Pelosi: 'I am running for Dem leader'

[fskimospy]

The House while being led by the Republicans will be able to be shielded for a serious backlash. Anything that is departs that chamber must still be filtered/aproved by the Senate (still Democratic controlled) and the WH (still Dem controlled).

While Craig may like to excuse the Senate of having blue dogs that prevent a "pure" Dem agenda; to the public there are moer than 50 Dems that are elected to the Senate chamber - that wil mean that they are responsbile.

The public has some notion on how governmetn works and wehre the responsibility lies. Presently for the next 2 yers, the Dems are on the hook to provide leadership. They were given a warning shot to wakeup,

That's probably not true. I imagine the public will simply look on the issue as both sides sharing responsibility. When you think about it, it makes sense too. Both sides will have the ability to block legislation, and I sincerely doubt that because the Democrats have 2 ways to do it instead of 1 that it will matter.

The group that the public holds responsible for things not getting done will be decided by whichever side plays the framing game the best. In 1994, Clinton ran circles around the Republicans, and the country overwhelmingly came down on his side. This time, I guess we'll see. I personally think that we will see somewhat of a repeat of 1994. Not because the Republicans don't know better (because their leadership certainly has learned from the ass kicking Gingrich got), but because their base won't allow them to take the politically smart route of laying low.

 

[Craig234]

No, no they don't. Nor would I expect their (Repubs) opinion about Minority Leader to much matter, they will be voting for Repub candidates regardless.

However, I would suggest the Dems give consideration to the opinions of the independant/swing voters in choosing the Minority Leader. The Dems lost those independant/swing voters and therefor the election. Choosing a leader who is popular among the independant/swing voters could be helpful in the 2012 elections.

Fern

And who would that be? Which corporatist Dem 'should' Dems move to?

This whole 'the answer for Democrats is always to move to the right to appeal to so-called moderates' is bad political advice.

Harry Truman said, 'Give the public a choice between a Democrat who acts like a Republicans and a Republican, and they'll choose the real thing every time.'

As Rachel Maddow recently said, the game for Republicans is to move further to the extreme right, then demand that Democrats 'move to the middle', so that the old 'right' becomes the new 'middle' if not the new 'left'. You are suggesting to play that game, and keep moving the country to the right. Not exactly a good plan for the Democrats or the US.

There's always a short-term gain available by the plan of 'pander to the independants and take your base for granted'.

It's not a good plan longer term, you don't stand for anything, you lose your base. I notice you are not giving that 'move to the left' advice to Republicans, did not after 2006/2008.

I think Democrats can do just fine without your well-intended advice from the right how they can get more power.

 

[Double Trouble]

That's probably not true. I imagine the public will simply look on the issue as both sides sharing responsibility. When you think about it, it makes sense too. Both sides will have the ability to block legislation, and I sincerely doubt that because the Democrats have 2 ways to do it instead of 1 that it will matter.

The public almost always lays the credit/blame with the president, then with whatever party is perceived to have control of congress. Note how when people talk about the 90's and the relatively strong economy, they don't talk about the republican congress, they talk about the Clinton years. Bottom line is that generally the buck will stop with Obama, unless he can somehow convince the public that it's all the fault of the republicans, who have control of just one house of congress. That will be one heck of a rabbit to pull out of his hat.

This time, I guess we'll see. I personally think that we will see somewhat of a repeat of 1994.

There's a big difference between 1994 and today. In the 1994 election, the republicans took control of all of congress, and thus had to bear much of the blame when things got messy. Right now, the republicans have no prayer of pushing any agenda or doing anything since they don't have the senate or the white house. Bad things or good things that happen over the next two years will get pinned squarely on the democrats. If the economy turns around, Obama will be hailed as the great savior. If not, he's in trouble.

 

[Darwin333]

Are you really under the guise that its possible for a Democrat to lose a seat from San Fransisco to a Republican? Please tell me that you dont believe that.

Hey, a Republican won the second district in Louisiana. A Republican of Vietnamese decent even. He barely beat a guy who was under Federal indictment and well after the FBI found $90K of marked bills they gave to him as a bribe. Of course the sun, moon, stars, galaxies, and every black hole in the universe had to align for him to win that seat, which he lost to another career crook despite various votes that were extremely unpopular with his party.

If that shit can happen, anything is possible. For fucks sake, it is a district that was specifically drawn up to give black folk a seat and not only did a Republican win but it wasn't even a black Republican. A few short years prior I would have bet the farm that it would have never happen as long as I lived and although it didnt last long (and the Rs aren't that upset at the loss) it is still unbelievable that it happened.