It feels the same as Hillary. We need a new face of the party, not Pelosi again.
I bet you are. Maxine also gets a gavel.It feels the same as Hillary. We need a new face of the party, not Pelosi again.
Interesting thread...seems like many people don't like Hillary, Nancy and Maxine, they just don't. The reason is that most people, both male and female, are looking at them through a gendered lens. Women who assume leadership positions always deal with this. People have an emotional response that they work backwards from to invent reasons that explain their feelings. Since the emotional reactions are driven mostly by unconscious biases rather than conscious attitudes it is the case that even ardent feminists may be unconsciously biased against women. Conversely, since not everyone is as unconsciously biased as others it may well be the case that an anti-feminist right winger may not have the unconscious bias.
The literature on this stuff is truly vast by now. Yet because the drivers are unconscious attitudes being "woke" hardly makes much difference.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/16/health/women-leadership-workplace.html
For me it's not that Pelosi is a woman. It's just that I feel like we're going back in time. We need someone who is a fresh face, whether it's a man or woman. I just want to see change.
Not saying you are wrong on this in particular but would say that we trust our feelings way more than we ought. We are routinely led astray by our feelings. It is helpful, at least, to be able to identify as you do when feelings are driving decisions.For me it's not that Pelosi is a woman. It's just that I feel like we're going back in time. We need someone who is a fresh face, whether it's a man or woman. I just want to see change.
For me it's not that Pelosi is a woman. It's just that I feel like we're going back in time. We need someone who is a fresh face, whether it's a man or woman. I just want to see change.
The most important thing is the strategy from here. Dems need to offer something tangible for people's pocketbooks, and not just fight Trump.
The house ran endless hearings on Benghazi...did you forget? They were relentlessly partisan...did you forget? The election in 2016 was a shitshow of misogyny, racism and xenophobia...had absolutely zero to do with anything the House did in terms of legislation. The election in 2020 will be a referendum on Trump. It will be won in the midwest and Florida. It will be a shitshow cubed.Bingo. I don't want the Dems to spend the next two years being Anti-Trump. Start doing what the House did during the Obama administration. Pass bills. Let the Senate have to reject everything and be the bad guys and obstructionists. Give themselves something to run on in 2020 other than just anti-trump party stuff.
Interesting thread...seems like many people don't like Hillary, Nancy and Maxine, they just don't. The reason is that most people, both male and female, are looking at them through a gendered lens. Women who assume leadership positions always deal with this. People have an emotional response that they work backwards from to invent reasons that explain their feelings. Since the emotional reactions are driven mostly by unconscious biases rather than conscious attitudes it is the case that even ardent feminists may be unconsciously biased against women. Conversely, since not everyone is as unconsciously biased as others it may well be the case that an anti-feminist right winger may not have the unconscious bias.
The literature on this stuff is truly vast by now. Yet because the drivers are unconscious attitudes being "woke" hardly makes much difference.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/16/health/women-leadership-workplace.html
Maybe. Maybe it’s that having ultra-liberals from California in leadership positions doesn’t entice moderates or conservatives that hate their party’s current status (ahem) to consider siding with the Democratic Party.Interesting thread...seems like many people don't like Hillary, Nancy and Maxine, they just don't. The reason is that most people, both male and female, are looking at them through a gendered lens. Women who assume leadership positions always deal with this. People have an emotional response that they work backwards from to invent reasons that explain their feelings. Since the emotional reactions are driven mostly by unconscious biases rather than conscious attitudes it is the case that even ardent feminists may be unconsciously biased against women. Conversely, since not everyone is as unconsciously biased as others it may well be the case that an anti-feminist right winger may not have the unconscious bias.
The literature on this stuff is truly vast by now. Yet because the drivers are unconscious attitudes being "woke" hardly makes much difference.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/16/health/women-leadership-workplace.html
I don't understand why they can't have it both ways -- put up a fresh new face for Speaker and have Nancy run the show behind the scenes.Maybe. Maybe it’s that having ultra-liberals from California in leadership positions doesn’t entice moderates or conservatives that hate their party’s current status (ahem) to consider siding with the Democratic Party.
Interesting thread...seems like many people don't like Hillary, Nancy and Maxine, they just don't. The reason is that most people, both male and female, are looking at them through a gendered lens. Women who assume leadership positions always deal with this. People have an emotional response that they work backwards from to invent reasons that explain their feelings. Since the emotional reactions are driven mostly by unconscious biases rather than conscious attitudes it is the case that even ardent feminists may be unconsciously biased against women. Conversely, since not everyone is as unconsciously biased as others it may well be the case that an anti-feminist right winger may not have the unconscious bias.
The literature on this stuff is truly vast by now. Yet because the drivers are unconscious attitudes being "woke" hardly makes much difference.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/16/health/women-leadership-workplace.html
Like Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is both very good at his job and very unpopular nationally. The difference is that Democrats haven't made McConnell into some cartoon villain like Republicans have done with Pelosi.I don't understand why they can't have it both ways -- put up a fresh new face for Speaker and have Nancy run the show behind the scenes.
Yep, I tried to discuss this last night and was heartily dismissed.Interesting thread...seems like many people don't like Hillary, Nancy and Maxine, they just don't. The reason is that most people, both male and female, are looking at them through a gendered lens. Women who assume leadership positions always deal with this. People have an emotional response that they work backwards from to invent reasons that explain their feelings. Since the emotional reactions are driven mostly by unconscious biases rather than conscious attitudes it is the case that even ardent feminists may be unconsciously biased against women. Conversely, since not everyone is as unconsciously biased as others it may well be the case that an anti-feminist right winger may not have the unconscious bias.
The literature on this stuff is truly vast by now. Yet because the drivers are unconscious attitudes being "woke" hardly makes much difference.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/16/health/women-leadership-workplace.html
There are many good reasons why no one is paying me for political advice
Like Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is both very good at his job and very unpopular nationally.
Why couldn't Pelosi just stay off TV like McConnell does?
I keep asking for someone to make the compelling case for Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker and no one is stepping up to the plate. That leads me to believe that maybe there isn't a really good one to be made.
Yep, I tried to discuss this last night and was heartily dismissed.
The compelling case is that she's been there forever. That's how the D's work across the board. House and Senate. There is young talent, but they are being denied opportunities.
Fundraising, she does a good job of keeping the base together ala passing healthcare, we need someone with experience for at least the start of the next year, she helped deliver the house back to Dems. That being said, I’d listen to a suitable replacement. Who do you have in mind? What about Schumer? I think he should be out.Yes. I think your framing of this is poor.
I think you are wrong in claiming that Nancy Pelosi was good at the job of Speaker of the House. I think she has shown to be a fairly mediocre leader for Democratic issues in the House.
That's a question you'd have to ask Nancy Pelosi, but she most certainly does not do that.
I keep asking for someone to make the compelling case for Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker and no one is stepping up to the plate. That leads me to believe that maybe there isn't a really good one to be made.
I guess you missed my link? Are you purposely missing my point? Once again, I expect the GOP to attack everyone in the part. I don’t expect it from WITHIN the party. That’s what I’m talking about.I kept asking you to make a compelling case for Nancy Pelosi as a great House Speaker and you have declined the opportunity. Maybe you should step up to the plate instead of complaining about how female Democrats are vilified by Republicans (as opposed to the open arms Dems like Barack Obama received from Pubs.)
Fundraising, she does a good job of keeping the base together ala passing healthcare, we need someone with experience for at least the start of the next year, she helped deliver the house back to Dems. That being said, I’d listen to a suitable replacement. Who do you have in mind? What about Schumer? I think he should be out.
I think you need to reexamine the definition of a compelling case. And maybe while you're at it, read the story of Chicken Little.![]()
I haven't seen any evidence that she's particularly effective as a fund raiser outside of her own district.
I think this is correct. It has nothing to do with Pelosi's (potential) effectiveness. Are the dems trying to win the next two years, or the future? If the next two years is the goal, then yeah, let Pelosi run the show. If you're trying to convince the independent swing voters to your side for the long haul, I'd say Pelosi is exactly what you don't need. You want a fresh face that represents a new beginning. Pelosi represents everything that voters rejected in 2016.
I guess you missed my link? Are you purposely missing my point? Once again, I expect the GOP to attack everyone in the part. I don’t expect it from WITHIN the party. That’s what I’m talking about.
I guess you missed my link? Are you purposely missing my point? Once again, I expect the GOP to attack everyone in the part. I don’t expect it from WITHIN the party. That’s what I’m talking about.
It was on last night’s thread, so I’ll look. It was just about fundraising. I’m not talking about you or anyone here , I’m talking about attacks within the Dem party. And I’m all on board with needing lots of new blood. While I love Joe Biden, he’s way too old to run in 2020. I think we’ve seen the future of our party, even the defeats with people like Beto. I just think the Speaker is going to have a very tricky job balancing trying to get something done and running the investigations that need to be run. I’m not thrilled with Perez either.Yeah, I didn't see a link from you. Could you provide it again? I'll definitely look at it.
But, how is saying you'd like someone else other than Pelosi as House Speaker an "attack". I've even gone on to say that I think she's a good representative for her district. Saying that I don't love cookies and cream ice cream and that I'd rather have pistachio isn't an attack on cookies and cream. Saying that don't think Shawshank Redemption is a great movie and that I liked all of the other Oscar nominees that year better isn't an attack on Shawshank.
So, I think your complaints about attacks on Pelosi, Waters, and Clinton (Hillary) are kind of silly. Did your link offer up evidence of Democrats attacking Maxine Waters, too? C'mon, Zeke. I don't think you're being realistic here.
Since we are unaware of our unconscious biases from our subjective perspective we are unbiased. Such biases are much easier to see in others and difficult to see in ourselves.Yep, I tried to discuss this last night and was heartily dismissed.
The compelling case is that she's been there forever. That's how the D's work across the board. House and Senate. There is young talent, but they are being denied opportunities.
Nancy Pelosi is no good because ... she represents San Francisco. Maxine Waters is no good because she is "stupid"...Hillary Clinton is no good because she "doesn't look like a leader"
Did not know this. For a progressive party, it's getting to be ridiculous.The GOP term limits their committee chairs in the House, something that I think the Dems would be wise to copy.
It was on last night’s thread, so I’ll look. It was just about fundraising. I’m not talking about you or anyone here , I’m talking about attacks within the Dem party. And I’m all on board with needing lots of new blood. While I love Joe Biden, he’s way too old to run in 2020. I think we’ve seen the future of our party, even the defeats with people like Beto. I just think the Speaker is going to have a very tricky job balancing trying to get something done and running the investigations that need to be run. I’m not thrilled with Perez either.
It's a damned shame Alan Grayson isn't still in the house.It feels the same as Hillary. We need a new face of the party, not Pelosi again.
Agree. I think Perez has been mediocre. One of the things that is hard is that the job of Speaker (or DNC Chair) are completely different than the jobs of elected representative and require different skill sets. Will ultimately be interesting to see how it shakes out. If I had to guess today, I think Pelosi is Speaker because that's the status quo and people don't change it unless compelled to do so.