|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 23 2017 02:35 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 02:32 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't feel too much w/r/t to pelosi. she's okay. an adequate minority leader, and a survivor. i wouldn't be surprised to see her as speaker again honestly, but there's definitely young blood in the dem caucus that is a couple years away from taking leadership. The benefits to showing young, disillusioned voters that the party is actually changing would far outweigh any advantages she may have in general competence and experience. Consider the reasons Trump won the election. In a post-Trump country, the toxicity of Pelosi can't be understated. I think you are taking a somewhat outdated perspective on the value of optics, symbolic stuff, etc. young voters don't vote, which is why they don't have much power. actual competence and experience are underrated; sadly some people need periodic reminders of how important they are; hence trump, and the predictable mess.
Do you not think young voter turnout would have been higher with Bernie against Trump? I would argue this turnout delta can be attributed to the removal of disillusionment.
|
On June 23 2017 02:32 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 02:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't feel too much w/r/t to pelosi. she's okay. an adequate minority leader, and a survivor. i wouldn't be surprised to see her as speaker again honestly, but there's definitely young blood in the dem caucus that is a couple years away from taking leadership. The benefits to showing young, disillusioned voters that the party is actually changing would far outweigh any advantages she may have in general competence and experience. Consider the reasons Trump won the election. In a post-Trump country, the toxicity of Pelosi can't be understated. I think you are taking a somewhat outdated perspective on the value of optics, symbolic stuff, etc.
read again - i have no opinion dude. i'm just saying that more than likely, as a factual matter, pelosi aint going anywhere.
|
On June 23 2017 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 02:35 zlefin wrote:On June 23 2017 02:32 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't feel too much w/r/t to pelosi. she's okay. an adequate minority leader, and a survivor. i wouldn't be surprised to see her as speaker again honestly, but there's definitely young blood in the dem caucus that is a couple years away from taking leadership. The benefits to showing young, disillusioned voters that the party is actually changing would far outweigh any advantages she may have in general competence and experience. Consider the reasons Trump won the election. In a post-Trump country, the toxicity of Pelosi can't be understated. I think you are taking a somewhat outdated perspective on the value of optics, symbolic stuff, etc. young voters don't vote, which is why they don't have much power. actual competence and experience are underrated; sadly some people need periodic reminders of how important they are; hence trump, and the predictable mess. Do you not think young voter turnout would have been higher with Bernie against Trump? I would argue this turnout delta can be attributed to the removal of disillusionment.
a bit perhaps; but it's not at all clear that bernie woudl have done better against trump overall; he might have, he might've done terrible, it's hard to predict accurately.
young voter turnout is always low; that's just how it is. so young voters aren't a group to aim for so much.
also, if they failed to vote against trump, because of some unjustified sense of disillusionment, that supports my thesis of idiots 
I really wanna find a better way than democracy.
|
On June 23 2017 02:37 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 02:32 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't feel too much w/r/t to pelosi. she's okay. an adequate minority leader, and a survivor. i wouldn't be surprised to see her as speaker again honestly, but there's definitely young blood in the dem caucus that is a couple years away from taking leadership. The benefits to showing young, disillusioned voters that the party is actually changing would far outweigh any advantages she may have in general competence and experience. Consider the reasons Trump won the election. In a post-Trump country, the toxicity of Pelosi can't be understated. I think you are taking a somewhat outdated perspective on the value of optics, symbolic stuff, etc. read again - i have no opinion dude. i'm just saying that more than likely, as a factual matter, pelosi aint going anywhere.
You said you don't feel much wrt pelosi, so I was explaining why, in my eyes, you should feel something negative wrt pelosi.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 23 2017 02:32 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 02:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't feel too much w/r/t to pelosi. she's okay. an adequate minority leader, and a survivor. i wouldn't be surprised to see her as speaker again honestly, but there's definitely young blood in the dem caucus that is a couple years away from taking leadership. The benefits to showing young, disillusioned voters that the party is actually changing would far outweigh any advantages she may have in general competence and experience. Consider the reasons Trump won the election. In a post-Trump country, the toxicity of Pelosi can't be understated. I think you are taking a somewhat outdated perspective on the value of optics, symbolic stuff, etc.
I honestly don't think that Pelosi is the root of the problem though; just an ineffective member of a party that has lost its way. So I can't say I think we need a public lynching of her right now. More so to clean house of all the Clinton era cronies who are tone deaf as to where the country is heading. Once xDaunt said that the Trump win would be a good way to finally end the Clinton control of the party; I wish he had been right.
|
On June 23 2017 02:35 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 02:32 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't feel too much w/r/t to pelosi. she's okay. an adequate minority leader, and a survivor. i wouldn't be surprised to see her as speaker again honestly, but there's definitely young blood in the dem caucus that is a couple years away from taking leadership. The benefits to showing young, disillusioned voters that the party is actually changing would far outweigh any advantages she may have in general competence and experience. Consider the reasons Trump won the election. In a post-Trump country, the toxicity of Pelosi can't be understated. I think you are taking a somewhat outdated perspective on the value of optics, symbolic stuff, etc. young voters don't vote, which is why they don't have much power. actual competence and experience are underrated; sadly some people need periodic reminders of how important they are; hence trump, and the predictable mess. I question what the actual benefits would be wrt disullisioned voters; if people wanna gripe they alwyas find something to gripe about. that said, optics does have some value. it's sad how people sucker for optics and pay so little attention to the actual getting stuff done part.
I cannot stress this enough, she is reviled by Republicans in both the house and in red states. Skill and experience matters, but she is loathed by the other side of the isle that they are supposed t work with. Not Ted Cruz level, but no one can top that.
But I also am not sure that anyone wouldn’t be painted with the same brush by the GOP once they were in the position. I am pretty sure ads of “working with Tim Ryan” would run during the primary of any GOP house member that voted with the democrats.
|
On June 23 2017 02:39 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:35 zlefin wrote:On June 23 2017 02:32 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't feel too much w/r/t to pelosi. she's okay. an adequate minority leader, and a survivor. i wouldn't be surprised to see her as speaker again honestly, but there's definitely young blood in the dem caucus that is a couple years away from taking leadership. The benefits to showing young, disillusioned voters that the party is actually changing would far outweigh any advantages she may have in general competence and experience. Consider the reasons Trump won the election. In a post-Trump country, the toxicity of Pelosi can't be understated. I think you are taking a somewhat outdated perspective on the value of optics, symbolic stuff, etc. young voters don't vote, which is why they don't have much power. actual competence and experience are underrated; sadly some people need periodic reminders of how important they are; hence trump, and the predictable mess. Do you not think young voter turnout would have been higher with Bernie against Trump? I would argue this turnout delta can be attributed to the removal of disillusionment. a bit perhaps; but it's not at all clear that bernie woudl have done better against trump overall; he might have, he might've done terrible, it's hard to predict accurately. young voter turnout is always low; that's just how it is. so young voters aren't a group to aim for so much. also, if they failed to vote against trump, because of some unjustified sense of disillusionment, that supports my thesis of idiots I really wanna find a better way than democracy.
I disagree with the notion that young voters can't be reached. They just need to be inspired. Trump has an enormous young following. Same with Bernie.
|
On June 23 2017 02:41 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 02:39 zlefin wrote:On June 23 2017 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:35 zlefin wrote:On June 23 2017 02:32 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't feel too much w/r/t to pelosi. she's okay. an adequate minority leader, and a survivor. i wouldn't be surprised to see her as speaker again honestly, but there's definitely young blood in the dem caucus that is a couple years away from taking leadership. The benefits to showing young, disillusioned voters that the party is actually changing would far outweigh any advantages she may have in general competence and experience. Consider the reasons Trump won the election. In a post-Trump country, the toxicity of Pelosi can't be understated. I think you are taking a somewhat outdated perspective on the value of optics, symbolic stuff, etc. young voters don't vote, which is why they don't have much power. actual competence and experience are underrated; sadly some people need periodic reminders of how important they are; hence trump, and the predictable mess. Do you not think young voter turnout would have been higher with Bernie against Trump? I would argue this turnout delta can be attributed to the removal of disillusionment. a bit perhaps; but it's not at all clear that bernie woudl have done better against trump overall; he might have, he might've done terrible, it's hard to predict accurately. young voter turnout is always low; that's just how it is. so young voters aren't a group to aim for so much. also, if they failed to vote against trump, because of some unjustified sense of disillusionment, that supports my thesis of idiots I really wanna find a better way than democracy. I disagree with the notion that young voters can't be reached. They just need to be inspired. Trump has an enormous young following. Same with Bernie.
I didn't say they can't be reached; I said they have low turnout, which is true, and always has been, and shows no sign of changing.
also, being inspired to support stupidity isn't very helpful at all. you really want to have a viable plan to go with being inspired.
|
On June 23 2017 02:43 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 02:41 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:39 zlefin wrote:On June 23 2017 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:35 zlefin wrote:On June 23 2017 02:32 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't feel too much w/r/t to pelosi. she's okay. an adequate minority leader, and a survivor. i wouldn't be surprised to see her as speaker again honestly, but there's definitely young blood in the dem caucus that is a couple years away from taking leadership. The benefits to showing young, disillusioned voters that the party is actually changing would far outweigh any advantages she may have in general competence and experience. Consider the reasons Trump won the election. In a post-Trump country, the toxicity of Pelosi can't be understated. I think you are taking a somewhat outdated perspective on the value of optics, symbolic stuff, etc. young voters don't vote, which is why they don't have much power. actual competence and experience are underrated; sadly some people need periodic reminders of how important they are; hence trump, and the predictable mess. Do you not think young voter turnout would have been higher with Bernie against Trump? I would argue this turnout delta can be attributed to the removal of disillusionment. a bit perhaps; but it's not at all clear that bernie woudl have done better against trump overall; he might have, he might've done terrible, it's hard to predict accurately. young voter turnout is always low; that's just how it is. so young voters aren't a group to aim for so much. also, if they failed to vote against trump, because of some unjustified sense of disillusionment, that supports my thesis of idiots I really wanna find a better way than democracy. I disagree with the notion that young voters can't be reached. They just need to be inspired. Trump has an enormous young following. Same with Bernie. I didn't say they can't be reached; I said they have low turnout, which is true, and always has been, and shows no sign of changing. also, being inspired to support stupidity isn't very helpful at all. you really want to have a viable plan to go with being inspired.
By saying they can be inspired, I was saying this inspiration would translate into turnout. Bernie blew Clinton out of the water in Washington and Oregon for a reason. Out of all the liberals I know, I only can think of 4 who voted for Clinton over Bernie.
|
On June 23 2017 02:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 02:35 zlefin wrote:On June 23 2017 02:32 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't feel too much w/r/t to pelosi. she's okay. an adequate minority leader, and a survivor. i wouldn't be surprised to see her as speaker again honestly, but there's definitely young blood in the dem caucus that is a couple years away from taking leadership. The benefits to showing young, disillusioned voters that the party is actually changing would far outweigh any advantages she may have in general competence and experience. Consider the reasons Trump won the election. In a post-Trump country, the toxicity of Pelosi can't be understated. I think you are taking a somewhat outdated perspective on the value of optics, symbolic stuff, etc. young voters don't vote, which is why they don't have much power. actual competence and experience are underrated; sadly some people need periodic reminders of how important they are; hence trump, and the predictable mess. I question what the actual benefits would be wrt disullisioned voters; if people wanna gripe they alwyas find something to gripe about. that said, optics does have some value. it's sad how people sucker for optics and pay so little attention to the actual getting stuff done part. I cannot stress this enough, she is reviled by Republicans in both the house and in red states. Skill and experience matters, but she is loathed by the other side of the isle that they are supposed t work with. Not Ted Cruz level, but no one can top that. But I also am not sure that anyone wouldn’t be painted with the same brush by the GOP once they were in the position. I am pretty sure ads of “working with Tim Ryan” would run during the primary of any GOP house member that voted with the democrats.
it matters little that they are supposed to work with the other side, if the other side does not wish to work with them or compromise.
I'm pretty sure that anyone in that position would be painted with the smae brush by the GOP, it is a highly partisan era after all, and leadership will always be given extra targetting; I suppose you could cycle them at a high frequency so that the tarring has less effect, but I'm not sure to what extent that would actually benefit the dems or the country; they'll always have a target to hate on after all.
|
On June 23 2017 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 02:43 zlefin wrote:On June 23 2017 02:41 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:39 zlefin wrote:On June 23 2017 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:35 zlefin wrote:On June 23 2017 02:32 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't feel too much w/r/t to pelosi. she's okay. an adequate minority leader, and a survivor. i wouldn't be surprised to see her as speaker again honestly, but there's definitely young blood in the dem caucus that is a couple years away from taking leadership. The benefits to showing young, disillusioned voters that the party is actually changing would far outweigh any advantages she may have in general competence and experience. Consider the reasons Trump won the election. In a post-Trump country, the toxicity of Pelosi can't be understated. I think you are taking a somewhat outdated perspective on the value of optics, symbolic stuff, etc. young voters don't vote, which is why they don't have much power. actual competence and experience are underrated; sadly some people need periodic reminders of how important they are; hence trump, and the predictable mess. Do you not think young voter turnout would have been higher with Bernie against Trump? I would argue this turnout delta can be attributed to the removal of disillusionment. a bit perhaps; but it's not at all clear that bernie woudl have done better against trump overall; he might have, he might've done terrible, it's hard to predict accurately. young voter turnout is always low; that's just how it is. so young voters aren't a group to aim for so much. also, if they failed to vote against trump, because of some unjustified sense of disillusionment, that supports my thesis of idiots I really wanna find a better way than democracy. I disagree with the notion that young voters can't be reached. They just need to be inspired. Trump has an enormous young following. Same with Bernie. I didn't say they can't be reached; I said they have low turnout, which is true, and always has been, and shows no sign of changing. also, being inspired to support stupidity isn't very helpful at all. you really want to have a viable plan to go with being inspired. By saying they can be inspired, I was saying this inspiration would translate into turnout. Bernie blew Clinton out of the water in Washington and Oregon for a reason. Out of all the liberals I know, I only can think of 4 who voted for Clinton over Bernie.
it still wouldn't translate into truly huge turnout, young people voting a lot less simply is. bernie did well in those states because they're very highly liberal, bernie does better in high liberal areas, clinton did better in more center-left areas. and it's still not at all relevant unless it affects the general positively, which was not established; i'd be ok with giving it a try, but that's not what happened.
people should be voting based on actual sound plans, not on inspiration; another of the flaws with democracy.
in terms of winning the general, doing well in washington/oregon isn't that necessary, given how blue they are for the presidency.
|
On June 23 2017 02:40 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 02:37 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 23 2017 02:32 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't feel too much w/r/t to pelosi. she's okay. an adequate minority leader, and a survivor. i wouldn't be surprised to see her as speaker again honestly, but there's definitely young blood in the dem caucus that is a couple years away from taking leadership. The benefits to showing young, disillusioned voters that the party is actually changing would far outweigh any advantages she may have in general competence and experience. Consider the reasons Trump won the election. In a post-Trump country, the toxicity of Pelosi can't be understated. I think you are taking a somewhat outdated perspective on the value of optics, symbolic stuff, etc. read again - i have no opinion dude. i'm just saying that more than likely, as a factual matter, pelosi aint going anywhere. You said you don't feel much wrt pelosi, so I was explaining why, in my eyes, you should feel something negative wrt pelosi.
if i were a member of the caucus, would i vote against her if there were a better candidate? yes. however, i am not and there isn't anyone that (i) looks like a good leader and (ii) could knock pelosi off. her replacement needs to be both. i'm not interested in "le revolushun" for its own sake with no next step after replacing pelosi with whoever is FOTM. it's a waste of time and more blaming rather than soul searching.
|
On June 23 2017 02:46 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 02:41 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 02:35 zlefin wrote:On June 23 2017 02:32 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't feel too much w/r/t to pelosi. she's okay. an adequate minority leader, and a survivor. i wouldn't be surprised to see her as speaker again honestly, but there's definitely young blood in the dem caucus that is a couple years away from taking leadership. The benefits to showing young, disillusioned voters that the party is actually changing would far outweigh any advantages she may have in general competence and experience. Consider the reasons Trump won the election. In a post-Trump country, the toxicity of Pelosi can't be understated. I think you are taking a somewhat outdated perspective on the value of optics, symbolic stuff, etc. young voters don't vote, which is why they don't have much power. actual competence and experience are underrated; sadly some people need periodic reminders of how important they are; hence trump, and the predictable mess. I question what the actual benefits would be wrt disullisioned voters; if people wanna gripe they alwyas find something to gripe about. that said, optics does have some value. it's sad how people sucker for optics and pay so little attention to the actual getting stuff done part. I cannot stress this enough, she is reviled by Republicans in both the house and in red states. Skill and experience matters, but she is loathed by the other side of the isle that they are supposed t work with. Not Ted Cruz level, but no one can top that. But I also am not sure that anyone wouldn’t be painted with the same brush by the GOP once they were in the position. I am pretty sure ads of “working with Tim Ryan” would run during the primary of any GOP house member that voted with the democrats. it matters little that they are supposed to work with the other side, if the other side does not wish to work with them or compromise. I'm pretty sure that anyone in that position would be painted with the smae brush by the GOP, it is a highly partisan era after all, and leadership will always be given extra targetting; I suppose you could cycle them at a high frequency so that the tarring has less effect, but I'm not sure to what extent that would actually benefit the dems or the country; they'll always have a target to hate on after all.
I agree that the GOP has been totally unwilling to work with democrats. The democrats were also very happy to slap the GOP in 2008 with all the same tactics that were used from 2000 onward. The house was a toxic place at the end of the Bush’s time in office. And her leadership did nothing to reduce that. They have lost ever election since she was put in a leadership position. She is very experienced at losing and pissing off the GOP.
|
On June 23 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 02:46 zlefin wrote:On June 23 2017 02:41 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 02:35 zlefin wrote:On June 23 2017 02:32 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't feel too much w/r/t to pelosi. she's okay. an adequate minority leader, and a survivor. i wouldn't be surprised to see her as speaker again honestly, but there's definitely young blood in the dem caucus that is a couple years away from taking leadership. The benefits to showing young, disillusioned voters that the party is actually changing would far outweigh any advantages she may have in general competence and experience. Consider the reasons Trump won the election. In a post-Trump country, the toxicity of Pelosi can't be understated. I think you are taking a somewhat outdated perspective on the value of optics, symbolic stuff, etc. young voters don't vote, which is why they don't have much power. actual competence and experience are underrated; sadly some people need periodic reminders of how important they are; hence trump, and the predictable mess. I question what the actual benefits would be wrt disullisioned voters; if people wanna gripe they alwyas find something to gripe about. that said, optics does have some value. it's sad how people sucker for optics and pay so little attention to the actual getting stuff done part. I cannot stress this enough, she is reviled by Republicans in both the house and in red states. Skill and experience matters, but she is loathed by the other side of the isle that they are supposed t work with. Not Ted Cruz level, but no one can top that. But I also am not sure that anyone wouldn’t be painted with the same brush by the GOP once they were in the position. I am pretty sure ads of “working with Tim Ryan” would run during the primary of any GOP house member that voted with the democrats. it matters little that they are supposed to work with the other side, if the other side does not wish to work with them or compromise. I'm pretty sure that anyone in that position would be painted with the smae brush by the GOP, it is a highly partisan era after all, and leadership will always be given extra targetting; I suppose you could cycle them at a high frequency so that the tarring has less effect, but I'm not sure to what extent that would actually benefit the dems or the country; they'll always have a target to hate on after all. I agree that the GOP has been totally unwilling to work with democrats. The democrats were also very happy to slap the GOP in 2008 with all the same tactics that were used from 2000 onward. The house was a toxic place at the end of the Bush’s time in office. And her leadership did nothing to reduce that. They have lost ever election since she was put in a leadership position. She is very experienced at losing and pissing off the GOP.
on what basis would you credit those lost elections to her leadership rather than other factors?
also, didn't the dems gain in 2008, after she had a leadership position?
failing to reduce a toxicity caused by the other side is understandable.
|
On June 23 2017 02:49 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 02:40 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:37 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 23 2017 02:32 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't feel too much w/r/t to pelosi. she's okay. an adequate minority leader, and a survivor. i wouldn't be surprised to see her as speaker again honestly, but there's definitely young blood in the dem caucus that is a couple years away from taking leadership. The benefits to showing young, disillusioned voters that the party is actually changing would far outweigh any advantages she may have in general competence and experience. Consider the reasons Trump won the election. In a post-Trump country, the toxicity of Pelosi can't be understated. I think you are taking a somewhat outdated perspective on the value of optics, symbolic stuff, etc. read again - i have no opinion dude. i'm just saying that more than likely, as a factual matter, pelosi aint going anywhere. You said you don't feel much wrt pelosi, so I was explaining why, in my eyes, you should feel something negative wrt pelosi. if i were a member of the caucus, would i vote against her if there were a better candidate? yes. however, i am not and there isn't anyone that (i) looks like a good leader and (ii) could knock pelosi off. her replacement needs to be both. i'm not interested in "le revolushun" for its own sake with no next step after replacing pelosi with whoever is FOTM. it's a waste of time and more blaming rather than soul searching.
Isn't this a big reason Trump won the general election? Is it that you don't agree with the effectiveness, or you don't want the party to participate in it?
|
honestly, i think a good part of the blame lies with obama. i love the guy, but he gutted/ starved the democrat's infrastructure by running stuff though OFA. meanwhile, he was also fairly hands off who wasn't super involved in campaigning, while forcing many dems to make choices like voting for the ACA, while certainly the right ones, were politically untenable.
|
On June 23 2017 02:56 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 02:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 23 2017 02:40 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:37 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 23 2017 02:32 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't feel too much w/r/t to pelosi. she's okay. an adequate minority leader, and a survivor. i wouldn't be surprised to see her as speaker again honestly, but there's definitely young blood in the dem caucus that is a couple years away from taking leadership. The benefits to showing young, disillusioned voters that the party is actually changing would far outweigh any advantages she may have in general competence and experience. Consider the reasons Trump won the election. In a post-Trump country, the toxicity of Pelosi can't be understated. I think you are taking a somewhat outdated perspective on the value of optics, symbolic stuff, etc. read again - i have no opinion dude. i'm just saying that more than likely, as a factual matter, pelosi aint going anywhere. You said you don't feel much wrt pelosi, so I was explaining why, in my eyes, you should feel something negative wrt pelosi. if i were a member of the caucus, would i vote against her if there were a better candidate? yes. however, i am not and there isn't anyone that (i) looks like a good leader and (ii) could knock pelosi off. her replacement needs to be both. i'm not interested in "le revolushun" for its own sake with no next step after replacing pelosi with whoever is FOTM. it's a waste of time and more blaming rather than soul searching. Isn't this a big reason Trump won the general election? Is it that you don't agree with the effectiveness, or you don't want the party to participate in it?
i'm against tearing things down or shifting direction with no well thought out replacement or go forward plan. you can quote me on that.
|
On June 23 2017 02:58 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 02:56 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 23 2017 02:40 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:37 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 23 2017 02:32 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't feel too much w/r/t to pelosi. she's okay. an adequate minority leader, and a survivor. i wouldn't be surprised to see her as speaker again honestly, but there's definitely young blood in the dem caucus that is a couple years away from taking leadership. The benefits to showing young, disillusioned voters that the party is actually changing would far outweigh any advantages she may have in general competence and experience. Consider the reasons Trump won the election. In a post-Trump country, the toxicity of Pelosi can't be understated. I think you are taking a somewhat outdated perspective on the value of optics, symbolic stuff, etc. read again - i have no opinion dude. i'm just saying that more than likely, as a factual matter, pelosi aint going anywhere. You said you don't feel much wrt pelosi, so I was explaining why, in my eyes, you should feel something negative wrt pelosi. if i were a member of the caucus, would i vote against her if there were a better candidate? yes. however, i am not and there isn't anyone that (i) looks like a good leader and (ii) could knock pelosi off. her replacement needs to be both. i'm not interested in "le revolushun" for its own sake with no next step after replacing pelosi with whoever is FOTM. it's a waste of time and more blaming rather than soul searching. Isn't this a big reason Trump won the general election? Is it that you don't agree with the effectiveness, or you don't want the party to participate in it? i'm against tearing things down or shifting direction with no well thought out replacement or go forward plan. you can quote me on that.
Republicans did. They got a supreme court justice out of it. You can't ignore the fact that there are enormous benefits, even if it feels a little distasteful.
|
On June 23 2017 03:01 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 02:58 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 23 2017 02:56 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 23 2017 02:40 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:37 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 23 2017 02:32 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't feel too much w/r/t to pelosi. she's okay. an adequate minority leader, and a survivor. i wouldn't be surprised to see her as speaker again honestly, but there's definitely young blood in the dem caucus that is a couple years away from taking leadership. The benefits to showing young, disillusioned voters that the party is actually changing would far outweigh any advantages she may have in general competence and experience. Consider the reasons Trump won the election. In a post-Trump country, the toxicity of Pelosi can't be understated. I think you are taking a somewhat outdated perspective on the value of optics, symbolic stuff, etc. read again - i have no opinion dude. i'm just saying that more than likely, as a factual matter, pelosi aint going anywhere. You said you don't feel much wrt pelosi, so I was explaining why, in my eyes, you should feel something negative wrt pelosi. if i were a member of the caucus, would i vote against her if there were a better candidate? yes. however, i am not and there isn't anyone that (i) looks like a good leader and (ii) could knock pelosi off. her replacement needs to be both. i'm not interested in "le revolushun" for its own sake with no next step after replacing pelosi with whoever is FOTM. it's a waste of time and more blaming rather than soul searching. Isn't this a big reason Trump won the general election? Is it that you don't agree with the effectiveness, or you don't want the party to participate in it? i'm against tearing things down or shifting direction with no well thought out replacement or go forward plan. you can quote me on that. Republicans did. They got a supreme court justice out of it. You can't ignore the fact that there are enormous benefits, even if it feels a little distasteful.
there are also enormous negative consequences. I don't awnt to do things that are bad for the country and set bad precedents. the republicans choosing to hurt the country doesn't mean I want to as well.
also, the republicans may well face quite a backlash for what they did.
|
On June 23 2017 02:55 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 02:46 zlefin wrote:On June 23 2017 02:41 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 02:35 zlefin wrote:On June 23 2017 02:32 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 02:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't feel too much w/r/t to pelosi. she's okay. an adequate minority leader, and a survivor. i wouldn't be surprised to see her as speaker again honestly, but there's definitely young blood in the dem caucus that is a couple years away from taking leadership. The benefits to showing young, disillusioned voters that the party is actually changing would far outweigh any advantages she may have in general competence and experience. Consider the reasons Trump won the election. In a post-Trump country, the toxicity of Pelosi can't be understated. I think you are taking a somewhat outdated perspective on the value of optics, symbolic stuff, etc. young voters don't vote, which is why they don't have much power. actual competence and experience are underrated; sadly some people need periodic reminders of how important they are; hence trump, and the predictable mess. I question what the actual benefits would be wrt disullisioned voters; if people wanna gripe they alwyas find something to gripe about. that said, optics does have some value. it's sad how people sucker for optics and pay so little attention to the actual getting stuff done part. I cannot stress this enough, she is reviled by Republicans in both the house and in red states. Skill and experience matters, but she is loathed by the other side of the isle that they are supposed t work with. Not Ted Cruz level, but no one can top that. But I also am not sure that anyone wouldn’t be painted with the same brush by the GOP once they were in the position. I am pretty sure ads of “working with Tim Ryan” would run during the primary of any GOP house member that voted with the democrats. it matters little that they are supposed to work with the other side, if the other side does not wish to work with them or compromise. I'm pretty sure that anyone in that position would be painted with the smae brush by the GOP, it is a highly partisan era after all, and leadership will always be given extra targetting; I suppose you could cycle them at a high frequency so that the tarring has less effect, but I'm not sure to what extent that would actually benefit the dems or the country; they'll always have a target to hate on after all. I agree that the GOP has been totally unwilling to work with democrats. The democrats were also very happy to slap the GOP in 2008 with all the same tactics that were used from 2000 onward. The house was a toxic place at the end of the Bush’s time in office. And her leadership did nothing to reduce that. They have lost ever election since she was put in a leadership position. She is very experienced at losing and pissing off the GOP. on what basis would you credit those lost elections to her leadership rather than other factors? also, didn't the dems gain in 2008, after she had a leadership position? failing to reduce a toxicity caused by the other side is understandable.
She has been in the leadership since 2003, minority leader in 2005. During that time the democrats have held the house for 2 years in 2008. This was on the back of an insurgent Obama and the real estate crash, leading to the great recession. She was a passenger on that election and little of it had to do with her. If I remember correctly, she was skeptical of the 50 state strategy that won that election and picked up seats in 2006. She is one of the most senior members of the party. The buck stops with the leaders and to many of the democrats lean into demographics to win elections. That includes her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
