Succumbing to republican bullying, perhaps?

That is why.

I know she does much of the job brilliantly. But she has a bad record of promising victories and not delivering over the past 7 years. The message isn't clear. She is not great when speaking off the cuff or in an interview. She is spectacular at wrangling votes. Just not bringing in new voters. Why?

Local elections rely on party backing & funding, but rely on the candidate, local endorsements, and the like. A national congressional leader doesn't have much sway in local elections, unless she's particularly popular in that area.

The House leader's job is to get the Dems in the House together to vote for or against certain bills, to present the Dem Party message nationally...and some other things.

She's aces at getting Dems in the House to vote for or against certain bills. Don't know how she does it, but she has a knack for persuasiveness in that regard. That's her strength and the main purpose of that job, as I understand it.

Please list the promises that you perceive Pelosi has made, and which ones were kept and broken, over the 7 years you mentioned.

there are more progressives than you can swing a stick at. If we win the House she will be speaker.

EOM

Last edited Sat Jun 24, 2017, 04:23 AM - Edit history (1)

Oh...you know what a Troll is don't you?

At this point...All criticism of all or just one Democrat is off the table....tRump is our critical mass.

different from joining the right-wing/billionaire string-pullers, far left anti-Democrats, and Russian efforts to take out the top leadership of the Democratic Party in as we head to the 2018 midterms.

NEVER forget who have decided the Democratic Party is the great barrier to achieving their anti-democratic and anti-American goals.

They're very right. It's past time for all of America to understand WHY the Democratic Party is America's huge threat to a plutocratic/fascist takeover of our nation and to Putin's determination to restore the Soviet Union's borders.

And it's not the Democratic Party's FUTURE leaders, whoever they are and strong and effective as we hope they may someday turn out to be.

(And yes, enemies are coming to DU. First rule for would-be resisters: Don't be a useful idiot.)

enable the GOP and Trump.

on - the House Speaker/Minority Leader may delegate the day to day work to the party's Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman (and often times, this Chairman had his arm severely twisted to agree to do it), but the party's House leader is ultimately accountable for what the results are. Party leaders who consistently preside over poor elections don't typically remain party leaders for very long.

say that. I think the GOP want her gone. She is experienced and thorn in their side...we shouldn't help the GOP or permit the demonization of our leaders. The GOP will just pick another leader to attack. Why in the world would we listen to them...in fact we should use the sociopaths Ryan and McConnell in our ads...they are demons.

Nailed it.

what they consider "purity".. lol it ain't so pure.

Both are dumb ideas, Pelosi was one of the most effective Speakers I've ever seen and has continued on to be a great minority leader.

When pressed, they can't say exactly who

from some troll on either Farcebook or Twitter and then posted here, trying to sound clever.

That was a dumb idea, too.

Ryan…willing to work w/45 and has no solutions when questioned

Cummings…Fab rep, ally of Nancy, not really interested

Schiff…Excellent rep., better suited to the Intel Committee where he is holding the line against the Cons.

Swalwell…Really good guy, but too young, needs to acquire some heft

Really this is basically Ryan, Rice, Vela, looking to take over without regard to the cost of their ineffectiveness. I believe the other names were mentioned as a smokescreen for Ryan. Who, btw, looked like a fool today in some of his interviews.

This will not help them with the other members aside from a dozen or 2 of the 192

The 17th district he formerly represented was made obsolete following the 2010 census and redistricting.
I like Tim Ryan; he is articulate and represents Ohio's Dems very well.
He has a future in national politics.
I am not happy that he would demean Nancy Pelosi in any way; Ms. Pelosi has served and continues to serve the people of the US and the Democratic party in a most outstanding way.

Nancy's rise in 2002 is vivid in my memory. Articles about a true liberal leading the party.

Then when Bush went south in 2006 and more and more evidence of criminal behavior from his White House was met with "No impeachment". Just as now. She was Speaker then. We got Trump. "No impeachment" says Leader Pelosi. Why? Why always "no"? She has never said why.

I remember when that was being pushed by Democratic voters. I hated the guy at that time, but thought talk of impeachment was ridiculous. There was no case there. Waste of time and breath. It takes a LOT to impeach someone, and direct evidence.

As to W, I assume she said that because not enough votes in the Senate. But I am not a mind reader so I have no idea.

snip


"And the reason, to get back to your question, I did not encourage those who wanted to move to impeach the president -- although they had an argument -- was that it wasn't something that I wanted to put the country through. It's an opportunity cost of great magnitude in terms of what we are here to do to meet the needs of the people. It's a cost to our reputation in the world. We get a new president and we'll find a reason to impeach him. "


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

Can't understand why some freepers are in agreement with some Democrats who are discussing party leadership and possible changes in direction

Nothing you can say will convince me that you don't understand the difference.

Would sowing discord and discontent among leftists benefit Democrats, or Republicans?

Don't bother answering because I know that you know the answer, and you know that I know that you know the answer.

Whatever is right.

A few threads where a few people express a desire to see leadership change

OMG!! OMG!! OMG!!

Maybe this 'loyalty oathing' should be taken to the actual democratic POLITICIANS looking to go after Pelosi

Excuse us while we don't fall for it.


eftstreet
23. And you know a majority of DUers support Pelosi

A few threads where a few people express a desire to see leadership change

OMG!! OMG!! OMG!!

Maybe this 'loyalty oathing' should be taken to the actual democratic POLITICIANS looking to go after Pelosi

I call winning elections so that we can enact our policies.

As opposed, of course, to cutting off your nose to spite your face. You expect me to respect you for that, but you end up only having no nose.

All that's been brought to the table are issues completely unrelated to Nancy Pelosi's position in the party. How can one take seriously people linking the GA-6 over-performance with Nancy Pelosi having poor leadership? Was it just the stupid attack ads?

"Can't understand why some freepers are in agreement with some Democrats who are discussing party leadership and possible changes in direction"

That would be freepers agreeing with those Democrats talking about not keeping Pelosi

They hate Pelosi because she's a liberal and very effective at twisting arms to get votes to fight the Republican agenda.

Remember when they thought they had something in common with teabaggers?

The trolls really need to think about why they are here. Is it the paycheck? Is it just to stir liberals up and piss us off? Are they silly kids who think that adults can't tell when a poster isn't old enough to drive? Is it people who don't realize what a spectacular leader Pelosi is?

Whatever it is, they can give it up.

Which ones? I'm not sure Freepers are in solidarity on this issue either.

the most recent example being in Ossoff's campaign.

If Republicans are comfortable with our leadership, we got a problem.

We use McConnell and Ryan and Trump and plenty of other Republicans in ads all the time. I haven't seen Republicans decide to abandon them because they're "lightning rods" for us. They see the fact that we can't stand them as a badge of honor.

I don't get it, either. As usual, the right wingers found a scapegoat, slapped an EBUL LIBRUL sign on her chest, and foisted her into the fray as the boogiewoman. Politics as usual. There is no reason for this typical right wing garbage to fluster us Democrats!

and stupidos

Nuff said.

and Freepers exploit that very effectively. Some of them are more transparent. Of course they want us to fight amongst ourselves so they find ways to stir the pot in ways that make us upset.

It's so easy for them. Life is easier for Freepers since they don't waste as much time stressing over stuff like we do. Their policies and messaging are very simple and very stupid yet very effective on the American people.

I remember there are millions of bots and hundreds of thousands of paid trolls, many of whom have old accounts.

The disinformation campaign is not a new one. It's been in works for years, because it's cheap.

but there are some people calling for her to step down as Minority Leader. A loud, but small number.

Personally, I am mixed about this. Nancy Pelosi is very effective at what she does. If this was the 2018 mid-term elections and the Republicans still held the House after everything is said and done, then maybe people would have a point. However these were a number of special elections in areas where you could stick anyone or any creature up for election, call it the Republican candidate and it would have won. These special elections are great practice for 2018 - find out what works and what doesn't. So them being a loss isn't a loss really.

However, she has been the leader of the Democratic Party in the US House of Representatives for over 12 years. While I'm more experienced with UK politics than US politics, I do find politicians have a shelf life. Margaret Thatcher was leader of the Tories for 15 years, Prime Minister for 11 of them. Tony Blair was leader of the Labour Party for nearly 13 years, 10 as Prime Minister. Both Thatcher's and Blair's image was horribly tarnished by the end of their UK premiership - Thatcher's to the point where the party decided she was a liability and kicked her out... Blair maybe not so much, but he apparently had an agreement with Gordon Brown...

My concern is nothing to do with her track record, her gender or her agenda. My concern is simple: has she been demonised enough by those on the right, including those at Free Republic, to the point that she is actually an electoral liability? Possibly. Republicans have had a decade to hone their attack messages against her.

A change of leadership brings risk. No more Nancy would mean that the Republicans can't reuse their ammo against Democrats by demonising her. Unfortunately I don't know anyone like her or even like Barack Obama - young, charismatic, able to woo a lot of the voters - in the present US House who can replace her.

So for right now... if things keep going the way they are, absolutely no need for a change of leadership. Any change can be on Nancy's terms. But I still remain on the fence. I am not convinced she is the best person to lead the Democrats into the 2018 midterms, but I am convinced she is far from the worst. If she isn't House Speaker come Jan 2019, I don't see her continuing on as Minority Leader

They don't like him. I don't like him.

The point is that the Freepers, RWNJs though they be, do not possess reverse infallibility. Attacking a view on the basis that the Freepers hold it is the ancient logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. We should be above that here. Criticisms of Nancy Pelosi stand or fall on their merits.

I'd love to see some young guns step up to lead the party going forward.

I DON'T see a need to decapitate the party before we find out who might replace Ms Pelosi/Mr Sanders/Mr Biden. If we do get new leadership, they need to earn the job, not be gifted it due to some veneer of "populism."

Rep. Schiff, Sen. Franken, Sen. Harris, Rep. Castro and some others.

I just want things to emerge organically, not be subject to some kind of a hostile takeover. As these younger folks develop their skills and experience, they will become leaders naturally.