Dems divided over Pelosi's 'transitional' Speaker pitch

[brooklynite]

The Hill:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has a new pitch in her bid for Speaker: She’ll consider stepping down at the end of the next Congress.

The idea of a “transitional” Speaker, a term the 78-year-old California Democrat has floated in recent days, appears designed to win over younger lawmakers who are clamoring for generational change in the leadership ranks but have yet to line up a credible challenger.

The strategy could allow more time for the next Democratic leader to emerge while also providing cover for the slew of candidates distancing themselves from Pelosi on the campaign trail.

“The reality is, she herself has said she doesn’t want to do this forever,” freshman Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who represents a San Francisco Bay-area district near Pelosi’s, told The Hill in a telephone interview. “Everyone knows there’s gonna be a transition. And everyone knows we don’t have a logical successor.”

[FreepFryer]

1. Intended takeaway? "Dems divided." Thanks for the uncritical forward, Brooklynite. (n/t)

[brooklynite]

2. "I really hate Trump, but all this leadership debate makes me not want to vote..."

Whatever story makes you happy.

[FreepFryer]

3. How about "GOTV, Democrats!" without all the holier-than-thou insider baseball bullshit?

Way more our speed.

[WeekiWater]

8. "I really hate Trump, but all this leadership debate makes me not want to vote..."

"And that's why I spend every day promoting the false debate!"

[NurseJackie]

10. Of course.

1. Intended takeaway? "Dems divided." Thanks for the uncritical forward, Brooklynite. (n/t)

Of course. I believe you're correct in your observations. You're not the only one sees that theme.

[brush]

29. Never fails with a couple of obvious posters to always go the divide Dems route.

[FreepFryer]

6. Attacking Pelosi 15 days before the most important midterms in our lifetimes seems...

...seriously fucking stupid.

[Pity Puddles]

11. Maybe i shouldnt have deleted it

But we can save that argument for after the election. Ill bring it up on the 7th.

[marble falls]

13. Go ahead. Put it back up. Whats the worst that could happen? If you believe ...

it, own it.

[Pity Puddles]

14. Problem is we don't have the House (yet)

If we do, we can talk about who should be the Speaker.

[marble falls]

16. Hopefully without slagging Rep Polosi.

[Pity Puddles]

17. My OP wasnt even that

It wasnt an attack to Pelosi at all.

I would PM you what the post was about.... But i dont have enough yet

[marble falls]

20. We don't need to make the Speakership about Rep Polosi, then. Just tout your selection.

[Pity Puddles]

22. Hmmm

There are excellent choices. I like DeGette, and I like Waters, I like Lee. I just want a new generation coming in.

Id prefer that Pelosi doesnt stay a speaker but allow someone younger and more in tune with America, taking the reigns while counting on Pelosi for advice and wisdom.

Thats all I want. Doesnt sound so bad doesnt it?

[MrsCoffee]

26. Yes it sounds bad.

Someone younger and more in tune? For fuck's sake. We are going to need her experience to navigate some pretty fucking rough waters if we take back the house.

You want her advice and wisdom? Of course you do. Leave her the fuck alone and let her do her job then.

[Wintryjade]

31. I am thinking I want experience also.

[FreepFryer]

32. Yup. Let Nancy choose her successor when she's ready. Let's focus on McConnell's and Trump's first.

[kcr]

28. Yes

And it's so obvious.

[WeekiWater]

5. Class and all about the team at every turn.

She is awesome. I love how some take her words and then add their own ignorant opinions in an attempt to cause division. Next up, some dumb ass will make MJ a generational thing among leadership. One thing you can guarantee about angry morons, they will sound like angry morons.

[FreepFryer]

7. +1 (n/t)

[Bettie]

9. Get the house back

and THEN have this stupid argument.

[Pity Puddles]

12. +1

Had to delete my post because of that.

[marble falls]

15. Before you revisit your self-deleted post on Nov 7, read the ToS again. I think ...

you may have missed sone of the most important terms.

[Pity Puddles]

19. Again

It was not even an violation of the TOS.

It was regarding Pelosi's future if the Democrats retake the House.

Like i said, ill save the argument for after the election. Thus, deleting the thread.

[MrsCoffee]

18. Unrec.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

21. This sort of discussion *really* needs to wait until after we've won back the House

Democrats need to focus on winning the House and holding on to our seats in the Senate. Priorities. Priorities

[awesomerwb1]

23. I think the Dems need to be on point with policies to help middle class and poor

and hold on to strategy until after the elections.

"If we win we'll subpoena. If we win, maybe I won't be speaker for very long"....(this is just from Pelosi).

"Everybody knows we don't have a logical successor"....etc etc

SHUT UP ALREADY DEMS. Why not just say we're focused on the midterms and protecting healthcare and preexisting conditions etc etc etc, we'll know more about how the House we'll proceed after the elections if we take it back.

Some of these dummies from the press know that if they ask the "right" question for ratings the DEMS will take the bait and then some

[Demsrule86]

24. She needs to stay until Trump is gone period.

And the next speaker must hail from a rock solid blue state.

[Demsrule86]

25. Can I also say we are 20 days out from an election where it is critical we take back the house.

I don't understand posts like this in that context.

[FSogol]

27. I think The Hill uses a template to create stories. Here it is: "Democrats Divided Over....."

Just fill in the blank!

[brush]

30. Can you not post "divide Dems" stuff until at least after the election please?