Does Nancy Pelosi have to go?

[progressive85]

Personally, I think it's over.  I can't see them taking back the House with her at the top.  She's just too toxic.  I admire her for being the first woman Speaker, but she is like Hillary's clone on Capitol Hill.  Jim Clyburn should become the Speaker.  Or John Lewis.

[President Johnson]

Yes. She's done a decent job over her career in congress, but I think it is now time for a new generation of Demorats to lead the party. We need fresh new faces. I was really disappointed that Tim Ryan was not elected leader. Even the Republicans came up with a younger guy, no matter what you think of Ryan politically. Although that occurred under different circumstances.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Personally, I think it's over.  I can't see them taking back the House with her at the top.  She's just too toxic.  I admire her for being the first woman Speaker, but she is like Hillary's clone on Capitol Hill.  Jim Clyburn should become the Speaker.  Or John Lewis.

I don't think voters care that much about who the Speaker is to be honest when they vote for their representatives.

Having said that the Dems do need more charismatic leaders than Nancy and Chuck.

[Kingpoleon]

She's far too progressive for a congressional leader. Ben Ray Lujan, Joseph Crawley, or Linda Sanchez is the likely next Democratic leader. Clyburn is too old and Pelosi would never let Hoyer take it.

[DrScholl]

Most people don't even know who Nancy Pelosi is and it's not like control of Congress ever hinges on who will be Speaker. Besides, the selection of the Speaker relies a lot on who knows how to lead and negotiate in the caucus. Experience counts.

[Frodo]

She'll go when her nemesis Steny Hoyers goes.  Until then, we're stuck with them both. 

[Mr. Smith]

She's a good attack dog, very useful in that regard...but definitely past expiration as Minority Leader.

[Santander]

Despite my disagreement with her politics, I think she is very good at what she does. If there is such thing as a good time to make way though, now would be the time.

[Pandaguineapig]

The fact that she remains leader after 4 consecutive embarrassing losses just shows how addicted democrats are to identity politics

[Nyvin]

The fact that she remains leader after 4 consecutive embarrassing losses just shows how addicted democrats are to identity politics

They won the House vote in 2012.

[Pandaguineapig]

The fact that she remains leader after 4 consecutive embarrassing losses just shows how addicted democrats are to identity politics

They won the House vote in 2012.

But never came close to reclaiming the house. Winning safe districts in cities by massive margins does nothing for democrats

[Blackacre]

The fact that she remains leader after 4 consecutive embarrassing losses just shows how addicted democrats are to identity politics

They won the House vote in 2012.

But never came close to reclaiming the house. Winning safe districts in cities by massive margins does nothing for democrats

Nevertheless, the path is definitely there for Democrats to reclaim it, and it would be a more sustainable majority than the 2007-2011 facade that was built on the backs of dozens of rural red districts that they should've had no business winning.

In fact, the longest-lasting trifecta in modern US history has been for only four years--from 1976-1980, and 2002-2006. That's why I think Democrats retaking the House in 2018 has a much higher likelihood than many posters here are giving credit for. Americans have historically favored divided government, and the stage is already being set for a backlash of sorts. We just don't know how severe it could/will be yet.

well 1961-1969 was also a trifecta

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

She's been Democratic leader since 2003. It's time for some change.

[KingSweden]

She's been Democratic leader since 2003. It's time for some change.

This this this. Time is undefeated

[RINO Tom]

The fact that she remains leader after 4 consecutive embarrassing losses just shows how addicted democrats are to identity politics

They won the House vote in 2012.

But never came close to reclaiming the house. Winning safe districts in cities by massive margins does nothing for democrats

Nevertheless, the path is definitely there for Democrats to reclaim it, and it would be a more sustainable majority than the 2007-2011 facade that was built on the backs of dozens of rural red districts that they should've had no business winning.

In fact, the longest-lasting trifecta in modern US history has been for only four years--from 1976-1980, and 2002-2006. That's why I think Democrats retaking the House in 2018 has a much higher likelihood than many posters here are giving credit for. Americans have historically favored divided government, and the stage is already being set for a backlash of sorts. We just don't know how severe it could/will be yet.

You seem to be putting your eggs in the basket of the Democrats being this sensible, center-left party of smart and enlightened people who reject cultural populism, and even though I think that's laughably ridiculous, the bigger issue is it's a losing electoral strategy.  There is a very high suburban/affluent/wealthy floor for the GOP, and that showed in 2016.  Democrats can try to make all the inroads they want, but I think they're close to maxing out.  I'd even argue - over the next four decades - the GOP floor among wealthy Whites is higher than rural Whites.

Anyway, those districts weren't "red" then ... that's why they elected Democrats.  Democrats had a fifty-state strategy, and it worked.  It could easily work again if they ran proper candidates and invested in, ya know, winning the House/thought that was more important than seeming like the "cool" party.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

The fact that she remains leader after 4 consecutive embarrassing losses just shows how addicted democrats are to identity politics

They won the House vote in 2012.

But never came close to reclaiming the house. Winning safe districts in cities by massive margins does nothing for democrats

Nevertheless, the path is definitely there for Democrats to reclaim it, and it would be a more sustainable majority than the 2007-2011 facade that was built on the backs of dozens of rural red districts that they should've had no business winning.

In fact, the longest-lasting trifecta in modern US history has been for only four years--from 1976-1980, and 2002-2006. That's why I think Democrats retaking the House in 2018 has a much higher likelihood than many posters here are giving credit for. Americans have historically favored divided government, and the stage is already being set for a backlash of sorts. We just don't know how severe it could/will be yet.

You seem to be putting your eggs in the basket of the Democrats being this sensible, center-left party of smart and enlightened people who reject cultural populism, and even though I think that's laughably ridiculous, the bigger issue is it's a losing electoral strategy.  There is a very high suburban/affluent/wealthy floor for the GOP, and that showed in 2016.  Democrats can try to make all the inroads they want, but I think they're close to maxing out.  I'd even argue - over the next four decades - the GOP floor among wealthy Whites is higher than rural Whites.

Anyway, those districts weren't "red" then ... that's why they elected Democrats.  Democrats had a fifty-state strategy, and it worked.  It could easily work again if they ran proper candidates and invested in, ya know, winning the House/thought that was more important than seeming like the "cool" party.

Long-term I don't see how this is sustainable -- the Democratic "new wave" so to speak wouldn't agree to the policies that such districts support. It's more likely that the party splinters than for it to "moderate" in rural areas.

[DrScholl]

Gerrymandering has helped the Republican maintain the House, let's be real. Second, in 2006 Democrats picked up a ton of seats that voted for Bush, because it was a midterm under a Republican trifecta. That could happen in 2018, despite the Republican gerrymander. Pelosi isn't leader because of identity politics, she is leader because of experience at actually holding the gavel. With that said, having a white man from the Midwest didn't do much for Democrats when Richard Gephardt was leader, because Democrats failed to do well in the 2002 midterm. People don't vote based on who the minority leader is, they vote based on how the party in control is performing.

[Nyvin]

The fact that she remains leader after 4 consecutive embarrassing losses just shows how addicted democrats are to identity politics

They won the House vote in 2012.

But never came close to reclaiming the house. Winning safe districts in cities by massive margins does nothing for democrats

Nevertheless, the path is definitely there for Democrats to reclaim it, and it would be a more sustainable majority than the 2007-2011 facade that was built on the backs of dozens of rural red districts that they should've had no business winning.

In fact, the longest-lasting trifecta in modern US history has been for only four years--from 1976-1980, and 2002-2006. That's why I think Democrats retaking the House in 2018 has a much higher likelihood than many posters here are giving credit for. Americans have historically favored divided government, and the stage is already being set for a backlash of sorts. We just don't know how severe it could/will be yet.

You seem to be putting your eggs in the basket of the Democrats being this sensible, center-left party of smart and enlightened people who reject cultural populism, and even though I think that's laughably ridiculous, the bigger issue is it's a losing electoral strategy.  There is a very high suburban/affluent/wealthy floor for the GOP, and that showed in 2016.  Democrats can try to make all the inroads they want, but I think they're close to maxing out.  I'd even argue - over the next four decades - the GOP floor among wealthy Whites is higher than rural Whites.

Anyway, those districts weren't "red" then ... that's why they elected Democrats.  Democrats had a fifty-state strategy, and it worked.  It could easily work again if they ran proper candidates and invested in, ya know, winning the House/thought that was more important than seeming like the "cool" party.

Close to maxing out what?   And some parts of the country changed drastically from 2012 to 2016,  I wouldn't call anything a floor anymore.

[Figueira]

I would prefer someone else, but I doubt anyone cares who the party leaders are.

[Maxwell]

No. I say that because there is a simple question - who is better? Picking someone new for the sake of them being new is a really stupid thing to do.

[Bojack Horseman]

I would prefer someone else, but I doubt anyone cares who the party leaders are.

Nancy Pelosi's name is toxic to swing voters. Even in my district, which was surprisingly less safe than most thought it would be, they ran nonstop ads that seemed like a contest to see how mnay times they could say "Nancy Pelosi" in 30 seconds.

Demonizing names and faces works, and it's what the Democrats ought to do as well. Every ad for every election in 2017 and beyond needs to put the Republican's face up against Donald Trump's and say that if you vote for (insert Republican candidate here), you're voting for an empty suit rubber stamp for his extremist, unconstitutional agenda.

[Nyvin]

I won't miss her.   Someone else can take over the San Fran money machine.

[Green Line]

I like her.  She's Catholic.

[krazen1211]

I would prefer someone else, but I doubt anyone cares who the party leaders are.

Nancy Pelosi's name is toxic to swing voters. Even in my district, which was surprisingly less safe than most thought it would be, they ran nonstop ads that seemed like a contest to see how mnay times they could say "Nancy Pelosi" in 30 seconds.

Demonizing names and faces works, and it's what the Democrats ought to do as well. Every ad for every election in 2017 and beyond needs to put the Republican's face up against Donald Trump's and say that if you vote for (insert Republican candidate here), you're voting for an empty suit rubber stamp for his extremist, unconstitutional agenda.

Trump won a mere 230 Congressional districts. Romney won 226. Hmm.

[MT Treasurer]

That's what happened to Kander in Missouri. Obama's face morphed into Kander's. It was borderline racism, at least subconscious, frankly.

Um, what?

You have to actually see the ad to see what I mean, and I don't use the racist card nearly as much as many on the left do, mind you. They literally just turned Kander's face into Obama by slowly morphing his face into his and darkening his skin. When was the last time an ad like that happened to a white person being morphed into another white person's face? I'll wait. There's actually a relevant social paychology experiment to this to, but I have to look it up.

Do you have a link to that ad? I haven't heard anything about this. But even if it exists, I doubt it was intended to be racist. Kander is actually very liberal (and pretty close to Obama and Clinton), so linking him to a liberal Democratic president isn't racist.

EDIT: Oh, here is the story.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So yeah, it wasn't just Obama, but also Clinton, Pelosi and Sanders. Wonder why you left out that part?

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/14/politics/missouri-battleground-senate-race-jason-kander-roy-blunt/