-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Nancy Pelosi: A Glass of Water Could Take Districts like AOC’s or Mine
- Thread starter Deleted member 22490
- Start date
This is really not how congress works. It's how federal and state wide elections work, but congressional elections are split up via districts and as long as a candidate appeals to a plurality/majority of their district, they'll win re-election, and it's what Pelosi is saying. It's why you can have progressive candidates like AOC or Nancy Pelosi -- and if they win their primary they'll likely win their congressional seat -- and then centrist candidates in, say, Oklahoma 5. Nancy Pelosi or AOC would not win in Oklahoma 5. This is also why you tend to have more ideological polarity in the House vs. the Senate.
You need a broad coalition of ideological diversity to hold congress, which makes it easier to pursue progressive policy, not to mention directing the conversation around progressive issues. If those ~40 less progressive Democrats did not flip Republican seats in 2018, then AOC -- even if she still won -- would not be on the House Committee for FInancial Services or Subcommittee on the Environment for Oversight & Reform Committee. She's on those committees, and is able to propose progressive ideals like The Green New Deal, because those 40 less progressive Democrats who flipped Republican seats gave Democrats the majority, and Democrats could appoint new members to those committees.
She's right but she has a very bizarre way of making an otherwise simple point.
She inadvertently makes her voter base sound like mindless sheep and devalues her Dem candidates by describing them as pasture feed.
She should have just said flat out that they should focus more on winning the swing states/districts, and pander less to the traditional districts for an easy ego boost. There's no need to mangle any metaphors here.
She inadvertently makes her voter base sound like mindless sheep and devalues her Dem candidates by describing them as pasture feed.
She should have just said flat out that they should focus more on winning the swing states/districts, and pander less to the traditional districts for an easy ego boost. There's no need to mangle any metaphors here.
Last edited:
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary/nancy-pelosi?cid=N00007360
She raised around 1/3rd from small donors (less than $200 contribution), another third from large donors (between $200 and $5000 individual contributions) and around a fourth from PAC's which range from candidate committees and private contributors.
Nothing really stands out in terms of "being bought by the machine" criticism.
Bernie can win on Fox News until Fox News reminds their audience Fox News wants to give all that free stuff to brown, black, and non-straight people as well, and he wants to massively raise taxes to do and on the latter point, they'd actually be right, since if Bernie and his supporters want a European social welfare state, they better be willing to actually advocate for European level taxes or they're just as big liars as anybody on the right who says tax cuts can pay for themselves.
She's totally right, and I say that as someone living in a "swing" district who in 2020 just barely elected a pretty moderate democrat over a batshit crazy tea partier.
Those pointing to Sanders or AOC's economic policies are missing a large part of the picture I think here. Yes, the economy and healthcare are very important to people in more conservative districts, but they're hardly the only issues. You also have to worry about how to frame the "democratic" message on issues like immigration, gun control, abortion, environmental policy, taxation, etc. etc. in districts that are very much wary of liberal positions in those issues.
And yeah in theory some little stuff like what Sanders is ruining on could be popular to the "average" working class american, but that's a figurative idea that doesn't exist in practice. Because in practice you often have many in those districts relying heavily on fossil fuel industries, or have other local industries push back hard against those same policies. That has a huge effect on those areas and makes them much harder to win than many here are imagining.
These politicians aren't taking moderate positions because they're corporate shills, they're doing it because that's what the constituents in those areas really and truly believe. And even then it's difficult as hell to win those areas, which is why I have in a lot of ways more respect for house members in more conservative districts than people like Pelosi or AOC. It's a damn hard act trying to pass through policies that you believe will help the US and your constituents while also having to worry about winning again in 2 years when the challenge will be even more difficult than what got you in. And knowing that if enough of those districts flip back, there will be a republican lead house again. It ain't easy by any means.
Those pointing to Sanders or AOC's economic policies are missing a large part of the picture I think here. Yes, the economy and healthcare are very important to people in more conservative districts, but they're hardly the only issues. You also have to worry about how to frame the "democratic" message on issues like immigration, gun control, abortion, environmental policy, taxation, etc. etc. in districts that are very much wary of liberal positions in those issues.
And yeah in theory some little stuff like what Sanders is ruining on could be popular to the "average" working class american, but that's a figurative idea that doesn't exist in practice. Because in practice you often have many in those districts relying heavily on fossil fuel industries, or have other local industries push back hard against those same policies. That has a huge effect on those areas and makes them much harder to win than many here are imagining.
These politicians aren't taking moderate positions because they're corporate shills, they're doing it because that's what the constituents in those areas really and truly believe. And even then it's difficult as hell to win those areas, which is why I have in a lot of ways more respect for house members in more conservative districts than people like Pelosi or AOC. It's a damn hard act trying to pass through policies that you believe will help the US and your constituents while also having to worry about winning again in 2 years when the challenge will be even more difficult than what got you in. And knowing that if enough of those districts flip back, there will be a republican lead house again. It ain't easy by any means.
2010 was easily the most pathetic display of campaigning I've ever seen, which is why it bothers me that it people entirely dismiss it as a cycle when, like you say, it's both. I think there's more to learn about what not to do from that election than 2016 or any other in my lifetime.
Back then I wasn't that informed about politics and I was certain Obama and the ACA were absolutely terrible, not because of how far it did or didn't go, but because I thought it was outright corrupt and would make everything worse for everyone. At that time I completely believed the disingenuous interpretation of Pelosi's famous "You have to pass it to find out what's in it" and you know why? Because it lined up perfectly with every single other democrat being afraid to talk forthrightly about it. So obviously they're hiding something bad, right?
I'm sure I heard the intended meaning at some point, but if someone you don't know that much about said "just trust me, you're to dumb to understand this is for your own good" are you seriously going to believe they're doing anything but trying to screw you? Who in the world do you think you're convincing by acting like this?
I fully intended to vote third party again in 2010 until I caught a full Obama speech where he actually explained why ACA was so good even without a public option. Turns out people were right that democrats were hiding something, but what they were hiding was good. Unfortunately I don't think many saw it because democrat centrists were shitting on Obama that election in another display of making the republican argument for them.
And Pelosi is doing the same when talking about AOC, openly talking about how for the sake of centrists we need to not talk about the impactful things we would rather do in private. This frame of mind should worry you about losing people in the soft middle, and it should be apparent if you step away from the political calculus and poll results and right/left spectrums, and just put yourself in the shoes of the people you're trying to convince.
Last edited:
This never made sense to me.
Can't imagine voting with an all or nothing mindset.
Well Nancy Pelosi is one of the best and most effective speakers of the house in history so there's that. She doesn't have much much in the way of personality or charisma so I don't think people like her for that.
How are people trying so hard to defend Pelosi's horrible statement here?
She's clearly attacking the women she just pretended to be happy and friendly with and diminishing everything they did to win their seats.
Saying "anyone could have beaten Crowley" is very suspect.
I mean, with a strong enough progressive message maybe. but that's not "anyone", that's clearly her trying to take a shot at progressive values over big money candidates. She clearly didnt think anyone could beat Crowley when AOC won, and nobody except progressives were talking about her before then either.
In that same way, she wont see her own loss coming when people primary her ass.
Have you not listened to a single person who supports Sanders on why they support him? If you did, you'd see after 5 seconds why its not a cult of personality.
That's as silly as saying "well people rightly claim Omar is an anti semite, but what about the republicans who are anti semites too?" Like, its a complete false equivocation.
You get people who start talking about important progressive issues strongly and they will become as big as AOC or Sanders.
And Sanders does...? He has literally zero charisma or fashion sense or personal appeal. People like his policies and his record on those policies.
What is the deal with acting like everyone who is a social democrat who follows social democrats are some hollow vapid people who dont know a thing about what they are supporting?
Nancy pelosi has been speaker for a lot of years. I dont think its even fair to compare her "capability" to the possible job someone else could do in her position, its a silly claim to make.
She's clearly attacking the women she just pretended to be happy and friendly with and diminishing everything they did to win their seats.
Saying "anyone could have beaten Crowley" is very suspect.
I mean, with a strong enough progressive message maybe. but that's not "anyone", that's clearly her trying to take a shot at progressive values over big money candidates. She clearly didnt think anyone could beat Crowley when AOC won, and nobody except progressives were talking about her before then either.
In that same way, she wont see her own loss coming when people primary her ass.
Have you not listened to a single person who supports Sanders on why they support him? If you did, you'd see after 5 seconds why its not a cult of personality.
That's as silly as saying "well people rightly claim Omar is an anti semite, but what about the republicans who are anti semites too?" Like, its a complete false equivocation.
You get people who start talking about important progressive issues strongly and they will become as big as AOC or Sanders.
And Sanders does...? He has literally zero charisma or fashion sense or personal appeal. People like his policies and his record on those policies.
What is the deal with acting like everyone who is a social democrat who follows social democrats are some hollow vapid people who dont know a thing about what they are supporting?
Nancy pelosi has been speaker for a lot of years. I dont think its even fair to compare her "capability" to the possible job someone else could do in her position, its a silly claim to make.
Last edited:
Hey I know why people support him...
I know that he is the most progressive among all candidates.
I also know that at best, he is a compromise candidate to some, and that there are people out there putting him at a pedestal that's way too high..
Last edited:
She didn't do anything like that AND she included herself in the comparison. Maybe read the entire thing before posting.
I don't care about Pelosi or AOC either way, but this entire discussion is ridiculous. Just get Trump out and tear each other apart afterwards.
She put herself in the comparison so she wouldn't be critizied for the statement. Its a rhetoical trick a lot of politicians use. The main point she wanted to get out there was to downplay AOC and other progressives who won. "Anyone could've won that district", "Its only like 5 people", etc. Its the same sort of idea. Downplay the sucesses progressives have had so you don't have to listen to them.
Last edited:
Compromise candidate? To a majority of people who support him, they are pragmatic enough to realize that no candidate is perfect. There is literally nobody who is not a compromise candidate. Nobody who supports the guy thinks he has no flaws, so its completely ridiculous to claim that's where they are coming from. If it wasnt, the purity test attacks would not be so fervent on the policy angle.
Most of the defense of the guy comes in response to hacky attacks that dont make any sense or are manufactured criticisms.
I could list off plenty of issues i have with Sanders in regards to his policy. But for those who support the guy's run for president and his policy views, he's clearly the best in the running not just in the run for President, but in the senate and arguably in congress in most ways by a country mile, and that's the point. Which says more about America's political situation than anything else that a decently consistent social democrat is the furthest left in Washington and is one of the only prominent politicians pointing out the issues of the system pretty much anywhere.
A glass of water could beat AOC is super open and shut. Stop trying to twist it to be favorable to her
No, she said a glass of water could beat their Republican opponents.
Fuck, my bad, and I've actually read the article haha
Sorry - this is why I shouldn't post whilst working lol
Is this the same pelosi who said JD trying to take over the dem party was just like 5 people and that they know that centrism is the only realistic course?
Its pathetic
I don't like Pelosi but if we're going to criticise her lets make sure it's for what she actually said.
I think your misunderstanding me. The issue is that she is talking down to AOC by arguing that winning solid blue districts dont matter because only centrism will win across America broadly. She's still attacking progressives firstly by downplaying their wins(and then coming up with some halfhearted bone to throw) then saying implying that the district doesnt matter on the electoral map if its blue, it doesnt matter if its someone like AOC or someone like Crowley who literally got his shit kicked in because there was an inherent difference in those philosophies to the point where people wanted someone different. That's the issue i'm highlighting and how Nancy is failing the D party.
People keep trying to say "no she wasnt talking about AOC, she was talking about winning GOP seats!" She's at the heart of it, trying to diminish what the progressive movement is trying to do, and attempting to push the exact same strategy that has given the GOP wins across America and pushed the Dems into irrelevance.
For those of us who think that the democratic party establishment has no grasp on why they have failed so far and lost the white house, there is no clarification to Pelosi's words, we know exactly what she's saying.
Yeah I 100% agree with everything you said...
My question is, why are there people who can criticize Bernie (whether he warrants criticism or not) but turn a blind eye towards Nancy Pelosi for things she deserves criticism for?
I'm not voting for Trump. I'll vote for the candidate with the best chance to get him out of office