Pelosi's staying

[Vepres]

Pelosi should leave, mainly because she is damaged goods. Republicans were successful into making her into a boogeyman just based on where she lives. Yes the fact that she had passed all this legislation certainly helped, but she wouldn't be featured in so many ads if she was from Oshkosh. I hate how Republicans can go around attacking the cities of America (or letting one drown) but Democrats can't say sh**t about the assbackwards rural areas. Fukc that sh**t.

No, they're not attacking cities (most Republicans never do, and don't say Palin). San Francisco has a reputation. She also is not charismatic by any definition.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Pelosi should leave, mainly because she is damaged goods. Republicans were successful into making her into a boogeyman just based on where she lives. Yes the fact that she had passed all this legislation certainly helped, but she wouldn't be featured in so many ads if she was from Oshkosh. I hate how Republicans can go around attacking the cities of America (or letting one drown) but Democrats can't say sh**t about the assbackwards rural areas. Fukc that sh**t.

No, they're not attacking cities (most Republicans never do, and don't say Palin). San Francisco has a reputation. She also is not charismatic by any definition.

Yeah, the Republican never attack cities (besides San Fransisco, Boulder, New York, Chicago, etc.).
They only attack states (Massachusetts, California, Hawaii).

[Sbane]

Pelosi should leave, mainly because she is damaged goods. Republicans were successful into making her into a boogeyman just based on where she lives. Yes the fact that she had passed all this legislation certainly helped, but she wouldn't be featured in so many ads if she was from Oshkosh. I hate how Republicans can go around attacking the cities of America (or letting one drown) but Democrats can't say sh**t about the assbackwards rural areas. Fukc that sh**t.

No, they're not attacking cities (most Republicans never do, and don't say Palin). San Francisco has a reputation. She also is not charismatic by any definition.

No, they basically attack all cities. It just depends on the leadership. If Pelosi was from Detroit, they would attack that city. Obama is attacked for being from Chicago. If Chris Van Hollen or Steny Hoyer becomes minority leader, they will attack them for being Washington or Maryland liberals. Kerry was attacked for being from Massachusetts. I don't care if San Francisco has a reputation (what does this even mean?). Mississippi also has a reputation for being racist and bigoted. Should I just assume Haley Barbour is a bigot until he proves me otherwise?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Pelosi should leave, mainly because she is damaged goods. Republicans were successful into making her into a boogeyman just based on where she lives. Yes the fact that she had passed all this legislation certainly helped, but she wouldn't be featured in so many ads if she was from Oshkosh. I hate how Republicans can go around attacking the cities of America (or letting one drown) but Democrats can't say sh**t about the assbackwards rural areas. Fukc that sh**t.

This

[Dgov]

(what does this even mean?)

Specifically, it means that she's a holier-than-thou kind of Liberal, which are probably the most despised among Conservatives (Basically the Democratic equivalent of a bible-thumper).  More generally, it represents the cultural divide between Urban and Rural societies (which generally don't like each other).  I don't know about you, but I've heard the phrase "Republican Hick" more often than "San Francisco Liberal", and they basically mean the same thing.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I don't know about you, but I've heard the phrase "Republican Hick" more often than "San Francisco Liberal", and they basically mean the same thing.

You mean like in that memo about the West Virginia ad?

[Dgov]

I don't know about you, but I've heard the phrase "Republican Hick" more often than "San Francisco Liberal", and they basically mean the same thing.

You mean like in that memo about the West Virginia ad?

Yes, actually.  Cultural bigotry is not party-exclusive (how many Blue-Dog Democrats have run against those "city-slicker" Republicans?).

[Brittain33]

I don't know about that. I remember plenty of ads attacking him for being a "Vermont liberal" before the scream happened.

No there weren't.  Nobody outside of VT heard of him, and he wasn't chairman until later.

Yes, there was. Famously, there was an ad running in Iowa where some old couple said they wanted Howard Dean to keep his liberal loving, "latte drinking", [insert five stereotypes here] leftist agenda out of Iowa.

[J. J.]

I don't know about that. I remember plenty of ads attacking him for being a "Vermont liberal" before the scream happened.

No there weren't.  Nobody outside of VT heard of him, and he wasn't chairman until later.

Yes, there was. Famously, there was an ad running in Iowa where some old couple said they wanted Howard Dean to keep his liberal loving, "latte drinking", [insert five stereotypes here] leftist agenda out of Iowa.

After he was running for President.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I don't know about that. I remember plenty of ads attacking him for being a "Vermont liberal" before the scream happened.

No there weren't.  Nobody outside of VT heard of him, and he wasn't chairman until later.

Yes, there was. Famously, there was an ad running in Iowa where some old couple said they wanted Howard Dean to keep his liberal loving, "latte drinking", [insert five stereotypes here] leftist agenda out of Iowa.

After he was running for President.

Keep moving those goalposts.

[J. J.]

I don't know about that. I remember plenty of ads attacking him for being a "Vermont liberal" before the scream happened.

No there weren't.  Nobody outside of VT heard of him, and he wasn't chairman until later.

Yes, there was. Famously, there was an ad running in Iowa where some old couple said they wanted Howard Dean to keep his liberal loving, "latte drinking", [insert five stereotypes here] leftist agenda out of Iowa.

After he was running for President.

Keep moving those goalposts.

Who is moving the goalposts?  Dean ran for President first.

He didn't get any of that stuff as chairman. 

[Brittain33]

Who is moving the goalposts?  Dean ran for President first.

The ads ran before the scream. That was the original challenge. No, they didn't run ads against him as chairman, but there was plenty of guffawing about his appointment.

Nothing is exactly the same as something else, but that's not the point.

[J. J.]

Who is moving the goalposts?  Dean ran for President first.

The ads ran before the scream. That was the original challenge. No, they didn't run ads against him as chairman, but there was plenty of guffawing about his appointment.

Nothing is exactly the same as something else, but that's not the point.

Yes, the political junkies, just like Steele, but he wasn't an issue in any races.  Nobody ran ads that said, "Dean's Democratic Chairman.  He's crazy.  Vote for me; I'm a Republican."

I've never thought party chair was a really important post, unless the chair says something moronic (like Steele).

My sole criticism of Dean as chair is that he let the 2008 primary go on too long.  He should have been more of a broker.

[Sbane]

(what does this even mean?)

Specifically, it means that she's a holier-than-thou kind of Liberal, which are probably the most despised among Conservatives (Basically the Democratic equivalent of a bible-thumper).  More generally, it represents the cultural divide between Urban and Rural societies (which generally don't like each other).  I don't know about you, but I've heard the phrase "Republican Hick" more often than "San Francisco Liberal", and they basically mean the same thing.

Obviously no one is going to attack anyone for being a San Francisco liberal in the bay area.

At the national level, and especially in politics, cities (especially those who vote Democratic thus Dallas won't qualify) are denigrated while rural America is celebrated. And this is done mostly by the Republicans, though I suppose some Democrats attacked Pelosi for being from San Francisco as well. I don't see the Democrats out there running ads against rural Republican hicks.

[tpfkaw]

I'm glad that those open-minded liberals never criticized Bush for being from Texas.  Neither are Republican voters ever stereotyped as unintelligent or uneducated.

[Sbane]

I'm glad that those open-minded liberals never criticized Bush for being from Texas.  Neither are Republican voters ever stereotyped as unintelligent or uneducated.

Not that it worked. It could be a tool that might have some success in the future though. Prop 23 went down in flames here and one of the main boogeymans created by the no on 23 campaign were Texas oil companies that supported the initiative. I thought that was quite disturbing as well.

Although a key difference would be that they were attacking companies, and not the people of Texas. But of course you wonder why it's relevant where the oil companies are based.....

[cinyc]

Cutting congressional pay? Good luck with that.
The problem is that besides symbolic votes about repealing HCR and extending Bush's tax cuts, the Republicans have absolutely no clue of what to do.
David Frum, Andrew Sullivan and other conservatives literally are begging Bhoener and Co. for a year now to present a serious plan about how they are going to reduce the deficit, to no avail.
Frum has gone even further saying that actually the GOP leadership will quickly drop any pretense about serious governing and will focus on passing the pet projects of Bhoener's lobbyist friends.

Unless of course by beating expectations you mean launching frivolous investigations, on things like Obama's trip to India, and trying to impeach him.  

You lost all credibility when you claim Andrew Sullivan is a conservative.  He is nothing of the sort - he's practically a Democrat, even if he doesn't call himself that.  Nor is David Frum really that conservative.

The Republican leadership had absolutely no incentive to mention specifics about what they will cut while running for election.  It only would have served to turn off some of the people who would otherwise vote for them, and taken the spotlight off of the real issue in the campaign - Obama.  There will be budget cuts - Republicans know that if they don't govern better than in their recent past, they will be turfed again.

By the way, it's Speaker-Elect Boehner, not Bhoener, just like it's Speaker Pelosi, not Pelousy.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Cutting congressional pay? Good luck with that.
The problem is that besides symbolic votes about repealing HCR and extending Bush's tax cuts, the Republicans have absolutely no clue of what to do.
David Frum, Andrew Sullivan and other conservatives literally are begging Bhoener and Co. for a year now to present a serious plan about how they are going to reduce the deficit, to no avail.
Frum has gone even further saying that actually the GOP leadership will quickly drop any pretense about serious governing and will focus on passing the pet projects of Bhoener's lobbyist friends.

Unless of course by beating expectations you mean launching frivolous investigations, on things like Obama's trip to India, and trying to impeach him.  

You lost all credibility when you claim Andrew Sullivan is a conservative.  He is nothing of the sort - he's practically a Democrat, even if he doesn't call himself that.  Nor is David Frum really that conservative.

The Republican leadership had absolutely no incentive to mention specifics about what they will cut while running for election.  It only would have served to turn off some of the people who would otherwise vote for them, and taken the spotlight off of the real issue in the campaign - Obama.  There will be budget cuts - Republicans know that if they don't govern better than in their recent past, they will be turfed again.

By the way, it's Speaker-Elect Boehner, not Bhoener, just like it's Speaker Pelosi, not Pelousy.

Sullivan and Frum are surely more conservative than pork king Mitch McConnell, Glenn Beck or Sister Sarah.

And Republicans refuse to specify what they will cut even now that the election is over. When Rand Paul says that defense and entitlements are off the table (and BTW, he is all for earmarks now) then I challenge you to guess what magic solution they will find to reduce the deficit.

[Torie]

Ah, another battle for the monikers. Why is this endeavor so fascinating for folks?  I have never really fully understood that, starting about age 14 or so. Labels really don't help move the ball much in this day and age (other than partisan labels, which is sad). They just don't.

[Bull Moose Base]

Cutting congressional pay? Good luck with that.
The problem is that besides symbolic votes about repealing HCR and extending Bush's tax cuts, the Republicans have absolutely no clue of what to do.
David Frum, Andrew Sullivan and other conservatives literally are begging Bhoener and Co. for a year now to present a serious plan about how they are going to reduce the deficit, to no avail.
Frum has gone even further saying that actually the GOP leadership will quickly drop any pretense about serious governing and will focus on passing the pet projects of Bhoener's lobbyist friends.

Unless of course by beating expectations you mean launching frivolous investigations, on things like Obama's trip to India, and trying to impeach him.  

You lost all credibility when you claim Andrew Sullivan is a conservative.  He is nothing of the sort - he's practically a Democrat, even if he doesn't call himself that.  Nor is David Frum really that conservative.

The Republican leadership had absolutely no incentive to mention specifics about what they will cut while running for election.  It only would have served to turn off some of the people who would otherwise vote for them, and taken the spotlight off of the real issue in the campaign - Obama.  There will be budget cuts - Republicans know that if they don't govern better than in their recent past, they will be turfed again.

By the way, it's Speaker-Elect Boehner, not Bhoener, just like it's Speaker Pelosi, not Pelousy.

Sullivan and Frum are surely more conservative than pork king Mitch McConnell, Glenn Beck or Sister Sarah.

And Republicans refuse to specify what they will cut even now that the election is over. When Rand Paul says that defense and entitlements are off the table (and BTW, he is all for earmarks now) then I challenge you to guess what magic solution they will find to reduce the deficit.

Not only do they lack a magic solution to shrink the deficit but they look to be uncompromising about making it far worse with the extension of Bush tax cuts.  Im curious to see when (or if) the fraud will be exposed.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Cutting congressional pay? Good luck with that.
The problem is that besides symbolic votes about repealing HCR and extending Bush's tax cuts, the Republicans have absolutely no clue of what to do.
David Frum, Andrew Sullivan and other conservatives literally are begging Bhoener and Co. for a year now to present a serious plan about how they are going to reduce the deficit, to no avail.
Frum has gone even further saying that actually the GOP leadership will quickly drop any pretense about serious governing and will focus on passing the pet projects of Bhoener's lobbyist friends.

Unless of course by beating expectations you mean launching frivolous investigations, on things like Obama's trip to India, and trying to impeach him.  

You lost all credibility when you claim Andrew Sullivan is a conservative.  He is nothing of the sort - he's practically a Democrat, even if he doesn't call himself that.  Nor is David Frum really that conservative.

The Republican leadership had absolutely no incentive to mention specifics about what they will cut while running for election.  It only would have served to turn off some of the people who would otherwise vote for them, and taken the spotlight off of the real issue in the campaign - Obama.  There will be budget cuts - Republicans know that if they don't govern better than in their recent past, they will be turfed again.

By the way, it's Speaker-Elect Boehner, not Bhoener, just like it's Speaker Pelosi, not Pelousy.

Sullivan and Frum are surely more conservative than pork king Mitch McConnell, Glenn Beck or Sister Sarah.

And Republicans refuse to specify what they will cut even now that the election is over. When Rand Paul says that defense and entitlements are off the table (and BTW, he is all for earmarks now) then I challenge you to guess what magic solution they will find to reduce the deficit.

Perception is reality in politics, and with that, there are two deficits:

There is the real deficit.
And there is the deficit Americans think we have.

The same could be said for anything. There are the tax rates, and the tax rates Americans think we have. Jobs numbers, and the jobs numbers Americans think we have. You could go on and on.

Republicans aren't aiming to reduce the deficit, they're aiming to reduce the imaginary deficit, the deficit in people's minds. The way you cut the imaginary deficit is by cutting symbolic things. Not things that will really cut the deficit in any meaningful way, but just making small cuts that people will notice. Cutting something like NPR funding, for instance, is not something that matters at all, but it's something that will make the news and play into the "cuts cuts cuts" narrative that will be set by the right-wing news channels.

Taking away extended unemployment benefits is another symbolic cut. Something people will notice and will be hurt by, but not really something that makes a huge dent in the deficit. Some have suggested cutting the national endowment for the arts, a tiny cut that doesn't matter, but a cut that will make news and be noticed. Cutting education spending, another small but symbolic cut. Whittling away at Medicaid funding, another small cut but, again, symbolic because it will make news and people will hear about it, even if all of these cuts combined amount to a tiny fraction of the budget deficit.

Another thing that was mentioned by the incoming Republican Governor in Pennsylvania was selling off the state liquor stores. This will get the state a small one-time infusion of cash, but how does that help anyone? It isn't a long term (hell, it's not even short-term) solution, it is just a big symbolic cut that will make the news and people will notice it.

Americans, most of them anyway, will not care about the amount of money this saves or doesn't save, most Americans will not be smart enough to look up the deficit numbers, they will simply see tiny symbolic cuts, and in their mind, this makes the deficit in their heads go down, and they vote on this perception.

Compare the Democratic and Republican efforts to cut taxes, as an example of practicality versus symbolism. When Bush cut taxes, he did so with big fanfare. The government sent checks to everyone and at the top of those checks there were big "HEY, THANKS TO THE BUSH TAX CUTS, YOU'VE RECEIVED ____ AMOUNT OF DOLLARS" messages that made sure to hammer home the fact that Republicans cut taxes, to make sure people really noticed it. It wasn't very economically stimulative (at all) but it made people notice "Hey, Republicans cut my taxes! Yay!" and then they drooled their way all the way to the ballot box to vote for the tax-cutting Republicans.

Democrats, on the other hand, don't do symbolism very well. The stimulus tax cuts, for example, took a (largely) different approach in distributing tax cuts. Instead of one big check with tasteless messages plastered all over it making sure Americans knew who to thank, the Democrats gave the tax cuts over time, shaving off dollars here and there from people's taxes. They did it this way because the best way to get people to spend money is if they don't actually notice they're getting more, because if they do, they're more likely to just throw it in the bank, and you get no stimulus from that.

This is the economically smart way to do it, but there's no big fanfare, no symbolism, no clear signs for the dog-like minds of the average American voter so they know who to thank. And thus, most Americans refuse to believe the fact that they received tax cuts.

There is reality, and then there is perception. And unfortunately, people vote on perception.

[Meeker]

I'm down with this. Pelosi has proven adept at running the caucus and now that so many of those obnoxious Blue Dogs have left us it'll be even easier to stand up to the nonsense that Boehner and Cantor are about to try and pass. Pelosi also seems to be the only candidate from the left-wing of the party, so if the choice is between her and Heath Shuler then this shouldn't've even be a discussion for any self-respecting Democrat. I'll be surprised if he gets more than 40 or 50 votes.

My one concern, as others have expressed, is that she is indeed a polarizing figure. But I fail to see how whoever else becomes Minority Leader won't become one as well so it's sort of a wash.

Pelosi wins 150-43.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

is the vote by member going to be available?

[Lief 🗽]

It's a secret ballot, IIRC.