Some democrats are trying to oust Pelosi as their leader.

[rightwinger]

I don't think they will succeed in ousting her, as the Mob would often say about members who were out of favor "she's an earner", thus, she's untouchable without a serious sit down. Her lobby connections and money raising is difficult for the Democrats to let go of, even if this money has meant little to their actual election fortunes of late.

Democrats don't need to oust her, she will do that herself sooner or later. These are just some gentle nudges towards her thinking about the future. She's had a robust career, time to bring in some new blood.

Any way you cut it, she is not getting the job done
"Close losses" are not victories....never have been

Dems need new blood, new focus and new vision

Pelosi does not provide it

 

[Dschrute3]

Her and McCain need to go. They're obviously unfit to be serving in our Government. Both Parties should force retirement on the two senile wingnuts.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

War on women?

Hmm...

Dems hate women, seniors and white people

You know, if you don't always say the first silly, dumbass thing that comes to mind people may actually have some respect for what you post.

How come you're not talking about replacing Maxine Waters? Huh?

 

[AntonToo]

Dem's are having a meltdown, in spite of a 24/7 assault on Trump they have lost 4 races in a row

No they aren't Would be nice to win one of those, but at the end of the day these were skirmishes in the deep red.

In 2005 Democrats were not winning special elections and you know what happened in 2006.

Lib please you people have been on the edge of your seats ready to run the 'Voters have turned against Trump' media blitz for months, but you keep losing the elections stifling your plans.

Doesn't change the fact that these were deep red seats and while Democrats certainly had some hopes, but no certainties of winning there.

They were competetive races where Republicans should have been dominating by double digits in normal cycle.

 

[AntonToo]

War on women?

Hmm...

Dems hate women, seniors and white people

You know, if you don't always say the first silly, dumbass thing that comes to mind people may actually have some respect for what you post.

How come you're not talking about replacing Maxine Waters? Huh?

umm because this thread is about Pelosi, who unlike Maxine, is in a position of senior leadership?

Got no problem with replacing Maxine since we are here.

 

[jc456]

She is a beauty, isn't she?

View attachment 134843

which one is pelosi?

 

[jc456]

Dem's are having a meltdown, in spite of a 24/7 assault on Trump they have lost 4 races in a row

No they aren't Would be nice to win one of those, but at the end of the day these were skirmishes in the deep red.

In 2005 Democrats were not winning special elections and you know what happened in 2006.

Lib please you people have been on the edge of your seats ready to run the 'Voters have turned against Trump' media blitz for months, but you keep losing the elections stifling your plans.

Doesn't change the fact that these were deep red seats and while Democrats certainly had some hopes, but no certainties of winning there.

They were competetive races where Republicans should have been dominating by double digits in normal cycle.

never competitive. evah!!! only in your mind and theirs.

 

[AntonToo]

Dem's are having a meltdown, in spite of a 24/7 assault on Trump they have lost 4 races in a row

No they aren't Would be nice to win one of those, but at the end of the day these were skirmishes in the deep red.

In 2005 Democrats were not winning special elections and you know what happened in 2006.

Lib please you people have been on the edge of your seats ready to run the 'Voters have turned against Trump' media blitz for months, but you keep losing the elections stifling your plans.

Doesn't change the fact that these were deep red seats and while Democrats certainly had some hopes, but no certainties of winning there.

They were competetive races where Republicans should have been dominating by double digits in normal cycle.

never competitive. evah!!! only in your mind and theirs.

Ok crazy, whatever you say...but you do know there are actual RESULTS to these races, right?

 

[imawhosure]

Dem's are having a meltdown, in spite of a 24/7 assault on Trump they have lost 4 races in a row

No they aren't Would be nice to win one of those, but at the end of the day these were skirmishes in the deep red.

In 2005 Democrats were not winning special elections and you know what happened in 2006.

Lib please you people have been on the edge of your seats ready to run the 'Voters have turned against Trump' media blitz for months, but you keep losing the elections stifling your plans.

Doesn't change the fact that these were deep red seats and while Democrats certainly had some hopes, but no certainties of winning there.

They were competetive races where Republicans should have been dominating by double digits in normal cycle.

Let me nice, while being real------------> The Hollywood bundlers didn't spend that kind of money to lose. The truth is...........the Democratic party is running on fumes as far as cash. Why? Because nobody puts up money for favors if the person they are giving their money to is unlikely to achieve the position to return the favor. That is known as "quid pro quo" in case you were wondering, but both parties do it.

Also, the left would NOT have been heralding that election as referendum on Trump for at least 2 weeks, if THEY didn't think it was of vast importance. Now you can have your opinion, and I kind of agree with your take. But, the left did this to themselves with their arrogance as their candidate appeared in the lead. Remember the old say, "don't count your chickens before they hatch!" Well, just as they did with Hilly, the Democrats did it again, and created their own Waterloo where there really wasn't one.

That seat isn't going to change to many lives in the grand scheme of the country, but it did change perception. It has now come to the forefront that no matter what the polls say, Republicans should show up because the pollsters are in the bag for the Dems. Do I believe that? Nope; I just think they are incompetent, and their methodology is passe. Still, being told over and over again you are going to lose, only to win, convinces a whole lot of people, not to listen to a damn thing you say, so go to the polls anyway.

Strange brew indeed, and it appears toxic for the Democrats-)

 

[AntonToo]

Dem's are having a meltdown, in spite of a 24/7 assault on Trump they have lost 4 races in a row

No they aren't Would be nice to win one of those, but at the end of the day these were skirmishes in the deep red.

In 2005 Democrats were not winning special elections and you know what happened in 2006.

Lib please you people have been on the edge of your seats ready to run the 'Voters have turned against Trump' media blitz for months, but you keep losing the elections stifling your plans.

Doesn't change the fact that these were deep red seats and while Democrats certainly had some hopes, but no certainties of winning there.

They were competetive races where Republicans should have been dominating by double digits in normal cycle.

Let me nice, while being real------------> The Hollywood bundlers didn't spend that kind of money to lose. The truth is...........the Democratic party is running on fumes as far as cash. Why? Because nobody puts up money for favors if the person they are giving their money to is unlikely to achieve the position to return the favor. That is known as "quid pro quo" in case you were wondering, but both parties do it.

Also, the left would NOT have been heralding that election as referendum on Trump for at least 2 weeks, if THEY didn't think it was of vast importance. Now you can have your opinion, and I kind of agree with your take. But, the left did this to themselves with their arrogance as their candidate appeared in the lead. Remember the old say, "don't count your chickens before they hatch!" Well, just as they did with Hilly, the Democrats did it again, and created their own Waterloo where there really wasn't one.

That seat isn't going to change to many lives in the grand scheme of the country, but it did change perception. It has now come to the forefront that no matter what the polls say, Republicans should show up because the pollsters are in the bag for the Dems. Do I believe that? Nope; I just think they are incompetent, and their methodology is passe. Still, being told over and over again you are going to lose, only to win, convinces a whole lot of people, not to listen to a damn thing you say, so go to the polls anyway.

Strange brew indeed, and it appears toxic for the Democrats-)

If Democrats would win a seat in deep red the Republicans would be the ones panicking everywhere - that's a possibility worth some coin.

It didn't happen, but Democrats lost nothing, Republicans gained nothing relative to where things where before those elections.

 

[imawhosure]

Dem's are having a meltdown, in spite of a 24/7 assault on Trump they have lost 4 races in a row

No they aren't Would be nice to win one of those, but at the end of the day these were skirmishes in the deep red.

In 2005 Democrats were not winning special elections and you know what happened in 2006.

Lib please you people have been on the edge of your seats ready to run the 'Voters have turned against Trump' media blitz for months, but you keep losing the elections stifling your plans.

Doesn't change the fact that these were deep red seats and while Democrats certainly had some hopes, but no certainties of winning there.

They were competetive races where Republicans should have been dominating by double digits in normal cycle.

Let me nice, while being real------------> The Hollywood bundlers didn't spend that kind of money to lose. The truth is...........the Democratic party is running on fumes as far as cash. Why? Because nobody puts up money for favors if the person they are giving their money to is unlikely to achieve the position to return the favor. That is known as "quid pro quo" in case you were wondering, but both parties do it.

Also, the left would NOT have been heralding that election as referendum on Trump for at least 2 weeks, if THEY didn't think it was of vast importance. Now you can have your opinion, and I kind of agree with your take. But, the left did this to themselves with their arrogance as their candidate appeared in the lead. Remember the old say, "don't count your chickens before they hatch!" Well, just as they did with Hilly, the Democrats did it again, and created their own Waterloo where there really wasn't one.

That seat isn't going to change to many lives in the grand scheme of the country, but it did change perception. It has now come to the forefront that no matter what the polls say, Republicans should show up because the pollsters are in the bag for the Dems. Do I believe that? Nope; I just think they are incompetent, and their methodology is passe. Still, being told over and over again you are going to lose, only to win, convinces a whole lot of people, not to listen to a damn thing you say, so go to the polls anyway.

Strange brew indeed, and it appears toxic for the Democrats-)

If Democrats would win a seat in deep red the Republicans would be the ones panicking everywhere - that's a possibility worth some coin.

It didn't happen, but Democrats lost nothing, Republicans gained nothing relative to where things where before those elections.

I am NOT disagreeing with you, please understand that. I am just telling you the perception, and Republicans didn't create it, the Democrats did by their verbal talking points in the media.