Poll: 30% of Americans, 44% of Democrats want Nancy Pelosi as Speaker
43 replies, posted
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/14/politics/nancy-pelosi-democratic-party-speaker/index.html
Washington (CNN) Almost three in five Americans said they'd prefer another Democrat as speaker of the House over past party leader Nancy Pelosi, according to a CNN poll conducted
by SSRS. As Pelosi campaigns in the House to regain her title as speaker, Republicans and even some Democrats on Capitol Hill have mobilized against her. Among Democrats in the
poll, more would prefer a different leader.
In CNN's post-election poll, respondents who participated in a survey from just before the election were called back. Only 30% of Americans said they want Pelosi to be speaker. Even
Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are split -- 44% back her and 46% want another Democrat to take the lead.
In a CNN/ORC poll from after the 2010 election, when Republicans seized control of the House and Pelosi lost her role as speaker, 45% said they wanted her to continue as the
Democratic leader in the House and 47% preferred another Democrat. Among all Americans in 2010, 66% said they wanted another Democrat and 25% said they preferred Pelosi.
Despite that opposition, Pelosi has remained the top Democrat in the House for Democrats during the intervening eight years, and now that they have regained the majority, she is
primed to retake the speaker's gavel.
In CNN's national exit poll this year, 31% of voters had a favorable opinion of Pelosi and 56% said they have a negative view of her. Democrats are more likely to view Pelosi as favorable
-- around 59% said they have a positive view of her -- while 89% of Republicans see her negatively. Independents veer negative as well -- 27% said they have a favorable opinion and 57%
unfavorable.
Even for President Donald Trump -- who has a relatively poor approval rating, historically -- 89% of Republicans approved of the job he was doing in CNN's pre-election survey, showing
great party loyalty. Pelosi does not enjoy anywhere near that level of support among Democrats.
This CNN poll was conducted by SSRS by re-interviewing 677 adults who participated in a nationally representative pre-election survey. Those participating in the poll were originally
interviewed from November 1 through 3, callback interviews took place between November 8 and 12. Results for all respondents reached in the callback survey have a margin of
sampling error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.
i mean she's pretty awful.
There's already the narrative that centrist white men are the reason she won't be speaker.
But she'll probably get the job anyway because the Democrats put party above everything
Trading a demon for a devil...
The reaction here is the opposite of reddit, twitter etc. In other places Pelosi is seen as the skilled leader needed to take on Trump.
She was already going to retire though?
She would if Clinton won, now she's staying for a year or two.
Am I being told that in the majority of Democrats, not a single Democrat in the House would be willing to poke at her? She's hit a point where she leads because of Seniority and because she's a woman. That's leading by existence, and not by prioritizing values core to the Democratic base. She should step aside and open the door if she really does care about the country more than the position or else she should just say she's the Congressional version of Hillary and suffer the consequences.
We look at how popular Ryan and Mitch were for playing submissive to Trump, but if she's the head I don't think she has the guts to be much, if at all better.
There is some resistance building among Democrats against her, but there's noone else running for the speakership.
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/07/665215714/watch-live-house-democratic-leader-nancy-pelosi-speaks
This is less "take on Trump" and more "what else can we give them". Republicans threw bipartisanship out the window 10 years ago. You have to be naive to think you can change that from a minority position.
Oh, well, uh...
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/2170/893843c5-4156-43ee-92bb-6fcbe7f1e911/tenor.gif
... because you'd figure the Democrats would be the ones smart enough to learn from history.
What's actually bad about Nancy Pelosi?
In a way I agree with her about the the fact they need someone experienced these next couple years to handle all the shit they're planning with Trump. But at the same time I'm not sure she's the right person to hold the torch. In some respects having someone new that maybe isn't a household name might do some good for the democrats. She just has a terrible reputation among republicans and some democrats.
Her absolute dedication to "working with" the Republicans despite years of obstruction from them, resulting in probably three(two so far, but Ruth Ginsberg is 85) supreme court seats going to Trump, when it should have been one or two at most. If Trump wins in 2020, we could be looking at potentially four seats by the end of his 8 years, which would essentially turn the Supreme Court into the Republican court for at least 40 years potentially.
For whatever reason, despite all that scheming and obstruction, Nancy Pelosi thinks the Democrats have to meet in the middle with the Republicans out of essentially, 'respect'.
What? She's a member of the house of representatives. They do not cast votes on Supreme Court Justices. Almost every single democrat voted against both Supreme Court justices, the only time one broke was Manchin for Kavanaugh.
Is she too moderate or too progressive? I'm hearing a narrative of both and it tells me how muddied the facts are around her.
I'm well aware of that, but it's not like the House and Senate Republicans are from two different parties. The Senate Republicans obstructed and have tried to undermine the democracy of the United States for years now, so why would you work with them in the other out of "respect" or some other bullshit?
She advocates for nonsense gun control positions that are actively undermined by facts, and reality and that alone pushes reasonable people away.
Frankly, I wouldn't consider people who make gun control their absolute number one priority to be very reasonable. If someone's opinion of a politician boils down to where they stand on gun control, then their priorities are completely unreasonable.
Dunno why Americans worry about their guns as if they'd ever use them for anything other than shooting unarmed people
I don't really care that you feel that way, neither do a large portion of americans
I think you may have this wrapped up in your head in a way that is quite honestly going to make it hard for you to frame this in a way that is fair to the people you disagree with.
1) I agree people shouldn't have guns as a #1 priority.
2) I believe people who even remotely care about guns, will dis-approve of bad legislation, and the politicians that run on it
3) If the "lesser of two evils" still has factually inaccurate policies, people will be unlikely to support that.
What I don't think is helpful, is viewing people who see a lot of gun legislation for the inefficient, beuacratic mess that it is, as "completely unreasonable".
Frankly, if you were knowledgable about something, and you watched people peddle lies and misinformation, for a while you might just accept it calmly and hope it ends, but after a while you realize the only option is to wholly reject it. This is the position any american who supports guns, and likes the democrats are in. They feel wholly unrepresentated, and that the rhetoric used is hollow propaganda.
I do not believe anyone should be okay with any propaganda going out, regardless of political affiliation.
I mean she does have experience keeping a presidency in check what with taking the gavel over during the Bush W years.
You jest, but there's a huge swathe of people in the US kept safe by their firearms every year.
It's very easy to say "no", as flatly as I can anticipate you doing, but that is a reality. Ignoring it only does you a dis-service.
I wasn't trying to imply that people who are passionate about their interests or hobbies to be completely unreasonable, just the idea that someone would vote against a politician, no matter how progressive and beneficial their other stances may be, simply because of their position on gun legislation.
I understand that I may not be the best person to argue this; I don't own a gun, nor do I care to, but that doesn't mean I don't respect people who do. I wasn't trying to open the figurative can of worms, so I'll just leave it at that.
I’m not trying to be aggressive so I apologize if I come across that way.
I dont like the idea of single issue voters either, but I think single issue gun rights voters are a response to ideologically driven legislation not supported by fact.
https://twitter.com/sethmoulton/status/1062890799552192512
https://twitter.com/fawfulfan/status/1062891209885208576
https://twitter.com/Gabbiedrice78K/status/1062893793651974146
https://twitter.com/admiralmpj/status/1062891623103655937
"FiveWhiteGuys" is the new Bernie Bros.
these are the type of people whose main problem with concentration camps would be that there aren't enough female guards
She's about as galvanizing as Hillary. Making her house leader would be a bad idea.
Why?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.