Axios:Pelosi ready to quit if it looks like shed lose the floor vote for Speaker

[YE]

Honestly, I'd prefer a speaker from outside the house – if the speaker represented my district I'd vote against them even if we agreed on every single issue, for the sole reason that the speaker doesn't vote, and therefore it's equivalent to having no representation in Congress.

I mean if we want someone outside the House, someone like Jason Kander would fit the bill perfectly.

[Oryxslayer]

This thread basically confirms my suspicions right now - unless we end up with a "crown from the gutter" situation between the various caucus's, Pelosi will probably continue because nobody is their ready to replace her. The past 7 years basically enforced an idea of a permanent minority for house dems, so there wasn't much angling for the top job since you were going nowhere. Becerra for instance could have been speaker, but ducked thinking CA statewide was a better opportunity. Ryan in 2016 basically only ran because nobody else would, I doubt he wants to be speaker. He is a young democratic rep with connections to Ohio WWC, he probably has a carrier statewide in the future - especially if Corday fails.

So now that dems actually have a shot at the top job again, everyone's restarting their musical chairs, but nobody is in tune with Pelosi yet. My thinking is that if she wins the speaker, Pelosi becomes speaker and a bunch of ambitious types get key appointments. Them Pelosi resigns later on in favor of one of these rising stars that everyone can agree on.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Is Pocan even showing signs of interest or are we just playing Kingpoleon?

[Sestak]

Honestly, I'd prefer a speaker from outside the house – if the speaker represented my district I'd vote against them even if we agreed on every single issue, for the sole reason that the speaker doesn't vote, and therefore it's equivalent to having no representation in Congress.

Tbf that's not quite true. While it's true that Speakers (usually) have a 0% vote attendance rate, they also have the power to set what is (and what isn't) in the agenda. So your district would essentially have  veto and fast-track power over most House legislators, but no representation during votes.

I mean if we want someone outside the House, someone like Jason Kander would fit the bill perfectly.

I've thought about Kander being Speaker before and I do really like the idea.

Also, is there anything prohibiting a Senator from being Speaker? Could we make Bernie speaker?

[Dr. MB]

Honestly, I'd prefer a speaker from outside the house – if the speaker represented my district I'd vote against them even if we agreed on every single issue, for the sole reason that the speaker doesn't vote, and therefore it's equivalent to having no representation in Congress.

Tbf that's not quite true. While it's true that Speakers (usually) have a 0% vote attendance rate, they also have the power to set what is (and what isn't) in the agenda. So your district would essentially have  veto and fast-track power over most House legislators, but no representation during votes.

I mean if we want someone outside the House, someone like Jason Kander would fit the bill perfectly.

I've thought about Kander being Speaker before and I do really like the idea.

Also, is there anything prohibiting a Senator from being Speaker? Could we make Bernie speaker?

I think the Speaker can be anyone. Bernie, or any other Senator, could be Speaker but I think that would probably interfere with their senate duties. There's nothing preventing Mike Pence, or Donald Trump, or Obama, or anyone else from being elected either.

[YE]

Is Pocan even showing signs of interest or are we just playing Kingpoleon?

He's been on Thom Hartman's show frequently so it's a sign he's trying to raise his profile towards the progressive base (similar to how Bernie did) and he is co-chair of the CPC. Stranger things have happened.

[DrScholl]

Electing someone from outside the House would be nothing but a stunt that wouldn't serve any purpose. Bernie Sanders has a history of being difficult to work with, so he wouldn't ever be a good choice for any leadership position. Jason Kander would never accept and neither would Obama. The Speaker of the House has never been a position about anything other than who can get the job done. It is not an easy job.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

Mike Honda was good, but c'mon, how is Ro Khanna not be a progressive so far? He might be more progressive than Bernie.

He's a Silicon Valley shill whose progressive shifts are obvious opportunism. He's as genuinely progressive as Tulsi Gabbard.

I worked with a lot of people who worked with Ro Khanna in the past and worked with Congressman Honda himself after the election. There were a lot of arguments that Honda's office was not serving the district as well as it should have and that's what inevitably lead to his downfall. Based on my admittedly subjective experience with him, I have to agree that someone new was going to have to come up in that district sooner than later.

[YE]

Ben Ray Lujan would have worked but given how he hasn't really changed the DCCC, he likely isn't the best option.

[gerritcole]

this forum is really delusional; just because someone from outside the house can be speaker means someone will be picked. all these dems have been salivating at the chance to get a leadership spot, and they're just gonna choose bernie or obama? wake up guys

[politicallefty]

This thread basically confirms my suspicions right now - unless we end up with a "crown from the gutter" situation between the various caucus's, Pelosi will probably continue because nobody is their ready to replace her. The past 7 years basically enforced an idea of a permanent minority for house dems, so there wasn't much angling for the top job since you were going nowhere. Becerra for instance could have been speaker, but ducked thinking CA statewide was a better opportunity. Ryan in 2016 basically only ran because nobody else would, I doubt he wants to be speaker. He is a young democratic rep with connections to Ohio WWC, he probably has a carrier statewide in the future - especially if Corday fails.

So now that dems actually have a shot at the top job again, everyone's restarting their musical chairs, but nobody is in tune with Pelosi yet. My thinking is that if she wins the speaker, Pelosi becomes speaker and a bunch of ambitious types get key appointments. Them Pelosi resigns later on in favor of one of these rising stars that everyone can agree on.

I think this is exactly right. So many people have no idea how the House actually works. There's zero chance it'll ever be someone from outside the House itself. I would agree with most that a very slim majority would be very problematic for Pelosi regaining the Speakership next year, but anything above 225-230 really removes any doubt. It's also one thing to vote for new leadership within your party, but it's quite another to vote against your own leadership on the House floor itself on the opening day. Last year, only five total members (4D, 1R) actually defected on the vote for Speaker (despite the outright challenge to Pelosi's leadership). The closest we've come to outright rebellion on the floor was January 2015, when 25 Republicans voted against Boehner on the House floor while Pelosi lost 3 of her members. Unless the party defeats her internally, Pelosi will win on the floor except upon the very slimmest of majoriites (and even then, I wouldn't discount her abilities to retain power).

I don't think House Democrats are ready for a post-Pelosi paradigm right now. I'd always thought her successor was going to be Becerra, one of her very top lieutenants. The progressive left had better be careful though. Pelosi is originally from the Congressional Progressive Caucus. She is only not now because, as leader, she refuses to be part of any ideological caucus. A lot of progressives hate her only because she was pragmatic enough to realize the futility of attempting to impeaching Bush and/or Cheney. Pelosi is without a doubt in the progressive wing of the party. Some people just can't understand what it means to lead a party that is so much more than just one ideological wing. To be honest, while she still retained about 70% of the caucus on her leadership vote after the 2016 election, I think a lot of Democrats were still shell-shocked from the presidential results just a couple weeks earlier. Even Tim Ryan himself voted for Pelosi on the floor in January 2017.

As for replacing her, if there's someone with her legislative skill, let's see who that is (and I don't mean Hoyer or Clyburn). I don't think there's anyone near her in that aspect. There is no real successor right now if you're looking for fully new leadership.  I think Pelosi needs to hold on to power for the next Congress and if Democrats can take back the trifecta in 2020, she should stand down sometime in 2021 or 2022 after moving through some landmark progressive legislation. Pelosi could announce her retirement in January 2021, but have new leadership elections sometime mid-way through that Congress (perhaps around the 2022 SOTU).

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Maxine would be an okay face, but a terrible leader.

I'd think the opposite. If you think the Republicans don't like Pelosi, they'd hate Maxine with every bone in their body.

Well, maybe. But she'd excite the base a lot more. But yeah, Republicans would rag on her even more than they do Pelosi. I maintain she'd be ineffectual as a leader in her ability to actually get votes passed.

If Maxine Waters became speaker, quite frankly, I'd stop donating to the DCCC or doing any volunteer work for Democratic House candidates.  She's notoriously corrupt, tends to demonize folks she disagrees with, and used to dabble in race-baiting (IDK if she still does although it wouldn't surprise me).  And that's without getting into the fact that she'd be, as you say, terrible at getting anything passed which is one of the most important parts of being Speaker (and was Pelosi's greatest strength; Pelosi is/was a terrible minority leader, but a highly effective Speaker). 

In any case, it's gonna be Crowley which is fine.  He wouldn't be my choice, but we could definitely do a lot worse.  Hoyer is too old and I've read that he's to the right of Pelosi although IDK for sure (he's been much better than her about pushing for sexual predators within the House Democratic caucus to resign though).  Clyburn is also too old, but my biggest beef with him (and the thing which makes him an objectively horrible person) is the way he shamelessly resorted to blatant race-baiting to try to discredit John Conyers' victims.

[TheSaint250]

Tim Ryan for Speaker!

[politicallefty]

If Maxine Waters became speaker, quite frankly, I'd stop donating to the DCCC or doing any volunteer work for Democratic House candidates.  She's notoriously corrupt, tends to demonize folks she disagrees with, and used to dabble in race-baiting (IDK if she still does although it wouldn't surprise me).  And that's without getting into the fact that she'd be, as you say, terrible at getting anything passed which is one of the most important parts of being Speaker (and was Pelosi's greatest strength; Pelosi is/was a terrible minority leader, but a highly effective Speaker). 

In any case, it's gonna be Crowley which is fine.  He wouldn't be my choice, but we could definitely do a lot worse.  Hoyer is too old and I've read that he's to the right of Pelosi although IDK for sure (he's been much better than her about pushing for sexual predators within the House Democratic caucus to resign though).  Clyburn is also too old, but my biggest beef with him (and the thing which makes him an objectively horrible person) is the way he shamelessly resorted to blatant race-baiting to try to discredit John Conyers' victims.

I would suggest you don't resign yourself to one article months before the general election or any possible leadership election. I agree with you that Pelosi is one of the most effective Speakers we've ever had, but don't discredit her leadership even in the minority. Under her leadership, House Democrats have been a wall as much as they can to the Republican agenda. That is no small feat.

We need to stick with Pelosi. She's a tactical genius when it comes to legislating. If anyone bothers to read from historians, she already ranks among the most powerful and effective Speakers we've ever had. I think we need to give her a chance again. With her as Speaker again, I think we could get DACA and a minimum wage increase.

I think some on the right may be just be terrified of the prospect of the Speaker of the House rising to the Presidency for the first time ever. If (in 2019) Trump goes down and Pence follows, Nancy Pelosi would become the President (albeit a caretaker, but the President nonetheless). I can think of few things that would cause sheer and utter panic like the prospect of President Pelosi.

Tim Ryan for Speaker!

As any true Republican would say when faced with a Democratic Majority.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Tim Ryan is overrated. Also it would be kind of weird to have two successive Speakers named 'Ryan.' That might confuse some less-informed voters. Pocan would be acceptable for me.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Tim Ryan is overrated. Also it would be kind of weird to have two successive Speakers named 'Ryan.' That might confuse some less-informed voters. Pocan would be acceptable for me.

Tim Ryan would be a good Speaker, but he won't get the post.  Also, why Pocan?  Has he done anything to distinguish himself?

[Progressive Pessimist]

Tim Ryan is overrated. Also it would be kind of weird to have two successive Speakers named 'Ryan.' That might confuse some less-informed voters. Pocan would be acceptable for me.

Tim Ryan would be a good Speaker, but he won't get the post.  Also, why Pocan?  Has he done anything to distinguish himself?

Just because people on the board keep touting Pocan as Speaker recently. I doubt he'd be in the running honestly.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Like I said, there's really only one guy who has proven leadership skills and experience, would be acceptable to progressives, not infuriate centrists and has no serious red flags. And that's Chris Van Hollen. His jump to the Senate has greatly diminished the post-Pelosi bench.

Maybe Adam Schiff.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Like I said, there's really only one guy who has proven leadership skills and experience, would be acceptable to progressives, not infuriate centrists and has no serious red flags. And that's Chris Van Hollen. His jump to the Senate has greatly diminished the post-Pelosi bench.

Maybe Adam Schiff.

I completely agree re: Van Hollen.  We need Schiff where he is until Trump's out of office though.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Mike Honda was good, but c'mon, how is Ro Khanna not be a progressive so far? He might be more progressive than Bernie.

He's a Silicon Valley shill whose progressive shifts are obvious opportunism. He's as genuinely progressive as Tulsi Gabbard.

Gee, I can't possibly imagine why you made that comparison.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Mike Honda was good, but c'mon, how is Ro Khanna not be a progressive so far? He might be more progressive than Bernie.

He's a Silicon Valley shill whose progressive shifts are obvious opportunism. He's as genuinely progressive as Tulsi Gabbard.

I mean is it really any different than Kirsten Gillibrand though who went from a Blue Dogish to a progressive?

This is what's different I suspect:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Also BRTD Khanna was an Obama appointee. He's no more of a "Silicon Valley shill" than like half the people who worked in the Obama administration and/or as senior staff on his presidential campaigns. And he hasn't literally met with Trump or Assad, so take that Gabbard comparison elsewhere.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Mike Honda was good, but c'mon, how is Ro Khanna not be a progressive so far? He might be more progressive than Bernie.

He's a Silicon Valley shill whose progressive shifts are obvious opportunism. He's as genuinely progressive as Tulsi Gabbard.

Gee, I can't possibly imagine why you made that comparison.

I assume it's because Khanna did more or less the same thing Gabbard did.

Also BRTD Khanna was an Obama appointee. He's no more of a "Silicon Valley shill" than like half the people who worked in the Obama administration and/or as senior staff on his presidential campaigns. And he hasn't literally met with Trump or Assad, so take that Gabbard comparison elsewhere.

Being appointed to a position in the Commerce Department by Obama and being a Silicon Valley shill are not mutually exclusive.

[mcmikk]

Seems to be an ok amount of Pocan hype, which is honestly a little strange lol. I don't really see any signs that he even wants to be Speaker, and I highly doubt he will become Speaker. That said, if the opportunity were to arise, he'd have my full backing to succeed Pelosi. I may be a little biased because he's my Rep, but he's fairly personable and likable, not to mention Midwestern, gay, co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, and according to his Twitter he's a small business owner and a labor union member?

Not bad. Though I feel like I'd prefer him as a Senator than as a party figurehead.

[Mr. Morden]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/facing-gop-attacks-more-democratic-candidates-ditch-pelosi-n860451

You must be logged in to read this quote.