20th Century GOP, although a coalition of non-Tea Party R's and D's working together to pass things for future Democratic presidents is conceivable as happened in reverse back then.

That's the one thing that makes a Republican House Dynasty hard to imagine- I just don't see that many Republican house Moderate. Right now, I doubt there are more than half a dozen Republicans that could be reasonably considered moderate. Out of 235, I would say 5 are moderate, about 20 or 30 Mc Cainesque moderate and the rest are pretty much split between George W. Bush clones and nationalists.

The key to the Democratic dynasty of 1958 and 1992 was that they had a cadre of a few dozen Dixiecrats that were useful to the Republican president and could distance themselves from an unpopular Democratic president.  The Republicans don't have that. 

That being said, if they can't distance themselves from an unpopular R president, they will probably not make it. I can see the Democrats retaking the house if they are out of power for more than one or two midterms.

If they can't even win after that, I think they will to hit the reset button as a national party.

My guess is that Hillary will win, be instantly a lame duck and lose in 2020, and that the Republican successor will lose congress between 2022 and 2028. That will be a good run for the GOP. If the democrats have to wait any longer, they will probably be something new.

 
 

Well, there were already hints of this on the Republican side in 2013 with the fiscal cliff/Sandy relief and government shutdown.  There is also a sizeable minority of the GOP conference that wants immigration reform.  Now that Obama is pretty unpopular, all R's seem to be towing the party line more reliably again.  But I think fissures will really start to form when a more conservative speaker replaces Boehner.  I could see a lot of open cooperation with Hillary if she wins Obama 2008 style without flipping the House.

Also, if Tea Party sympathizing actually do get full control sometime soon and start rolling back the New Deal/Great Society programs, I could see a rural revolt flipping the House back to Dems. 

[Mister Mets]

If it happens, it would likely be Becerra.

He's under sixty, while the Democrats who have seniority over him are in their mid 70s now. They'll be in their late 70s in 2016.

Speaker Becerra, or even Minority Leader Becerra would give the Democratic party a prominent Hispanic spokesman, and he is also the next in line.

He also handles himself well in media appearances, always useful for one of the faces of the party.

[Person Man]

I think the next big opportunity for Democrats will be in 2018 for the House. I think if they lose the Senate, they will probably retake it if they win the White House and don't think they will win the Senate without the White House and vice versa. If they do well in 2016, it will be hard to imagine a Democratic Majority in the House for years. I mean, the last time it took the Democrats 12 years and it took the Republicans 40 but I think that was mostly because of conservative democrats inflating their numbers.

If it happens by the early 2020's, probably Becerra.  The best chance IMO would be 2018 with an unpopular GOP president.  However, because I think the most likely outcome is a moderate Hillary win in 2016 (but not enough to swing the house) and a loss in 2020, I actually think the next Dem speaker of the house will be someone not yet in office, coming into power in the mid-late 2030's.

I agree with this, but more like mid-late 2020's.

A Republican president from 2016-20 is almost a necessary part of any Democratic plan to win back the house before the 2030's.  I'm not sure if I buy into Hillary doing well enough to flip it on her own.  Democrats either need a reverse 2010 wave in 2018-20 so they get to draw a majority of the seats next redistricting cycle or they will just have to wait for their coalition to broaden or for the GOP to alienate rural voters for some reason.  Right now, they are in as bad a position as the mid-20th Century GOP, although a coalition of non-Tea Party R's and D's working together to pass things for future Democratic presidents is conceivable as happened in reverse back then.

That's the one thing that makes a Republican House Dynasty hard to imagine- I just don't see that many Republican house Moderate. Right now, I doubt there are more than half a dozen Republicans that could be reasonably considered moderate. Out of 235, I would say 5 are moderate, about 20 or 30 Mc Cainesque moderate and the rest are pretty much split between George W. Bush clones and nationalists.

The key to the Democratic dynasty of 1958 and 1992 was that they had a cadre of a few dozen Dixiecrats that were useful to the Republican president and could distance themselves from an unpopular Democratic president.  The Republicans don't have that. 

That being said, if they can't distance themselves from an unpopular R president, they will probably not make it. I can see the Democrats retaking the house if they are out of power for more than one or two midterms.

If they can't even win after that, I think they will to hit the reset button as a national party.

My guess is that Hillary will win, be instantly a lame duck and lose in 2020, and that the Republican successor will lose congress between 2022 and 2028. That will be a good run for the GOP. If the democrats have to wait any longer, they will probably be something new.

 
 

Well, there were already hints of this on the Republican side in 2013 with the fiscal cliff/Sandy relief and government shutdown.  There is also a sizeable minority of the GOP conference that wants immigration reform.  Now that Obama is pretty unpopular, all R's seem to be towing the party line more reliably again.  But I think fissures will really start to form when a more conservative speaker replaces Boehner.  I could see a lot of open cooperation with Hillary if she wins Obama 2008 style without flipping the House.

Also, if Tea Party sympathizing actually do get full control sometime soon and start rolling back the New Deal/Great Society programs, I could see a rural revolt flipping the House back to Dems. 

That's the big question. Are there many shadow Moderates in the House? I mean, there's a difference between behaving reasonably and having reasonable ideas. At the end of the day, almost every Republican will vote how they are told like "some alien hive mind". Back in the 70s and 80s, a Republican president had enough DINOs to work with. 

This question will soon be answered.

 If Hillary loses or she's a lame duck from day one because I am right about the Republicans being a conservative empire instead of a center-right coalition,  the Republicans, weather it is in 2016 or 2020, will probably make a credible attempt to repeal the welfare state and make civil rights irrelevant (like tabling immigration reform and civil rights modernization, creating laws and targeted regulation to protect constituents from  "reverse discrimination" and the building of an "ownership society" by turning social programs into lending programs). They will then be forced to defend that record and unless the democratic coalition collapses in the next ten years, they will lose the house.

On the other hand, if Hillary wins and starts cooperating with enough Independent Republicans to functionally govern, we could the Republicans becoming entrenched much like the democrats did in the 60s, 70s and 80s, even if they are unpopular.

[Vega]

More than likely Chris Van Hollen. Pelosi needs to get out of the way - actually she should have after 2012.

Actually, she should have left after the 2010 bloodbath.

[Blue3]

She was the best Speaker in years.

She must be hoping for the Dems hitting the House/Senate/WH trifecta again in 2016, for the privilege of having the a female Speaker and a female President at the same time, and to finish the policy agenda. Back in 2009-2010, it was the House that was effective and fast-moving, while the Senate and President wanted to slow things down to appease the Republicans. The mood of the Senate Democrats has changed a lot since then, especially indicative with Harry Reid getting rid of part of the filibuster. Obama knows better now. And Hillary wouldn't repeat Obama's early mistakes. If the Dems get the trifecta again in 2016, and Pelosi is Speaker, stuff will finally get done, and she knows that. She wants to be a part of history, and doesn't want her role in it to be over yet. And I'm with her.

[IceSpear]

I agree with the sentiment about giving Pelosi one more chance to see if we can take the House in 2016. If not, she (along with Hoyer and Clyburn) should hang it up and let some new blood get in.

[Blue3]

I think she also doesn't want Hoyer to become the Democrats' leader in the House, those two have a long rivalry.