Democratic Leadership Elections

[izixs]

Ahem.

People seem to have forgotten that Pelosi was a member of the CPC before becoming leader. She only left because she refuses to join an ideological caucus as leader of the entire party.

I believe Pelosi was one of the founding members of the Progressive Caucus. What exactly has she done to anger progressives so much?

Mostly optics I guess? She's been fantastic with keeping the congress critters moving together (which is one of the reasons Republicans despise her). And in the instance she hasn't been able to do as much as wanted, she's been very careful with compromises to get the votes necessary for passage (best example I can think of for this is Obamacare of course).

The optics issue is that independent of what she does, which tends to be very progressive in total, about as much so as the total body of the democrats can pull off, she still speaks the language of compromise with regard to reasonable asks. And to some, this is awful and no good as it ignores her behavior and other statements where its made clear where she (and most if not all of the party) stands on the things that might make one so aghast. Its workable to negotiate and compromise on say a funding bill in a divided congress/government as there's no way you can get all of your priorities funded without some give to the priorities of the other party. But if the ask from the Republicans is something totally ridiculous (ban abortion, fund the wall with no protection for daca folks, ect) then her past behavior makes it clear she, and the party, will have no part in such silliness and most anything like that won't even get a vote in the house with Pelosi at the helm.

The other end that gripes about her are those who actually want more compromise to the Republicans, even on the more wtf asks because playing nice is seen as fantastic optics by such folks. Despite every time the dems have tried to work with the Republicans the last decade or so its always bit them in the backside. Nope, gotta ignore history, and gotta bend over backwards to look like the government is doing something good or bad, or else oh no we're for sure going to lose reelection despite most those saying this are either not in government or not in at risk seats. So it does kind of smell like there's something else going on as far as motivations, but even on the top level is really really silly and counter productive.

Personally, I think Pelosi has done a fantastic job. There are things I'm not super keen on her for in the past, but given how effective she's been, I can hardly feel compelled to toss her. In the long run I hope she is well on her way to training up the next generation of leaders who are both as (or more) progressive as she is and is as capable of keeping the congress critters organized and generally unified. This is mostly because she is getting up in years and I don't want the house to suddenly be leaderless without someone ready and able to take over. But a change in power now is not necessary or useful honestly.

[lfromnj]

btw did TJ Cox make an anti pelosi promise?
doesn't matter as once this districts lost its gone forever for the republicans.

[Tintrlvr]

Ahem.

People seem to have forgotten that Pelosi was a member of the CPC before becoming leader. She only left because she refuses to join an ideological caucus as leader of the entire party.

I believe Pelosi was one of the founding members of the Progressive Caucus. What exactly has she done to anger progressives so much?

Mostly optics I guess? She's been fantastic with keeping the congress critters moving together (which is one of the reasons Republicans despise her). And in the instance she hasn't been able to do as much as wanted, she's been very careful with compromises to get the votes necessary for passage (best example I can think of for this is Obamacare of course).

The optics issue is that independent of what she does, which tends to be very progressive in total, about as much so as the total body of the democrats can pull off, she still speaks the language of compromise with regard to reasonable asks. And to some, this is awful and no good as it ignores her behavior and other statements where its made clear where she (and most if not all of the party) stands on the things that might make one so aghast. Its workable to negotiate and compromise on say a funding bill in a divided congress/government as there's no way you can get all of your priorities funded without some give to the priorities of the other party. But if the ask from the Republicans is something totally ridiculous (ban abortion, fund the wall with no protection for daca folks, ect) then her past behavior makes it clear she, and the party, will have no part in such silliness and most anything like that won't even get a vote in the house with Pelosi at the helm.

The other end that gripes about her are those who actually want more compromise to the Republicans, even on the more wtf asks because playing nice is seen as fantastic optics by such folks. Despite every time the dems have tried to work with the Republicans the last decade or so its always bit them in the backside. Nope, gotta ignore history, and gotta bend over backwards to look like the government is doing something good or bad, or else oh no we're for sure going to lose reelection despite most those saying this are either not in government or not in at risk seats. So it does kind of smell like there's something else going on as far as motivations, but even on the top level is really really silly and counter productive.

Personally, I think Pelosi has done a fantastic job. There are things I'm not super keen on her for in the past, but given how effective she's been, I can hardly feel compelled to toss her. In the long run I hope she is well on her way to training up the next generation of leaders who are both as (or more) progressive as she is and is as capable of keeping the congress critters organized and generally unified. This is mostly because she is getting up in years and I don't want the house to suddenly be leaderless without someone ready and able to take over. But a change in power now is not necessary or useful honestly.

Excellent summation. It should be noted that the group opposing Pelosi this time are largely the latter group who think Pelosi doesn't compromise enough with Republicans, plus Marcia Fudge who was apparently bribed with the prospect of getting to leapfrog more senior (and more well-established or competent) Congressmembers for a leadership position (maybe even a puppet Speaker) in the Moulton-Ryan regime.

[socaldem]

Ahem.

People seem to have forgotten that Pelosi was a member of the CPC before becoming leader. She only left because she refuses to join an ideological caucus as leader of the entire party.

Wow, 16 years ago Pelosi passed as a progressive. Progressive in 2002 just meant you were against deregulating everything in sight and invading every country at once.

Of course, in SF politics, she's always been aligned with Feinstein and other establishment folks against the more activist wing. Remember she was first elected to congress by beating gay icon Harry Britt, an election that included some underground Cuomo-style gay-baiting.

[socaldem]

Ahem.

People seem to have forgotten that Pelosi was a member of the CPC before becoming leader. She only left because she refuses to join an ideological caucus as leader of the entire party.

I believe Pelosi was one of the founding members of the Progressive Caucus. What exactly has she done to anger progressives so much?

Mostly optics I guess? She's been fantastic with keeping the congress critters moving together (which is one of the reasons Republicans despise her). And in the instance she hasn't been able to do as much as wanted, she's been very careful with compromises to get the votes necessary for passage (best example I can think of for this is Obamacare of course).

The optics issue is that independent of what she does, which tends to be very progressive in total, about as much so as the total body of the democrats can pull off, she still speaks the language of compromise with regard to reasonable asks. And to some, this is awful and no good as it ignores her behavior and other statements where its made clear where she (and most if not all of the party) stands on the things that might make one so aghast. Its workable to negotiate and compromise on say a funding bill in a divided congress/government as there's no way you can get all of your priorities funded without some give to the priorities of the other party. But if the ask from the Republicans is something totally ridiculous (ban abortion, fund the wall with no protection for daca folks, ect) then her past behavior makes it clear she, and the party, will have no part in such silliness and most anything like that won't even get a vote in the house with Pelosi at the helm.

The other end that gripes about her are those who actually want more compromise to the Republicans, even on the more wtf asks because playing nice is seen as fantastic optics by such folks. Despite every time the dems have tried to work with the Republicans the last decade or so its always bit them in the backside. Nope, gotta ignore history, and gotta bend over backwards to look like the government is doing something good or bad, or else oh no we're for sure going to lose reelection despite most those saying this are either not in government or not in at risk seats. So it does kind of smell like there's something else going on as far as motivations, but even on the top level is really really silly and counter productive.

Personally, I think Pelosi has done a fantastic job. There are things I'm not super keen on her for in the past, but given how effective she's been, I can hardly feel compelled to toss her. In the long run I hope she is well on her way to training up the next generation of leaders who are both as (or more) progressive as she is and is as capable of keeping the congress critters organized and generally unified. This is mostly because she is getting up in years and I don't want the house to suddenly be leaderless without someone ready and able to take over. But a change in power now is not necessary or useful honestly.

I completely agree with this--operationally she's the best we can get.

I think that she doesn't really present a compelling vision for left/progressive ideas. Moreover, she can be somewhat tone-deaf on some identity issues. There are more and more divides in the Dems between people of color and white feminists. And with establishment gays and activst LGBTQ folks. Pelosi definitely represents the establishment and has diminishing credibility with the left flank of the party.

As party leader, notwithstanding her personal skills, this creates challenges because one of your most important jobs is to get your party's left flank to sign-on to necessary compromises. (This is where the GOP had so many problems).

For that reason Rep. Karen Bass is the most logical successor. Her views are almost identical to Pelosi plus she has strong connections to all of the interest groups in the party. As a black woman, she would have more credibility with communities of color than Pelosi and would be more fluent in speaking to those audiences. Meanwhile, her persona is more relatable than Pelosi's patrician presentation.

That said, Speaker Pelosi is probably unmatched in history in her ability to control the House. Even as a Minority Leader, she had considerable power. At this point, if we get a trifecta again, it may be useful to have her around.

But, for chrissakes, can we please toss-out Hoyer and Clyburn!

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Any Dem, think that Dems will get raising of Social Security cap, immigration reform and minimum wage out of Trump, is fooling themselves. Once 2020, rolls around, Pelosi reforms will happen, under progressive president. That's why Pelosi isn't going anywhere, and she knows that

[MAINEiac4434]

It seems pretty clear that Pelosi could easily sort this out by pledging to only serve two years.

Then Beto can be elected Speaker after winning TX-32 in 2020.

Why would the President also be the Speaker of the House

[Morning in Atlas]

https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1064695511964356608

Remember in the NH-1 primary, when I posted about how Maura Sullivan's original carpetbagging plans were to primary Shea-Porter? And remember how the pro-Sullivan crowd said they were unsourced and couldn't be true, even though they were later revealed to be from a college mentor?

Yeeeeeah. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if her friend/political benefactor was trying the same thing here.

[MAINEiac4434]

https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1064695511964356608

Remember when I posted about how Sullivan's original carpetbagging plans were to primary Shea-Porter? And remember how the pro-Sullivan crowd said they were unsourced and couldn't be true, even though they were from a college mentor?

Yeeeeeah.

I ing hate Seth Moulton

[Morning in Atlas]

It's a goddamn shame I didn't know the town hall was close to me. I would have gone and protested.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Seriously though, fu** Seth Moulton. The biggest opportunist in politics today. I hope Markey gives him a good spanking and sends him packing.

[Zaybay]

https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1064695511964356608

What. The. F**K.

Two things:

Good News- Seth Moulton loses his seat

Bad News- The possibility of dealing with Seth Moulton as a Senator

[Bidenworth2020]

https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1064695511964356608

What. The. F**K.

Two things:

Good News- Seth Moulton loses his seat

Bad News- The possibility of dealing with Seth Moulton as a Senator

umm.. isnt markey pretty popular?

[BundouYMB]

Hot take: Seth Moulton is easily the single worst Democrat in congress. He votes far to the right of his seat and he undermines the party at every opportunity.

[Zaybay]

https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1064695511964356608

What. The. F**K.

Two things:

Good News- Seth Moulton loses his seat

Bad News- The possibility of dealing with Seth Moulton as a Senator

umm.. isnt markey pretty popular?

Very, very popular. But even a 1% chance is too much. Way too much.

[justfollowingtheelections]

I don't really like or care about Pelosi (she doesn't seem to have any principles and will say whatever she has to say to stay in power), but Moulton ever since his career in Congress began rubbed me the wrong way.  I never liked him or his ambition.  I would like one of the following ladies to become Speaker of the House at some point in their careers: Pramila, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, or Alexandria (although I would prefer that she runs for president in 2024 when she's old enough).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Seriously though, fu** Seth Moulton. The biggest opportunist in politics today. I hope Markey gives him a good spanking and sends him packing.

[MAINEiac4434]

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

[Zaybay]

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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

[ON Progressive]

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm actually embarrassed that I supported Tim Ryan's challenge to Pelosi two years ago. 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.

[AudmanOut]

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.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

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.