Do you think Nancy Pelosi should be Speaker of the House?

She’s NOT one of my favorite people.Still I don’t have a better candidate; so I see no reason to care.She seems to be the ONLY person to “want” the job!!!

For now I think she should be since it seems no one ( I know of ) has clearly made a clear and reasonable argument as to why not. The “make way for the young” explanation doesn’t do it for me. Would Democrats lose voters in 2020 if she stays?

The party loves her because she raises tons of money.
Legislators from BOTH parties do like her because she is vindictive and petty. Their words, not mine.
I’m no pundit. I’m just veteran approaching middle age, who occasionally does business in DC.
In my opinion, she becomes speaker and they lose House in 2020.

That should be ”...do not like her…”

I think she should be Speaker if she is so chosen by her peers.

I know that’s a nonanswer, but I really don’t think we have to do our elected representatives’ jobs for them. We want to know what they’re up to, of course, but we oughtn’t to be electing people who need to be micromanaged by their constituency. So—if they pick her, then fine, they pick her. If not, let’s see who they think can do a better job.

Yes. People are saying that she’s too old for the job. She’s sharp, energetic, and competent, and age discrimination is deplorable.

Of course, this decision isn’t up to us as voters. Just curious on people’s thoughts.

I think this question is about more than the position. It represents the larger divide between the more conservative and more progressive wings of the Democratic party.

On the one side, I’m hearing folks say that nobody has the experience and track record of whipping votes like Pelosi. I tend to agree. Love her or hate her, you have to admit she has been effective. I will always appreciate her for the major role she played in getting the ACA passed.

Other folks see her as one of the faces of “establishment” Democrats and feel that they’d have more success as a party if they pivoted towards progressive populism.

Along these same lines, I’m hearing about a schism in views about how we should approach healthcare in the House – should we focus on defending the ACA or begin laying the groundwork for a possible 2020 push for Medicare for all?

And the larger question, which voters do we need to be wooing – the centerists who reluctantly voted for Trump, or the progressives who end up voting third party?

This is about much more than Pelosi herself.

She is the most qualified, and, as someone here has already stated, she seems to want the job. And who better to match wits with Mitch McConnell??

Fuck no, she’s incompetent. Taking bribes and selling out isn’t something to be proud of. Ro Khanna, or Tusli Gabbard would be better choices.

I think the Democratic Party needs to evolve. It’s far too deep in the pocket of corporate influence and “at least we’re not Republicans”, and has gathered a massive amount of resentment against it, at least some of which is deserved. I think it does need to become more progressive (in the good sense of that word) and more supporting people over corporations, more pro bono rather than pro-itself, and to do much more calling out corruption and terrible Republican behavior rather than participating in the practices the people are sick of.

Not going to sit here & pretend I know a whole hell of a lot about what the role of Speaker of the House even entails, suspect it differs greatly from ours in the House of Commons.
So the truth is, I have no idea if this woman qualifies as a suitable candidate or not.

The question is: Does anyone else in the House have the standing and the spine to stand up to both Trump and the Senate?

I doubt anyone does. What the Dems need for the next two years is a strong solid voice. The Dems in the House don’t have anyone else. Hoyer is pretty good, but he’s a lieutenant, not a captain.

I think Pelosi should take someone under her wing and usher them into the position while offering her help and experience to them in order to bring in the next generation of leaders. She should not do the job itself. She would make a good whip though.

@mazingerz88, yes, I believe that the dems could lose votes because she would become a lightening rod for conservatives and be used to whip up the base. Harder to do with a newcomer because they don’t have a history to look back upon with hatred.

@ucme Has someone hijacked your account? These sincere answers are throwing me for a loop.

I despise Nancy Pelosi and the corporate influence on politics that she is deeply embedded in. She is just another Democratic shill. I don’t care how old she is, I care that she doesn’t represent the interests of those she claims to care about.

Nancy Pelosi is very skilled at the duties the job of Speaker requires.
She has also been very successful at helping her members raise money.
She also tries to be a Speaker for the entire house, not just one side, like Ryan has been.
Anyone in the position of Speaker will be vilified by the Right.

Remember that Speaker of the House is third in line for the presidency, if something were to happen to the Bobbsey Twins.

No. Office Current officer
1 Vice President Mike Pence®
2 Speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan®
3 President Pro Tempore of the Senate Orrin Hatch®
4 Secretary of State Mike Pompeo®
5 Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin®

Yes, I think she should.

My only concern is that Pelosi my be too mainstream and may not back more progressive initiatives. Link

@Mariah “And the larger question, which voters do we need to be wooing – the centerists who reluctantly voted for Trump, or the progressives who end up voting third party?”

You’re forgetting a much bigger group than that: the 10s of millions of voters who stay home because they’ve given up on the democratic process and see nothing to inspire them to turn out. That’s why the bold progressive policy is so important. It’s not a zero-sum game. There is a massive population of potential voters who aren’t showing up for Republican-lite candidates. Chasing the Whole-Foods Republican at the expense of turning off an enormous chunk of the potential voting pool is moronic. It’s the same failed strategy that Pelosi, and the rest of the morons in the Democratic leadership have been unsuccessfully pursuing for over a decade. It’s why we have Trump in the first place, and why the Republicans still control the Senate despite a historically low approval rating for the President.

Yeah, I tend to agree with that.

@tinyfaery I mean, c’mon…you should know me better than that by now ;-}
More than one way to skin a cat

I tend to agree with @tinyfaery. Then again, I made the mistake once before of pointing out that @ucme was being nice & @ucme worked diligently to prove me wrong. Anybody needing to be a BA that bad gets my TOTAL SUPPORT!!! LoL

Wow @LadyMarissa I had no idea you cared so much…no really! :D
Anyway, enough about me, you girls should dampen you ardour, there’s questions to be answered y’know…

Pelosi is certainly the choice for anything resembling “business as usual” Democratic politics. No one is going to do a better job at pulling in the money or corraling the membership toward pushing the readily solvable social issues than Nancy Pelosi. She is also the ideal roadblock regarding those knuckleheads instigating backsliding on such issues as abortion. But I’m not sure that she’s capable of embracing the concepts on the Bernie end of the spectrum. Those are matters not amenable to what passes today for “traditional Democratic poitics.”

The only job she should have is Vice-President in charge of paperclips.

Yes. She seems to be the only one with enough balls to stand up to trump.