and fully expect Nancy Pelosi to be chosen once again.

For many Bernie supporters, in particular younger voters...having NY (Chuck) and San Fran (Nancy) is soooooooo "biz as usual", it is a disincentive to stay engaged in the Democratic party.

I voted for Hillary as a Bernie supporter and a life-long Dem, but my politically active son and daughter (both in their 20's) say unless they see more Bernie values at the top, they will NEVER vote Dem again. It's not enough to adopt a Dem platform as the convection, if ya keep losing! Rethuglican never, but if they feel marginalized - they will go Green and we can't afford to lose them!

I'm interested, what do you see Nancy doing differently to win?

because Pelosi is way to the left of Ryan.

Up until last year Ryan was anti choice.

Pelosi is very good at getting the caucus together, whereas a mediocre backbencher like Ryan will be highly ineffective.

...sees Nancy as ineffective.

That is, a majority anyway.

Nancy will likely win regardless. I just don't get why many long-time establishment Dems see advocating new leadership as divisive? Unlike the orange haired facist, we don't advocate our party march in lockstep.

Perhaps we can find a middle ground? Really, I'd be okay with Nancy if someone can prove to me it's a winning formula? She's had her chance, time to move on.

Nancy was one of the very best House Speakers. There was much accomplished during her tenure. She was followed by the very worst in John Boehner. If spelled wrong apologies.

Despite the intense backlash( and eventual defeat for many) that they faced.

Pelosi is highly effective

She did an awesome job for many years, but....I can't fathom how anyone can interpret losing 63 House seats over the past 2 election cycles as effective (anymore). Who cares if you can manage the House Caucus if we keep having blue states go red?

That being said, in this one thread the "keep Pelosi" opinion seems to be winning at a 3 to 1 pace - which may emulate the actual vote next week too. While Tim has received endorsements, I don't see any great evidence he will win.

I hope we will see some wholesale changes in strategy, with much more assertive/populist approaches. Keith Ellison for DNC Chair would be a good step in the right direction!

Something she is responsible for.

Last edited Sat Nov 26, 2016, 11:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Haveill e "right" positions on pic. Meanings if you don' Ave the ability to pass legislation.

They loved Bernie, and saw Hillary as "same old establishment", though my sense was 1/3 voted for her or went Green. My 20 something kiddos and their friends despised Trump.

The operative word on Nancy is "been" effective. Yes! Tho not the last 2 election cycles. Over-confidence of " we got this" without true systemic change appears naive in the face of such a large defeat.

What do you suggest Nancy and Chuck recommend doing differently to create enthusiasm with younger voters? If the old guard blows them off like the DNC did to Bernie, the Dems are fucked.

I bet we do agree...Elizabeth Warren is amazing and I'd love to see her take a strong leadership role!!

Effectively, they helped Trump.

I love Elizabeth Warren -- and she supports Pelosi continuing on as House leader. And obviously Warren is a Senator so she couldn't take Pelosi's leadership role in the House. Don't your kids know that?

Here is Pelosi's voting record in the House. If you scroll down to the bottom, it shows that her overall record ranks her as a far left liberal. I don't know why your kids wouldn't be pleased with her record. I suspect they just haven't paid too much attention to it.

http://www.ontheissues.org/CA/Nancy_Pelosi.htm

While we disagree on Nancy, we are 100% in alignment on Elizabeth. To clarify, I was advocating for her to assume leadership either in the Senate or as the symbolic left wing of the Dem party - which probably is true already.

Yep, kids in their 20's don't pay as much attention to roll call votes and overall records. But when I was a young passionate man (now a late 50's passionate man), what stoked my flame was a populist message of social justice. Nancy's voting record and even Nancy herself (like Hillary) is simply too establishment to reach a majority of the younger crowd. Bernie did, Elizabeth does - Nancy and Hillary not so much.

This is why I keep hoping to hear an acknowledgement (from the Party) that losing has consequences. If even on style alone, if the Dems don't adopt a much more populist meme, and if we continue to UNinspire young people, we will keep losing!

Very few people do and 99% of the public don't either. I was obsessed with watching CSpan every day when I was 17 and while I'll check out overall records and I don't pay much attention to roll call votes anymore unless there is a huge piece of legislation moving through.

CNN)If millennial voters had their way, Hillary Clinton would be president.

That's a point worth stating plainly since there's so much scapegoating and stereotyping of young voters in this country. This fall, for instance, a Daily Beast writer insisted you could "blame millennials for President Trump" if he were elected.

Well, that's happened. And it's clear you can't.

The data show you should blame older, whiter people.
Yes, young people ages 18 to 29 (along with blacks and Latinos) did underperform for Clinton relative to the rates they voted for Barack Obama. According to early data from CNN exit polls, 54% of voters age 18 to 29 -- the younger millennials -- cast ballots for Clinton, compared to 60% of young people who voted for President Obama in 2012. (It's too early for numbers that include all millennials up to age 35. CNN data, however, show that 50% of people age 30 to 44, which includes older millennials and many nonmillennial voters, selected Clinton; 42% picked Trump.)
And sure, many of them were unhappy with either candidate. According to early data from the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, a project of Tufts University, an estimated 8% of young voters picked a third-party or write-in candidate.
That signals a failure of mainstream politicians, especially Hillary Clinton, to appeal to the young. And, in my mind, it also shows the slight prospect of a legitimate third-party candidate emerging in the future.
But this truth remains: A clear majority of young people wanted Clinton to be president.
Older, whiter demographics, meanwhile, led the charge for Trump.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/opinions/sutter-millennial-trump/

but I want to point out something that makes me giggle as a gen-Xer (the forgotten middle child). The above quote refers to those age 30-44 as either "older millennials or nonmillennial voters.

Reality bites.

(all said in jest, kinda)

I was born in 1986 turn 30 in 2 days.

rather than a non-millennial... that isn't even a baby-boomer. It's just that group in the middle that we assign a variable to.... lol

I am not wed to Pelosi as the party leader....but the optics of this are gross.

but not a white male.

But looks like he is right of Pelosi..

Pro choice
Pro Gun Control
Pro Banking Regulation
Pro Massive Stimulus to replace "crumbling infrastructure"
Pro $15 minimum wage
Pro Tax increases for the Rich

etc

However, above all, it should be the one who has the better chance at exposing the Republicans in Congress, and leading the fightback in 2018. If Ryan believed in 80-90% of the above but would be a better leader, I know who'd my money would be on !

strongly for Drumpt...to my horror and embarrassment. I like Tim. He is my congressman...but he won't be able to stand up to Trump.

that important. Unless a meteor hits the electoral college when it gathers, or something, most of their time will be spent answering emails and reading novels. I have nothing against Ryan, but when it comes to action Pelosi has a huge base of friends and alliances and can do anything Ryan could do at best--and do it backwards and in heels.

Btw, we are not reinforcing and yielding to the GOP and Kremlin in a retreat into misogyny by ejecting our female leaders ourselves. Between them, knuckledragging conservatives, including in the FBI, rabidly conservative plutocrats, and Vlademir Putin may have defeated our efforts to elect our first woman president, but defeat does not mean WE should lie back and spread our legs.

I'd love it if another progressive woman in the mold of Elizabeth Warren stepped forward as a leader option, though I can't fathom how (even with all Nancy's fundraising connections) it makes sense to install leadership which has NOT demonstrated leadership by having a winning strategy?

My son who is 23 was not politically active until this election cycle. He campaigned hard for Bernie (as did I). Where we split is I settled on Hillary and voted because she was running against a fascist. He and is friends want to see something substantially different to remain engaged in the Dems. Nancy & Chuck to his age (so I hear) is a total non-starter. As if the Dems think they can move forward and ignore them.

Nancy Pelosi has risen to the highest position of all women ever in American politics. She was next to the VP in the succession to the presidency.

Sure, this is not the only issue involved here, and the others matter. But let's not pretend that removing yet ANOTHER woman from our party leadership would not be yet another failure on top of failure in the Democratic Party's fight for equality for all Americans.

We should put her on a pedestal and shine a light on her as both leader of our battle and symbol of what the Democratic Party stands for. And fuck you, Koch, Comey, and Putin.

With all due respect, please tell me what would you recommend Nancy DO DIFFERENTLY to inspire confidence and enthusiasm?

I can't accept Nancy as a symbol of what the Dem party stands for, because it = losing! At least the past couple of election cycles. Nancy did wonders for many years, though not any more.

We should have a woman President right now and I'd love to see this happen!!! I'd love it to be Elizabeth Warren. But as I said upthread, my kiddos friends in their 20's were Bernie or bust (and hate facist trump) - yet Nancy et. al. is so yesterday to them.

differently? She didn't make our only victories -- election of 4 women senators happen -- and nor was she responsible for the FBI's betrayal, the conservative plutocracy's scheming, the Kremlin's snowing the nation with fake news, or the Republican voters' betrayal of all avowed principles except opposing Democrats.

Why on earth would we pile blame for all that on two women--except to underline the victory of our enemies? One down, one more to go. Tim Ryan would have made no difference in 2016, and blaming and retiring America's top-ranked female politician would gain us nothing at this point except the delight of the millions of enemies who hate Nancy specifically because she is a woman and a Democrat.

I understand the desire for change, but what on earth to people imagine a newbie pushing himself forward like Ryan would do as leader of the opposition that a power like Nancy Pelosi wouldn't do better?

It's Christmas season; maybe get a nice new pair of slippers instead? The stores are all stocked up and, at this time, as the opposition party, they and pride in Nancy would do us all a lot more good than some mindless, resentful out with the old symbol of what we are and in with an ambitious replacement.

I said before that we need not take a position on everything and should let them and House Democrats decide this, but that's doesn't mean I don't think there is something important to protect and herald here.

That is, for those who want to maintain the status quo in leadership, what should Nancy DO differently post-election? That is my question.

The irony is I'm seeing a very distinctive age gap in support for old guard Pelosi Dems (45ish on up) vs new leadership (younger).

I'm in my 50's and truly see the need for RADICAL leadership change to stem the bleeding. It saddens me that some boil this desire down as sexism. Believe me, as the father of a very independent-minded young woman - we need more women in power and as Prez!

It's simply time for a change of House leadership. Nancy has been there..12+ years! I believe it fear of change and an elite view which may keep.things stuck in reverse.

plutocrats on the right, the right-wing electorate who've been trained by them in an ideology devoted to attacking Democrats, and the MSM, who have been largely corrupted by both profiteering and by a power-seeking plutocracy.

None of this has anything at all to do with leading the Democratic House caucus. So, again, I believe that attacking our House leadership would only further the goals of the plutocracy bent on taking control of our government. Ryan is merely grabbing opportunity, not to blame him for that, but I do not think we should approve his inadvertent furthering of right-wing goals under a pretext of being a better...symbol for a minority caucus.

This is a time for us to pull together, not pull apart.

Your son and you need to inform yourselves.

I still have not heard what Nancy and co. will (((do differently))) to re-engage the rust belt/blue collar crowd which used to be a staple of the Democratic Party electorate?

My son and I are plenty informed. We see maintenance of the status quo as holding on to a familiar and yet very obviously LOSING strategy.

IE the Republican Party...period. And a person who has to worry about reelection in a Trump state like Ryan is a bad choice. I live in Ohio Tim Ryan is my congressman...I like him too... nothing against him. He is not liberal however and may make deals we don't like with the enemy.

like Pelosi?

She is pro worker, pro union, pro raised minimum wage, pro health, pro medicare, pro medicaid, pro social security, pro choice, pro LGBT rights, pro minority rights, etc.

What does the rust belt voter want that a Democrat should be able to deliver -- other than white supremacy, which isn't on the menu?

The problem is that Bernie came in railing against the system, but it isn't the fault of progressive Dems like Pelosi that they have to make compromises with the Rethugs who are a large part of Congress and sometimes control the Presidency. Bernie made it sound as if the Dems should be blamed for things out of their control, and a lot of young people and (apparently) rust belt voters bought that idea.

Last edited Fri Nov 25, 2016, 11:03 PM - Edit history (1)

On edit: It's not for me to say.

It's dealing with the House caucuses, both the minority and majority. It requires a variety of skills and not all of it is done before cameras and microphones, either.

On edit: After posting this it occurred to me that if people are going to bring up Nancy Pelosi's economic status, they should also note that she's been speaking out for equal pay and increasing U.S.-based manufacturing for years, but those are not the sort of things that make the rounds on social media. Also, given that the Democrats lost the House in the midterms of 2010, she's been in a minority position for quite some time and hasn't had control of House legislation.

And we've just watched a billionaire celebrity pass himself off as the friend of the working class, so there's that.

I promise I'm hearing from young people Nancy & Chuck are exciting to them as watching paint dry.

What IS before the camera are leaders who generate excitement. How do you rec the Dems do this without making wholesale changes in strategy, marketing, and leadership (i.e. to millennials, generation Z, and rust belt blue collar)?

...but again, there are multiple factors to consider there, including institutional knowledge, discipline, negotiating skills, listening skills, diversity, collegiality, etc.

One of the reasons Joe Biden joined the much younger Barack Obama on the ticket was to bring that mix of experience, skills, institutional knowledge, and relationships. Did it work perfectly? No, but it was always important to have that balance. Biden's warmth was a nice plus, too, after all those years with Dick Cheney riding shotgun (or, to be fair, sitting in the driver's seat) and occasionally shooting someone in the face.

I've just finished a stint at volunteering in a local campaign office staffed by a variety of people. I was very impressed with the discipline of the young campaign workers and the savvy of the youngest volunteers, but I don't think anyone would have wanted to do without the diversity.

As Democrats we are at a crucial stage regarding diversity, and hints of sexism (an old issue for progressives) and ageism suggest it's time for some serious self-examination.

I appreciate the multiple factors consideration, and it's easy to back-seat quarterback.

Yet for better and worse, optics and perception is reality. New leadership at it's very least, generates hope for change. Tim Ryan would do this in a way Nancy can't. It's time to go out on a limb and trade less establishment for more enthusiasm.

We lost Ohio by way to much to put someone from Ohio in charge...and Tim Ryan is my congressman..I like the guy.

They have no idea of the stuff that goes on behind the scenes. It may or not be exciting, but it's how stuff gets done. Maybe those millennials need to take some classes on government and civics.

Some of those leadership jobs seem to involve procedural skills and strategies more than political skills. I don't know if Ryan or Schumer either one are strong in those areas.

I've always suspected that Obama appointed DWS to DNC chair as a political plum hoping to sway enough Florida voters to turn Florida blue. I don't know enough about the behind-the-scenes workings of those jobs to really know who would be best qualified.

The way harry reid did in Nevada.

has zero clout, and was anti choice till last year.

i have never thought of quitting the democrats, but if they pull power from pelosi to someone who is not committed to my healthcare, i very well might.

Just saw him on AM Joy and to say I was unimpressed would be an understatement. He didn't even understand what her first question was actually asking.

... not sure if Ryan is up to this. And when Dems were in complete opposition Pelosi did very a good job, but she that was awhile ago.

Pelosi will pull it out and Ryan might run for governor so this really could be planned to give Ryan a platform to run for Gov.

Conflicted here.

We need a fighter...and Nancy is just that...experienced too...we don't need to change things up and bring someone in who cooperates with the GOP...we must oppose everything.

Ohio by a big margin...the speaker needs to come from a solidly blue state ...and Ohio is not a good choice.

I've never heard of him before this week. I don't believe in shaking things up just because. It sounds too much like "disruption," a bankrupt ideology. If Ryan is the man of the hour, we should know more about him.

who will lead our party back to a national powerhouse. If the same old leadership is retained, expect the same old, devastating results.

Perhaps even a DUer

He is just showboating because he wants to run for Ohio Gov

but he is not liberal and those who think he is don't know him at all. Also, Ohio went for Trump by big numbers this could make Tim Ryan ineffective in fighting Trump. We need someone who is liberal from a safe blue state.

For DNC chair, even though she is barely liberal

Not a good choice to fight Trump.

who can fight Trump...Nancy is perfect.

If your agenda is just "change" without detailing policy and goals just to be more important then you need to sit down.

the function of House speaker and the DNC.

Nancy Pelosi as minority speaker manages the flow of bills through the House and the DNC works out in the field supporting candidates in their districts.

Also the DNC should have a full time job possitions. We should leave our elected members and senators free to do their job.

There are plenty of talent out of office to fill those positions.

replace the very experienced woman, because change.

I don't think so.

What does Tim Ryan as ML do for us? I'm not necessarily opposed to "new blood" but I guess I'd like to know why we should throw Pelosi overboard and put in Ryan?

Like the pick of Keith Ellison for DNC Chair.

Do not like Schumer for Senate Minority Leader.

I will never forgive Pelosi for taking the impeachment of GW Bush "off the table".

The House (and Senate) hearings would have revealed more about Iraq and related matters and in a more timely manner rather than what has occurred and now down the memory whole or irrelevant.

We would be much better off today as a country and as the Democratic party.

http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2006/11/08/cq_1916.html

Pelosi: Bush Impeachment `Off the Table’

By Susan Ferrechio
Published: November 8, 2006

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi promised Wednesday that when her party takes over, the new majority will not attempt to remove President Bush from office, despite earlier pledges to the contrary from others in the caucus.

“I have said it before and I will say it again: Impeachment is off the table,” Pelosi, D-Calif., said during a news conference.
Pelosi also said Democrats, despite complaining about years of unfair treatment by the majority GOP, “are not about getting even” with Republicans.
She said the GOP, which frequently excluded Democrats from conference committee hearings and often blocked attempts to introduce amendments, would not suffer similar treatment.

more at link

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/07/10/pelosi_dems_couldve_impeached_bush_was_not_something_i_wanted_to_put_the_country_through.html

Pelosi: Dems Could've Impeached Bush, "Was Not Something I Wanted To Put The Country Through"

Posted By Ian Schwartz
On Date July 10, 2014

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): The argument against President Bush was about a president and an administration that sent us into a war based on a false representation of a threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That's a major accusation against the president, and I, myself, said that at the time. You know, in 2002 when the bill came up. The intelligence does not support the threat that the president -- not the president, his administration is contending.

Having said that, it's not about impeaching the president. It's about putting the country through that. I thought what the Republicans did to President Clinton was shameful, irresponsible, and wrong for the country. And what he did was stupid, but it had nothing to do with public policy and his office, his responsibility and his office.

I do think people could have made a case about President Bush, but I did not want to go down that path because of what it would mean for the American people. We've just tried to impeach -- well, we did impeach but did not remove from office one president in a very irresponsible manner in my view on the part of the Republicans in the House at the time.

And I thought it was time for us to address -- try to end that war, which we voted to do, and the president vetoed our bill, but to deal with it in a policy way rather than take us down that path. So, for even the Republicans now to be talking about suing the president, what are we talking about here? Let's get to work. We are legislators. They're not effective legislators, so they're changing the subject all the time.

more and video at link

we keep good leadership.

The Democratic Party needs to make some changes?

But Ryan is a moderate that I just don't agree with on much. I don't just want new leadership, I want more progressive leadership.

I don't think either option is good and can't imagine either becoming Speaker of the House again.

and some people are just conservative.

give it a REST already. Nancy Pelosi should not be thrown under the bus