US Politics: Paradise Lost

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, larrytheimp said:

Think you quoted the wrong guy, I never said any of that

Ooops, that was an honest mistake. Sorry. Meant to quote @DireWolfSpirit

Again, sincere apologies.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, S John said:

Re: Pelosi

Perhaps there's also some skittishness among Dems about teeing up another (ancient) Dem that the R media machine has had years and years of target practice against.  At least with some new blood they'll have to work for it a little bit to get the rage and fear train up to full speed.  They'll still get there no matter who it is, of course, but at least they'll have to work for it.   

This makes a lot of sense to me after any time at all reflecting on the 2016 situation.  HRC was like a top 3 favorite punching bag of the right for DECADES.  They didn't have to put much effort into getting their base energized against her.  They'd already laid the groundwork.  Same with Pelosi.  I'm don't think its the worst idea to get some new blood in there.  Get some youth in there.  And make the R's have to come up with new lines of bullshit that they hadn't already anticipated and practiced against.  I'm talking' bout making some halftime adjustments here people.   

I'd rather reverse that argument. Pelosi is never gonna run for POTUS, or Senate for that matter (although given she's from Cali, she would win a senate seat against a random Republican, anyway). So let's take her the shots instead of soiling a perfectly fine Democrat hopeful, whom you want to run for POTUS or Senate at some point in the future.

[Larry of the Lawn]

6 minutes ago, S John said:

Re: Pelosi

Perhaps there's also some skittishness among Dems about teeing up another (ancient) Dem that the R media machine has had years and years of target practice against.  At least with some new blood they'll have to work for it a little bit to get the rage and fear train up to full speed.  They'll still get there no matter who it is, of course, but at least they'll have to work for it.  

This makes a lot of sense to me after any time at all reflecting on the 2016 situation.  HRC was like a top 3 favorite punching bag of the right for DECADES.  They didn't have to put much effort into getting their base energized against her.  They'd already laid the groundwork.  Same with Pelosi.  I don't think its the worst idea to get some new blood in there.  Get some youth in there.  And make the R's have to come up with new lines of bullshit that they hadn't already anticipated and practiced against.  I'm talking' bout making some halftime adjustments here people.  

I hear that argument, but think it's a waste of time to try to avoid riling up the GOP base.  They will be riled at whomever is speaker, even of it was a Joe Lieberman type.  Fuck them.  Pelosi has gotten shit done and has already forged a decent alliance for now with the progressives in the house.  I say let her stay at the helm and see who emerges as a younger succesor, phase out Hoyer, and proceed.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

43 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think a lot of it isn't hate but rather the fact the Dem House has had the same top 3 leadership for 12 years.  And all three will be octogenarians by the next election.

There's more to it than this. While this is obviously a big reason, the other reason for the left is that her name has become toxic during reelections and over major legislative battles. Pelosi was a very successful Speaker on her first go about, but now she's a net negative for the party. Her name recognition is too high and the perception is too negative at this point. I know her hypothetical replacement would be attacked and demonized too, but he impact will not be comparable in 2020 with Pelosi's. 

[Kalbear]

Right. And as this election showed, tying 'random Dem X' to Pelosi doesn't really appear to have the boogeyman effect that, say, tying them to Obama or Clinton (as POTUS) does. Especially now that Pelosi's ACA efforts are, well, supported by the majority. 

I would be fine with someone other than Pelosi in theory. No one, so far, has been able to give a better example of who it should be. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

There's more to it than this. While this is obviously a big reason, the other reason for the left is that her name has become toxic during reelections and over major legislative battles. Pelosi was a very successful Speaker on her first go about, but now she's a net negative for the party. Her name recognition is too high and the perception is too negative at this point. I know her hypothetical replacement would be attacked and demonized too, but he impact will not be comparable in 2020 with Pelosi's. 

Citation needed. Pelosi's name was used more than anyone else's during election advertising this last cycle, and the result appears to be a big ol' nothin. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

18 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Citation needed. Pelosi's name was used more than anyone else's during election advertising this last cycle, and the result appears to be a big ol' nothin. 

I think this piece does a good job of laying out both sides of this argument.

I think it's smart for Republicans to run against Pelosi because her unfavorable numbers are under water. But it might also be true that the impact of campaigning against her is overrated, or that you're only getting diminishing returns at this point. My gut says it plays really well in races that are not going to be close, but that's its more difficult to tell in close races. It's not going to have that much of an impact in a district that narrowly leans blue, but it could in one that's narrowly red. Regardless though, the Democrats need to overhaul; leadership for a number of reasons, and that means replacing her. 

[DMC]

17 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Her name recognition is too high and the perception is too negative at this point.

I agree, and have said this on here at least a half a dozen times over the past year or so - with numbers.

I am not at all worried about a leadership battle.  It's well passed time and it's inside baseball anyway - no one cares.  Not to mention, Pelosi will almost certainly win because the only person to step up thus far is Marcia Fudge.  Ryan and Moulton bitch and moan but they can't even offer a candidate.  So, ultimately, this is a non issue for me.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

I agree, and have said this on here at least a half a dozen times over the past year or so - with numbers.

I am not at all worried about a leadership battle.  It's well passed time and it's inside baseball anyway - no one cares.  Not to mention, Pelosi will almost certainly win because the only person to step up thus far is Marcia Fudge.  Ryan and Moulton bitch and moan but they can't even offer a candidate.  So, ultimately, this is a non issue for me.

Yeah I agree. I think they have some really solid options, but none that can take out Pelosi et al. They would have to resign for a real shakeup to occur. 

[Kalbear]

23 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think this piece does a good job of laying out both sides of this argument.

At the same time, note that the GOP says 'without her the GOP can't keep the House.' That was in April this year. Well, with her the GOP couldn't keep the House, so again - how effective were those attacks?

 

24 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think it's smart for Republicans to run against Pelosi because her unfavorable numbers are under water.

By that argument they should also run against Trump. 

24 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

But it might also be true that the impact of campaigning against her is overrated, or that you're only getting diminishing returns at this point. My gut says it plays really well in races that are not going to be close,

What does it matter if she helps win non-close races?

24 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

but that's its more difficult to tell in close races. It's not going to have that much of an impact in a district that narrowly leans blue, but it could in one that's narrowly red. Regardless though, the Democrats need to overhaul; leadership for a number of reasons, and that means replacing her. 

Again, citation needed. We just had an election, so this shouldn't be too hard to find data on. The answer as far as I can tell is that Pelosi didn't matter in the least. It didn't help in most of the close races as far as I can tell. 

Also, I'd argue that for the most part leadership of the Democratic party is almost never based on the House, one way or another. It's the least impactful part of the least impactful branch of government at this point (arguably the Senate is more important than the judiciary, but the House is definitely less important than either). If Dems need leadership - which is reasonable to state - it doesn't stand to reason that they should replace one of the only effective members of their group. Especially compared to,  say, Schumer, or DWS, or any number of others. Get rid of them first, then come talk to me about getting rid of Pelosi. 

[DMC]

42 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's the least impactful part of the least impactful branch of government at this point (arguably the Senate is more important than the judiciary, but the House is definitely less important than either).

I know you're razor focused on judicial nominations, but otherwise this is pretty silly to assert considering it's the House that drives Senate polarization.  

42 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Especially compared to,  say, Schumer, or DWS, or any number of others. Get rid of them first, then come talk to me about getting rid of Pelosi.

Um, I assume by DWS you mean Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  What exactly has she led to "get rid of" for the past two years, exactly?

[Larry of the Lawn]

Check out @washingtonpost’s Tweet:

Nothing to see here.... BUT HER EMAILS!!!

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

I know you're razor focused on judicial nominations, but otherwise this is pretty silly to assert considering it's the House that drives Senate polarization.  

I don't see how the people in the House going to the Senate means the House is somehow more important than the judiciary. I'm totally willing to believe that some of the asshole house members became even more powerful asshole senate members, but that just tells me that it wasn't that big of a deal that they were in the House in the first place. 

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Um, I assume by DWS you mean Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  What exactly has she led to "get rid of" for the past two years, exactly?

Yeah, that's what I meant. My understanding is that while she's not in charge of the DNC, she's still quite high up in the overall power structure and people lament that she's still around. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I don't see how the people in the House going to the Senate means the House is somehow more important than the judiciary.

Well, if we assume that the House partisans are driving polarization, then that means they are also driving policy to become more polarized.  That's pretty plain and straightforward logic.  Which means beyond judicial nominations, the House actually is more influential chamber-to-chamber than the Senate.  I do find it funny that your cause celebre was gerrymandering..until the midterms resulted in a Dem House and GOP Senate.  Now it's the Senate that's the main problem.  Funny how that works, and I called this transition a while ago when talking about the governor races.

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

My understanding is that while she's not in charge of the DNC, she's still quite high up in the overall power structure and people lament that she's still around.

So, what's she supposed to do, resign from the House?  That seems quite punitive.

[Fez]

McAdams (D) has regained the lead in the UT-4 count and it sounds like there aren't really any ballots left to count, so that would be pickup number 39 for House Democrats.

And the count in CA-21 keeps inching closer and closer, not unreasonable to think that'll be number 40.

[Jace, Extat]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Right. And as this election showed, tying 'random Dem X' to Pelosi doesn't really appear to have the boogeyman effect that, say, tying them to Obama or Clinton (as POTUS) does. Especially now that Pelosi's ACA efforts are, well, supported by the majority. 

I would be fine with someone other than Pelosi in theory. No one, so far, has been able to give a better example of who it should be. 

Ted Deutch.

I know nothing about him except that he isn't a woman and didn't shit his pants on stage during a roast of Marco Rubio at a time when Democrats had every conceivable advantage.

This is the liberal version of Alexander The Great. He's unbeaten against massively favorable odds.

[Kalbear]

13 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, if we assume that the House partisans are driving polarization, then that means they are also driving policy to become more polarized.  That's pretty plain and straightforward logic. 

I don't assume that the House partisans are driving polarization, however, so I don't get it. I think the House partisans aren't driving polarization, they're the first order symptom of it. The biggest driver is right-wing think tanks and media that started becoming absurdly more organized and powerful.

Quote

 Which means beyond judicial nominations, the House actually is more influential chamber-to-chamber than the Senate. 

That would be a reasonable thing to say if the House directly influenced who controlled the Senate. But it doesn't, so I don't get that. 

Quote

I do find it funny that your cause celebre was gerrymandering..until the midterms resulted in a Dem House and GOP Senate.  Now it's the Senate that's the main problem. 

I don't see how my cause has changed. Because I'm saying  the senate is more powerful than the House? It still requires a D+8 election to get about a D+3 result, and you still have bullshit like a majority of people voting for Dems in Ohio and them controlling - via a supermajority - the state senate. It still sucks that Florida, Ohio, Georgia all went R for governors. 

But right this instant, we're talking about the Senate, so I'm talking about that right now. And even that was in comparison to the relative power Pelosi has. Funny how that works. Hell, by that logic I'm far more interested in Saudi defense contracts instead of gerrymandering. What a flip flopper I must be, talking about things other than the one thing you've pigeonholed me in! WHY DID I NOT BRING GERRYMANDERING UP IN THE BAKKER OR THE NFL THREADS

Perhaps you're confusing me for one of the idiots who spouted off how unfair it is that 40 million people get x amount of senate seats, and 40 million get 2? Yeah, that's just how the US works. I did mention earlier that the House needs to get more power away from the executive branch and the senate, but I said that before the election as well - because (keep up here) I continue to think that the House has the least amount of power. And given that the House is the most representative body that the US has in its political structure, I want the House to have more power, not less power. 

Quote

 Funny how that works, and I called this transition a while ago when talking about the governor races. 

Congrats? I don't know what you're talking about, but good work!

Quote

So, what's she supposed to do, resign from the House?  That seems quite punitive.

Honestly? Yes. And yes, it is quite punitive. I really want her gone. 

[DMC]

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Citation needed. Pelosi's name was used more than anyone else's during election advertising this last cycle, and the result appears to be a big ol' nothin. 

Oh yeah.  You can blame @Jace, Basilissa for reminding me of this, but it's a really dumb unit of analysis.  Basically, you're saying Pelosi didn't have an effect because the Dems did really well in a year they were supposed to do really well.  But what about all those cycles Pelosi was in charge that the Dems did really bad?  This infantile logic necessitates that that means all major losses - e.g. 2010 and 2014 - we're Pelosi's fault.  So..not a good argument.

[Kalbear]

Just now, DMC said:

Oh yeah.  You can blame @Jace, Basilissa for reminding me of this, but it's a really dumb unit of analysis.  Basically, you're saying Pelosi didn't have an effect because the Dems did really well in a year they were supposed to do really well.  But what about all those cycles Pelosi was in charge that the Dems did really bad?  This infantile logic necessitates that that means all major losses - e.g. 2010 and 2014 - we're Pelosi's fault.  So..not a good argument.

You mean, the cycles where they mostly brought up Obama AND Pelosi? Sorry, that dog don't hunt. This is the first midterm where Pelosi was in charge AND the Dems didn't have the POTUS to get kicked around. My hypothesis is that the big bugbear was a combination of Obama demonification and people hating Pelosi because of her part in the ACA. Well, one is gone, and the other is far less effective of a scare tactic to the point where Democrats ran on protecting the ACA and ran on the Republican record of healthcare votes - and did pretty well. Sure, I can't say that there's a perfect causal factor, but it's certainly not evidence that Pelosi's name was particularly effective in getting election wins. 

My main argument here is that Pelosi is just not that big of a deal, period. People either will vote to curb the POTUS' power, or they'll vote for policies they like - but the people who were voting for the Republican were going to do that anyway. Especially now. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I don't assume that the House partisans are driving polarization, however, so I don't get it.

Well, you were in what I was responding to and said it still didn't matter:

25 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm totally willing to believe that some of the asshole house members became even more powerful asshole senate members

So, I don't care to respond now that the goalposts have been changed.

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

But right this instant, we're talking about the Senate, so I'm talking about that right now.

You've been talking about the Senate since November 6.

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Honestly? Yes. And yes, it is quite punitive. I really want her gone. 

Her constituents reelected her.  I'm not going to argue with them.