Pelosi

I got asked by Richard and Emily today whether I thought Pelosi would win her Speaker’s race as if I knew something about politics, which I do actually because I write about it here every day and I read a ton of stuff that doesn’t make the cut.

What I told them was it was a virtual certainty.

Sure, there are 17, or 25, or 30 Democratic Representatives who have pledged to oppose her, Well, that’s whatever out of 237 or so and while it seems like a big deal that she could drop below the 218 in the Well of the House, there are some problems with that calculation.

First of all her opponents don’t have an alternate candidate. Don’t Marcia Fudge me, she doesn’t have nearly enough support and even if everything broke her way she could muster at best 50 votes and Pelosi would have 187. That’s 79% to 21%, a pretty crushing victory if you ask me and even if I’m optimistic about Pelosi’s strength the margin is too huge to overcome.

Second, there’s not just the one vote. Before the Speakership hits the House Floor (typically the first order of business in a new Congress) Democrats will have their own Leadership votes and if there is a rebellion in the Caucus they will soon realize the weakness of their electoral position. I expect there will be an attempt to defeat Pelosi and it will fail and the Representatives who pledged to vote against will go back to their constituents and say- “I did vote against her, in the Caucus, and she won and we lost. I kept my promise and I did my best.”

“Aha! But you voted for her on the Floor!”

“Well… yeah. I’m a Democrat- see that (D)? If I voted for Kevin McCarthy the House would still be under Republican control. Is that what you voted for? Should have voted for the Republican.”

Whatever support Marcia Fudge had in Caucus will melt like Ice Cream on bubbling asphalt (we have that kind of weather in Connecticut, don’t kid yourself).

And if the rebellion should carry the fight to the Well, what will be the result? Even if Fudge keeps all her votes it will be 198 McCarthy, 187 Pelosi, and 50 Fudge.

Here’s the thing about Speakership races, they keep voting until someone has a majority. The only way to defeat Pelosi is for Democrats to vote for McCarthy.

The House would still be under Republican control. Is that what your constituents voted for? Should have run as a Republican, that way at least you wouldn’t be a lying hypocritical traitor. Good luck next cycle, you’ll need it.

Interestingly enough if you look at the bulk of Pelosi opposition it’s made up of ConservaDems so maybe they would, but there are definitely not enough of them and they should be Primaried out of the Party (or run out of town on a rail, pitchfork, torches, tar, and feathers optional).

Now so-called “progressive” (most of them are not all that Left) Democrats did the smart thing and cut themselves a deal.

Progressives back Pelosi for speaker — in return for more power
By RACHAEL BADE, Politico
11/16/2018

It wasn’t a coincidence that moments after Nancy Pelosi promised progressive House leaders more power in the next Congress, a host of liberal groups announced they were supporting her for speaker.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, who is expected to co-chair the House Progressive Caucus next year, left a Thursday night meeting with Pelosi in the Capitol and proclaimed that her members would have more seats on powerful committees and more influence over legislation.

The Washington state Democrat then phoned MoveOn and Indivisible with the news, and they promptly tweeted out support for Pelosi. Then, on Friday morning, Jayapal, previously uncommitted on whom she would back for speaker, gave Pelosi a full-throated endorsement.
…
She went on to note that the 15 to 20 Pelosi critics trying to oust her are more centrist in their ideology and goals than the rest of the caucus. If Democrats remove her, Jayapal argued, they would effectively be turning their backs on the voters who swept Democrats into power.

“That drive is not going to take us in the direction that we should go,” Jayapal said of the effort to depose Pelosi. “It’s going to be the opposite of what the election really told us, which is a much more diverse, progressive, bold agenda.”

Pelosi’s overtures also speak to progressives’ growing influence in the Democratic Caucus. The Progressive Caucus will increase its membership by at least 20 members next year, and comprise about two-fifths of the caucus. Its leaders intend to use those numbers to boost their power and agenda — starting first with committee assignments and leadership positions, then expanding into legislation.

Adding to that heft is their relationship with powerful groups on the outside — organizations that Jayapal argues are the main reason Democrats retook the majority.

“We coordinated very closely with them, and they actually told Pelosi that they won’t come out for her until [after] our meeting,” Jayapal said. “So we are leveraging our power in different ways within the caucus but also with our allies on the outside.”

Thursday’s meeting with Pelosi included Jayapal and current Progressive Caucus Co-Chair Mark Pocan (D-Wis.). One request to which Pelosi agreed was to give the Progressive Caucus proportional representation on what lawmakers call the “A committees”: the Appropriations, Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, Financial Services and Intelligence committees.

Jayapal and Pocan also asked for “expanded leadership that allows for more progressives in the top spots,” Jayapal said. While progressives would still have to run for and be elected to the positions, it would at least ensure there would be positions for progressives to run for.

Pelosi agreed with the idea, though it is unclear whether she will create a new position in leadership, as is being discussed behind the scenes now, according to several Democratic leadership sources. Since Pelosi, Hoyer and Assistant Leader James Clyburn have been leading the caucus for 15 years, there haven’t been many openings in leadership for progressives.

One progressive lawmaker, Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), is running for assistant leader, the No. 4 position. But he is expected to be defeated by Rep. Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.), who helped win back the House as head of the caucus’ campaign arm, lawmakers and aides predict.

A new leadership spot would create an opening for Cicilline, in theory, though he would have to be elected.

Pelosi did commit to enhancing the heft of the House Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, a panel recently created to give rank-and-file members more leadership opportunities — and stocked with progressive lawmakers. Pelosi agreed to a Progressive Caucus demand that those positions include a budget and staff; they currently have neither. Several progressive lawmakers are running for these positions again next year.

The group leaders also registered their concerns about “pay-go” rules with Pelosi. Under those rules, certain bills cannot be considered if they aren’t paid for. Progressives have long run on policy positions that would be expensive, from “Medicare for all” to free college tuition. Pelosi didn’t make any commitments, but she promised to bring those rules up for debate.

In a sign of the rising influence of the Progressive Caucus leaders, outside groups specifically held off on endorsing Pelosi until she committed to these asks. After the meeting, the progressive leaders called these groups to give them the green light to back Pelosi.
…
About 30 minutes after that meeting, progressives weighed in on Twitter.

“We strongly support and call on all members of the Democratic caucus to support @NancyPelosi for Speaker,” MoveOn.org tweeted at around 6:30 p.m.. “Were it not for her skilled and effective leadership, the ACA would not be law today. Dems must reject attempts to defeat her and move caucus to the right.”

Now is Nancy Pelosi “liberal” or “progressive” or Left?

No.

That’s simply a vile Republican canard because they want to label Democrats Communist Homosexuals. Nancy Pelosi has some monumentally stupid ideas like not Impeaching W for War Crimes or Trump for his Treason. Her latest stinker is to require super majorities to raise taxes which is both anti-Democratic (large and small ‘D’), and, among other Left priorities, pretty much strangles Single Payer in it’s crib. She still supports Pay-Go which MUST GO! If Republicans don’t care about deficits why should Democrats (and MMT also says that they don’t matter, only hyper-inflation does)?

I’m as ready as the next person to turf her out, but she’s held her Caucus together though 8 years of exile in an incredibly hostile environment and there are no Democrats with the skills to replace her.

Hopefully she uses her “bridge” period to develop the leadership necessary to move forward.