• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About dmc515

  • Rank
    Council Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,560 profile views
  1. You mean all those previous posts where other posters try to reasonably engage with you yet then you persistently accuse them of sexism either implicitly or explicitly? Yeah, I've seen them.
  2. While this is a sentiment I can certainly empathize with, it is entirely estranged from pragmatic politics and the topic at hand.
  3. Agreed, especially with the bolded - which has been my argument this whole damn thread. Sorry I was in catchup mode and probably jumped the gun there.
  4. And no one here is arguing against that, you're creating a straw(wo)man. Criticism towards Pelosi in her capacity as leader does not mean criticism towards all women in politics. Frankly, that's an offensive false equivalency - towards women. Funny, who would have thought Paul would be among the first out against the bill? I think this is a mischaracterization. Is Pelosi's unpopularity fueled by misogyny? Sure. But I have repeatedly said I think essential all of the (male) congressional leadership should go as well, sans Schumer.
  5. Both NBC and CNN are reporting at least 3 GOP Senators will oppose the Senate's version of the AHCA.
  6. Yes, I was being very tongue in cheek based on the title of the thread.
  7. Sigh. Once again, it is not going to be the case for quite awhile - it takes a long time for MCs to build that type of name ID. If it eventually happens I don't know. You're asking me to answer a question about a hypothetical person with a hypothetical situation in the distant future with no context. I think it's pretty clear @Tywin et al. is referring to posters in this thread. When has anybody said that?
  8. Exactly - she's been the Democratic House leader for 14+ years. That's why she has such high name ID and unfavorables. It will take awhile for an incoming female Democratic leader to achieve such high levels. My argument for ousting Pelosi is not isolated to the Georgia election - and I tend to agree Ossoff would have lost whether Pelosi was made an issue or not. The argument is very simple - she is a clear electoral liability with no discernible upside in terms of what's good for the party. Turning the page on the old Democratic regime to begin Trump opposition in earnest, however, has intuitive upside.
  9. I'm not begging the question. I presented evidence in the links provided in a previous post that Pelosi is uniquely well-known and unpopular among legislators overall, and this was particularly heightened among voters in the Georgia 6th race. Also, the GOP using Pelosi as an attack in countless House races is an easily verifiable fact, as is the losses House Democrats have incurred in two of the past four cycles. This question asks me to determine causality, something that is incredibly difficult in general and impossible with publicly available data (i.e. I'd have to run a survey experiment to even begin to make a statistical case). However, that does not mean one cannot make reasonable interpretations based on very obvious data trends. Obviously no one can provide evidence for a counterfactual. I have, however, detailed my reasoning in a previous post and again, the argument she is unique is backed by evidence.
  10. That's not addressing my point because (1) I was referring to women legislators and (2) I was referring to women legislators in the aggregate not any individual MC. Doing so would be an ecological fallacy.
  11. That's not necessarily the case. There has been myriad studies across the industrialized world demonstrating women legislators are better at consensus building and focusing on policy than their male counterparts. We need more women in Congress, and it's not symbolic.
  12. Well sure, anyone can say anything's a factor, but that doesn't make it valid. Ossoff exploited a specific and particularly unpopular decision by Handel in an effort to gain women votes. He tried to use a certain aspect of women's rights to his advantage so I don't really get your point here. In other words, both sides tried to use abortion as an issue, but I didn't see Ossoff run any ads on his excitement with working for Pelosi.
  13. I "buy" ideas that are based on facts and evidence. Pelosi being a unique liability in terms of notoriety and subsequent unpopularity as a legislator - and the GOP's repeated use of this to gain an electoral advantage - undoubtedly is. If you've figured out a way to determine decisive factors in elections please let me know; the point is she was a factor. Absolutely. Pelosi, Hoyer, Biden, Durbin - all of them. The Democrats need new blood.
  14. Yeah as mentioned above it was more about clarifying and detailing how slavery caused the war.
  15. Sorry I do have to push back on this because it appears ousting Pelosi will indeed be a topic in the coming days/weeks. Thinking Pelosi should step aside has nothing to do with "hiding women in the closet." If she can be replaced by a woman that'd be great - wish Warren was in the House. It has everything to do with Pelosi being the longest serving House party leader - of either party - since Sam Rayburn (one of the two or three most famous Speakers in history). Extend to the Senate, and the only party leader that beats her tenure in the post-WWII era is Mike Mansfield, the longest serving majority leader in that chamber's history. She's been around a very long time, and has significantly higher levels of both name ID and unfavorables than any other congressional leader. And that link's from 2013. In the Georgia 6th yesterday, she had 98% name ID and net favorability of -35 according to WaPo. Those numbers are untenable. And the notion the GOP will simply create the next leader, or Schumer, as an equally salient boogey(wo)man is pure mishegoss. First, Senate leaders historically have not been targeted in House races due to basic logic - and Senate candidates can portray their independence with much more ease. Second, Schumer just got on the job, he's not going to approach Pelosi's name ID for a few years. I'd venture to say he's not even the most famous Schumer if you ran a poll right now. Third, for "alt-right" or intense Trump supporters, their own leaders have been demonized more so already - see Boehner, Cantor, and now Ryan.