'Pelosi is worse than Trump in some parts of the country'

[PACOX]

Please stop linking fake news.

[Realitytrembles]

Because they clearly had major platform points on those very issues. Voters not knowing that is a mark against the voters, not the Democratic Party.

I wouldn't put it all on the voters. Dems' messaging sucked in the recent election, and their candidate had the charisma of a rock.

[Endus]

I wouldn't put it all on the voters. Dems' messaging sucked in the recent election, and their candidate had the charisma of a rock.

While that's a factor, if you voted in the election and hadn't even looked at the platforms of both parties, you were voting in willful ignorance. Period. That's not something you can blame on the parties; YOU chose to make a grossly uninformed decision.

[Kellhound]

She's a representative, not a senator. She represents San Francisco. California have more republicans than several midwestern states combined.

She represents the most liberal element of the most liberal state, not exactly a leader that will appeal to the moderates. Plus, Republicans also have little say in California federal level politics. Only 14 of 53 districts are held by Republicans.

- - - Updated - - -

No, we're talking about cases where people claim that Democrats have no interest in X, when the Democratic Party platform clearly had sections detailing their proposals to address X.

You might disagree with how they choose to address those issues, but claiming they do not is objectively wrong and demonstrates nothing but that person's willful ignorance.

When people say "they have no interest in X" they are known to be saying "they have no interest in X in a manner that I dont think is batshit crazy".
However, that has nothing to do with what I said.

[Lothar from accounting]

Some people make a living observing others.

Anthropologists?

[Kellhound]

Anthropologists?

And politicians, and thieves, and hustlers, and would-be-dictators.(Yes I know all 4 are really the same thing....)

[Korlok]

Anthropologists?

Wow, a witty retort to Allybeboba that actually made me laugh.
Hurrah good sir, I salute you.

For the bebobster, I've noticed that you tend to think that calling everyone your 'friend' and being cordial will make everyone that disagrees with you appear to be rude, which is a tactic for discrediting others without taking direct action against them. I have a feeling being your friend is actually rather tedious.

Thanks for all the laughs though.

[Damajin]

No, we're talking about cases where people claim that Democrats have no interest in X, when the Democratic Party platform clearly had sections detailing their proposals to address X.

You might disagree with how they choose to address those issues, but claiming they do not is objectively wrong and demonstrates nothing but that person's willful ignorance.

This is only partly correct, as there certainly are people who think they have flat zero on X issue or whatever despite some sort of position, but we both know that many voters are saying 'we don't agree with/disregard their position' when they say that they have no interest/policy points. It's partisanship.

Bemoaning the objectively wrong is for nitpickers, though it does allow you to trot our your beloved 'willful ignorance' line.

[Hammerfest]

Well she (Pelosi) definitely is out here where I live. Pelosi is toxic in much, perhaps most, of the Midwest.

[Adam Jensen]

You know what I want to see?

1. Democrats regain the majority in Congress and name Pelosi Speaker.
2. Donald and Pence get the boot over Russia.
3. Pelosi, being third in line, becomes President.

Now I'm no fan of Pelosi, but just thinking about the right wing outrage that scenario would produce makes me laugh.

[Kellhound]

You know what I want to see?

1. Democrats regain the majority in Congress and name Pelosi Speaker.
2. Donald and Pence get the boot over Russia.
3. Pelosi, being third in line, becomes President.

Now I'm no fan of Pelosi, but just thinking about the right wing outrage that scenario would produce makes me laugh.

She would need to increase the Secret Service to 100,000 members just to survive a week....

[Nadiru]

No, we're talking about cases where people claim that Democrats have no interest in X, when the Democratic Party platform clearly had sections detailing their proposals to address X.

You might disagree with how they choose to address those issues, but claiming they do not is objectively wrong and demonstrates nothing but that person's willful ignorance.

The underlying assumption being that the Democrats are lying about their proposals to address X. X can be a lot of things where the Democrats just didn't follow through, though in the most recent election, job retraining programs for Midwestern and Great Lakes industrial workers were probably the deciding variable. Those job retraining programs which failed to materialize twenty years ago at the onset of NAFTA, and still failed to materialize even when Democrats controlled large segments of the US legislature. 2016 taught me two things: The American electorate have decided that it's easier to crawl into an urban safe space than deal with problems that impact the whole of the country, and that those Americans who are left outside those hallowed walls have decided it's easier to deal with outright crooks (the GOP) than compulsive liars (Dems)

[LaserSharkDFB]

The underlying assumption being that the Democrats are lying about their proposals to address X. X can be a lot of things where the Democrats just didn't follow through, though in the most recent election, job retraining programs for Midwestern and Great Lakes industrial workers were probably the deciding variable. Those job retraining programs which failed to materialize twenty years ago at the onset of NAFTA, and still failed to materialize even when Democrats controlled large segments of the US legislature. 2016 taught me two things: The American electorate have decided that it's easier to crawl into an urban safe space than deal with problems that impact the whole of the country, and that those Americans who are left outside those hallowed walls have decided it's easier to deal with outright crooks (the GOP) than compulsive liars (Dems)

The GOP is made up of outright crooks who are also compulsive liars, though.

[Nadiru]

The GOP is made up of outright crooks who are also compulsive liars, though.

They're considerably worse at lying, though. The Dems are good thieves and good liars, comparatively speaking.

[Adam Jensen]

She would need to increase the Secret Service to 100,000 members just to survive a week....

I don't think that'd be enough . . .

[Skroe]

I've said before: I think Nancy Pelosi 2001 would be completely disgusted by what Nancy Pelosi 2017 has become.

Nancy Pelosi 2001 wanted to help people. Liberal, well meaning, perhaps naive, but well intentioned.
Nancy Pelosi 2017 uses helping people as an excuse to hold onto the power and privilege she has accumulated. And she has come to love the fight for the sake of the fight.

She is a model case in what power does to people. Of it's corrupting influence. No matter he intentions.

She should have stood aside after losing the speakers hip in January 2011. It is expected and customary that losing leaders stand aside and take responsibility for the loss.

That didn't happen. What happened instead? She went down to minority leader and everyone below her took a demotion so she could get her old job back. And where did that land the Democrats in the year 2017? Are their leaders are septuagenarians while all the Republican leaders are in their 40s and 50s.


Many corporations used to have mandatory retirement ages. In the US military, it's "up or out"... you get a promotion or you're cycled out. And generals above two stars only get promotions based on jobs (like being head of Central Command is a job that is a 4 star job, so if you get that job, you become a 4 star). And there are mandatory retirements. The point of this, in business and in the military is is to inject new blood, make sure leadership isn't top heavy and that it represents the interests of the rising majority, rather than the slowly declining "elders".


Two years ago I named the four problem people in American politics as:
-Barack Obama
-Nancy Pelosi
-Harry Reid
-Mitch McConnell.


Barack Obama's action and worse inaction, the political divide in this country was worsened greatly.

Pelosi we all know.

The personal rivalry between Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell was the driving motivator behind Senate dysfunction. It got so bad they had other Senators carrying messages between them because they would not talk to each other.

Two of the four are gone. Governance in America will automatically get better when the last two go as well. Obama had an opportunity to do this. He could have named Pelosi Ambassador to Itlay in 2014. He chose not to. And look what it got the Democrats.

The problem though is that Pelosi is the single most lucrative fundraiser in American history, and for House races, where a few million dollars is a huge, this is a big deal. With that fundraising, she's bought loyalty. It's as simple was that. Dislodging her will be very difficult, if it is possible at all.

[Sunseeker]

It's really not much of a statement to say "MY guys don't like YOUR guys!"

[Mormolyce]

So... to summarise what we've been going over with a fine toothed comb for days, there are these things called safe red seats and that's why the Democrats didn't win a safe red seat?

Ever wonder if you're maybe missing the wider point?

[scmpoe]

With regards to the Ossoff loss, the left likes to say how its such a deep red area and the previous republican rep won by over 20 points, so they gained ground.

They conveniently forget to mention that Ossof lost by a LARGER margin than Hilary Clinton lost to Trump in the same district in November. So is it really a gain?

[Gestopft]

With regards to the Ossoff loss, the left likes to say how its such a deep red area and the previous republican rep won by over 20 points, so they gained ground.

They conveniently forget to mention that Ossof lost by a LARGER margin than Hilary Clinton lost to Trump in the same district in November. So is it really a gain?

Price won the House seat in November by over 20 points, but Trump did win it by only 2, and I think given the affluence (top 6%) and high education level (top 10) of that particular district, Trump really didn't resonate with them- his low margin compared to Price was more that they didn't really like Trump, not that they were any "bluer" in 2016 (also see Romney's 20+ point margin there in 2012). I think Tom Price is the better and more direct point of comparison to make within that district.