Politics Fight for House speaker explodes into national political campaign

[dank69]

If they're retarded enough to hate Pelosi they're retarded enough to hate anybody else we pick.

The only problem is that with Pelosi, the well is already poisoned. An unknown at least has a chance to make a good first impression before the lunatic asylum can spin up the slime machine.

 

[Maxima1]

If they're retarded enough to hate Pelosi they're retarded enough to hate anybody else we pick.

Pelosi is bad for the party. She's a continuation of Obama's stupid bipartisan appeals.

After midterms:

Pelosi: "We have a bipartisan marketplace of ideas that makes our democracy strong. A Democratic congress will work for solutions that bring us together because we have all had enough of division. The American people want peace, they want results"

 

[ivwshane]

Here is the problem, Pelosi helps bring in as many donors to the Republican side as she does to the Democrats side. Republicans use her as a bogeyman when they are running against a Democrat.
I could care less if I could have a beer with her. I do expect her leadership being a net positive which in the recent past hasn’t happened.

Fun fact; Republicans were using pelosi as a boogeyman this election cycle. Guess how that turned out for them?

It's actually pretty simple math... Erase the gains that were just realized in the House by making this bitch the head... lose many votes including mine...

You sound like a really intelligent voter. /s


Not utilizing the most effective house speaker to push your agenda in a Congress that rarely gets anything done now, is utterly retarded.

Now if she starts actually blocking "progressive" legislation, then you guys might have a point but if you expect her to put progressive legislation to a vote when she doesn't have the votes, then you might be dumber than you thought.

 

[ivwshane]

The only problem is that with Pelosi, the well is already poisoned. An unknown at least has a chance to make a good first impression before the lunatic asylum can spin up the slime machine.

You are delusional and you clearly haven't been paying attention to Republican politics for very long.

 

[dank69]

You are delusional and you clearly haven't been paying attention to Republican politics for very long.

I have an idea. How about you talk to me like I'm an actual human being. I mean, fuck, we've been on the same side of countless issues but I dare to question if Pelosi is the absolute best choice and you talk to me like an asshole.

 

[ivwshane]

I have an idea. How about you talk to me like I'm an actual human being. I mean, fuck, we've been on the same side of countless issues but I dare to question if Pelosi is the absolute best choice and you talk to me like an asshole.

I am an asshole and I'll talk to you the same way I talk to anyone who says something dumb. You thinking that Republicans being blind sided by someone who has to go through a process to get the speaker nomination and then to actually get the speakership, will somehow give them a chance? A chance for what? A chance for Democrats to try and pass something important only to screw it up because the rookie speaker doesn't know how to count votes?
The speaker of the house isn't about being likeable its about getting your agenda passed.

If you claim to support progressive, liberal, or Democrat ideas then I have no idea why you wouldn't want someone competent at the helm.

 

[Jhhnn]

I have an idea. How about you talk to me like I'm an actual human being. I mean, fuck, we've been on the same side of countless issues but I dare to question if Pelosi is the absolute best choice and you talk to me like an asshole.

You're just tearing her down, not building anybody else up. It's not constructive.

 

[dank69]

I am an asshole and I'll talk to you the same way I talk to anyone who says something dumb. You thinking that Republicans being blind sided by someone who has to go through a process to get the speaker nomination and then to actually get the speakership, will somehow give them a chance? A chance for what? A chance for Democrats to try and pass something important only to screw it up because the rookie speaker doesn't know how to count votes?
The speaker of the house isn't about being likeable its about getting your agenda passed.

If you claim to support progressive, liberal, or Democrat ideas then I have no idea why you wouldn't want someone competent at the helm.

I'm an asshole too but I treat people I know are thoughtful with the respect they deserve even when we disagree. You are acting like if they don't put up Pelosi the whole damn party will turn into a clusterfuck. Speaking about saying stupid things, that is pretty stupid.

 

[Maxima1]

I am an asshole and I'll talk to you the same way I talk to anyone who says something dumb. You thinking that Republicans being blind sided by someone who has to go through a process to get the speaker nomination and then to actually get the speakership, will somehow give them a chance? A chance for what? A chance for Democrats to try and pass something important only to screw it up because the rookie speaker doesn't know how to count votes?

They've already conceded to some inane bipartisan bullshit, and she hasn't won the appropriation fights. I don't want to see her push some incredibly flawed infrastructure bill or whatever you have in mind that's "something important". Shee-it, Schumer is worse at it than she is, which means we have to get past ~53 conservative Senators. Actually, it's all completely and utterly moot if they start investigating Trump, which they better.

The speaker of the house isn't about being likeable its about getting your agenda passed.

If you claim to support progressive, liberal, or Democrat ideas then I have no idea why you wouldn't want someone competent at the helm.

Pelosi is good at rolling in the cash from her corporate donors and elite "liberal" millionaires and billionaires. She uses some of that to help Democrats in their election battles, which in turn means they'll support her in her role, and they'll also become good little dirty Democrats. This is why Democrats always wring their hands, while the Republicans fight tooth and nail for anything they want.

 

[Jhhnn]

They've already conceded to some inane bipartisan bullshit, and she hasn't won the appropriation fights. I don't want to see her push some incredibly flawed infrastructure bill or whatever you have in mind that's "something important". Shee-it, Schumer is worse at it than she is, which means we have to get past ~53 conservative Senators. Actually, it's all completely and utterly moot if they start investigating Trump, which they better.



Pelosi is good at rolling in the cash from her corporate donors and elite "liberal" millionaires and billionaires. She uses some of that to help Democrats in their election battles, which in turn means they'll support her in her role, and they'll also become good little dirty Democrats. This is why Democrats always wring their hands, while the Republicans fight tooth and nail for anything they want.

So, concern trolling it is. Good you cleared that up.

 

[dank69]

You're just tearing her down, not building anybody else up. It's not constructive.

I'm not tearing anyone down. I acknowledged earlier that I may have had her confused with Feinstein when it comes to DINO statements made. All I am saying now is that Repulicans will have an easier time convincing independents that anything Pelosi does is the worst thing to ever happen in the history of government simply because independents already have a negative view of her. Maybe you don't care. Maybe you forgot already that after passing an apparently progressive ACA bill that the entire country that had rejected the GOP a few years before went screaming back to them in droves.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm not tearing anyone down. I acknowledged earlier that I may have had her confused with Feinstein when it comes to DINO statements made. All I am saying now is that Repulicans will have an easier time convincing independents that anything Pelosi does is the worst thing to ever happen in the history of government simply because independents already have a negative view of her. Maybe you don't care. Maybe you forgot already that after passing an apparently progressive ACA bill that the entire country that had rejected the GOP a few years before went screaming back to them in droves.

Yeah, you are thinking of Feinstein. She's a little on the hawkish side and has big donors in the defense industry. Honestly, other than trying to pass gun control, I don't know what Feinstein brings to the table.

Pelosi on the other hand, is a freakin beast and she knows how to count and wrangle votes.

As for Schumer, yeah, I don't find him to be very effective either.

Also, the ACA is now in positive territory in terms of public opinion. That should tell you two things; Republicans are good at messaging and will be relentless with whatever the dems try and do and the Democrats have horrible messaging but the public prefers Democrat ideas and policies.

So you can either have a competent speaker actually capable of getting shit done and Republican opposition doing what they always do or you can have a rookie who can't pass shit who still has Republican opposition doing what they always do. It seems like a pretty simple choice.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not tearing anyone down. I acknowledged earlier that I may have had her confused with Feinstein when it comes to DINO statements made. All I am saying now is that Repulicans will have an easier time convincing independents that anything Pelosi does is the worst thing to ever happen in the history of government simply because independents already have a negative view of her. Maybe you don't care. Maybe you forgot already that after passing an apparently progressive ACA bill that the entire country that had rejected the GOP a few years before went screaming back to them in droves.

Pelosi was the GOP poster child of soshulist Evil this election & it didn't do them much good. And, like I said, I trust our Dem reps to make a good choice, whether that's Pelosi or somebody else. You're just setting the stage for divisive bitterness among progressives if they don't get somebody else. You know, like staying home & pining for poor cheated Bernie while Trump won the election. We can do with a whole lot less of that.

 

[dank69]

Yeah, you are thinking of Feinstein. She's a little on the hawkish side and has big donors in the defense industry. Honestly, other than trying to pass gun control, I don't know what Feinstein brings to the table.

Pelosi on the other hand, is a freakin beast and she knows how to count and wrangle votes.

As for Schumer, yeah, I don't find him to be very effective either.

Also, the ACA is now in positive territory in terms of public opinion. That should tell you two things; Republicans are good at messaging and will be relentless with whatever the dems try and do and the Democrats have horrible messaging but the public prefers Democrat ideas and policies.

So you can either have a competent speaker actually capable of getting shit done and Republican opposition doing what they always do or you can have a rookie who can't pass shit who still has Republican opposition doing what they always do. It seems like a pretty simple choice.

I though counting and wrangling was the whip's job anyway.

 

[dank69]

Pelosi was the GOP poster child of soshulist Evil this election & it didn't do them much good. And, like I said, I trust our Dem reps to make a good choice, whether that's Pelosi or somebody else. You're just setting the stage for divisive bitterness among progressives if they don't get somebody else. You know, like staying home & pining for poor cheated Bernie while Trump won the election. We can do with a whole lot less of that.

Oh it didn't help Republicans? Are you sure about that? Last I looked the GOP got almost 8 million more votes this year than they did in 2014. Democrats and independents weren't voting for Pelosi, they were voting against Trump.

 

[dank69]

Yeah, you are thinking of Feinstein. She's a little on the hawkish side and has big donors in the defense industry. Honestly, other than trying to pass gun control, I don't know what Feinstein brings to the table.

Pelosi on the other hand, is a freakin beast and she knows how to count and wrangle votes.

As for Schumer, yeah, I don't find him to be very effective either.

Also, the ACA is now in positive territory in terms of public opinion. That should tell you two things; Republicans are good at messaging and will be relentless with whatever the dems try and do and the Democrats have horrible messaging but the public prefers Democrat ideas and policies.

So you can either have a competent speaker actually capable of getting shit done and Republican opposition doing what they always do or you can have a rookie who can't pass shit who still has Republican opposition doing what they always do. It seems like a pretty simple choice.

Again that is a false dichotomy.

 

[Jhhnn]

Oh it didn't help Republicans? Are you sure about that? Last I looked the GOP got almost 8 million more votes this year than they did in 2014. Democrats and independents weren't voting for Pelosi, they were voting against Trump.

So what? They weren't voting against Pelosi-

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/problem-emerges-the-republicans-anti-pelosi-strategy

 

[Maxima1]

Yeah, you are thinking of Feinstein. She's a little on the hawkish side and has big donors in the defense industry. Honestly, other than trying to pass gun control, I don't know what Feinstein brings to the table.

Pelosi on the other hand, is a freakin beast and she knows how to count and wrangle votes.

As for Schumer, yeah, I don't find him to be very effective either.

Also, the ACA is now in positive territory in terms of public opinion. That should tell you two things; Republicans are good at messaging and will be relentless with whatever the dems try and do and the Democrats have horrible messaging but the public prefers Democrat ideas and policies.

So you can either have a competent speaker actually capable of getting shit done and Republican opposition doing what they always do or you can have a rookie who can't pass shit who still has Republican opposition doing what they always do. It seems like a pretty simple choice.

I find it strange you'll bash Feinstein for donors in the defense industry, yet it's flowers and daisies for Pelosi. Because of her large cash hauls, she is definitely within the same group as Feinstein. You won't see her fight hard against conservative appeals or fight hard for progressive initiatives. Prominence in the Democratic party means you need to haul in cash for leadership positions. All of that is coming from donors who want to maintain a substantial influence for a more centrist party.

Pelosi pulls in staggering sums for Dems despite facing opposition in the ranks

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/15/politics/nancy-pelosi-fundraising-democrats/index.html

"Despite facing more opposition from Democrats than any other time in her career, Pelosi's fundraising strength remains her biggest asset -- a clear sign why she continues to maintain a hold atop her caucus. If Democrats retake the House in November, Pelosi is certain to use that appeal to try to convince even her skeptics to give her another opportunity to take the speaker's gavel."

Pelosi was the GOP poster child of soshulist Evil this election & it didn't do them much good. And, like I said, I trust our Dem reps to make a good choice, whether that's Pelosi or somebody else. You're just setting the stage for divisive bitterness among progressives if they don't get somebody else. You know, like staying home & pining for poor cheated Bernie while Trump won the election. We can do with a whole lot less of that.

Considering all the crap during the past two years, it was pretty meh, even without considering there were substantial shifts in many of the prior elections.

We've had change elections in 2006, 2008, 2010, 2014, 2016 and 2018 now, skipping only 2012. -- Nate Silver

 

[ivwshane]

I find it strange you'll bash Feinstein for donors in the defense industry, yet it's flowers and daisies for Pelosi. Because of her large cash hauls, she is definitely within the same group as Feinstein. You won't see her fight hard against conservative appeals or fight hard for progressive initiatives. Prominence in the Democratic party means you need to haul in cash for leadership positions. All of that is coming from donors who want to maintain a substantial influence for a more centrist party.

Pelosi pulls in staggering sums for Dems despite facing opposition in the ranks

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/15/politics/nancy-pelosi-fundraising-democrats/index.html

"Despite facing more opposition from Democrats than any other time in her career, Pelosi's fundraising strength remains her biggest asset -- a clear sign why she continues to maintain a hold atop her caucus. If Democrats retake the House in November, Pelosi is certain to use that appeal to try to convince even her skeptics to give her another opportunity to take the speaker's gavel."




Considering all the crap during the past two years, it was pretty meh, even without considering there were substantial shifts in many of the prior elections.

We've had change elections in 2006, 2008, 2010, 2014, 2016 and 2018 now, skipping only 2012. -- Nate Silver

The difference as I explained is that Pelosi gets shit done and has done alot for liberal causes, I can't say the same for Feinstein. I also pointed out that information for another poster because it's something he cares about. I only care about donations if the rep lets it affect how they vote.

 

[ivwshane]

Again that is a false dichotomy.

Then put up and show me who is more capable than Pelosi.

 

[Moonbeam]

I know it is vague and I'm having a hard time finding examples. I just seem to remember her saying some really shitty things over the past few years that really struck me as "well why the fuck is she even a Democrat?" Then again, maybe I am just getting her confused with Feinstein. I'm more than happy to withdraw my objection if that turns out to be the case. I know the GOP smear machine will just ramp up on whoever gets the position, but that also doesn't mean we have to let them start in the red zone. The Pelosi memes are already written. Independents already hate her without any more help. It wasn't fair for HIllary and maybe it isn't fair for Pelosi but we don't have the luxury of time to fuck around. Even if we min-max every decision for the best possible outcome starting right now it is probably already way too late.

Dank, the mistake you are making in your reasoning here, in my opinion, is that in choosing Hillary over Sanders, the Democrats chose a candidate with a massively and undeservedly damaged reputation to run in an election that required a broad appeal to working white Americans, one focused on economic justice rather than identity politics. But Pelosi isn't being chosen to run in a general election, she has already won hers. She is running to lead the Democrats and her negatives with independents or Republicans is of little importance. What will matter is the political skill with which the House handles its opposition to Trump and how attractive that is to the voters come 2020. Not a really ideal time for somebody still in need of on the job training. Running for President and Speaker are two completely different things and require completely different sets of appeal. You look for different skills from say a general practitioner of medicine than you would from a surgeon.

 

[Jhhnn]

Dank, the mistake you are making in your reasoning here, in my opinion, is that in choosing Hillary over Sanders, the Democrats chose a candidate with a massively and undeservedly damaged reputation to run in an election that required a broad appeal to working white Americans, one focused on economic justice rather than identity politics. But Pelosi isn't being chosen to run in a general election, she has already won hers. She is running to lead the Democrats and her negatives with independents or Republicans is of little importance. What will matter is the political skill with which the House handles its opposition to Trump and how attractive that is to the voters come 2020. Not a really ideal time for somebody still in need of on the job training. Running for President and Speaker are two completely different things and require completely different sets of appeal. You look for different skills from say a general practitioner of medicine than you would from a surgeon.

Well said. Thank you.

 

[dank69]

Then put up and show me who is more capable than Pelosi.

I never said she wasn't capable. I also never said she wasn't the most capable. I am saying there may be other people who are capable without already being hated by the general population. Maybe you are right though. Maybe every other Democrat elected is not able to count.

 

[dank69]

Dank, the mistake you are making in your reasoning here, in my opinion, is that in choosing Hillary over Sanders, the Democrats chose a candidate with a massively and undeservedly damaged reputation to run in an election that required a broad appeal to working white Americans, one focused on economic justice rather than identity politics. But Pelosi isn't being chosen to run in a general election, she has already won hers. She is running to lead the Democrats and her negatives with independents or Republicans is of little importance. What will matter is the political skill with which the House handles its opposition to Trump and how attractive that is to the voters come 2020. Not a really ideal time for somebody still in need of on the job training. Running for President and Speaker are two completely different things and require completely different sets of appeal. You look for different skills from say a general practitioner of medicine than you would from a surgeon.

Perhaps you are right, but maybe you can tell me why you don't think it is important to also be able to sell your proposed bills to the general public. Or do we want some more backlash like in 2010 for a bill that was a net positive simply because America is unable to understand the context of a comment like we have to pass it to see what's in it? I'm all for another heaping helping of backlash. It's no secret that I don't think America deserves to be bailed out by Democrats yet again. We've already gone and given the GOP exactly what they want again: someone to blame for all our problems.

 

[Bitek]

LMFAO at the thought we should be letting Rs pick our Congressional leaders based on their popularity within the R party....

Just like Ryan, McConnell, Bohner, Hastert (child molester), Trent Lott and Newt fucking Gingrich were bipartisan consensus picks.

LMAO that Rs won't immediately trash, lie and slime anyone the second they take the gavel.

Congressional leaders are not the political leaders. Their job is to know the arcade rules of the Congress and maneuver the party within them to get shit done in the background.

Why now is the time to listen to Trump's mindgames and pick a newbie is beyond me.