CNN: 26 Million Reasons Why Pelosi Isn't Going Anywhere

[politicallefty]

I'm referring to her recent Sunday show interview on Fox with Chris Wallace.

She's 77 and has done her part (and NO, the agenda of the last Democratic congress did not reverse any significant macroeconomic trends that have been the norm from the 1980's to today; ergo that agenda shouldn't even be spoken in the same breath as the Great Society or the New Deal). Her unfavorability rating is near or worse than Donald Trump's and no amount of fundraising can make up for that (and as Kingnapoleon mentioned: there's numerous other Democrats in the House who could do a better job so why is she House Speaker again?)

I'm not aware of that interview.

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't agree with you. First of all, without Nancy Pelosi, I'm almost certain the ACA would not have become law. Secondly, the House during the 2009-2010 session moved some of the most progressive legislation since the Great Society. She passed the EFCA, cap-and-trade, and a far better healthcare form bill through the House. The House healthcare bill was far more expansive, including a public option and a larger Medicaid expansion. And now, the public paradigm has largely shifted to the view that healthcare is now a right. We call it Obamacare, but Pelosi had just as much influence (if not more) in its passage.

[DrScholl]

Democrats could install David Duke as minority leader and it still wouldn't make the white working class vote flip.

Exactly. Good choice on emphasizing those voters' racism too (David Duke). Here come the Republican and Bernie bro tears.

What on Earth are you talking about? I voted for Clinton in the primaries but yeah, I guess everybody who has objections to Pelosi is just a salty Berniebro.

I really think it's lost on people how bad of a taste Pelosi leaves in people's mouths of the Democratic Party, or at least House Democrats. There's a reason why Senate Democrats typically do much better than their House counterparts. She's literally the epitome of San Francisco liberal that Fox News hollers about. Imagine if Seth Moulton was the Democratic House leader. A young, photogenic Marine who happens to be a straight white male (from Massachusetts, but at least not from the freakin' city of San Francisco). It'd be a night and day difference. Honestly, if Pelosi were to step down before the midterms, it'd maybe even make a Democratic House takeover likely.

And there lies the bias. Thank you for showing the true gripe with Pelosi. Do you think Republicans can't find a way to attack a straight white man?  Don't fool yourself.

[DrScholl]

Democrats could install David Duke as minority leader and it still wouldn't make the white working class vote flip.

Exactly. Good choice on emphasizing those voters' racism too (David Duke). Here come the Republican and Bernie bro tears.

Of course, it's all about identity for them and nothing else.

Nope. Those people in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania voted for Trump be ause he was at least hitting populist talking points on trade. To call everyone who voted for Trump an angrywhite man is the type of SJW politics that Hillary ran and lost her campaign on. Run with that idea in 2020, and Democrats will lose badly.

Besides, many voters in those industrial states are two time Obama voters, so don't give me the angry white man stereotype, otherwise those industrial states will vote GOP for a long time to come, because they despise the identity politics Hillary ran on. "Vote for me because I'm a woman" was not a compelling argument, despite what you think.

As for Pelosi, she needs to go, now. Put up Tim Ryan, now. Bernie proved that you don't need to raise from bankers and corporations to run a strong campaign that by all rights, should've gone nowhere. That's the part people forget when talking about her fundraising abilities. That doesn't mean jack if it's raised from Wall Streeters and corporations.

For crap's sake, another diatribe about identity politics. You can't act like Trump didn't play identity politics with all his railing about immigration and calling immigrants rapists. But all of that is a moot point. Pelosi isn't going anywhere, so just get over it.

[Coraxion]

*sighs*

I think deep down inside, we all know that the GOP will gain 100 seats because of all the infighting among Democrats.

[mcmikk]

*sighs*

I think deep down inside, we all know that the GOP will gain 100 seats because of all the infighting among Democrats.

[BuckeyeNut]

I'll say it again: if Ryan or whoever really wants to compete in terms of members and money, he needs the backing of Delaney, of Polis, of Bloomberg, and those with pull among the Representatives.

Bloomberg isn't giving money to the DNC anytime soon.

Also pretty sure Ryan GOT Polis' support.

[Chief Justice Keef]

People can hate on her all they want, but she is better than Paul Ryan, who never seems to get any criticism. She even gets more hate than Dennis Hastert who is a child molester.

But is she really the best leader Democrats can get?

[Mr. Smith]

I'm referring to her recent Sunday show interview on Fox with Chris Wallace.

She's 77 and has done her part (and NO, the agenda of the last Democratic congress did not reverse any significant macroeconomic trends that have been the norm from the 1980's to today; ergo that agenda shouldn't even be spoken in the same breath as the Great Society or the New Deal). Her unfavorability rating is near or worse than Donald Trump's and no amount of fundraising can make up for that (and as Kingnapoleon mentioned: there's numerous other Democrats in the House who could do a better job so why is she House Speaker again?)

I'm not aware of that interview.

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't agree with you. First of all, without Nancy Pelosi, I'm almost certain the ACA would not have become law. Secondly, the House during the 2009-2010 session moved some of the most progressive legislation since the Great Society. She passed the EFCA, cap-and-trade, and a far better healthcare form bill through the House. The House healthcare bill was far more expansive, including a public option and a larger Medicaid expansion. And now, the public paradigm has largely shifted to the view that healthcare is now a right. We call it Obamacare, but Pelosi had just as much influence (if not more) in its passage.

But 2009-2010 was eons ago.

She's been moot since the 2014 midterms on getting anything done.

[Tintrlvr]

I'm referring to her recent Sunday show interview on Fox with Chris Wallace.

She's 77 and has done her part (and NO, the agenda of the last Democratic congress did not reverse any significant macroeconomic trends that have been the norm from the 1980's to today; ergo that agenda shouldn't even be spoken in the same breath as the Great Society or the New Deal). Her unfavorability rating is near or worse than Donald Trump's and no amount of fundraising can make up for that (and as Kingnapoleon mentioned: there's numerous other Democrats in the House who could do a better job so why is she House Speaker again?)

I'm not aware of that interview.

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't agree with you. First of all, without Nancy Pelosi, I'm almost certain the ACA would not have become law. Secondly, the House during the 2009-2010 session moved some of the most progressive legislation since the Great Society. She passed the EFCA, cap-and-trade, and a far better healthcare form bill through the House. The House healthcare bill was far more expansive, including a public option and a larger Medicaid expansion. And now, the public paradigm has largely shifted to the view that healthcare is now a right. We call it Obamacare, but Pelosi had just as much influence (if not more) in its passage.

But 2009-2010 was eons ago.

She's been moot since the 2014 midterms on getting anything done.

The Republicans have had majorities in the House since 2010. The minority party in the House of Representatives has literally zero power and might as well not exist. I don't know what you expect her to have done since 2010. She has at least generally ensured that no Democrats defect to vote for major Republican legislation, and she was very effective on, e.g., the ACA repeal vote.

People can hate on her all they want, but she is better than Paul Ryan, who never seems to get any criticism. She even gets more hate than Dennis Hastert who is a child molester.

But is she really the best leader Democrats can get?

Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. In any case, no one ever seems to be able to express anything that's better about Tim Ryan or Seth Moulton, just weird insinuating nonsense about Pelosi.

[Phony Moderate]

Democrats could install David Duke as minority leader and it still wouldn't make the white working class vote flip.

Exactly. Good choice on emphasizing those voters' racism too (David Duke). Here come the Republican and Bernie bro tears.

Of course, it's all about identity for them and nothing else.

Nope. Those people in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania voted for Trump be ause he was at least hitting populist talking points on trade. To call everyone who voted for Trump an angrywhite man is the type of SJW politics that Hillary ran and lost her campaign on. Run with that idea in 2020, and Democrats will lose badly.

Besides, many voters in those industrial states are two time Obama voters, so don't give me the angry white man stereotype, otherwise those industrial states will vote GOP for a long time to come, because they despise the identity politics Hillary ran on. "Vote for me because I'm a woman" was not a compelling argument, despite what you think.

As for Pelosi, she needs to go, now. Put up Tim Ryan, now. Bernie proved that you don't need to raise from bankers and corporations to run a strong campaign that by all rights, should've gone nowhere. That's the part people forget when talking about her fundraising abilities. That doesn't mean jack if it's raised from Wall Streeters and corporations.

For crap's sake, another diatribe about identity politics. You can't act like Trump didn't play identity politics with all his railing about immigration and calling immigrants rapists. But all of that is a moot point. Pelosi isn't going anywhere, so just get over it.

Worth noting that Trump only got a couple of million more votes than Romney nationally, and less than 200,000 more in both Ohio and Michigan. Given population growth, the higher overall number of votes cast etc then it wasn't really a great advance for the GOP. It was more down to the Democrats' lack of compelling message. I suspect that, for the most part, Trump's identity politics appealed most to people who have loyally voted GOP for a good two decades.

[Phony Moderate]

Democrats could install David Duke as minority leader and it still wouldn't make the white working class vote flip.

Exactly. Good choice on emphasizing those voters' racism too (David Duke). Here come the Republican and Bernie bro tears.

Of course, it's all about identity for them and nothing else.

Nope. Those people in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania voted for Trump be ause he was at least hitting populist talking points on trade. To call everyone who voted for Trump an angrywhite man is the type of SJW politics that Hillary ran and lost her campaign on. Run with that idea in 2020, and Democrats will lose badly.

Besides, many voters in those industrial states are two time Obama voters, so don't give me the angry white man stereotype, otherwise those industrial states will vote GOP for a long time to come, because they despise the identity politics Hillary ran on. "Vote for me because I'm a woman" was not a compelling argument, despite what you think.

As for Pelosi, she needs to go, now. Put up Tim Ryan, now. Bernie proved that you don't need to raise from bankers and corporations to run a strong campaign that by all rights, should've gone nowhere. That's the part people forget when talking about her fundraising abilities. That doesn't mean jack if it's raised from Wall Streeters and corporations.

For crap's sake, another diatribe about identity politics. You can't act like Trump didn't play identity politics with all his railing about immigration and calling immigrants rapists. But all of that is a moot point. Pelosi isn't going anywhere, so just get over it.

Worth noting that Trump only got a couple of million more votes than Romney nationally, and less than 200,000 more in both Ohio and Michigan. Given population growth, the higher overall number of votes cast etc then it wasn't really a great advance for the GOP. It was more down to the Democrats' lack of compelling message. I suspect that, for the most part, Trump's identity politics appealed most to people who have loyally voted GOP for a good two decades.

A very large portion of the "missing votes" for the Democrats were black voters. I suppose Bernie Sanders, who got creamed with black voters in the primaries, would have somehow energized them to come out and vote for him.

Well I didn't mention Bernie (although isn't this one of the problems with 'debating' American politics; if you're not a Hillarycrat, you must be a Berniecrat, if you're not a Democrat, you must be a Republican, if you're not a Trumplican, you must be a McCain/Collins/Murkowski cuckservative), but given that John Kerry was able to enthuse people in the Midwest better than Hillary, it's not beyond the pale that Bernie Sanders could have won 50-100,000 extra votes in the combination of WI, PA and MI to clinch the electoral victory. Then again, John Kerry running in 2016 could have done so too.

[Adam Griffin]

I don't have the specific figures (I wish they were easier to aggregate), but it is almost certain that the correlation between the candidate who wins and the candidate who raises the most money (or has money spent on his/her behalf) has become considerably weaker over the past 20 years - and certainly so post-Citizens United.

It used to be a sure thing (>90% of the time) that the candidate/side who spent the most ultimately won: this was likely due to the fact that whatever weak regulations on contributions that existed meant that money raised was a good indicator of actual support and popularity. In contrast, in the past two presidential cycles, the candidate to have the most money spent on his/her behalf has lost the election. Money doesn't buy you what it once did in politics.