WWTBAM Bored

This should be entertaining...

I think it'll be boring. I think the Democrats will end up with a big enough majority (it looks like they're on track to end up with 230 or 231 seats after all the uncalled races are decided) that Rep. Pelosi will be able to let all of the Democrats who campaigned saying that they won't support her for Speaker keep their promises. And in addition to being a prodigious fundraiser, she's also an extremely accomplished tactician on the House floor, which means she gets stuff done. I think most of her caucus knows and appreciates that. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:I think it'll be boring. I think the Democrats will end up with a big enough majority (it looks like they're on track to end up with 230 or 231 seats after all the uncalled races are decided) that Rep. Pelosi will be able to let all of the Democrats who campaigned saying that they won't support her for Speaker keep their promises. And in addition to being a prodigious fundraiser, she's also an extremely accomplished tactician on the House floor, which means she gets stuff done. I think most of her caucus knows and appreciates that. --Bob

You don't think upstarts will have a say?

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:I think it'll be boring. I think the Democrats will end up with a big enough majority (it looks like they're on track to end up with 230 or 231 seats after all the uncalled races are decided) that Rep. Pelosi will be able to let all of the Democrats who campaigned saying that they won't support her for Speaker keep their promises. And in addition to being a prodigious fundraiser, she's also an extremely accomplished tactician on the House floor, which means she gets stuff done. I think most of her caucus knows and appreciates that. --Bob

You don't think upstarts will have a say?

It's not clear that anyone else in the caucus will run against her, but someone probably will. The upstarts and new members will have a say, but they'll get outvoted in the caucus. After that, Rep. Pelosi is smart enough to give as many Democrats as she can afford a pass to vote for someone else for Speaker on the floor. But at the end of the day, at least 218 Democrats will vote for the Democratic nominee for Speaker and that nominee will, in all likelihood, be the once and future Speaker, Nancy Pelosi. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:I think it'll be boring. I think the Democrats will end up with a big enough majority (it looks like they're on track to end up with 230 or 231 seats after all the uncalled races are decided) that Rep. Pelosi will be able to let all of the Democrats who campaigned saying that they won't support her for Speaker keep their promises. And in addition to being a prodigious fundraiser, she's also an extremely accomplished tactician on the House floor, which means she gets stuff done. I think most of her caucus knows and appreciates that. --Bob

You don't think upstarts will have a say?

It's not clear that anyone else in the caucus will run against her, but someone probably will. The upstarts and new members will have a say, but they'll get outvoted in the caucus. After that, Rep. Pelosi is smart enough to give as many Democrats as she can afford a pass to vote for someone else for Speaker on the floor. But at the end of the day, at least 218 Democrats will vote for the Democratic nominee for Speaker and that nominee will, in all likelihood, be the once and future Speaker, Nancy Pelosi. --Bob

I need to amend this a bit. It turns out that the successful candidate needs a majority of votes cast, not a majority of the entire House. So as long as Democrats end up with at least 229 seats (leaving Republicans with 206), all 21 Democrats who said they wouldn't vote for Pelosi (some of whom only said they wouldn't vote for her for party leader) could vote "present" on the floor and she'd still be elected Speaker. So she'll release as many votes as she can afford, but at the end of the day, enough Democrats will vote for the Democratic nominee for Speaker, who I expect will be Rep. Pelosi, to give her a majority of votes cast, which might be fewer than 218. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:
You don't think upstarts will have a say?

It's not clear that anyone else in the caucus will run against her, but someone probably will. The upstarts and new members will have a say, but they'll get outvoted in the caucus. After that, Rep. Pelosi is smart enough to give as many Democrats as she can afford a pass to vote for someone else for Speaker on the floor. But at the end of the day, at least 218 Democrats will vote for the Democratic nominee for Speaker and that nominee will, in all likelihood, be the once and future Speaker, Nancy Pelosi. --Bob

I need to amend this a bit. It turns out that the successful candidate needs a majority of votes cast, not a majority of the entire House. So as long as Democrats end up with at least 229 seats (leaving Republicans with 206), all 21 Democrats who said they wouldn't vote for Pelosi (some of whom only said they wouldn't vote for her for party leader) could vote "present" on the floor and she'd still be elected Speaker. So she'll release as many votes as she can afford, but at the end of the day, enough Democrats will vote for the Democratic nominee for Speaker, who I expect will be Rep. Pelosi, to give her a majority of votes cast, which might be fewer than 218. --Bob

I expect there may be a deal struck where Pelosi is elected Speaker with the promise she'll step down after one term. (even if the Democrats still hold the House majority in 2020)

bazodee wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:It's not clear that anyone else in the caucus will run against her, but someone probably will. The upstarts and new members will have a say, but they'll get outvoted in the caucus. After that, Rep. Pelosi is smart enough to give as many Democrats as she can afford a pass to vote for someone else for Speaker on the floor. But at the end of the day, at least 218 Democrats will vote for the Democratic nominee for Speaker and that nominee will, in all likelihood, be the once and future Speaker, Nancy Pelosi. --Bob

I need to amend this a bit. It turns out that the successful candidate needs a majority of votes cast, not a majority of the entire House. So as long as Democrats end up with at least 229 seats (leaving Republicans with 206), all 21 Democrats who said they wouldn't vote for Pelosi (some of whom only said they wouldn't vote for her for party leader) could vote "present" on the floor and she'd still be elected Speaker. So she'll release as many votes as she can afford, but at the end of the day, enough Democrats will vote for the Democratic nominee for Speaker, who I expect will be Rep. Pelosi, to give her a majority of votes cast, which might be fewer than 218. --Bob

I expect there may be a deal struck where Pelosi is elected Speaker with the promise she'll step down after one term. (even if the Democrats still hold the House majority in 2020)

She's pretty much already said that's what she plans. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

bazodee wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:I need to amend this a bit. It turns out that the successful candidate needs a majority of votes cast, not a majority of the entire House. So as long as Democrats end up with at least 229 seats (leaving Republicans with 206), all 21 Democrats who said they wouldn't vote for Pelosi (some of whom only said they wouldn't vote for her for party leader) could vote "present" on the floor and she'd still be elected Speaker. So she'll release as many votes as she can afford, but at the end of the day, enough Democrats will vote for the Democratic nominee for Speaker, who I expect will be Rep. Pelosi, to give her a majority of votes cast, which might be fewer than 218. --Bob

I expect there may be a deal struck where Pelosi is elected Speaker with the promise she'll step down after one term. (even if the Democrats still hold the House majority in 2020)

She's pretty much already said that's what she plans. --Bob

Frankly I wish she'd step down now. Give a younger generation a chance.

earendel wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

bazodee wrote:
I expect there may be a deal struck where Pelosi is elected Speaker with the promise she'll step down after one term. (even if the Democrats still hold the House majority in 2020)

She's pretty much already said that's what she plans. --Bob

Frankly I wish she'd step down now. Give a younger generation a chance.

Marcia Fudge has made some waves over the past couple of days about challenging for the speakership. If I were a Democratic congresscritter, I would vote for Fudge... but I'm a little biased with my vote because she's from my home state.

earendel wrote: Frankly I wish she'd step down now. Give a younger generation a chance.

Taking over the House after a decade is not something you want to turn over to someone with no experience, especially when you'll have to deal with a combative Donald Trump every day.

I don't think a lot of people realize how important Pelosi was to the Democratic efforts to regain the House. She got portrayed as the villain in every Republican commercial (_____ is a Nancy Pelosi puppet wanting to bring the liberal agenda to your district), but she was largely responsible for crafting the Democratic pitch to emphasize health care and the issues the Democrats are strongest on, rather than just make the entire election about Trump. The voters already knew about Trump so the Democrats didn't need to remind them. Instead, Pelosi made sure that the voters had something to vote for, rather than merely someone to vote against. Without this type of messaging, it's questionable if the Democrats retake the House.

silverscreenselect wrote:

earendel wrote: Frankly I wish she'd step down now. Give a younger generation a chance.

Taking over the House after a decade is not something you want to turn over to someone with no experience, especially when you'll have to deal with a combative Donald Trump every day.

I don't think a lot of people realize how important Pelosi was to the Democratic efforts to regain the House. She got portrayed as the villain in every Republican commercial (_____ is a Nancy Pelosi puppet wanting to bring the liberal agenda to your district), but she was largely responsible for crafting the Democratic pitch to emphasize health care and the issues the Democrats are strongest on, rather than just make the entire election about Trump. The voters already knew about Trump so the Democrats didn't need to remind them. Instead, Pelosi made sure that the voters had something to vote for, rather than merely someone to vote against. Without this type of messaging, it's questionable if the Democrats retake the House.

The Dems took the house as a result of the anti-Trump mania. The Dems have nothing to campaign on other than socialism and welfare. I guess that could also be part of the reasons as this country has become more of a "do it for me" land rather than "no thanks I'll do it for myself" type of mentality.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

earendel wrote: Frankly I wish she'd step down now. Give a younger generation a chance.

Taking over the House after a decade is not something you want to turn over to someone with no experience, especially when you'll have to deal with a combative Donald Trump every day.

I don't think a lot of people realize how important Pelosi was to the Democratic efforts to regain the House. She got portrayed as the villain in every Republican commercial (_____ is a Nancy Pelosi puppet wanting to bring the liberal agenda to your district), but she was largely responsible for crafting the Democratic pitch to emphasize health care and the issues the Democrats are strongest on, rather than just make the entire election about Trump. The voters already knew about Trump so the Democrats didn't need to remind them. Instead, Pelosi made sure that the voters had something to vote for, rather than merely someone to vote against. Without this type of messaging, it's questionable if the Democrats retake the House.

The Dems took the house as a result of the anti-Trump mania. The Dems have nothing to campaign on other than socialism and welfare. I guess that could also be part of the reasons as this country has become more of a "do it for me" land rather than "no thanks I'll do it for myself" type of mentality.

You just go ahead and continue blaming the voters instead of the message Republicans were trying to sell. As the California Republican Party has realized too late, that's a pretty good recipe for electoral oblivion. Think about it. The Governor-elect of Kansas, of all places, is a Democrat.

When Republicans start accepting the message of politicians like Larry Hogan, Charlie Baker, and Arnold Schwartzenegger, they'll have a chance to reverse their slide. But if they continue to try to sell the mantra of more and more tax cuts and more and more fear-mongering against immigrants, I expect fresh blood like Rep.-elect Lizzie Pannill Fletcher to have a nice long career. --Bob

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

earendel wrote: Frankly I wish she'd step down now. Give a younger generation a chance.

Taking over the House after a decade is not something you want to turn over to someone with no experience, especially when you'll have to deal with a combative Donald Trump every day.

I don't think a lot of people realize how important Pelosi was to the Democratic efforts to regain the House. She got portrayed as the villain in every Republican commercial (_____ is a Nancy Pelosi puppet wanting to bring the liberal agenda to your district), but she was largely responsible for crafting the Democratic pitch to emphasize health care and the issues the Democrats are strongest on, rather than just make the entire election about Trump. The voters already knew about Trump so the Democrats didn't need to remind them. Instead, Pelosi made sure that the voters had something to vote for, rather than merely someone to vote against. Without this type of messaging, it's questionable if the Democrats retake the House.

The Dems took the house as a result of the anti-Trump mania. The Dems have nothing to campaign on other than socialism and welfare. I guess that could also be part of the reasons as this country has become more of a "do it for me" land rather than "no thanks I'll do it for myself" type of mentality.

Why do the parts of the country with the highest percentage of people on welfare have a majority of registered Republicans?

Bob Juch wrote:
Why do the parts of the country with the highest percentage of people on welfare have a majority of registered Republicans?

Because it's all the fault of illegal immigrants and Islamic terrorists.

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
Taking over the House after a decade is not something you want to turn over to someone with no experience, especially when you'll have to deal with a combative Donald Trump every day.

I don't think a lot of people realize how important Pelosi was to the Democratic efforts to regain the House. She got portrayed as the villain in every Republican commercial (_____ is a Nancy Pelosi puppet wanting to bring the liberal agenda to your district), but she was largely responsible for crafting the Democratic pitch to emphasize health care and the issues the Democrats are strongest on, rather than just make the entire election about Trump. The voters already knew about Trump so the Democrats didn't need to remind them. Instead, Pelosi made sure that the voters had something to vote for, rather than merely someone to vote against. Without this type of messaging, it's questionable if the Democrats retake the House.

The Dems took the house as a result of the anti-Trump mania. The Dems have nothing to campaign on other than socialism and welfare. I guess that could also be part of the reasons as this country has become more of a "do it for me" land rather than "no thanks I'll do it for myself" type of mentality.

Why do the parts of the country with the highest percentage of people on welfare have a majority of registered Republicans?

Where is the support for your assertion?

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
The Dems took the house as a result of the anti-Trump mania. The Dems have nothing to campaign on other than socialism and welfare. I guess that could also be part of the reasons as this country has become more of a "do it for me" land rather than "no thanks I'll do it for myself" type of mentality.

Why do the parts of the country with the highest percentage of people on welfare have a majority of registered Republicans?

Where is the support for your assertion?

Here's welfare spending
https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/co ... g_2017b40a

Beebs52 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: Why do the parts of the country with the highest percentage of people on welfare have a majority of registered Republicans?

Where is the support for your assertion?

Here's welfare spending
https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/co ... g_2017b40a

Need it by county.

BackInTex wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
Where is the support for your assertion?

Here's welfare spending
https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/co ... g_2017b40a

Need it by county.

Note the 3 highest. Watching football. County iis beyond me now

Oh, since Texas doesn't have party aff8liation as voter reg requirement, well, you know.

Beebs52 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:
Here's welfare spending
https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/co ... g_2017b40a

Need it by county.

Note the 3 highest. Watching football. County iis beyond me now

Note the bottom of the table. All of the red numbers are "guesstimated." --Bob

Since I'm sure bobs ×2 don't watch football, do your own f!@#ing research since ya made the statements. Buh by.