FOR THOSE ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN POLITICS

yahooyahoo said:

 But she is a rallying cry for Trump and his cronies.  

1. Whoever they choose will be a "rallying cry."

2. They should not choose someone that Trump and his cronies approve of.

The argument that Pelosi was effective for the short time that she was speaker does not fly with me, because she should have been motivational enough to help her members get reelected.

FilmCarp said:
The argument that Pelosi was effective for the short time that she was speaker does not fly with me, because she should have been motivational enough to help her members get reelected.

 Really? How's that supposed to work?

When has a voter been motivated to vote for his or her Congressional candidate by the Speaker of the House? Political scientists will tell you that even a President has extremely little power to motivate someone to vote for a Congressional candidate.

I hope people keep posting here so we can keep this thread at the top.

yahooyahoo said:

dave23 said:

LOST said:

The Right does not hate her because they think she was not effective.

 Exactly.

 But she is a rallying cry for Trump and his cronies.  

 The "rallying cry" is whoever the Republicans decide to vilify. Pelosi's actions have nothing to do with it.

eta: I see that I partly duplicated dave23's post.

Great minds, and all that.....

I'm not sure what people expect from Pelosi as majority leader. It's mostly an organizational/executive position, not a policy one. And she apparently has great skill at that.

Has any majority leader ever been a leader on policy issues? That's what we expect from our President, not from majority leader. It seems like a lot of Dems are dissing on Pelosi simply because the R's have made her a focal point. The R's would like nothing more than to get rid of Pelosi and replace her with someone less experienced. Let's not do their job for them.

Well, it won't be much of a conversation on this thread if someone like me, a jersey born Democrat in my 50's, can't suggest that Pelosi isn't the leader we need without being told that I am making it easy for the Republicans.  I don't like the status quo that has gotten us trump.  She is part of it.

If someone can explain to me what is they think a majority leader can accomplish in terms of setting policy, I might be convinced. But like I said, I don't remember majority leaders ever having that role. The leader is in charge of rounding up votes and organizing the committees and crap like that. 

I'm not trying to defend the Democratic status quo - I just don't see how replacing Pelosi would do anything about that. And it's not only that - it's not like people are saying "hey, look at person A - they would be great person to replace Pelosi".

People are asking for a replacement with no idea as to whom the replacement should be, or what they should do.

Just doesn't make sense to me.

FilmCarp said:
 I don't like the status quo that has gotten us trump.  She is part of it.

 I am not sure I understand that sentence.

The Democrats won in 2008.  They had it all.  They blew it.  They didn't push a big agenda.  In Obamas first speech he talked about working with Republicans.  He never went all in for a left agenda.  Yes, they passed the ACA, but they did it by giving all of the involved corporate interests new avenues to even higher profits.  It was a watered down start of what should have been bold.  The speaker can be more than just a vote counter, which she is very good at.  She can use the position to push, to chide, to campaign, to keep issues in the headlines.  She chose not to do that.  I want to see energy.

FilmCarp said:
The Democrats won in 2008.  They had it all.  They blew it.  They didn't push a big agenda.  In Obamas first speech he talked about working with Republicans.  He never went all in for a left agenda.  Yes, they passed the ACA, but they did it by giving all of the involved corporate interests new avenues to even higher profits.  It was a watered down start of what should have been bold.  The speaker can be more than just a vote counter, which she is very good at.  She can use the position to push, to chide, to campaign, to keep issues in the headlines.  She chose not to do that.  I want to see energy.

The ACA was extraordinarily difficult to put together in such a way as to get 60 Senate votes. To criticize it for not being lefty enough is silly. It was the biggest transfer of wealth, in the right direction, in a generation. What more do you want? And it's led us to the point where single-payer is more and more mainstream. ACA was a pretty remarkable success, when all is said and done - considering what a tough job it is to sell universal healthcare in the U.S.

And this 'bully pulpit" stuff is just nonsense. Whether it's for the maj. leader or for the Prez. Obama was criticized for the same thing. Anyway, the maj. leader has no natural national constituency, nor does she have a policy mandate at the national level. That's for the President.

https://www.vox.com/2014/5/20/5732208/the-green-lantern-theory-of-the-presidency-explained

What is the Green Lantern Theory of the Presidency?

According to Brendan Nyhan, the Dartmouth political scientist who coined the term, the Green Lantern Theory of the Presidency is "the belief that the president can achieve any political or policy objective if only he tries hard enough or uses the right tactics." In other words, the American president is functionally all-powerful, and whenever he can't get something done, it's because he's not trying hard enough, or not trying smart enough.

Nyhan further separates it into two variants: "the Reagan version of the Green Lantern Theory and the LBJ version of the Green Lantern Theory." The Reagan version, he says, holds that "if you only communicate well enough the public will rally to your side." The LBJ version says that "if the president only tried harder to win over congress they would vote through his legislative agenda." In both cases, Nyhan argues, "we've been sold a false bill of goods."

drummerboy said:
If someone can explain to me what is they think a majority leader can accomplish in terms of setting policy, I might be convinced. But like I said, I don't remember majority leaders ever having that role. The leader is in charge of rounding up votes and organizing the committees and crap like that. 
I'm not trying to defend the Democratic status quo - I just don't see how replacing Pelosi would do anything about that. And it's not only that - it's not like people are saying "hey, look at person A - they would be great person to replace Pelosi".
People are asking for a replacement with no idea as to whom the replacement should be, or what they should do.


Just doesn't make sense to me.

 The majority leader selects committee chairs. Also appoints committees. "If you vote my way, you get the position in the committee you want.

dave23 said:

yahooyahoo said:

 But she is a rallying cry for Trump and his cronies.  

1. Whoever they choose will be a "rallying cry."
2. They should not choose someone that Trump and his cronies approve of.

 Okay, serious question.  What are some of the positive things that Pelosi has done as ranking Dem in the House since Trump came into office that someone else could not have done?

yahooyahoo said:

dave23 said:

yahooyahoo said:

 But she is a rallying cry for Trump and his cronies.  

1. Whoever they choose will be a "rallying cry."
2. They should not choose someone that Trump and his cronies approve of.

 Okay, serious question.  What are some of the positive things that Pelosi has done as ranking Dem in the House since Trump came into office that someone else could not have done?

Don't get me wrong: I'm not a huge fan of her, at least the public-facing version of her. I just think that Dems are yet again letting Republicans write the narrative by demonizing her. I'm not going to pretend to understand the internal political machinations. As far as accomplishments: Very little as far as I know, just as much as any other would accomplish.

yahooyahoo said:

dave23 said:

yahooyahoo said:

 But she is a rallying cry for Trump and his cronies.  

1. Whoever they choose will be a "rallying cry."
2. They should not choose someone that Trump and his cronies approve of.

 Okay, serious question.  What are some of the positive things that Pelosi has done as ranking Dem in the House since Trump came into office that someone else could not have done?

 Not really sure what you expect a Dem minority leader to do when the entire government is controlled by Repubs.

drummerboy said:

yahooyahoo said:

dave23 said:

yahooyahoo said:

 But she is a rallying cry for Trump and his cronies.  

1. Whoever they choose will be a "rallying cry."
2. They should not choose someone that Trump and his cronies approve of.

 Okay, serious question.  What are some of the positive things that Pelosi has done as ranking Dem in the House since Trump came into office that someone else could not have done?

 Not really sure what you expect a Dem minority leader to do when the entire government is controlled by Repubs.

 JImmy Dore knows what to expect from Nancy Pelosi!

If only Jimmy Dore weren't a buffoon podcaster / conspiracy nutter.

dave said:
If only Jimmy Dore weren't a buffoon podcaster / conspiracy nutter.

 The Democrats sold the nomination in 2016 to Hillary Clinton who lost to an psycho orange reality TV star, while Democrats have lost over 1000 seats nationwide.  They continue to ignore the working class, embrace the neocons and try to cover their tracks with blame and fear.  They blame it on Russia and Jill Stein and continue on with the same losing strategy. Supporters think voter shaming will change the outcome. 

Jimmy Doe is not the buffoon or conspiracy nutter.  

Not sure about Jimmy Doe, but Jimmy Dore sure is.

nan said:

 psycho orange reality TV star, while Democrats have lost over 1000 seats nationwide.  T

 Why don't you fight against the orange reality star instead of Hillary - will the Bernie supporters EVER let this go?  OMG

Just go after Trump for ONCE!  It may actually be useful for the country if your side did this.

Don't hold your breath Jamie.   

nan said:

Jimmy Doe is not the buffoon or conspiracy nutter.  

 He pushed the Seth Rich conspiracy (as in, murder victim who worked for DNC was actually murdered because he leaked emails).

nan said:

The Democrats sold the nomination in 2016 to Hillary Clinton who lost to an psycho orange reality TV star, while Democrats have lost over 1000 seats nationwide.  They continue to ignore the working class, embrace the neocons and try to cover their tracks with blame and fear. 

 The nomination went to the person who received the most votes.  The whole "sold the nomination" garbage is based on distortions of the facts.  And as for "working class", please use the term "white working class".  The working class African Americans and other people of color (who always seem to be forgotten when someone goes on a rant about the Democrats and the working class) didn't seem to feel ignored. 

dave23 said:

yahooyahoo said:

dave23 said:

yahooyahoo said:

 But she is a rallying cry for Trump and his cronies.  

1. Whoever they choose will be a "rallying cry."
2. They should not choose someone that Trump and his cronies approve of.

 Okay, serious question.  What are some of the positive things that Pelosi has done as ranking Dem in the House since Trump came into office that someone else could not have done?

Don't get me wrong: I'm not a huge fan of her, at least the public-facing version of her. I just think that Dems are yet again letting Republicans write the narrative by demonizing her. I'm not going to pretend to understand the internal political machinations. As far as accomplishments: Very little as far as I know, just as much as any other would accomplish.

 So we should keep her until she dies of old age just to spite the Repugs?

jamie said:

nan said: psycho orange reality TV star, while Democrats have lost over 1000 seats nationwide.  T

 Why don't you fight against the orange reality star instead of Hillary - will the Bernie supporters EVER let this go?  OMG
Just go after Trump for ONCE!  It may actually be useful for the country if your side did this.

 I like the way Nan is all "Bernie Supporters".  There are plenty of Bernie folks marching every weekend around the country, fighting the good fight and punching the fascists in the nose.

Of course, if you Clintoncrats could just admit you screwed the pooch by choosing the one candidate capable of losing to Mango Mussolini, that might go a ways towards calming the waters.

Just saying.....

Those who do not learn (from) history are doomed to repeat it

On the general topic of 2018 politics -- the 538 House Model is out:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/

Odds are good, but not great, for Democrats taking the House.  One lesson I took away from 2016 is that a one in five chance  (IIRC, Trump's odds according to 538) is not small chance.

nohero said:

nan said:
Jimmy Doe is not the buffoon or conspiracy nutter.  

 He pushed the Seth Rich conspiracy (as in, murder victim who worked for DNC was actually murdered because he leaked emails).

 He did not push the Seth Rich conspiracy.  He covered it in his program, because it was news.  Are people not allowed to cover a murder?  He talked about what happened and what some people said about it.  He does not claim that Seth Rich was killed on purpose because he had the DNC files.  That is false.

jamie said:

nan said: psycho orange reality TV star, while Democrats have lost over 1000 seats nationwide.  T

 Why don't you fight against the orange reality star instead of Hillary - will the Bernie supporters EVER let this go?  OMG
Just go after Trump for ONCE!  It may actually be useful for the country if your side did this.

 I fight the DNC, because I hold them responsible for getting the psycho orange reality star elected. I don't subscribe  to the Russiagate  or blame it on Jill Stein or others with no money or power theories.  I want them to change their losing strategy into something better so we don't have eight years of he psycho orange reality star.  I want them to allow an exciting candidate with a great platform to win the nomination.  We have plenty of people getting deranged about Trump.  Not enough are putting pressure on the DNC to actually try to win so I'd rather focus on the biggest need.

nohero said:

nan said:
The Democrats sold the nomination in 2016 to Hillary Clinton who lost to an psycho orange reality TV star, while Democrats have lost over 1000 seats nationwide.  They continue to ignore the working class, embrace the neocons and try to cover their tracks with blame and fear. 

 The nomination went to the person who received the most votes.  The whole "sold the nomination" garbage is based on distortions of the facts.  And as for "working class", please use the term "white working class".  The working class African Americans and other people of color (who always seem to be forgotten when someone goes on a rant about the Democrats and the working class) didn't seem to feel ignored. 

 The nomination went to the person who signed a secret deal for the DNC to only work for her, and then worked directly with the media to manufacture consent for her coronation.  They even gave her the debate questions in advance.  They also did fishy things related to voting, but only some of them can be proven.  Despite all of this tremendous help, an old socialist from Vermont did very, very well--which should have been a clue that HRC was not a good choice, despite it being "her turn." She did get more votes, or at least all the ones they said they counted, and of course all the superdelegates who were committed even before the primary started.   Sad to say, she lost the election to an orange psycho reality TV star, and instead of demanding that the DNC clean up their act, many of you are instead focused on Russia and voter shamming.  So, we might be in for eight years of you know who.  Thanks, DNC.