His problem?
Nancy Pelosi….
Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi is not welcome in Trump country, which was probably one reason another top Democrat — her long-term rival Steny Hoyer — was zipping through Republican-friendly corners of western Wisconsin this past week.
Hoyer, the Maryland centrist and perpetual leader-in-waiting in the House of Representatives, was on a mission to woo blue-collar voters and help his party win back control of the House.
He was also looking for what could be his last shot.
“Would I like to be speaker? Of course. Would I be disappointed if it doesn’t happen? No,” the No. 2 House Democrat said by phone, reflecting on his long career as he cut through snow-covered rolling hills, a world away from his Chesapeake Bay home turf.
Hoyer has been eying the top spot for more than a decade, living in the shadow of a San Francisco Democrat who has a white-knuckle grip on power. Now, as the party wrestles with its ideological impulses and younger lawmakers push for a generational shift — both he and Pelosi are 78 years old — Hoyer may be looking for one more play.
Replacing one longtime leader with another is not what many Democratshave in mind. Still, Hoyer is actively, if quietly, seeking lawmakers’ support. His allies put him forward as a possible “bridge” leader, who might ease a transition to a next generation — if Pelosi ever steps aside. Others find far-fetched the notion that a white, male centrist from blue Maryland would be the new face of the Democratic Party…..
image…politico.com
I’m For Hoyer.
The job is Pelosi’s for as long as she wants it….
Steny KNOWS this….
I know he WOULD be better in certain places…
No, if Dems don’t Win the House, Pelosi will be replaced. And even if the Dems win, her time is limited.
….’as long as she want’s it’….
Everyone retires after some time….
Of course Zreebs is right.
If the Democrats don’t take the House this year,she will uh “retire.”
While House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer and other lawmakers were outside of Washington the past two weeks, President Donald Trump and his administration prepared policy pushes for Congress’ return that will certainly spark Democratic backlash — and perhaps some from Republicans too.
Hoyer, in an interview here Thursday during a stop on his Make It In America listening tour, panned Trump’s plans to rescind funds from the recently passed omnibus, send the National Guard to defend the southern border and impose additional tariffs on China that would have a negative impact on the U.S. economy….
More…
Hoyer is even older than Pelosi, and is approaching 80 years old. It would make no sense and would smack of sexism for the party to dump her for him.
If the Democrats do not take the House, Pelosi will resign and the party will pick someone younger. If they win the House easily, she will be Speaker.
As of now, the most feasible consideration is that they might win the House, fairly narrowly, and due to victories of enough Democrats who will have pledged not to support Pelosi for Speaker.
Thus, she will reluctantly step aside and resign and a Pelosi ally like Joe Crowley of NY or Adam Schiff of CA will become Speaker.
It DOES look increasinly good for Pelosi to regain control of the gavel …..
Not if enough Conor Lambs get elected.
The bottom line is that the Democrats chances of taking over a majority are a good deal better than Pelosi herself re-gaining the gavel.
Democratic House means Pelosi gets to be Speaker again…
There IS NOT counter to THAT….
She would be entitled….
There are dozens of Democrats running across the country, especially in conservative leaning districts, who are telling voters they will not vote for Pelosi on the floor to be Speaker. As it is, several Democrats regularly vote against her every two years there.
So, either they will have to deal with breaking a campaign promise right off the bat, one which the voters will remember, or a Republican would become Speaker under that scenario, regardless of if the Democrat have at least 218 seats or not.
Thus, Pelosi would really have no choice but to step aside in favor of another Democrat at that point.
CG?
The anti-Pelosi thing is a Republican talking point
The woman was re-elected to the Minority Leader spot overwhelmingly ….
Dem House members have her back,,,,
You do not understand what I am saying, which is not surprising.
This is being talked about in multiple places.
In the last Democrat Conference election, she was seriously challenged by Tim Ryan. That was fairly irrelevant though, since Democrats did not have enough votes to elect her Speaker anyway.
This time, if they do, and if it is not by a wide enough margin, the math simply does not work for her. She is loyal enough to her party, that she will step down (I think) rather than allow a Republican to continue to be Speaker, in spite of the election results.
This has nothing to do with the Caucus votes behind closed doors among only Democrats. Yes she could win that.
This has to do with the possibility of enough Democrats not voting for her on the House floor (voting present, voting for someone like Tim Ryan or John Lewis of GA or numerous other things that are already regularly done by House Democrats on the floor). If that happens, a Republican will win the Speakership again.
So, if the numbers are not in her favor, she will step aside and not allow someone who was going to challenge her, but rather one of her allies, such as the two names I mentioned, to become Speaker instead.
Please tell me this is not beyond your realm of comprehension.
What was rhe final vote in that conference CG?
63 Democrats voted against Pelosi in the conference vote last time. That is a pretty large number all things considering, but frustratingly to me, you do not understand that is not what the point of this is.
You can bet that *all* of the Republicans in the House, would vote against her in January of 2019,
So, how many Democrats on the floor can she afford to lose?
Let’s say theoretically, there are 210 Republicans left in a House minority and 20 Democrats are pledged to oppose Pelosi on the floor, and will vote “present” or for other Democrats.
That means that a plurality of the vote elects Paul Ryan (or whomever the Republican choice is) as Speaker again.
THAT is the question. This will be known well before that vote, and if she does not have the votes, she will have no choice but to step aside.
If Pelosi were to step aside now, it would hasten Democrats chances nationwide very much.
But she is staying put, and Republicans will run against her, and will probably save a lot of their districts due to that (plus whatever it is that Hillary decides to disparage closer to the election)
Yes because we all know how the previous losing nominee was such a major factor in the midterms.
Only Republicans like you who have always hated the Clintons will be swayed by whatever druvel FOX News and Trump spews about Hillary as we get closer to the election.
Go ask 10 GOPer’s outside Wash DC about Pelosi
They will probably give ya a black stare
Democrat Conor Lamb was elected in PA by running negative ads against Pelosi and pledging to oppose her.
*If* he wins in his new district, which is a big if itself, do you expect him to vote for her on the House floor?
Lamb made the statement that he wasn’t controlled by Pelosi
Which is bull shit….
Pelosi IS the Minority Leader
She controls her caucus….
Sure they should have a younger leader
But Pelosi runs the show now
Your comments are GOP talking points
Pelosi just has to worry about her district in Cali
You are in complete denial of this.
Everyone knows that Joe Crowley of Queens has a better chance of being the next Speaker than Pelosi herself.
Pelosi has better odds at being the next speaker – especially since Crowley probably won’t run for speaker if the Dems take the House.
Crowly would not run against Pelosi. Crowley would run to replace Pelosi.
I expect that people here would actually be smart enough to understand this concept and how it has been widely discussed.
This was the comment Crowley made that I was referring to…
http://freebeacon.com/politics/crowley-if-democrats-win-house-and-pelosi-runs-for-speaker-i-probably-wouldnt-challenge-her/
Republicans outside of the Beltway certainly know who Pelosi is and she is a lightning rod for getting the vote out against Democrats, just like someone like Gingrich was for opposing Republicans twenty years ago.
Go ask CG….
I thought Pelosi should have stepped down five or six years ago.
Having said that ,I think the 2018 midterm will be much more a verdict on Donald Trump than Nancy Pelosi.
Indeed almost all midterms are much more based on the occupant of the White House than Congressional personalities.
In essence ,if a real Independent minded voter (not these Republicans who almost always vote Republican ,but insist on referring to themselves as “independents”) is turned off by Trump, I doubt if that voter is going to be casting their vote based on who may or may not end up Speaker of the House.
This is sort of like the fantasy “third party Presidential candidate” game Corey played last week. Just as devoid of any political reality.
Nancy Pelosi, when the Democrats take back the majority, will get her gavel back.
This is the typical Republican diversion that we have seen for several cycles. Start the discussion of how everyone hates Nancy and how she is a liability, the Democrats clutch their pearls, and the media asks Democratic House candidates their position on Nancy.
Well all those answers have been vetted with Nancy, she knew before hand what Lamb would say, because she knows the GOP playbook. In fact the OMG Nancy Pelosi line was used in Alabama, Pennsylvania, and most recently in Wisconsin. It didn’t work because the voters are focused on electing people who won’t suck Trump’s dick.
That would be Democrats.
But until those “dozens of Democrats” who are opposed to Pelosi cast their votes for Speaker, this whole discussion is the typical distraction.
CG?
This does follow a pattern….
2016….Hillary Clinto
2017…..Elizabeth Warren
2018……Nancy Pelosi
It seems like this stuff ha replaced ‘Liberal’ as a curse word for Republican, eh?
No, what you are trying to say makes no sense, especially since nobody has been more critical of Elizabeth Warren than you.
Pelosi and Hillary are lightning rods because of their politics, and in Hillary’s case presently, because of her Trumpian personality in defeat.
Why is it that Betsy DeVos gets you guys going so much? Is it because she is a woman?
No one who isn’t aalready a rock ribbed Republican will give a shit about voting against Hillary this fall
Well, that’s largely whom Republicans will need to turn out, and who may otherwise not be enthusiastic. She sure seems to be doing her best to insult people and states into voting in 2018. No wonder Claire McCaskill had to denounce her so strongly.
Nancy Pelosi reps her party
That’s her JOB
Using McCaskill as a not a valid example and u know it
Again, you are confused.
Claire McCaskill commented on Hillary Clinton recently, after Clinton had insulted Missouri and other states. McCaskill said that Hillary needs to “go away.” Is she sexist too?
Not the same
Hillary expressed her anger at voters
The comment did not go down well in Red states
MY COMMENT IS ABOUT HOW REPUBLICANS make female Democrats scapegoats
Crying sexism and using it as an excuse, as some people do, only emboldens the Trumps of the world.
Not nearly as much as the bigotry and hatred of Republucans over theclast couple of decades.
The continual making ‘name’ democratic women the bogey man IS sexist….
What is in common?
All three politicians have an “A” in their first name?
I have been disappointed and a little surprised that Warren doesn’t have a greater favorability rating as I think she is extraordinarily talented. I’m a big fan o Harris too – but to a lesser extent, I think part of Pelosi’s unfavorable ratings has to do with representing San Francisco, and part has to do with being in the limelight for so long. Recall that former speaker Tip O’Neil wasn’t viewed particularly favorably either.
I’m still optimistic that the right woman can easily win both the nomination and the election, but Hillary (while clearly superior to Trump) was a flawed candidate for many reasons – and it was more than not being a good campaigner.. I’m not going to give up with nominating a woman, especially if that person is our best choice.
While Republicans here would rather talk about scary ladies Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton the FBI has raided the office of Michael Cohen, Trump’s lawyer.
We already heard that about Michael Cohen?
And can really anything be more sexist than to suggest women need to be immune from the same criticism a man might receive, just because they are a woman?
I don’t know–were you this fixated with Al Gore in the 2002 midterms or John Kerry in the 2006 cycle? If not then yeah the obsession with Hillary Clinton smacks of sexism.
Yes, I criticized them of course. Kerry was still in office, but Hillary’s recent remarks about the states that voted against her were pretty unprecedented, They did not write books called, “What Happened” (I’m reading it and she blames every but herself, including a whole lot of Bernie Sanders) although we all can agree that Trump would be acting the same way she is. It doesn’t have a thing to do with her gender.
And clearly, the left had a lot more to say about Sarah Palin after her time on the ballot than they might have about Jack Kemp or Dan Quayle. I wonder why?
CG forgets that Dan Quayle received a lot of criticism, But spelling potato wrong doesn’t compare to not being able to recall any Supreme Court decisions, now does it?
Palin was a level of stupid I never thought we’d see again on a national ticket–and then came Trump.
The GOP keeps doubling down on dumb hatred.
And it seems to appeal to the LESS informed….
As a Republican I can see why you want to continue to obsess in Hillary rather than face that your party is a fully owned subsidiary of Donald J Trump.
Naw, I can tell the truth about both sides, as inconvenient as it might be.
CG?
This isn’t both sides on an even keel…..
Truth? – Like Al Franken won’t give up his seat?
He gave it up only when his own side pushed him out, when the heat on them proved to be too much.
I don’t know what that means. Things do not have to be “even” to be truthful.
But some people merely prefer to wave political pom poms.
Of course u know what we all here are talking about….
The good ole’ DOUBLE STANDART!!!!
The double standard that you will somehow make allusions that any fact based criticism or offering of an opinion as it relates to a Democrat female political figure (as long as it is not done by yourself) is “sexist”.
Yet, at the same time, you allow here without comment others to engage in vulgar and at times sexually abusive rhetoric about conservative political females.
CG?
Let’s not stray from the point of the conversation …..
This is about GOPer’s POLTICALLY attacking
Women in a way that they made to be the bogey man of the left…..
Don’t try to wiggle to the sexual thing
It is NOT where the conversation is meant to be…..
The point of the conversation is that Nancy Pelosi is the Leader of the House Democrats, based on her merit and life accomplishments and is not exempt from criticism because she is a girl. It is sexist to suggest she be held to a different standard.
As has been pointed out, a lot of Speakers or would be Speakers have been “boogeymen” in the past, to both sides, and it was not because of an anti-male bias.
I agree she should take her lumps
I point to the GOP having a woman DEMOCRAT as the ‘face’ of the party for THREE YEARS straight
THAT I feel IS sexist
It seems to me deliberate
That IS MY view
I am happy to make this point
You make absolutely no sense in what you write.
The GOP is being “sexist” because the leader of the Democrats in the House is a woman?
Whenever you get backed into a corner, you just double down on weirdness.
We are looking at something from points of view
My view is MOT weird….
I have pointed out what I SEE as sexist behavior by some Republicans
You defending them is ur business
I STAND BY MY VIEW….
Please refer to and source a specific quote of a Republican about Pelosi to back up your “view.”
Exclusive: Nancy Pelosi targeted in more than a third of GOP House commercials
Nancy Pelosi has long been a favorite target of GOP attack ads. But Republicans seem to be taking it to another level in this election cycle.
The House Democratic leader has been featured in roughly one-third (34%) of all GOP broadcast ads aired in House races this year, according to data provided to the USA TODAY NETWORK by Kantar Media’s Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG), which tracks political advertising….
Source…
…
One in three Republican campaign ads attack the same woman: Nancy Pelosi
Republicans’ recent special election campaigns were even more focused on attacking Pelosi: She was mentioned in 58% of GOP ads for Pennsylvania’s 18th district this year (Conor Lamb, the Democratic candidate won), and 55% of GOP ads for the 2017 Georgia 6th district election (Karen Handel, the Republican candidate won). Here’s one from the Pennsylvania election:
The strategy mirrors Republicans’ successful attack advertising push during the 2016 presidential campaign, with Pelosi subbing in for Hillary Clinton—a similarity that’s deliberate, Republican strategists say.
In 2016, many Republican donors and political action committees spent more attacking Clinton than promoting Trump….
More…
That’s not evidence of sexism, it shows that she is the top House Democrat. Ads have been run against Gingrich, Tip O’Neil, and others who had the job. She was (and would be) the first woman to be Speaker, so she should know this comes with the territory. Clinton was the Presidential nominee. Same deal. It’s great that she achieved that as the first woman nominee, but it would be sexist to insist on special treatment for her. Before he was Speaker, an actor portraying Paul Ryan was shown throwing a grandmother off a cliff. Conor Lamb also ran ads against Pelosi and touted his opposition to her.
Clearly, you don’t know how to back up your “view.”
Again….
Hillary Clinton….Elizabeth Warren….Nancy Pelosi….
In the linked pieces there IS the mention of Clinton and Pelosi…
I understand you are NOT gonna agree with me….
That’s fine…
What is far closer to sexism or misogyny are comments made on here or elsewhere in response to the female Chair of Republican National Committee, however misguided or inflammatory her remarks were, in which vulgar references to sexual acts or sexual function, or lack thereof, are thrown about, i.e, things that would not have been said in attacking a male RNC Chair who had said the exact same thing.
And of course those kind of remarks are very similar to the misogynistic comments about “blood” that Donald Trump made about Megyn Kelly, because she asked him a question he did not like.
Crying wolf about “sexism” as it relates to Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton (who was on the receiving end of unfair gender comments from Trumpists and “Bernie Bros”) only hurt the cause of equality.
And why was it that you have maintained many times that Elizabeth Warren was just a “niche” Senator?
I think CG’s comments are partially fair. And it is possible that all of us are partially sexist to a varying degree – even though none of us would like to think of ourselves as sexist. Never underestimate the ability of the brain to justify what it wants to justify., and that certainly includes you, CG.
Although James has been highly critical of Warren, I feel it would be unfair to call that sexist because he has been even more critical of Sanders. And Scott’s comments about Romney’s niece were not intended to be taken literally. Saying someone should go f*** themselves is said mostly to men, so it is hard to argue that it is sexist either.
It is worth noting that women are under-represented in Congress, and at least some of that is likely attributed to sexism.
Z?
Your comment was one of most thoughtfully inclusive I have read here …
And yes
We ALL have our biases …
The whole “Nancy Pelosi is a drag on Congressional Democrats” is a sexist meme on its face. This story line is trotted out to focus on San Francisco Nancy and how liberal she is — she being the operative word. As I pointed out earlier, this campaign line was tried in Pennsylvania, Alabama, and even Wisconsin for a Supreme Court seat, and didn’t work. Pelosi is a smart politician who can keep her caucus together. She won’t be denied the Speakership if the Democrats take back the House. Anyone who thinks so is having a sexist wet dream.
Very frankly the Congressional Republicans are far more unpopular that Nancy Pelosi could ever be. The spineless wonders are silent on Trump’s most recent attack on the rule of law.
I think folks need to get out more and have casual conversations with old white men to gauge exactly how sexist they can be about women in positions of power, especially when the topic is Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton.
Think about the endless posts we have had here making fun of Hillary’s clothing, and the blame the was placed on her campaign for giving us Donald Trump (even though Putin had a lot to do with it). We have been told she whines in her post election book, she should go away (even when no male Presidential candidate has been told the same), and then gleefully told she must have cried on election night. I don’t ever recall that type of vitriol directed at a male candidate, that is until Trump came on the scene. Why folks even refuse to admit that she was the more qualified candidate.
Hillary Clinton had the difficult task of following the first black President in her quest to become the Nation’s first woman President. The visceral reaction to her candidacy was palpable. It might be informative to remember that 50% of the Republican electorate still believe that Obama was born in Africa. If they have the ability to believe that ridiculous lie, just think what they must believe about Nancy and Hillary.
Zreebs is certainly correct that there are various levels of sexism. But, I certainly don’t think that telling a racist female political hack that trades on her family name (and then hides her name) to go fuck herself is sexist. It’s an honest reaction and that might be the only way it will ever happen. She is a horrible woman who trades in her own form of bigotry. May she join Trump on their collective Republican ash heap. But, I have always believed strongly that gender equality requires us to treat everyone equally – even when equal treatment means that they should go fuck themselves.
Finally, the comparison to the negative campaigns against former Republican Speakers don’t compare to the intensity and nastiness of the campaign against Nancy Pelosi. Even when you consider that three of those gentlemen have sorted sexual backgrounds — infidelity and child molestation. Nope, Nancy is a good Catholic girl who has been married to Paul Pelosi for years, with lovely children and grandchildren — not a hint of scandal. But, somehow, she, and the operative word here is she, has been painted as evil. Now some of that is directed at “Gay San Francisco,” but the bulk of it is because she is a strong, effective woman. That’s just a fact.
I know very little about Ronna McDaniel – other than she supports Trump and is from the Romney clan. Is she a “horrible person”? Perhaps, but not that I know of.
Here is her quote about the Democrats Zreebs. It sounds more like Roy Moore to me.
“They hate this president more than they love this country,” RNC chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel said at the group’s winter meeting in Washington, D.C.
If a Democrat said “Republicans love Trump more than they love America”, would the person who said that be a horrible person? Many Democrats believe that about Republicans and many Republicans believe what McDaniel said, The threshold for a “horrible person” must be stronger than that.
The threshold? She’s the Chairman (or Chairperson) of the Republican Party Zreebs, a Trump loyalist, one that regularly defends a sexual predator and financial grifter. Trump is a danger to our Democracy.
That pretty much qualifies her as a horrible person.
But, this type of remark is common for Republicans, and they are a form of dog whistle for Republicans who hold themselves out as more patriotic and religious than the average Democrat.
You might recall when John Sununu, the then Chair of the Romney Campaign, said “he wished Obama would learn how to be an American.” Or when Rick Saccone said “my opponents (the Democrats) hate America, Trump, and God.
My point, the Republicans have a history of this type of comment. That qualifies them as horrible people in my book.
Do you have an example of a Democratic National Party Chair making an equivalent type of comment.
Howard Dean regularly said similar things.
And nobody can compete with Keith in this category of course.
What McDaniel said in a generic, broad based sense is just as offensive as what her counterpart Tom Perez said when he said “Republicans don’t give a shit about people.”
This is what our politics have come to. Of course though, I can criticize what McDaniel said, but others here will completely defend what Perez said.
And on a right-wing blog, it would be the reverse.
The big difference though is that nobody claimed that Perez made this remark because he was either having too much sex or not enough sex, as Keith suggested here about the female RNC Chair, when he was replying to Scott’s presumably gender neutral vulgar frat-boy insult.
I am not offended by what McDaniel said. Many Democrats do hate Trump with an incredible passion. And I am not offended by what Perez said either. I agree that Republicans don’t care about people – unless they are voters. How else can you explain Texas Republicans voting against Hurricane Sandy victims, but for Texas victims of a different storm? We shouldn’t be afraid to speak out against what is evil.
The closest thing to what Romney said may have been when Howard Dean said, “I don’t hate Republicans, but I hate what they are doing to our country.”
That was true then, and even truer today. The Republicans, in their misguided attempts to defend the crook in the White House, are doing terrible damage to the Nation and our democratic institutions. Especially as they stand by while Trump slanders our law enforcement community.
But it is amusing, after eight years of Republican racist code worded attacks on a President that left office without a hint of personal scandal, we are now supposed to honor a President who appears (given the information that comes out daily) to be one of the biggest sleaze bags to ever live in the White House.
No, we do not have to honor the current President, nor does one have to genuflect to his official opposition party and overlook their many flaws and deficiencies.
The Democratic Party has “flaws and deficiencies?”
Gee I didn’t know that.
Is this all you have to talk about with all that’s going on with your Republican President?
What else would you like me to talk about?
Do you have quarters for the CGBox?
He’s not “my Republican President” any more than he is “your Republican President.”
You’re right.
I mean the Republicans control every branch of government.
And with all going on in the country and the world?
What could be more important than the flaws and deficiencies of the Democratic Party.
‘Karma is a bitch……’
So as a Democrat, you want to overlook your own problems, and why you have lost so many elections, and why so many people do not want to vote for you. I get it. Self-examination is hard.
What recent elections have we Drmocrats lost?
I tell lots of people to fuck themselves when they say contemptible things–like Roma McDaniel did. Has nothing to do with their gender.
Funny how I made that comment over a week ago–maybe two– but CG only now has a problem with it.
Anyway in addition to our Republican Presisent’s lawyer now needing to lawyer up another hint of justice for contemptible people was meted out locally.
Jamie Allman–a right wing TV host–was fired after tweeting about Parkland student David Hogg that he would “stick a hot poker up his ass”.
I guess even a Sinclair owned station has its limits when it comes to threatening a teenager.
For some?
Politics is a contact sport….