Democrats' House Agenda (1 Viewer)

[D Baseball]

You're making assumptions which aren't based in fact.  There's no reason to discuss this, or anything else, with someone who just makes stuff up and declares it to be true.  

Ok. But nobody does federal time for smoking pot. 

 

[sho nuff]

You're making assumptions which aren't based in fact.  There's no reason to discuss this, or anything else, with someone who just makes stuff up and declares it to be true.  

And refuses to ever provide links to their posts and has been caught making things up in multiple threads.

 

[Henry Ford]

Most of us, yes. But not all.

Not to pick on @jonessed. I think at first glance, it does seem like an area where both parties could come together. And I'm here to throw cold water on that.

In addition to the other reasons I mentioned, there's also this: A legislative deal requires a level of trust in the opposing side that they will go out and sell it to their base, and not try to undercut you after the fact. If you're Pelosi, would you ever in a million years trust Trump to keep his word on whatever he had agreed to once he faced any pushback from the Freedom Caucus?

Or McConnell?  Or any other prominent Republican?

 

[D Baseball]

And refuses to ever provide links to their posts and has been caught making things up in multiple threads.

Link? 

 

[zftcg]

Or McConnell?  Or any other prominent Republican?

As much as I hate him, McConnell is actually OK in that respect. He has zero ideological principles and his caucus will generally follow him, so to the extent that he can make a deal, I would trust him to stick to it. (By contrast, Boehner was generally willing to cut a deal with Obama, but his caucus wouldn't let him get away with it, so negotiating with him became pointless.)

The problem with Trump is that he has no principles AND no understanding of any details. So when Democrats cut an initial (and wildly favorable) DACA deal with him, it was meaningless because once Pence and Stephen Miller got to him, they told him he'd been hoodwinked (which he had) and then he backed out.

 

[Henry Ford]

As much as I hate him, McConnell is actually OK in that respect. He has zero ideological principles and his caucus will generally follow him, so to the extent that he can make a deal, I would trust him to stick to it. (By contrast, Boehner was generally willing to cut a deal with Obama, but his caucus wouldn't let him get away with it, so negotiating with him became pointless.)

The problem with Trump is that he has no principles AND no understanding of any details. So when Democrats cut an initial (and wildly favorable) DACA deal with him, it was meaningless because once Pence and Stephen Miller got to him, they told him he'd been hoodwinked (which he had) and then he backed out.

McConnell negotiated his own proposal for handling the debt ceiling and filibustered it.

 

[Hilts]

McConnell negotiated his own proposal for handling the debt ceiling and filibustered it.

Exactly. McConnell writing an op-ed and titling it “Will Dems work with us, or simply put partisan politics ahead of the country?” is high comedy. 

I think I'd actually trust him even less than I'd trust Trump. The bar has sadly been deliberately set that low by GOP leadership. 

 

[Gopher State]

I see it as being non stop investigations on Trump.  I don’t think we will see any meaningful laws passed.  Gridlock at it’s best.  This may backfire on the Dems, but we see in 2020,

 

[Sand]

I guess I'm cynical but I usually follow the money for motivations. And there seems like a ton of money to be made making marijuana legal. 

Probably not, at least from a government coffers point of view.  There will be a large social cost for making this legal.  MJ is anything but unicorn dust - it has deleterious health effects that are on the same level as cigarettes with the addition of other social costs like DUIs, etc.  Taco Bell will make out like a bandit, though.

Lottery is pretty similar.  It's a scourge for low income people and it has tons of high social costs.  And, as it turns out, it ends up not doing what's generally promised - increasing education budgets.  Interestingly, of the states that don't allow the lottery, Hawaii seems to be the only one that protects their populace by not offering it (all the others disallow it on "gambling is bad" grounds).

While those should both be legal nationwide, because that's what people want on the whole (even though people generally ignore the high social cots), we shouldn't go into this thinking MJ, or the lottery, etc. are monetary positives.

 

[D Baseball]

I don't know why democrats would want to make her the highest ranking Dem and face of the party. Please do. 

 

[squistion]

I don't know why democrats would want to make her the highest ranking Dem and face of the party. Please do. 

Here's why.

Scott Dworkin‏ @funder 11h11 hours ago

Who recruited the candidates? Pelosi.

Who kept us on message? Pelosi.

Who passed Obamacare? Pelosi.

Who raised the most cash? Pelosi.

Who helped The Resistance? Pelosi.

Who faced off with Trump? Pelosi.

Who’s most experienced? Pelosi.

Who should be the next Speaker? Pelosi.

 

[D Baseball]

Here's why.

Scott Dworkin‏ @funder 11h11 hours ago

Who recruited the candidates? Pelosi.

Who kept us on message? Pelosi.

Who passed Obamacare? Pelosi.

Who raised the most cash? Pelosi.

Who helped The Resistance? Pelosi.

Who faced off with Trump? Pelosi.

Who’s most experienced? Pelosi.

Who should be the next Speaker? Pelosi.

Please. They ran against Trump. It's not that hard. And Trump still lost half as many seats as Obama did, and less than Clinton. And he gained in the Senate. This victory is one of the lamer mid-term victories in recent history. 

 

[squistion]

Please. They ran against Trump. It's not that hard. And Trump still lost half as many seats as Obama did, and less than Clinton. And he gained in the Senate. This victory is one of the lamer mid-term victories in recent history. 

Not true.  Republicans won 63 House seats in 2010. They have won 33 so far (more than half as Obama) but look to win closer to 40, after all the results are in:

https://www.axios.com/democrats-2018-midterm-elections-house-congress-20ad294d-c608-4f70-af89-97d683757ed0.html

Democrats could win 40 House seats, the most since Watergate

Democrats have won at least 33 seats, but they look poised to win closer to 40 — there are 13 races that are either not called or too close to call, and Democrats have a solid chance of winning seven of those.

Why it matters: We're officially in "blue wave" territory. Even if Democrats didn't win any additional House seats, they've already won the most number of seats since Watergate, when the party picked up 48 seats in 1974.

 

[jomar]

God, I hate to step into this forum, but I have a question and am not sure where else to ask it. Please, forgive me.

As always, there's some chatter and static about the Speaker of the House position. Now, what always happens, is there's some noise about challenging but it never really amounts to anything. I fully expect Pelosi to win the job yet again, despite the appearance of "opposition" from within her own party.

That said, what I don't understand: why doesn't the minority party (in this case, the Republicans) agree to throw some support to a moderate challenger from within the Democratic ranks? The issue with the SotH is that you need a definite majority to win, and since the Republicans are fully expected to vote lockstep for their own guy, Pelosi can't afford more than a couple of defectors. But the Democrats would be crazy to allow some kind of strange scenario where a Republican wins the job. They'll hold their noses and/or vote "present" enough to make the math work for them no matter what.

But, knowing that, shouldn't the Republicans step up and agree to help someone unseat her that could actually maybe not be a powderkeg for the job? I mean, I know that the political points system makes them want to put the most batsh#t crazy member of the opposition in the most high-profile job, but, perhaps a cabal of idealists who might actually want to get something done could tip the scales toward someone that won't make the chamber a useless tumor on the body politic. 

All the GOP votes for SotH are going to be wasted anyway. But maybe extend the branch and take a shot on someone else. Why not? There's nothing to lose from the GOP point of view, yet I don't think this has ever been tried. Couldn't it maybe work, in game theory?

what if the Republicans want Pelosi as SotH?  it'll help fire up their base.  I saw a ton of R ads in the run-up to the election that focused on whatever D candidate being a Pelosi puppet.  They want her up there so they can demonize her to their base.  some fresh new blood might not work as well

 

[the moops]

Pelosi can't afford more than a couple of defectors.

The democrats are going to have a 30+ seat advantage. Seems like they could afford quite a few defectors.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

The DNC will shoot themselves in the foot with Pelosi as SotH.  Young people who voted and the people who were energized to get out and vote get rewarded with a person still playing the old tired DNC playbook.   Hell, I am the most liberal person I know and I think it is time for a change.  Pelosi is to the RNC what Trump is to the DNC  a giant talking point/bullseye. Now we have people within the DNC calling other liberals misogynists if they are against Pelosi.  But, but, but she is a good fundraiser!  GTFOH with fundraiser crap.  The people who donate to the DNC are going to donate regardless who is SotH. 

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

Here's why.

Scott Dworkin‏ @funder 11h11 hours ago

Who recruited the candidates? Pelosi.

Who kept us on message? Pelosi.

Who passed Obamacare? Pelosi.

Who raised the most cash? Pelosi.

Who helped The Resistance? Pelosi.

Who faced off with Trump? Pelosi.

Who’s most experienced? Pelosi.

Who should be the next Speaker? Pelosi.

Who do ALL Republicans and tons if Independents hate? Nancy Pelosi.

I am almost certain that she will become SotH again.  I think this blue wave is fired up the same the "tea party" was fired up when they started.   Would love to see this new excitement not wasted.  

 

[OrtonToOlsen]

Who do ALL Republicans and tons if Independents hate? Nancy Pelosi.

She's a strong, liberal woman.  That's about it.

 

[the rover]

The DNC will shoot themselves in the foot with Pelosi as SotH.  Young people who voted and the people who were energized to get out and vote get rewarded with a person still playing the old tired DNC playbook.   Hell, I am the most liberal person I know and I think it is time for a change.  Pelosi is to the RNC what Trump is to the DNC  a giant talking point/bullseye. Now we have people within the DNC calling other liberals misogynists if they are against Pelosi.  But, but, but she is a good fundraiser!  GTFOH with fundraiser crap.  The people who donate to the DNC are going to donate regardless who is SotH. 

Not really true.  She raises so much that she gives money from her campaign fund to other Democratic candidates that need it.   

 

[joffer]

She's a strong, liberal woman.  That's about it.

i don't like her for different reasons

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

Not really true.  She raises so much that she gives money from her campaign fund to other Democratic candidates that need it.   

I look at someone like Beto who had people from all over the country donating 5 or 10 bucks here and there.  I think he raised over 40 million.  I think that when people see a good candidate who actually has a good agenda and chance to win people will give money.  

i don't like her for different reasons

misogynist  jk 

 

[OrtonToOlsen]

i don't like her for different reasons

Do you hate her?

 

[the rover]

I look at someone like Beto who had people from all over the country donating 5 or 10 bucks here and there.  I think he raised over 40 million.  I think that when people see a good candidate who actually has a good agenda and chance to win people will give money.  

And Beto took money from other candidates by fundraising in their backyards while they were in tight races and refused to help fund campaigns where there were candidates more likely to win than he was.   That's not ideal.   

 

[IC FBGCav]

Here's why.

Scott Dworkin‏ @funder 11h11 hours ago

Who recruited the candidates? Pelosi.

Who kept us on message? Pelosi.

Who passed Obamacare? Pelosi.

Who raised the most cash? Pelosi.

Who helped The Resistance? Pelosi.

Who faced off with Trump? Pelosi.

Who’s most experienced? Pelosi.

Who should be the next Speaker? Pelosi.

Who is bought and paid for by corporations? Pelosi

Who passed Obamacare when they could have passed single payer? Pelosi

Who has done nothing for the middle class? Pelosi

Who lost over 1000 democratic seats federally and statewide on her watch? Pelosi

 

[Hilts]

Who do ALL Republicans and tons if Independents hate? Nancy Pelosi.

You think Republicans will welcome any Democrat with open arms? They'll demonize whoever gets picked. 

 

[joffer]

Do you hate her?

no

 

[the rover]

You think Republicans will welcome any Democrat with open arms? They'll demonize whoever gets picked. 

They won't demonize a white man as much as they will demonize any female or minority.   

 

[IC FBGCav]

Not really true.  She raises so much that she gives money from her campaign fund to other Democratic candidates that need it.   

Yep, she is a corporatist, that is why people dislike her.  

 

[OrtonToOlsen]

Who do ALL Republicans and tons if Independents hate? Nancy Pelosi.

I am almost certain that she will become SotH again.  I think this blue wave is fired up the same the "tea party" was fired up when they started.   Would love to see this new excitement not wasted.  

i don't like her for different reasons

Do you hate her?

no

Good day, sir.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

You think Republicans will welcome any Democrat with open arms? They'll demonize whoever gets picked. 

I 100% agree.   

I just think it would be nice IMO to see some new blood for SotH.   I am almost certain Pelosi will be the next SotH.   I just thought it was crazy for people within the DNC to say you are a "misogynist" if you don't want Pelosi.   I would like to see the DNC capitalize on their blue wave and put a new face in the position.  When 2020 is here and we have the same old tired playbook that allows for Trump to win another term.   I was hoping that the DNC would be so fired up that the RNC would just stay home and take the L. 

 

[the rover]

Yep, she is a corporatist, that is why people dislike her.  

Not really.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

And Beto took money from other candidates by fundraising in their backyards while they were in tight races and refused to help fund campaigns where there were candidates more likely to win than he was.   That's not ideal.   

Did this have to do with every single contributor gave money to elect O'Rourke? Not for him to pass it on to someone else.  He didn't have a PAC.  I could be wrong.  If I was giving money to Beto to beat rat boy I would have been pissed if I heard he was giving money to whomever in another race.  

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

Not really.

That article again leans "if you don't like Pelosi you don't like strong women argument!" 

 

[Sheriff Bart]

Who do ALL Republicans and tons if Independents hate? Nancy Pelosi.

She's a strong, liberal woman.  That's about it.

According to FB she makes 174k a year but is worth 850 million or something so obviously she's a crook. 

 

[the rover]

Did this have to do with every single contributor gave money to elect O'Rourke? Not for him to pass it on to someone else.  He didn't have a PAC.  I could be wrong.  If I was giving money to Beto to beat rat boy I would have been pissed if I heard he was giving money to whomever in another race.  

  Beto wasn't going to win, but by fundraising in Missouri, for example, he may have hurt McCaskill's campaign.  

About 67% of Pelosi's money comes from individual donors.   Her biggest corporate donor is Ernest and Julio Gallo.   Yet even on this page she's accused of being a corporate shill (as well as falsely accused of sinking single payer).

 

[Johnnymac]

And get charged with a violation most times. Like I said ,

theres no one in prison for smoking or possessing small quantities of pot. It's been effectively decriminalized. But they should go ahead and go all the way and legalize it. 

Tell that to people in Iowa.  It most certainly has not been decriminalized.  

 

[the moops]

  Beto wasn't going to win, but by fundraising in Missouri, for example, he may have hurt McCaskill's campaign.  

Oh come on.

McCaskill lost by 6 points. Beto lost by 2.5.

McCaskill spent 18 million dollars between July and September. A few million that went to Beto instead was not going to make up 6 points

 

[the rover]

Oh come on.

McCaskill lost by 6 points. Beto lost by 2.5.

McCaskill spent 18 million dollars between July and September. A few million that went to Beto instead was not going to make up 6 points

McCaskill was polling even when Beto was doing fundraisers in Missouri.  At no point was Beto polling even or ahead.

 

[IC FBGCav]

Not really.

Really 

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/pelosis-false-wall-street-denial/

 

[Da Guru]

My daughter who is a second year HS teacher and a dem said "no not her again". The Lions in Detroit are called the SOL as in same old Lions..now it is the the SOD. This just flip flops every 2 years. Between McConnell and Pelosi it is like Groundhog Day.

 

[Mister CIA]

The DNC will shoot themselves in the foot with Pelosi as SotH.  Young people who voted and the people who were energized to get out and vote get rewarded with a person still playing the old tired DNC playbook.   Hell, I am the most liberal person I know and I think it is time for a change.  Pelosi is to the RNC what Trump is to the DNC  a giant talking point/bullseye. Now we have people within the DNC calling other liberals misogynists if they are against Pelosi.  But, but, but she is a good fundraiser!  GTFOH with fundraiser crap.  The people who donate to the DNC are going to donate regardless who is SotH. 

Nancy Pelosi bull-rushed the ACA into law.  All Democrats opposed to her as Speaker need to contemplate their own cognitive dissonance. She's a powerful woman, and therein lies the rub, whether or not you acknowledge it. ... Sorry, I've been on the Twitters a lot today.

Paraphrasing David Axelrod on last week's Stay Tuned with Preet podcast, Axelrod asked Pelosi (on his podcast) what political lessons she learned from her father, former mayor of Baltimore; her response: I learned how to count.

Moot out!

 

[Henry Ford]

Pelosi has done a lot of good work.  She’s also been speaker before. 

New leadership is reasonable after this many years.  I still say Stacey Abrams. 

 

[Mister CIA]

Pelosi has done a lot of good work.  She’s also been speaker before. 

New leadership is reasonable after this many years.  I still say Stacey Abrams. 

I'm not averse to this suggestion, and in fact Stacey Adams might be my second choice (says this lightweight pundit),  but I'm at a point in my life where I'm aroused most by excessive competence.

 

[Henry Ford]

I'm not averse to this suggestion, and in fact Stacey Adams might be my second choice (says this lightweight pundit),  but I'm at a point in my life where I'm aroused most by excessive competence.

Abrams is excessively competent. 

 

[Henry Ford]

She’s been doing what Pelosi and the Democrats have been trying to do for the past two years at the State level in Mississippi for years as minority leader in the Georgia House.  Georgia.  As a Democrat.  And doing it successfully. She essentially single handedly stopped the most regressive tax increase in Georgia history.

She was a tax lawyer for nonprofits with an accounting background.  She personally did an accounting analysis, found that the overwhelming majority of Georgia would have increased taxes, and put a copy on the desk of every legislator in the Georgia House. 

She was writing speeches for a congressional campaign at age seventeen. 

She doesn’t need this, but the Democrats need her. 

 

[zftcg]

Do the Dems Need Nancy Pelosi?

The relevant point to me is that it’s not clear what the small anti-Pelosi faction plans for day two – what happens after Pelosi gets knocked out of the leadership contest – other than a highly divisive leadership fight with no good consequences at all.

[...]

Which brings us to yet another point. Let’s say Pelosi goes down to defeat and you have an open leadership contest which is won by Rep. X. Do the losers in that contest, the supporters of Rep. Y, support Rep. X in the floor vote? They basically have to, almost all of them, or else that person can’t become Speaker. Which is to say that they have to do what the anti-Pelosi faction now refuses to do, vote on the floor of the House for the candidate they voted against in the leadership vote. This kind of parliamentary blackmail can easily spin out of control.

To me, the strongest argument in favor of Pelosi is this: She's not the greatest politician, but she is incredibly effective at the behind the scenes stuff: fundraising, arm-twisting, shepherding legislation to passage. Having just completed a campaign where Dems overcame her weakness, it seems suicidal to kick her to the curb at the exact moment her strengths are needed. I agree with Marshall that this is the optimal solution:

The best outcome I can see is one in which Pelosi takes the Speakership with some kind of understanding that she will serve as Speaker only for the next Congress or some delimited period and add new members to the leadership team now.

 

[Mister CIA]

Abrams is excessively competent. 

Not averse.

 

[Hilts]

The GOP has shown how hard it is to get a competent speaker. If Pelosi says she's got the votes, then she's damn sure got the votes. She's incredibly good at her job which is largely why she's hated. 

That said, as the Democrats continue to pick up more seats I think it becomes easier for them to roll with a learning curve for a new speaker. Pelosi would still be able to work behind the scenes. She's still incredibly powerful. Of course that power may cause her to cash some in favors to remain speaker.

 

[Sheriff Bart]

Open borders. We let all 190 million people in. Then we quickly storm south and take all of their beaches, rainforests, islands, etc.  THEN we build the wall to keep them out. 

 

[msommer]

I guess I'm cynical but I usually follow the money for motivations. And there seems like a ton of money to be made making marijuana legal. 

But there are other benefits than tax money. Less crowded prisons etc

ETA: Sorry for Hippling