Pelosi will seek reelection
politico.com
The move would extend her 36-year House career and continue to freeze her would-be California successors in a long-standing holding pattern.
The move would extend her 36-year House career and continue to freeze her would-be California successors in a long-standing holding pattern.
As an unabashed liberal and Dem party voter: enough is enough. Let the future get started already.
Same from a progressive/democratic socialist.
What exactly is a democratic socialist? I ask this as an anarchist.
Socialism within a democracy as opposed to say socialism within a dictatorship.
How do you define "socialism"?
Socialism has a definition, not sure why I’d need to provide one. In general, I feel the government should serve the interests of the people. I support things like welfare for all, basic income, guaranteed housing, etc.
I ask because you seem to have a very different definition of what socialism is from me because everything you're describing is just social welfare. For example, I an Anarchist (syndicalist, if you want to get technical), could be considered a 'socialist' as my ideology would have governance under a federation of industrial unions. No president, no electroeal college, no leaderism. I ask again, what do you consider "socialism" to be?
That sounds like it would end up being a plutocracy within the first generation. Unions are great for workers, but they aren't a magical solution for government.
Industrial Unions aren't the same as trade unions. I'd recommend looking into the IWW as (pretty much the only) example of this.
This doesn't seem like a bad faith question at all.
I guess it is a bit of a loaded question, but it was done with the intent of just finding out what they define their ideology as.
That's precisely my point. It's a question that was asked in the furtherance of a specific and very obvious regime of intent. In that sense it was the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.
Then you will be glad to know that you can run against her in her district.
I'm not moving to California, but I do hope someone who already lives there will do that.
She does fairly well in her district so don't hold your breath.
She is too old to run again. Like Biden, Trump, many others passed retirement age. Let go of power and enjoy your retirement.
Always nice when all my reps are backwards boomer jackasses that don't make any attempt to represent me or my generation. I wish all congresspersons be forced to retire and prevented from reelection when they reach a certain age.
Hell, Gen X barely have any representatives. Boomers still run the place.
Meh, we don't bother to run. We got kneecapped as far as us being leaders is concerned, being bookended by two much larger generations.
I'm only even considering running for city council in 26 because several of my neighbors have suggested I do so independently of each other.
Nancy Peloso is older than a Boomer. She's from the generation before that, the Silent Generation.
Silent indeed. If fucking only.
Imagine all the people,
Living for today.
Imagine your representatives,
Voting for term limits to cut off their own money faucets.
Term limits just give corporations more power because you're limiting experience. Corporate funded Special Interest Groups will be writing all the laws if you impose term limits.
I’d argue the opposite. It’s a long known business rule that it costs way more to get new clients than it is to continue doing business with. The longer someone stays in office, the more likely it is they have a past relationship with someone trying to influence them. Oh and by the way, special interest groups already write laws.
When you go to get surgery do you want a rookie doctor or a seasoned doctor with experience?
This is an entirely different concept. Comparing politics to medicine is beyond nonsensical. People go into politics idealistic. The longer they spend in there, the more entrenched in the insider games they become. How many of our problems are borne from politicians protecting their own jobs over doing what’s right? How many of our problems are thanks to entrenched politicos who’ve lost touch with real life?
It’s almost like the opposite is true of politics than any actual job: experience is almost a detriment. Because the “experience” you gain in that world is not how to more efficiently and justly serve your constituents. It’s to more expertly hobknob and fundraise and keep your job.
The analogy has some merit in that politics is a job that takes experience and skill. Look at Biden - he's working with a divided government but he's still accomplished more than most presidents - more than Obama, our last Democratic president, by some margin - and much of it has been bipartisan. Whatever your feelings on him, he's an experienced politician who knows how to work things through the houses.
Okay…but look at biden’s long and pretty problematic history. In his long tenure, he’s racked up quite the laundry list of entirely wrong-side-of-history moments. It’s incredibly rare to get an ideologue who stays idealistic and continues to fight for the people. Bernie sanders is literally the only example in our…entire history as a country? Unless someone can prove otherwise.
Not to mention, the president doesn’t really work bills through congress. Yes, of course there is influence, but the whips and lobbyists are the ones peddling the influence—which goes to exactly what we’re saying. There is a long-standing and deeply flawed “established order” to American politics. How do people stay in office? They make the right friends in donors, they get some empty applause-line accomplishments, or they pander like hell. Usually all three. But most important among them is protecting their asses from the party, and staying on their good side. Look at how much time is spent fundraising. There is no way that doesn’t entirely warp your perception on what is important over time. When these congresspeople have 95% of their direct interaction with constituents coming from high level donor phonecalls…that definitely has an effect.
Biden’s long history is only a selling point for the people he’s friends with, and vice versa. Because all his sway comes from the long held relationships with OTHER people who shouldn’t be in politics anymore. Trading favors as old friends isn’t a selling point to no term limits.
Biden has a long history, and I agree he hasn't always made the right call, but he took to the Senate in 73, and he's voted on and sponsored an awful lot of legislation. Find me someone who can do a job like that for 50 years without making an error in judgement and we should canonize them. He's also become more enlightened on a number of issues, articulate why, and changed his opinion (and how he votes) on them.
But I wasn't meaning to hold Biden up as the guy to emulate, I'm just saying that his long experience is much of what makes him effective - he knows how to work the system. We should get rid of people who aren't effective or are effective at doing the wrong thing, but I don't think we should get rid of an effective person who does the right thing just because of the number of birthdays they've had.
First, I’d MUCH rather someone who knows how to use the newest technology to best serve me as new tech helps a LOT more than some old dude who can’t even keep a steady hand anymore. This isn’t like 18 year old vs 35 year old, She’s 83, we’re way past the “with experience”. Plus plenty of old ass doctors are very stuck in their ways and will mistreat shit.
You think politicians actually write legislation?
Most don't even read it...
It's written by staffers in their 20s, think tanks, or even just straight up by their donors. There might be a handful that actually write their own proposals.
Their experience is working for decades in a corrupt system, and that counts for jack shit if we change the system.
That's assuming both that parties don't exist and that all newly elected politicians are newbies and there's no rotation between different offices. In reality parties would keep institutional knowledge and people would bring personal experience from other offices around.
Yeah she's 83 years old and could be worth $170 million. I think a normal person at some point would just want to take it easy a live their life for a bit. IMO it's kind of ghoulish to have all these 70+ year olds still power-tripping just for the sake of it.
Like Strom Thurmond, who left the Senate in 2003 at 100 years old, and then pretty much died immediately afterwards.
Pretty sure most of these people would die immediately after retiring. Their thirst for power keeps their body working or something. That's the only reasonable explanation of why in the flying fuck an 80 year old multimillionaire would choose to continue working.
Oh, I thought their longevity was due to the adrenochrome. /s
I have employees who are way past retirement age and could have retired financially ages ago, but they really like what they do and they worry they'd just get bored sitting at home.
I'm nearing retirement, and I'm going to actually do it, but part of that is that I committed to my wife that I would and we'd go off and do stuff. Still, I honestly understand why some people don't. I could easily live another 25 years, and my job really keeps my juices going. Some days I don't want to get up and go to work, but the thought of never going in again is daunting.
Imagine being so rich you can go do whatever you want for the rest of your days, and choosing more work. Wtf?! What is wrong with these people? I'd be kicking it on a beach if I had their money and was retirement age
McConnell.
That's the thing. People in power never let go voluntarily.
You know what's funny, George Washington, the OG, did. Wish they could follow his example since we're all taught to masturbate our rock-hard patriotism to the founding fathers in school.
With someone like Feinstein, I think the argument against them is that their age has reduced their ability to do their job effectively. Pelosi still seems pretty effective to me for what she tries to do. My issue with her is that she's not very progressive. You could make an argument that that's a function of age, but Bernie Sanders, who also seems effective but is for sure progressive, is 82.
I've never had a problem with someone doing any job at any age as long as they are effective. I manage a software engineering team, and my best, sharpest developer - the one most everyone goes to for help - is around 80. He loves what he does and my whole team is better with him on it. I've known other people who declined at a much earlier age.
So I hate setting an artificial age limit, but I wish we had some kind of test out performance measure that would force people out who can't do the job.
How else would she get all those hot stock tips?
How much is enough for these people? I have always told myself if I won the lottery, I could live comfortably on 10 million no problem for the rest of my days with my wife and kids. What causes these people to just want more and more instead of just chilling out and enjoying what they have already? Why would you want to run again at her age? Go enjoy retirement!
When some old lady is found with a house full of junk from floor to ceiling we call that a mental disorder. When rich folk do the same with money it's just capitalism at work.
Narcissism, mainly.
For them, too much is not enough.
For some it is never, ever enough.
I live in her district. I will attend campaign speeches yelling, “Let younger generations have a turn!”
I also live in her district and will be voting for her again. Her incredible record of making high return investments shows good judgment that I just can’t argue with, even if she is more of a radical leftist than I’m normally comfortable with.
Just to be sure, we're talking about her insider trading, right?
He's a parody account, talking as a Business man. The downvotes are either people who don't get it, or don't think it's funny. Though I generally ignore not funny instead of downvoting it.
Don't feed the trolls
She isn’t inside the companies so it isn’t insider trading. She’s only inside Congress and there aren’t any laws against having stocks while you’re in Congress
Lmao what the fuck dude? She’s a neoliberal, which is absolutely not aligned with “radical leftism” (a label that she absolutely, categorically does not fit). And her investment success just shows that insider trading is an effective strategy, nothing more.
I’ve seen her do some pretty radical leftist type stuff, she once did the outrageous Kaepernick kneel inside the Congress building
Ah. A culture warrior.
I hope the coming years of inevitable demographic shift leading directly to decreasing power of the GOP and regressive boomers in general increases your blood pressure to medically concerning levels.
Even if it does I can afford the finest medical treatment available, so l’ll probably live to be 100
Everyone getting wooshed here even down the the name
Why. I'm asking because blindly yelling is pretty stupid and ineffective. Almost counter productive as you look ineffective and by proxy whatever you're yelling about would look childish
My dude, you've been wooshed.
Fawking dead
K
Will these stubborn old fucks just retire and disappear into wine country or something? You are creating a world you won't have to deal with the consequences of and the longer you hold onto power the less experience the next generation of leaders can attain and will ultimately weaken your party and has already weakened the country. Go. The. Fuck. Away. You. Old. Cunts.
It's time for nationwide term limits. You get to serve your term and do what you'd like, then give the reins over to the next person. Sick of all these fucking old ghouls who cling onto their positions of power like it's a fucking philosophers stone for them.
I'd be ok with at least an age cap. No one can run after they're 65. Leave governing to those who will be alive to see the impact of their policies.
The problem with an age cap is that us younger generations are going to be the first beneficiaries of life extension medicine. We'd need to remove/raise the age cap almost immediately.
I fully expect some of my generation to break 120 and still be as spry as a 40 year old. We'll be the outliers and guinea pigs, but I view the potential benefits as worth it.
Where on earth did you get this idea? Life expectancy has literally decreased. I see no reason to expect a drastic increase of it.
Not for the tail end of Gen X. And the only reason you kids have a lower expectancy than we do is cause you guys got even fatter. I'm in good shape, and all of you kids that are in good shape have a higher life expectancy than me.
Also life expectancy doesn't factor in coming technological advances which I thought was your whole point...
What's your source for this? Not sure how life expectancy could be so precisely calculated among sub groups like that.
I read a few studies that came to that conclusion a few years ago. I'd love to provide the source, but I have lost the ability to find anything remotely historical with any of the search engines in the last year or so.
As far as the tech angle is concerned look up Kurzgesagt's video on life extension tech, they have a few, but the one that discusses senescent cells is the most important. Senolyitc drugs have been on the market for a year or two now, so we have a way of preventing cancer, which is the current disease that takes out most people, with a side benefit of forcing new cell growth.
Thanks for this response. I'll see what I can find
Don’t shoot the messenger guys, I just share the articles
Bang.
Ouch
Yeah, like you’re not on her campaign? /s
Someone needs to AOC her. They have primaries, right? It shouldn't be a given that she will be the nominee.
She has too much name recognition and not enough unfavorables for this approach to work. She shouldn't run and if she wins she'll be a lucky to be as coherent as McConnell by the end, but I don't think a primary challenge will work against her. Hope I'm wrong.
I don't think a lot of that name recognition is positive.... As we've seen in the last few election cycles being a well known establishment candidate isn't necessaroly a positive for a large block of voters.
Then she should be elected.
Could not agree more, and I'm going to start calling someone getting primary'd from the left as getting AOC'd.
She did not oppose her ability to trade in the stock market despite enacting laws that helped enrich her estate.
I am a very liberal person. She did a lot of good, but I absolutely would not want to see her keep her position.
That and I'd rather see someone ~36 years old fill the seat than someone whose had it for 36 years.
There are zero politicians who don’t own stock. I really don’t understand why she’s held to some special standard on this specific issue
Holding stock: not a problem
Having your husband trade stock specifically to exploit ethics rules grey-areas: Problem.
Hopefully now you understand why it's a problem, and should note that she's not alone on this, just a poster-senior for it.
Example??
She sold nvidia at a loss. And that the only example I’ve hear of.
Oh, they don't.
VOTE IN THE PRIMARIES Such a small amount of people decide who ends up on the ballot. And an overwhelming majority of incumbents get reelected due to primaries.
Please please please vote! Even if you like the person in the lead, consider voting for someone who might not win but will send a message to the party that their policies need to be folded into the party platform, etc.
Voting can’t fix this, it’s systemic. The Democratic Party will not allow challengers source to their flow of money. A mass movement is required to clip their wings.
What you just said though contradicts itself. At the end of the day voting en masse for reform is "a mass movement". Things won't change when these politicians feel comfortable. Voting against them and being vocal about this as an issue will scare them. Voting absolutely works and all this rhetoric around "voting can't fix this" is exactly how we end up with this bullshit. Boomers learned decades ago how effective voting can be at changing everything and they have consistently turned out and shaped society around their needs as a result. If young people could get this through their heads then shit would actually change. Especially since millennials and gen z now make up the majority of the voting age population in the US.
People who say “just don’t vote” or advocate abstaining from elections as a method to end the Democrats are entitled and come from a place of privilege.
History says otherwise. I admire the idealism, and wish you were right. But the capitalist will go fascist before they allow a threat to their power. Only a rev0luti0n will work.
US history proves otherwise. Real change has been made in the labor sector without "revolution". And on that front I will even concede that it took more than just voting to change labor laws. It took a concerted effort against the capitalist class itself with strikes and other resistance efforts. But it worked and things changed and it didn't require overthrowing the government and destabilizing everything.
But voting would absolutely work too. At the end of the day, the people in charge are where they are because they were voted into their positions. Wealthy elites do not make up the majority of America. An angry populace would have the power to capsize their machine. "Voting doesn't matter" as a position will only lose you ground. The "revolution" you speak of is pointless if you don't have the majority of politically involved people behind you. At that point it's not a "revolution". It's an "unpopular coup". We see in the way people vote that the problem is that the voting populace has not been convinced by the stances of the left. Before any revolution would be an ethically sound idea, we should be seeing numbers that suggest that the majority of people are on board with radical change. And by the time that happens, those people would have the power to effect that change through voting. If the wealthy elites used underhanded tactics to suppress voting when the majority is clearly in favor of a certain change, then and only then does revolution become the ethical imperative.
In summary, don't bother suggesting revolution if the majority of people aren't behind you on it. Instead focus that energy on convincing people that radical change is necessary. Use the system to your advantage. Only when that fails through corrupt means does revolution become necessary.
The right wing understood this so much 3-4 decades ago and they have reaped the benefits of that understanding so thoroughly that people on the left have been running around like chickens with their heads cut off, calling for things like revolution. No, the playbook is simple. Use every advantage you can within the system. Fight for the SCOTUS and don't be afraid to politicize it in opposition to the right wing fascists. Find wedge issues that you can call the other side on. Take control of the narrative. Be aware of your demographics and create a unifying message that brings the disparate groups together.
I think I need to clarify. Only the threat of revolution can effect change. If your only recourse is reform. The system and structures of institutions will adapt to thwart them. If reforms worked, revolutions would never happen. Rosa Luxembourg found this out a century ago.
Of course the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you--if you don't play, you can't win.
-Robert Heinlein
The only option is to beat them at their own game. There's no reason not to try.
He also said:
“Democracy can survive anything except Democrats” ~ Robert A. Heinlein
He said lots of stuff.
He went from a staunchly conservative military officer to being one of the biggest opponents of the military industrial system and fascism and wrote what was known at the height of the hippie movement as "the hippie bible".
Dudes thinking evolved like neoliberals pretend Biden's have...
Now I want the hippie Bible
Stranger in a Strange Land
It's a fucking trip and is basically about while an older person may not understand progress, that's no reason to stand in the way.
Now keep in mind tho, this shit was written over 60 years ago. Pelosi was in her early 20s, so even really progressive things at the time seem a little outdated.
But it's pretty much one of the most influential pieces of Science Fiction
No, stop playing the game. The world is on fucking fire and we're playing games. We need to take a material approach to this whole thing.
This is what irritates me when people don't get it. Constantly seeing shit about Feinstein like "CaLiFoRniAnS VoTeD foR hER!" But when it comes to national elections, all of a sudden everyone is capable of seeing how imbalanced those are, because if they didn't they would have to hold themselves responsible for 2016 by their own logic.
There won't be a single dollar given to anyone by the dnc to anyone but her. The obstruction power of the controlling party apparatus will get focused like a laser on any opponent who has any chance at all. You're only a Democrat if the money people say you are, and you're only their choice if you can help the oligarchy keep their money.
She'll be the only person with any chance to get on the ticket until she dies.
Just retire already. Her seat is in no danger of going to a Republican and I’m tired of seeing these walking corpses making decisions for us.
They have learned nothing from what happened with RBG. Or they don’t care (probably more likely)
Not sure what this has to do with SCOTUS?
I’m just sayin RBG dying on trumps watch caused a ton of problems. They can retire gracefully on their terms and bring in fresh blood that isn’t bat shit crazy. It’s a similar situation we are in with fienstien and now the republicans are even in with McConnell.
It has a lot to do with SCOTUS. She decides to hold her position for as long as she lives and when she dies there won't be any other candidate. This leads to a president or some clever figure to decide to send "their guy" to replace them and as such leads to the rights of many being removed. I mean that's how MTG got in really and here we are with Roe V. Wade being demolished and every red state under the sun taking away women's rights. All thanks to our brave hero RGB.
Newsom would appoint her replacement though?
And still, the house has zero influence on SCOTUS appointments? So even if she somehow got replaced by a Republican (ig we’re assuming Newsom has a stroke and goes insane in this situation?), it would have no impact on SCOTUS appointments or any other judicial appointments, since those are done in the Senate.
Newsom is a pro-fossil fuels , pro-cop, billionaire-owned haircut pretending to be progressive, though. I'd trust anyone appointed by him as far as I can throw John Fetterman.
The point is that unlike with SCOTUS vacancies, there's zero chance that Newsome appoints someone with radically different politics from Pelosi, so the analogy kind of sucks regardless of what you think of him.
That's part of my point: another Pelosi would be AWFUL. Not anywhere near as bad as a GOP fascist, of course, but still absolutely AWFUL.
So you admit that the original comparison was crap
Good. My point remains.
I wasn't the one making a comparison. The only thing I was saying was that there's no reason to trust Newsom to appoint someone who's not as immensely corrupt as himself.
THAT point (which, again, was the only one I was making) still stands, so you can stow your smugness where the sun doesn't shine.
I wasn't being "smug," I was merely trying to disambiguate the point under discussion.
The fact that you took it that way says a lot more about you than it does about me.
He said, smugly.
You weren't trying to disambiguate anything, you were asking a smug rhetorical question and then smugly drawing a false conclusion that you'd already made before I clarified and wouldn't change for everything.
You're being both smugly condescending and stubborn, which says nothing about me 🙄
Ok guy. Think what you want. It's no skin off my nose.
Newsom ended single-family zoning in Cali so he is a god among inferiors.
As for Billionaire-owned, from your article:
Far from it.
Nah, he's just another rich and powerful crook looking out for the other rich and powerful crooks. Nothing new except the grin is extra smug
Can you copy-paste that article? The paywall is making it impossible to read.
That would take up far too much comment section real estate (pun intended), but have an archive.ph version of it without the paywall
I'm bout to overbuild on this real estate (keeping the pun rolling)
This is a fucking awesome first step.
This is what he did that I find exciting. Cali is a shit hole of local ordinances that fuck up the housing market
A flat out ban on SFH would be ideal, preferably nationwide, but this is a start. Campaigns are won one battle at a time.
That is one hell of a take.
Not really. Banning SFH doesn't exclude singly family homes from existing, but just bans excluding other forms of development
The president should also have zero influence on the supreme court. Yet there was this whole thing with Obama and such that led to Trump having the perfect window of opportunity to send MTG to stand.
I think you have that the wrong way around. According to the constitution, the President appoints a Supreme Court Justice with the Senate giving advice and consent. It's the Senate that's supposed to have the lesser role, but Mitch McConnell chose not to follow the spirit of the constitution on that.
At any rate, the House of Reps have never been a part of the process, so it has nothing to do with Pelosi, and never has.
The lesson that geriatric politicians need to/should retire before they die in office.
Don't be like Feinstein where people have to question your health and be ignobly forced out. Leave on a high note.
Like 90% of Congress and the Supreme Court are already there, man. Rapidly approaching senility and still no fucks given, "just keep the party going till i drop dead!" energy.
Her high note was 30+ years ago when she was up to calling for a floor vote on single payer health care. She's been a corporate funded centerist piece of work, stuffing democrats pockets with bribes for decades.
🇱 🇪 🇦 🇻 🇪 🇦 🇱 🇷 🇪 🇦 🇩 🇾
Shoo. Go away. Let younger people run!
Younger people can run. That's what seek re-election means.
Yeah, the problem there is the enormous power base someone amasses by being in power for decades. Any other person has an incredibly narrow chance regardless of how competent and fit for purpose they are.
This is proven false by the Tea Party and Trump surges in government.
Why do these people want to continue in these leadership roles? It must be power and the attention seeking lifestyle., right? She is way too old. She would never be hired for a critical role outside of government. Move on and set age limits on our Country’s leadership roles.
At this point, the highest levels of our government are mainly just filled with folks seeking power and money (not always the same thing, so I think it bears mentioning both). They may have started off at the bottom with different intentions, but at this point, I doubt Pelosi is running with the intention that she would best execute the Democratic Party's agenda (and having an agenda is not a bad thing, I feel like people make that a dirty word, so felt the need to clarify in advance).
She's not supporting the democratic voter's wishes at all, but the democratic party is entirely run by third way neocon oligarchs.
She's the most reliable corporatist they have.
Gross
These power hungry assholes need to be removed. Why can't voters just do the appropriate thing here? This isn't a party thing, it's a 'bitch is gonna die on the house floor' thing.
Same for Mitch even though he stole his election and Feinstein. They're all fucking awful.
Because the 2 party system means we'd get an even bigger freak in office. I hate pelosi and feinstein and they will never get my vote, but its a little better than whatever Larry Elder type they'd get to run against them.
It's wild to me that when she lost/left Speaker of the House she said (paraphrasing) that is was time to let the younger generation lead yet here she is again....
Why is that wild? They all lie as a core part of their job, they’ll say whatever it takes.
These are the same people that make decisions on policy and then go trade stocks based on the future results of said decisions
Jfc. It's literally impossible for these geriatric people to give up power.
We're really going to have to wait for these people to die in office to get rid of them, aren't we? From both parties
Congress is the new zombie apocalypse
I am so fucking sick of this gerontocracy. All these demented drooling old fucks need to clear out and leave guiding the future to people who still have one.
Such a dry sponge
She needs to retire already and they really need age limits for congresspeople. She has been involved in politics since JFK was President, time to move on.
FFs really? Just move on and start on OF already.
Born in 1940. She's 83. She was too old when she retired the first time.
She not even a boomer, she’s Silent Generation
These people won't fucking die...
Shocker.
Goddammit
I love Nancy Pelosi, but it's not like her district is in danger of falling into the hands of Republicans if she doesn't run. Just enjoy retirement and your family and the rest of your life. You've done well and you've done enough.
Our government is literally going to die naturally. We don't need war.
We do legitimately have a gerontocracy problem and this doesn't help, but at the same time as long as she's capable of doing the job I can't in good conscience object either. She's not only capable, she's very good at it.
I feel like we need to reboot everything.
just leave us alone already
Good morning.. Sunday morning..
I don't really care much about her age. Sure, she's old and should probably retire soon, but she's been an effective representative and shows no signs of mental decline. I'm fine with her having one more term if she's capable, and if she has to retire before completing it, a Democratic governor will appoint her replacement.
We've all had fairly recent object lessons that youth isn't everything anyway, with the combination clown-and-shit-show on the right. I'd much rather have Pelosi stay than, say, George Santos or Lauren Boebert, and they're both half her age.
The problem with your scenario is that she is in a democratic strong hold. A Boebert or Santos cannot possibly win but a younger, more progressive and truly representative candidate could win. She's preventing that progress by holding onto power till they can't weekend at Nancy's her corpse anymore.
The problem with your scenario is that you have another young person that is really enthusiastic about changing everything but doesn't know how anything works and can't get anything done. You may love people like AOC, but what legislation has she actually gotten passed?
Pelosi knows how the system works and knows how to actually get legislation passed. Sure if you're young it feels like compromise is selling out, but it's at least something. Saying a lot while doing nothing gets internet likes, but it's not actually progress. It's just talk and political theater.
If the Democrats win the House the new Speaker will benefit from the many years of experience that Pelosi has. That is if you want legislation that will actually improve things instead of just talk.
I don’t think she is too old to run again,
I think she needs to the step the hell down, her 36 years have been terrible for the country and the Democrat party and the stuff she and her daughter are doing to Feinstein is just disgusting.
I agree, as much as I don't like old politicians as a rule of thumb because by and large that's where the problems are, but my bigger problem is Nancy stopped representing the people a long time ago and now more closely represents shareholder and investors, like herself and her husband.
I don’t event think it’s about investors or shareholders anymore, just Pelosi loves the expression of power, not legislative power, but her immense soft power and understand she needs to be at DC to use it or she lose it
Thanks for the subtle clue.
Okay, what ever you say
I think she's too old to run rather than walk.