Do you think Nancy Pelosi is genuinely terrible, or is a lot of it just slander?

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

What do you think? I honestly think she is an intelligent woman but most of the hate for her comes from the GOP's smear tactics against her.

[YE]

She’s not bad personally just a cultural elitist.

[Devils30]

I think she's terrible. She represents a type of liberalism that is for ultra rich and thinks it is all about fundraising. She has offered nothing on issues that matter today to people like wage stagnation, student debt and bargaining power.

[junior chįmp]

She's genuinely terrible and is largely responsible for how bad things have gotten on the state level and also largely responsible for refusing to allocate any money or resources for redistricting in 2010. Screenshotted from the book Ratfúckéd (which is about GOP gerrymandering)

[Bidenworth2020]

She’s not bad personally just a cultural elitist.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

She’s not bad personally just a cultural elitist.

How so?

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

I like Pelosi and can't wait for her to become Speaker in 2019

[Ebsy]

She's great. Far better than any other Speaker we have had in recent history.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The constant trashing of her by political journalists and pundits (in stark contrast with the continuous brown-nosing of Ryan and McConnell) is more proof of how sexism and misogyny dominate American politics.

[junior chįmp]

She’s not bad personally just a cultural elitist.

How so?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The constant trashing of her by political journalists and pundits (in stark contrast with the continuous brown-nosing of Ryan and McConnell) is more proof of how sexism and misogyny dominate American politics.

Pelosi defended sexual deviants Conyers and Bill Clinton. Give it a rest

[BundouYMB]

She's great at her job and I hope she stays on as Speaker after the midterms. It would suck if Democrats got the majority back only for Pelosi to be replaced with a weak leader who let the caucus descend into infighting and didn't get anything done.

And people seriously overestimate how much her unpopularity with the public matters. a). the average low info voter doesn't care about Pelosi b). Republicans will just vilify whoever replaces her anyways.

[TDAS04]

She’s not bad personally just a cultural elitist.

Therefore she's not bad.  I'm not exactly sure how Pelosi is a "cultural elitist", but it sounds like a stupid reason to hate her.

Pelosi is a San Francisco liberal woman who happens to lead the House Democrats.  Nothing wrong with that, even if that makes her hated by stupid people.  

[MarkD]

I think a lot of criticism of her is just partisanship. She's not terrible to me.

[Dr. MB]

At this point she's more of a liability than an asset to the Democrats.

Being the literal definition of the Democratic establishment, I don't like her much.

[136or142]

For me, she is too much about protecting the positions and privileges of her fellow politicians.  I think this explains why she was slow to react to the sexual harassment issues, other political corruption and her refusal to consider impeachment against George W Bush after the Democrats took back the House in 2006 and her refusal at present to have anything to do with attempting to impeach Donald Trump now.

I think it's possible that her unconditional support for her fellow members (including Dan Lipinski) is one of the reasons why her fellow Democrats in the House keep electing her as minority leader despite her obvious losing record.

There is no question though, on the other hand, that she does have genuine strengths, including being something of a policy wonk.

[Thank you for being a friend...]

She's been the leader for far too long, since 2003.  It's just time for somebody new.  The babies born when she became Leader are now in high school.

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

Her refusal to consider impeachment against George W Bush after the Democrats took back the House in 2006 and her refusal at present to have anything to do with attempting to impeach Donald Trump now.

Both of these were and are stupid ideas lol. Bush, while a terrible president, didn't do anything that seriously warranted impeachment. Same with Trump, but that may change depending on what Mueller can find.

From an electoral standpoint, a failed impeachment of Trump may go similarly to when the Republicans tried impeaching Bill Clinton, which backfired immensely and caused losses in 98 and 2000. The same could happen with us if we attempt an impeachment of Donald Trump (without serious incriminating charges against Trump).

[136or142]

Her refusal to consider impeachment against George W Bush after the Democrats took back the House in 2006 and her refusal at present to have anything to do with attempting to impeach Donald Trump now.

Both of these were and are stupid ideas lol. Bush, while a terrible president, didn't do anything that seriously warranted impeachment. Same with Trump, but that may change depending on what Mueller can find.

From an electoral standpoint, a failed impeachment of Trump may go similarly to when the Republicans tried impeaching Bill Clinton, which backfired immensely and caused losses in 98 and 2000. The same could happen with us if we attempt an impeachment of Donald Trump (without serious incriminating charges against Trump).

1.Starting and conducting a ruinous war based on lies isn't enough for impeachment (and conviction)?

2.If you don't think Trump should be impeached and convicted on the basis of what is already known about him, I can't imagine the Mueller investigation could possibly add much more for you.  We already know Trump:

1.Is using his office for personal and family enrichment.

2.Does not take the Presidency seriously as indicated by his lack of knowledge on policy, his horribly incompetent Administration and the number of positions he has left unfilled.

Both of these are clear grounds for impeachment and conviction and, with any other President, I think unquestionably would have led to serious consideration of impeachment and conviction.

This is one article against this, what I consider to be a rather bizarre notion, that impeachment and conviction should only be used in the most extreme cases:

https://www.vox.com/2017/11/30/16517022/impeachment-donald-trump

As the article ends off with, you're dealing with a person who likely has access to nuclear weapons (a few experts in this area claim he's been given dummy codes and isn't responsible for the real codes) and yet somehow it's somehow considered that firing the coach or manager of a sports team should be easier than firing the person in this position.  This makes absolutely no sense to me.


Also, I missed this earlier: 'caused losses in 2000.'  I realize many people, including myself, regard it as likely that Al Gore won the Presidential election, but as far as I recall George W Bush took the oath of office.

I presume you are referring to the U.S House elections. The attempted impeachment of Bill Clinton likely was the reason the Democrats made marginal gains (it was after all just a net gain of 6 seats in the House and the Republicans actually gained in the popular vote compared to 1996) but, I obviously don't think the situation with President Clinton is equivalent to the situation with Trump.

[KingSweden]

She's been the leader for far too long, since 2003.  It's just time for somebody new.  The babies born when she became Leader are now in high school.

This is my main quibble with her.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

She isn't the best but the hate is way overblown. She's good at running the democrats. I don't think she should be replaced as speaker because of muh age(which, lets be honest, probably wouldn't be happening if she was a man).

[136or142]

She isn't the best but the hate is way overblown. She's good at running the democrats. I don't think she should be replaced as speaker because of muh age(which, lets be honest, probably wouldn't be happening if she was a man).

I disagree, Pelosi is aleady the longest serving leader in the U.S House for the Democratic Party since Sam Rayburn served from 1936-1962. In contrast, the famous Tip O'Neill was Speaker (and Democratic Party leader) from just 1976-1988.

[Former Kentuckian]

I mostly find myself indifferent to her. I would like to see someone else give the position a shot, though, because she's had it so long. I felt the same way when Harry Reid was Senate Democratic leader for so long, and he was Senate Democratic leader for a shorter time than Pelosi has been house Democratic leader, iirc

[Beet]

I think the problem is that she's a liberal woman from San Francisco. To add to that, she's elderly even for a Congressperson, has been the Leader for 16 years, and somewhat represents the party establishment. All of those put her out of touch with the country, and she'd have to rely on more moderate members to wield any power. I would like to see someone else become Leader regardless of what happens in November, but if not, I agree the hate for her, personally, is overblown.

[TheSaint250]

Genuinely terrible.

[YE]

She’s not bad personally just a cultural elitist.

Therefore she's not bad.  I'm not exactly sure how Pelosi is a "cultural elitist", but it sounds like a stupid reason to hate her.

Pelosi is a San Francisco liberal woman who happens to lead the House Democrats.  Nothing wrong with that, even if that makes her hated by stupid people.  

You basically answered your own question. At a time when the Democrats need to convince Obama/Trump voters to vote their economic self-interest, Pelosi, while a good speaker and leader during the Obama era, at this point, is a washed up out of touch, wealthy San Fransisco Congresswomen and like most of the Democratic establishment seems unwilling to change the party in the direction it should be change.