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

[Coraxion]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/01/politics/pelosi-fundraising-2018/index.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Virginiá]

That is a fair point, but then I have to say, are we supposed to be stuck with Pelosi until the end of the time? If she really does have some sort of a drag on the party come election time, exactly how much is that countered by her massive fundraising? Because if her negative personal effect on the party is only just canceled out by her fundraising, then there is no overwhelmingly reason for keeping her on.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate everything she has done for the party, and I think she is a skilled leader, but I don't like the party having the same leadership like this for over a decade, particularly when it keeps losing. At some point she needs to step aside and let a new generation of people have a shot at leading the caucus.

[Beet]

Hillary Clinton should be party leader and the face of the party, she raised over half a billion dollars. /s

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

2018 was always gonna be a steep hill. 2020 is the goal to get her Speaker, then, only then, should she worry about losing her security. And Xavier Becerra should be the next D leader

[Mike Thick]

2018 was always gonna be a steep hill. 2020 is the goal to get her Speaker, then, only then, should she worry about losing her security. And Xavier Becerra should be the next D leader

Xavier Becerra is no longer a Congressman.

[DrScholl]

She was planning on leaving, but Trump winning prompted her to stay on. Pelosi is a strong leader and ran the House well, which is why the caucus kept her on.

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.

[GlobeSoc]

That is a fair point, but then I have to say, are we supposed to be stuck with Pelosi until the end of the time? If she really does have some sort of a drag on the party come election time, exactly how much is that countered by her massive fundraising? Because if her negative personal effect on the party is only just canceled out by her fundraising, then there is no overwhelmingly reason for keeping her on.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate everything she has done for the party, and I think she is a skilled leader, but I don't like the party having the same leadership like this for over a decade, particularly when it keeps losing. At some point she needs to step aside and let a new generation of people have a shot at leading the caucus.

Money is overrated to an absurd degree.

[Mike Thick]

2018 was always gonna be a steep hill. 2020 is the goal to get her Speaker, then, only then, should she worry about losing her security. And Xavier Becerra should be the next D leader

Xavier Becerra is no longer a Congressman.

The Speaker of the House doesn't have to be a member of Congress

True, but even if asked I doubt Becerra would take the job.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

She's the ultimate limousine liberal, and that does nothing but damage the image of the Democratic Party among working class Americans. She needs to get out as soon as possible.

[Virginiá]

Money is overrated to an absurd degree.

That's the annoying thing about it, there are real limits to what it can do for politicians come election time, but said politicians always want every advantage they can muster, especially when they have all sorts of consultants telling them they need something, so they go out promising all sorts of favors and special attention in exchange for large donations. In the end, they might have won the election even without all that money, but we'll never know because most want to play it safe and take the cash.

In this instance, it's not exactly clear that Democrats would be exponentially worse off without Pelosi's big bucks. The idea that another big time fundraiser won't come along eventually is silly, and on top of that, there is no extreme need to match Pelosi's fundraising figures dollar for dollar either.

[DrScholl]

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

[Coraxion]

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.

[BuckeyeNut]

It's my understanding that isn't actually very good, considering how much the party will need.

[Devils30]

Pelosi needs to be disposed of in the next year. She is a complete loser and holding the party back. Her record is miserable, it's like having a bad QB and keeping him after endless 6-10 seasons.

[GlobeSoc]

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

It doesn't need to flip. If a dem managed to hold the current white college margins and get a good swing from the wwc, it would be an instakill against the gop.

[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.

[GoTfan]

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.

[Kingpoleon]

If money's so important, why isn't Delaney or Polis Leader?

[politicallefty]

Anyone on the left that opposes Pelosi for whatever reasons needs to stop. She has nothing to do with the current state of the Democratic Party. She has busted her ass off for the party for the past 15+ years. As Speaker, she moved over 400 bills through the House that the Senate failed to act upon due to the filibuster. To those on the progressive left, she is one of us. That fact is that she has to lead a caucus that is far more than just progressives.

Personally, I think she wants one more crack at the Speakership in order to retire on a high note. The 2018 midterms aren't going to be about Nancy Pelosi. They are going to be about Donald Trump. If Democrats win back the House next year, I think she'll start planning her eventual retirement and successor. As it stands right now, there is no real successor to Pelosi ready to take control (especially since Xavier Becerra left Congress). For those of us on the left, let's win back the House next year and put Nancy Pelosi back as Speaker and then get the White House back in 2020.

[Kingpoleon]

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.

[Technocracy Timmy]

To those on the progressive left, she is one of us

She thanked a Fox News Propaganda host for being a "Guardian of our Democracy" in the past week. You'd have to go out of your way to actively try and find a Democrat in Washington who's more out of touch with the Party's base than she is.

[Zioneer]

Here's the chicken and egg question: Is she a good fundraiser because she's former Speaker/Minority Leader, or is she Speaker/Minority Leader because she's a good fundraiser?

[politicallefty]

To those on the progressive left, she is one of us

She thanked a Fox News Propaganda host for being a "Guardian of our Democracy" in the past week. You'd have to go out of your way to actively try and find a Democrat in Washington who's more out of touch with the Party's base than she is.

I have no idea what you're referring to, but Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker, advanced one of the most progressive agendas through the House, comparable to the New Deal and Great Society. Her voting record is impeccable and she was once a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (that ending due to her policy of being the leader of the entire party). And of course, were it not for extreme gerrymandering, she would have retaken the Speakership in 2012. I'd imagine that Congress would have been radically different under a Speaker Pelosi.

Tim Ryan was a protest vote. If Pelosi leaves office prematurely, Steny Hoyer would likely succeed her. I'm not opposed to new leadership, but we need to do it at the right time. We need to regain power first before we start revamping the leadership (which is what we do eventually have to do).

[Technocracy Timmy]

To those on the progressive left, she is one of us

She thanked a Fox News Propaganda host for being a "Guardian of our Democracy" in the past week. You'd have to go out of your way to actively try and find a Democrat in Washington who's more out of touch with the Party's base than she is.

I have no idea what you're referring to, but Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker, advanced one of the most progressive agendas through the House, comparable to the New Deal and Great Society. Her voting record is impeccable and she was once a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (that ending due to her policy of being the leader of the entire party). And of course, were it not for extreme gerrymandering, she would have retaken the Speakership in 2012. I'd imagine that Congress would have been radically different under a Speaker Pelosi.

Tim Ryan was a protest vote. If Pelosi leaves office prematurely, Steny Hoyer would likely succeed her. I'm not opposed to new leadership, but we need to do it at the right time. We need to regain power first before we start revamping the leadership (which is what we do eventually have to do).

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?)

[GoTfan]

To those on the progressive left, she is one of us

She thanked a Fox News Propaganda host for being a "Guardian of our Democracy" in the past week. You'd have to go out of your way to actively try and find a Democrat in Washington who's more out of touch with the Party's base than she is.

I have no idea what you're referring to, but Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker, advanced one of the most progressive agendas through the House, comparable to the New Deal and Great Society. Her voting record is impeccable and she was once a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (that ending due to her policy of being the leader of the entire party). And of course, were it not for extreme gerrymandering, she would have retaken the Speakership in 2012. I'd imagine that Congress would have been radically different under a Speaker Pelosi.

Tim Ryan was a protest vote. If Pelosi leaves office prematurely, Steny Hoyer would likely succeed her. I'm not opposed to new leadership, but we need to do it at the right time. We need to regain power first before we start revamping the leadership (which is what we do eventually have to do).

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?)

Not to mention that it's been proven you can fundraise without going to bankers or corporations