They leave connections to reality behind in order to make the argument the author wants to make. You really held true to real issues and stayed consistent in making your point. Thank you.

There is clearly an "off with her head" thing going on.

That is very much how it feels to me. (Also we've definitely fallen down Alice's rabbit hole!)

..that I remember plenty of folks talking about how Al Gore needed to go away and step away from the limelight so that we could move on as a party.

I also remember people blaming Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle plenty for our losses on their respective watches.

But I must be wrong and remembering things incorrectly because that doesn't fit the current narrative and excuse-mongering going on around here now.

And also that there was not nearly the level of vitriol I'm seeing now.

Whatever fits the narrative.

As long as we don't have to change anything or acknowledge in any way that anything we are doing isn't working.

It is possible to make changes without handing Trump everything he wants. That is precisely what replacing Pelosi will do. She holds the Democratic caucus together and keeps them from voting for Trump's agenda.

A guy like Ryan who goes on TV bashing the speaker and the party is not going to be able to wield the kind of power within the caucus to keep it together. The show horses are popular with TV audiences, but not within the Democratic caucus.

Moreover, the idea that the only way to win is to follow the demands of a group who has never mounted one successful candidate for anything and has significantly underperformed the party lacks logic.

We've been told we have to cater to white men and move away from "identity politics"--the lives and concerns of voters who constitute the base of the party. We've been told we have to unilaterally disarm in terms of funding candidates, and we've been told we have to abandon abortion rights and other issues related to equal rights. Now we are supposed to get rid of a leader because the GOP doesn't like them. All of that accrues to the benefit of the GOP.

The criticism we are seeing has nothing to do with winning, since those making it have no record of success in that regard. It's opportunism, plain and simple. It's an obvious attempt at a power grab they've been unable to achieve through elections.

Thank you.

Every criticism, no matter how mild, innocuous or rooted i fact is met with cries of "Trump supporter!" or "Russian sympathizer!!!" or "Bernie Bot" or whatever else.

I see no admission of any culpability at all with regard to anyone in our party.

So according to everyone I read on here we aren't supposed to appeal to bigoted white males. Good I agree with that 100%. Fuck every single one of them. I think the biggest mistake we have made and continue to made is a relentless pursuit of this mythical "reasonable Republican". That's not going to happen. Our never ending pursuit of non-existent "independents" is destroying the party.

So great. Then who should we be appealing to who is not already convinced? Because we need to fucking get more people to vote for us and they are not. Saying we don't need to appeal to white male bigots isn't the problem. But thinking we don't need to rethink our strategy and start appealing to ANYONE other than the die hards isn't going to get us anyway. These same people who say "Fuck us appealing to white males. think we also don't need to make any appeals to anyone on the other side of that equation either. Fuck leftists. Fuck liberals. Fuck non-voters. Fuck socialists.

The solution seems to be to say "Our party and platform is great and fuck anyone who doesn't realize that."

Yeah, great strategy. It's doing us wonders.

Who likewise hasn't won, in fact has lost more badly than those you want to replace. Yet despite never winning, they are certain they have all the answers. Every loss is excused. I've seen some of those people insist the Russian interference was irrelevant to the 2016 loss while arguing Bernie only lost because of the DNC or David Brock. I have yet to hear any concession that campaign might have fallen short in anyway.

I think people would be more open to change if arguments focused more on ideas, values, that you want to see promoted rather than, for example, replacing people who aren't allied with Bernie, especially when those people are almost all women or people of color.

Those arguments also need to be based on data and facts of some sort. What we have heard is directly contradicted by exit polls and survey data from the election. There is no evidence that the progressive-type candidate that passes the approval of the People's Summit types can win in red districts, particularly since they haven't even been able to win in the bluest of blue.

1) It is factually false that working people do not vote Democrat. It is factually false that we are the party of wealthy elites. Exit poll data shows the opposite. That rhetoric only benefits the GOP. It conveys the idea that the Democrats are uniquely corrupt, and those making the argument do so while systematically ignoring what the GOP is doing in congress (eg. the banking deregulation bill). Nina Turner is particularly notable in that regard. People who hate the party are not our allies. If they say the Democratic Party is worse, that means they are promoting the GOP. Full stop.

2) The white voters in middle America that Bernie and co have said we owe attention to are not poorer than Democratic voters. They have higher incomes.

3) Look at the data. Develop arguments that address the actual voting demographics. Just don't repeat an argument ad nauseum because a favorite political figure makes it. Politicians have their own interests, and those don't always coincide with the party's or the general population.

4) Claims that we need a "new face" are vapid. New is not always good. Trump is proof of that. Critiques need to be substantive. I have seen nothing of substance in arguments against Pelosi.

5) you are going to make an argument about one politician, people are going to notice when you decide your favorite guy should be exempt from those same standards. The ads with Pelosi feature Sanders more prominently, yet it is only she who is targeted now. The hypocrisy is obvious. It's hard to see the argument as about the well-being of the party when there is not effort to maintain any kind of consistent standard.

6) If you want to make an argument about class, frame it in terms of principles rather than winability because the fact is there is zero evidence that it does win.

7) And quit invoking historical mythology about how great the party was decades ago. It wasn't. And pretending that the party's enforcement of Jim Crow and voter disenfrachisement in those days is irrelevant to the conversation is not going to work. People of color hear that as about wanting to return to when they were excluded from economic and political participation. And most of the historical evoked is just plain wrong. If those voters feel increasingly marginalized through that kind of discourse, which is happening, then the party is going to do a hell of a lot worse.

That's for starters.

The fact that you consider potential Democratic voters as "the other side" pretty much says it all..

So are you conceding the people who demand the party accommodate them aren't currently Democrats?
If so, why on earth should they have a say in party leadership?

After being insulted on a regular basis for two years, of course I see them as adversaries. What do you expect? People don't like being treated as less, called names simply because they don't place one politician above our own lives, and that we don't kneel before those convinced of their superiority.

The fact you aren't willing to engage substantively in the discussion says it all. You can't be bothered. You obviously aren't interested in dialog. You want people to expect your demands without your having to think through a real argument or provide evidence.

I took time to write a thoughtful response, and you give the same kind of glib response that I have seen time and time again from those making demands but can't be bothered to engage with those from whom they demand submission.

Forming alliances requires respect and dialog, not dismssiveness and insults. What I see over and over again are demands by people certain that their bumper sticker slogans are absolute truth. But develop a substantive, evidence-based argument, never.

It's patently obvious that this defeat in GA, like the GE, is simply an opportunity for those who want to execute a power grab that they haven't been able to achieve through actual elections, anywhere.
You want Democrats to submit to your will, win elections. Become the majority, and seize power that way. But the rest of us aren't going to abandon key principles and the leaders who defend them because one factions believes themselves entitled to power.

I know too many, too busy under 40s that don't vote.

Or are they too weary to endure the voting process?

How do we insure votes by mail are counted?

I am so saddened by the greed and disregard too many have for those less fortunate.

Perhaps greed needs some regulating.

So impractical.

Because that's what we saw last year, and we are still seeing it.

It's absurd. And of course they ignore the fact that Bernie is featured even more prominently in those same GOP ads with Pelosi.

The vitriol against Obama was unprecedented, too.

I remember Al Gore being chided. I remember a few fringe idiots going off half-cocked and saying Al Gore should go away. Mostly people were angry that he gave up on the count in Florida. I don't remember story after story about how Al Gore needed to go and how the men who supported him should go, let alone suggesting that all the replacements be women.


If you think Hillary lost because of anything other than russian lies, right wing propaganda, misguided and gullible lefties (please note the qualifying adjectives), and a corrupt media system, you are just flat wrong. If you need guilty parties and villains, there are plenty to be found. Hillary and Nancy aren't them.

I kinda had that under russian lies and rw propaganda. Comey is a fool who let himself be fooled.

Women are oh so close to breaking that glass ceiling and are real threat to the male dominated people of power in DC. I think there is a more organized effort to go after those powerful women now than before.

To have certain people 'on our side' parroting GOP BS is more than concerning to me. Thankfully these women being targeted are tough cookies....which is why they white males are scared of them.

Given that, I have no response that would make any sense. We have a real situation, though. For that, I've posted my response.

Oddly, the only replacements they can think of are white men of *any* age.

Normally I flee from thought experiments for the reasons given by NC upthread, but yours is spot on.

This is what you choose for your first post? I think I may have hit a nerve!

If so congrats!
Welcome to DU BTW

I'm feeling a bit proud, lol.

Thanks!

People aren't upset about losing one election.

Also, Georgia's 6th is an R+9 district. Let's stop pretending it is the most partisan place on earth.

Dems were not expected to win any of the last 4 special elections. Also, Nancy Pelosi is not the head of the Democratic Party and is not responsible for winning Dems elections; she is responsible for keeping her caucus together and knowing and using House rules to Dems' best advantage, which she does.

As for previous elections, I hope you're not implying that she was somehow supposed to prevent the Tea Party wave?

She is not the head of the dem party! There have been times when I wanted to give a mini civics lesson on what the minority leaders job and responsibilities are. She has done an amazing job! Remember when this night mare started and everyone said the Dems were going to roll over and the the repubs were going to pass everything they wanted? Hasn't happened has it.

The Dems in the House have stuck together like glue, at least when it came time to vote.

- The Majority/Minority Leader is also in part responsible for supporting congressional candidates, be they challengers or incumbents. Are they solely responsible? No, of course not. But they do play a significant role.

- They are also responsible for messaging, communicating clearly and effectively the party's legislative objectives.

- When Nancy Pelosi took over as Speaker in 2009 we had 256 Democrats in the House. Three congresses later, we've lost 68 seats, dropping under 200 for the first time since 1929. By these measures alone we can conclude there is a problem with messaging or candidate viability, both of which fall at least in part in Pelosi's wheelhouse.

Successive failures tend to aggravate people, and when they look for someone to blame they tend to look at the person in charge. While there is no doubt many people dislike Pelosi because she is a woman in a position of power, and no doubt that some of those bigots are Democrats, there are legitimate reasons to question whether she can right this ship and get us back on course. If I were in the habit of betting I'd say quite a few started rolling these questions around in their heads long before we lost Georgia's 6th.

I don't know what Nancy Pelosi can do in the face of such a rigged game.

Just my impression, and I do admit I'm not as informed in this topic as the other posters here.

They were demonized for that by Citizens United and other rightwing dark money groups.

That's their job. It isn't the job of the House minority leader.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
http://dccc.org/

presidential election cycle, the second primary having been massively contentious within the party's own ranks, etc?

I'm not saying any of those would disqualify her from public speaking, etc. Just that the comparison has more dimensions than you previously identified.


I would simply compare her to any other former Secretary of State/State Senator.
But that primary had enormous emotional baggage consequences. There's no sense ignoring it.


What I want to hear from Hillary is this; her support for the next wave of leadership that we should be rallying behind right fucking now. She's said she's done running for office now, great, that's cool. Please help identify and groom (and protect) the next generation.

Time's a-wasting.

But I have to point out that W. had baggage, too, going into 2004 and I never saw Repubs lash out at him for running again.

And I agree we need a plan going forward. I just don't think pointing fingers is the way.

Similar behavior occurred on the Right when the last primary fired up, and there was a large contingent that would have been 'ok' with Mitt Romney, and an equally large contingent was all FUCK NO NOT HIM AGAIN FOR GODS SAKE, etc.

I'm not sure it's a perfect parallel to Hillary, but certainly to the 'shut up go away' Al Gore got after conceding in 2000.

But if he had lost, do you honestly believe the Rs would have formed the circular firing squad the Ds are?

If he tried, the RNC would have had him flying to every campaign stop in a single-engine aircraft.

Who actually runs again after they've lost as the incumbent president?

However, Joe Biden has run in the primaries before and lost, just as Hillary did, and I see calls from Dems for him to run again in 2020.

Every time Biden hits the news now, there's a contentious and angry thread here, now that he's out of office. Remember when he questioned Hillary as a candidate, and indicated the only reason he didn't run is that his son had just died?

That thread was brutal. End of may we had a thread titled "Joe Biden, Sit Down and Be Quiet".

for reals.

to do just that. But she isn't going to do that through a media tour. That has never been her approach.

Transparency and daylight later, right now we need to identify and elevate new talent.

With the 'gotcha' politics of personal destruction we live in today, that's better done away from the cameras. (My sig actually came from a different unrelated effort.)

And does nothing but continue to encourage people to get involved and run. You should examine why it's so easy to jump to a wrong negative conclusion. It's like whack a mole with this nonsense.

Which I think is great, by the way.

And honestly I'm over the knee jerk negatives like that.

I apologize if the context drifted a bit.

I don't know precisely what Hillary is doing, or the efficacy of it, but it is pleasing that something is afoot. This needs to be a party-wide effort though, and we're late, we're late, we're late for a most important approaching date.

The next election is a good long way off for an exhausted electorate, but it's looming over us, for those who care about our choices on the next ballot.

We're actually saying she should just go away when she's trying to build the party as hard as anyone out there. It's crazy.

You took the time to slowly spell the obvious out.

... right-wingers for a few decades before he even ran for President?

Would you be a little more worried about him losing the Presidential election after securing the Democratic nomination? Not that I expect it will happen, but I never want to see Al Gore running for President again either.

As for Ryan's comments about Pelosi, it's silly. I wouldn't want her to run for President after all of the BS that's filtered into the brains of less attentive voters, thus making it harder for her to win, but she's secure in her district and we can expect some other Democratic Congressional leader to be vilified by the right-wingers in time. They demonized Harry Reid too.

That is neither here nor there re the special elections that people got overly optimistic about.

She never should have said that impeachment was off the table - at the very least, there should have been hearings that dominated the news cycles for two years. A war from fabricated evidence of a threat costing 13 figures and thousands of lives? If the thugs can beat Benghazi to death, we could have done that re Iraq.

It would have made some people on DU feel good, but it would have given a lot of moderates out there the impression that Democrats were being vindictive. Many Democrats, including myself, feel strongly that it is wrong to use impeachment for political purposes, and impeaching George W. Bush would have appeared political to a huge part of the electorate. Nancy Pelosi chose to focus on getting legislation passed. That is why she is the leader of the House Democrats. She is extremely effective in passing Democratic legislation, and stopping Republican legislation, within the limits of what is mathematically possible.

I don't think it's good to imitate the Republicans. Their base is dominated by stupid and uneducated people. If Democrats started acting like Republicans and imitated their behavior on Benghazi, much of the Democratic base would become disillusioned with politics completely and stop voting altoghether.

Frankly, if it weren't Pelosi's comment about impeachment, it would be something else. Those who hated Hillary claimed they would be all for her if it weren't for her Iraq war vote. Yeah, let's just ignore 99% of a politician's positions and focus on the one thing she did that we don't agree with, to the exclusion of everything else. When people hate women, they always find something to latch on to. That kind of attitude is what gave us President Trump. I'm sorry, but I have no tolerance left for sexists who pretend that they're not sexist, just purer and better than everyone else.

'Official' civilian death toll is a hair under 200k, the Lancet's study put it around 500k.


I feel like a broken record reminding people every time I see some argle bargle 'Trump worst president evar' thread, that George W. Bush is the most vicious, blood-drippingest murderous monster to inhabit the White House, in my entire lifespan.


He should have been prosecuted. Justice must be blind, it does not and cannot be allowed to respect 'political realities' around appearances. Take away his happy, age-addled grandpa demeanor, and frog march him in cuffs, public opinion will shift dramatically. he was fully prosecute-able.

However, if ever there were a (should be) non-partisan reason for extensive hearings, a war under false pretenses is a good one. If it would have led to impeachment, fine, but taking it off the table was no bueno.

Obama is/was relatively new to politics (not decades in office and limelight). Obama did not have 'high negatives'. And who were
the ones telling Clinton to 'go away'?

With Obama, the DNC did not favor one candidate or another, nor did the DNC do some questionable things.
And, when a candidate loses, it is mostly the fault of the candidate and the campaign. And yes, the elections
are rigged - sure wish Dem leadership start fighting to address it.

Sure, republicans are disgusting period and it was the republicans that slighted Warren and Harris.

Again, it is the republicans harassing Pelosi. A few House Dems are harassing Pelosi - they have done this before.
maybe they just want 'power'.

Yes, there is racism and misogyny. Be glad that most Dems are not racist or misogynists, and simply
vote for the best person they feel best represents them.

Kamala Harris, and my girl Hill, all being told to "sit down and shut up". I am so done with this bullsh*t.

We are in dire straights wit this current admin and I want us dems to show a united front - damn it, make believe you're united even if you aren't on board. What was that saying back in day when I was in high school -- "Cooperate and graduate" We can't show any cracks in the armour to our enemy the rethugs. If we do, they will drive the knives in our hearts.

really is required. Why make it easier to beat us?

by winning more elections at more levels of government. We need to grow our market share in the state legislatures.

It's a very good thought experiment and you make a great point about replacing gender with race. I'm sure there is some misogyny involved. But anyone here has to admit it's frustrating to lose to the grabber in chief.

Incredibly painful, I'd say. I'm hoping Tom Perez will help bring in new Democrats, as you mention. Howard Dean did a great job doing that when he was chair, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed Perez can do something similar. I just don't see that giving Pelosi the boot will help achieve that.

Thank you for eloquently illustrating the misogyny that, yes, DOES exist and influence, more than most people want to acknowledge. Your post and your subsequent replies to those responding to your post are perfect. Truly, I thank you!

any better. Thanks for this. K&R!!

DU へ よこそ--急須さんDUによこそ!


kyūsu (急須 )

Both for the welcome and the Japanese lesson!

And what a lovely teapot!

もちろん of course! and yes tea pot is ancient and lovely! きゅす わ ふるくて きれいな です kyusu wa furukute Kireina desu.

Great first post and welcome to DU!

Happy to be here! I've been reading DU off and on since the W. years but am not much of an internet poster. I guess I finally decided to give my family a break and offer my opinions to other people.

Not everyone agrees with every opinion expressed, but you will almost always find those who support you wholeheartedly!

Too many Americans don't recognize how deeply misogyny is part of the American culture. It's so common and yet so rarely addressed, it's often seen as "normal."