Nancy Pelosi Reelected as Speaker of the House

[PACOX]

She often does act too late and slow, but realize she has a big tent that she has to contend with, not to mention obstructionists RNC. Lack of aid was not her fault. But her acting slow and late is a problem. one I have a problem with Warren too tbh. I was huge fan of Warren, but her waiting so damn long to protest against DAPL really put me off of her.

I appreciate Pelosi but her not passing the gavel this run reminds of athletes who don't know when to retire.

They've might have met all their goals but accomplished a lot on a high note. They need just one more season though! Then they put people in the awkward situation where someone has to tell the legend to ride the bench while trying not to be disrespectful.

This would have been a great time for to take a more backseat role while mentoring a new speaker. I feel like it's opportunity lost due to ego.

[Doctor Amadeus]

If I ever see that lady and she's holding a whiteboard and dry erase marker looking my way I'll be doing my Jesse Owens impression.

[video]

Lol the way she sets these suits on fire is amazing. I love her that’s how you take on bankers and big pharmaceutical.

White board: So how much does insulin cost

Then follow it up by how much did you make....

[Edge-]

I appreciate Pelosi but her not passing the gavel this run reminds of athletes who don't know when to retire.

They've might have met all their goals but accomplished a lot on a high note. They need just one more season though! Then they put people in the awkward situation where someone has to tell the legend to ride the bench while trying not to be disrespectful.

This would have been a great time for to take a more backseat role while mentoring a new speaker. I feel like it's opportunity lost due to ego.

Who'd take that seat right now, though? I'm genuinely curious because while there are some good stars in the House I don't know of anyone with the political smarts, muscle, and connections as Pelosi who could reasonably fill that role during contentious times, with a Senate that could very well be 50/50 and a more narrow margin in the House.

[PACOX]

Who'd take that seat right now, though? I'm genuinely curious because while there are some good stars in the House I don't know of anyone with the political smarts, muscle, and connections as Pelosi who could reasonably fill that role during contentious times, with a Senate that could very well be 50/50 and a more narrow margin in the House.

Not ashamed to say I have no frigging clue, which makes 2 years from now a little more concerning when there's less vets to help that person along the way.

[beanman12345]

I appreciate Pelosi but her not passing the gavel this run reminds of athletes who don't know when to retire.

They've might have met all their goals but accomplished a lot on a high note. They need just one more season though! Then they put people in the awkward situation where someone has to tell the legend to ride the bench while trying not to be disrespectful.

This would have been a great time for to take a more backseat role while mentoring a new speaker. I feel like it's opportunity lost due to ego.

She said 2 years ago, she would only run for speaker for 2 terms. That's specifically why she is holding the gavel because people are holding her to her word. If dem's hold majority in 2022 and she's trying for the gaval, I'll agree with this.

[Edge-]

Not ashamed to say I have no frigging clue, which makes 2 years from now a little more concerning when there's less vets to help that person along the way.

To a point, I agree. There are some rising stars for sure, and I hope that Pelosi works hard to mentor some of them (rather than an heir apparent, of sorts) so that there's a crop of strong contenders for Speaker in 2022 and beyond.

[beanman12345]

To a point, I agree. There are some rising stars for sure, and I hope that Pelosi works hard to mentor some of them (rather than an heir apparent, of sorts) so that there's a crop of strong contenders for Speaker in 2022 and beyond.

And we lost 2 great leaders Cummings and Lewis.

[Shalcker]

Technical yes; practical no. When it obviously won't pass, co-sponsoring is basically the same symbolic "yes" as a doomed floor vote.

Still not the same as direct vote.

Dude, I've been arguing for M4A as both a policy and as something Dems should run on for years. Check the receipts. Forcing a vote right NOW in Congress, as it is constituted, is a potentially damage waste of time.

Potentially damaging in which way exactly and to whom exactly?

The worst outcome seems to be status quo. ...which is exactly what you're getting without any vote.

It's very unlikely that an official "no" from Congress is going to be some sort of mass voter mobilization for the cause, as much as we would like to imagine that it would be.

Mobilization can happen before vote - because as far as i see #ForceTheVote was about bringing it to vote first in a situation that is most beneficial to it.

There will be no better opportunity then now for, likely, decades; once epidemic dwindles with vaccinations coming in force a lot of people can turn back to complacency.

You do that on the ground, not in Congress. Vote more pro-people in, and when you get enough you can pressure the rest by making it clear that this is a voting issue for the electorate. If you vote now, it will be harder to pressure the people that need to be pressured into 'yes.' If there was a crashing and burning in Congress just a few years prior, they will be much more hesitant to switch their positions when there actually might be enough leverage to get it done.

Harder why exactly if it becomes more pressing for electorate? How exactly do you get more pressure without ever forcing the issue?

For example, did widespread voting against gay marriage in 1990s/2000s made it harder to pass in 2010s?

[Gestopft]

Still not the same as direct vote.

I said that. But the needed information you can get probably wouldn't be any different. It's not hard to figure out who is on board and who isn't.

Potentially damaging in which way exactly and to whom exactly?

Damaging to the cause of M4A. Having a landslide against would scare many representatives away from it for a long time- and give a TON of ammunition to the GOP/centrist Dems. Shit, when Bernie was winning the primary for a brief moment, older Dems were freaking about McGovern 2.0. People remember failures for a looonng time. Dems tried pushing single-payer back in the early 90's and it crashed and burned then- and almost 30 years later the party is just getting back to the point where a significant chunk of the Reps support the plan. Granted, there were other reasons the party turned away, too, but I'd rather not have the issue disappear for another 30 years, thank you very much.

Lots of people have sensed a change in the winds and are impatient- which is perfectly normal. Support has been gaining. The battle of ideas is being won. Momentum will continue to grow, and yes, people should make it clear that they support it and will vote on it. Representatives should be pressured to support it. But forcing a vote is silly, unnecessary, and again, could be counterproductive.

Speaking of a faction of Congress forcing votes, here's the Tea Party's legislative accomplishments:
-
-
-
-
-
Hrm.

The worst outcome seems to be status quo. ...which is exactly what you're getting without any vote.

The status quo is happening right now regardless. Voting now won't change that, but as I said- it could scare the institution away from it for quite a while.

Mobilization can happen before vote - because as far as i see #ForceTheVote was about bringing it to vote first in a situation that is most beneficial to it.

There will be no better opportunity then now for, likely, decades; once epidemic dwindles with vaccinations coming in force a lot of people can turn back to complacency.

The US healthcare system will still be the same garbage it was before the pandemic. People will still be breaking their insulin in half, dying because they didn't have insurance, going bankrupt even if they had insurance, and watching prices for premiums and prescriptions increase year after year. The healthcare system won't get any better or cheaper, and that will continue to be a massive problem. The issue isn't going away, not by a long shot.

Harder why exactly if it becomes more pressing for electorate? How exactly do you get more pressure without ever forcing the issue?

As I explained above. Political parties remember failures. You don't think that Democratic Reps/Senators that might be on the fence about it aren't going to point to a recent crash and burn vote as a reason to hold off?

You build momentum by winning seats or making credible primary threats. I don't think forcing a vote that clearly isn't going anywhere is going to be the kind of pressure campaign you think it is. It's simply trying to break down a castle wall when you have a hammer instead of a battering ram.

For example, did widespread voting against gay marriage in 1990s/2000s made it harder to pass in 2010s?

1) Gay marriage was never passed by Congress. It was specific state legislatures that did, and then the SCOTUS ultimately legalized it in all states.
2) It took years of local, on the ground action to build the legal frameworks and public support. Sort of the thing I'm suggesting M4A proponents continue to do now. Gay marriage advocates didn't blow their load early at the federal level.

[Cthulhu 2020]

We'd love to.

The problem is that every time we try to deal with the main roadblock to getting them medical coverage, folks like you start complaining that we haven't been listening to the roadblock's concerns about economic anxiety and the pace of change.

It's one of the most common problems I see from the alt-left, they ask for an inch, you give them an inch and they suddenly complain that you didn't give them a mile.

Change happens over time, gradually. Unless there's bloody revolution there is no possible way that dramatic change can happen in this country overnight. That's one of the biggest faults I've seen of the alt-left, their inability to comprehend that the US cannot become Scandinavia in the course of a single week. That and they just love to make enemies out of Democrats and other centrists, the only people politically close enough to the alt-left that have the power to actually push for further left policy. Likewise, for some reason they seem to ignore the alt-right as a problem, ultimately making moderates their enemies. Like, why?

[Gestopft]

It's one of the most common problems I see from the alt-left, they ask for an inch, you give them an inch and they suddenly complain that you didn't give them a mile.

Can we find a better name than the one the Fox News pundits made up?

Personally I like the moniker "dumb-dumb left." I've seen that thrown around.

[eschatological]

Can we find a better name than the one the Fox News pundits made up?

Personally I like the moniker "dumb-dumb left." I've seen that thrown around.

I call them the New Left, or if I'm feeling particularly French and obnoxious, the Neuf Left.

[Felya]

I call them the New Left, or if I'm feeling particularly French and obnoxious, the Neuf Left.

NeoClassic Leftist...

[Shalcker]

Damaging to the cause of M4A. Having a landslide against would scare many representatives away from it for a long time- and give a TON of ammunition to the GOP/centrist Dems. Shit, when Bernie was winning the primary for a brief moment, older Dems were freaking about McGovern 2.0. People remember failures for a looonng time. Dems tried pushing single-payer back in the early 90's and it crashed and burned then- and almost 30 years later the party is just getting back to the point where a significant chunk of the Reps support the plan. Granted, there were other reasons the party turned away, too, but I'd rather not have the issue disappear for another 30 years, thank you very much.

The issue isn't likely to disappear for 30 years because situation keeps going worse.

Expectations that single vote defeat is going to jeopardize entire movement need stronger backing then "it was brought up before and failed". You could just as well keep bringing it up until it stops failing - be it through pressure on representatives or through their replacement. There is no clear indication that waiting until everything lines up for "single vote pass-through" is better approach, or that forcing the vote will suddenly change anyone's opinions about it for the worse.

Lots of people have sensed a change in the winds and are impatient- which is perfectly normal. Support has been gaining. The battle of ideas is being won. Momentum will continue to grow, and yes, people should make it clear that they support it and will vote on it. Representatives should be pressured to support it. But forcing a vote is silly, unnecessary, and again, could be counterproductive.

Not forcing the vote is also counterproductive though - as far as outside support for those defending M4A in a House is concerned. If progressives get defeated next time around due to voters being disillusioned with their actions M4A cause in Congress can suffer just as well.

Accountability and representation of their voters is what "The Squad" was running on, after all; and now Jimmy uses AOC rhetoric and tweets against her as proof of betrayal.

The status quo is happening right now regardless. Voting now won't change that, but as I said- it could scare the institution away from it for quite a while.

Whom exactly, and how exactly?

The US healthcare system will still be the same garbage it was before the pandemic. People will still be breaking their insulin in half, dying because they didn't have insurance, going bankrupt even if they had insurance, and watching prices for premiums and prescriptions increase year after year. The healthcare system won't get any better or cheaper, and that will continue to be a massive problem. The issue isn't going away, not by a long shot.

So why do you think #ForceTheVote succeeding would suddenly turn people away from this topic for 30 years if pressure to "do something" would keep growing?

As I explained above. Political parties remember failures. You don't think that Democratic Reps/Senators that might be on the fence about it aren't going to point to a recent crash and burn vote as a reason to hold off?

There are plenty of ammunition against it as it is.

You build momentum by winning seats or making credible primary threats. I don't think forcing a vote that clearly isn't going anywhere is going to be the kind of pressure campaign you think it is. It's simply trying to break down a castle wall when you have a hammer instead of a battering ram.

The point, as far as i see, is to start building momentum and keep pressure up.

Old representatives aren't going to budge en-masse; the only way of changing Congress position on those issues is to replace them.

And to replace them you need to keep belief that M4A progressives will provide better representation alive. Going against #ForceTheVote directly undermines that.

Just having that (potentially meaningless) vote as a symbol of "Fighting The Good Fight" and moving forward from it can be better then "we're doing things we cannot tell you about as backroom deals there, voting can disrupt that" from that perspective.

1) Gay marriage was never passed by Congress. It was specific state legislatures that did, and then the SCOTUS ultimately legalized it in all states.
2) It took years of local, on the ground action to build the legal frameworks and public support. Sort of the thing I'm suggesting M4A proponents continue to do now. Gay marriage advocates didn't blow their load early at the federal level.

They did though; that's where all those "marriage is union between man and women" legislations come from - from existing pushes to legalization meeting opposition to it.

That didn't stop it from eventually succeeding, and i see no reason why similar chain of events cannot follow even if current vote might have been doomed to fail.