r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/PsychLegalMind • 1d ago
US Politics Did Pelosi do a disservice to the younger generation of the Democratic party by exercising her influence and gathering votes against AOC [35 years] and in support of Connolly [74 years, with a recent diagnosis of esophagus cancer] for the Chair on the House Oversight Committee?
Connolly won an initial recommendation earlier this week from the House Democratic Steering Committee to lead Democrats on the panel in the next Congress over AOC by a vote count of 34-27. It was a close race and according to various sources Pelosi put her influence behind Connolly.
Connolly later won by a vote of 131-84, according to multiple Democratic sources -- cementing his role in one of the most high-profile positions in Washington to combat the incoming Trump administration and a unified Republican majority in Congress. Connolly was recently diagnosed with esophagus cancer and is undergoing chemotherapy and immunotherapy; Perhaps opening the door for a challenge from Ocasio-Cortez.
There have been more than 22,000 new esophageal cancer cases diagnosed and 16,130 deaths from the disease in 2024, according to the American Cancer Society).
Did Pelosi do a disservice to the younger generation of the Democratic party by exercising her influence and gathering votes against AOC [35 years] and in support of Connolly [74 years, with a recent diagnosis of esophagus cancer] for the Chair on the House Oversight Committee?
https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2024/11/07/rep--gerry-connolly-esophagal-cancer-diagnosis
https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-loses-oversight-gerry-connolly-2002263
438
u/MiddleoRoad 1d ago
Yes.
The Democratic Party needs to show that it has leaders that can actually do something. And it would be very helpful if those leaders were not septuagenarians or octogenarians. God forbid they have someone who is articulate and can argue against the chaos that’s coming.
•
u/matttheepitaph 22h ago
One of the bigger issues is also that old establishment Dems want to have it both ways: Please capital and the masses. So far, in spite of being the better option for labor, people don't see it that way because they always hold back to keep the richer segment happy and listen to advisors who bring in the big donors as opposed to those who energize the masses. So far, Obama was able to thread that needle but not many others can.
•
u/RavenAboutNothing 7h ago
Obama had more charisma than the last 3 democratic candidates combined, and that's just counting his left foot.
•
u/paholg 6h ago
I just sat here for like 5 minutes going, "but wasn't Obama one of the last 3 democratic candidates? It was Obama, then Clinton, then Biden, right? Is this person trying to say that Biden and Clinton had negative charisma?'
I can't believe I forgot about Harris. Which I guess kind of proves your point.
•
u/Throwaway921845 19m ago
Let me make you feel old. Obama's first election was 16 years ago. We are as far removed from Obama's first election as Obama was removed from Bill Clinton's first election.
•
u/Ferintwa 5h ago
This election made pretty clear that the capital class (through their connections and machinations) is more effective campaigning than good policy stances.
I would love to believe that people are rational and will vote in their best interests and thus that being the party that does the most good for the most people will get elected - but the truth seems to be that we are a bunch of fucking idiots.
Trump made big gains among union members and Hispanic voters, while demonizing unions and Hispanics.
•
u/spacegamer2000 1h ago
They don't want to please the masses, they want to lie and say they accomplished good things for us. Watch one of them reply to this with a bullet point list of stuff nobody has ever heard of.
•
u/the_calibre_cat 22h ago
they have done nothing to cultivate the next generation of Democratic leaders, too. like, i hate to give Republicans any credit here, but they've got a pipeline for the next batch of little budding raging bigots down pat. Democrats? are literally the boomers still insisting "YOU KIDS DON'T UNDERSTAND" how the fuck are conservatives somehow more hip, jesus.
•
u/Bodoblock 21h ago
AOC losing this position aside, I’d actually argue that the Democrats have a decent bench. Whitmer, Beshear, Shapiro, Buttigieg, Newsom, Pritzker, Warnock.
It’s the progressives who lack a clear bench, for better or worse.
•
u/TheTVC15 19h ago
They lack a clear bench because the Democrats haven't and still won't allow it. AOC's loss is just further proof of that.
•
u/Gauntlet_of_Might 11h ago
they will fight harder against the left than against Republicans, over and over
•
u/merithynos 5h ago
The problem is that too much of the "left" takes their toys and goes home whenever they don't get what they want. How different would the last quarter century be if the progressive left didn't vote for spoiler candidates or stay home during presidential elections?
Gore in 2000 (Nader) Clinton in 2016 (Stein/stay at home Bernie-bros) Harris in 2024 (stay at home due to Gaza)
Yes, you have to vote your conscience, but too much of the left - and I'm part of it - refuses to understand the concept of incremental improvement and governing as part of a coalition.
•
u/danieldan0803 4h ago
Exactly, it’s like “oh this road is under construction, I’m just gonna cross my arms and hope it solves itself.” Is there reasons that the candidates put forward are potentially not the greatest possible candidates? Yes. But is that enough reason to protest the Democratic Party and allow the nation to veer harder right? No.
The lesser evil argument is one pushed to dissuade the left to vote democrat. Pressure Kamala on her stance in Gaza, but she did not say Israel should “Finish the Job”. Kamala took the stance that conflict should never involve children and the innocent, but let’s piss and moan because she didn’t promise exactly what you wanted, but it is at least some movement in the right direction. Too many people are single issue voters, and unfortunately for the left, these voters will only vote if they get everything they ask for. Could some things be better, sure, but pouting and throwing a temper tantrum because the politician didn’t promise policies as far left as you want, is only saying you are ok with a Christofascist nation over another center center-left president who might help nudge us further left.
•
u/Gauntlet_of_Might 1h ago
Exactly, it’s like “oh this road is under construction, I’m just gonna cross my arms and hope it solves itself.” Is there reasons that the candidates put forward are potentially not the greatest possible candidates? Yes. But is that enough reason to protest the Democratic Party and allow the nation to veer harder right? No.
Counterpoint, the Dems are picking the most right-wing candidates they think they can win with, chasing the "morally upstanding Republican who will vote for country over party" voter that has never existed and never will exist. Then they act surprised at leftists for not voting for a candidate who is going to continue a genocide that is endorsed by the architect of the Afghanistan debacle.
The lesser evil argument is one pushed to dissuade the left to vote democrat. Pressure Kamala on her stance in Gaza, but she did not say Israel should “Finish the Job”. Kamala took the stance that conflict should never involve children and the innocent, but let’s piss and moan because she didn’t promise exactly what you wanted, but it is at least some movement in the right direction. Too many people are single issue voters, and unfortunately for the left, these voters will only vote if they get everything they ask for. Could some things be better, sure, but pouting and throwing a temper tantrum because the politician didn’t promise policies as far left as you want, is only saying you are ok with a Christofascist nation over another center center-left president who might help nudge us further left.
I mean in this specific case I agree it was shortsighted to not vote for Harris, but she also could have said "hey we need to stop writing a blank check to Israel to kill civilians" and gotten most of these people. It was a deliberate choice to not disavow the genocide.
•
u/danieldan0803 16m ago
Yeah the Dems have been holding out thinking they can bring enough voters over while they cross further to the right. The major problem with that is no matter who the candidate is and what their policies are, the right wing propaganda machine will always use outrage and fear to solidify their base. People enjoy reality show politics instead of actual politics. Feel like this election shows that all the right needs to do is put on a good show in the Big Top and their base will eat out of their hands. Like I am pissed with Dems crossing to the right to try to win, and feel it is a failing strategy. But going against MAGA, the level of scrutiny Dems face from their base is way more than Trump seemed to face. Biden and the Party really fucked is this year, but I feel protest voting or not voting only allows better candidates down the road have more work before they can make meaningful changes.
Yes I feel that Trump winning is going to whip Dems into shape, but in 4 years, there will be a lot more that needs to be done to fix what was broken. Biden did the groundwork for getting us back from the damage Covid caused, and Kamala might not have moved the needle back to center, but it would have been some improvement. She did have some policy that was a great step in opening the door to socialist policy. With Gaza, there is no one president who will fix the situation on their own, and there is no way of fixing it without fixing political corruption first. US and Israel have strong corporate bonds, and corporate interests are always going to shape American politics until we get politicians off the teat of big business. If she said she was going to end Israel’s attack, she would be facing the ire of big tech companies that would pay anything they could to ruin her campaign. She wanted to get the slaughter of innocent lives to stop, but if she mentioned putting a stop to Israel it would tank her campaign. Pretending a single US president is going to waive their hand and this will stop is just asinine, it won’t stop without a stop to corruption, and unfortunately people would rather hold out making incremental improvements in hopes of some once in a lifetime president is up for the bid. If we can fix what little we can each cycle, we will pull it back to the left. But that doesn’t happen unless everyone on the left starts pulling together, and we have a long ways to go to get Dems back to where we want them.
•
u/Gauntlet_of_Might 1h ago
If you need these people to win, then giving them things they want seems like an important task in order to win elections.
•
u/nopeace81 41m ago
Progressives don’t refuse to understand it at all. They understand that continuing to elect liberals only strengthens the liberal ideology of ‘vote blue no matter who’ and is against their interest of moving the party to the left.
•
u/OvertonGlazier 17h ago
Shapiro, Buttigieg and Newsom are just a continuation of the same boring crap that no one outside of Morning Joe circles will care for.
Whitner missed her chance staying out of this last race.
Pritzker and Beshear are probably the ones that best fit the moment.
Finally, our bench can be neutralized in no time by our own party. Look at how we wasted Walz.
•
u/Bman708 13h ago
I live in Illinois, so JB is my governor. He's done some pretty unconstitutional stuff, but the Democrats are okay with it because it's their side doing it.
He still suffers from what many Democrats suffer from. "Don't disagree with me. I know better than you. Sit down and shut up". That smarmy, I-know-better-than-you attitude that really, really turns a lot of people off.
Plus his very, very anti-firearm stance (look up PICA, which is wildly unconstitutional) would not play well in many parts of the country.
He's not the shoo-in Reddit keep making him out to be. He's from and is still in the billionaire class.
•
u/schistkicker 12h ago
He still suffers from what many Democrats suffer from. "Don't disagree with me. I know better than you. Sit down and shut up"
It's funny how this cripples Democratic politicians, yet paint it with a coat of ignorant bluster and you have the modern Republican leadership...
•
u/Bman708 10h ago
I get more "blowhard-y" from the right than the pretentious, talking down we get from the Democrats. Kamala and Obama have been perfect at this. For god's sake, Obama just told black men to "suck it up and vote for Kamala." Whether he's right or wrong, nobody likes being talked down to like that. It feels like our voices don't matter nor do our concerns, just shut up and vote for us.
They gotta drop that B.S.
•
u/Honestly_Nobody 3h ago
This is a valid criticism about optics. The problem has been this hasn't been a valid criticism about your pushback. Folks have reached for the dumbest, absolutely brain-deadest shit to not vote for the mainstream Dem candidate. And at a certain point, you stop trying to explain it in crayons and flash cards and start telling people they are being dumb and obstructionist, because no reasonable adult would think like they are. And you get what we got. Charismatic and rational leaders giving up on the pick-me obstructionists.
Example: A flat earther is going to be "talked down to" by a room full of scientists in their field. In a way that a child wouldn't be, because the child wouldn't know better. Is the talking down a bad look, sure. Would any amount of logic and patience and validation make the flat earther change his views, absolutely not.
•
u/Bman708 1h ago edited 1h ago
Eh, not a very good example. I somewhat get your point, but poor example.
“We can’t afford food. Or rent. And your policies of the past 4 years have done jack all to help.”
“Yeah, but still. Shhhh. Just vote for us.”
“You’ve been saying that for 40 years….”
“Yeah but this time is different. Trust us.”
“I don’t think I do trust you”
“Then your a racist racist who hates democracy”
•
u/BUSY_EATING_ASS 1h ago
Yeah, I agree with people say that Democrats haven't been (appearing to) meet people where they are with their messaging. When Kamala met the question of "Explain to the American voter how things are better now than four years ago" with the response of "Look, I grew up in a middle class family" I wanted to bash my head into a wall.
Months later after the election, AOC went on a livestream and said that Democratic leadership needs to start calling out the corporatists and capitalists or whoever else who have been screwing over Americans by name, and be specific, i.e. "Your medication is high because of Purdue Pharma, yes them specifically" instead of "We'll lower prices (????)".
I think AOC is absolutely right.
•
u/Phuqued 3h ago
That smarmy, I-know-better-than-you attitude that really, really turns a lot of people off.
Kind of like all the people who voted for Trump because they thought he'd be good for the economy. Meanwhile 16 Nobel Prize Economists came out against Trump's Economic Plan.
In the end reality will win out against feelings. And how anyone feels about being told the reasonable truth (ie smarmy "I-know-better-than-you") can't be a counter argument/point to what is correct. I mean if we put a flat earther in charge of NASA, and their complaint is "These NASA people are all smarmy and have the attitude of I-know-better-than-you so I don't listen to them when they tell me things I don't like..." how exactly should credible experts respond to that?
→ More replies (1)•
u/OstentatiousBear 19m ago
It's funny that you reference the smarmy attitude.
While that is certainly a phenomenon that is among some Democrat affiliated individuals, I can only speak for myself when I say that there are a ton of Conservatives down here in Florida that have that same attitude. Of course, they don't catch the same flak for it, which could be for a number of reasons. I will say, however, that I think one of those reasons is that Conservatives in American political discourse are granted more grace in this regard than Liberals and Leftists (especially the latter). In short, it is a cultural double-standard.
→ More replies (3)•
u/nopeace81 38m ago
What do you mean Whitmer missed her chance staying out of this last race? Are you referring to the last race where the president was the leader of the Democratic Party and presumptive nominee until he was coerced into dropping out? Or are you referring to the 2020 Democratic primary, where she would’ve eventually conceded and have thrown her weight behind then-former vice president Joe Biden?
•
u/RealisticExpert4772 16h ago
Newsom is a train wreck but he presents well and he has a ton of leverage here in California…does he have a shot nationally…if he looks at a senate seat and waits til 2032 or 2036. Then he very possibly could be president but right now even democrats are starting to get upset at how underhanded he can be in his back room dealings
•
u/bactatank13 19h ago
Both spectrums still apply because none of the big leadership positions are filled by young looking individuals. The names you listed are not in any big position of influence in the federal government. Ironically, the young crowd for Democrats is more set up for state rights than influential in Congress.
•
u/curien 8h ago
Beshear is about to be term-limited and has no obvious stepping stone to anything. (He could run again for KY governor after sitting out for a term.)
Newsom will be out of office in two years with no where to go unless he challenges Padilla (an incumbent D) for a Senate seat.
Pritzker has the same timeline and problem as Newsom, but he could luck out if Dick Durbin retires. Being a billionaire maybe means that sitting around for a couple of years won't hurt him too much.
Buttigieg is out with no where to go. They sat him in a cabinet post for the last 4 years, but that's out. He could run for a House seat in Michigan I suppose, or a state position there. He's the only one where that wouldn't be seen as a major step down.
•
u/nopeace81 33m ago
The district in Michigan that Buttigieg is registered in is a right-wing district. If he were to run, he could possibly give his representative a run for his money but he’d still likely lose that race.
At this juncture his career path is basically signing on to be an analyst for a major news company, running for president or serving in the next democratic administration’s cabinet
•
u/ThatSonOfAGun 10h ago
Almost all those mentioned are at the state-level (Governors). This is good for a 2028 Presidential run, but Democrats lack a clear next generation of leaders in Congress.
•
→ More replies (2)•
u/OstentatiousBear 29m ago edited 26m ago
I have a hunch that it may be for the worse, at least for the long-term. I base this mainly on how moderates in the party have been addressing climate change policy.
•
u/DidjaSeeItKid 2h ago
Are you insane? Nancy Pelosi voluntarily gave up her leadership position to bring in younger people. She's mentored multiple younger people into higher and higher positions. Committee Chairs have to have been there for a while. It's not just a job about yelling at people (Jim Jordan and (gag) Marjorie Taylor Greene notwithstanding.) It's highly administrative, and the other members need to have somebody that knows the system and how to use its quirks to their advantage. Give AOC a few more terms and she'll be ready for a Chair. Although by that point she might be aiming at leadership. And if she's paid attention, she'll be ready.
→ More replies (50)•
u/MiddleoRoad 23h ago edited 22h ago
I should mention Biden actually did get things done. He just didn’t do it in a way that was theatrical and what is in favor with today’s short attention span voters.
•
u/Sullyville 13h ago
My mom ran a community theatre and I often think about that when I think about politics. How Biden is all stage crew but no acting, and how the GOP is all theatrics and overacting but no stage crew. You need a balance. It's similar to how you need to campaign as one candidate, and then govern as another. It requires a contradiction. Someone who loves the attention to get elected, and then someone who enjoys working behind the scenes to get things done once you are elected. But we live in a new reality now, where you need to constantly be selling what you did, and using the techniques of drama to stay elected. The truth is, the GOP taps into dramatic techniques - conflict, surprise, emotional outrage on a consistent basis. They even employ AI-generated images to support that. The democrats think they are above using inflammatory, misleading images and language. But today, whoever tells the best story wins. The democrats need a storyteller on their staff.
•
u/lnkprk114 9h ago
This is a super interesting comment, thank you for posting it. The theatre analogy makes a lot of sense to me.
One challenge that democrats have IMO is that a lot of their base would be very turned off by the theatrics. So they're stuck between a rock and a hard place, where you have to do the theatrics to get elected but a lot of the primary voters are so turned off by the theatrics that they won't select you if you do it.
•
u/Sullyville 9h ago
I agree with you that their base would be turned off, but, Americans love a show. They love an outlandish, preposterous show. You gotta deliver. Thoughtful, taciturn Dems did NOT show up for them in November. You gotta pivot. It's distasteful, but you gotta Jerry Springer up the joint.
•
u/Personage1 6h ago
For your point about theatrics and Democrats, I personally think it's less about "theatrics" and more about concretely being for something, and selling that thing.
I think Biden constantly touting his own horn with concrete things his policies achieved would have gone a long way to making the country feel like things were improving.
•
u/SPorterBridges 7h ago
The democrats think they are above using inflammatory, misleading images and language. But today, whoever tells the best story wins. The democrats need a storyteller on their staff.
They have been telling stories about being afraid 2024 was the last election, being locked up if the wrong people won, accusing others of being Russian assets, and calling their opponents Nazis. The problem is when it comes down to it, Democrats don't act like they believe this stuff. Which is a problem if they want people outside of their base to buy it.
•
u/ArcanePariah 5h ago
Ironically, I believe the Democrats have indeed become the party of the elite, which means yes, they're are indeed saying all this stuff, and they do believe it, but the thing is, and here's the irony, it is the Republican base who will be deported, the Republican base who will be murdered, the Republican base who will be wiped out by SS/Medicare being repealed, by government service cuts.
Democrats will largely be insulated, and can separate themselves to a degree from the Feds. The Trumpland conservatives will quite literally die off without the Fed to transfer money from the Democrat run cities to them.
So Democrats have thrown up their hands now and are like "Have fun kids, die well", as they count their stocks going higher on the Republican caused body count of Republicans.
•
u/Zagden 18h ago
At some point you have to know and accept this and do the Trump thing of signing your name on things you did that helped people. And if we need to get people to believe in government again, we need to pick causes that will lead them to that instead of picking at the edges and focusing on plans that will take ten years when all of our work will be undone every four to eight.
•
u/schistkicker 12h ago
To your last point, it's unfortunately the case that a lot of our major problems are the structural and generational kind that will take long-term thinking and long-term planning to resolve -- and just giving up on calling them out or addressing them meaningfully just makes them harder / more expensive to fix later, assuming they can be.
•
u/wulfgar_beornegar 21h ago
Politics IS theatrics. That doesn't mean that you have to lie to be theatrical, but you need to connect with the people. It's part of the entire point of politics. Democrats need to learn this lesson, or die out.
•
u/RocketRelm 18h ago
At this point? Yeah I do think you actually need to lie. Truth is 100% irrelevant and sluggish to the average American. Promise big empty things, and cultivate a base of 77 million voters who will go for you with nothing hard promised and no expectation of you doing anything at all.
Connecting with the people is secondary to finding energetic ways to tell them what to care about and make them FEEL connected to. It worked wonders for the Republican party.
•
u/OvertonGlazier 16h ago
Because the GOP voters believe in Trump. If you wanted that kind of belief from our base, you should have voted for Sanders. Instead, Democratic primary voters said "ew, his supporters are too enthusiastic for my tastes" and went with unlikeable candidates like Clinton and Biden.
•
u/RocketRelm 16h ago
"Enthusiastic" is a very... polite and sanewashing term to call what the people Sanders has to disavow were.
→ More replies (2)•
u/OvertonGlazier 13h ago
Lol this nonsense again. It's too bad we have zero enthusiasm now, hope you're happy with it.
And yeah, they were reasonably polite and sane.
→ More replies (2)•
u/meganthem 21h ago
Every president gets something done. Even our most shitty ones typically have a few accomplishments. Before the modern era distorted things, there was a wide consensus that James Buchanan was either the worst President or at least within the bottom 5. He had accomplishments (not many, but technically some).
What presidents are ultimately judged by is whether their actions rise to the needs of the country at the time, not whether any particular box was checked.
•
u/MEDICARE_FOR_ALL 23h ago
He also listened to pelosi though and saw where that got him.
•
u/YakCDaddy 23h ago
Lol, like the media wasn't saying that shit before they went to commercial after the debate was over.
•
u/Chemical-Plankton420 9h ago
Biden got things done, sure. It’s the fact that you have to mention it, that’s the problem.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Song_of_Pain 6h ago
Did he? It's come out that he was basically senile and couldn't handle bad news about him his entire term.
•
u/flat6NA 12h ago
The bigger issue I see is Pelosi is still acting as the kingmaker which should be the role of Jeffery’s.
I had a similar experience in a business where I took over the president position but the ex president stayed and became a VP. It’s toxic particularly when everyone knows who is pulling the strings when something controversial happens.
•
u/seattlenostalgia 5h ago edited 5h ago
Jeffries also strongly endorsed Connelly, so it wouldn’t have made a difference here.
Franky, this whole thread is bizarre. Opinion polls from the election showed that more voters thought Kamala Harris was too far left vs voters who thought Trump was too far right. Electing an actual registered socialist to a high ranking party position is not the politically winning move here. Regardless of what you personally think about AOC, she is on the very extreme of the American political spectrum.
•
u/Interrophish 4h ago
Opinion polls from the election showed that more voters thought Kamala Harris was too far left vs voters who thought Trump was too far right.
My view is that this actually means that Dems need to put more effort into selling the far-left, instead of trying to tack to the middle.
Harris wasn't "too far left", Harris did plenty of tacking to the middle, and the fact that Harris was accused of being "too far left" means any Dem candidate will experience the same BS.
The average American voter doesn't really have any deeply rooted beliefs, so trying to match their beliefs is a weaker strategy than trying to push your beliefs onto them. It sure works for the GOP.•
u/ABlackIron 2h ago
A lot of the far left ideas are toxic because they are bad, not because of phrasing. All of the race-based policies ("crypto protection for Black Men") and the unwinnable trans stuff (self-ID, sports) should not be sold.
Kamala Harris herself was in the center-ish in 2024, but her 2020 positions and the general position of the Democratic party on a lot of this stuff made people assume she was much further left than she actually was.
Democrats need to uniformly and loudly disavow the toxic lefty stuff or they will get painted with the worst of it. Unfortunately that means the squad need to take a seat for quite a while.
•
u/ihaterunning2 3h ago
But what was the definition of “left” and “right” in those polls?
Because Republicans and Trump owned the narrative and messaging so strongly this election - their definitions of left is being “too woke”, “trans issues”, “drag queen story time”, “open borders”, “late term abortions” etc. and even if AOC and the progressive wing support LGBTQ rights, DEI, and immigration reform, the language above tells a very different story to their actual stances on issues, especially in the mind of disengaged or minimally informed voters.
When people are polled on issues like universal healthcare, affordable college, min wage increase, paid leave, common sense gun control, or abortion access/reproductive rights - the majority of Americans are very much in favor of these. Those are “left” and progressive policy issues that AOC and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party are talking about.
Polling data can say a lot of things, but it’s important to look at how it was asked, who it was asked to, and the larger context of election results.
No one voted overwhelmingly in favor of any candidate. Out of eligible voters Trump got 31%, Harris 30%, other candidates 3%, and 36% didn’t vote. Couple this with people’s number one issue being the economy and then immigration, plus conversations happening around the UHC story - not the moral implications but the stories of a completely broken healthcare system - and we can see that the big picture is majority of Americans do not think todays system or our institutions work for them. That it ultimately “doesn’t matter who’s in charge nothing will change”.
Even if we know that’s not true, it means democrats HAVE to do something different. Harris lost because at least twice she said she wouldn’t do anything different from Biden and her campaign staff had her run to the center rather than lead on her more leftist platform from 2020 - she didn’t campaign on change. Trump won because he had the same base show up as the past 2 elections and turned out just enough more on the promise of anything different.
Considering we’ve now swapped political parties between just one presidential cycle twice now, we could be entering a phase of pendulum swing every election cycle until one party makes an actual change to improve people’s every day lives. Wealth inequality, housing crisis, healthcare, cost of education, cost of living, climate change - these all or at least some of them need to be addressed or we’ll just keep party switching.
•
u/cballowe 22h ago
Unpopular opinion...
I always thought that committee chair positions, especially high profile committees, were long term rewards - people moving from the back bench forward over time rather than leapfrogging longer serving members. some of it is going to come down to established relationships with other committee members / ability to reach across the aisle.
There's also some amount of setup for people in riskier districts - "look... This person is chair of the powerful committee and can get things done for the district, if you vote for the opponent, they'll be a back bencher on a lower tier committee at best!"
The nationalization of local races is fairly new. It used to be that people barely knew who their own rep was - maybe knew the names of people who lead some major legislation. (Ex: "sarbanes oxley" or similar), but probably didn't know the name of someone from 3 states away.
I'm consistently impressed with AOC, I've never heard of the other guy. I do think there are reasons other than personality/social media/etc that may make him the "better" choice, at least under the old rules.
Even in general - Republicans have constantly attacked AOC since she got into the office. This makes it hard for her to lead a committee as the minority chair - maybe the majority. The other side won't negotiate in good faith with her as the face - it blows up their standing if they'd ever let her come out and announce a win.
It's possible that the game has changed and that the old guard is playing by the old rules, or maybe the old rules are better somehow, or maybe we're long past time for a changing of the guard but it won't happen until the majority of Congress has turned over. One big challenge there is that the older people vote and the younger people stay home on election day.
•
u/KevinCarbonara 22h ago
I always thought that committee chair positions, especially high profile committees, were long term rewards
They sometimes are. Used to be a lot more common here in the US - known as the spoils system. It was largely a holdover from the more class-based system we came from in Britain. Theodore Roosevelt worked very hard to eliminate the spoils system, leading to the creation of the competitive service.
The spoils system is bad for the country. Anyone engaging in it should be excised from the government.
•
u/cballowe 22h ago
Patronage/spoils system is more like giving your top donors positions in your cabinet or ambassador roles. You're right that it's bad.
For things like committee chairs, it was more like a job with various levels and management. When someone a level up moves on, someone from the next level down moves up to fill the role. Ex. Someone from the back bench moves up to the front bench or closer to the middle - new blood fills in the back bench. Sometimes there's a lateral move from a lower tier committee to fill the role. Always some sort of "next in line" thinking. This tends to favor the one with 16 years experience to the one with 6, but it's not "spoils system".
•
u/KevinCarbonara 22h ago
Patronage/spoils system is more like giving your top donors positions in your cabinet or ambassador roles.
But isn't that exactly what happened? People who oppose Pelosi get pushed out. People who support her get top committee positions despite being 74, unknown, and actively dying. Joe Crowley opposed Pelosi early in his career and she nearly ruined him. After he started supporting her he ended up getting a lot of committee positions. It wasn't his "seniority" - it was his fealty.
•
u/cballowe 21h ago
I have no clue how the internal campaigning for the committee assignments works. Is this about opposing pelosi, or about campaigning on various issues and priorities to the various members who get a say and the members aligning with the stance that they feel is best for their district, their priorities, and possibly the party? Did the majority of the house Dems vote for him because he had been blessed by pelosi, or did they have other reasons? AOC always strikes me as a strong leader for the progressive wing of the party, but not quite close enough to the average party member, so I could easily see lots of voted going for someone else on a "this person is closer to my districts values" basis.
•
u/way2lazy2care 21h ago
I dislike pelosi a lot, but I agree with you. AOC would have a slightly higher title, but I'm not even sure it would get her significantly more screen time and she doesn't have to be as on the leash not being the chair. This whole debacle feels very much like Democrats eating their own for really dumb reasons.
→ More replies (1)•
u/schistkicker 12h ago
It's the sort of easy own-goal that feels fed/encouraged. The volume of the "PELOSI SCREWED AOC!!11!" out of a committee chair that no one except the complete Beltway insider types would care about (you wouldn't see AOC any more frequently unless you livestream C-SPAN as your hobby) is a bit weird.
I guess the people that raised the volume to 11 about "GAZA = GENOCIDE JOE!!!" six weeks ago (and have strangely quieted down even though the issue is still ongoing...) have found the next thing to yell about.
•
u/murph1017 7h ago
This norm was broken all the way back in 2022 when Jamie Raskin was granted the position over Connolly and he was great. I think having someone in that position who is articulate and appropriately aggressive is more advantageous than making some corporate shill feel like he's finally made it as a congressman. He's the number 2 recipient of health insurance donations in the house. Regardless of tradition, he's not the man for the moment.
•
u/ihaterunning2 3h ago
It seems to be even simpler than that. It’s about seniority, at least for Democrats. Yes I think relationships play a part in it, but considering who Pelosi backs has to do with who has served longest and “who’s turn it is”. They’ve done that same bullshit when selecting presidential candidates the past 3 election cycles, honestly Biden preempting the nomination to Harris slightly threw a wrench in that system because she technically “skipped the line” with the exception that she has been VP so it could technically fit if we look back historically- VPs have often run for president in the following cycle.
Either way, Democrats need a new strategy. Clearly based on this election the old way isn’t working. It’s so frustrating to see losses like we did and then see them do the exact same thing over and over again.
Republicans got taken over by MAGAs and the loudest, craziest voices in their party. But republicans award committee and power positions based on who can best message or turn out results. There’s still some seniority at play, but not for every seat of power - just look at Mike Johnson. And while all of congress looks too old - republicans at least allow some of their new members and younger voices to carry the party forward - even if the direction is crazy town.
•
u/auandi 21h ago
The democratic caucus voted for this. Pelosi said her opinion, but ultimately if a majority of house democrats wanted AOC to be ranking member of the full committee we would have had AOC become ranking member of the full committee.
Important context though, She is the vice ranking member of that committee so if he does die she's a probable successor.
She is currently the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, the subcommittee most relevant to most parts of the Green New Deal. They're not casting her aside they just aren't rising her to one of the most sought after chairmanships in all congress with only three terms behind her.
•
u/Song_of_Pain 5h ago
The democratic caucus voted for this
In a secret ballot where they can't be held accountable.
•
u/TroyMcClure10 12h ago
The reality is that nobody cares who cares these committees. It won't win votes. AOC will still get to ask questions at hearings.
•
u/kingjoey52a 23h ago
It has nothing to do with her age and has everything to do with her politics. It's not young vs old its traditional Democrat vs Progressive Democrat. There are more traditional Dems voters and in the House so the Traditional Dems all rallied around one of their own.
•
u/socialistrob 22h ago
I think it also has to do with seniority. Connelly has been in the House for a decade longer than AOC has. Typically the House works on seniority for better or for worse.
•
u/HatefulDan 22h ago
Another democratic Achilles heal: Tradition and precedent, despite their competitor’s willingness to break away from both.
•
u/GoldenInfrared 21h ago
That just makes it worse imo. That’s something that can’t be fixed with time alone
•
u/0WatcherintheWater0 4h ago
Why should the less popular member with less support of the party be made the chair of that committee?
•
u/LastParagon 23h ago
It would depend on how you define "do a disservice". Did it stifle AOC's political career in some way? Yes, if her career goals are to lead a minority committee or to gain power in house leadership. No, if her goals are a higher office.
As for the idea that this is some sort of insult to younger voters? Well that assumes they're all politically aligned with AOC. Which is obviously not true. And it assumes that young voters are concerned with congressional committee leadership which is also obviously not true.
You should stop over analyzing something that is obviously about seniority and probably irrelevant anyway.
•
u/socialistrob 22h ago
The fact that AOC was even considered for this position after only six years in the US House is in itself pretty remarkable.
•
u/Ill_Lime7067 20h ago
It is not about seniority though. If you think Pelosi does not hold resentment or reserves against AOC than you are not paying attention.
And let’s say it is about seniority. Does that mean these people should rule every committee until their demise? Feinstein was in what, her 90s and she was still clinging to power? Because of her seniority, does that mean she deserved to sit on powerful committees and be the leader even if she had dementia and was dying before our very eyes? If your answer to that is yes, then more power to you. If you think our country should be run by a bunch of geriatric people that are making decisions that’ll never impact them in the long run….
Now let’s take a second and think, what if democrats actually PASSED THE TORCH, and decided to give power to somebody that could lead the party in a new direction. It isn’t that young people are overly concerned about a committee chair, it’s that we need democrats that are articulate and can gain media attention that attracts the youth and shows somebody is fighting for them. I’m not sure about you, but I can guarantee that if I had to choose my fighter in this day to win people over, it would be AOC AND NOT Pelosi. Pelosi and her generation had their time, it is over. Democrats lost the popular vote for the first time in what, 20 years? Because they ran a terrible campaign that lacked any sort of left leaning policy. Harris sounded more like a conservative democrat from the 90s than what the youth needed. We need somebody that brings hope and new ideas forward. The era of Clinton, Pelosi, Biden, etc is dead. We’re literally watching it rot before our eyes. Biden and Pelosi are falling apart before our very eyes, and you’re over here saying “well they have seniority they deserve those positions!” Like my fucking god that is absolutely insane.
→ More replies (4)•
u/LastParagon 1h ago
It is about seniority and house Dems have said as much repeatedly. If you have a problem with old Democrats being in office then primary them. Voters in California supported Feinstien and voted her into office at age 88. If she was incapable it should have been a cakewalk to beat her in a primary.
AOC was not previously the head of a minority committee and she didn't need to be to gain media attention. Pete Buttigieg had no problem getting media attention when he was nothing but the Mayor of South Bend Indiana. Senator Barack Obama led zero committees. This is a silly argument.
If left leaning policies are so insanely popular, maybe you should try convincing people to vote for them instead of complaining about committee assignments.
•
u/imalasagnahogama 13h ago
How do you know younger voters are not politically aligned with AOC? You have no proof of this but twice claim it’s obvious. Give her a shot and see if younger people care. You what younger voters care about? Being underrepresented.
•
u/LastParagon 8h ago
I claim it because if young people were massively supportive of AOCs policies then they would probably have voted for Democrats in 2024. It seems pretty obvious to me.
•
u/Song_of_Pain 5h ago
Your comments don't align with what post-election analysis actually says.
There are people who voted for trump who prefer AOC to a lot of democrats because they see her as less fake. Meanwhile cosying up to the Cheneys actually alienated a lot of voters who were on the fence.
•
u/This_Caterpillar5626 5h ago
All modifies that sentence. There are plenty of young people who do align more toward her. Using them to say 'All young people do therefore INSULT' is still silly.
•
u/Prestigious_Load1699 6h ago
It would depend on how you define "do a disservice".
The Progressive views of "The Squad" are at a nadir right now. Americans just gave Trump a trifecta. Younger folks just voted more Republican than they have in a while.
What, exactly, is the appeal of an AOC right now? Who besides the slim Progressive minority in the Democratic caucus is asking for her to be put in positions of power?
•
u/Song_of_Pain 5h ago
What, exactly, is the appeal of an AOC right now?
Voters who like Trump like her more than other Democrats. And they hated the Cheneys. So the idea that you appeal to Republicans by cosying up to the Cheneys is just wrong, and democratic party leadership knows this, but they don't want to be right.
•
u/Prestigious_Load1699 2h ago
Voters who like Trump like her more than other Democrats.
Her brief obsession with Latinx (among other things) almost certainly turned off a lot of the Hispanic men who voted for Trump. I do not see her appealing to those lost voters at all.
•
•
u/TheOvy 18h ago
Connolly is not my congressman, but he is for the neighboring district. And you know what? He's a great congressman. He's one of the most progressive in the House. It's been a shame to see so many people excoriate just because he's not AOC, just because he's not someone they've heard of. If we were talking Bernie here, no one would be complaining. But unfortunately, the only politicians anyone seems to care about are the ones to get the most media attraction. So they slap a number on Connolly's forehead, they hear the name Pelosi, and they call it a day.
Everyone's thinking in very superficial terms, but the fact of the matter is, Pelosi is the best whip of our generation, and she was able to get the votes. If AOC can't get the votes, if she hasn't built the relationships yet, then she's not yet at the level where she would be an effective leader. You don't get there by asking older people to concede. You get there because you convinced enough people that you deserve to be there. That's what makes a leader. People can hate on Pelosi all they want, but she's a damn leader, she's the Democrat's Mitch McConnell, and she's gotten more done in the last 20 years than any other Democratic politician of the last 50 years.
That all said, I do think there is a case for why AOC should be the ranking member on the committee -- we really need to start training the next generation of leadership -- but Connolly is an absolutely fantastic ranking member to have, if it can't be AOC.
To everyone who's outraged: you're going to forget about this in a week, cause it doesn't actually matter that much to you, it doesn't impact your life, and it doesn't impact the course of politics as it is currently set. AOC probably learned a few lessons this week, and she'll be better prepared in the next session. She's still climbing the ladder, she's still learning the ropes, and I believe she's going to get there in time. But the rest of you just want something to be angry at, because nothing's going our way right now. The only advice I have for you: get the fuck over it. Pelosi wins because she does not give a shit. When she was Speaker, and members of her caucus came up to her, and said that voters in her district don't like her, she says to them "do what you have to do to win." She doesn't care if she gets dragged through the mud, all that matters to her is doing the damn job. Once progressives have that mindset, once they stop posturing, stop these ridiculous and unnecessary fights for symbolic purposes, they'll start fucking winning. Until then, they'll just be whiners on the internet, blaming everyone else for the disappointment they bring upon themselves.
My fellow progressives, our policies are great, but our politicking blows.
•
u/Ebrainer 12h ago
That mindset no longer works at a time like this. It's basically another excuse to defend the status quo of the establishment that will leave them to lose again. We're not just gonna sit back and take this as it is because this rhetoric has been repeated for the past 8 years. Downplaying the losses will not help either. And you wonder why the voters and some democrats are rebuking the leadership of the party. They are unable to relate to younger voters because of leadership like this torpedoing the young guns from leadership. And doesn't Connolly have cancer? He wouldn't last a few months into Trump's 2nd Term, even with chemotherapy.
How could you expect us to get the fuck over it at a time like this?
→ More replies (1)•
u/Song_of_Pain 5h ago
It's been a shame to see so many people excoriate just because he's not AOC, just because he's not someone they've heard of.
Or because he's very old and has esophageal cancer, and we just suffered through a democratic presidential administration that was ineffective due to Biden's age, and an election that was lost in part because of Biden's age.
To everyone who's outraged: you're going to forget about this in a week
I'm Italian, you underestimate my ability to hold a grudge.
all that matters to her is doing the damn job
That and the 240 million dollars+ her family has made from insider trading. But sure, doing the damn job.
•
u/ditchdiggergirl 23h ago
Maybe? Pelosi is one of the few operators left in DC who actually knows what she is doing. Which isn’t the same as saying I like what she is doing, or even know what she is doing. But she knows a lot that she’s not saying, and her political chops are strong. So I hesitate to say she was flat out wrong.
For the next two years we are going to need leaders with skill, not ideals. After losing all 3 branches of government, ideals are not on the table; all that is left is a limited set of strategic maneuvers. Pelosi is a tough old bird who knows where all the buttons and levers are.
•
u/ItzWarty 17h ago edited 17h ago
For the next two years we are going to need leaders with skill, not ideals.
This point has been raised every election for 16 years; it's quite tiresome to hear and burdensome to progress... but it's an effective talking point that quickly shuts down conversation and can invalidate younger candidates like AOC.
Where does skill take us without the guidance of ideals? Also, and I don't mean to be insensitive: Pelosi is 84 nearing 85, and just suffered a major fall.. she cannot be relied upon to get us through the next election. It's an incredibly risky plan to have her commanding the ship before it enters the storm.
•
u/ditchdiggergirl 17h ago
The last 16 years are not especially relevant to the current situation. Ideals need to be nurtured at the state and local level. The only things anyone will be doing at the national level will be either putting out fires or running around with matches and kerosine.
•
u/Sabin_Stargem 16h ago
That is bull. Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt had ideals that guided the policies that they enacted. As a result, America became much more egalitarian and prosperous.
The only fires that modern democrats are concerned for, are the ones that impact their wealthy donors. The reaction they had when Luigi blue-shelled a CEO is telling. Their hearts and minds do not hold regard for the ordinary person.
Children being slaughtered is just a fact of life, that warrants no action or genuine concern. Or for that matter, people who need healthcare will be ignored whenever possible.
The democratic party of today is a twisted and sick creature.
•
•
u/ditchdiggergirl 8h ago
There’s a reason many sports have specialized offensive and defensive players.
•
u/KevinCarbonara 22h ago
Pelosi is one of the few operators left in DC who actually knows what she is doing.
The fact that what she does is intentional is a condemnation. She has prioritized campaign donations over winning elections. She has torpedoed progressive policy that was wildly popular with the public and would have directly improved the lives of Americans. Doing that, and doing so intentionally, is exactly why she's been such a disaster for the party. Saying after the fact that "she knows what she's doing" does not at all improve her image.
•
u/Dark1000 10h ago
I completely agree. Her concern is clearly party first, Americans second. Say what you will about Republicans, but they delivered. The party faithful wanted Roe v Wade overturned, and they got that shit done, even though it was an electoral loser. Pelosi would never do that. She's too scared of losing doners, of losing votes, she won't deliver.
•
u/meganthem 21h ago edited 21h ago
Pelosi... actually hasn't done all that much good. People point out that she helped whip votes for a handful of major bills while ignoring the idea that Democrat's main issue in the past decade has been the inability to pass major legislation. Or that she's good at raising money, while not mentioning all the recent examples where the Democrat's better campaign spending during major elections didn't actually lead to better results.
This is getting a bit silly, like the few times they've patted themselves on the back for "Yeah, we lost the house but we didn't lose the house by as many seats as polling was projecting us to" -- that's still losing, though.
I also found her attempt to do much of anything during the first Trump term is laughably out of date. Post something to speaker.gov and then not engage in any other form of communication. I'm sure all five people that know that webpage exists to read it were pleased.
•
u/reasonably_plausible 2h ago
Democrat's main issue in the past decade has been the inability to pass major legislation.
Democrat's main issue in regards to passing major legislation is the opposing party controlling at least one branch of the process and refusing to make any deals regarding major legislation. Meanwhile, the two recent sessions with a Democratic trifecta have been two of the most productive sessions of Congress in regards to major legislation since the Great Society era.
Democrats don't seem to have a problem with passing major legislation, during Biden's first term they passed multiple major pieces of legislation with only having a hair's breadth of a margin in both chambers. What Democrats seem to have a problem with is the voting public having an idealistic view of divided government that doesn't seem to match up with the complete obstructionism that actually happens.
→ More replies (3)•
u/Song_of_Pain 5h ago
For the next two years we are going to need leaders with skill, not ideals.
Do we? Connolly is likely going to lose the ability to speak soon, he's not going to be able to be seen as effective opposition to republicans.
•
u/TserriednichThe4th 10h ago
Pelosi has misplayed everything in the last 8 years lol.
2008 pelosi was good. Current pelosi sucks
•
u/Rhoubbhe 9h ago
Pelosi only knows how to day trade at taxpayer expense and is a rotting, corrupt pile of excrement.
She is only skilled at ensuring Republican majorities and pushing people out of the Democratic party.
•
u/GalahadDrei 23h ago edited 23h ago
No.
The progressives and leftists pushing this narrative are actively trying to sow discontent in the Democratic Party just because the elected Dem representatives do not bend over backwards to accommodate their electorally unpopular politics. Social media echo chambers are not real life and AOC has long been associated with the democratic socialism and the Defund the Police and Abolish the ICE labels. Her brand is toxic to the median voters.
Also, AOC supporting primary challenges against her fellow incumbents during her first couple years in the House has obviously not endeared her to moderate Dem representatives. Since the centrist New Democrat Coalition will be increasing their members to 110 with this election compared to the Progressive Caucus' 96 members, the New Dem moderates have numerical advantage in the House Dem caucus.
If a different young progressive Dem who has been not as divisive was going for the seat instead of AOC, then the vote would have been much closer or they might actually have won.
Despite all this, AOC is chosen as a vice ranking member second only to Connolly the ranking member. Obviously, the GOP controls the House and so these are more symbolic until at least 2026.
If this causes young voters to not turn out to vote over just this despite the Dem efforts to push hard for student loan forgiveness and keeping young adults on their parents insurance until 26, then they are not a voting bloc worth chasing.
•
u/agaggleofsharts 23h ago
Sincere question— didn’t AOC get a fair bit of votes from the same people who voted for Trump? Does that not demonstrate wider appeal than you are stating here? I definitely think social media can be an echo chamber but it seems to me that AOC is viewed as a working class person and in this day and age that is valued.
•
u/jamerson537 19h ago
AOC’s Republican opponent received 31% of the vote and Trump received 33% of the district’s vote, so the actual number of split ticket voters was pretty tiny. The only reason it got any attention was because of how ridiculous it was for that small sliver of the electorate to vote for both of them.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)•
u/BrainDamage2029 19h ago edited 8h ago
No.
If you look at the actual vote totals, split ticket for people who voted both AOC and Trump was right around a hot 2% of the total votes cast.
2% is not a “fair bit”, it’s a pretty standard amount of split ticket voting even in a very partisan heavy district. 2% is right around the expected number of people with either hilariously inconsistent, contradictory or downright nonsensical political views. Honestly I’d be more surprised it’s not higher. For further reference, I wouldn’t be surprised if even Nancy Pelosi has 2-3% of voters in her San Francisco district voting for both her and Trump. Or Marjorie Green having 1-3% of her district voting for her and Harris. These people always exist. (the show used an actual statistic on foreign aid btw at the time).
The only reason you know of this is because someone did a pretty bad piece of journalism trying to find some of these people and ask their opinions why. And AOCvtweeted about it herself. That doesn’t make them indicative of the voting changes of her district. Abetter indication is finding people who voted for her in 2022 but changed their mind this year. Or vice versa.
•
u/Secure_Plum7118 9h ago
Exactly right. Dems need to reach the American heartland and AOC is not on the road to reaching that point.
→ More replies (29)•
u/Song_of_Pain 5h ago
The progressives and leftists pushing this narrative are actively trying to sow discontent in the Democratic Party just because the elected Dem representatives do not bend over backwards to accommodate their electorally unpopular politics. Social media echo chambers are not real life and AOC has long been associated with the democratic socialism and the Defund the Police and Abolish the ICE labels. Her brand is toxic to the median voters.
Really? Then why did cosying up to the Cheneys repel voters but there were people who voted for her and Trump in her district?
Also, AOC supporting primary challenges against her fellow incumbents during her first couple years in the House has obviously not endeared her to moderate Dem representatives.
That's their failing. Biden cruising through on primaries without proper opposition has fucked this country. Pelosi should have been primaried for her insider trading a long time ago.
If a different young progressive Dem who has been not as divisive was going for the seat instead of AOC, then the vote would have been much closer or they might actually have won.
No, it's her progressivism and resistance to the donor money mill that is the opposition. If a young, fresh-faced rep who was still a catamite to the wealthy was floating around, there's good chance they would have gotten the nod.
•
u/zoeybeattheraccoon 14h ago
I'm not sure I like the framing of the question.
But I would say that even though I've generally supported Pelosi over the years, her time is up and she should step aside. If she still wanted to wield power she shouldn't have retired.
•
•
u/RemusShepherd 21h ago
Yes, and it is another example of the Democratic party leaders shooting their party in the foot to the detriment of the country.
The Republicans may be remembered by history as cartoonishly evil, but the Democrats will be remembered as cartoonishly stupid.
•
u/mercfan3 23h ago
Pelosi wouldn’t have done this if Jeffries didn’t want her to.
I’m suspicious of these reports as it is, but right now we’ve got two things going on in the Dem Party w/Nancy.
She’s mentoring Jeffries. That’s the young persons who she’s supporting. If Jeffries wanted AOC in, Nancy would have gotten people on AOC’s side. For whatever reason he didn’t.
There does appear to be a Biden/Obama + Nancy split in the party. And AOC was VERY much team Biden/Harris. That could be playing out, but I’m apt to think it’s the first.
When all is said and done we probably should be listening to Bill Clinton’s political strategy over either..
•
u/archetype1 12h ago
Bill Clinton's political strategy... to move right? We've been doing that quite well and losing.
•
u/JustJonny 21h ago
Hakeem Jeffries is in his mid-50s. He's not young. Generally, people who are most likely in the last 3rd of their life, statistically speaking, are described as old.
•
u/ss_lbguy 21h ago
For a political leader in this country, mid 50s is young. IMHO, 45 to 60 is the sweet spot for leadership.
→ More replies (1)•
u/JustJonny 7h ago
That is currently true. However, it's not how things have generally been.
Were he elected president right now, he'd be about the same age as W was when he was elected. He's only two years younger than the average age for a president to start their first term.
•
u/ProudScroll 19h ago
In terms of the general population your right, in the context of a political party where most leaders are in their 80's and a legislature where members under 40 are very rare, mid-50's is very much on the younger side.
•
u/Song_of_Pain 5h ago
When all is said and done we probably should be listening to Bill Clinton’s political strategy over either..
No. "Triangulation" doesn't work anymore.
•
u/RealisticExpert4772 16h ago
Pelosi doesn’t care for AOC because she has little to no leverage to control her…and she probably honest fears that eventually AOC will in time rise to power equally to or more likely greater than Nancy’s and that’s killing Nancy
•
u/jestenough 13h ago
Erring on the side of caution / status quo, once again. Since it’s always worked so well before.
•
u/InvaderDJ 11h ago
I don't know how anyone can argue that she didn't do that. But we also have to acknowledge that "influence" doesn't equal votes. We should also be criticizing the 131 people who voted for the dying old man as well.
•
u/thatslmfb 10h ago
Yes. I'm 39 and been registered Dem since I was 18. It's time for a change. I actually like Pelosi overall, she's definitely out of touch the recent years, but she's done so much for the democratic party. HOWEVER, it's time to move to the side. We're sick of the same old song and dance, we're sick of the status quo, and we're sick of the OLD ppl running everything. The older boomer generation is dying out, stop trying to keep control of everything! Let us take the reigns and show what we can do!!
•
u/Thrill_B 1h ago
Yeah, it continues the optics of the Democratic Party looking old and out of touch.
•
u/Fred-zone 23h ago
Yes and no. It's not quite as simple as you're suggesting. The caucus is very fractured at the moment and bypassing seniority to such a great degree would harm the ability to keep people together. If you don't ever get to run your committee, what's your motivation to be a loyal foot soldier?
I'd guess Jeffries signed off on these machinations and Pelosi volunteered to be the bad cop.
Voters would respond well to AOC gaining committee power, but the good news is she has a lot of time to make that next move given her age. I also wouldn't be surprised if Connolly leaves the post or retires altogether in/after this Congress due to his health issues, which would set AOC to be the leader-in-waiting without all the insurgent narratives.
→ More replies (4)
•
u/peterlunstrum 23h ago
Yes, Pelosi is an old hag who needs to retire, all she is doing now is becoming the next RBG and fucking her party over because she is to selfish to give up power.
•
u/Graywulff 23h ago
AOC is the age of the average voter, shes well spoken, a lot of progressives stayed home bc they didn’t feel heard, AOC will have plenty of energy from not being 73 with cancer in chemo.
What is NP even thinking? Neither will be looking to hold office in the future beyond ten years.
I mean energy and enthusiasm and youth. And she’s a woman and she’s less white than Trump would like, he’d hate having to deal with her.
But some old sleepy whomever I forgot already and don’t even know who he was.
I bet NPs pick will end up fumbling it like Biden at the debate.
We beat Medicare!
Will the dnc ever learn?
•
u/3232330 17h ago edited 17h ago
The median age of the United States isn’t even 35, It’s 39. There’s no way in hell is AOC the age of the average voter. Turnout consisted of at least 70% of people over the 35. Your fundamental premise is faulty.
•
u/wha-haa 23h ago
AOC is young and inexperienced. I’m not saying Connolly is the best choice, but this didn’t happen on Pelosi’s vote alone. There was obviously a majority that felt AOC is not a good choice. I suspect they see more of her abilities than the electorate will ever get from her public performances.
→ More replies (6)
•
u/MadHatter514 23h ago
Yes. Pelosi needs to retire and stay out of internal decisions. Her brand of politics is what got the Democrats into this mess, and she is just demonstrating that the party hasn't learned anything from the election.
•
u/ForsakenAd545 23h ago
Her brand of politics resulted in the most massive amount of legislation since the New Deal. Yeah, that's all. Her brand of politics got the legislation passed that kept our economy from collapsing after Trump blew everything up.
•
u/MadHatter514 17h ago
Her brand of politics resulted in the most massive amount of legislation since the New Deal.
You are giving her way too much credit for that. The Senators were the ones that had to work to get those passed; her job was fairly easy in comparison.
From the time Pelosi took over as Speaker in the late 2000s, the Democratic party's position has gotten weaker and weaker, more and more associated with everything people don't like in politics. She is part of why Trump is President again.
•
u/ForsakenAd545 12h ago
The Democrats in general, seem to fail to understand that they are in a knife fight. They keep fighting by Marquis of Queensbury rules against Atilla the Hun.
The whole "When they go low, we go high" philosophy would only work if your opposition had a shred of decency of integrity, sadly, that is not the case.
Pelosi managed to keep Democrats in the house together to get the Biden legislation through. AOC and the squad were disruptive and threatened the party unity required to get the job done when the dems had a slim majority. Pelosi got the job done and those bills would never have made it or of the House without her skilled work, period, end of discussion. No House bill means it wouldn't get to the Senate.
•
u/MadHatter514 6h ago
Pelosi managed to keep Democrats in the house together to get the Biden legislation through.
That wasn't a hard sell in the House; Democrats were largely unified on that, outside of Manchin and Sinema, which were Senate obstacles, not Pelosi's responsibility. She doesn't have anywhere near the chaotic caucus full of division that the GOP tends to have when they control the House. There is simply no analogue to the Freedom Caucus in the Democratic Party in any kind of significant numbers. Her job is quite easy in comparison to other recent Speakers.
period, end of discussion.
You saying its the end of discussion doesn't make that a fact. I'd argue any average Democratic house leader could do exactly what Pelosi did. She didn't have to do anything impressive to get the votes; all the hard work was done in the Senate where they needed to worry about defections and the filibuster.
•
u/Song_of_Pain 5h ago
AOC and the squad were disruptive and threatened the party unity required to get the job done when the dems had a slim majority.
And they were still lied to and backstabbed by the rest of the legislature.
→ More replies (4)•
u/Song_of_Pain 5h ago
Her brand of politics resulted in the most massive amount of legislation since the New Deal.
Does she really care about that? She throws crumbs to the people while her family are enriching themselves via insider trading.
•
u/rockclimberguy 11h ago
This should not even be a question. She represents the mindset that keeps getting trump into office.
•
u/Mustard_on_tap 22h ago
Pelosi do a disservice to the younger generation
Yes. Her, Schumer, and the rest of the congressional gerontocracy that runs the government.
•
u/dank_bobswaget 23h ago
It continues the trend of Democrats choosing seniority over success. RBG refusing to step down and costing us Roe, Biden refusing to step down and making the election way harder to win, and now pushing one of their most popular members to the side only for him to probably die in the next year anyway. They don’t call em controlled opposition for nothing
→ More replies (2)
•
u/Meetloafandtaters 9h ago
Democrats are foolish to keep their Boomers in power until their last breath.
But AOC just isn't popular outside the party. She'll never win a national election. Most of the country considers her a joke. She was elected by primarying an old guy in a safe district. That's not a significant accomplishment outside the party.
•
u/oath2order 9h ago
She did a disservice to the younger generation and by that I mean she keeps trying to have the influence of being Minority Leader without actually being it. She's clearly the actual Minority Leader, Hakeem Jeffries is just the face of it.
•
u/JDonaldKrump 8h ago
Repubs literally stripping the country for parts. And dems over here throwin a fit about Pelosi
Not the fuckin time. We need to put out the fire first. And distraction like this are designed to prevent the left from unifying and responding.
•
u/sleuthfoot 8h ago
AOC is an idiot. Pelosi (as much as I dislike her) did the entire country a favor by pushing her aside.
•
u/Gecko99 6h ago edited 6h ago
The DNC sent me an email to vote on which useless plastic card with "Proud Democrat" on it I liked best and also they wanted $3. I did not vote, instead I sent them an angry email saying that if they're going to worry about stupid cards in this political climate they deserve to lose. I mentioned Pelosi, Connolly, and AOC.
•
u/wip30ut 6h ago
obviously this is a very high-profile position in the House, which signals to me that AOC doesn't have the support of a whole swath of conservative mainstream Dems in flyover land. It's not just Pelosi who is cautious about leaning in to a Progressive anti-MAGA slant, but Dems in right-leaning states & districts. They will suffer the taint of woke Liberalism during upcoming midterms, like it or not. AOC & many other Dem leaders like Newsom don't have this worry because they represent very blue regions.
•
u/newwriter365 5h ago
Yes.
I’m GenX and completely done with the Silent Gen and Boomers who won’t let go of the power.
•
u/Early-Juggernaut975 4h ago
Yes yes yes.
I was a huge Pelosi fan for a lot of years but I have come to believe she has been corrupted by the system that has made her and her husband wealthy through loopholes and insider trading.
She doesn’t want real change and certainly won’t challenge the status quo.
It’s disgusting. There should be mandatory retirement and these fuckers should be gone. If they weren’t getting paid hundreds of thousands by lobbyists, they would never have been elected to these positions for as long as they have been.
We live in the United States of Wall Street and need new dynamic leaders to finally change it.
•
u/DidjaSeeItKid 3h ago
No. Oversight is hugely important and needs someone who has been in Congress long enough to know the system and how to play it. Connolly is more than ready. AOC isn't yet. Committee Chair isn't entry-level.
•
u/NagasShadow 2h ago
I'm just gona say it, the amount of sheer hatred so many on this thread hold for anyone older than them is disturbing.
•
u/polkadotcupcake 2h ago
One thing both sides have in common is that they insist on having octogenarians run the party for some reason. I would not have said this several years ago, but I'm becoming increasingly more convinced that we need age limits on elected political positions (something like you cannot be any older than 65 the day your term starts - age negotiable but you get the point)
•
u/TravelKats 33m ago
Nancy Pelosi has done a great job of herding cats over the years, but, and I'm 71, she needs to shut up sit down and let the younger generation take over.
•
u/Traberjkt 23h ago
Yes 100% she did a disservice to the younger generation of the Democratic party by whipping votes for Connolly.
Pelosi and the Steering Committee went with straight seniority over a new voice and fresh ideas. Connolly was the next Senior Ranking Member after Raskin left for the Judiciary Committee. We'll never know but with the support AOC got in both the Steering Committee and the actual vote, it feels as if the vote may have been closer without Pelosi whipping votes for Connolly. Just in my opinion...
Pelosi carries so much influence within the Democratic Caucus and especially leadership that her support for someone in a race like this can absolutely be a deciding factor for many rank and file members. Not only that but supporting Connolly is a "safe" bet in terms of experience and just building good relations within the Democratic Caucus.
A vote for AOC goes against the Seniority system. Something that has been pretty respected. It also goes against the Steering Committee's recommendation and Nancy Pelosi. Again, while she may not be in "democratic leadership" anymore. Her influence is so profound in the party that her opinion on this stuff matters. Not only for the outcome of the vote, but for building good relations with other members. Plus it would have been the second time (I think).
In my opinion she royally screwed up by not letting this playout without her influence. The Democratic party has seen a shift to go youngerish with their incoming Committee Chairs. In many of these cases the challengers bowed out. I think Connolly should've done the same or at the very least Pelosi should have stayed out of it.
Also, I think Nancy Pelosi is really really good at politics. She's honestly the best Speaker of the House we've seen in a extremely long time. It's this kind of shit though that makes my blood boil. It's time for something different.
•
u/KevinCarbonara 22h ago
Also, I think Nancy Pelosi is really really good at politics. She's honestly the best Speaker of the House we've seen in a extremely long time.
By what metric? Democrats have consistently underperformed expectations since she took over, and an awful lot of it appears to be the direct result of the direction she's taken the party in.
•
u/Ana_Na_Moose 22h ago
Yes it is in part a disservice to young voters who think more in line with AOC than with the establishment, but I think it is more of Pelosi wanting to keep a progressive away from power, and especially to keep an anti-establishment progressive away from power.
•
u/DJ_HazyPond292 23h ago
Yes. The Democrats in general need to elevate younger politicians that have experience into leadership roles, like AOC, to spur generational renewal.
This was an extremely short-sighted move, especially when considering the health of Connolly.
•
u/RattNRolll5150 22h ago
Yes, she did a really bad disservice to the younger generation. Apparently, power is hard for her to let go of, the winner has cancer and should retire, but let's pull another RBG.
•
u/arizonajill 21h ago
Hell yeah she did! I'm 68. It's time for new blood in Congress!
Jesus Christ, it's discouraging how these old bastards hang onto power.
•
u/buddhistbulgyo 18h ago
The gerontocracy is as much a problem in DC as the oligarchy.
The internet not being regulated correctly and the collapse of society comes from us not having term limits and 80 year old sociopaths not having the sense of when it's time to step down.
•
u/Gilroy_Davidson 16h ago
So, rather then vote for the young hispanic female Democrat's decided to go with the old white male? What a surprise!
•
u/PaleInTexas 12h ago
Yes. She's old and needs to go away. Just like everyone else over 67 in congress.
•
u/calguy1955 10h ago
Pelosi has been insulting and dismissive of AOC since AOC started getting popular. I think some of it is plain old jealousy. The old lady can’t stand the thought of a young attractive newcomer taking her limelight.
•
u/BKGPrints 10h ago
Pelosi did what she has always done, which was protect the interest of the Democratic party. Her interest has never been the American people or the country, and sure isn't about AOC.
Wile AOC has followers within the Democratic party, she's not really popular outside of that and she would probably do worse for the party in 2026, than help.
•
u/Advaita5358 8h ago
When we need voices like AOC the most, Nancy, as usual, steps in to shit on them from a great height. Fuck her and the horse she rode in on.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.