Pelosi will stay on as House Minority Leader

[CountryRoads]

Oh please, stay here!


And if she does go, please let her replacement be DWS.

This.

[Vosem]

I still fail to understand everyone's burning hatred of DWS. For a Democratic House leader I rather like her.

That said, it seems Pelosi and Hoyer are both unwilling to retire before the other does; Pelosi doesn't have the necessary strength to deny Hoyer the leadership in the event of her retirement, but Hoyer doesn't have the necessary strength to take out Pelosi immediately. So a stalemate has been reached, that could conceivably continue for many, many years. If House Democrats start to really, really suck I suppose I could see Hoyer couping Pelosi, but the level of suck that would take is unlikely, so whichever of them's health begins to decline first loses, I guess.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

This is selfish of Pelosi... she ought to give Hoyer his day. What was particularly egregious is how she worked to displace him as Majority Leader years ago...she does not treat him with respect

[BM]

Hoyer doesn't deserve respect.

Nancy Pelosi is certainly the greatest Democratic leader in my lifetime, and one of the most effective in the nation's history. The possible replacements simply cannot compare so I'm glad she's staying on.

[Vosem]

Oh, Pelosi's been very effective. Most people just don't like the effects.

[RogueBeaver]

Oh, Pelosi's been very effective. Most people just don't like the effects.

^
As for caucus strength... most of the Dem caucus is liberal and combined with her CA power base, no one has a remote chance of unseating her.

[Meeker]

Oh, Pelosi's been very effective. Most people just don't like the effects.

Which is why a plurality of Americans voted for House Democrats, lead by Pelosi. Got it.

[Vosem]

Oh, Pelosi's been very effective. Most people just don't like the effects.

Which is why a plurality of Americans voted for House Democrats, lead by Pelosi. Got it.

I've already pointed out in a separate thread that while Democrats probably won the vote, it's really fundamentally unclear because many states do not count votes in races where candidates are running unopposed, and there were more such Republican candidates than Democratic candidates. An excellent diary at Daily Kos found that, if you take this into account, you find Republicans actually won the vote ( http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/08/1159272/-Dissecting-the-House-Popular-Vote ). Who truly won the PV in 2012? Probably the Democrats, but we will never really know. It was too close for that.

As for Pelosi: the only polling I could find since the 2010 cycle has been Rasmussen, which most recently showed her at 29% approval. If you don't trust Rassy, various polling agencies in 2010 found her consistently below 40%, frequently below 30%, and sometimes under 20%. Pelosi has been a net drag on House Democrats; they may have won the House popular vote in spite of that.

[Meeker]

To say Pelosi is a drag ignores the millions and millions of dollars she's able to raise each year for the DCCC that someone like Hoyer would be unable to. It's not as simple as looking at her favorability rating and guessing that that harms Democratic candidates at the ballot box.

There's a reason she's been able to stay in power for as long as she has with very little opposition amongst very ambitious people, and it's not because the House D's collectively don't understand that she's a net negative. It's because she's just the opposite.

[Vosem]

To say Pelosi is a drag ignores the millions and millions of dollars she's able to raise each year

Point taken...but she could still do that as an ex-Democratic leader. Her approval ratings are such that her very presence in the spotlight takes votes away from Democrats. I'm not denying that she doesn't raise lots of money (though so does Hoyer), just that she could do that from a position where she doesn't also cost the Democrats significant amounts. However, she is ambitious enough, even at 71, to stay as leader, which is something I can respect -- I hope I could have that sort of vitality at 71. (Considering family history, I highly doubt I'll make it to 71 at all, actually).

There's a reason she's been able to stay in power for as long as she has with very little opposition amongst very ambitious people, and it's not because the House D's collectively don't understand that she's a net negative. It's because she's just the opposite.

Yes, Pelosi has raised lots of money for many members and because of that they are loyal to her. (Also, homestate effects in the California delegation, which is big).

[Mr.Phips]

At least this stops Hoyer from becoming leader.  He would be the Democratic version of Bob Michel, a get along/go along minority leader who draws no distinctions with the other party. 

[Blue3]

I'm glad she's staying. Very effective leader. I think she's holding out until 2018 (to have a female Speaker and female President at the same time).

And wasn't one guy in charge of the House Democrats from Roosevelt to Kennedy?
Yup... Sam Rayburn was the 48th, 50th, and 52nd Speaker of the House, and Minority Leader in the off-years too. Congressman from Wilson to Kennedy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Democrat

This is selfish of Pelosi... she ought to give Hoyer his day. What was particularly egregious is how she worked to displace him as Majority Leader years ago...she does not treat him with respect

Pelosi and Hoyer were actually interns together for the same guy, in their youth, so their rivalry dates far far back

[badgate]

He now has his own highway. Maybe California will one day give Pelosi a highway.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Oh, Pelosi's been very effective. Most people just don't like the effects.

Which is why a plurality of Americans voted for House Democrats, lead by Pelosi. Got it.

I've already pointed out in a separate thread that while Democrats probably won the vote, it's really fundamentally unclear because many states do not count votes in races where candidates are running unopposed, and there were more such Republican candidates than Democratic candidates. An excellent diary at Daily Kos found that, if you take this into account, you find Republicans actually won the vote ( http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/08/1159272/-Dissecting-the-House-Popular-Vote ). Who truly won the PV in 2012? Probably the Democrats, but we will never really know. It was too close for that.

As for Pelosi: the only polling I could find since the 2010 cycle has been Rasmussen, which most recently showed her at 29% approval. If you don't trust Rassy, various polling agencies in 2010 found her consistently below 40%, frequently below 30%, and sometimes under 20%. Pelosi has been a net drag on House Democrats; they may have won the House popular vote in spite of that.

Boehner's approvals are in the same league but I don't hear you or the DC press calling him a drag and asking him when he is going to step down.

[Zioneer]

So Jim Matheson will not vote for Pelosi as Speaker. Not specifically because of this, but now do people understand why I dislike him? He's effectively saying, "yeah, I'm not a Democrat and I don't support the House Leader".

[Franzl]

So Jim Matheson will not vote for Pelosi as Speaker. Not specifically because of this, but now do people understand why I dislike him? He's effectively saying, "yeah, I'm not a Democrat and I don't support the House Leader".

This is great. He can score some political points for basically nothing. Not like it matters...and this is a Utah electorate...

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

So Jim Matheson will not vote for Pelosi as Speaker. Not specifically because of this, but now do people understand why I dislike him? He's effectively saying, "yeah, I'm not a Democrat and I don't support the House Leader".

You don't like him for scoring free and easy political capital which will enable him to support more Democratic legislation in the House?

[Zioneer]

So Jim Matheson will not vote for Pelosi as Speaker. Not specifically because of this, but now do people understand why I dislike him? He's effectively saying, "yeah, I'm not a Democrat and I don't support the House Leader".

You don't like him for scoring free and easy political capital which will enable him to support more Democratic legislation in the House?

He doesn't support Democratic legislation. I checked, and excluding procedural and committee votes, he supports Democratic legislation less than half the time. He talks like a Republican, he votes like a Republican, his public statements have not given one reason why he's a Democrat, and he has not created any legislation whether good or bad. He's a seat-warmer, and he has never explained why he doesn't just switch to the Republicans.

The Pelosi thing isn't my reason for being bitter with him; I'd be fine if he actually tried to make a different path. As it is, he just goes with whatever the Republicans want, and occasionally what the most watered-downed Dem legislation is.

[politicallefty]

It's somewhat annoying, but I understand it. If a vote is already a foregone conclusion, there's no reason to have members in very difficult districts take a hit. That's actually one of the things that made Pelosi so effective as Speaker (it's called catch-and-release). I'd say it's very unlikely you'd see enough defections to cost a leader the Speakership. You can't forget that Pelosi had unanimous support amongst the Democratic Caucus when they were in the majority.

[Paul Kemp]

Ugh she's gotta go. I've never liked her.

[Zioneer]

It's somewhat annoying, but I understand it. If a vote is already a foregone conclusion, there's no reason to have members in very difficult districts take a hit. That's actually one of the things that made Pelosi so effective as Speaker (it's called catch-and-release). I'd say it's very unlikely you'd see enough defections to cost a leader the Speakership. You can't forget that Pelosi had unanimous support amongst the Democratic Caucus when they were in the majority.

That's actually a common Republican complaint about Matheson; that he "waits to vote" until it can be assured that there'll be enough votes for a Democratic bill to easily pass without his vote.

[politicallefty]

That's just the way Congress works, but I suppose it is a legitimate complaint (for either side really). There's no added bonus for passing a bill with 250 votes instead of 218. Speaker Pelosi was very good at using that strategy when in the majority and it's not a coincidence that Obamacare passed with 219 votes. Ultimately, the most important vote a member has is the vote for majority control.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

So Jim Matheson will not vote for Pelosi as Speaker. Not specifically because of this, but now do people understand why I dislike him? He's effectively saying, "yeah, I'm not a Democrat and I don't support the House Leader".

You don't like him for scoring free and easy political capital which will enable him to support more Democratic legislation in the House?

He doesn't support Democratic legislation. I checked, and excluding procedural and committee votes, he supports Democratic legislation less than half the time. He talks like a Republican, he votes like a Republican, his public statements have not given one reason why he's a Democrat, and he has not created any legislation whether good or bad. He's a seat-warmer, and he has never explained why he doesn't just switch to the Republicans.

The Pelosi thing isn't my reason for being bitter with him; I'd be fine if he actually tried to make a different path. As it is, he just goes with whatever the Republicans want, and occasionally what the most watered-downed Dem legislation is.

http://progressivepatriots.com/house/bystate.html

Progressive Rating:
(R) Sanford Bishop (UT-01) - 14/100
(D) Jim Matheson (UT-02) - 48/100
(R) Chris Cannon (UT-03) - 10/100

Wait, he votes incredibly more Democratic than the rest of Utah House delegation? What a shocker! It's almost like he's a conservative Democrat! Didn't we make a caucus for these guys? I seem to recall that they may have been our margin for Congressional control from 2007-2011. It's almost as if being pragmatic, not blinded by "ideological purity," and not blinded by irrational distaste of the lone Democratic Congressman is a good thing for party control...

[Zioneer]

I'm not blinded by ideological purity, I'm just disappointed that for more than half of the time, he votes, talks, and takes stances along the lines of the Republicans, and provides no ideas of his own. Even if he talked about ideas that would be moderately conservative, I'd be okay with them, because at least then he wouldn't be absolutely useless; he'd be providing an alternative view. As it is, he adds nothing to the dialogue, and his "pragmatism" is more giving into the Republicans when they say "boo" than courageous moderation.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I really do hate liberals pretending to hate Pelosi. She's been an excellent speaker and minority leader. If she steps down, hopefully we get another strong liberal.

Yeah, this.