Support NeoGAF

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Dems winning or losing races has nothing to do with Pelosi. GOP will demonize any powerful democrat as needed. And they're extremely effective at it.

So she's leader for life then? Regardless of outcomes?

 

[BrutishMrFish]

The point is to get in office. They can devote more attention to social issues once they get there.

Except they won't feel like they have to focus on social issues at all if they don't campaign on them, and even if they actually try to do anything about social issues, the people who voted for them will feel like they (the politicians) are being distracted from the "real" issues.

The people the Dems would gain from dropping social issues wouldn't be enough to make up for the people who don't appreciate being tossed aside.

 

[WiiredShawn]

Part of the issue, I suspect, is that older Democrats want to chase parts of the conservative base, because of their more reliable voting patterns, rather than take the strong, loud stance necessary to attract and galvanize the younger and minority voters who vote more inconsistently based on enthusiasm.

But conservative media has pretty much made that a dead-end strategy. Too many conservatives will hate liberals regardless. There should be room for flexibility based on region, but in general, Democrats need to hammer out a clear and encompassing vision that excites younger and more disenfranchised people.

And then they desperately need to reform voting to make it easier for more people to vote, because that's also holding them back.

 

[pigeon]

It's fucking astonishing how many of you are just shitting out right wing shit without knowing it.

Democrats lose because people who think they're on the left are actually on the right.

 

[Widdle Puppy]

It's amazing how many don't realize how they have internalized GOP propaganda against their own. Hillary is a great example, with that deep feeling of loathing that liberals can't explain rationally, but will blurts out how crooked she was!

I think it is easy to rationally explain why she was a bad candidate. She severly lacked charisma and offered a weak alternative message. If she had at least one of those covered things would of turned out differently.

 

[Plinko]

This is stupid. They could announce Pelosi's replacement tomorrow and before the next day there'd be right wing sources saying how the replacement is even worse than Pelosi because of reasons. Democrats have a good platform, especially with Bernie pushing medicare for all. They need to focus more on getting out the message of what they want to do and stop with the "have you heard what Trump said about...". Also, stop trying to appeal to the insular conservatives whose minds are owned by a massively successful blackout of any unapproved media. You're not going to get through to them. Stop wasting energy trying to meet the purity tests of whiny independents. Your own people are feeling abandoned. Spend more time working to show your base what you want to do for them. Give them something to invest their interest in. Engage them and fight their apathy.

Except it took years and years for the right-wing media to actually vilify her through attacks. A new face wouldn't have that done to them by 2018 or even 2020.

Democrats lose because people who think they're on the left are actually on the right.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's actually because republicans play politics better than democrats and have for years and they don't rely on unreliable voting groups to show up to the polls.

 

[Lowmelody]

Man republican trash campaign ads are more effective on democrats than republicans. Pelosi had nothing at all to do with this.

 

[Neoweee]

It's fucking astonishing how many of you are just shitting out right wing shit without knowing it.

After the 2016 primary, it shouldn't be.

 

[Shard]

So what elections are the Democrats "supposed to win"? They were supposed to win the Presidency in November, that went so incredibly well. I'm still baffled by this bizarre prevailing attitude that eternal victory will eventually be handed to Democrats on a silver platter at some indeterminate point in the near future because of data or demographics or some bullshit when the reality has been the complete opposite.

Okay, hear is the breakdown, typically no matter who the ruling party is, when building a presidential Cabinet people are going to be drawn from 'safe' districts because they don''t want to lose those seats. The astounding thing is the GOP has had to defend each one of them and almost lost two of them which is a very good showing for the Dems to take the House in 2018. Also, historical data shows that winning and losing special elections don't factor too much into political waves as seen in the years 2006 and 2010.

 

[Balphon]

Calling for an ouster of Pelosi is as counterproductive as when Republicans were calling to oust Boehner.

Just look what that got us.

 

[The Technomancer]

This is stupid. They could announce Pelosi's replacement tomorrow and before the next day there'd be right wing sources saying how the replacement is even worse than Pelosi because of reasons. Democrats have a good platform, especially with Bernie pushing medicare for all. They need to focus more on getting out the message of what they want to do and stop with the "have you heard what Trump said about...". Also, stop trying to appeal to the insular conservatives whose minds are owned by a massively successful blackout of any unapproved media. You're not going to get through to them. Stop wasting energy trying to meet the purity tests of whiny independents. Your own people are feeling abandoned. Spend more time working to show your base what you want to do for them. Give them something to invest their interest in. Engage them and fight their apathy.

There's a ton of material from the GA-06 election specifically hanging Pelosi around Ossoff's neck. I want someone to study if that had any appreciable influence

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Democrats are going to lose so hard in 2018.

No they aren't. They will win a good number of house seats. Winning the entire house is still up in the air, but the movement in these elections still actually mean something, no matter what the melodramatic people in these threads are saying.

 

[BoogieWoogie]

Democrats are going to lose so hard in 2018.

Really looking forward to watching the Handmaid's Tale play out in real life.

 

[Dierce]

Man republican trash campaign ads are more effective on democrats than republicans. Pelosi had nothing at all to do with this.

This.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Can you articulate why you think this?

Spoiler

can anyone?

Not really. Other than the GOP says she's bad and that becomes common knowledge.

She's extremely skillful as a leader and gets shit done. But GOP doesn't like her so that doesn't matter. Dems seriously think GOP won't go to the ends of the earth to destroy a Dem leader.

Look at what happened with Obama. Still a very high percentage of people that think he's a secret Kenyan Muslim.

 

[MThanded]

A lot of fellow liberals complain about things and don't vote. They become so principalled they lose all sense of compromise.

For example left leaning person who sat at home should do some self reflection. Things are on a gradient. It's not black and white.

 

[Plinko]

Man republican trash campaign ads are more effective on democrats than republicans. Pelosi had nothing at all to do with this.

Keep in mind, though, that Pelosi was the main draw of those trash campaign ads the last week of the Handel/Ossoff race and that's when her numbers turned.

 

[kirblar]

Part of the issue, I suspect, is that older Democrats want to chase parts of the conservative base, because of their more reliable voting patterns, rather than take the strong, loud stance necessary to attract and galvanize the younger and minority voters who vote more inconsistently based on enthusiasm.

But conservative media has pretty much made that a dead-end strategy. Too many conservatives will hate liberals regardless. There should be room for flexibility based on region, but in general, Democrats need to hammer out a clear and encompassing vision that excites younger and more disenfranchised people.

And then they desperately need to reform voting to make it easier for more people to vote, because that's also holding them back.

It's not so much that, it's that they want to go back to chasing racist voters who support social benefits systems so long as they exclude minorities. (aka FDR.) These people are predominantly rural. They're also now predominantly Republican.

 

[God Dayumm]

Vote Democrat. Vote for a Government that works for You! You are an American, You deserve the best!

Now this should be the democrat slogan for the next presidential election

 

[Volimar]

Except it took years and years for the right-wing media to actually vilify her through attacks. A new face wouldn't have that done to them by 2018 or even 2020.



Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's actually because republicans play politics better than democrats and have for years and they don't rely on unreliable voting groups to show up to the polls.

It took years and years before. Everyone is a lot more connected now and are a lot more loyal to their talking heads. They'll say their shit and their viewers will eat it with a smile.

 

[pigeon]

Please name three characteristics about Nancy Pelosi -- her specifically, not "the House Minority Leader" -- that make her uniquely problematic as a leader of the Democratic Party.

 

[Dyle]

The obsession over Pelosi in 2017 is mindboggling. While she is the top-ranking representative, she is not the head of campaigning and is in no way responsible for the results of the recent special elections. It's like these people saw all of the GOP mailers attacking Pelosi and jumped on the bandwagon. There need to be changes, but much of this talk seems to me to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Rather than focusing on internal party strife, as we did throughout 2016, the party needs to unite as one, without throwing out the older members who made core Democratic policies like the ACA possible, and push forward against the Republicans, who are themselves in disarray.

 

[Fox318]

No they aren't. They will win a good number of house seats. Winning the entire house is still up in the air, but the movement in these elections still actually mean something, no matter what the melodramatic people in these threads are saying.

Unless weed is on the ballots nobody is going to vote.

Then we will have those threads again where people didn't vote because they couldn't find the time.

 

[MThanded]

Keep in mind, though, that Pelosi was the main draw of those trash campaign ads the last week of the Handel/Ossoff race and that's when her numbers turned.

That has more to do with her being a target than her being an ineffective leader. They will do this with anyone

 

[Maxim726X]

The electorate actually has an instinctive distrust against anything offered to them for free.

Really? Am I imagining candidate Trump promising people better healthcare, which covers everyone, at a lower cost? Did I also imagine multiple voters voicing concern that this does not appear to be the case?

Distrust my ass. How many Sanders supporters actually thought we'd get free healthcare? Look at how effective that was. We're fucking stupid. It's time the party learned.

 

[Whompa02]

if only there was a grassroots democrat that reached out to the middle class and pushed for progressive ideals...if only. Maybe that person can reach out and get democrats in line like he did during the primaries.

 

[yrba1]

Dems need to find the right person who can rally progressives and moderates together.

 

[John Rabbit]

Please please please please read this - https://www.voterstudygroup.org/reports/2016-elections/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond

This is supremely interesting, going to have to read more in-depth later.

Please name three characteristics about Nancy Pelosi -- her specifically, not "the House Minority Leader" -- that make her uniquely problematic as a leader of the Democratic Party.

She's a woman.
She's like, old and ugly.
I don't like her voice.

/s (although it should be obvious)

 

[Unknown Soldier]

They closed the gap in a bunch of extremely safe Republican areas...

Both Bernie people and Ossoffs alike lost recently. So by all means tell me what you want.

What I want is for the Democrats to actually try instead of just retreating to a corner and whining about moderates whenever someone tries to hand them an artificial spine and tell them to actually stand for something.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Okay, hear is the breakdown, typically no matter who the ruling party is, when building a presidential Cabinet people are going to be drawn from 'safe' districts because they don''t want to lose those seats. The astounding thing is the GOP has had to defend each one of them and almost lost two of them which is a very good showing for the Dems to take the House in 2018. Also, historical data shows that winning and losing special elections don't factor too much into political waves as seen in the years 2006 and 2010.

Basically, Trump is SO BAD that the opposing party loses anywhere at all is a disaster for them. It's a bizarro expectations benefit Trump seems to possess.

If the polling is close in that Alabama senate seat vacated by Sessions and the Dem still loses, expect to see the same insanity. How could Democrats blow an election in Alabama in the era of Trump? They are in shambles.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Please name three characteristics about Nancy Pelosi -- her specifically, not "the House Minority Leader" -- that make her uniquely problematic as a leader of the Democratic Party.

Pelosi is a COW

Corrupt
Old
Women!

Unless weed is on the ballots nobody is going to vote.

Then we will have those threads again where people didn't vote because they couldn't find the time.

Thanks for your rip-roaring insight on the 2018 midterms.

 

[Betty]

if only there was a grassroots democrat that reached out to the middle class and pushed for progressive ideals...if only.

He couldn't even get the majority of Dem's to vote for him over the other candidate so let it go.

 

[Volimar]

The obsession over Pelosi in 2017 is mindboggling. While she is the top-ranking representative, she is not the head of campaigning and is in no way responsible for the results of the recent special elections. It's like these people saw all of the GOP mailers attacking Pelosi and jumped on the bandwagon. There need to be changes, but much of this talk seems to me to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Rather than focusing on internal party strife, as we did throughout 2016, the party needs to unite as one, without throwing out the older members who made core Democratic policies like the ACA possible, and push forward against the Republicans, who are themselves in disarray.

Pelosi is the new Hillary was the new Obama.

 

[SerAardvark]

Keep in mind, though, that Pelosi was the main draw of those trash campaign ads the last week of the Handel/Ossoff race and that's when her numbers turned.

Do we actually know that those ads were what moved the polls and not, say, Republican voters deciding that their party loyalty mattered more than sending a message/staying home or the shooting of Scalise, etc.?

Regardless, I think it sets a very bad idea to send the message that demonizing key Democratic leaders for long enough/hard enough will lead to them being replaced/removed no matter how capable they are. Basically what you're saying to Republicans/the right is "target the most capable Democrats well enough and we'll do your work for you".

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

Really difficult situation. Whichever direction is chosen is going to piss off one wing or another.

 

[Plinko]

That has more to do with her being a target than her being an ineffective leader. They will do this with anyone

I agree, but again--"being a target" doesn't instantly happen. The idea that republicans will instantly and effectively turn someone into a monster with loads of baggage is ridiculous. It took years of constant smearing on a daily basis from right-wing media.

Do we actually know that those ads were what moved the polls and not, say, Republican voters deciding that their party loyalty mattered more than sending a message/staying home or the shooting of Scalise, etc.?

Regardless, I think it sets a very bad idea to send the message that demonizing key Democratic leaders for long enough/hard enough will lead to them being replaced/removed no matter how capable they are.

We do not--just pointing out the correlation with that advertising.

I'll counter your last statement with this: Desperately clinging to Democratic leaders that have massive disapproval ratings is detrimental to the party as a whole.

 

[sturgboski]

The key to Republicans winning.

And the key to the left losing. The left doesn't coalesce under the Dems and vote for them to stop the right because they can't see the big picture: it is more important to vote the only party that has a chance of getting into office that hues closest to your ideals or at the least prevents the party that actively hates your ideals from getting into office. Instead, they rather just not vote or vote 3rd party. The left needs to realize it is a two party system and one side is absolutely against everything you stand for and you need to prevent them from getting into power.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

So she's leader for life then? Regardless of outcomes?

Did I say that? No.

I'm pointing out it's dumb wasted energy to blame her for this. All of it because the GOP hates her.

If she needs to go, who do you replace her with? Even if Dems win 2018 in the House, someone extremely skillful and with deep knowledge and connections within the legislative process will need to hit the ground running. There's a short window to work with there.

Obviously at some point she needs to move on, but it can't exactly be anyone.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Yep. Democrats have crapped the bed for a while now.

Yup.

 

[TheCochese]

They didn't just learn nothing from last night, they learned the wrong things.

Jesus.

 

[Maxim726X]

That has more to do with her being a target than her being an ineffective leader. They will do this with anyone

Yes, but it won't stick as effectively with someone new.

Pelosi has the taint of Clinton's monumental failure and it's unshakeable. At some point, the party will be *forced* to move in a different direction if they keep losing. When? At what point will the losing be too much?

 

[excelsiorlef]

What I want is for the Democrats to actually try instead of just retreating to a corner and whining about moderates whenever someone tries to hand them an artificial spine and tell them to actually stand for something.

They are trying what the hell are you even talking about.

 

[TurnipFritters]

if only there was a grassroots democrat that reached out to the middle class and pushed for progressive ideals...if only. Maybe that person can reach out and get democrats in line like he did during the primaries.

Literally lost to the most hated woman in politics, who was under FBI investigation and had been the center of actual decades of scandals.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

He couldn't even get the majority of Dem's to vote for him over the other candidate so let it go.

Sure, "let it go". I guess this means you're fine with the current President then!

 

[VendettaRed07]

The only people who want Pelosi out are

1) Republicans

2) True Liberals

.

3) People who think age and time isn't on her side and that now we have no power now is a good time to find someone new and get some necessary experience in.

Like assume this happens. Because ideally it's what our goals are.

We win the house in 2018.. We win the White House in 2020.

but then Pelosi is 81 years old and retires. Now someone with no experience is thrust upon with the responsibility of being speaker of the house.

If we don't have anyone to replace her now that problem is only going to get worse as time goes on. Especially if they have to do difficult vote whipping when there is actual legislation to pass.

I'm not saying make her walk the plank and throw her to the sharks but they seriously need to start long term planning. The party hasn't been doing that at all for a while now. We can't just rely on the old guard forever.

 

[MThanded]

I agree, but again--"being a target" doesn't instantly happen. The idea that republicans will instantly and effectively turn someone into a monster with loads of baggage is ridiculous. It took years of constant smearing on a daily basis from right-wing media.

I think we live in a different world now. With twitter and social media and Fox News being an extension of the party you can do damage very quickly.

 

[Respect]

I think it's a good lesson.

Democrats can't win on "NOT TRUMP" alone

Agreed, I think this is key, in the end this type of message never gets across. Whenever you think about these cases, you have to have someone/something to get behind and be excited for. It would be optimal if the issues were the focus, but due to widespread ignorance, this has proven time and time again to not get people out and vote.

Just like when Kerry ran, the whole rallying cry was "anyone but Bush." It rarely (if ever) works as a unifying message, no matter how shitty the candidate is.

 

[teruterubozu]

No they aren't. They will win a good number of house seats. Winning the entire house is still up in the air, but the movement in these elections still actually mean something, no matter what the melodramatic people in these threads are saying.

Well there's melodrama and rose-tinted glasses. Reality will be somewhere in between.

 

[The Technomancer]

Please name three characteristics about Nancy Pelosi -- her specifically, not "the House Minority Leader" -- that make her uniquely problematic as a leader of the Democratic Party.

She has a snarky attitude sometimes that came out after the initial AHCA passage. That I will agree with some of her critics on

Other than that, I don't have a lot, unless you're someone who thinks the Democrats should and needed to be way further left for the last decade

 

[Maxim726X]

I think we live in a different world now. With twitter and social media and Fox News being an extension of the party you can do damage very quickly.

You're proposing a theory.

We're dealing with history, and it's repeating itself right now.

When is it time to shift strategies?