Democratic Leadership Elections

[Florida Man for Crime]

Why doesn’t Pelosi just pull a Tom DeLay? Put Karen BassBarbara Lee in as first Black woman Speaker and then drop down to Majority Leader until she’s ready to retire?

Nancy will still be in charge but not one vulnerable member will have to take a tough vote. Hen in two years she can retire after Trump is defeated and let Speaker Bass take the caucus in her own direction...

Speaker is really a behind the scenes grunt work job. Barbara Lee would be a crowd pleaser for the Dem base, but is there any reason to think she would be effective in getting stuff done that Dems would want to get done? I dunno, maybe there is, but I am not sure what the evidence is (if there is any, please do share).

It is very easy to have an ineffective Speaker if you have someone who is not focused and experienced in that behind the scenes grunt work. The Republicans provide a recent example with Paul Ryan. What exactly did he accomplish as Speaker? Not a whole lot, I don't think.

On the other hand, Bass has actual experience leading the Dem majority in the CA House.

So Bass would probably be more effective at doing the actual stuff that Speakers need to do to be effective.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Why doesn’t Pelosi just pull a Tom DeLay? Put Karen BassBarbara Lee in as first Black woman Speaker and then drop down to Majority Leader until she’s ready to retire?

Nancy will still be in charge but not one vulnerable member will have to take a tough vote. Hen in two years she can retire after Trump is defeated and let Speaker Bass take the caucus in her own direction...

Speaker is really a behind the scenes grunt work job. Barbara Lee would be a crowd pleaser for the Dem base, but is there any reason to think she would be effective in getting stuff done that Dems would want to get done? I dunno, maybe there is, but I am not sure what the evidence is (if there is any, please do share).

It is very easy to have an ineffective Speaker if you have someone who is not focused and experienced in that behind the scenes grunt work. The Republicans provide a recent example with Paul Ryan. What exactly did he accomplish as Speaker? Not a whole lot, I don't think.

On the other hand, Bass has actual experience leading the Dem majority in the CA House.

So Bass would probably be more effective at doing the actual stuff that Speakers need to do to be effective.

If getting things done behind the scenes is what is important, then Pelosi should remain Speaker.

I am not one of the ones saying she should go. If she does go, then whoever replaces her will just end up being demonized by the right in exactly the same way and end up with the same approval rating (just like Mitch McConnell), and Rs will run ads against that Speaker instead of Pelosi. They can just re-use the same ads and replace Pelosi with the name of the new Speaker.

So there is no real benefit of getting rid of Pelosi. There is no such thing as a popular Speaker.

[Florida Man for Crime]

While we are on the topic, I have to ask: why do so many people hate the Speaker of the House, no matter who it is?

It seems strange that they will always be wildly unpopular, and even within their own party they can be below water.

Specifically why they're unpopular in their own parties:

The Speaker has all of the responsibility of enacting a legislation under a system that can seem at times arcane and opaque. It's not really the Speaker's job to do campaigning, but backroom dealmaking. Furthermore Speakers aren't popularly elected like POTUS (yes I know, Electoral College) but are chosen by their peers, meaning they don't really have the same sort of popular mandate as a President (or even an elected representative in a non-leadership position).

Great example is that people will credit a President for signing a bill into law but will often blame a Congressional Leadership when legislation fails to pass. It's because people want to take ownership of victories and can do so with a President but can't really do so with a Speaker; the opposite happens with not taking ownership of a defeat.

Exactly this. Plus, unlike the President, the Speaker does not have a cool airplane to fly around in all around the world and look good visiting places in. The Speaker does not get to give nationally televised speeches talking about how great America is but devoid of any actual substance or tying themselves to anything concrete that might go wrong. And the Speaker does not get to look cool ordering generals to launch missiles at a hut in the middle of a desert somewhere across the other side of the world full of brown people. The Speaker is not glorified in movies as the hero protecting America from the alien invaders, the epidemic disease outbreak, or the zombie apocalypse.

[Florida Man for Crime]

The more I hear from the Pelosi haters, the more I support Pelosi.

Hope she mercilessly crushes the rabble and punishes them for their insolence.

Same. I am not particularly attached to Pelosi, but she is skilled and experienced, and the idea that "something else, anything else, with no plan or explanation whatsoever as to what that other thing is" is preferable is not very persuasive. It would be easier to be open to the alternative if there were, you know, actually some sort of viable alternative. But it seems that all the alternative consists of is Tim Ryan and Seth Moulton whining.

[Florida Man for Crime]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol the moderates are going to end up with no power what so ever.

Tim Ryan's only committee assignment will be the solid waste management sub-committee.

[Florida Man for Crime]

https://mobile.twitter.com/RepKarenBass/status/1063113202970648578

Nancy Pelosi is going to be the next Speaker of the House. DEAL WITH IT!

[Florida Man for Crime]

Glad you think Marcia Fudge is a white man. The willingness of progressives to abandon their ideals is sickening.

We should accept and respect Marcia Fudge's gender and racial self-identity, whatever it may be. If Marcia Fudge identifies as a white man, who are you to say she is not? I guess it is typical of a Fudge supporter that they hold regressive views on racial and gender identity issues - as exemplified by Fudge's failure to co-sponsor the Equality Act. That is not what the Democratic party needs. The Democratic party does not need to go backwards, but forwards into a brighter future led by our wonderful and talented leader, Nancy Pelosi.

[Florida Man for Crime]

No one who opposes Pelosi on the floor should ever be given any position of leadership. No mercy for the traitors.

[Florida Man for Crime]

The best possible result of this struggle would be to leave Pelosi in power for just one more session while making room in the leadership for members who are a little more dynamic than Clyburn or Hoyer and totally discrediting figures like Tim Ryan. Somehow, that actually sounds like what is happening?

Yup.

Tim Ryan's and Seth Moulton's plan:

[Florida Man for Crime]

Spanberger strikes me as someone who could potentially become speaker in the distant future.

The Speaker should never be from a district that is remotely competitive. They're bound to become unpopular both in their districts and nationwide. Same for the Senate leader. Even if her district was shored up in redistricting, it could easily still fall in the next red wave. Any leader should be guaranteed to win by at least 20 points even in the most unfavorable political environment imaginable. Electoral concerns shouldn't even be on their radar at any point.

[Florida Man for Crime]

I think Tim Ryan and Seth are going to fail but I admire and appreciate the effort. We need to go back to the center.

No, we don't.

Oh I’m sure atlas takes issue with my stance but thankfully America agrees and has like a net negative 25 point disapproval of Pelosi. Atlas is a far left microcosm, at least for now....

America has the same opinion of all House and Senate leaders of both parties. Always.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Paul Ryan was from a (somewhat) competitive district.

1) And Paul Ryan was a pretty terrible and ineffectual leader.

2) And it was gerrymandered for him to be basically as safe as possible precisely because he was prominent/in leadership.

3) And even so, it just went Republican by 12 points as an open seat in a Dem wave year where Dems won the national popular vote by 7-8%.

[Florida Man for Crime]

I'm actually embarrassed that I  probably would have supported Tim Ryan's challenge to Pelosi two years ago had I been paying attention to it. It's clear now that it had nothing to do with #populism or with the House Democrats' problems gaining back ground electorally.

^^^^

Queen Nancy all the way.

Oh yes. Oh yes.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Well, it doesn't exactly make Moulton and Ryan look good that their suggestion for Speaker has now quickly and prominently publicly turned it down and instead backed Pelosi.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Did anyone else see Pelosi's victory speech on election night? It was so incoherent and nonsensical, I loved it. "Let's hear it for pre existing medical conditions!" LMAO.

Luckily what she lacks in rhetorical ability she more than makes up for in legislative prowess.

I thought it was a terrific and shrewd speech. "Incoherent and nonsensical" appeals to voters, which is how Trump got elected. You and I may struggle to understand that, but fortunately Pelosi has a more finely attuned political antennae than most of us, and she adjusts her rhetoric to fit the needs and tastes of the era, one of the marks that distinguishes a true leader.

[Florida Man for Crime]

https://twitter.com/mikedebonis/status/1066751401395716096

Lynch is backpedaling to try to save himself from a primary challenge.

Between this and TJ Cox presumably winning and voting for Pelosi, Nancy should be well on her way to having all the votes she needs lined up in a neat little row. This is the most pathetic leadership challenge I have ever seen. It is a leadership challenge without even a challenger, which really says it all.

[Florida Man for Crime]

1 and 3 are fine, I hate 2.

[Florida Man for Crime]

https://twitter.com/rachaelmbade/status/1067879305160654848

Strange that nobody in this "new generation of leaders" we keep hearing about that allegedly wants to step up decided to step up and challenge Hoyer.

I guess either there isn't a "new generation of leaders," or for some reason they don't want to step up.

I guess that is the new leadership for you - leading by not stepping up. It is an interesting approach to leadership.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Lol.

Yeah, no, Cheri is pretty safe.

She won 55-45 in 2014, 60-40 in 2016 and 62-38 in 2018.

She ain't gonna be distracted most years, let alone in 2020.

congressmen culberson and sessions agree
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Sessions#Campaigns
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Culberson#Elections

Im not saying Bustos is doomed or even in a tossup
But it is on the playing field and the GOP should go for it in 2020 considering its basically IA 2nd and 1st shifted 3 points left.

Again, no. That seat has trended towards her every election.

swung not trend
It trended against this election as 2016 was a R+1 year and 2018 was a D+8 year.

Why can't people just accept that rural seats are in danger. She probably won't lose but Im keeping at Likely D for now.

Agreed with lfromnj. Bustos is probably ok for 2020, but it is not even a sure thing. And she would have been in serious danger in a Clinton midterm.

1994, 2006, 2010, 2014, and 2018 are littered with the corpses of members of Congress who had previously had a strong "personal vote," outperformed their district, did better even when it was trending the wrong way, and then lost.

Over the longer term, the only way Bustos is safe is if the district is substantially re-drawn, and preferably drawn at least partly into Chicagoland.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Lol.

Yeah, no, Cheri is pretty safe.

She won 55-45 in 2014, 60-40 in 2016 and 62-38 in 2018.

She ain't gonna be distracted most years, let alone in 2020.

congressmen culberson and sessions agree
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Sessions#Campaigns
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Culberson#Elections

Im not saying Bustos is doomed or even in a tossup
But it is on the playing field and the GOP should go for it in 2020 considering its basically IA 2nd and 1st shifted 3 points left.

Again, no. That seat has trended towards her every election.

swung not trend
It trended against this election as 2016 was a R+1 year and 2018 was a D+8 year.

Why can't people just accept that rural seats are in danger. She probably won't lose but Im keeping at Likely D for now.

The district isn't that rural, from Wiki: Distribution   
73.3% urban
26.7% rural


The Democrats basically got as much of the urban areas of North Western Illinios into the district as they could north of Springfield: much of Peoria, Rockford and the Illinois part of the Quad Cities. 

ok probably not th ebest wording but lets say medium sized WWC cities like youngstown quad cites in general are trending away. Bustos is safe if they replace some of the district with a tendril into Chicago land which at this point needs to be spread out more for D's.

On the Iowa side of the Quad Cities, Democrat Dave Loebsack has been the Representative since 2006.  In some areas the WWC in medium sized cities are trending away, but the Democrats seem to be fighting back in at least the Northern Midwest.

Not really. In neighboring IA-01, despite the hype Abby Finkenauer's win ended up pretty underwhelming as compared to how that district had previously voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And Dems also lost the Iowa governorship and got BTFO in nearby IN-SEN. That area is generally trending away. Granted, it is not trending away as strongly as, say, southeast Ohio, but it is still trending the wrong way and is more likely to continue trending the wrong way than to reverse.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Finkenauer was disappointing, but the Democrats also took the Des Moines based Iowa 3rd district.  The Democrats also did better than expected in Grand Rapids despite having a candidate who didn't raise a lot of money.

Indiana, Ohio (and Missouri) are the Southern Midwest, by my consideration.  The Democrats are doing better in some of the suburban districts in these states, but I agree the medium size WWC cities are trending away.

Polk County (Des Moines) has almost 500k people. And even so, Dems barely won IA-03.

Kent County (Grand Rapids) has 600k people. Dems made gains there (and also Clinton made gains there in 2016) because they were gaining in the traditionally R Grand Rapids suburbs, not because of any particular strength with WWC whites.

Compare to IL-17, the cities of Rock Island, Rockford, and Peoria are all much smaller than either of those. So it is a very different situation there. Although the part that is really bad about IL-17 is less so those actual cities than all the extra rural areas that they put in to IL-17 because the IL Dems are really pathetic at gerrymandering and can't even do it properly. Redistricting can fix it though, if they learn from their mistakes.

[Florida Man for Crime]

There's really nothing wrong with the way IL-17 is districted. It includes 3 decently Democratic cities and most of the rural area in between isn't as Republican as counties in southern Illinois.

Like even when comparing it to IA1 or IA3 it isnt as if Bustos has had as much trouble holding it as Dems have had in those seats.

You can't really call something a screw up when it keeps working without issue.

I'm sure the Texas gerrymander of Texas 32nd and the 7th wasn't a screw up

TX-07 and TX-32 at the time were also needlessly sloppy jobs. For example, TX-32 could easily have been made less Dem by giving TX-05 some more Dem precincts, and giving TX-32 at least Rockwall County instead, and if so I am not sure Sessions would have lost. Similarly TX-07 was needlessly given some of the most Dem-trending parts of West Houston, when it could have gotten at least a bit of rural areas or more of the more safely Republican parts of North-West Harris County or some rural areas. If they had just put the most strongly Dem white liberal part of Houston (Montrose) into TX-18, then TX-02 also could have helped out TX-07 by taking some other Dem/competitive precincts from it. But they didn't do that because the TX Republicans are obsessed with the idea that no white people should be ever represented by Democrats (see Austin).

As for IL-17, it includes quite a few of the wrong precincts and excludes a lot of the wrong ones in, and takes in more bad rural territory than it needed to.