It feels the same as Hillary. We need a new face of the party, not Pelosi again.
I really wish Pelosi weren't going to be the Speaker.
- Thread starter DrHoops
- Start date
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
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
We do need a new leader for optics (and I'd like a younger face there and younger leadership), but Pelosi is really effective in terms of getting stuff done, making deals, controlling the Caucus, etc. I trust her in terms of deal-making with Trump more than anyone else the Dems have in Congressional leadership.
I get the sense she'll probably step aside in 2020 from what she's stated.
I get the sense she'll probably step aside in 2020 from what she's stated.
Whomever the Democrats appoint would be painted as Pol Pot jr by the GOP, it just doesn't matter. I do think gender is part of the "problem". Just go to any football or basketball board in existence and ask if a woman could coach the men's team. Men still aren't seeing women as leaders. But that's only part of the problem. The bigger part is that she has been the face of the house democrats for a very long time. The GOP has had much time to drive her negatives up. Someone newer and younger just simply won't have those negatives for quite a while. It takes some time to spin the story.
So I would also support younger leadership. But she raises huge money, and the Dems aren't about to let that go.
So I would also support younger leadership. But she raises huge money, and the Dems aren't about to let that go.
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.
It’s because the republican cartoon villain campaign against Pelosi has had an effect on you too. Just as MtM said, they’ll do that against whoever becomes speaker. It’s just how republicans do things since Newt.
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.
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.
The most important thing is the strategy from here. Dems need to offer something tangible for people's pocketbooks, and not just fight Trump.
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.
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.
There is an undeniable bias against Pelosi as the first (and to date only) female Speaker of the House. Just like with Soros and Schumer, I imagine individual people who claim to "hate or dislike" them would be very hard pressed to explain why or what horrible acts they are guilty of.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
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.
But sure, I guess I just hate women.
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.
Nope. I looked at the picture of the projected leadership and I thought this bunch does not reflect the Democratic party. ALL elderly. Predominately white (that bothers me less). The Democratic party is supposed to be the young persons party. Everyone in that picture appeared to be 60+. YIKES.
Btw, the Democratic party for all of their talk about diversity honors seniority above all else. The Republicans actually have some fresh young blood. Interesting.
And my other issue is at what stage does leadership take responsibility for their poor performance over many election cycles.
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.
Democrats can't fix this problem by picking a new Speaker, because Republicans will just demonize someone else, and Republicans will eat that up -- for the same reasons they can be put in terror of poor, frightened brown people straggling away from violence and poverty in Central America. Nor, apparently, can Democrats pull the same thing on Republicans, who (we're routinely told) will merely rise up in anger if any of their own are demonized.
I don't know. Maybe Democrats should pick a new Speaker. But no one should imagine that Republicans will stop demonizing Democratic leaders if they do. Nor is there reason to believe that any substantial number of center-right voters would be drawn to the Democratic Party if only they weren't afraid of getting liberal cooties from Nancy Pelosi. Nor is there reason to believe that Republicans couldn't keep right on demonizing Pelosi as long as she remained in the House, even if she did step down.
Also, who says that the Speaker of the House has to be "the face of the Democratic Party"? Mitch McConnell has never been regarded as the public face of the Republican Party. Why couldn't Pelosi just stay off TV like McConnell does?
Ultimately I'm ambivalent about this. But I hate seeing Democrats stuck in a defensive crouch all the time. This isn't something Republicans do, nor is it something anyone expects them to do. But it is something everyone (including Democrats) thinks Democrats should do.
There are many good reasons why no one is paying me for political advice, but there's a big part of me that wants to say "F#ck that!"
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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 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.
If you think I'm a big Schumer fan, you are sorely mistaken. I think he and Pelosi are peas in a pod when it comes to being ineffective as Congressional leadership. I haven't seen any evidence that she's particularly effective as a fund raiser outside of her own district. There's a reason why you don't see her canvassing the country speaking at events for other candidates. The passage of healthcare reform was really badly managed, so I don't see how that's a feather in her cap. And why do Democrats need experience at the start of next year any more than any other year? That's just an argument to never have fresh blood in leadership positions. With all of that, your arguments for Pelosi strike me as you saying, "She's okay, but I'd listen about somebody else." "Meh" is not a very compelling argument for Pelosi as Speaker.
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.
Yes, I was being sarcastic about "compelling case."
Sorry, but the results from yesterday were nothing to write home about. I simply disagree with you.
I don't have raw numbers, but she is highly regarded within the party for her fundraising. Having said that, there is no evidence that someone else wouldn't be equally competent as Pelosi.
This is exactly how I feel. And yes, it is a “feeling”, but I just want a new look...like when a sports team changes coaches, I think turning over our leadership can be a good thing.
I like Nancy Pelosi, by the way...but she’s almost 80 years old.
I like Nancy Pelosi, by the way...but she’s almost 80 years old.
I think all of the old dogs need to be put to bed. Pelosi, Schumer, Clyburn, Waters, et al. Further, I'd love to see them defeated in primaries by young blood.
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.
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.
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.
The tell that unconscious bias is at work is the subjectivity of the assessments people use in their evaluations. 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"...or...get this...because she is corrupt.
When unconscious biases are at work we offer nonsensical explanations and cherry pick data that confirms our feelings. Since we don't actually understand that our feelings are the product of unconscious biases we believe that the absurd reasons we came up with are actually real.
The sad part is that when it is proposed that unconscious biases are at work people become defensive and accuse you of calling them a misogynist or a racist.
The GOP term limits their committee chairs in the House, something that I think the Dems would be wise to copy. And I literally can't imagine them ever retreading back to a former Speaker, but particularly not one who lost the most midterm seats in history the last time the person had the job.
But the Dems are going to turn a to a new page with a roster of octogenarians that have been in Congress for 3-4 decades.
But what do I know....I'm just a lost independent roaming in the desert.
Which Democrats on this board said any of that?
I want all of the leadership gone. Man, woman, child, giraffe, zebra. Throw them all out. Frankly, Schumer has a lot more splaining to do than Pelosi.
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.
How has Perez been mediocre? Not sure how you could have enough info to make that statement. When he got there, the DNC was in shambles. He will tell you that if you talk to him. He hasn't been in his position very long either. Turnover continues to be a problem, but i don't think there is enough of a track record to say Perez is good or bad. I don't think we have enough info to cast judgement on him. I know they were lagging in tech and made some investments. Probably not enough in that area
