Democratic Leadership Elections

[new_patomic]

Fudge is apparently just one of two House Democrats who refuses to cosponsor the Equality Act.

The other, of course, being Dan Lipinski.

So if this is who the anti-Pelosi faction is unifying around, I'm not surprised.

[new_patomic]

Fudge is apparently just one of two House Democrats who refuses to cosponsor the Equality Act.

The other, of course, being Dan Lipinski.

So if this is who the anti-Pelosi faction is unifying around, I'm not surprised.

Yes, Fudge is totally anti-LGBT because she didn't co sponsor a bill...

Yes, in fact cosponsoring and supporting things in terms of votes is more important to the efforts for equality than wearing some face paint and making some public statements.

[new_patomic]

Fudge is apparently just one of two House Democrats who refuses to cosponsor the Equality Act.

The other, of course, being Dan Lipinski.

So if this is who the anti-Pelosi faction is unifying around, I'm not surprised.

Yes, Fudge is totally anti-LGBT because she didn't co sponsor a bill...

Yes, in fact cosponsoring and supporting things in terms of votes is more important to the efforts for equality than wearing some face paint and making some public statements.

Nothing in her record suggests she's anti-LGBT in anyway, this is like saying if a member doesn't vote for a omnibus they don't want to fund cancer research or whatever else is stuffed in a budget.

http://www.ontheissues.org/OH/Marcia_Fudge_Civil_Rights.htm

Look, I don't think she's homophobic. I don't count her as being the same as Dan Lipinski.

But when it comes down to it the most expansive legislation we have for protecting LGBT people across the country is cosponsored by all but two House Democrats. Elijah Cummings, Danny K. Davis, Jim Clyburn, they apparently don't have the same problems with it as she does. Tim Ryan, Seth Moulton, Jim Cooper, none of them have withheld their support.

So as unfair as it may be to her, I don't want her for Speaker, and this is going to be my red line. If you don't back the Equality Act, you're not going to be considered.

[new_patomic]

Eat ****, Seth Moulton.

[new_patomic]

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.

[new_patomic]

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

Linking to wikipedia articles isn't the same as an argument.

She's consistently grown her majorities from election to election including what would nominally be considered difficult environments in 2014 and 2016.

While Culberson was winning by 12, she was winning by 20. While his district had shifted all the way over to Clinton +7, hers was a swing district at Trump +1. And there's no evidence to suggest 2020 will be especially difficult for her. In 2018 she won every county, not just the ones with Democratic cities like Peoria or Rockford.

[new_patomic]

Regardless trying to prop up the idea that she's plausibly maybe sort of incidentally vulnerable come a future election really isn't a great reason for not selecting her as DCCC chair now. It would be one thing if we knew she were going to vulnerable in 2020, but that's not even the case. She ain't Joe Cunningham or someone else who is probably on a two year rental. And this isn't like the Minnesota 1st district where we knew well in advance it would be tough to keep.

[new_patomic]

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.

[new_patomic]

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

And in those cases we actually have proof that they've become a lot closer at the congressional level?

[new_patomic]

I stand by that Bustos should not be dccc chair as she in a fast trending Trump district

Its not really trending anymore so to the Republicans, and it only voted for Trump by 1.

Uh, yes it is? Pritzker only won Rock Island, he lost everything else in the district.

Pritzker won 4 counties which are in or intersect her district (Rock Island, Fulton, Knox, Peoria).

For comparison Quinn didnt win any counties in her district in 2014, when she won 55-45.

[new_patomic]

I've really gotta learn to let it go, but since it's Illinois politics...

Bustos has without issue voted for Nancy Pelosi in every speaker election since she was first elected in 2012 and has even had Pelosi send out fundraising emails for her. In both the 2016 and 2018 cycles she was involved in numerous roles for the DCCC including co-chairing the "Red to Blue" program and as Chair of Heartland Engagement. So her being in charge of the DCCC ain't gonna suddenly make her a "Pelosi Democrat" when she's already been one since her first election.

While the district went from Obama +17 to Trump +1 there really isn't any indication that it's slipped further away, and both her own election and elections at the state-level support this. This is a district Kerry carried just 51-48 and it isn't some rural wasteland, and it isn't nearly as difficult as other Obama-Trump districts like IL-12.

Now she isn't as safe as Jan Schakowsky by any means but if the GOP wants to dumb millions trying to unseat her in 2020, then by all means, waste that money. This is a woman who knows how to walk and talk at the same time, the DCCC is in good hands.

[new_patomic]

Didn't know where else to put this but lol

Moulton calls out Ocasio-Cortez's tweet defending Pelosi as 'offensive'

[new_patomic]

Also LOL to the idea of IL-13 being Likely-R.

Or that somehow it'd be 'wasting' resources to spend in a seat we lost by less than a point just because  we can redistrict a better one for 2022.

[new_patomic]

How sure are we that this could pass?

The personal assurance that put her over the top seems to be that she's committed herself to staying on for a max of two more terms.

But Hoyer and Clyburn are going to be free to whip against it.

This could be nothing more than a verbal agreement, really.

[new_patomic]

How sure are we that this could pass?

The personal assurance that put her over the top seems to be that she's committed herself to staying on for a max of two more terms.

But Hoyer and Clyburn are going to be free to whip against it.

This could be nothing more than a verbal agreement, really.

I mean it's bad for Hoyer and Clyburn but everyone else I'm not so sure. Who benefits from Hoyer and Clyburn perpetually staying in power besides them?

The CBC is already pretty dead set against it, from what I understand.

There are also those who oppose the idea of term limits just on principle. Either because they could see it as a gateway into term limits on committee chairs, or because they see it as an attack on seniority which they themselves would possibly be entitled to in the future.