Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Just curious if anyone thinks the Democrats could limit their losses in the House if Democrats installed new leadership right now? With both parties equally unliked by voters it might make sense that new leadership could save some seats for the party.

Nancy Pelosi is the most unpopular Democrat in Washington to voters.

What do you think?

Nope.

The public has seen the ineffectiveness of a Democratic supermajority + Democratic President over the last 16 months. You can eliminate Pelosi and/or Frank, but I think the suspicion of ineptness is broader than that. It's broader than simply the Dems - people are sick of incumbents and career politicians.

ASUG8 wrote:Nope.

The public has seen the ineffectiveness of a Democratic supermajority + Democratic President over the last 16 months. You can eliminate Pelosi and/or Frank, but I think the suspicion of ineptness is broader than that. It's broader than simply the Dems - people are sick of incumbents and career politicians.

Maybe, yet except for a few instances, neither party seems interested in voting out their current members in primaries.... and aside from a few long term members most of the changed seats this year will be either open seats or members who have served only a term or two.

I agree with asug8. I don't think it's a democrat v. republican thing. Incumbent are the target. And for good reason. I hope they all get thrown out.

UNHWildCats wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:Nope.

The public has seen the ineffectiveness of a Democratic supermajority + Democratic President over the last 16 months. You can eliminate Pelosi and/or Frank, but I think the suspicion of ineptness is broader than that. It's broader than simply the Dems - people are sick of incumbents and career politicians.

Maybe, yet except for a few instances, neither party seems interested in voting out their current members in primaries.... and aside from a few long term members most of the changed seats this year will be either open seats or members who have served only a term or two.

Probably right - I think if nothing else the voting populace is starting to do what they should have always done, which is find out what the candidates stand for and give them their just scrutiny. I don't think you have as many "dyed in the wool" Dems or Repubs as we used to, and voters are becoming more issue driven vs. voting a straight ticket.

andy7171 wrote:I agree with asug8. I don't think it's a democrat v. republican thing. Incumbent are the target. And for good reason. I hope they all get thrown out.

I certainly would be all for that, but as I said, those that are the real problem... the entrenched members who have been there 10+ years wont be the ones looking for new jobs.

ASUG8 wrote:

UNHWildCats wrote: Maybe, yet except for a few instances, neither party seems interested in voting out their current members in primaries.... and aside from a few long term members most of the changed seats this year will be either open seats or members who have served only a term or two.

Probably right - I think if nothing else the voting populace is starting to do what they should have always done, which is find out what the candidates stand for and give them their just scrutiny. I don't think you have as many "dyed in the wool" Dems or Repubs as we used to, and voters are becoming more issue driven vs. voting a straight ticket.

The biggest problem for change is the system favors the incumbents right down to the National Parties being allowed to bankroll candidates, and we know that 99% of the time the Parties will favor their incumbents.

UNHWildCats wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
Probably right - I think if nothing else the voting populace is starting to do what they should have always done, which is find out what the candidates stand for and give them their just scrutiny. I don't think you have as many "dyed in the wool" Dems or Repubs as we used to, and voters are becoming more issue driven vs. voting a straight ticket.

The biggest problem for change is the system favors the incumbents right down to the National Parties being allowed to bankroll candidates, and we know that 99% of the time the Parties will favor their incumbents.

Which is why the Tea Party is such an interesting phenomena - not quite 3rd party, not quite extreme wing of the established GOP, not quite sane - but single-minded in purpose as to what their political goals are...

Rob Iola wrote: Which is why the Tea Party is such an interesting phenomena - not quite 3rd party, not quite extreme wing of the established GOP, not quite sane - but single-minded in purpose as to what their political goals are...

Huh? That seems to me to be exactly what they are.

Too late for that. Besides, it would be easier to separate Pelosi from her Super Poli-Grip than from the Speakership!

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Rob Iola wrote: Which is why the Tea Party is such an interesting phenomena - not quite 3rd party, not quite extreme wing of the established GOP, not quite sane - but single-minded in purpose as to what their political goals are...

Huh? That seems to me to be exactly what they are.

Lets be honest, jelly...middle of the road is extreme to you...

"If it ain't extreme left...it ain't right"...

Ivytalk wrote:Too late for that. Besides, it would be easier to separate Pelosi from her Super Poli-Grip than from the Speakership!

Much, Much too late for a Pelosi resignation to do anything to impact the November elections...

Col Hogan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Huh? That seems to me to be exactly what they are.

Lets be honest, jelly...middle of the road is extreme to you...

"If it ain't extreme left...it ain't right"...

So teabaggers are middle of the road? Teabaggers aren't extreme?

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
Lets be honest, jelly...middle of the road is extreme to you...

"If it ain't extreme left...it ain't right"...

So teabaggers are middle of the road? Teabaggers aren't extreme?

Apparently you think they are...or am I wrong...

Col Hogan wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Too late for that. Besides, it would be easier to separate Pelosi from her Super Poli-Grip than from the Speakership!

Much, Much too late for a Pelosi resignation to do anything to impact the November elections...

Kinda the other way around, no? After the November elections, Pelosi's resignation will be a moot point...

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
Lets be honest, jelly...middle of the road is extreme to you...

"If it ain't extreme left...it ain't right"...

So teabaggers are middle of the road? Teabaggers aren't extreme?

They're not extreme in the political spectrum sense - they're extremely focused on down-sizing government. They're a force to be reckoned with in this economic climate, but otherwise their movement wouldn't have nearly the same influence/size.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
Lets be honest, jelly...middle of the road is extreme to you...

"If it ain't extreme left...it ain't right"...

So teabaggers are middle of the road? Teabaggers aren't extreme?

If anything, the Democratic and Republican party have become the extremists. Both have entrenched their platforms with pro/anti abortion litmus tests as the primary issue. Both have ignored fiscal prudence, industry and jobs. Both have run roughshod over civil liberties, under the guise of ensuring national security. Both have promoted globalization at the expense of America's prosperity. Both have knelt in deference to multi-national corporation greed (and before you go on a "Wal-Mart-Bad" rant, remember that the impetus for the "profit-trumps-all, Wall Street greed" is driven by banks, instituional investors, and "old-money rich", the ultimate "consumers", many of whom are, or cater to, baby boomers and limousine liberals who are modern day quasi-capitalist/feudalist bourgeoisie. "Eating their young", has never been a part of traditional capitalist/industrialist policy: Longevity and growth [survival] supplant short-term opulence. And that's a fact, Jack...deal with it.).

The Tea Party is more middle of the road libertarian than either party.

Jellydonut, you, along with the other lefties, are just fearful their libertarian message has become attractive to the "traditional" Democrats who view preservation and devlelopment of jobs and middle-class prosperity as govt's primary focus. Take off your blinders.

Does anyone here think that Queen Wacko Donk will actually resign the speakership? Her job is up for grabs (as is every other House seat per CBS last night), so her future as speaker is in jeopardy. But voluntarily step down? The only way she would do that would be to accept the Donk nom for prez, which ain't going to happen with Hillary floating around.

SuperHornet wrote:Does anyone here think that Queen Wacko Donk will actually resign the speakership? Her job is up for grabs (as is every other House seat per CBS last night), so her future as speaker is in jeopardy. But voluntarily step down? The only way she would do that would be to accept the Donk nom for prez, which ain't going to happen with Hillary floating around.

That's the first time I've ever seen "Pelosi" and "nom for prez" in the same sentence.

ASUG8 wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:Does anyone here think that Queen Wacko Donk will actually resign the speakership? Her job is up for grabs (as is every other House seat per CBS last night), so her future as speaker is in jeopardy. But voluntarily step down? The only way she would do that would be to accept the Donk nom for prez, which ain't going to happen with Hillary floating around.

That's the first time I've ever seen "Pelosi" and "nom for prez" in the same sentence.

I didn't say I wanted to see it. I didn't say it would be smart for the Donks to do. I merely suspect that Queen Wacko Donk is vain enough to think she could do it.

travelinman67 wrote:If anything, the Democratic and Republican party have become the extremists. Both have entrenched their platforms with pro/anti abortion litmus tests as the primary issue. Both have ignored fiscal prudence, industry and jobs. Both have run roughshod over civil liberties, under the guise of ensuring national security. Both have promoted globalization at the expense of America's prosperity. Both have knelt in deference to multi-national corporation greed (and before you go on a "Wal-Mart-Bad" rant, remember that the impetus for the "profit-trumps-all, Wall Street greed" is driven by banks, instituional investors, and "old-money rich", the ultimate "consumers", many of whom are, or cater to, baby boomers and limousine liberals who are modern day quasi-capitalist/feudalist bourgeoisie. "Eating their young", has never been a part of traditional capitalist/industrialist policy: Longevity and growth [survival] supplant short-term opulence. And that's a fact, Jack...deal with it.).

The Tea Party is more middle of the road libertarian than either party.

Jellydonut, you, along with the other lefties, are just fearful their libertarian message has become attractive to the "traditional" Democrats who view preservation and devlelopment of jobs and middle-class prosperity as govt's primary focus. Take off your blinders.

A-fokking-men, TMan...

SuperHornet wrote:Does anyone here think that Queen Wacko Donk will actually resign the speakership? Her job is up for grabs (as is every other House seat per CBS last night), so her future as speaker is in jeopardy. But voluntarily step down? The only way she would do that would be to accept the Donk nom for prez, which ain't going to happen with Hillary floating around.

aint no way in hell shes losing her seat in Congress.... though if she loses the gavel retirement shortly after the new congress begins is a possibility.

Boxer's in trouble. Weirder things have happened. We'll find out for sure in November.

Pelosi's a bona fide American hero. She should be sainted for all the Conk sh*t she has to put up with every hour of every day.

Conks: Hate Women, Hate Blacks, Hate Everything.

Cap'n Cat wrote:Conks: Hate Women, Hate Blacks, Hate Everything.

Hogwash.

I'm as conservative as they come and I love at least one woman on each side of the aisle (Sarah is one; the Democrat is in the CA Assembly). I have voted for an African American in at least the last three Presidential primaries. Hate everything? Hardly.