tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post8580140880538536432..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Nancy Pelosi Is Unpopular. What Matters Is Whether She's Good.Jonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-92082983865528223312010-11-19T07:17:31.072-06:002010-11-19T07:17:31.072-06:00Ron,
Well, yes, but at the end of the day it didn...Ron,<br /><br />Well, yes, but at the end of the day it didn't work: they got saddled with a tough vote, and they didn't get anything done. Perhaps it was a gamble that they thought was worth taking; perhaps they had good reason to believe at the time that it would work; but regardless,it didn't work. <br /><br />Louis,<br /><br />It's not exactly clear what Democrats would gain by attacking the large, empty states. Regardless, that wasn't the problem in 09-10; the electoral system gave Dems a larger advantage in the Senate than they "deserved" from their percentage of the vote. Of course, how useful 59% of the Senate was is another question (but not an obvious one -- they did get a lot done).Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-42204116427251797632010-11-19T05:56:20.666-06:002010-11-19T05:56:20.666-06:00This has an easy and obvious answer. They passed a...This has an easy and obvious answer. They passed a relatively strong climate bill because they knew the Senate would water whatever they passed down. By passing a strong bill, the chances of actually getting something worthwhile from the conference committee were increased. If they had pre-emptively conceded to what could pass the Senate, then Lieberman and other conservadems would have just moved the goal posts even further to the right.Ron E.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-7128035503306953722010-11-18T21:57:41.947-06:002010-11-18T21:57:41.947-06:00Pelosi is an interesting case study because she...Pelosi is an interesting case study because she's stayed away from politics as defined by television in order to practice it in the real world. Her track record in the 111th Congress was impressive, particularly in a polarized environment. It's a shame that Obama played the Senate game so badly, first by picking off the best players for his Cabinet (Clinton was a good call, but I think he could have found a replacement for Biden and certainly Salazar) and, even worse, removing potential challengers from the field (Napolitano, Sebelius, Vilsack), and second by assuming the Senate that was left (both in terms of actual legislators and the potential opponents they faced) was capable of passing legislature that measured up to the demands of the time.<br /><br />But, I think when Pelosi passed the climate bill it wasn't clear yet that Obama's strategy had failed. If Baucus had been able to convince Grassley that it was worth passing health care reform, McConnell's strategy would have failed, and we'd like have a climate law today. After Pelosi forced her members to pass the Senate version of the health care law, she more or less stopped pressuring her members to pass bills, which was about the right time.<br /><br />Once again, I'm baffled by the same thing: why don't Democrats tell it like it is: we would be able to do great things, but Senators representing small population states that contribute next to nothing to our national GDP or, worse, act as a drain on our economy, refuse to put aside narrow self-interest and help the country. Republicans attack the cities routinely, but Democrats also tiptoe around what is the single biggest impediment to this country's progress.Louisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-72676481885564970652010-11-18T18:04:40.802-06:002010-11-18T18:04:40.802-06:00According to those crosstabs in the Quinnipiac pol...According to those crosstabs in the Quinnipiac poll, only 73% of Dems even *had* an opinion about Pelosi, and of those Democrats who actually had an opinion -- and only Democrats' opinions are important when it comes to picking a minority leader -- 66% had a favorable opinion of Pelosi.<br /><br />Once again, the GOP drives the conversation in Washington. Interestingly, only 9% of Republicans "hadn't heard enough" about Pelosi to have an opinion about her. <br /><br />Even more interestingly, fully 63% of Republican respondents "haven't heard enough about Mitch McConnell, and 55% of Reps "haven't heard enough" about John Boehner to have an opinion either favorable or unfavorable.<br /><br />So, it appears that the rightwing demonization machine works just fine on Republicans and political journalists. But then, we knew that.Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-90383769353005967762010-11-18T17:34:27.104-06:002010-11-18T17:34:27.104-06:00Now that the House Dems are in the minority, I dou...Now that the House Dems are in the minority, I doubt Pelosi will remain the second "best-known and most visible public face of the Democratic Party." With Reid running the Senate and VP Biden running for re-election, Pelosi will almost certainly take a back seat to both of them in the headlines.<br /><br />Yes, the fact that Cap & Trade, et al were passed may have hurt some Democrats at the polls. But the fact that Pelosi did it--as opposed to, say, Speaker Clyburn, Hoyer, or Van Hollen--didn't matter a lick.Kalhttp://twitter.com/#!/Kalbelgarionnoreply@blogger.com