To be honest, I misread it as “really any star presidents” when I replied. Still, household name, intense public interest in private life, manufactured image…

Yes, it could be that. Only, you know, there have been more House Speakers (54) than there have been Presidents (45), which of course means the average tenure for Speaker is actually shorter, so it probably isn’t the term limits. Never mind that the term limits have only existed for about 70 years. And no Speaker has to step down to run for President; people run for one office while holding another all the time.

Alright, I went through brief bios of everyone to hold the office since 1903.

Gurney lost the office when control switched, ran for President and lost the nomination to Taft, retired when they got the House back (he was 87)

Clark lost his seat after they lost the House, then died the following spring.

Gillet gave up the Speakership to run for Senate, won and retired at the end of his term (he was 80)

Longworth died in office, though they had just lost the House (he died before the next congress was seated).

Garner gave up the speakership to be FDR’s VP, never got a chance to run for President.

Rainey died in office

Burns died in office

Bankhead died in office

Rayburn served 17 years when they controlled the House from 39 to 61, died in office

Martin was the minority leader for that same era, getting 2 cracks at speaker when the GOP briefly took the house. Lost his seat in 66 at age 78, died 2 years later.

McCormack retired while Speaker, at age 79.

Albert retired at 68 and seems to have just wanted a peaceful retirement (died 23 years later).

O’Neill retired at 74 and didn’t seek the Presidency or any other office

Wright resigned in the middle of an ethics scandal and stayed out of politics afterwards

Foley lost his seat when they lost the House in 94, and seems to have retired. He was an ambassador for Clinton’s second term, but was 75 when could have plausibly run for President.

Then Newt, who left in disgrace but still ran for President to get some book sales, Hastert who ended up in jail, Pelosi is still there, and Boehner appears to be sick of politics, so I doubt he runs in 2020 at age 70, and will probably be too old in 2024.

So of the last 18 men to leave the speakership, two made unsuccessful bids for Presidential nomination, one became a Senator then retired, one became VP then retired before FDR stopped running, 5 died in office, 4 retired in their late 70s or later, one went to jail, three rode off into the sunset (if you count Boehner), and one retired in disgrace.

So we really have 7 examples where someone was young enough and not mired in scandal, though only Newt was comparable in age to Ryan. Of those 7, 2 tried and failed, one chose the Senate, one was blocked by Clinton and then too old, and three seem to have given up the game. If Ryan isn’t ready to give up the game, there’s at least a 50/50 shot he runs for President, based on this sample, or maybe a 2/3 since he won’t be blocked by a popular president of his party until he’s too old.

Can he win the nomination if he runs? No idea, but he has lots of factors in his favor (name recognition, no scandals, retired on his own terms) and only a small sample size to guide us about how former Speakers do.

In my view, given that no strong candidate to replace Pelosi has emerged thus far, I think it makes a lot of sense to transfer that desire for new leadership to the #2 and lower positions behind Pelosi. For example, the House #2, Steny Hoyer, is 79 years old and every political critique against Pelosi also applies to him.

I think bringing in younger Dem leadership to back up Pelosi for now, get some leadership experience, and replace her in a term or two is the best path forward at this time.

In fact, I’ll go so far as to see that keeping every single member of the current leadership is a terrible idea and smacks of moribund politcal hackery.

Instead of “Dump Pelosi” I’m fully behind “Dump Hoyer”.

As votes tally up…

I think that’s a great plan.

The Democrats need generational change, but they need that at the top of the ticket. We need a presidential candidate under 60. That would be a strong symbol of where the party is headed, and it would help with voter turnout in 2020. We need the boomers to leave the spotlight.

But not Pelosi. Her job is only in the general spotlight now because the run for POTUS has not begun in earnest. A year from now, she’ll be out of the news (except on Fox, but who cares). She won’t be the symbolic head of the party when it matters the most.

She’s very good at being speaker of the house. We need someone very good at that job to be doing it, and concerns about their date of birth need to be secondary to that.



Two names I’ve heard bandied about (“bandy” is such a great verb) are Marcia Fudge of Ohio and Jim Clyburn of South Carolina.

Clyburn is likely to be the Whip, but if Pelosi falters in the vote, he might be one to watch.

Yes, when judging Pelosi, only the House losses count. Forget the wave election win in 2006, or the wave election win we just had. Cherries demand to be picked!

Oh look another both sides bs argument. The fact he compares Pelosi to Trump at all tells you what a bad egg that man is.

If there’s one place Democrats should look for advice on leadership priorities, it’s definitely Lolbertarian Twitter.

The 2006 election is why she became Speaker. But politicians are only as strong as their last election, so it’s reasonable to wonder whether she should have been replaced after losing her majority in 2010. The point is that she got a second chance, but most leaders don’t.

Isn’t she the minority leader of a party that just won the house? And therefore as good as her last election?

Democrats are stupid to let Republicans and Conservatives bait them into a meaningless leadership fight in the House. And Nichols is cherry-picking, as I said.

Yes, which is probably why Nichols advised against a change in leadership at this point. But he’s not necessarily wrong when he punctures the “hyperbole” surrounding Pelosi. It’s possible she is more lucky than good.

Yes, I’m sure some of it is hyperbole; but if you’re measuring success by sticking power, she’s the most successful House party leader since Tip O’Neill, and the only one from either party who hasn’t been evicted by their own party or disgraced by scandal.

I think the House losses were more thanks to health care reform and then Obama essentially letting the OFA go fallow after his elections. I’m not sure how the Speaker is responsible for losing the House. That seems to be misplacing blame.

Sweet! Let’s shave 4 months or so off the age of the Speaker!

I agree with the idea of dumping Hoyer (and Clyburn, the current assistant leader) and get some young blood in behind Pelosi, but didn’t Hoyer already get voted in by the caucus? I don’t know how positions like majority leader work, but there’s no general floor vote, so I think he’s just already in, no?

Cleaver wields a lot of power within the CBC. Him saying “Let’s tap the brakes a bit” is the first good news for Pelosi in a few days.

This one appears to be headed for the all-time ratio hall of fame: