Nancy Pelosi unanimously reelected

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Are you kidding me?

[Warriorbird]

Yep. The even sadder bit is there's better female choices.

[Atlanteax]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/nancy-pelosi-house-minority-leader-2014-112981.html


Pelosi was approved unanimously on a voice vote, with “no nays audible in the room,” the aide said.

Following her election, Pelosi spoke briefly, calling House Democrats the strongest team on the field.” Pelosi said Democrats need to rebuild consensus within their caucus - badly shaken by defeat they suffered on Nov. 4 - and renew their focus on “middle-class issues.”

The caucus also reelected the entire Democratic leadership team along with Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) as a top Pelosi lieutenant on policy and communications. Israel served as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for the last four years.

Well, it would fit how Democrats are clinging to their incoherence and incompetence of 2014.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Yeah, I'm not surprised she was reelected... I'm surprised it was UNANIMOUS. I swear every politician is crooked. We need to delete and reinstall all of them.

[Kithus]

Yeah, I'm not surprised she was reelected... I'm surprised it was UNANIMOUS. I swear every politician is crooked. We need to delete and reinstall all of them.

Term limits please.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Term limits please.

Amen brother. I'd be down with 8 years, same as prez.

[Gelston]

She is also calling it a victory for Democrats.... Somehow.

[Ashliana]

Term limits are better than nothing, but they're still bad policy. Want real change? No consecutive terms. That way, they can't spend every waking moment fundraising, only worrying about how little they can rock the boat until their next election. But if they do a good job, they're still eligible for office down the road. Term limits don't prevent people from wasting their first term, and don't reward good legislators.

[Tgo01]

I read something earlier that I'm not sure is true or not and would love to hear from someone who actually pays attention to these sorts of things.

I read that Democrats tend to keep their misgivings about their House/Senate leadership private so a lot of members feel obligated to vote for current leadership if there are no challengers.

Republicans on the other hand are very vocal about their misgivings about current leadership and that's why Republicans who are unpopular tend to get replaced easier than Democratic leaders.

As I said I don't pay enough attention to this but just off the top of my head it does seem true. I remember there was a lot of vocal grumbling fairly recently about Boehner whereas I don't think I've heard any vocal whining about Pelosi.

[Warriorbird]

I read something earlier that I'm not sure is true or not and would love to hear from someone who actually pays attention to these sorts of things.

I read that Democrats tend to keep their misgivings about their House/Senate leadership private so a lot of members feel obligated to vote for current leadership if there are no challengers.

Republicans on the other hand are very vocal about their misgivings about current leadership and that's why Republicans who are unpopular tend to get replaced easier than Democratic leaders.

As I said I don't pay enough attention to this but just off the top of my head it does seem true. I remember there was a lot of vocal grumbling fairly recently about Boehner whereas I don't think I've heard any vocal whining about Pelosi.

To some extent this is true. It's still difficult to unseat a leader from either side of the aisle though. While you all may think of Reid and Pelosi as idealogical foes, I dislike both because they're bad for my party (and Reid is in the pocket of special interests that I detest.)

[Ashliana]

I read something earlier that I'm not sure is true or not and would love to hear from someone who actually pays attention to these sorts of things.

I read that Democrats tend to keep their misgivings about their House/Senate leadership private so a lot of members feel obligated to vote for current leadership if there are no challengers.

Republicans on the other hand are very vocal about their misgivings about current leadership and that's why Republicans who are unpopular tend to get replaced easier than Democratic leaders.

As I said I don't pay enough attention to this but just off the top of my head it does seem true. I remember there was a lot of vocal grumbling fairly recently about Boehner whereas I don't think I've heard any vocal whining about Pelosi.

I'm not sure if that's true or not. I've heard bunches of conservatives go on and on about how much they hate Nancy Pelosi, but I don't think most liberals really have an opinion on her one way or another. Neither Pelosi or Reid are particularly likable. Likewise, I don't really like or dislike Boehner, but McConnell is an annoying little worm.

Personally, I tend to like politicians who say what they believe no matter what the consequences, regardless of their political ideology--to name a few, Ron Paul, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, even Dennis Kucinich, etc.

[Jarvan]

I can't believe the bag of skin still gets elected, let alone retains her position. Specially after the last 3 elections.

[Warriorbird]

I'm not sure if that's true or not. I've heard bunches of conservatives go on and on about how much they hate Nancy Pelosi, but I don't think most liberals really have an opinion on her one way or another. Neither Pelosi or Reid are particularly likable. Likewise, I don't really like or dislike Boehner, but McConnell is an annoying little worm.

Personally, I tend to like politicians who say what they believe no matter what the consequences, regardless of their political ideology--to name a few, Ron Paul, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, even Dennis Kucinich, etc.

I actively dislike Reid. Pelosi is mostly just ineffectual.

[Parkbandit]

I actively dislike Reid. Pelosi is mostly just ineffectual.

I heard she is an effective vote getter though.. isn't that what her main job is?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I heard she is an effective vote getter though.. isn't that what her main job is?

Probably - she's the lightning rod for Democrats. Takes a licking and keeps on ticking.

[Latrinsorm]

Yeah, I'm not surprised she was reelected... I'm surprised it was UNANIMOUS. I swear every politician is crooked. We need to delete and reinstall all of them.
Amen brother. I'd be down with 8 years, same as prez.Why do you think that would help?

1. If voters can't recognize that career politicians are crooked, how would they be able to recognize it in people that have LESS of a public track record?

2. Put yourself in their place. If you have a $200k salary that you can make a career off of, you're pretty well set financially. If you have to quit your job to take political office and CAN'T expect it to be a career, surely this makes you more susceptible to financial bribery? You can't expect that you'll have a good job waiting for you when you leave office. Surely this (further) skews political office seekers towards the wealthy?

3. Can you think of any other profession where LESS experience is a positive?

I think you are letting your enthusiasm get the better of your reason.

[Wrathbringer]

Why do you think that would help?

1. If voters can't recognize that career politicians are crooked, how would they be able to recognize it in people that have LESS of a public track record?

2. Put yourself in their place. If you have a $200k salary that you can make a career off of, you're pretty well set financially. If you have to quit your job to take political office and CAN'T expect it to be a career, surely this makes you more susceptible to financial bribery? You can't expect that you'll have a good job waiting for you when you leave office. Surely this (further) skews political office seekers towards the wealthy?

3. Can you think of any other profession where LESS experience is a positive?

I think you are letting your enthusiasm get the better of your reason.

Well said. Straight party libertarian vote is the only answer.

[Androidpk]

Well said. Straight party libertarian vote is the only answer.

Straight party voting is never the answer.

[Warriorbird]

I heard she is an effective vote getter though.. isn't that what her main job is?

She gets votes in a pretty easy district. The issue (to me) is her ability to unify her party for important votes. It was never there. She also isn't the sort of leader that can bring positive attention to carry the party as a whole.

[Parkbandit]

She gets votes in a pretty easy district. The issue (to me) is her ability to unify her party for important votes. It was never there. She also isn't the sort of leader that can bring positive attention to carry the party as a whole.

I'm not talking about getting herself re-elected. Hell, there are many examples of useless politicians in Congress/White House that get re-elected rather easily.

I'm talking about her ability to manage the votes of her caucus to provide enough votes to get the legislation passed while giving safe harbor to those Democrats that are "forced" to vote against it for appearance sake / re-election sake. She does that quite well... which I assume is her main role for her caucus.

[Kembal]

I'm not talking about getting herself re-elected. Hell, there are many examples of useless politicians in Congress/White House that get re-elected rather easily.

I'm talking about her ability to manage the votes of her caucus to provide enough votes to get the legislation passed while giving safe harbor to those Democrats that are "forced" to vote against it for appearance sake / re-election sake. She does that quite well... which I assume is her main role for her caucus.

What PB said. Leadership has 3 responsibilities:

1. Getting and keeping the majority
2. Managing the votes of the caucus (ties into 1 a bit)
3. Fundraising for party and members (again, ties into 1)

Since no one thought the Dems had a shot at taking the House in 2014, and she's doing a good job of 2 and 3, throwing her out would be silly.

[Kembal]

Why do you think that would help?

1. If voters can't recognize that career politicians are crooked, how would they be able to recognize it in people that have LESS of a public track record?

2. Put yourself in their place. If you have a $200k salary that you can make a career off of, you're pretty well set financially. If you have to quit your job to take political office and CAN'T expect it to be a career, surely this makes you more susceptible to financial bribery? You can't expect that you'll have a good job waiting for you when you leave office. Surely this (further) skews political office seekers towards the wealthy?

3. Can you think of any other profession where LESS experience is a positive?

I think you are letting your enthusiasm get the better of your reason.

I dispute point 2. Given the amount of Congresspeople that become lobbyists after leaving Congress, I think they can get a secure job afterwards.

That said, term limits are generally bad for legislative positions. Institutional stability is really critical for a legislature. Executive positions, on the other hand, absolutely need term limits, due to the power concentrated in them.