then we can talk about leadership

Let's do well enough at the state level to get a level playing field in House districting so the House represents the will of the people.

and sadly it probably won't make much difference until 2032 (post 2030 census).

The 2020 census is going to feed into the already gerrymandered districts.

And while I think a "blue map" effort would be great (with changing demographics, expanded voter registration, and anger by the left for being ruled by a minority... and a radical minority at that... we deserve to maybe rub their noses in the dirt by doing unto them what the did to us)... it simply won't be possible for a decade. We gerrymander every f'ing district to cage the repuke voter into a tiny minority.

But first we have a democracy to save by blocking the Trump agenda.

And that means winning the House and maybe the Senate right now.

But the Senate deck is stacked against us this year, the House is genuinely in play, and we do also really need to at least make progress at the state level as soon as we can to at a minimum limit the damage done after the 2020 census redistricting.

At any rate, I think it's a fair short-term goal we need to keep on the front-burner right there with a Blue Wave in the House this year before we start making plans for 2020 and beyond.

nippping at her heals. I support Nancy all the way.

110%.

I'm not sure he got to her heels.

Nobody who bought into the white working class narrative that followed the 2016 election. If that's the only alternative, then stick with Pelosi. Her criticism of Maxine Waters did irritate me, though.

district - where in the hell was HE and why didn't HE deliver HIS OWN DISTRICT to the Democratic nominee?

Last edited Thu Aug 9, 2018, 03:41 PM - Edit history (1)

hold her leadership position until she retires.

She deserves incredibly more respect than she's given, even by the average Democrat who's been poisoned by the right. And others. She's the highest ranking woman in American government ever and was elevated to that position by her colleagues, a position that demands immense talent very few have and experience just as few have.

I have this completely legal, but politically highly unlikely fantasy that the House elects Hillary Clinton Speaker, impeaches both Trump and Pence whom the Dem controlled Senate then convict....and there we have HRC in the White House where she belongs.

They are the best, and only ones with the insight to know who is and isn't effective at the job of Speaker.

You don't need to be the biggest fan of Nancy to look around and wonder who really would be any better.

They have the knowledge to know who is best among them to do the job, because they know best what the job entails, and what the candidates are like when they are at work, unlike those of us not in the House. That's why they decide who is best.

Wonder all you like, but it's not up to us, is it?

But if one is going to advocate for a change, it is often most helpful to indicate what change one is looking for.

And on what grounds does anyone outside of congress have to judge - or advocate - who and who is not capable of the job of Speaker?

The Speaker, a member of the House, is elected by a majority party caucus. In addition to being chief spokesman for the majority party caucus, the Speaker runs the proceedings of House debate and voting, appoints committee members, refers bills to committees for research and development, and has an influential voice in all stages of a bill's consideration. One of the most visible and influential officials of the federal government, the Speaker is second in line, after the vice president, in succession to the presidency.

Do you not trust the Democrats in the House to make this decision? If not, why do you think they require outside input?

And anyone can advocate to their representative who they want as speaker of the house.

And no, I don't trust ALL members of the House to make decisions, which is why I constantly write to mine and attend their constituent meetings here in the district to voice my opinion.

I understand letting them know your opinion, but you did vote for them to go and do this full time, didn't you?

Why do you not trust Democrats in the House to know more than *you* do concerning other Democratic house members, who work with each other and see firsthand what each others' strengths are?

What do you trust them to do, if not pick a speaker from amongst themselves?

My representatives always ask for my input. I'm not sure why the speakership should be any different. I express my desires for cabinet appointments as well. I express my disappointment in DCCC leadership (appointed by the speaker, who is elected by my representative). I don't do blind obedience, sorry.

Last edited Thu Aug 9, 2018, 07:44 AM - Edit history (1)

Because it is, whether you think it should be or not.

Yes, you may have some valuable insight to share concerning legislation affecting you and/or your district.

What insight do you have as to which rep - especially one who is not your rep - is better at doing the job that a speaker or minority leader does that your rep doesn't have?

Understanding that isn't "blind obedience," it's having a bit of coherence about what the Speaker/leader does, and the fact that you have no tools to judge that.

You are perfectly free to share your dislike of the woman who is now the minority leader, but to expect your rep to disregard what they know of her efficacy and experience would be to expect "blind obedience" to Zipple on the part of your rep.

It's their job to make this decision, because there is no way anyone, even Zipplewrath, who is not on that floor doing the actual job, has the qualification to make.

That's why Speaker/Leader is elected by the party reps, and not at local polls....

I find it strange that you think it is some sort of problem to express my point of view to a representative.
"Because it is" isn't exactly an explanation. It's the "because I'm the parent" kinda explanation.

I have SOME tools with which to judge the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of a speaker, especially one that has a track record by which to judge. As for potential replacements, I also have SOME tools.

It is their job to vote, and I can judge my representative by how they vote. Ain't democracy great!

Strawman. Express away.

I just asked you why you felt that your opinion should be considered when reps vote for Speaker or House Minority Leader over or equally knowledgable than those Democratic reps who are actually in the House. I find that rather strange.

"I have SOME tools with which to judge the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of a speaker," But do you have any tools by which to judge what speaker should be chosen among those in the house of representatives? What does Zipplewrath know that they don't?

You have expressed that "representative democracy" somehow grants you perview over this, and the fact that it doesn't relegates you to "blind obedience" as if the vote for Speaker somehow requires you to "submit."

At least to a speaker that rubs you the wrong way.

While you're at it, please write to SCOTUS to let them know how they should be ruling on a given issue.

Can you expound on what tools you have that make you as or more qualified to judge who would and would not be the best person among the actual Democratic Representatives for the job of Speaker?

Mind reading?

If someone has been in a leadership position in the past, or currently, then there can be clues on how they choose to lead. A rep who was a chairman has a record of hiring staff and making appointments that can be a clue to their tendencies. Someone who is, or has been in charge of something like the DCCC has a record that can be judged. Some representative, especially from "safe" districts, often spend alot of time raising money for other representatives. The people they choose, and the way they choose to raise funds (and from whom) can suggest what kind of leader they'll be and what their priorities will be. Public speaking can also be an indication of what kind of leader they'll be.

This of course is vastly less information than what is available from someone who actually has had (or has) the job.

Not the same as working with someone daily.

And I've never heard of businesses considering "outside" candidates if they are choosing leaders of their own project teams.

That's a stretch in trying to justify why they would need Zipplewrath's input on who is really best suited to be speaker/leader...

It's why diversity is important.

Hillary Clinton, well, count me in. Putting the choice of both the majority Democratic voters for their POTUS nominee, and the choice of the majority of voters in the General Election for POTUS, who has loads of experience in that leadership position makes total sense. And it puts her in line for the job she was elected to do once DT and Pence go down. I'm with you on that.

While not "mandated" at all in most places where promotion from within is the preferred policy of labor, I think we can say that House leadership isn't an entry level position... despite what some on the fringes of both sides seem to think.

better alternative.

There really isn't alot of obvious choices. Most of them would already be in leadership positions and wouldn't really represent much of a change, other than optics. And really, especially right now with so many women entering politics, switching out for one of the male leaders would be really bad optics.

The last thing we need in the top leadership position is a person who has not served in leadership. This is not a job for a new-kid-on-the-block maverick.

Just kinda depends on what their experience has been. Occasionally reps were in leadership positions at the state level. A former leader of the California assembly probably has some useful experience. Not very many of those right now though.

Any experience can be "useful." But I would never want the Speaker of the House or Minority Leader to be someone who does not have considerable experience in the House leadership. Those aren't on-the-job training jobs and, unless their experience comes from being in the body they are trying to navigate, they will be abject failures.

Contrary to what some here seem to think, these jobs require vast knowledge and understanding of the ins and outs of every aspect of the House and that can only come through in-person, hands-on, long-term, unsexy experience in the trenches.

I now have a (somewhat) better grasp of all the balls she has in the air at one time, the different constituents she has to satisfy, the disagreements she has to smooth over, the criticism and incivility she has to endure, etc.(!)... and I also have a better grasp of what a pro she is at what she does. (Somehow experience and competence are no longer strengths to some people.) She basically wants to help us achieve all the right things, but there are massive barriers to surmount. There will be mistakes in trying to balance all the needs that have to be balanced, but the vitriol she attracts from the right is because she is effective and competent at what she does. (Like HRC) I was thrilled when she became speaker, and we have a picture of my daughter toasting her as she was being sworn in on TV, but that "look forward, not back" thing about impeachment was disappointing... and recently, I would have preferred full throated support of Maxine Waters when she was being willfully misinterpreted. So... like all political leaders, she makes some choices I don't like or understand, but that's (grownup) life... and sometimes our differences might be real, but other times, she may just be trying to play the (challenging and/or crappy) hand she has been dealt in the the most effective way she can. Of course, as a mother, I am biased, since she and her daughter Christine (who is attempting to focus more CA Dem party attention on disability issues) have been so supportive of and kind to my daughter. It's difficult to see her so demonized, when personal experience is the opposite. Again, that reminds me of Hillary Clinton; when she dropped by SF headquarters to thank the volunteers during the campaign, my daughter (a volunteer) was struck by how genuine and thoughtful--and even charismatic-- she was, which was such a departure from the public image crafted by her opposition (and the media). And Tom Perez, also demonized by those on the right and even many on the (supposed) left... checked with my daughter to make sure she had a way home after he met her at an event and later found her waiting outside for her paratransit ride (she uses a wheelchair). Kind, compassionate, hard-working people-- who take on burdens the rest of us would not want to take on-- in order to make a positive change in the world... and they are reduced to these terrible caricatures that are completely unrecognizable to those who know them. I mean, they are adults and they signed up for it, but inexperience and shiny, pie-in-the-sky proposals that have no chance of being realized are not a substitute for experience and real knowledge of how to most effectively advance towards progressive goals, even if incrementally. (Or how to just get back what we so recently had... or not lose what we still have!)

That made him much more of a target than if he had just been deplorable. Also, don't forget the fact that she is a "west coast liberal" woman... and especially an older woman. They really hate that.

Good point about Maxine Waters and how Pelosi may be playing her hand. It's interesting that people think it's fine and even advisable for Democratic candidates to trash Pelosi but are furious that Pelosi distanced herself from Waters on this issue. Apparently, Pelosi is the only Democratic candidate not entitled to full-throated support.

It's too early to speculate. When we have the House and we see the names put forward (as they'll be put forward by their colleagues as viable alternatives to Pelosi), then we can have that discussion.

Yes, She pissed me off with the Maxine Waters criticism, yet she is a still a very effective speaker. I’m not inclined to dismiss her or underestimate her for a less experienced speaker that Republicans like better. Fuck that shit.

Nancy's the highest ranked woman in American history and has held this position for amazingly long for very good reason.

But bottom line, it's not our decision and the process will choose among a proven few and reject destructive wingnuts.

I would care a bunch, of course, if a type that's been proven over many generations to be intrinsically incompetent to run any government, very much including a widely diverse legislative caucus like ours, became the new leader. But that cannot happen.

The faction that is extremely unsuited to the job of forming majorities to pass legislation is very small in number. They also have no support among their colleagues. They will not be deciding when Pelosi retires or who replaces her.

Sanders is an obvious example in the Senate. In over a quarter century, Sanders never rose above relatively minor committee chairmanships, and not one of his colleagues supported his run for the presidency (and to be their party leader!). Because they knew he lacked the right stuff for leadership positions.

And that's the point. This decision will be made by Democratic house members whose own legislative success depends on having the best person they can elect as majority leader.

From what I've read, although there are a number of factions (including both left- and right-wing dissidents -- Nancy's too liberal for both) many of the real contenders are reportedly people whom Pelosi and other house leaders picked out of the crowd and have been bringing along in general. Steny Hoyer, #1 for a very long time, may finally have aged out of real contention. The others are mostly much younger than both of them, giving false credibility to sensationalist reports of younger generations storming the gates of power. Not exactly.

Why do you think she'd be a good Speaker?

Two very different positions.

As for the qualifications you listed, those are great qualities for a Member - and Barbara Lee is outstanding - but being an effective Speaker requires a specific set of skills and experience that Lee hasn’t evidenced. In fact, given her independence and “firebrandedness,” she seems very ill-suited for a role that requires so much give-and-take. Not a knock against her at all, just a fact. She likely knows this, which may be one of the reasons she hasn’t shown any interest in the position.

The fact that she hasn't done so until now tells me it is complicated.

Can you imagine how difficult it would be to select a Speaker for DU.

If Speaker Pelosi walked across the Potomac there would be Democrats on the other side saying, "Sure look, her feet are wet".

The real question is why anyone would put up with the aggravation.

I also like the idea of a non-congresscritter speaker, like Bill or Hillary Clinton.