If you actually believe this, it explains a lot about your posts. I think it's an inaccurate claim, but it at least explains where you're coming from.
I don't think anybody here except for the handful of conservatives lurking around would say they hate Pelosi more than Trump. What differentiates the two is that we have no power over Trump, while Pelosi can be and has been encouraged to support progressive causes by the left wing of the party and their constituents. This is why criticism of Pelosi is common.
The majority of posters I've seen dunking on Pelosi here come from the left, not the right. Conservatives in OT are practically unicorns. I agree that Pelosi should be criticised, however, where I draw the line is where all the responsibility falls on her and while she has immense responsibility this ignores many things outside of her control and are working against her both within and without the Democratic party. Far too often people assume what she's doing is protecting Trump when that's really what's McConnell's doing all along, despite that she gets ten times more ink spilled negatively in her direction than he ever did in this forum. Pelosi encouraging the left should seen as a positive thing not make her enemy #1 in congress, that's what an ally does not an enemy. Criticism is expected, holding her accountable for everything wrong in congress is not.
This isn't about power, per se. Neither McConnell, nor Pelosi will be affected by what people say on a message board. They only thing which will impact them is either the law arresting them, or getting replaced in an election and the latter will be settled in a voting booth not an internet forum. ERA could have just as many threads about shitting on McConnell and he'd get the exact same impact politically. While hurting Pelosi may hurt turnout to a small degree, she's absolutely safe both in her district and holding the Speakership from leftist challengers.
As for Bernie's coalition building, how much of that is his responsibility? He's found many allies in people like Warren and AOC, because they support the same causes that he does. He can encourage others to adopt his policies and advocate all he wants, but only some people will be receptive to that.
That's all his responsibility, like every candidate running for president - and it doesn't usually start when entering the primaries, that's what politicians spend the entire career making alliances and friends and he's spent decades in congress so he less excuse then most. If those are all the allies he has in congress he's not getting anything done, he needs hundreds of allies not a few and the JD's aren't all going to fall into lock step with him as shown with the recent voting bills. It's not his job to "encourage" people to join him, he has to convince them to - if he fails to do that he won't have a coalition in congress worth anything, and he has to maintain whatever grip he has which is a trick in itself. Lots of politicians believe in Bernie's causes, what they disagree with him about is his stubbornness and implementation. Believing in the same goals is nowhere near what he needs, he need them to sign off on his methods for his bills or they're dead on arrival. Look at what AOC's Green New Deal is going through, that's a preview of what his bills would be like in the process. If only some people in congress are receptive to his ideas he's already failed his mission.
How many coalitions had Obama built by the time he was elected, given how quick his ascent took place?
Obama's a rare politician that built a coalition with only a few years under is belt, and solidified that coalition from Hillary in '08. And he still failed the majority of his goals because the forces working against him were stronger than what he built. And he managed to build a coalition stronger than Bernie ever did, despite his short time as an active politician compared to Bernie.
For example, this article goes into what the Obama coalition looked like.
Now, her campaign envisions replicating the coalition that backed Barack Obama's 2008 primary upset: "Asians, Latinos and other voters of color, as well as educated white liberals" and young voters.
However, when I say coalition it's not simply about the voting blocs, it's about allies in congress and the Democratic party itself. Without them the POTUS influence drastically shrinks. Every president needs to be able to work with the party and get them to back them up, that's the point of joining a politician party.
And hell, how many coalitions has any other candidate built. From the first time I'd read this argument, it seemed like Sanders was being held to a far higher standard than other candidate.
Every president builds a coalition while running, however, Bernie's mission requires more set up given the make up of his agenda since he's in a capitalist country operating on a socialist agenda. Obama had huge goals in reforming the system but that pales to what Bernie wants to do. I'm holding Bernie to his own standard, given he isn't a typical candidate with his agenda. Bigger goals require bigger coalitions, and he requires more people to be in lockstep than the rest. So far every nominee has had incremental plans and this is not what Bernie wants. He wants the big changes, and he's not going to get it simply by absorbing incremental inclined allies. He needs socialists, not capitalists, and they're in short supply in congress in both chambers.
