Hakeem Jeffries as Speaker

[Hawkeyeop]

The Democrat Congressional approval is like 20%. I would hate to see what it would be if Hakeem was bad at his job.

Pelosi was good at wrangling the troops, but her cronyism left the party in rough shape. Her refusal to allow new voices into party leadership led to group that was way too old and out of touch with a large portion of the party. Her support for things like rules limiting investments for congressman made the Democrats look like another party that was fine with some corruption and money grabbing.

Jefferies is worse at the wrangling and not obviously better at anything else. He at times seems seems more hostile to the progressive wing of his own party than the Trump administration. Certainly he hasn’t pushed for new and different underrepresented voices in party leadership. Trump has done lots of really wrong things, but his response has generally been lukewarm.

[Aspenglow]

@Hawkeyeop

Jefferies is worse at the wrangling

What is there to wrangle? He’s got no majority, nothing to whip. Please explain how that makes him “worse”.

[PhillyGuy]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

@PhillyGuy

The story will of course be affected by what goes on in the Senate. If the Democrats get a workable Senate majority – probably means 52 seats – and get rid of the filibuster – Jeffries will at least be able to show that the Democrats passed a boatload of wonderful bills, all vetoed. To me, this will show him to have been totally ineffective.

Do you think he’d look less, or more, ineffective if the GOP keeps the Senate, and so (a) nothing of the sort passes, kind of like you were just saying, but also (b) maybe Trump names someone to the Supreme Court?

I am a bad judge here because, unlike most Democrats, I dislike ineffective metaphorical fighting. Plus I rarely if ever think I have the info needed to judge a Democratic Party speaker or senate majority leader.

If Jeffries was to lose popularity, in his party, after a lost Senate confirmation battle, this would support my suspicion that the base is just as poor a judge of Democratic congressional leadership as I probably am.

[Johanna]

It’s Jeffries, everybody. Get it right.

[Aspenglow]

Oofff, you’re right. I’ve corrected the title. Thanks for catching it.

[Johanna]

Well, you got it right in your post here.

[Babale]

@Hawkeyeop

The Democrat Congressional approval is like 20%. I would hate to see what it would be if Hakeem was bad at his job.

I think that has a lot more to do with the media environment than anything else.

On the Right, the media constantly attacks the Democrats, because the Right recognizes the Democrats as their main enemy.

On the establishment wing of the Left, the media constantly attacks the Democrats, because by attacking the Democrats they feel that they are demonstrating objectiveness and neutrality and how far above partisan support for one side over the other they are.

And on the Progressive wing of the Left, they also constantly attack the Democrats, because that’s how you establish credibility in that space, demonstrating that you aren’t yet another “Shitlib” as they say.

In our current media ecosystem, everyone gains by shitting on Democrats and no one stands up for them.

@Hawkeyeop

Pelosi was good at wrangling the troops, but her cronyism left the party in rough shape.

Emphasis mine.

90% of the time when people say this, they mean “she didn’t kowtow to all of AOC’s demands”. Can you be more specific as to what you mean by “cronyism”?

@Hawkeyeop

Her refusal to allow new voices into party leadership led to group that was way too old and out of touch with a large portion of the party.

Again, this seems like a thinly veiled complaint the failure of AOC’s bid to take over the Oversight Committee. Is there more to this than that?

@Hawkeyeop

Her support for things like rules limiting investments for congressman made the Democrats look like another party that was fine with some corruption and money grabbing.

Is there a typo there? I’m not sure how supporting limits on investments make her look like she’s fine with corruption.

@Hawkeyeop

He at times seems seems more hostile to the progressive wing of his own party than the Trump administration.

I mean, maybe I can get behind “at times”, if you mean, like, the times when he wasn’t OK with progressives defending him being called a “monkey” and an “errand boy”, but I definitely think that those who defended the use of those terms deserved the heat they got - wouldn’t you agree? Can you name any times when he “seemed hostile” to progressives when he wasn’t under completely unhinged and racialized attacks from them?

@Hawkeyeop

Certainly he hasn’t pushed for new and different underrepresented voices in party leadership.

What does that even mean? He’s the first black house minority leader, and if the Democrats win the House he will be the first black Speaker of the House.

[Elmer_J.Fudd]

FWIW, I don’t look for charisma in my cat wranglers and sausage makers. The speakership would be a distraction for a resistance leader and vice versa.

[Aspenglow]

I’m the same. I want someone who is effective, even if not super charismatic (although I would disagree that Jeffries is not charismatic). The skill sets are different, and those differences should be appreciated and nurtured in the diverse roles of resistance leader and Speaker.

[Kolak_of_Twilo]

Jeffries would make an outstanding Speaker for the Democrats. He is an excellent speaker and has just as much charisma as needed to do the job.

Sadly, Mike Johnson is likely to continue as speaker since the Rs are likely to continue controlling the House due to cheating.

[StringsandHammers]

If Jeffries successfully leads the Dems back into the majority in Congress then I think he should rightfully be made Speaker. He will have the experience and should receive credit for keeping the dems unifited and helping to guide them through this rough patch.

Alternatuvely, if Jeffries does not successfully lead the dems back to recapturing the house then it might be time to talk about replacing him