Isn't this thread about branding? Pelosi shows up in republican ads.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NYT: Democrats: Our Brand Is Worse Than Trump
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
Autodidact
Banned
Age only seems to be an impediment to female politicians. Bernie's only a year younger than Pelosi; Biden's only two years younger but has people clamoring him to run.
Not accusing you of anything, but ageism affects women more in every field of society.
She's not exactly bringing any new ideas to the table... So she's an old politician with old ideas. To me, it's not her age as much as the fact that she represents the old guard, the Clinton wing, which took a massive hit on the chin in November. She and the rest of the Clinton wing should have a short leash.
People love Warren and she's also pretty damn old- But she, like Bernie, is more popular because of what she believes in and fights for.
No one is advocating for her to be taken behind the shed here, we're simply arguing that perhaps her time in the limelight has passed. Apparently, many Democrats are beginning to ask the same questions.
I'll never understand how people thought Ossoff would win. Its Georgia and while Trump is tanking it hasn't really been on people's mind that much this early into his term. I felt like the media was just hyping this election up for ratings , because there was nothing really exciting about it.
So true.It makes the democrats look weak and stupid.
So true.It makes the democrats look weak and stupid.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Like quit quits? Probably? Did their ads feature Obama too? Naturally if she holds a less prominent position in the dem ecosystem, she'd be less of a target.
But I'm just identifying the problem with Pelosi. It's a tough spot for dems. Not sure what solution is, but we can't pretend she doesn't create liabilities for other dems just because she's a good legislative strategist.
Autodidact
Banned
Nancy Pelosi has always been in the progressive wing, not the centrist/Blue Dog/Clinton whatever wing.
She voted against the Defense of Marriage Act. She voted against the war in Iraq. She got the public option passed! She's consistently supported the left-wing positions. You really weaken your argument when you get the basic facts wrong.
Exactly this. Nancy Pelosi is the Democratic minority leader for the House of Represents. She is not the person making decisions for the Democrats in regards to national strategy. Get rid of her, and Republicans will move on to someone else, bolstered by the fact that the Democratic party is so weak that all they have to do is point at someone and we'll throw them overboard. Pathetic.
As far as messaging goes, I'm going to say the same thing here that I said in PoliGAF last night:
Sanders Socialists have lost. Establishment Dems have lost.
The problem of the Democrats is not messaging. Politics in America is RARELY about messaging and we saw that last night, when the woman who said on camera "I don't believe in a living wage" won a decisive victory against a man promising to address all the issues Americans supposedly care about.
What Democrats have is is a star-power, personality problem.
You want to pull together this diverse coalition? You want minorities and young people on board? Stop putting up boring and/or old people. Put up exciting candidates who aren't afraid to speak truth to power and will campaign FOR the base, and not take the base for granted in order to appeal to Republicans. Stop slapping our base in the face.
America is at its heart a Centrist Nation with a favoring to the right.
In an Ideal world the nation would not be so politicized but the real world is what it is. Blue Dogs while obviously not ideal are absolutely best case scenarios in many areas of this country.The idea that we need to run even more to the left and that's going to somehow appeal to people who already view moderate left as a disease is just plain stupidity.
It already began last night. Ossoff wasn't Socialist enough, He wasn't to the left enough he was too moderate. The guy is running in the fucking Heart of Republican territory. If he had been a far left candidate he would have got jack shit for votes.
Different regions have different tolerances as far as political agenda. You work to fit your agenda in within the tolerances of the region. its better to have a Blue Dog that will work with you 60% of the time than a Republican that will work with you 0% of the time
In an Ideal world the nation would not be so politicized but the real world is what it is. Blue Dogs while obviously not ideal are absolutely best case scenarios in many areas of this country.The idea that we need to run even more to the left and that's going to somehow appeal to people who already view moderate left as a disease is just plain stupidity.
It already began last night. Ossoff wasn't Socialist enough, He wasn't to the left enough he was too moderate. The guy is running in the fucking Heart of Republican territory. If he had been a far left candidate he would have got jack shit for votes.
Different regions have different tolerances as far as political agenda. You work to fit your agenda in within the tolerances of the region. its better to have a Blue Dog that will work with you 60% of the time than a Republican that will work with you 0% of the time
Speaking of getting your basic facts wrong...
She absolutely is not one of the more liberal members of the party. According to GovTrack, she's actually pretty centrist. In fact, she's among the least liberal members of the Democratic party from her own state:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2015/house-state-delegation-ca/ideology
Perhaps you should read up on her?
Further proof, from 2013:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2013/party-house-democrat/ideology
She is the 35th most conservative member of House Democrats, meaning that there were 172 members that were more liberal than she was. Great argument you have there.
TTOOLL
Member
You kinda overestimate the number of people who cares about legalization of marijuana. People smoke it nowadays without worrying about the police. It's not a priority for voters in general and it shouldn't be. It's just not a reason that singlehandedly guarantees votes.
Chmpocalypse
Blizzard
This is the correct interpretation.
We should be thrilled we got so close yesterday. It's absolutely a great sign!
This is not a conservative<->liberal axes. It's a measure of how cooperative you are w/ the other side.
It even has a warning under Pelosi's profile that as a leader, their metrics may not work right!
TheLaughingStock
Member
The sad thing is that despite Obama and his supporters best efforts to bend over backwards for the industry, the GOP, and the liberal version of a "market-based approach" to stave off fears of big government...so many people clearly don't love the ACA enough to save it.
Many Republicans have labeled it a crappy government takeover. Private sector players don't go out of their way to let people know they're making big money hand over fist since the law's passage. They cry about too many regulations instead.
Moreover, a lot of "market" folks predicted employer-sponsored insurance would collapse because Obamacare marketplaces were going to be so fantastic and so competitive. Turns out it's one of the crappiest aspects of Obamacare and meanwhile the Medicaid piece that they didn't jump and down for has been huge.
Was it all worth it in 2010? In my view, it looks like passing this bill has been a total nightmare for many Democrats.
Yoshimitsu126
Member
I feel like democrats need help from figure heads in media and even celebrities to inform more US citizens about the news. Once more people are open to following news and separate bad news from depression and turn it into activism, democrats can push for more socially progressive platforms.
From the description:
'The data that goes into this analysis is a list of who sponsored or cosponsored which bills. The process doesnt look at the content of the bills or the party affiliation or anything else about the Members of Congress, but it is able to infer underlying behavioral patterns, some of which correspond to real-world concepts like left-right ideology.'
Ummm...this is a list of California representatives. Liberal bastion California.
35th "most conservative" Democrat in California is still pretty fucking liberal overall...
If you click on Pelosi's profile you'll notice that the Ideology score is absent from her profile, along with this warning:
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Lol, criticizes people saying they should read. Does not read.
She has a long voting record... Look before she became Speaker in 2009.
She's always been known to be relatively centrist.
This is so stupid.
Electing Democrats to the House is not Pelosi's job as Minority Leader. That is the job of the DCCC. Her job is to ensure that the House Minority Caucus remains unified in opposition against legislation that goes against the party line.
Do you like the House Democrat's unified opposition against Republican bullshit like the AHCA? Well thank Pelosi for that.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
It's not a good look when you won't admit you are at least partially wrong when presented with clear information against your argument.
by this definition black people don't care about fighting racism since turnout in that group was down last year
and women don't care about electing a rapist
it's almost as if you need to appeal to people's material needs and not completely abstract moralism
So centrist that she's personally advocated for single payer, and pushed a public option out the door in the House?
The reason that you have to make an exception for people in leadership in an environment in the House is that they are rarely, rarely, voting their conscience. They are constantly compromising and making deals and as such, are primarily voting along with their caucus.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
So if Dems don't do well in 2018 will you Pelosi fans be willing to concede she has to go or will you continue to hold onto her to your own party's detriment? I just want to get an idea how far gone some of you are. The only next logical step is to push for Clinton 2020.
Messaging. GOP won that war a long time ago, even though they're losing the culture war as a whole (given rapid shifts on weed, LGB, Trans issues, and questions of diversity). GOP's built the narrative in the media that the Republicans are the natural party of power and that the Democrats are, at best, well-meaning starry-eyed hippies, and at worst traitorous bolsheviks.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I already addressed this with evidence, but continue to ignore and post diet racist bullshit.
Can't say I'm surprised though. A good chunk of the far left has serious minority issues.
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
TestOfTide
Banned
I agree that we shouldn't let the GOP be determining what the democrats do, but lets stop acting like the GOP can easily turn ANYONE into a boogeyman. It takes the GOP YEARS to turn democrats into boogeymen, even women. Pelosi took years. Hillary took years. Warren took years. Obama took years and didn't even really work with most voters.
Pelosi doesn't need to step down THIS VERY MOMENT, but she absolutely needs to start training someone to take her place at some point, preferably someone young who can appeal to many different kinds of democrats.
I think you almost got it with the "star-power, personality problem".
To win back the voters who like the fact that Trump "tells it like it is", you don't need democrats to start being racist. You just need democrats to start being more politically incorrect in their language. Gillibrand understands this well. Democrats need to stop being so goddamn timid when it comes to talking about stuff they believe in.
To get the Obama coalition back to turning out the ways that they did in 2006 through 2012, we need to give voters EVERYWHERE reasons to vote in more than just General Elections. We need to be doing everything we can to go as WIDE as possible and just try and find someone to run for every race no matter how small or insignificant or unwinninable the race seems.
And the whole problem with democrats in general is that we don't have any real ground game network whatsoever. Our fucked up idea of a ground game is to make races into "high profile" races and then convince people to focus on giving all their money to those high profile races. It's not only a waste of money, but looking at last night it clearly is counterproductive to nationalize every single race.
Instead we need to discourage all this "high profile" bullshit and instead encourage democrats to help democrats nearby. Jon Ossof should have spent less time trying to nationalize his race and more time trying to boost other Georgia democrats. Same with Quist. Same with every democrat that has run a state or local race, because the voters are there, but we can't be announcing to the rooftops that we are putting all our eggs into these few baskets or the GOP will just respond by making sure to focus on those few races as well.
Also, liberals and progressives need to be willing to play more dirty tactics at this point. I don't necessarily mean violence, but we can't be playing by a ruleset that the GOP refuses to follow. Obviously the people playing dirty tactics can't be the same people running the actual Democratic Party, but there needs to start being more people willing to do the dirty work for liberals and progressives.
Who appointed the current chairperson of the DCCC?
I agree with that. It's time for the Democrats to get mean.
Plenty of people would say Bernie should not run again in 2020 specifically because he is too old. I would agree with that.
The only reason that I think that there are people that will brush that aside is because there are very few politicians with national reach that are willing to even speak forcefully about the concerns Bernie speaks about. The only other one I think does so well is Warren... who is also old.
I think Pelosi is an effective leader actually, and you can see how much she has been able to get done as both majority and minority leader and contrast that to both Paul Ryan and Boehner.
The real problems are at the DNC.
In 2020 we'd have a presidential candidate running.
The biggest issue w/ replacing Pelosi is that there's no obvious alternative. You don't want to run into an issue like you had w/ Ryan, where you force out a Speaker, but then you don't have a candidate and have to beg someone to take he job.
I don't know why you guys won't just accept that a Representative from the most progressive city in America is obviously a centrist
excelsiorlef
Member
And the guy primarying her is 71.
TestOfTide
Banned
Which is why I say in my above post that Pelosi doesn't need to go RIGHT THIS SECOND, but she absolutely needs to be raising up some kind of protege or someone to take her job, if only because she can't do the job forever.
The problem with Pelosi is not that Republicans hate her, it's that potential Democratic voters don't like her either, or at least don't care about her. Obama was hated too, but that was balanced out by his ability to excite and turnout the base. The Democrats have no message and no plan; they've tried nothing and they're all out of ideas.
Would be nice to know what exactly you think replacing Pelosi would do to stop Republican attack ads trying to tie candidates to current elected officials. Like honestly Pelosi is gone, then what? What's the plan?
In any other western country, a parliamentary leader would have been asked to resign after so many defeats.
In this case, it seems she can't do anything wrong, and is just a victim of circumstance over and over and over again.
In any other Western country they would've been victories
neurosisxeno
Member
I think a lot of you guys underestimate Pelosi's name recognition and negative approval numbers; http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...schumer-pelosi-ryan-mcconnell/article/2626318
She comes in at 29% approval with 53% disapproval. And she was kind of the face of the House movement to implement the ACA, and has made a few poorly worded statements here and there that haven't helped her case.
the assertion that changing out the House leader will move votes midterm kind of underlines how misguided the whole argument is. unless the goal is pure optics they'll just replace Pelosi with somebody else 'old' and 'boring' who can maneuver their way around the house
poppedcollar69
Member
I hope she stays as long as she can. She does good things. It's sad that the US is so sexist, but it is, and that had made it much easier for Republicans to smear her.
Autodidact
Banned
Paul Ryan has similarly low approval.
in any other western country they would be an actual leftist party
I can't understand how people want to keep running the same losing strategies with the same losing leaders like it will all magically change and people will suddenly stop having mass negative perceptions of people like Nancy pelosi. Insanity.
Nobody is denying the good that some of these people have done our still can do, I think. If they are they are wrong. But when is it time for the old guard to start ceding to the new guard? After how many losses do we at least attempt to try something new?
Nobody is denying the good that some of these people have done our still can do, I think. If they are they are wrong. But when is it time for the old guard to start ceding to the new guard? After how many losses do we at least attempt to try something new?