Pelosi Won. The Democratic Party Lost.

[Celerity]

https://newrepublic.com/article/189500/pelosi-aoc-oversight-committee-democrats

https://archive.ph/R8zLp

Fresh off hip replacement surgery, Nancy Pelosi, 84, secured another victory. House Democrats on Tuesday afternoon decided that 74-year-old Gerry Connolly—who announced his throat cancer diagnosis in November—will serve as ranking member on the House Oversight Committee, besting 35-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in a closed-door caucus vote. “Gerry’s a young 74, cancer notwithstanding,” said Virginia Democrat Don Beyer, a Connolly ally. Pelosi had opposed the 35-year-old’s run for the role, “approaching colleagues urging them to back Connolly over Ocasio-Cortez,” Axios reported last week.

Connolly will join fellow septuagenarians in top committee spots next year. Richard Neal, 75, will lead Democrats on Ways and Means while Frank Pallone, 73, will be the party’s top representative on Energy and Commerce. Eighty-six-year-old Maxine Waters will be the ranking member on the Financial Services Committee, and Rose DeLauro, 81, will helm the Democrats’ presence in Appropriations. The elderly are not too old to govern. But they may, in this case, be too attached to a failed way of doing things. The job of the Oversight Committee, for instance, is to “ensure the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the federal government and all its agencies,” including the Pentagon. Connolly this past cycle accepted $118,500 from political action committees linked to the defense sector. Ways and Means is the House’s top tax-writing committee, with jurisdiction over the revenue-related aspects of Social Security and Medicare, among other programs.

Neal is a top recipient of donations from the insurance industry, having accepted $412,000 from insurance industry PACs during the 2024 campaign cycle, plus generous six-figure donations from HMOs and pharmaceutical companies. Frank Pallone has gotten more than $1 million from electric utilities since joining Congress in 1998. In other democracies, the leaderships of parties that have endured humiliating defeats like the one Democrats saw in November—or even just regular defeats—resign. That kicks off a process by which members determine a new, ideally more successful direction, represented by different people. But the Democratic Party isn’t really a “party” of the sort that exists in other democracies, with memberships and official constituencies, like unions, who have some say over how it’s governed. Members mostly make decisions based on their own interests rather than to drive some shared, democratically decided agenda forward.

That’s part of what’s so depressing about the Oversight Committee ordeal for the couple dozen journalists and political junkies who pay attention to that sort of thing. Pelosi and the old guard’s continued opposition to younger talent seems breathtakingly counterproductive in the face of the Democratic Party’s numerous challenges right now. Simultaneously, the House’s “resistance” to Trump and the GOP in the House will be led by people of all ages who don’t seem particularly interested in that project, despite having spent the entire election cycle warning that Trump’s Republican Party represents a second coming of fascism. If incoming House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries really believes that, then why is he advertising his willingness to work with the GOP? Why are so many other Democrats, for that matter, trying to make nice with Trump acolyte Elon Musk? But the Groundhog Day of it all adds a special layer of dread: Once again, Pelosi and AOC are fighting a proxy battle over the future of the Democratic Party. In 2020, Pelosi squashed AOC’s bid to join Energy and Commerce over a perceived lack of loyalty. Now Pelosi has gotten her way again.

snip

[Fiendish Thingy]

1. In before the hide.

The gerontocracy must go.

Pelosi’s career will almost certainly end by 2026, 2028 at the latest.

It would be a shame if Gerry Connolly was her parting legacy.

Reminder: the CPC has 100 members. All it would take to alter the party permanently would be to make a unified, radical move.

[Celerity]

7. Here is a breakdown on the Progressive Caucus and the New Democrat Coalition numbers

If you look at the new incoming Dem House class, we are seeing a large amount of new moderates/centrists coming in (outpacing incoming progressives), and the Progressive Caucus losing some of its sitting members.

If we look at the centrist New Democrat Coalition in the House (who came out against AOC for Ranking member on Oversight), they did lose some sitting members, but they have a large amount of new, expected members.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrat_Coalition

They lost 15 sitting members

Adam Schiff (CA-30) (Retired to Run for U.S. Senate)
Yadira Caraveo (CO-8) (Defeated)
Lisa Blunt Rochester (DE-AL) (Retired to run for U.S. Senate)
David Trone (MD-6) (Retired)
Elissa Slotkin (MI-7) (Retired to run for U.S. Senate)
Dean Phillips (MN-3) (Retired)
Ann McLane Kuster (NH-2) – Chair (Retired)
Kathy Manning (NC-6) – Freshman Leadership Representative (Retired)
Wiley Nickel (NC-13) (Retired)
Jeff Jackson (NC-14) (Retired to run for NC AG)
Susan Wild (PA-7) (Defeated)
Colin Allred (TX-32) (Retired to run for U.S. Senate)
Abigail Spanberger (VA-7) (Retired)
Jennifer Wexton (VA-10) (Retired)
Derek Kilmer (WA-6) – Vice Chair for Policy (Retired)

but they have 25 likely new members coming in

Shomari Figures (AL-02)
Adam Gray (CA-13)
Sam Liccardo (CA-16)
George Whitesides (CA-27)
Gil Cisneros (CA-31)
Derek Tran (CA-45)
Sarah McBride (DE-AL)
Johnny Olszewski (MD-02)
Sarah Elfreth (MD-03)
April McClain-Delaney (MD-06)
Kristen McDonald Rivet (MI-08)
Kelly Morrison (MN-03)
Wesley Bell (MO-01)
Maggie Goodlander (NH-02)
Herb Conaway (NJ-03)
Nellie Pou (NJ-09)
Laura Gillen (NY-04)
George Latimer (NY-16)
Josh Riley (NY-19)
John Mannion (NY-22)
Janelle Bynum (OR-05)
Julie Johnson (TX-32)
Eugene Vindman (VA-07)
Suhas Subramanyam (VA-10)
Emily Randall (WA-06)

That would net them a total of 109 members in the new House.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Congressional_Progressive_Caucus

currently has 95 members in the House, but they lost 9 who will not be in the next House

Barbara Lee (CA-12, Oakland) (retiring at the end of the 118th Congress)
Grace Napolitano (CA-31, Norwalk) (retiring at the end of the 118th Congress)
Katie Porter (CA-47, Irvine) (retiring at the end of the 118th Congress)
Lisa Blunt Rochester (DE at-large) (won 2024 Delaware Senate election)
Cori Bush (MO-1, St. Louis) (Lost Renomination)
Andy Kim (NJ-3, Bordentown) (Won 2024 New Jersey Senate Election)
Jamaal Bowman (NY-16, Bronx) (Lost Renomination)
Earl Blumenauer (OR-3, Portland) (retiring at the end of the 118th Congress)
Matt Cartwright (PA-8, Scranton) (Lost Re election)

and they only have 9 likely inbound new members

Yassamin Ansari (AZ-03, Phoenix)
Lateefah Simon, (CA-12, Emeryville)
Luz Rivas, (CA-29, Los Angeles)
Laura Friedman, (CA-30, Glendale)
Dave Min, (CA-47, Irvine)
Sarah McBride (DE-AL, Wilmington)
Nellie Pou (NJ-09, North Haledon)
LaMonica McIver (NJ-10, Newark)
Maxine Dexter (OR-03, Portland)

all that yields a roughly 14 seat lead (as some are or will be members in both caucuses) for the centrists/moderates over the progressives

and that 14 seat gap is even greater when you add in the 11 or so (almost all of whom are amongst the most conservative Dems) who are in either the Blue Dog and/or Problem Solvers caucuses and who are not in the New Democrat Coalition nor (of course) in the Progressive Caucus.

I would take a guess and say that there is probably a 20 or so seat advantage in terms of House members (when the new Congress starts) who would vote against AOC for any actual leadership position. That is a tough number to overcome for AOC, and it could PERHAPS grow to even more of a gap over the next few elections, given current trends inside our electoral results.

We have some real anti-progressive House members, who are openly hostile towards some of the progressive leaders, AOC included. Some of those have left for other adventures (outside of the House) but others are still there, or have recently come back (Tom Suozzi), or have since switched sides, from prog to anti-prog (Ritchie Torres for example, who left the Progressive Caucus in February 2024 and has become very anti Squad), or who are perhaps coming into the new House this upcoming term.

So at least for a few election cycles (unless Jeffries and others, including of course Pelosi, etc change their tune on her) I think AOC is facing a chilly environment in terms of regaining her upward leadership trajectory.

I am dismayed by that, but I am nothing if not a number-counting realist and overall trend-watcher.

The MASSIVE wild card (of course) is Trump, as he VERY likely will fuck shit up so badly that we may well see a huge swing towards Dems, with that Blue tidal wave hopefully dragging in a lot more progressives. At least I hope that occurs.

[intheflow]

12. When I hear centrists/moderates are taking over the party,

it makes me suspect they used to be Republican but the party got too nutty for them. Reminds me of when Democrats registered as Republicans in Colorado Springs in the 1990s/early 2000s to be able to vote in R primaries and thus vote for the less insane candidate to be on the general ballot.

Also, moderate/centrists are the party of Pelosi, who is among the older leadership that doesn't want to give up their power or acknowledge their own complicity in the current state of the party. IOW, I agree with this article that Pelosi and the D leadership may have passed their "use by" date.

[IrishBubbaLiberal]

32. Exactly Pelosi is moderate and centrist THAT IS THE PROBLEM

Exactly!!



Quoting you….

Also, moderate/centrists are the party of Pelosi, who is among the older leadership that doesn't want to give up their power or acknowledge their own complicity in the current state of the party. IOW, I agree with this article that Pelosi and the D leadership may have passed their "use by" date.

[lapucelle]

152. ...

Nancy Pelosi is a Hard-Core Liberal

https://www.ontheissues.org/ca/nancy_pelosi.htm

https://bit.ly/4gB9nRG

[Glaisne]

50. Centrists/moderates are less extreme corporatists

They're better than the Republicans, but that's not saying much.

[wnylib]

68. JFK was a centrist Dem. But Republicans were moving farther

to the right and their fringe elements like the Birchers were becoming louder. To them, JFK was a commie.

The nation as a whole was liberal even under Eisenhower because of the FDR legacy like labor rights, Social Security, and financial regulations in the Glass-Steagall Act. But the right was determined to gain power and unravel the FDR legislation and programs. They also wanted to retain permanent political power and control to prevent future liberal policies and legislation.

Reagan/Bush was a conservative reaction against the rights movements of the 1960s and early 1970s. Following that national shift to the right, only a centrist Dem like Bill Clinton could get elected. Clinton agreed with and signed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act which paved the way for more financial deregulations.

Centrism under JFK was more to the left than centrism was under Clinton because the whole country's views had shifted to the right during and after Nixon.

Nancy Pelosi was a JFK type liberal/centrist, who volunteered in the Dem party in the 60s but did not hold elected office until 1987.

Her leadership in the party and the House brought good results for Dems. But she is from another era when political norms were different. I think that she should be yielding to younger Dems and lifting up younger potential leaders to carry the party into new generations instead of holding them back. She had to climb her way to the top through significant obstacles of sexism and political power shifts, so she is geared more to self-defense than to mentoring. I think that that attitude can hurt the present party and she should be sponsoring younger future leaders.

It's time for Pelosi to take the advice that she gave to Joe Biden to step aside.

[yellow dahlia]

81. Thank you for the historical context.

[LeftInTX]

120. Thank you! I try to tell people that JFK was a moderate, but no one believes me!

[SpankMe]

138. This was a good roundup, thanks

But, I do struggle with trying to judge degrees of liberal and conservative in different eras. FDR ushered in an era of more progressivism nationally due to his new deal and other programs. But, even the liberals of his day would still be anti-LGBTQ, for example, and probably a lot more racist.

Democrats were the party of the Klan in the late-1800's/early-1900's, and Republicans were at the forefront of ending slavery. This has completely flipped today.

Some of Reagan's perspectives would be considered liberal today, where some of JFK's perspectives would be seen as conservative by todays standards.

The whole thing is quite muddled.

[wnylib]

148. Changes do not all come at once.

So yes, there absolutely was racism and bigotry in government and general society during the FDR years. The liberalism of that era was in programs like labor unions, Social Security, Workman's Progress, and financial regulations.

Both the Democratic and Republican parties have gone through evolutions that began long before the Civil War. (Yes, even the new Republican Party of Lincoln's time had a connection to the earlier Whigs, who were a spin off of the split in Jefferson's Democratic Republican Party.)

But I've been commenting on more recent, mid to late 20th century and early 21st century political divisions. However, regarding racism among Democrats in the Civil War era, the northern Democrats were split. In the South, support for slavery drew people to the Democrats in opposition to Lincoln and the Republicans. Racism among southern Democrats remained strong right into the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. As we see today, it is still part of society and government.

[LiberalArkie]

132. In my thinking a Centrist in the Democratic Party has the same thought process as 1950's right wing.

Maybe not so far as the "segregation now and forever" folks, but yea. Definitely not the party of FDR, the Kennedy's and Carter.

[Fiendish Thingy]

22. It doesn't matter if the CPC is in the minority

If the Dems win a majority in 2026, the CPC would have the power to determine whether that majority is sustained.

(You’re gonna have to read between the lines for the rest of that story)

If the gerontocracy continues to assert seniority over strategic merit, all bets are off.

Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.

[Celerity]

27. I hope the CPC is able to have a good deal of impact going forward, I was only showing it may well be a not so friendly

Dem leadership electoral (Committee or actual high overall Party leadership) environment for AOC atm and maybe for the next few cycles. That is especially true if Pelosi and others keep whipping votes against her, and Jeffries stays out of it.

Remember that in this recent Oversight Ranking member vote, the centrist/moderate (and largest Dem caucus now) New Democrat Coalition leaders came out mostly (if not all) in unison against AOC and in favour of the more moderate Connolly (who is a New Democrat Coalition member, so their stance their is hardly surprising. IF the member gap advantage that the NDC has over the CPC continues (or even grows post 2026 midterms) then it will be pretty hard yards for AOC to overcome IF the same forces unite again against her.

I have no idea how long Pelosi is going to stay in the House, but I fear as long as she is there, and the numbers internally do not change in favour of the progressives, she (Pelosi) will hold the AOC-blocking whip-hand that will block her when the full caucus votes. She has done so now (block AOC) on at least 2 occasions. The ex-Speaker has just a much (if not more) power in regards to these matters as current Speaker Jeffries apparently has (or at least it seems that way to me).

[kacekwl]

84. We don't need centrists we need

Democrats. SMH

[MadameButterfly]

125. SMH?

[ZonkerHarris]

92. Democrats pretending to be GOP-Lite never succeed at policies or winning voters.

idiots all

[slightlv]

108. I worry about the party

if these "New Democrats" you speak of are actually of the "New Democrat" variety. As much as I loved both Clinton and Obama, the new democrat policies are not my favorites. They lean beyond centrist, to my mind, and much more into republican-lite territory. Perhaps that's not what you meant when you said "New Democrats"... but that moniker just stands out to me.

[Celerity]

111. It is the actual name: New Democrat Coalition. Similar in multiple ways to the now-gone DLC.

Most of them are really good on most things, but of course (as we are all human) I disagree on some tjings with some of them.

The NDC is far far less problematic than the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, some of whom are far too often involved in actions that kneecap the overall Democratic Party project.

I have posted so much about the Problem Solvers (little if it good) since I joined DU, but very little about the New Democrat Coalition, especially as a collective unit. I think they (NDC) are an very important part of our overall Democratic family.

We cannot all be social democrat style progressives, not with our constitutionally mandated first past the post, single member district, majoritarian (not proportional representatation) electoral system.

[CrispyQ]

141. We've been railing against the right using noun like an adjective but now we're doing it?

[Celerity]

143. I wager they use Democrat because of the term New Democrat

A coalition of New Democrats, modified linguistically to New Democrat Coalition.

New Democrats

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats_(United_States)

New Democrats, also known as centrist Democrats, Clinton Democrats or moderate Democrats, are a centrist ideological faction within the Democratic Party in the United States. As the Third Way faction of the party, they are seen as culturally liberal on social issues while being moderate or fiscally conservative on economic issues. New Democrats dominated the party from the late 1980s through the early-2010s, and continue to be a large coalition in the modern Democratic Party.

However, with the rise of progressivism in 2016 and 2020, and the right-wing populism of Donald Trump, New Democrats began to change and update their ideological positions. For example, New Democrat candidates have shifted from focusing on "defense of marriage" platforms to casting "the issue of transgender rights" as contentious. Similarly, debates over tax cuts on capital gains have been reconfigured to removing caps on state and local tax deduction.

Despite expansion of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, even with stricter criteria for "Progressive" representation in Congress, the New Democrats' Progressive Policy Institute (established in 1989) persists into the present day, recently sponsoring "young pragmatists" at the rechristened Center for New Liberalism (formerly known as the Neoliberal Project) to "modernize progressive politics."

[CrispyQ]

144. Thanks for the explanation but it just sounds wrong &

to me it feels like we've capitulated to the right, once again, with our language. We were liberals until Reagan poked fun at the word & we started calling ourselves progressives. I don't have an issue with either term, but it definitely felt like we turned away from liberal because of right wing mockery & now we're embracing a way of using the word democrat in exactly the way we've criticized in the past.

I guess this is old century stuff to fuss about. More & more I feel like a relic.

[Celerity]

147. 'liberal' in other nations most often means centre to centre-right: deregulation, free (not fair) trade, privatisation,

smaller government, reduced taxes, reduced welfare state, etc etc, ie classical liberalism and all that.

On the good side, liberals also (usually) believe in the rule of law, plus freedom of speech and press.

I always reflexively shuddered a bit when I was living in the US, reading for my MBA in Los Angeles in the mid to late 2010s, and people would call me a liberal, lolol.

[Clouds Passing]

11. First she forces Biden to step down because of his age...

Then she installs GC because of his age. Plus with recent cancer diagnosis it will be difficult to be present in those committee meetings, depending on whether he’s going to have chemo radiation or both. They were exhausting for me at 50. I can’t imagine being 75 and trying to deal with that.

What gives?

[Karasu]

17. Attendance is more important than ever, too. We cannot afford this stupid shit just because the gerontocracy is fucking

uncomfortable with stepping aside.

[MuseRider]

63. I am a member of the old folks club now and I want them to go home

and paint or write a novel, DO SOMETHING ELSE and let the younger people deal with what they are going to have to work with. Nancy, you did your time. You will not be dealing with much of this so let those who WILL, do what they need to to be prepared. They sure as hell have better things to do than spend their time wresting power from old hands with old ideas and old brains. Thank you for what you have done but please go. Surely you see they are more than ready and eager to shape their future without our old problems.

[the nelm]

80. Absolutely. Also a member of the geezer club, but these folks need to look...

forward. Start putting forth and grooming the future leaders of the party. They really aren't doing a very good job of letting go and letting the younger generation make their case on the national stage.

[Clouds Passing]

83. Exactly, time for Nancy to step down. She's older than Joe.

Where’s half the D party screaming for her to go?

[Karasu]

87. Very well said. I completely agree.

[MadameButterfly]

126. Nancy is the most briliant and productive House Speaker ever

who, like Joe, is tarnishing her record by staying and keeping the next generation out of power.
I don't want Nancy to leave--we'll need all the experience and savvy we can must. But Nancy and AOC being at odds is a tragedy for the Democratic Party in these times.
She needs to get over it. She needs to let AOC lead.

[Arazi]

43. She's made other missteps too

Maybe fatal ones… I respect her but she needs to let younger members step into the light.

She shut down any consideration of other candidates challenging Biden by December 2022. Nobody dared cross her

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/12/15/pelosi-schumer-intv-2024-trump-biden-jan-6-gangel-lead-vpx.cnn

Then she and other top leaders excoriated Dean Phillips for bringing legit concerns over Biden’s age with his own campaign when he DID dare cross them. So bitter that Phillips is resigning rather than stay in Congress - this is a guy whose voice we actually need and he was shut down so hard he’s out.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/09/junior-leader-turned-biden-foe-how-dean-phillips-fell-from-democratic-grace-00125878

[IzzaNuDay]

85. Few survive what he's got.

I am surprised he would think this chair position is best. Doesn’t he want to be close to family and a support system while he battles it?

The logic thing he should have done was decline, citing his health. But politics defies logic…

[Clouds Passing]

86. Wondering if they don't want someone effective that position.

[Glaisne]

45. It's the corporatocracy that must go.

The Party must cut ties with corporate interests, and that's not going to happen.

[SergeStorms]

62. Does this mean young Democrats......

will no longer accept my "old person" money?

Thanks! 🥳 There are thousands of other ways I could spend it, all of which would probably do more good and be accepted more gratefully than giving it to a bunch of bridge-burning reactionaries!

Charity Navigator, here I come!

[NotHardly]

76. So, if I post a question or tweek a Democrat, I get a nasty note from 'yall but this is OK

I've gotten 4 nasty notes without explanation, without identifying the comment or the spot of "failing to follow the rules" but this is OK ... does the word "bias" apply and if so, is it the rules, the rule enforcers or the fact it might have been about someone beloved by the DU. Just asking.

(pretty sure I'm headed for nasty note #5 for asking a question)

Just to be clear, if there is a list about whom I can and cannot comment about, please provide it so I don't make those mistakes again.

[Crunchy Frog]

121. Just wanted to let you know that if you get 5 posts hidden

you will be essentially banned.

Also, this post could potentially get hidden for "interfering with moderation".

Sometimes when things get overly heated on here it's better to lay low for awhile.

[Bluetus]

94. I wouldn't call that a "radical" move

the CPC has 100 members. All it would take to alter the party permanently would be to make a unified, radical move

I take your point. And it just shows that not all the cowards are on the Republican side.

[Fiendish Thingy]

95. Which move are you saying isn't radical?

I didn’t specify one, and can’t, without risking my post getting hidden.

But there is a radical move the CPC could take that would permanently alter the Democratic Party.

[Bluetus]

96. I am saying I would not consider it at all "radical"

for the Dem caucus to stand up and elect AOC, especially considering how badly the status quote, timid politics hurt us in this election.

I would call that an intelligent response toward self-preservation for the party.

I understand your concern about those who flag posts that say things they don't want to hear, but I don't see anything in your post that comes anywhere close to violating any of the site rules.

Einstein is attributed with the quote, "‘Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." I don't think Einstein was radical, just more perceptive than most.

[gay texan]

2. Same here, in before the hide

We need to bring new people into this party and we cant do it with geriatrics

[calguy]

135. Then if you want to bring in new people

you'll have to get enough of your like-minded younger voters to the polls to out-vote us geriatric voters.
It's high time that you did, and healthy for the country if you do. I've seen glimmers of hope from time to time, but there hasn't been a sustainable effort through several election cycles to make a difference.
It's your future. What are you gonna do about it?

[gay texan]

137. LOL!

So are you implying that I haven't been doing anything at all?

[Parallax El]

139. There's so many of the Boomer Generation, and they live longer than ever before...

That they have effectively skipped over Gen X. Even VP Harris was *barely* Gen X, and we see what happened to her. We got another Boomer for POTUS.

Seen on the Interwebz:

"The last Boomer alive on Earth will rule the world."

It's classic Joseph Campbell. The young must TAKE power from their elders. It is rarely if ever given up willingly.

In a democracy, we don't have the votes, and both parties are controlled by the elder generation.

And the harder the elders hang onto power, the more painful and damaging the wrestle for generational control becomes.

This is archetypal, mythological stuff. Universal.

It's not personal.

[Think. Again.]

3. K&R

I only hope they don't sabotage David Hogg's bid for DNC Vice-Chair.

"Get ofF our lawn you KIDS!"

[OldBaldy1701E]

29. Gods, me too! (n/t)

[Celerity]

31. Unfortunately I can see that very thing happening as well. If Pelosi, Jeffries, and Schumer put the kibosh on him behind

closed doors, it will be hard to overcome for him. Same thing goes if major Democratic donors turn against him.

[Dawson Leery]

4. She needs to retire.

[HereForTheParty]

97. She's 84 with a busted hip

Not an easy combination.

[walkingman]

5. When opportunity presents itself you have to take advantage of it. I was really hoping this would be AOC's moment.

But the fight continues - Fight the Power!!!

[leftstreet]

6. DuRec

[Mike 03]

8. A truly important, important post

With great replies--I agree with every one of them so far.

[Mike 03]

9. Kurt Bardella made a virtually identical argument last night on

the Dean Obeidallah program. I don't believe I've ever heard him so angry and dispirited.

[Clouds Passing]

10. What is up her a$$?

[live love laugh]

14. Another day another bunch of critics of Democrats.

[Celerity]

18. It's called discussion on a discussion board. Events happen, & they are discussed. If (as has every poster up until you)

the posters in this thread seem to have the roughly the same take and critique (expressed in different and varying words, of course) then it would see to a subject that is not outside the realm of things that can be discussed here, whether you agree with the critique or not. If you disagree with it, then offer up a logical counter-arguement.

I would posit that there have likely been plenty of other critiques of other Democrats that you yourself probably agreed with, and thus did not take a shot at.

The 'it's legit if I agree with the critique' but 'not legit if I disagree with the critique' stance is hardly a valid way to adjudicate discussion.

[Elessar Zappa]

42. Earl G

said in a post that there will be more leeway in criticizing Democrats as we search for a way forward. As long as we don’t call names, it’s a healthy debate.

[Lifeafter70]

99. At 72 I have been an active dem for many years

And I don't agree with Pelosi on her block of AOC. It's time for the young ones to do the fighting. We need to continue having their back but we also need to let them lead.

[DontBelieveEastisEas]

119. When was it not time for the young ones to do the fighting?

[Bluethroughu]

15. This train is running off the tracks, we need a new engineer.

The old ways are NOT working for the majority of the people...this is why we have a problem getting people to vote. Our party is not dynamic enough, the younger louder generation with guidance from the seasoned generation is what we need!

When will you let them lead?

[Ping Tung]

16. "History has tried hard to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians.

"History has tried hard to teach us that we can’t have good government under politicians. Now, to go and stick one at the very head of the government couldn't be a wise philosophy, in politics, or in anything else,

Mark Twain

[yaesu]

19. The USS Democracy just hit a very ancient iceberg and is going down fast. nt

[onecaliberal]

21. Not for dead women.

[whathehell]

35. Who are the "dead women"?

[CrispyQ]

61. The ones being denied healthcare at ERs. -nt

[whathehell]

73. I understand. n/t

[whathehell]

75. I understand now. n/t

[MsLeopard]

66. I believe

it means child bearing age women in red states. Their mortality rate has risen since Dobbs and Republican efforts to force women back to the 1800s.

[rzemanfl]

23. Tomorrows aren't looking so good these days. n/t

[rzemanfl]

52. Mending too? Goodness.

[rzemanfl]

82. Well darn. You're right.

[relayerbob]

25. Operative words: party elders

And I’m 67

Morons

[Blue_Tires]

26. The party already lost on Nov. 5

[IrishBubbaLiberal]

28. DEM elders like Pelosi suffer from a lack of youthful enthusiasm and "no-holds-barred" get it done

I really like,,, err make that past tense…..LIKED Pelosi.

Madame Elder Pelosi was a great leader,,,,, BUT

It’s way past time for so many old DEMs in Congress to retire.

What Senator Feinstein did was inexcusable, refusing to retire,, when she should
have gracefully exited years ago.

AOC is the type of Democrat I admire in Congress.
AOC is vocal. AOC has a large amount of positive recognition,
EVERYONE of my younger relatives LOVE ❤️ AOC,
while they only have very limited knowledge of the elderly lady Pelosi.

One liberal young nephew in his 30s who follows politics,,, his response to AOC not getting that
leadership position is…’well what else is new with the worthless OLD Democrats, those people
They refuse to let the new energetic DEMs lead’….’Pathetic DEM Party full of old gray haired who refuse to retire.

☹️

[Passages]

30. It is up to AOC to take the gloves off.

They will not give her power, she must take it if and when she is ready.

[LymphocyteLover]

34. I'm sure she will but she is still very young and ha s along carreer ahead of her

[Passages]

37. Technically yes, but our party has very little time to counter Trump.

A small window imho, is what we have before 2026.

[Celerity]

39. I think she really did try her best, but she simply did not have the numbers once Pelosi and other Party leaders

whipped votes against her (or stayed on the sidelines and di not offer her support).

There is, at some of the highest levels of Democratic caucus power, a real hesitancy (not just limted to AOC) to allow new blood to take over a good chunk of the reins of power from the gerontocracy-based model.

[Passages]

41. Her tactics must change, concessions to leadership have failed b/c they still want to embrace

the donor class and imagine that will still work. It does not work when you have millions staying home even when a demagogue is set to win again.

The stakes for Dem leadership to get this right are intense and they act indifferent at best..at worst, spiteful. Imo.

[Celerity]

44. I truly understand (and sympathise) with what you are saying, but IF AOC goes in all guns ablazing, she will only

play into the negative stereotypes her enemies have erected about her, and quite likely dooms her chances at continuing her climb up the power ladder, undoing a lot of her own hard work to be more of a statesperson and an effective, non-fringe leader.

[PatrickforB]

51. One of the smart things AOC has done is to eschew the 'donor class' in favor of running a

constant campaign based on small donations. She's not beholden to Wall Street, corporations and billionaire PROFITS, which makes her one of us instead of the power elites.

The Democratic Party should WAKE UP to this whole thing - the hidebound institutionalism of its senior members has screwed the American people to the max.

That is why I don't post much on here anymore. I'm done. I'm tired of getting the ol' Wall Street SQUEEZE month after month, year after year. We hold profits over everything - consumer welfare, worker concerns and the environment itself and that has to stop.

[Passages]

54. Yes.

Prospects for 2026 have me very edgy right now.

[Arazi]

70. She tried that when she was newly elected

Not to rehash old fights but that didn’t fly here and especially with Nancy Pelosi who slapped AOC down hard, denying her important positions.

So AOC toned down her approach - developed allies. Worked smarter to bridge divides and now 5 years later she’s slapped down again.

I understand the seniority system. AOC does too but I guess all of us who hoped there might be some new approaches after our losses in 2024, plus the unique threat Traitor poses, were wrong

[Passages]

79. Imo, she backed down quickly and has no rewards for her efforts.

Collectively, there needs to be a reconsideration of how to push through. I am stunned at the attempts to thwart her after such a loss, again, to Trump on Nov 5.

I take the efforts to push AOC out very seriously and I worry about how we will organize, and build coalitions for 2026.

[LymphocyteLover]

33. this is BS. The Dem party has a seniority system and AOC is great but just not senior enough. This is a needless bash of

Dem leadership.

[intheflow]

47. Yes, and that senority system gave us Joe Biden as a candidate.

Pelosi is two years older than Biden. If he was too old to be president, she's too old to be calling the shots for the younger generation's future.

[LymphocyteLover]

112. No, the seniority system had nothing to do with Biden getting the nomination

Last edited Thu Dec 19, 2024, 08:51 AM - Edit history (1)

he was the most qualified candidate and most likely to beat trump, plus he fucking did

[intheflow]

128. I'm talking this election, not 2020.

He didn’t win 2024.

[LymphocyteLover]

130. that makes even less sense since Biden dropped out

I don't know what seniority you are referring to in 2024

[intheflow]

145. They ran Biden in 2020 based on seniority.

He squeaked by and when his "seniority" became a an issue in 2024, he stepped aside too late. I cannot tell you how many people I know in my very liberal, pretty Black area who were upset with Harris being placed in as heir apparent without going through her own primary process. I'm sure they all voted for her - they liked her well-enough - but they felt disenfranchised nonetheless. It all began with Biden's seniority in 2020, which bit the Dems in the ass in 2024.

[LymphocyteLover]

150. Biden got the nomination in 2020 because he was seen as the most experienced and was popular with Black people because

of being Obama's VP, so he won South Carolina by a large margin. Then the Covid pandemic struck and kind of curtailed the primary so the party congealed around Biden and he rolled to the nomination. I don't think he was chosen because of "seniority". There was a bit of a fluke with Covid, but I think Biden was polling well in the other states next on the calendar and he made sense at the time.

I don't understand people being upset with no separate primary to get Harris. That was always impractical given the timing of when Biden was forced out. Also she was chosen with Biden as part of his primary.

Other people could have tried to get the nomination after Biden dropped out but Harris worked for the endorsement and won them. She also made more sense for getting the Biden war chest.

Should Biden have dropped out of contention for re-election? In retrospect yes, but I think he felt good in 2023 and saw the threat of Trump and was thinking that incumbents have better odds of winning than after a primary. Obviously that didn't work out. I think the Oct 7th attacks really took a lot out of him as well as the war in Ukraine, like drained him. Just really bad luck for us.

[PatrickforB]

49. The seniority system has NOT served us well since 2016. n/t

[Bettie]

56. So, maybe when she's 75

she might have a shot, eh? Because young people shouldn't ever have a chance to lead, because...well, reasons.

[Emile]

65. JFK was only 43 when he was elected President.

They must not have heard about the seniority system back then.

[Celerity]

124. Biden himself was only 29yo when he first won a US Senate seat. Obama had only been in the US Congress for 2 years

when he announced for POTUS in early 2007.

IF Harris had won the POTUS in 2020 (NOT even 2024) only THREE Democrats in the entire almost 200 year history of the Party would have been OLDER than she was on January 20th, 2021, when they first were sworn in (Truman due to FDR's death) or their age on January 20th (as the old inauguration date took place on March 4th or March 5th, up until 1937) on the year following their first POTUS election win (James Buchanan and finally, the very first Democratic POTUS, Andrew Jackson).

[Celerity]

64. The seniority system has evolved into a pretty rigid gerontocracy preservation system, at the expense of new

injections of vigour, thinking, methods, etc. It is, unfortunately, aiding the negative perceptions of millions of potential Democratic voters (whether those perceptions are fair or not is, to a degree, whistling past the graveyard IMHO), that we are an ageing out, not so nimble, not so energetic, and not so adaptive party at many of our leadership power centres.

I so see this in my social set and age cohort (18-40, I am now 28yo).

[bronxiteforever]

36. I supported Pelosi for all her fight in the past.

This is a big miss. I feel bad for Connelly because he is fighting for his life too. Esophageal cancer is no joke.

I am old enough to remember JFK “vigor”. Now is the time to take advantage of old man Trump. We should be making fun of his age just like they did with Biden.

Fighting the enormous right wing media machine and the oligarchs demands a youthful energetic fighters. Age and illness slows most us down and Congresspersons are not gods. They are mortal too..

[Nanjeanne]

38. Many of these Dems have been great and now it's time to step aside and let te people who's

future is what policies should be saying have their time to do just that.

I really believe to win any future elections, the party needs ew faces at te helm. Right or wrong, the voters “think” they know who the D party is. With new faces and voices, voters may be better able to hear.

[Cattledog]

40. Pelosi needs to go.

She is no longer helping the Party.

[Kid Berwyn]

46. I love Nancy Pelosi, but the future requires people who will be in it.

I'm old and won't be there for much more of it, but I do trust a number of young people, especially Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to do the right thing for our country.

Why? When it comes to the Constitution, democracy, liberty and the Democratic Party, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez believes what I believe in, says what I think on the central issues, and she does what she says she'll do in Congress and out.

[PatrickforB]

48. Shoulda picked AOC. Sigh. n/t

[elleng]

55. Sorry to see negative stuff from TNR.

[Emile]

58. Reporting the truth is not always positive.

Truth doesn't always feel good.

[CentralMass]

57. The body count is climbing. First, Joe, now AOC.

[Progressive dog]

59. So you have to get someone to primary

the candidates you don't like. AOC challenged Nancy Pelosi and lost because elected Democrats stood with Pelosi.
I'm sorry, the close house, even with the extensive gerrymandering, is because of Democrats like Pelosi.
The older ones will be gone soon anyway.

[jalan48]

60. AOC is not favored by the big donors and corporations.

Pelosi’s version of our Party is tied to these groups. She’ll protect those interests. Some fear if we abandon big money we can’t win elections.

[Emile]

67. Oh no, a new party that represents the people who

vote for them. How terrifying is that?

[Celerity]

74. Big donors and especially big corporations, desire, far too often, an ideologically tame, corp-freindly Democratic Party

One where even big Dem POTUS-led initiatives, are pounded and dimished to a massive degree, like Biden's two ($6.1 trillion in toto new spend) infrastructure frameworks are were gutted by the centrists and conservative Dems down to only $990 billion in new spend.

Even then, after that huge gutting, you had multiple centrist/conservative House Dems go back and try, in ex post facto fashion, to further weaken and scupper vital pieces of those 2 plans, such as the Biden pharma price reduction parts (to give but one example):

4 centrist Democrats tried to scupper Biden's pharma cost reductions

Democrats Josh Gottheimer (NJ), Wiley Nickel (NC), Scott Peters (CA), and Donald Davis (NC) are all co-sponsored at least one of multiple bills that would stifle regulators’ ability to bring down prices of drugs covered by the Medicare. The bills would significantly reduce or outright block the drug price reduction framework contained in Biden's 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.

3 of the 4 are No Labels' Problem Solvers Caucus members, with Gottheimer being the co-chair, and the 4th, Davis, was the lone Democratic co-sponsor of a bill by Rethugs Greg Murphy and Brett Guthrie that significantly weakens Medicare's ability to lower prices:

The lone Democrat willing to weaken Medicare’s power to negotiate drug prices

https://www.statnews.com/2024/02/05/democrat-weaken-medicare-drug-price-negotiation/

All 4 are in the moderate/centrist New Democrat Coalition, and Nickel and Gottheimer are also in the conservative Blue Dog Coalition.

One of the bills, the Optimizing Research Progress Hope and News (ORPHAN) Cures Act, would exclude vital drugs for many diseases from the price reduction process.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/5539/text?s=1&r=88

Two other bills,

the Maintaining Investments in New Innovation (MINI) Act

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/5547

and the Ensuring Pathways to Innovative Cures (EPIC) Act,

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7174/cosponsors?s=7&r=1

would delay or block the price reduction apparatus for many other drugs.

The four have cumulatively taken in more than $400,000 from Big Pharma during just the 2023–2024 congressional session.

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/don-davis/industries?cid=N00049636&cycle=2024

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/josh-gottheimer/industries?cid=N00036944&cycle=2024

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/wiley-nickel/pacs?cid=N00049133&cycle=2024

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/scott-peters/industries?cid=N00033591&cycle=2024

[Afrocat]

69. So, we learned nothing from the RBG debacle?

good good, fanfuckingtastic.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

131. What did we learn from RBG? "Don't elect Republicans?"

I think we knew that, even way back in 2016

[Afrocat]

151. indeed

Don't elect Republicans and work on getting somewhat younger when we can because republicans will 100% fill every vacancy with younger idiots.

[GiqueCee]

71. Lemme get this straight...

... Nancy hounded Biden out of the presidential run because he was too old (Nancy's 2 years older than Joe), and for some reason, she hates AOC because she's too young. Never mind the fact that Ocasio Cortez is, without question, one of the smartest people in the whole goddam building.
Like a boxer that doesn't know when to retire until he gets his ass kicked, Pelosi doesn't want to admit it's time for her to step down. The Democratic gerontocracy (I'm older than most them!) has already proven that it is too far behind the curve to govern effectively, and resists new ideas, even though their own have failed. It's time for them to step aside. They still have a lot to contribute, but let it be in the form of guidance through the labyrinth of Congressional protocols, not shop-worn, my-way-or-the-highway, edicts that just don't work in this new political environment.

[DataDrivenFP]

146. The reason Kamala lost was she sucked up to the big money, along w the DNC and most Dem 'leaders'.

"A poll published December 3, 2024 by Navigator Research revealed that Trump’s stance on—and his ability to elevate—three key issues drastically swayed American voters at the ballot box. Those issues included inflation and the cost of living, immigration and the border, and jobs and the economy. Navigator Research surveyed 5,000 voters in the 2024 general election, some of whom self-reported as new Trump voters."

"U.S. voters seem to be more or less the only people in the world who believe that America has a bad economy. Other nations look at our performance with envy&quot Krugman)

U.S. voters are right, and 'the economy' is booming, but they're left behind.
The dichotomy is merely who is viewing the economy.
For billionaires and multimillionaires, and even the top 5-10%, the US economy is pretty good.

For most other people, not so much. BLS removed 'long term unemployed>1yr' from U6 in 1994. If we add those back in, plus seriously underemployed, unemployment looks more like -ulp- 25%. Pretty grim.
Two different folks track this.
https://www.lisep.org/tru
https://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

That's #1.
Second,
The US has siphoned $50 TRILLION from the working class to the top 1%, since 1970.
https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-america/

Even if ppl aren't aware of HOW it happened, or WHY it happened, it affects them, they're aware of something wrong, and this has led to epidemics in alcoholism, suicide, and drug use. (Case & Deaton)
tinyurl.com/NYT2020DeathsOfDespair
https://wapo.st/4gaS89S
"pointing to the underlying culprit behind all these trends: the corruption of the American economic system, which they argue looks “more like a racket for redistributing upward than an engine of general prosperity.” The skewing of wealth and income toward the richest Americans and educated elites over the past half-century — aided by government policies and legislation — has “slowly eaten away at the foundations of working-class life, high wages and good jobs,”

Pelosi, Schumer, Jeffries, Clyburn, the DNC, 'New Democrats', and similar groups have decided taking billionaire money is worth compromising on economic & other issues to please the donors. While the Dems in general are better than the R's, voters decided they wanted someone who promised to disrupt the system.

Leaders like this tend to be very good or very bad. https://bakadesuyo.com/2012/10/great-leaders-experience/

[PedroXimenez]

72. i wish the focus would be on the corruption, not the age

just speaking for myself, when i hear them talking about the age of these people, i mostly don't care.

But the part about the corruption makes me very angry. I believe I should be supporting dems over the GOP, which i do, and when they abuse that and enrich themselves it makes me angry.

[Mysterian]

77. Power corrupts

Pelosi has had power for too long.

[hurl]

78. I have been pleasantly surprised by the general reaction here

Based on some of the things that went on in the past, I was expecting most here to agree with Pelosi's decision. I'm all in on setting a new direction, even as an admirer of Nancy Pelosi.

[IzzaNuDay]

88. Does Congress have a mentoring culture?

Because all we see are folks mostly past retirement age assigned to ranking seats. What are they doing to cultivate and mentor the next generation of politicians? Or is that a privilege assigned to a few?

[lostnfound]

89. Big fan of both Pelosi and AOC. Pelosi made a tragic mistake. A braver move to actively support AOC.

Maybe she doesn’t trust her?
AOC speaks to so many groups. She scares the rich, though. Is that the reason Pelosi didn’t support her?

The future is not the past.AOC is a great communicator, and she has matured very well in her time in congress. Pelosi should have taken a chance.

[betsuni]

90. Pelosi conspiracy theories. For a couple years idiots swore she wouldn't impeach Trump

because she personally didn't want to. Same thing now, personal agenda, plotting and manipulating everything behind the scenes for personal gain BOO!

Republicans don't even have to bother to trash her anymore. They don't have to anything anymore! It's auto-trash, auto-hate.

[ForgedCrank]

91. To be frank,

I see it as the opposite. Pelosi (along with a few others) navigated quite well for many years. The introduction of leaders such as Cortez are what most people see as the problems regarding the Democratic Party.
When we hear criticism and outright rejection, the fingers ae almost always pointed at her and those with similar ideology. Think "The Squad" as it is referred to by many in the media. Sorry, but people just do not like policy that is this far outside of the norms of American society. These are the very people we need to shed if we are to regain ground.
I'm with Nancy on this one. She's one of the smartest leaders we've had for quite a long time, and knows exactly what she is doing.

[SocialDemocrat61]

93. If Pelosi is so smart

how come Democrats lost the House in the last two elections?

[ForgedCrank]

102. I'll refer

you back to my post that you replied to, the reply that validated my point.
We need to start shedding people who do not appeal to the majority of Americans. One of those people is Cortez.
OR, we keep following the same formula and keep losing.

[SocialDemocrat61]

110. A non-answer, answer

And AOC got re-elected

[ForgedCrank]

113. Yes, she

did. In her district. Her district is not America. not even close.
But hey, like I said... wanna keep losing? Stick to your guns, that'll show em!

[SocialDemocrat61]

114. Current leadership

has lost the House twice in a row. In addition to now losing the Senate and White House. Wanna keep losing? Keep doing what has failed in the past.

[ForgedCrank]

115. You are

bolstering the point I made. Are we losing because Nancy Pelosi exists? I hope you don't believe that. We are losing because we keep embracing ideals that are further and further toward the fringe. Ignore the national stage if you wish, but it is ill advised, especially if we'd like to win elections again.
Anyway, it doesn't seem to be sinking in so I'll stop. I'm not asking you to like what I'm saying so keep on keeping on.

[SocialDemocrat61]

116. Current leadership was

in charge of winning elections and they failed. Pelosi is part of leadership so she has a share in the responsibility for that failure. It’s the 2020s, not the 1990s anymore more. Trying to move backwards instead of forward is a recipe for failure. New ideas and new people are needed.

[ForgedCrank]

117. Ok.

[SocialDemocrat61]

118. Have a nice day!

[AllyCat]

129. I think the point here is we are losing. We lost bigly.

Old ideas are not helping us.

[Celerity]

105. Disagree with most of that, for reasons I have laid out for years here from a multiple number of angles, not all of them

AOC-specific by any means.

[Autumn]

98. Who the hell else is there to vote for? "What's past is prologue"

seems to have worked in the past.

[DontBelieveEastisEas]

100. I see you posted a news article. I can not tell where the snip srats and your comment starts.

Are you saying that Pelosi did a bad thing, in your opinion?

[Celerity]

104. I absolutely disagree with what Pelosi did. My personal comments throughout the thread and elswhere on DU

should serve to make that clear.

Also, my stances in re the gerontocratic elements in Dem leadership holding on to institutional power regardless of outcomes and refusing to pass the baton to new blood are far from limited to only being about the AOC events.

There is no personal commentary from me in my OP post, btw. When I do add my own thoughts to an article-based OP, I strive to always add a clear delineation between the article and my positings.

[seta1950]

101. Term limits!!!

I think , at a certain point, even the best has to cede the baton to the younger generation.

[ThePartyThatListens]

103. They're not learning

It's pathetic at this point

[Celerity]

107. I would say far more utterly predictable than pathetic, at least atm.

Although I will concede that the two are not mutually exclusive by any means.

[TheFarseer]

106. AOC would also be great in this role

She challenges people, does her homework and asks good questions. It would be nice to have effective opposition. I have a hard time believing Connolly has the energy or the inclination to effectively oppose the Republicans.

[JT45242]

109. Pelosi needs to go away... Period...You stage a coup and lose and there are consequences

When Nancy Pellosi appointed herself as Biden slayer then she had to deliver.

She backstabbed the most effective president during her tenure.

Then the Dems lost the white house, the house of reps, and the senate.

She gambled and lost.

She should go to the trash bin if failed coup leaders.

No I've should listen to her.

She took her shot at being kingmaker and brought fascists into power.

She should STFU because when you lose...you shut up.

[Midwestern Democrat]

136. Pelosi's only mistake in the Biden matter was not doing it MUCH EARLIER - like January 2024 - or better yet stopping

Biden 2024 from happening in the first place.

[LeftInTX]

122. This stuff happens alot in politics. It's clanny, cliquey, territorial and petty!

And many times it doesn't even make sense to the people who are involved! "I'm a blue dog dem, who hates socialists, but I want the socialist on my committee because my blue dog friends didn't invite me to lunch!"

[Renew Deal]

123. This is the reason why the generational change will be such a shock when it happens.

Unfortunately, we have seen way too often that people can't let go of power. Hopefully, new high-quality Democrats rise up to challenge those that refuse to give up power voluntarily.

Working against AOC is idiotic. She is trusted by people that want to see change in this country. They are the people that will drive the future.

Schumer is up for reelection in 2026, at 76 years old. I wonder if he'll run again. And either way, I wonder if AOC runs. She should.

[Celerity]

149. I have scolded a few times that even using the term 'generational change' is inherently ageist, which is ludicrous, but

here we are.

[pfitz59]

127. Youth and vigor is needed in the fight against MAGA

Putting old and ailing folks into the fray is flat-put insane. Let them retire to emeritus status.

[themaguffin]

133. Looking at the vote, she had little to do with it. it was going to happen.

[JohnSJ]

140. That is exactly right, and it wasn't a close vote either. Typical scape goating that is all too common among certain

segments of the party.

[alarimer]

134. I can't stand Pelosi

She's been putting her thumb on the scale against progressives for years. She needs to go, now. This isn't just about the Oversight thing, but because the Democrats DESPERATELY need new blood and, more importantly, NEW IDEAS. The same old corporate bullshit does not fly anymore.

[GoreWon2000]

142. They've been rolling over and playing dead since 2000

They acted like W was actually legitimately elected in 2000 instead of facing the ugly truth that he was appointed by 5 anti-democracy repug SCOTUS judges who threw out "we the people's" millions of votes in order to install their personally preferred candidate. They did nothing about this and they've been rolling over and playing dead ever since. They keep bringing a slingshot to the fight while the repugs keep bringing AK-47s. This is why our country is now about to become a Nazi dictatorship. Despite this 24 years of not fighting back, the DU administrators are opposed to democrats being criticized for their disastrous don't fight back behavior. I've been targeted a couple of times for trying to bring some accountability for this failed don't fight back strategy. This coddling must stop. The grassroots is made as hell and it's long overdue for everyone to face this ugly reality and call out this failed don't fight back strategy. Just maybe then, the party elites will begin to take notice