Nancy Pelosi is not your mommy, stop blaming her for everything

Controversial opinion: I like House minority leader Nancy Pelosi. She’s smart, she’s liberal, she’s forward-thinking, she’s tough and she can take anything that people throw at her. If there’s a discussion about how Pelosi needs to step down, it’s a conversation that should be about her age (she’s 77) and how there’s a need to empower younger Democrats within the party caucus. The conversation should NOT be about how some Democratic bros have bought into this idea that Pelosi is the Hillary Clinton-esque “problematic” mommy-figure at the head of the party.

All of this Pelosi discussion is coming after Jon Ossoff’s electoral failure in the Georgia special election this week, a special election in which Republicans spent millions of dollars on ads tying Ossoff to Pelosi. As in, “why would Georgia vote for Jon Ossoff when he’ll be just like San Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi??” The GOP has been doing that for (literally) decades: tying candidates to Pelosi, making Pelosi a short-hand for “liberal/gay/tax-happy/whatever.” In the wake of Ossoff’s failure, the Democratic bros are running to Politico to complain about how mommy lost them the election! Because it’s easier to blame Pelosi than to blame: sh-tty voters in Georgia, the GOP, Donald Trump, Jon Ossoff himself, a baked-in culture of patriarchy and white supremacy, etc.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats put a brave face on Wednesday morning after a disappointing loss in the Georgia special election, yet there is no disguising the unhappiness in the party ranks. There is no challenge to Pelosi’s leadership, and none is going to happen at this point, said numerous Democrats. But it’s clear frustration is growing with the longtime Democratic leader following the extensive losses Democrats have suffered over the past half-decade.

And the fact that Republicans spent millions of dollars on TV ads tying Democratic hopeful Jon Ossoff to Pelosi — and the brand of progressive policies she represents — shows that she will once again be an issue for Democratic challengers in the very districts that the party needs to win to make her speaker again. Some Democrats want to replace Pelosi atop their caucus, as they have since last November’s poor showing at the polls; they say there is no way to get back in the majority with her as their leader. And others who backed her in last year’s leadership challenge have now flipped their stance.

“I think you’d have to be an idiot to think we could win the House with Pelosi at the top,” said Rep. Filemon Vela (D-Texas), who supported Pelosi in her last leadership race. “Nancy Pelosi is not the only reason that Ossoff lost. But she certainly is one of the reasons.”

Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.), who backed a challenge to Pelosi last year, said the results of the Ossoff race further underscore that Pelosi should let someone else take the reins.

“There comes a time when every leader has to say, ‘For the good of the order and for the betterment of the party, it’s time for me to step aside.’ And I wish that that would happen right now,” Rice said in an interview. “This is not a personal thing. I want to get back in the majority.”

Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), who challenged Pelosi for minority leader in November, wouldn’t comment directly whether she should step down, saying only, “My position hasn’t changed.”

“I think it’s very concerning that that tactic still has some punch,” Ryan said. “Again, it’s part of the broader national brand that average people don’t feel connected to the Democratic Party. Walk up the street and ask 10 people what the Democrats stand for, you’ll get 10 different answers. That’s no way to build a national party.”

[From Politico]

If and when the Dems replace Pelosi, the GOP will just make the new leader into a liberal caricature, so why all the breast-beating? This is a disturbing trend within the Democratic party though, and it’s been filtering more and more into the mainstream conversations of the party, and I tend to think it’s connected to Bernie Sanders and his movement. I think the Democratic party – my party, by the way – has to contend with their own caucus of “angry white men” who behave like the He-Man Woman-Haters Club. They think Bernie’s angry-white-working-class economic populism is the way forward for the party. They don’t think women’s rights and women’s leadership are the future of the party.

My take on the Democratic primary for the Virginia governorship is one example I’ll use: the Bernie caucus – economic populism over speaking directly to and for women – was represented in Tom Perriello. Ralph Northam was a more standard Democrat, endorsed by all other Virginia Democrats, and he was endorsed by NARAL because he had a history of standing up for women and reproductive rights across the board. NARAL VA made calls on his behalf to get out the vote and I tend to believe that’s why Northam won. But in the after-action analysis of the primary, all of the bros totally ignored the part where women made a huge difference in the primary. This is happening writ large across the nation, where too many Democratic dudes think they don’t have to speak to women or women’s issues, nor acknowledge the role women’s rights play in these state and local elections. Just my take.

Photos courtesy of Getty.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

102 Responses to “Nancy Pelosi is not your mommy, stop blaming her for everything”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. TheOtherOne says:

    These bros need to take several seats. Words like Pelosi or Rice or Clinton drive them crazy. Pelosi got Obama’/ greatest legislative achievement through – ACA.

    Also GA-06 was not a district Democrats should have a fighting chance. Yes it was expensive but for a unknown centrist to lose by only 4 points in a solid and consistent conservative red district is a victory.

    • ORIGINAL T.C. says:

      Pelosi is used as a beating stick by Republicans because she gets things done for progressives behind the scenes. They have been on a mission to get rid of her for decades and now liberals (as usual) are falling for an effective Republican campaign to weaken their party.

      Just like Debra Wissermen-Schwartz (spell?) was a powerful force getting President Obama’s agenda enacted. Throughout his 8 years, she would regularly appear on MSNBC, CNN and the networks battling with attack dogs from the GOP who were trying to undermine and deligitimize President Obama. She worked hard for us, earned her stripes as a Democrats over Bernie and the Bernie Bros. Yet they gave her the ax to appease the Bernie wing of non-Democrats. If she still had power, she would be on every news show pushing back. AGGRESSIVELY against the take-down of the ACA.

      And let’s not forget that a lot of Bernie fans fell for and were targets for fake news and conspiracy theories about HRC, Debra and Pelosi. My Bernie friends who send me crazy videos on Facebook filled with lies.

      I do believe Democrats need new blood but that doesn’t mean getting rid of our EFFECTIVE leaders. I’m sorry but Democrats keep losing because they are not willing to get their hands dirty. Instead of video ads with old people being pushed off cliffs in exchange for money falling into the pockets of a selfish billionaire with his private jet, they go for intellectual slogans like “tax cuts for the rich”. Sorry but there is no image that can be easily conjured up with that slogan. Republicans on the other hand use words like “the death tax” and have images of Trump’s bloody head that you can’t forget.

      • Barbs441 says:

        Debbie Wassermann Schwartz represents my district and I always support her! Bernie Sanders is NOT a Democrat and he is not doing the party any favors. If anything he is dividing the party even more. Going on a DNC tour with Tom Perez and saying things like “We didn’t lose the election, the democrats lost.” is reckless and gets his supporters even more pissed off and anti-DNC ( I went to the tour in April when it stopped in Miami and his supporters are just mad and repulsed by the party) . Also voting for Jill Stein in a state like FL in my book makes you worse than Trump voters. GOP voters hate DNC more than we hate them. That what makes them go out in vote. We do need fresh leadership on the DNC but we shouldn’t get rid of the people that get sh*t done.

      • Llamas says:

        I personally think term limits should be a thing. I don’t know why we have the same people in office for decades and decades. It wasn’t always like this. Many moons ago legislators had other jobs and would only convene for the season; they weren’t career politicians.

    • Megan says:

      Pelosi, Hoyer, and Clyburn have failed to make gains in the past four elections. After the disastrous 2016 election, the party voted to re-elect Ray Lujan to chair the DCCC and we lost all four specials. The leadership cannot, or will not, put together a winning agenda and message. It’s time for a change.

    • Beth Blake says:

      I know right? We just moved out of the 6th after 25 years , but those election results should have been more like 85% Handel landslide and 15% for Ossoff right? The only explanation can be the district demographics have changed dramatically , and unfortunately the whites have fled the district for good. We scrimped and saved for years to implement our plan to retire to the lake.

    • jwoolman says:

      Yes, both in Montana and in Georgia the fact that the margins were so much smaller than usual is a warning shot for the Republicans. Their safe seats are not necessarily so safe any more, even with all the resources of the national Party to throw at individual districts. Blaming Pelosi makes no sense at all. Unless they put in a Republican in her place, the Republicans will continue to trash anybody in that role. That’s what they do nowadays.

      I still say the problem is the voters, who keep voting for bad candidates who push legislation that is bad for them and are too gullible and susceptible to political psyops. I always thought ballot splitting was the usual thing to do, so the idea of voting for someone just because they have a particular Party label baffles me. That habit really needs to be broken. I can’t imagine voting for an incompetent corrupt demagogue like Trump if he ran as a Democrat. Maybe if we had comedies and dramas and cartoons sneakily incorporating education how to spot a film-flam man and how to check out what politicians claim in speeches, interviews, or tweets, that would help a bit. People obviously don’t learn this in school and if they don’t somehow pick it up elsewhere, they are sitting ducks.

      I understand that the Republicans were stuck with Trump because of the weird primaries, but they were not obliged to actually vote for him or to support him. In such a situation, with the binary choice we have in this country, you have to admit the wrong guy got nominated and vote for the other one. I’ve had to vote for plenty of candidates I didn’t agree with on many issues. But voting for a corrupt idiot like Trump even when you knew he was a corrupt idiot (as many admitted doing) – what were they thinking?!?

      And the top Republicans x100. With people like Speaker Paul Ryan, who started out not endorsing Trump and then did it – have to wonder how much he was paid or how badly he was blackmailed.

  2. Heather says:

    Makes sense. If Ossoff loses a race in republican Georgia, Pelosi should lose her job, right? Or not.

    • DeniseMich says:

      I don’t understand the upset about Ossoff. It was ridiculous to spend so much money on Georgia which is a forever red state.

      When you look at Handel’s supporters they were not just white racists. Pictures showed Asians and Blacks amongst her supporters so the Democratic party needs to stop making republicans about 1 issue. It is not just poor whites who support the hate rhetoric and that is a hard nut to crack.

      Also,I think the numbers were good for the Democrats with a guy that doesn’t live in the area he wants to win and is new on the scene.
      The democratic party needs to stop throwing bad candidates out there without ties to a community and thinking voters will choose them because of the alternative.

      Did the Democrats learn nothing from the Presidential election?

      How is any of this Nancy Pelosi’s fault? I saw the stupid request for Ideas and money the Dems sent out earlier this year and it was BAD. There are no new ideas. A bunch of people got in a room and still don’t understand what this country needs. We are still pushing the philosophy of FDR.
      How is this Nancy Pelosi’s fault?

      Democrats are still better than the GOP but they are spinning in a circle and need to remind everyone Bernie is an Independent and an ASS.

      Finally, Trump has been president about 5 months and every race since then has been tight for the GOP when it should have been a cake walk. I am annoyed with the Democrats but we will be back on top again. Just not as soon as they wished and hopefully that will give them time to figure out what the hell they are doing.

  3. Birdix says:

    Love Pelosi, but I live in SF and only recently realized that San Francisco values was an insult (bubble). She can come across as self-righteous and she’s really successful and powerful, all of which irritate some people. I wonder if people would fault someone like Gavin Newson for the same qualities.
    All of the Hilary fundraisers I know have turned their attention to encouraging female politicians, so even though again it’s my bubble maybe there’s hope for a different outlook?

    • Esmom says:

      I don’t know. If Pelosi comes off as self-righteous then what about Paul Ryan, for example? Maybe it is simply because she’s female that’s she’s been demonized so effectively by the GOP. The same thing is happening, or has already happened, with Liz Warren and now Kamala Harris. The right will always turn the Democrats into liberal caricatures, as Kaiser said. I don’t know how to combat them, especially when we have a living, breathing caricature in the WH and people wholeheartedly supporting him no matter what.

      • Nebby says:

        @esmom Unfortunately it seems like republicans can be anything,self righteous, assholes, violent, out of touch, anything really as long as their is an R next to their name. We’re not playing on equal fields and certain rules just don’t apply to our opponents. As a black woman my family would always tell me you have to be twice as good to get half as much. Democrats, miniorities, or whoever opposes the right need to understand that motto, and honestly in this political landscape twice as good still may not be enough.

      • Kitten says:

        The double standard is so disgusting. There are some amazing video montages contrasting the treatment of male senators versus female senators, for example.

        I have mixed feelings about Pelosi TBH but she and Schumer are putting in WORK these days. They are doing the best job I could have hoped for during these crazy-ass times.

        BTW Esmom, I believe the guys from Pod Saves said that they have an interview with Pelosi today?
        Also, do you miss Jon Favreau as much as I do? 🙂

      • Esmom says:

        Hi Kitten, I missed the Pod earlier this week so i hadn’t heard. I need to catch up! I miss Jon F but honestly I love Tommy, Dan and Jon L just as much and sometimes more so, lol.

    • third ginger says:

      Birdix, the roots of the insult are in homophobia. This stereotype goes back to the days of the great Harvey Milk. Any sensible person would love to live in such a beautiful city. And about the sexism, you and Esmom are right on the money. My best to you both.

    • Who ARE These People? says:

      Lord save us from all the “irritating” women in modern American life who are really successful and powerful, right?

      Right now we have a bunch of men who have all the power and success and they are getting on my last nerve. Probably humanity’s last nerve, too. And the planet’s.

      Someone has to have the power. Might as well be women, too.

    • Down and Out says:

      I live in SF, too, but I travel quite a bit for work. We do live in a progressive bubble, but that’s not to say it’s not homogeneous–there’s a huge contingency of Bernie bro tech douches who can barely contain their hatred of women. I am single and dating in SF has been really eye-opening for me in terms of just how ugly misogyny is on the left of the political spectrum. I was in a bar in the Mission with a male friend just a few weeks ago, and a drunk techie douche interrupted our conversation just to let me know that I was a b**ch who was “going no where in life”. Unprovoked! Had not said a single word to him… Also been on a number of dates with guys who get angry when after they insist on paying for my drink, I won’t go home with them. I have a friend who’s doing PhD research on the origins of “men’s rights” movements like Red Pill, and it’s some really sick stuff.

      • jwoolman says:

        Guys getting angry at either the very existence of a woman in a job other than grade school teacher or nurse or if a woman dares say “no” to a request for a date or more is pretty old. This is one of the reasons many women refuse to date men they work with. This all has been true all my adult life and I’m old as dirt.

        I wouldn’t ascribe it to a particular political view, you just happen to be in an area with a lot of guys identifying as progressives. It has to do with being male in our culture, not really their politics.

      • Down and Out says:

        I don’t ascribe it to just the left, but my point is that men use their self-purported progressivism as a mask or a get-out-of-jail-free card for sexism. Which I find quite insidious.

    • ORIGINAL T.C. says:

      The attacks on California and S.F. in particular are hilarious. Seeing that the state is considered the 6th largest economy, known for immigrants who work day and night to become either middle class or millionaires a la the American dream. The rest of the country *depends* on California’s money, innovation, entertainment, and crops. The GOP works on increasing the self-esteem and ego of the mid-Western voters but this country would be up sht creek without California.

      The California values that the DNC would have to drop to get red state voters is fairness, ethics, freedom of choice and religion, protection of LGBTQ Americans from harassment and assault, etc. Just like with Obama care, Dems are too weak to pushback on the anti-S.F. propaganda.

  4. Eric says:

    Maybe it’s time to consider law enforcement reps in the WH, rather than the “law and order” clown Emperor Zero. A combination of Adam Schiff, Kamala Harris and Sally Yates would be the the ticket in 2020 due to their prosecutorial experience, relative youth, intelligence, temperament, eloquence, and legislative experience.
    My dream team would have Schiff as Pres, Harris as VP, and Yates as AG. Not trying to be an ass but I think having a Dem male on top of the ticket would work better to take down Pence in 2020.

    And let’s please drop the notion of Elizabeth Warren running, or Bernie, or Biden. Enough of that. They’re all massively flawed and do better (or have done better) in the jobs they currently have.

    TrumpLand would pitch fits with this group I suggest because they’re too elitist, too diverse, too (fill-in-the-blank). Well, f$$k TrumpLand!

    • Rory says:

      Very excited by Harris. I’d vote for her, she comes across as ballsy and smart,more progressive (than Hilary) and importantly a lot more charismatic. She’s going to be important going forward. But I want her as pres not vp. I do think she needs to run at the right time though not when the dems are weak. It might be 2024.

      • Megan says:

        The one to watch is Mark Warner. He briefly fielded a campaign in 2008 and he is using the Russia investigation to position himself of 2020.

      • third ginger says:

        Warner is one of our Democratic senators, along with Tim Kaine, here in Virginia. He might be a good possibility. Our Virginia Democrats tend not to be fire brands, but quieter, hard workers. I absolutely adore Tim Kaine [whom I’ve met] So sorry he is not VP. I don’t care who came across as “more presidential” in the VP debate. Kaine is a hundred times the person that homophobe Pence is!!

        Harris-Warner ticket.

      • PunkyMomma says:

        I like Harris on a 2020 ticket as VP. And I think the top of the ticket could be either Al Franken from Minnesota or Sherrie Brown from Ohio.

        The only viable Republican in 2020 is Governor John Kasich, also from Ohio. He’s the only major Republican that I can think of who refused to endorse Trump, didn’t attend the Republican convention hosted in his own state, and has been pretty outspoken about the need to compromise. I’d never vote for him, but he’ll be very attractive to those moderate Republicans who are tired of the Court of Cheeto Covfefe Mussolini.

      • third ginger says:

        PunkyMomma, I would love Al Franken to run. He seems to discourage the notion. Certainly no one could argue that it is impossible to have a former celebrity as president, now could they?

    • Ashamed 2 b a Fl girl says:

      @ Eric – I think you just might be on to something there, with that 2020 ticket! Also, it’s time for democrats to get down in the mud and fight dirty. “When they go low, we go high” is not cutting it. (Love, love, love Michelle but I just don’t think nice can get it done.)

      Also, after President Obama won the election in 2008 (I think), Democrats won the next 5 special elections and then lost the house of representatives in the mid-term elections. History has a way of repeating itself.

    • lightpurple says:

      Biden is officially running but not really. And there’s an excellent reason for that. Former presidents and vice presidents are supposed to fade into history QUIETLY without criticism for those who come after with one huge exception – a former Vice President who is challenging a new incumbent for the job in the next election. Candidate Biden can say and do things that former Vice President Biden cannot. So, by saying he is running, Biden can now do whatever he wants and criticize Trump harshly in public without getting the same level of flack if he weren’t running. He doesn’t really want the job, he won’t seek the nomination, but he isn’t going to stand aside and let Trump ruin the country without his commentary

      • Esmom says:

        Yes. He did an interview on Fresh Air last week, I think. Did you happen to catch it? It was amazing, made me want to weep for what might have been.

      • Kitten says:

        I listened to the FA interview and I like Biden enough but I had one major criticism of him and it was that anecdotal story about the Congressman who made a racist comment about Barack.

        The way he told the story was that he (Biden) had to hold himself back from going after that Congressman and then when he told Obama about what happened, Obama said something like (and I’m paraphrasing) “Joe, you have to take the good with the bad. Do you think I would have won the nom if I wasn’t a black man?”

        Ugh. I’m sure this was just another example of Obama being humble but Biden didn’t need to tell that story, making it seem like Obama got elected because he was black (popular rightwing talking point) when the truth is Obama got elected IN SPITE of being black. I won’t pretend that it wasn’t exciting to vote for a black president (twice) but I voted for Obama because I believed in his platform and because I found him inspiring, trustworthy, passionate, and genuine.

        Am I being too nit-picky, Esmom?

      • third ginger says:

        Agreed. Many reasons to like Joe Biden.

      • Esmom says:

        Kitten, I hear you, I sorta wish he hadn’t gone there but it didn’t bug me too much, I felt like he was just in his candid mode and kinda couldn’t help himself from blathering. The thing is even when he gaffes he exudes so much humanity and grace and maturity and intelligence that I was stuck anew (again) by how monstrous our current administration is in comparison to the grown ups they inherited the WH from.

      • Kitten says:

        “The thing is even when he gaffes he exudes so much humanity and grace and maturity and intelligence.”

        TOTALLY. If I’m being honest, I didn’t pay a ton of attention to Biden during his first term but I feel like I’ve really gotten to know him the last four years of his vice presidency on both a personal and professional level. He’s been a tireless advocate for women’s rights and has been a symbol of strength and resiliency when faced with a seemingly unendurable string of personal tragedies. I like him very, very much.

    • Jess says:

      Schiff has struggled to win elections in the past and a ticket with two Californians wouldn’t play well in certain other parts of the country.
      I’d go with Kamala and a rust belt white male democrat.

      From the way GOP and Bernie bros are targeting Kamala I get the feeling they think she’s the one to watch.

  5. Rory says:

    I supported Bernie in the primaries but I am not a “Bernie bro”. I am disgusted at the misogyny and racism within this fraction of dems.
    Dislike how Bernie complained about identity politics amongst dems after the election failing to note that nobody used identity politics more than trump. That’s a very telling moment, he does not “see” poc and women the way he is able to relate to the white working class. Inadverdently he gave licence to a bunch of white bros masquerading as progressives to patronise or sometimes demonise the achievements of women and poc.

    • Ash says:

      I’m glad you acknowledge this because many Bernie supporters seem to overlook what you’ve mentioned. I’m not sure if they’re in denial or just plain stupid.

    • Kitten says:

      YES thank you. I voted for Bernie in the primaries and I still like/support him but there are very problematic members of his base who are simply the flip-side of the coin from Trumpanzees.
      And yes, his aversion to “identity politics” is very insulting to many of us and speaks to his white male privilege, progressiveness and all.

    • Down and Out says:

      I mean, I was a Hillary supporter–still am!–and I don’t love all of her choices. Example: the private email server was just stupid and a bad call. The point for me is, why does a woman or POC have to be perfect for them to be worthy of support & admiration? It’s a totally different standard for Bernie. And I did loathe how many of my Bernie supporting amigos took issue with my wanting a female president, insinuating I only supported her because she’s a woman. It backs you into a corner where you begin to argue that gender doesn’t matter–but it does! Just like it mattered that Obama was our first black president, it would have mattered to have a woman. It’s not the only reason to support someone, but I hated feminism being weaponized against Hillary supporters.

  6. wheneight says:

    I think this is a great take. I think that the Republicans have done such a good job of smearing Democrats like Hillary and Pelosi that a lot of liberals and Democrats have bought into it, too. Funny how whenever you try to push someone on exactly WHY they hate Hillary/Pelosi/whoever there’s no substantive reason as far as I can tell.

    • vaultdweller101 says:

      Clinton and Pelosi are women. That’s what people hate about them. If someone HATES Clinton/Pelosi, but gives Orange Satan, Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell a free pass or a “well, sure, but they at least…” or “but her e-mails!”… You know the caliber of the person you are dealing with. Someone who has, on some very real level, a deep-seated dislike and distrust of women with power.

  7. lightpurple says:

    I agree that Pelosi needs to step a little to the side to allow new, fresh leadership, but not out of the picture completely. Whoever the leader is, the GOP is going to use that person as a target. They also try to link everyone with Debbie Wasserman Schultz. A major part of this problem is the voters who cling to slogans and don’t bother to learn anything about anyone or anything. We saw it a month or so ago when GOP passed legislation to allow states to defund Planned Parenthood, harping on and on about how our federal tax dollars shouldn’t pay for abortions – despite the fact that the Hyde Amendment has prohibited such spending since the early 1970s. They wasted time and our tax dollars pushing a reason for their legislation that wasn’t true. And some of them stupidly don’t know about the Hyde Amendment (they should NOT be in Congress) and many voters don’t know and they fall for this pitch every single time. Last night, Trump said in his speech that he would change things so that immigrants can’t get welfare until they have been in this country for five years, to wild applause from the audience in Iowa and from the twitterverse – but Bill Clinton signed that into law 22 years ago. Any government worker can tell you that a good percentage of their phone calls with the public begins with some rant about illegals and drug addicts getting benefits. The general populace is so clueless. How do we get past the soundbites to the real core issues? Pushing Pelosi out a window is not the answer. Neither is giving Bernie free reins.

  8. Alex says:

    This is why I don’t believe in the Dems and I’m not a registered Dem either. They do dumb sh*t like this over and over. They play right into the GOPs hand when they blame Pelosi.
    But notice they don’t blame Sanders who has actually backed problematic candidates that have lost. And then he pretends he doesn’t know them or that he didn’t campaign for them (if you follow a few people on twitter they have the receipts).
    It’s utterly absurd how dumb these guys can be. Again stop trying to court a white vote you will never get. Because guess who stays home? The minorities you ignore until election time

    • lightpurple says:

      That is because they do not consider Bernie Sanders to be a democrat. He isn’t. He was an independent who always caucused with the democrats but wasn’t a democrat. When he decided to run for the presidency, he did so as a democrat because independents don’t have the grassroots networks to get out the vote. And that was the point of the hacked DNC emails – he wasn’t one of them = but despite discussing doing something about it in the emails, they actually let him go for the nomination when they could have kept him off primary ballots completely.

      • Who ARE These People? says:

        History would have been different, wouldn’t it, if he had been kept off the ballot. AAAGGGHHHH.

      • jwoolman says:

        Yes, those e-mails seemed so innocuous to me. Obviously they were speculating but weren’t doing anything about it, as you say. And although I supported Bernie in the primaries so his ideas would have more clout, I was not entirely sure he should be nominated because he would have been eaten alive for various reasons, as indicated in those e-mails, inadvertently pushing the buttons of some deep prejudices in this country. If he had been nominated, the Republicans and Trump would have trashed him and pulled out all the stops.

        Hillary had been dealing with the smear campaigns for years, but she’s tougher than Bernie, had more relevant experience, and had a better chance even though she was a woman. She came extremely close even in an election where some precincts’ votes might have been manipulated, and did win the popular vote by a significant margin for US elections.

    • Kitten says:

      There’s so much truth to what you say. If I was convinced that Sanders-supporters would EVER vote for a Dem candidate aside from Sanders then maybe I would disagree with you but as such, no lies detected.

      One exception: I do think Tulsi Gabbard could garner some Sanders-votes if she ever attempted to run. She seems to have a lot of support among his base.

      • Alex says:

        She would but at this point I wouldn’t vote for any Bernie sponsored candidate. I’m over him

  9. Aiobhan Targaryen says:

    Who would they replace her with? Another older white person who is more than likely a man who thinks like her, if so, then they might was well keep her there because it would be the same thing with a new name. That is not going to help them in the long run.

    While I do agree that the Dems need to shake things up, listening to someone outside of their party is not the way to go. Bernie is not, nor has he ever been, a Democrat. Stop listening to someone who does not have your best interests at heart, Dems. He needs to start his own political party like the Green Party and be loud with that group. There are tons of up and coming Dems that deserve to be heard. Not just Kamala Harris and Tammy Duckworth.

    They need new staffers from different walks of life and different races who believe in a similar sort of liberalism as the Democrats say they believe in. They want a ready made star like Obama, but he was a one in a billion sort of speaker. They have to get used to the idea that not all diamonds are perfect and pure when they start. They need to start cultivating new people to take over. Stop being so reactionary and play offense. (I think that sports analogy makes sense. If it doesn’t, whatever.)

    Lastly, Stop Listening to Bernie Sanders. There are better liberals to listen to.

  10. Giulia says:

    At a townhall recently my congressman was asked why we got “obamacare” instead of single payer. His reply was enlightening; he said that initially Obama was for single payer. However as the process wore on it was clear he was going to go for a version of Romney’s plan from Massachusetts. So being a good pol, my congressman worked to get the “public option” included. You may remember Obama talking about that at the time. However, Obama and Pelosi dropped it. He said if you talk to Nancy privately she’ll tell you right out that single payer is THE answer, but she will not support publicly. Why? Because lobbyists and patronage. I thought that was interesting, and that Jerry was so frank about it. And remember when the healthcare package was being worked out Democrats were in the driver’s seat, 2009, they could have gotten single payer through at that time.

    Before you get out the knives, know that I don’t “hate” Pelosi, or Obama for that matter, but this is where we are as a country, this is the reality. Consider that 70-80% of voters of all persuasions support publicly funded healthcare, and yet politicans of both parties actively work against it, or worse.

    • Rory says:

      While I agree it’s too easy to level this critique at dems. Its a system that’s in place. A system that was more or less invented by people like roger stone and Paul manaford where donations are exchanged for influencing policy.
      Roger stone and Paul manaford might I add, who was the architects behind trump who was going to “drain the swamp”in DC of exactly this type of thing right?

    • Amy says:

      Your congressman is incorrect. Pelosi/Obama had to drop the public options because they didn’t have the votes to get Obamacare passed with it. “Moderate” Democrats like Joe Lieberman refused to vote for ACA if the public option was included. The thing progressives love to forget is that ACA is the most liberal Healthcare plan that would have passed at the time.

      I definitely disagree with Nancy Pelosi sometimes politically but she was very, very good at being Speaker of the House.

      • Kitten says:

        Yep this exactly. The guys on Pod Save America (former Obama staffers) were just talking about this on their most recent pod. We don’t have single-payer because of Lieberman. He was the one vote that blocked it.

      • Veronica says:

        The collective amnesia of the drudgery surrounding that piece of legislation is amazing. It was a cluster, and Republicans and “moderate” Democrats beleaguered it every step of the way. To this day, I’m amazed Pelosi and Obama got it through, flawed as it may be.

    • lightpurple says:

      I do realize that most of the country sees it as “Romney’s plan from Massachusetts” but it really was not. Yes, it was from Massachusetts but the only part of it that was Romney’s was the individual mandate. The Massachusetts plan was put together by democrats in the MA legislature, policy people in state government agencies, a strong advocacy group called Healthcare for All, and a coalition of medical providers and non-profit insurers and Ted Kennedy’s healthcare staffers. MA has always put a strong emphasis on public health and has a strong provider system and close regulation of insurers and the Massachusetts plan built on that. Romney agreed to it because he had accomplished absolutely nothing in office (it does help if you actually spend time in the state and he was gone for months at a time) and needed to say he did something so he could run for the presidency. One of the loudest voices in shaping the MA plan, in addition to Health care for All and Kennedy, was current GOP governor Charlie Baker. When Baker was secretary of MA Health & Human Services, he expanded Medicaid in both eligibility and services covered. He then left government to run Harvard Pilgrim and pulled it out of bankruptcy while maintaining a high level of consumer satisfaction – it is rated one of the top five best health plans nationally, usually in the top 3. Baker has proposed changes that would save ObamaCare but his own party isn’t interested. (I’m actually NOT a Baker fan but he is good on this stuff.)

    • Div says:

      Joe Lieberman was a prominent Dem at the time and he fought tooth and nail over single payer. Various politicians have talked about what a hold up he was to the process. I truly doubt we would have ever been able to get single payer back in ’09 because not even all the Dems were behind it.

      Don’t get me wrong, I believe we have an issue with lobbyists. However, I do have an issue with how people act like Pelosi is the worst when it comes to that sort of thing or paint her as some kind of corrupt monster. There are a significant number of Dems who are more entangled in that system than Pelosi and the Republicans are far, far worse. My other issue is that people keep touting more center-right white guys to replace Pelosi.

  11. Molly says:

    The hate for Nancy stems from the exact same misoganistic and sexist place as the hate for Hilary. During the election, the (R) candidate in my district made his entire campaign against the (D) incumbent that “he voted with NACNY PELOSI on xyz!!”
    Um, he’s a democrat, so yes, he voted with the Democratic Party on a lot of things. It was just SO disappointing that hating Pelosi must have tested well enough to be a central message to his campaign.

  12. Nicole says:

    What’s the point of supporting an albatross that brings you lots of money but causes you to lose competitive races, has been incompetent in strategy, hemorrhaging seats nationally, statewide, and locally, unable to make a coherent argument against the opposition party with the benefit of facts, special interest groups, and public opinion on your side, and unable to inspire those that agree with her (remember that rousing and exciting Pelosi speech? Me neither. Plenty of embarrassing, eye rolling, and incoherent out of touch ramblings though)?

    • grabbyhands says:

      Thank you-you managed to succinctly express what it took me several paragraphs to say. 🙂 Totally agreed.

  13. grabbyhands says:

    I’ve disliked Nancy Pelosi for years and haven’t found her really effective in any respect for a long, long time because she is one of the party leadership who likes to talk a tough game, but doesn’t have anything to back it up with.

    “I’m drawing a line in the sand, and you are NOT going to cross it”.
    ::person crosses line::
    “Okay, I’m going to draw a NEW line, but you REALLY can’t cross this one”
    This carries on until the person gets where they want to go and Pelosi complains that they played dirty.

    In her defense, she’s a really obvious target . She’s a leader-she SHOULD lead and is not. But, the rest of the party leaders deserve equal blame for having been so ineffectual before and after the election. Buzzfeed had an article before the election about what the game plan would be if 45 won, and there wasn’t one. The reason the reporter was given was that they couldn’t even conceive that people would be that foolish (paraphrase on my part), so they weren’t even considering that an option. And that is the Democratic Party in a nutshell – we don’t see how that could possibly happen so we’re not going to bother planning for it. It was disastrous for the presidential election and they’ve clung to it for disastrous results in the special elections and I fear what it means for the mid-terms is a bunch of races lost by slim margins that will be spun into more “Yeah, but this REALLY has them running scared now, wait until the next election!!”.

    The party keeps expecting huge changes in voters minds in areas where little change has happened in decades because they can’t conceive how anyone would not choose them over what we’re currently dealing with in the WH. And like, who wouldn’t, right? It seems like a slam dunk. But that isn’t the same thing as a plan, and it isn’t the same thing as having a message that is going to make sense. I don’t care if you spend 30M or 100M-something isn’t working.

    And MORE public infighting really isn’t going to help. The party is completely splintered and it looks really bad. No one is going to put their strength in a party that can’t adapt.

    • Div says:

      While I have my issues with Pelosi, I do think people exaggerate her faults. I also have an extremely serious problem with how more center-right white guys keep popping up as “challengers” because that would signal a troubling turn for the party.

      I am far more frustrated with the fact that gerrymandering and voter suppression is vastly under reported by the media and shoved to the side by many politicians. I know there is a case that could make a huge difference soon, so hopefully that pans out. Gerrymandering, plus the gutting of the voters rights act several years ago, did more to damage the Dem party than Pelosi’s leadership.

  14. Neelyo says:

    I think this has always been the way with the Democrats. Whenever something goes wrong, they form a circular firing squad. They don’t circle the wagons like the Republicans do.

  15. Nebby says:

    I love Pelosi, however I slightly agree that a younger person needs to take over. Whenever there’s an election republicans first instinct is to tie Pelosi, Obama, or Clinton to the oppositions name, and even though I’m ok if a person had a connection with that group, a certain demographic of voters hate them. I agree that the gop would try to destroy the new leader but we can’t give them an inch and must be strategic. Pelosi, Obama, and Clinton have had many years of the gop media successfully demonizing their every move.

    • PunkyMomma says:

      I agree with you on all points. Pelosi has been a workhorse for the country, but she’s not popular with young Democrats. The Party needs to get the millennials moving – we desperately need that voting block who came out for Obama to come back for the mid-terms and national elections. Pelosi can still be effective, but I feel her ability to help the party is in a position behind the scenes. She has a wealth of knowledge regarding legislative procedures and rules. I feel it’s time she started grooming a newer generation to step up.

  16. Merritt says:

    Whoever the leader is will be a target in a similar way. It is true at the state level too. Here in IL many GOP attacks are centered on Mike Madigan.

  17. Who ARE These People? says:

    Kaiser, thanks for pulling together this post. It’s really hard to see Pelosi attacked this way and some faction of Dems/Independents buy into Republican propaganda. Right now she makes the calls, gets the money and knows where the bodies are buried…she’ll make room at the opportune time but the Georgia race was not so much a “loss” as a “intriguing indicator” and I don’t know how the American educational system, “you” generation marketing campaigns, and superficial mass media raised such a generation of ill-informed whiners. Then again, yes I do.

    Also, people who’ve never lived in Red states: They are Red because the people who live there live, breathe and vote Red. Any hints of a shift come from migration from Blue areas or states, and that slowly will affect the younger people growing up there. It’s nearly impossible to turn a Red person Blue but you can add more Blue voters. When Red laws don’t block it.

  18. ArchieGoodwin says:

    This is just a theory but… that last election? Karen Handal was down a lot before, and won by such a narrow margin, 10K votes or something. Remind you of any other elections where the votes to win were just barely above what was needed?

    We know Russia interfered, and we know intel agencies have testified they will try to do it in the 2018 elections. And I think they are- the smear campaigns, the narrow wins, the comments that come from accounts that have no friends, are basically brand new, repeat word for word what trump says on twitter (WITCH HUNT is the latest).

    So I have no solutions, other than Mueller needs to work fast.

    • Who ARE These People? says:

      And…voter suppression probably rampant as well. Just so much monkey business.

    • Betsy says:

      I assume you’re familiar with Mike Farb’s work on twitter? And a twitterer called Sean Spicer’s Mic? If not, check them out. I sincerely doubt Ossoff lost this one, too.

  19. adastraperaspera says:

    This is true: “If and when the Dems replace Pelosi, the GOP will just make the new leader into a liberal caricature, so why all the breast-beating?”

    As a lifelong Dem, my take on Dems is that we value a fair fight, rule of law and compromise. And we operate as a messy group. But we’re up against an opponent who has taken the final turn into support of anti-democratic, totalitarian patriarchy and will lie, cheat and steal to achieve this end. And they always operate with a strongman who claims to be “a man of the people” as titular head.

  20. Jess says:

    It doesn’t matter who it is, if you are a strong, powerful woman GOP will go after you.

    They did it to Hillary, pelosi and warren. They even started on Kamala Harris and she’s barely arrived yet.

    Bernie bros are often quite ignorant and are fooled by GOP agenda.

  21. tracking says:

    Completely agree that Pelosi has done a good job, and it’s ridiculous to blame the Osoff loss on her. Nonetheless, I’m ready for fresh blood and fresh ideas.

  22. Juststoppingby says:

    I used to like Nancy but it is long time the Democrats realize they have lost a 1000 seats under Obama and contiune to not make any gains at all this year. At least Sanders has engery and young people showing up to see him speak.

    • Jess says:

      I think people need to move on from both sanders and Hillary look to younger people who can unify the party . Both sanders and Hillary are controversial figures within the core demographic. Move on from 2016 stop infighting and look forward.

    • ORIGINAL T.C. says:

      They ONLY show up to hear him speak. They then stay home on Election Day. Bernie Sanders lost to HRC fair and square. Bernie voters are loud to make up the fact that they are NOT the majority of Democrats. Many Democrats do not agree with him, furthermore just like Trump he made vague promises with no concrete policy recommendations. There is crossover with his fans and Trump fans. I’m still waiting to see both Trump’s and Sanders tax returns!

  23. LMAO says:

    I agree it isn’t Pelosis fault that Ossof lost. But it also isn’t Trump’s fault that Handel won. You can’t have it just one way on that thinking. It’s an election, and people win and lose based on how votes are cast for the candidate. NEither Nancy P nor Donald R were on the ballot.

    Having said that, though…..its past time for her to go. Whether she’s done a good job or not is debateable, but change is desperately needed and when that’s the case, it simply is the case. Dems need to change, and that means new leadership at the helm regardless of presumed past successes. Because Yesterday is a song by the Beatles, nothing to thump your chest about when the walls around you are crumbling.

  24. Lindsey says:

    The main battle Dems has is a battle against the massive money that the GOP donors like the Koch brothers, Mercer, Adelson, the Devos family flood into races. For the 2016 election, the Koch brothers and their coalition had about 889 million available to spend and that’s without backing Trump (At least until after he won. Then many of their favorites ended up in the administration). They operate like a national party and have huge amounts of influence.

  25. Tig says:

    What seems to get lost in the GA election is that the GOP poured millions into an election that should have been a slam dunk for them- they shouldn’t have had to bother. It’s a loss, but that showing by a Dem in that district was impressive.
    Where the Dems go- I say this with a heavy heart- write off the South. The region has passed the point of no return. It’s beyond infuriating to attempt to point out to dummies that every falsehood they regurgitate all day long is just that-false. You cannot educate anyone who refuses to be informed. It literally is “don’t bother me with facts”.

    • LMAO says:

      Did you seriously just stereotype southerners as stupid? Wow. They may tend toward being politically conservative but that should not equal dumb. That’s offensive AF. If I were to post about liberal New Yorkers and refer to them with perjorative stereotypes, there would be howling in protest. If I equated all Italians to mafia, same outcome. All Californians to dope smoking stoned hippies, more howling. Rightly so.

      Political differences are one thing, but to with one broad stroke insult the intelligence of an entire portion of the country is not cool.

      • third ginger says:

        Here in Virginia, we have 2 very fine Democratic senators and will likely have another Democratic governor in the fall. Our state went for HRC. I don’t want to write off PA. or Michigan. I am originally from Georgia. I don’t think hero John Lewis wants anyone to write off the South. Also, have you tried our food? LOL

      • LMAO says:

        Ha. I’m from Georgia originally. I COOK southern food. I live in NC now (where we got rid of a Repub Gov over that damn bathroom bill crap) and have lived in Texas. I’m a southerner in my soul and I get riled up at southern insults from people like Tig who play their own brand of stereotype cultural cards.

      • third ginger says:

        LMAO. My best to you. the remarks really irritated me, too.

    • Hannah says:

      If they haven’t had the seat since the late 1970s. I don’t know how you can argue it was there for the taking. Obviously that means it’s GOP land.
      They spent a lot of money because they wanted the seat and perhaps because ossof is seen as an up and comer?

    • Adele Dazeem says:

      Seriously guys-I don’t meant to get mean–BUT AT WHAT F–KING POINT ARE WE GOING TO RECOGNIZE it isn’t one specific ‘stereotype’ (blue collar appalachians, southern racists, etc) that got trump elected???

      It is this kind of thinking that makes me worry the Democratic Party is doomed.

  26. Daisy says:

    Pelosi and Feinstein are way past retirement age. It’s time for them to stand aside and let some young blood in. Honestly, what’s up with these politicians thinking they can monopolize the political scene for so long? No wonder the democrats can’t get it together. The old guard needs to say bye.

    • B n A fn says:

      People keep talking about its time for the more mature women to step aside and let young blood in. Did people forget 45 is 71 yo. Hillary is 70 years old. Why is it the same standard did not apply to #45? Because he’s a man? Hillary at 70 years old would have been a much better president and would not be under investigation for colluding with the Russians to swing the election in his favor Ect, ect. Follow the money with this criminal, jmo. I’m mad as hell and don’t care who is offended by my comment.

    • Veronica says:

      If people want young blood, they can try getting off their ass and voting. We have a built in term limit – it’s called elections. People just don’t want to put the effort into researching, backing, and then voting for new candidates. That’s why I hate the “old guard” argument – these people did not put themselves there. We the voters did. It’s our responsibility to audit the system with our involvement, and we’ve been lax about it. This is the result.

  27. HoustonGrl says:

    Ladies, I’m not gonna lie. This is really getting me down. All the post-election Pelosi hate is just a funnel for what was previously Hillary-hate. I am saddened to watch Trump on the news almost every day and hear douche bros talk sh_t about women because in this climate, it’s been normalized. I’m hopeful that we’re witnessing, in fish out of water mode, the last hurrah of a desperately outdated way of thinking before my generation takes over.

  28. Betsy says:

    I voted Northam in the primary precisely because Perriello had the troubling willingness to throw women under the bus, and his cozying up to Bernie the election burner didn’t help.

  29. Hannah says:

    Pelosi is one of few people who can keep democrats in line.
    If pelosi needs to retire because of age then don’t come at me with this Biden 2020 or Bernie 2020.
    I actually think it’s more important that the old guard step aside in the presidential nominee race.

  30. Linda M Coffey says:

    Sorry, but IMO, Pelosi, Obama & Harry Reid deserve every bit of criticism they’re receiving for the disastrous way they ran the DNC, the House, the Senate during the past eight + years. They’ve lost over 1,000 seats and we’re just one state away from the Republicans being able to change the constitution. Reid’s retired, Obama’s gone and Pelosi’s response to all this? I’ve seen her interviews. She’s said, more than once, that the Democrats don’t have to change a d@mn thing.

    • B n A fn says:

      Remember #45 was not elected by the majority of the people. Hilliard had 3 million more votes. I know he’s the president. Btw, his approval is 36%, nothing to brag about. He’s not going to serve out his full term because he’s a lying conman and a fraud.

      • B n A fn says:

        Btw, I saw this comment somewhere, I thought it was true and funny. “I swear, DT could pass gas and says it’s perfume, and you all, his followers would nod along in agreement while talking deep breaths.”

        Another good one: if you ever feel like you are having a break down and going insane, just look at 45 twitter feed and you will see what real crazy looks like.

  31. Beth Blake says:

    She’s a 77 year old geezer now, her hands and her head shake uncontrollably while her voice trembles and sounds like she’s on the verge of tears no matter what she is saying!!! Just last week, she flubbed and said the attacked congressman was dead rather then severely injured , then she called the current President the name of the former President Bush, that’s just gross ….I say the American people deserve term limits and geriatric testing for the old geezers who are over 70 too! Perhaps they could pass the legislation thru the Republicans in name only if it had the title of the Pelosi Bill :D.ahaha!

    • B n A fn says:

      We have an old 71 year old lying geezer in the Oval Office right now.. Let’s talk about the person who is occupying the Oval Office that’s being mocked by foreign leaders, e.g. Australian Prime Minister, Panama President, ect. It took the old geezer, #45, forty one days to fess up that he lied about taping Comey. He also lied that Pres Obama wire tapped him. If the old lying geezer lips are moving he’s lying. When you have an old president don’t talk about age.

      Don’t talk about age when we have a old conman as president. If Nancy should retire so should the king of lies. #45 he’s a disgrace to his office. He’s the laughing stock all over the world. Btw, he received 3 million less votes than Hillary, put that in your pipe and smoke it DT.