2018 mid-term election

[quadraginta]

<snip>

It's fine to do some Trump investigation but only if they're looking for facts vs. getting their names in the news.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to present that as a dichotomy.

What's wrong with getting their names in the news because they are looking for facts?

Facts which by any number of more than obvious indicators, it bears pointing out, are there to be found.

 

[jimbob]

I've decided that it's more accurate to describe the two parties as Democratic and anti-Democratic.

 

[Delvo]

There was a letter signed by some Democrats in the HOR saying they would oppose Pelosi being SOH again. But Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whom one might expect to go along with it as a Pelosi critic and a target of Pelosi dismissiveness, had an interesting argument against it. She said the letter didn't talk about their policy ideas or vision, or Pelosi's or how those two things differ, and it didn't give any particular indication that they were doing this from a progressive perspective or a conservative one or any other particular angle. So she wasn't going to go along with something that looked like it was just person-versus-person instead of being about what people plan to actually do.

And now we have the explanation for why HOR progressives are not putting up a progressive to compete with Pelosi: they made a deal with her for relevant committee seats.

 

[Trebuchet]

My biggest objection to Pelosi is also one of my major objections to Hillary, Trump, Biden, and Bernie: She's too damn old. So am I, so I can say that.

 

[Mumbles]

My biggest objection to Pelosi is also one of my major objections to Hillary, Trump, Biden, and Bernie: She's too damn old. So am I, so I can say that.

A nice thought, but who would replace her, now.

Another old woman? Seems like an odd choice.

Do I think there's a problem as far as apprenticeships? Yes, but it's worth pointing out that everyone Pelosi has apprenticed has abandoned the House for another career. Actually, this is one of her major failings. We actually need people who will pledge to stick with the House.

Look., Pelosi is an expert on vote-counting, on herding people to vote against what may make the easiest local run for the good of the nation, and so on. She's clearly far better than Boehner (who got the Pope to visit a joint session, and then bailed out) or that idiot Ryan. But her grooming a clear successor is a very good idea even though she seems to have skills that can't be taught here.

 

[CapelDodger]

And now we have the explanation for why HOR progressives are not putting up a progressive to compete with Pelosi: they made a deal with her for relevant committee seats.

Which seems sensible. They can cut their Congressional teeth (and enlarge their profiles) as committee chairs while Pelosi winds down her career doing what she does best in the big room.

Investigations of real substance are coming up, unllike that vacuous Benghazi nonsense. I'm really looking forward to it.

 

[CapelDodger]

A nice thought, but who would replace her, now.

The arcane ways and devious manoeuvers of the House must be second nature to Pelosi, I'd have thought. This hardly seems the time to bring on a parvenu.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And now we have the explanation for why HOR progressives are not putting up a progressive to compete with Pelosi: they made a deal with her for relevant committee seats.

Or there wasn't any support for a competitor and they knew it. France24 (EU news) noted the main group against Pelosi are middle of the road old white men. They claim they are not against women leaders just 'this one'.

**** them, Pelosi will be looking for a replacement speaker in a couple years given her age. I don't see her insisting she is going to be Speaker until she dies. She's not anti-progressive AFAIK.

Just because one is over 65 doesn't make one not a Progressive.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My biggest objection to Pelosi is also one of my major objections to Hillary, Trump, Biden, and Bernie: She's too damn old. So am I, so I can say that.

Low information voting, I see.

As opposed to high information voting.

A nice thought, but who would replace her, now.

Another old woman? Seems like an odd choice.

Do I think there's a problem as far as apprenticeships? Yes, but it's worth pointing out that everyone Pelosi has apprenticed has abandoned the House for another career. Actually, this is one of her major failings. We actually need people who will pledge to stick with the House.

Look., Pelosi is an expert on vote-counting, on herding people to vote against what may make the easiest local run for the good of the nation, and so on. She's clearly far better than Boehner (who got the Pope to visit a joint session, and then bailed out) or that idiot Ryan. But her grooming a clear successor is a very good idea even though she seems to have skills that can't be taught here.

 

[Craig4]

There are some up and coming Trump state representatives who ran on working person platforms that would be a more effective face of the Democratic Party. A real, blue collar Democrat representing the left behind working class would be a far better face of the party than a San Francisco liberal. Far better positioning for 2020.

 

[tyr_13]

What she said was that, if he invited her to a public hanging, she would be in the front row. Maybe she would want a better view of one of his hangings than a normal hanging. For those, she's willing to stand farther back.

That's a fair point. Maybe the implication is that she'd leave her box seats for him. She might not even scalp her season ticket for that one.

I don't cut an iota of slack based on that flimsy excuse.

As a state senator, she attempted to have a highway named after Jefferson Davis. A picture has emerged showing her wearing Confederate artifacts. Yeah right, that "jest" didn't reflect her noxious beliefs one bit.

Yeah, no. It wasn't supposed to cut her 'slack' and it still is a monstrous thing to say. It still reflects noxious beliefs, but it isn't quite an endorsement of lynchings as much as it shows as depraved indifference to them. It being a 'jest' wouldn't excuse it either, but it was not really that. That something is a 'joke' or a 'jest' doesn't mean it was meant to be untrue. Saying something with the motivation to be funny doesn't mean it's made up wholecloth.

 

[Minoosh]

I'm not sure why you feel the need to present that as a dichotomy.

What's wrong with getting their names in the news because they are looking for facts?

Facts which by any number of more than obvious indicators, it bears pointing out, are there to be found.

It has to do with getting the balance right. The facts they find must be arresting in and of themselves, so irrefutable that news outlets can run them without immediate attribution. Of course credit should be given where due, but verbiage like "the lawmaker in line to become chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said in a Washington Post interview published Friday" needs to be pruned back.

You have to do some of this, I know. But I don't see the point of Adam Schiff announcing that come January, House Democrats will look into Trump ties with Saudi Arabia. Just do it. Anyway, IMO that shouldn't be something that the Democrats have to own. Play the Khashoggi murder tape for some Republicans, maybe that will get them on board.

I am maybe too wary of the way Trump and his folks will label this a "partisan witch hunt." I want to see broader support, no duplication of Mueller's work and revelations so clear and cold that there will be no possible White House response except stunned silence.

 

[smartcooky]

I wish I could find a post I did about a year ago, which I spent 1-2 hours researching. I read the whole of a database on voter fraud incidents by the Heritage Foundation IIRC, and also a study from which wild extrapolations were made based on flawed methodology ... and that according to the paper's author. If I can get the search terms right I'll re-post.

What I found is that many incidents:
- Involved a handful of voters or less.
- Involved very local elections - e.g., for town council in Kentucky.
- Involved fraud on the GOP side as well as the Dems.

I can't remember that any tipped an election, except maybe at the very local level.

I notice Democrats have announced health care as a big agenda item which is great - especially if they can spell out a reasonable transition from a re-crafted ACA to Medicare for all, phased in gradually. But I think election integrity is something else they should tackle. That might include requiring social media platforms to vet political advertising.

It's doubtful they could anything passed, but having some very solid legislation in place would tell the country they mean business.

It's fine to do some Trump investigation but only if they're looking for facts vs. getting their names in the news.

Voter fraud is a problem that almost does not exist. With a properly managed electoral roll, it is almost impossible for multiple votes from one person to be counted.

On the other hand voter suppression, well that IS a problem, a really big problem, and one that the Democrats would be better spending time and resources on investigating.

 

[jimbob]

Voter fraud is a problem that almost does not exist. With a properly managed electoral roll, it is almost impossible for multiple votes from one person to be counted.

On the other hand voter suppression, well that IS a problem, a really big problem, and one that the Democrats would be better spending time and resources on investigating.

hence my comment about it being between the Democratic party and the anti-Democratic party, which I think is far fairer and more damning than 'Repugnican'

 

[jimbob]

A nice thought, but who would replace her, now.

Another old woman? Seems like an odd choice.

Do I think there's a problem as far as apprenticeships? Yes, but it's worth pointing out that everyone Pelosi has apprenticed has abandoned the House for another career. Actually, this is one of her major failings. We actually need people who will pledge to stick with the House.

Look., Pelosi is an expert on vote-counting, on herding people to vote against what may make the easiest local run for the good of the nation, and so on. She's clearly far better than Boehner (who got the Pope to visit a joint session, and then bailed out) or that idiot Ryan. But her grooming a clear successor is a very good idea even though she seems to have skills that can't be taught here.

The second paragraph suggests that Pelosi is good at what, in the Westminster system, is the role of the Chief Whip.

Are there equivalents of the Whip's office, and junior whips in Congress?

 

[Mumbles]

The second paragraph suggests that Pelosi is good at what, in the Westminster system, is the role of the Chief Whip.

Are there equivalents of the Whip's office, and junior whips in Congress?

In name, there are. We'll likely have Hoyer as Majority Leader, and Majority Whip under him.

In reality?

The truth is that the House Speaker often works to rally votes in whatever party holds the majority in the House. And Nancy Smash has proven to be highly effective there. She's cultivated friendships with a lot of key people, she knows what will pass long before she brings it to a vote. She's made it very clear that she's pro-health care, pro-civil rights (and I'll include LGBT rights here), she favors working against climate change, and on and on. A lot of younger progressives don't seem to understand that if she's not going to bring something to the floor for a vote, that often means it wouldn't pass.

And as far as her voting record? Out of the 435 voting members, she's basically the 25th most progressive - and that's with her voting as speaker, keeping any procedural hurdles in mind. A lot of younger people seem to think that if she's out, they'll get Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and she'll just magically lead them to victory. That won't happen - although she is one person to watch and try to cultivate.

And as many others have noted, I can't help but notice that the "progressives" howling about how awful Pelosi is, aren't nearly as loud about Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, who among other issues helped cover for Facebook as they paid to post nonsense about white nationalist boogeyman George Soros. This does not bode well for this group and the actual base of the Dems, given that Soros is a favorite nemesis of the "white genocide" hyping white nationalists...

They owe us an explanation for that.

 

[Foolmewunz]

There are some up and coming Trump state representatives who ran on working person platforms that would be a more effective face of the Democratic Party. A real, blue collar Democrat representing the left behind working class would be a far better face of the party than a San Francisco liberal. Far better positioning for 2020.

We are trying to discuss this seriously. "Up and coming" and "Speaker of the House" really don't go well together. Congress is structured. You give those up-and-comers and barely post-pubescent progressives plum assignments on committees and make nice-nice with them in public.

You don't even give them committee head jobs, but get them on committees that make news. The standing committee on crosswalk safety and stadium parking is probably not so good. Ways and Means...you've got eight term Congresspersons begging for one of those seats. Not to mention the political corruption in Congress, of course. You want to sit on Ways and Means? Show up with a $450,000 donation to the party's House re-election campaign! (Yeah, sounds a lot like a Banana Republic, don't it!!!???)

Sure, those things go hand in hand... only the well-known and influential congress critters can raise that sort of money every new congress, but they can raise that sort of money because they're on the plum committees and the sponsors (okay, call 'em lobbyists if you want) are quite happy to cough up the money to get a favored puppet appointed. If you drill for oil, you surely want to have your boy/girl on the Energy/Commerce committee. If you sell A or B or C (up to ZZ), there's a committee you'd love to have some sway over.

And yet, NEITHER SIDE IS DISCUSSING ELECTION FINANCE REFORM.

 

[Foolmewunz]

In name, there are. We'll likely have Hoyer as Majority Leader, and Majority Whip under him.

In reality?

The truth is that the House Speaker often works to rally votes in whatever party holds the majority in the House. And Nancy Smash has proven to be highly effective there. She's cultivated friendships with a lot of key people, she knows what will pass long before she brings it to a vote. She's made it very clear that she's pro-health care, pro-civil rights (and I'll include LGBT rights here), she favors working against climate change, and on and on. A lot of younger progressives don't seem to understand that if she's not going to bring something to the floor for a vote, that often means it wouldn't pass.

And as far as her voting record? Out of the 435 voting members, she's basically the 25th most progressive - and that's with her voting as speaker, keeping any procedural hurdles in mind. A lot of younger people seem to think that if she's out, they'll get Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and she'll just magically lead them to victory. That won't happen - although she is one person to watch and try to cultivate.

And as many others have noted, I can't help but notice that the "progressives" howling about how awful Pelosi is, aren't nearly as loud about Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, who among other issues helped cover for Facebook as they paid to post nonsense about white nationalist boogeyman George Soros. This does not bode well for this group and the actual base of the Dems, given that Soros is a favorite nemesis of the "white genocide" hyping white nationalists...

They owe us an explanation for that.

More important, as I've tried to point out, is that it's not the progressives in Congress who are behind this drive. The progressives in the hustings who think that it is are foolish. It's a bunch of moderate to blue dog Dems who want to get their nose into the trough. Going moderate is not going to win them 2020, so caving to this crowd would be a very bad thing. Hillary's biggest mistake was probably selling herself as Republican Lite, but that's what she and Bill always were. Fortune 500 loving centrists with a lean toward liberal (not progressive) social programs.

 

[WilliamSeger]

The second paragraph suggests that Pelosi is good at what, in the Westminster system, is the role of the Chief Whip.

Are there equivalents of the Whip's office, and junior whips in Congress?

The Speaker runs the show on the House floor, including the most important powers of assigning legislation to committees (otherwise it doesn't go anywhere) and deciding what legislation reaches the floor for debate and a vote. The Speaker also appoints committee chairmen and the majority of committee members, and can create special committees. Whips do help rally the troops to pass legislation, but because of the Speaker's power over the agenda and over the committees, the Speaker is the main arm-twister and negotiator to hammer out passable bills and get a consensus before bringing legislation to the floor. If a Speaker can't do that, then nothing gets done. The Speaker also makes rulings on procedure, which sometimes matters, and the Speaker is third in line for the presidency, right after the vice-president, which has never mattered before but this time it might.

 

[smartcooky]

..... and the Speaker is third in line for the presidency, right after the vice-president, which has never mattered before but this time it might.

Wait; what?

If Trump were to be impeached or ruled incompetent under Amendment 25 or died, Pence would become POTUS and Pelosi would be VP even though she is from the opposition party?

I would have thought that either Orrin Hatch (President Pro-Tempore) or Mitch McConnell (Majority leader) would become VP.