5882

See, he was trying to COMPLIMENT her. Nice job, haters!

5883

You guys called it right. They have no freaking idea how to deal with her. They’ve never encountered anyone like her.

5884

Yeah, she’s got a kind of Mean Girls thing going for her too. Like “Oh shit, she’s still coming after my sorry ass.”

5885

Pelosi seeming more and more likely to be the speaker, if only because every time those who are in opposition to her in the Democratic caucus speak, they say really stupid and/or awkward things.

The leaders of this faction are not the most politically sharp knives in the drawer.

5886

Is there any serious case against Pelosi other than ‘Republicans hate her’?

Because I’m sure trying to get into the Right’s good graces is a totally great strategy.

5887

The left hates her too? Mostly because she’s too cozy with special interests, usual reasons, etc. Which she kinda is…but at the moment I think we need a capable leader in there, so whatever.

Anyway, she doesn’t show too many signs of caring that much about who hates her, and there’s really nobody else to do it. I think if she pledges to only stay in the job through 2020, and brings some younger, newer people into the inner circle, most of the whinging from the left goes away.

5888

The kids and Bernie crowd seems to hate her. I respect her. I think she can wrangle cats, and for awhile, we need that. The in-fighting can easily take the Democrats down… again.

5889

There’s definitely a core there that would form the Democratic Freedom Caucus if they could. Maybe they still will just to pwn the Libs.

5890

While I don’t know the alternatives enough to argue against viable other candidates, but it seems to me that the next 2 years are going to be marked by either futile progressive legislation coming out of the House which are ignored and uneasy compromise with the Senate on the kind of nuts and bolts legislation that absolutely needs to happen but no one will be happy about the various compromises.

It seems like Pelosi is a good person for this. She seems like she’ll be able to rally support and pass the kind of centralist focused bills that will look bad for the Republicans to ignore and when the compromise stuff happens none of the ill will that will get focused on her will matter.

I can’t imagine that anyone who has aspirations for anything past Speaker would want to step into the role right now. A more progressive Speaker isn’t going to going to be able to affect anything, where as if they are not the Speaker they can more easily push progressive legislation (that isn’t going anywhere no matter what) without having to deal with all the vote assembling and party management and etc.

5891

Most of the criticism from the left is that she is too willing to compromise. Which I think was fair in the past. Although it misses the key point that she compromised before the past eight years of the Republican party’s descent into >insert your own description here of whatever evil the Republican party is these days<

I strongly doubt she is in the mood to compromise or give them an inch again. She saw what happened last time.

More broadly though its a simple question, do Republicans hate her? if the answer is “yes” and it is, then clearly she must be a decent human being at some level.

5892

I think they hate her because they see her as a threat. Pelosi can get stuff done and the Democrats are known for infighting whereas the Republicans rubber stamp for their leader.

The new guard coming in needs to respect the old guard. That’s the expertise. That’s the navigation system. That’s the group that knows how to get things done. At the same time, man, woman, LGBQTA+ member, or 29, the new people were voted in to be there and deserve respect too. Everyone needs to be at the table, know the game plan and remember that the they are all called the enemy by the other team, not the opposing side, not the colleagues but labeled an actual enemy by the opposing party.

5893

I mean, this is a party getting the overwhelming heft of the youth vote, a group she does not have a very strong connection with.

I don’t think the time for leadership change is now, as I think Pelosi can be really effective at fighting Trump, not to mention having him hectoring a woman in power doesn’t seem to be moving the polls much, other than deepening the loss of suburban white women voters.

I think that change may be in order in 2020, and some of the younger members of the democratic party might be ready to step up then.

5894

There’s a desire for new blood in the Democratic party, and Pelosi is not that. That’s the only REAL argument against her being speaker. The fact that the Republicans hate her is immaterial, they are going to hate whoever the democrats put up.

But in preparation for 2020, you’re going to need someone who actually knows what they are doing. You can’t put in some noob who only knows how to rage against the machine.

5895

I agree with that. Getting younger is a good thing. Plus there are items that are important and energize the younger cohort that aren’t really being given the focus and energy they deserve. So that is the argument. And, really, the Dems would be foolish not to cultivate the next generation. Does that mean Speaker? Not really. It’s not a terrible idea, but its not required either. But just keeping on the current cohort with no change is a bad idea. I’m fine with Pelosi staying, as long as the party actively courts and tries to mentor the next generation of leader. I also think if there is that next generation leader who can take speaker and be brought under the tutelage of the old guard? That’s good too.

5896

Agreed. Let the GOP hate her. It’s not like they would like whoever had the job. And they do need to look to the future and get the next speaker, whoever it may be, ready for the job.

5897

Alexandra Petri weighs in:

… I have to say, I’m a little frustrated that we keep putting forward this specific woman who really grinds my gears. Not because she’s a woman. I would know if that were why. It is not that. It’s just — ugh, her , you know? She just doesn’t excite me, and I feel that she is too compromised. That’s not a woman thing, though. It’s just a her thing. I would have that issue with anyone who had her baggage, that same difficult-to-pin-down sense that something about her was fundamentally tainted.

But it is just this one woman in particular. And can I say how glad I am that we are at a point when we are able to judge women on their merits, as people, and find them inexplicably, inevitably wanting, as people? …

I am flabbergasted and upset that each and every one of the women being talked about as front-runners are the specific women who have already alienated me. I am as frustrated by this terrible coincidence as you are, believe me! Believe, women!

What I want is not impossible! I want someone who is not tainted by polarizing choices in the past, but who also has experience, who is knowledgeable but doesn’t sound like she is lecturing, someone vibrant but not green, someone dignified but not dowdy, passionate but not a yeller, precise but not mechanical, someone lacking in off-putting ambition but capable of asking for what she wants, not accompanied but not alone, in a day but not in a month or a year, when the moon is neither waxing nor waning, carrying a sieve full of water and a hen’s tooth. Easy!

That’s why I’m so worried about our current slate of choices. A woman, sure, but — Kamala Harris? Elizabeth Warren? Kirsten Gillibrand? There are specific problems with each of them, entirely personal to each of them, all insurmountable. We need someone fresh. Someone without baggage. Joe Biden, maybe. But female! If you see.

I can’t wait to vote for a woman in 2020. A nameless, shapeless, faceless woman I know nothing about who will surely be perfect.

5898

Stacy Abrams speech is worth a watch:

5899

I remain interested in replacing Pelosi only if there is a better alternative but this kind of BS is an example of why Pelosi, despite her legislative knife-fighting skills, makes me want to strongly consider new leadership:

“The rule—endorsed by Pelosi and Richard Neal, the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee—would “require a three-fifths supermajority to raise individual income taxes on the lowest-earning 80 percent of taxpayers.””

Jesus wept. Before we get into policy let’s just consider this from a gamer min/max perspective. After a brutally hard fought campaign to gain the 50%+1 votes required to pass legislation under the current vote threshold, the Dem leaderships wants to piss that power away on a core issue of revenue. And very specifically, this is a way to hand power from the Dem majority to the GOP minority.

The Dems right now have roughly 53% of the House, and may end up with 54%, which is a decent majority for the 50%+1 standard. The GOP lacks the votes to stop the Dems in the House unless there is significant Dem dissension. And yet, this change would give the GOP nearly total control over passing tax law. Sure, the current Dem majority in the House cannot create law by itself but it can pass bills that can generate political pressure and set things up for 2020 and beyond. This change is a pure unilateral abdication of power, to the worst goddamn political party/posture in my memory. Jesus.

So, before we get into any policy issues, at all, just from a pure min/max standpoint, this may be the stupidest thing I’ve seen the national Dems do, and that’s a very damn high threshold to begin with.

Really, Pelosi, WTF?

5900

PS I don’t care if the underlying policy issue here is loving puppies and magic unicorns for everybody: as a min/max-er I am offended by this F’ing idiocy at a core level. I mean if the Dem leaders want to oppose tax changes like this as policy, they can do that with the existing system without cutting their own throats stochastically speaking.

5901

What percentage of total income is earned by the top 80% of earners?

I’m thinking it’s actually the majority of income, and so focusing Tax increases on that portion of the population isn’t actually much of a limitation.

At the same time, it gives you a defense against fear mongering that “Democrats are going to raise your taxes”. You can point to that and say, “look, we can’t raise your taxes. Don’t worry about it.”