I think House Speaker (Pelosi) and President (Hillary Clinton) are fundamentally different from an electoral perspective – I think most House elections still run on local factors (while being influenced by the national environment and any “waves” in voter enthusiasm), unlike the Presidential race. So I don’t think we should be nearly as worried about the relatively successful Republican campaign to paint Pelosi as the bugaboo as we are about (say) another Hillary run (not that I think she will).
I tend to think that Pelosi’s positives (maybe the best whip and vote counter in Democratic history, as well as an extremely experienced and effective legislator in general) outweigh her negatives (any hypothetical drag on broader tickets).
There’s a fair portion of the Dope who go into the trenches about the only true legitimacy for POTUS is winning a majority of the popular vote and yet your Constititution allows the House to vote for Oprah, or Rush Limbaugh or Fred Nurk from Spokane to be House Speaker at any time a vacancy occurs and they become second in the line of succession?
The Constitution doesn’t actually speak to that. It does give qualifications for a member of the House, and then goes on to say “The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”
It is doubtful that anyone other than a Representative can be Speaker, but it has never been tested, since every Speaker has been a Representative- and certainly this time will be.
Obama could certainly run for Congress and might then be speaker. However, generally it is picked by Seniority.
So, altho people talk about it, and some scholars say it is possibly legal, it has not been done and will not be done.
The discussion selection of a Speaker who isn’t a member of the House is one that’s been going on forever. I’m sure it came up back when I studied political science during late night BS sessions. I highly doubt it will ever be tested because that person will not have a vote in the House. The Speaker has always had a partisan role, unlike the Speaker of the UK House of Commons who renounces party affiliation and is supposed to be neutral.
While some of the Blue Dogs and progressives can hem and haw all day long about Pelosi, until there’s a solid ‘not-Pelosi’ alternative, it’ll just be hot air. It’s true that the entire Democratic leadership team is long in the tooth and many up and comers have left the House, but a committee chairmanship is going to be quite appealing to anyone who might think of running for Speaker, so I don’t see any strong challenge happening.
And, I really can’t see too many voters really caring in 2020 about a Rep’s Speaker vote, even if they broke a promise.
Democrats (or professed democrats) are spreading “NO Pelosi” all over Facebook.
Geez. That is saying “You know this woman, the most effective speaker in decades? Well, the GOP hates and fears her so much they have been spreading shit about her for decades. So, obviously, we need to do what the GOp wants and get rid of her.”:rolleyes:
One problem the anti-Pelosi folks have is that some are progressives, and some are centrists. You’re not going to get them to agree on a replacement for Pelosi.
I agree that the House Dems need a younger leadership team. The top three - Pelosi, Hoyer, Clyburn - will all be 80 or older by the time the parties have their conventions in 2020. Barring challenges, Hoyer and Clyburn will be Majority Leader and Majority Whip, respectively, in January.
Why not leave Pelosi in place for one more Congress, but replace Hoyer and Clyburn with a younger Congresscritter from each faction, and when they next vote on the Speakership, everyone will have a better idea of who’s up to the job?
And it’s time for Schumer to go. He really has not been a good Senate Minority Leader, and holy shit, this NYT story about Schumer and Facebook should be enough by itself to kick him out of the leadership. Kenneth Vogel of the NYT, on Twitter:
To a large extent that would bother me less than just the fact that Schumer would probably fall under the heading of politicians who don’t really understand what Facebook is.
Given how central the Internet is to the modern day world, a leadership who does understand it would make sense.
