Tensions flare over Pelosi's comments about four House Democratic women and border bill

[melman]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) faced sharp criticism Sunday from some liberal lawmakers and activists over her latest comments about a group of Democratic women who opposed last month’s House emergency border aid bill that was supported by the leadership and most Democrats.

The continued and increasingly charged debate over the House’s approach to what became a $4.6 billion package — and complaints that it failed to set standards for the humane treatment of migrants held in federal custody — underlined the tensions among Democrats over strategy and policy as they counter President Trump.

Although Pelosi maintains that she is aggressively confronting Trump on immigration and other fronts, there is widespread anger among liberals about the president and growing calls for Pelosi to resist working with the administration and begin impeachment proceedings.

“It is very disappointing that the speaker would ever try to diminish our voices in so many ways,” Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), who voted against the border bill, said on ABC’s “This Week.”

“You know, people like us, people like me and Ayanna, Ilhan and Alexandria, we’re reflective of our nation in many ways,” Tlaib told ABC News. “Guess what? We know what it feels like to be dehumanized. We know what it feels like to be brown and black in this country. And I’ll tell you right now, we’re not going to stand by and sit idly by and allow brown and dark-skinned children to be ripped away from their parents to be dehumanized.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/tensions-flare-over-pelosis-comments-about-four-house-democratic-women-and-border-bill/2019/07/07/a1bf7b04-a0de-11e9-bd56-eac6bb02d01d_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c3aaf7e68b20

[wasupaloopa]

1. I think some people refuse to accept the fact that we can't

pass any bill unless the Senate Majority says we can.

Pelosi is a grown up. At least some money will hopefully be spent to help immigrants rather than nothing.

[still_one]

2. They know. It is called grandstanding. Full of sound and fury, signiying nothing

[pangaia]

4. The PUBLIC needs to educated.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

11. if m$m requires "flares" to cover ...

Give 'em flares. The public gets an education without even realizing it.

Dems should be in the news every day.

Don't let Cheetolini (and background enablers) control all the press.

[StarfishSaver]

15. How do you suggest House Members educate the public?

[sheshe2]

25. We could probably start with a refresher course in basic civics 101.

Might be a start since so many don't have clue.

[StarfishSaver]

26. But how will that be disseminated?

[KY_EnviroGuy]

51. Leaflets dropped from Revolutionary War aircraft!

...........

Seriously though, these youngsters do have tremendous social media following, so there's a possibility they could try harder to include more informational posts.

I'm not on social media but occasionally see their posts on DU and other sites and think most of them pepper their pages with frequent tidbits of knowledge on history, government and civics.

They're the voices of our youth and should at least be heard and respected. If we don't we'll lose them to complacency.

[StarfishSaver]

54. Haha

Good one.



I think your idea makes sense. However, one of the challenges is that so many people on social media and political sites think they are already very knowledgeable, even when they aren't, and don't take well to being given new information, especially when it conflicts with their already-formed views and assumptions. So I wonder how effective that would be.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

81. Seems to be a trend these days...

for most people I know to instantly stick their face in their cell phone to search for answers to everything, which is a dangerous trend because few of them verify their sources. There's an assumption that if it's on that phone or tablet screen, it must be right. Most people now are impatient and want instant gratification.

Print media always had somewhat of an assumed authenticity because if people went to all that trouble to write and physically print something, it probably went through editors and proof-readers and they were called out by the public for errors. But now, anyone can publish anything on-line without any responsibility or accountability.

--------------

I think what we're seeing with our newer members of Congress is the annoyance that their ideas are not reaching the public's ears but instead are only heard in committee discussions and often only behind closed doors. Previously, perhaps that was just accepted and they went along with the majority and shut up out of fear or respect.

Social media has allowed them a limited means to prevent that from happening, and I think it's healthy for the public to at least be knowledgeable of their thinking. Members with attractive personalities, dialog and appearance such as AOC seem to be most effective for that purpose. However, just having a bunch of newer members posting randomly to gain attention is not a logical or effective method. And, the quiet, less attractive guy that has the best idea probably won't be heard!

Why not somehow open some of these discussions on specific issues between older and younger members to the public in a casual but respectful format somewhere away from the halls of Congress, like a moderated round table on TV and/or YouTube? That would be far better than various members throwing tit-for-tat posts at each other on Twitter. Heck, they could even allow a time slot for call-in questions from the public.

KY (needed to vent, lol).......

[betsuni]

68. I want celebrities like Kim Kardashian (112 million Instagram followers) to help make political

activism attractive. Like Oprah's book club -- suddenly book clubs became popular and books starting including a section for book club discussions. TV shows like "The View" would be perfect to educate their audience on civics.

[sheshe2]

55. No clue really.

You can teach those that will listen, you can't teach those that refuse to listen nor take the time to educate themselves. The ones that vote against their own self interests and then blame everyone but themselves.



Sorry. I have no answer to that after seeing people here saying that there vote didn't matter and chose to sit it out or vote third party.

[StarfishSaver]

56. That's my concern, too

I'm appalled by what I see here. The examples you gave, as well as the resistance supposedly intelligent people have to learning and accepting new information. Once some people make up their minds, they refuse to accept any information that conflicts with it - and resent having it presented to them and really resent anyone who tries to educate them.

I used to think that was the province of the right, but now I see it in spades right here. We have a lot of work to do right in our own backyard. And, like you, I don't really know where to start.

[sheshe2]

61. Someone here said FU Mr President.

However they spelled it out. Went on to call him a POSUCS ( piece of shit used car salesman.) Recommended to the top of the page.

So, yes. I have no clue where to start.

A lot of work to do, yes indeed. *sigh* I am not getting any younger and all I ever wished for was to leave the children a better place.

[pangaia]

70. Good idea.. must be one of the reasons reagan went after public schools..

[MichMan]

3. Here is the thing about being part of a team

Last edited Sun Jul 7, 2019, 07:53 PM - Edit history (1)

Having internal debate and disagreements is fine, but when the decision is made and voted on, all the participants need to support the decision, not attempt to undermine or renegotiate it after the fact.

[notdarkyet]

17. Sounds like censorship to me. They have a right to speak their hearts and minds.

.

[Me.]

22. NoBody Said They Couldn't Speak

but why is it always at the expense of others. Nancy is quite correct. There are but 4 of them in a Caucus of 220+ and all the votes count equally and they'll just have to live with the democracy of that.

[Phoenix61]

29. This!

Wouldn’t it be great if we could snap our fingers and make everything right. Sadly, that’s not the case. Pelosi knows the long game.

[Me.]

65. ...

[DBoon]

59. but if you have so little faith in the organization's processes

that you would undermine a decision, then maybe you should leave the organization.

You can say what you want, but if what you want isn't supported by the group it may be time to part ways.

Using your freedom of speech requires you exercise your freedom of association.

[Autumn]

5. These women have an understanding of this issue that Pelosi doesn't have.

I'm very proud of them for standing for their values and not giving an inch. They are the future.

[sheshe2]

7. How so?

Autumn

5. These women have an understanding of this issue that Pelosi doesn't have.

Please explain.

[Grasswire2]

21. In matters of class and cultural identity?

I assume that's the inference.

[sheshe2]

37. Perhaps.

Fact is I do not want to see any Rep grandstanding on their twitter feed.I want to see action not words and playing to 'fans'. Fans are not necessarily voters as we well know.

[bahrbearian]

10. Yep , Pelosi got played again.

[sheshe2]

19. Nancy got played again?

As if.

[Locrian]

30. its ok its ok... it's 3d chess doncha know

she sent a very (we'll not very) strong letter asking trump:

"I would deeply appreciate your soonest consideration of the proposals contained in the House legislation," Pelosi wrote.

wow.... of course this was *after* they passed the bill...

[bahrbearian]

35. Wow, I didn't hear that one, She forgot to say please.

[George II]

24. What understanding do they have that Nancy Pelosi doesn't have?

Remember next year when Justice Democrats unleash their primary challenges against a number of "centrist" Democratic House members for "voting against the party" that those mentioned so far have voted WITH the Democratic Party more than some of these in the current session, and have a higher "progressive" rating.

https://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?topic=&house=house&sort=overall-current&order=down&party=D

Nancy Pelosi: 1st
Elliot Engel: 12th
Lacy Clay: 56th
Gregory Meeks: 111th
Hakeem Jeffries: 130th
Ilhan Omar: 155th
Ocasio-Cortez: 175th

[Autumn]

31. You should try reading the OP and not just responding to my post.

“You know, people like us, people like me and Ayanna, Ilhan and Alexandria, we’re reflective of our nation in many ways,” Tlaib told ABC News. “Guess what? We know what it feels like to be dehumanized. We know what it feels like to be brown and black in this country. And I’ll tell you right now, we’re not going to stand by and sit idly by and allow brown and dark-skinned children to be ripped away from their parents to be dehumanized.”

[George II]

36. I did, as well as the first one on this subject posted this afternoon.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12253440

As for your excerpt, what Tlaib says is a bit confusing. On the one hand they're concerned about the health and welfare of the children being held in captivity at the border, but on the other hand they voted against funding to provide those children things like soap, toothbrushes, blankets, beds, etc.

What did voting against that humanitarian aid do to change the situation down there?

I'll tell you one thing, if some Democrats continue to try to rip the Democratic Party apart and handicap the election of additional Democrats to the House and Senate, not to mention the White House, the plight of those children and more will be set back perhaps beyond saving them.

Their choice.

[Autumn]

41. Then you already knew what understanding of this issue they have that that Pelosi doesn't have

and there was no reason to ask me your question. One and done George.

[George II]

44. No, I know that they have a different perspective of this issue, but not necessarily...

...a better understanding.

What I do know is that Nancy Pelosi has a better understanding about how to get things done in Washington.

So, as you can see there was a reason for asking the question, but I guess your last sentence means you're not even reading anyway.

[triron]

38. Here, here. Bravo.

[bottomofthehill]

42. But they have a lot to learn about the legislative process

[George II]

45. Precisely. Having "principles" and getting things accomplished are two entirely different things.

[bottomofthehill]

46. Unfortunately

The way the government is currently constructed, that is true. hopefully, and with a lot of hard work, that will change in 2020

[mcar]

6. Gaslighting

[sheshe2]

8. Love your sig line, melman.

I agree with that 100%.

[melman]

9. That's nice

[sheshe2]

14. ...

[DURHAM D]

12. Patty Perfects are just so tedious. nt

[Grasswire2]

13. Odd that the excerpt above doesn't include Pelosi's comment.

This is the comment that was perceived as a jab.

“All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world,” Pelosi said in an interview with New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd that was published online Saturday. “But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people and that’s how many votes they got.”

[Me.]

18. Right?

I'm amazed at how many people are saying how insulting the Speaker was. Frankly, as far as I can tell the one with an 'edge' is AOC.

[still_one]

23. Some people can't handle the truth

[Me.]

64. ...

[George II]

47. I don't find that odd, I find it intentional.

[Me.]

16. So The Rest Of THe Dem Caucus & The Speaker Aren't Reflective Of The Country

in many ways? And are you are the only ones concerned about the children? This has been going on for a while now and last week was your first trip there as far as I know. My goodness but it seems there is some big time self-importance going on here.

[GeorgeGist]

20. You go girls ...

[ismnotwasm]

27. Yes, we know.

[BeyondGeography]

28. Pelosi's statement was extremely arrogant

Dishing on the rookies to Maureen Fucking Dowd of all people, someone whose bread-and-butter is undermining Democrats in Beltwayland. Good on them for pushing back hard. Dowd isn’t trying to write a serious column. She’s there to stir the pot. Pelosi could have gotten the same adulatory result from Dowd if she had thrown Schumer under the bus for his role in this but that would have complicated her life, so she picks on the freshmen. Leadership.

[bottomofthehill]

43. Clearly needs to go. We need a Speaker with no clue how the Legislative process works

[George II]

48. Get yourself elected to the House, get a majority of other Democrats to back you up....

...and you can have another Speaker. Until then, a huge majority of Democrats in the House are quite happy with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker.

[Celerity]

33. 'that was supported by the leadership and most Democrats' this is not true, leadership was spit and

it only passed with Rethug help (they actually voted for it in much larger numbers than the Democratic caucus did).

This entire thing was 100% on the No Labels/Problem Solvers/Blue Dog clique. (get used to this happening a lot)

They sprung a last minute refusal to support unless ICE was given more money.

Josh Gottheimer ran point for them

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Gottheimer got a lot of pushback when he had a townhall back in his home district

Link to tweet

1) @RepJoshG led the fight pass Trump and McConnell's border bill.
2) At a town hall today, his constituents blasted him for it.
3) He told them he had nothing to do with it!
4) The patron of the caucus he leads bragged that they totally did it.

Also Josh’s group No Labels bragged that Josh did the thing he’s now pretending he didn’t do.





https://www.insidernj.com/watch-animated-gottheimer-town-hall-weekend-activist-engage-congressman-ice-funding/

Dem leadership was split over this

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, and DCCC Chair Cheri Bustos voted in favour of the bill, while other members of leadership, including Democratic Caucus Chair Hakeem Jeffries, and Assistant Democratic Leader Ben Ray Luján, who is running for Senate in New Mexico, voted against it.The Congressional Hispanic Caucus also recommended the House vote against the Senate border spending bill.


House Progressives Cry ‘Betrayal’ and Say Moderate Democrats Sold Out Detained Children

https://www.thedailybeast.com/house-progressives-cry-betrayal-and-say-moderate-democrats-sold-out-detained-children


Five Takeaways From the Border Aid Vote

The vote on Thursday exposed a number of realities about the House majority and its relationship with the Senate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/politics/border-aid-vote-takeaways.html

snip

The power of the Democrats’ moderate wing far outweighed that of the liberal wing.

In the past, Ms. Pelosi and her leadership team have bowed to the party’s moderate wing, which was a critical force behind decisions to punt on releasing a budget resolution and to pull legislation that would have effectively given members a pay bump.

But top leaders spent days negotiating additions to the House bill that the party’s liberal flank had requested, even as some moderate members quietly expressed discomfort with the prospect of cutting funding to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and producing a bill that the Republican majority in the Senate could not stomach.

Ultimately, under pressure to get a bill to the president’s desk before recess, Ms. Pelosi ceded to threats from moderate members and agreed to put the Senate bill on the floor.

The vote on Thursday — which almost had more Republican votes of support than Democratic — underscored how powerful the moderate members of the Democratic caucus can be when united with Republicans.

A break appeared in the Democratic leadership.

Ms. Pelosi’s closest lieutenants, Representatives Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader, and James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the majority whip, voted in favor of the Senate bill. (Ms. Pelosi, as is customary for the speaker, did not vote.)

But the second tier of leadership — widely seen as next in line to ascend to the top of the House Democratic leadership — did not. Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the caucus chairman; Representative Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, the assistant speaker; and Representative Katherine M. Clark of Massachusetts, the caucus vice chairwoman, voted “no.”

The two representatives for the freshman class, Representatives Joe Neguse of Colorado and Katie Hill of California, also voted against the bill.

snip

[Autumn]

34. How horrible.

[Celerity]

57. structurally, due to decades of voter suppression and RW gerrymandering, the only way

for us to get a majority and hold it in the House is to have a huge chunk of our caucus be moderates/centrists. There are so many artificially purple, pink and reddish seats now that literally around half our caucus are in one or more of the New Democrat Coalition, and/or The Blue Dog Caucus, and/or the truly problematic No Labels-backed Problem Solvers Caucus (who have massive RW funding for the parent group, No Labels). Combined, they are far more powerful than they were just a few cycles ago.

Many will block so-called progressive (and I am NOT talking Bernie-level left, I mean closer to the centre left) legislation, either for fear of losing their seats or simply on philosophical grounds. I think the public option (let alone M4A, which is not going to happen for decades, if ever) is going to be extraordinarily hard to get past their phalanx. Same for even free community college (forget 4 years) and even expanded student loan forgiveness. Significant war/security/surveillance state cuts and a robust re-regulation of the financial industry? Nope, sorry, I do not see it happening. I say this even if we have the trifecta starting in 2021 of POTUS, Senate (with say 51 or 52 seats) and maintain 240 or even increase our caucus to 250ish in the House.

They are going to deffo toss a spanner in the works for anything that is to the left of centre left (and even will block some centre left things). The electoral grid is too stacked in the rightward direction.



New Democrat Coalition 101 Members, so many of the new freshman/freshwomen class

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrat_Coalition#New_Democrat_Coalition_members_(House)

Alabama
Terri Sewell (AL-7), Vice Chair
Arizona
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-2)
Tom O'Halleran (AZ-1)
Greg Stanton (AZ-9)
California
Pete Aguilar (CA-31)
Ami Bera (CA-7)
Julia Brownley (CA-26)
Salud Carbajal (CA-24)
Tony Cardenas (CA-29)
Gil Cisneros (CA-39)
Lou Correa (CA-46)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Susan Davis (CA-53)
Josh Harder (CA-10)
Katie Hill (CA-25)
Scott H. Peters (CA-52), Leadership at-large
Harley Rouda (CA-48)
Raul Ruiz (CA-36)
Adam Schiff (CA-28)
Norma Torres (CA-35)
Juan Vargas (CA-51)
Colorado
Jason Crow (CO-6)
Ed Perlmutter (CO-7)
Connecticut
Jim Himes (CT-4), Chair
Delaware
Lisa Blunt Rochester (DE-AL)
Florida
Charlie Crist (FL-13)
Val Demings (FL-10)
Al Lawson (FL-5)
Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (FL-26)
Stephanie Murphy (FL-7)
Darren Soto (FL-9)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23)
Georgia
Lucy McBath (GA-6)
David Scott (GA-13)
Hawaii
Ed Case (HI-1)
Illinois
Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
Sean Casten (IL-06)
Bill Foster (IL-11)
Raja Krishnamoorthi (IL-08)
Mike Quigley (IL-05)
Brad Schneider (IL-10)
Indiana
André Carson (IN-7)
Iowa
Cindy Axne (IA-3)
Kansas
Sharice Davids (KS-3)
Louisiana
Cedric Richmond (LA-2)
Maryland
Anthony G. Brown (MD-4)
David Trone (MD-6)
Massachusetts
Seth Moulton (MA-6)
Bill Keating (MA-9)
Lori Trahan (MA-3)
Michigan
Brenda Lawrence (MI-14)
Elissa Slotkin (MI-8)
Haley Stevens (MI-11)
Minnesota
Angie Craig (MN-2)
Dean Phillips (MN-3)
Nevada
Susie Lee (NV-3)
Steven Horsford (NV-4)
New Hampshire
Ann McLane Kuster (NH-2)
Chris Pappas (NH-1)
New Jersey
Josh Gottheimer (NJ-5)
Tom Malinowski (NJ-7)
Donald Norcross (NJ-1)
Mikie Sherrill (NJ-11)
New Mexico
Xochitl Torres Small (NM-2)
New York
Anthony Brindisi (NY-22)
Sean Patrick Maloney (NY-18)
Gregory Meeks (NY-5)
Eliot L. Engel (NY-16)
Kathleen Rice (NY-4), Leadership at-large
Max Rose (NY-11)
Tom Suozzi (NY-3)
Oklahoma
Kendra Horn (OK-5)
Oregon
Kurt Schrader (OR-5)
Pennsylvania
Brendan Boyle (PA-2)
Madeleine Dean (PA-4)
Chrissy Houlahan (PA-6)
Susan Wild (PA-7)
South Carolina
Joe Cunningham (SC-1)
Tennessee
Jim Cooper (TN-5)
Texas
Colin Allred (TX-32)
Joaquin Castro (TX-20)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Veronica Escobar (TX-16)
Vicente Gonzalez (TX-15)
Lizzie Pannill Fletcher (TX-7)
Marc Veasey (TX-33)
Utah
Ben McAdams (UT-4)
Virginia
Don Beyer (VA-08)
Gerry Connolly (VA-11), Whip
Elaine Luria (VA-2)
Donald McEachin (VA-4)
Abigail Spanberger (VA-7)
Jennifer Wexton (VA-10)
Washington
Suzan DelBene (WA-01), Vice Chair
Denny Heck (WA-10)
Derek Kilmer (WA-06), Vice Chair
Rick Larsen (WA-2)
Kim Schrier (WA-8)
Adam Smith (WA-9), charter member
Wisconsin
Ron Kind (WI-3), Chair Emeritus
U.S. Virgin Islands
Stacey Plaskett (VI-AL)

Last updated:April 10, 2019



Blue Dog Coalition 27 members


REP. ANTHONY BRINDISI Co-chair
REP. J. LUIS CORREA Co-chair
REP. STEPHANIE MURPHY Co-chair
REP. TOM O'HALLERAN Co-chair

Regular Members

REP. SANFORD BISHOP
REP. ED CASE
REP. JIM COOPER
REP. JIM COSTA
REP. CHARLIE CRIST
REP. HENRY CUELLAR
REP. JOE CUNNINGHAM
REP. VICENTE GONZALEZ
REP. JOSH GOTTHEIMER
REP. KENDRA HORN
REP. DANIEL LIPINSKI
REP. BEN MCADAMS
REP. COLLIN PETERSON
REP. MAX ROSE
REP. BRAD SCHNEIDER
REP. KURT SCHRADER
REP. DAVID SCOTT
REP. MIKIE SHERRILL
REP. ABIGAIL SPANBERGER
REP. MIKE THOMPSON
REP. XOCHITL TORRES SMALL
REP. JEFF VAN DREW
REP. FILEMON VELA


No Labels Problem Solvers Caucus 46 Members (31 Dems and 15 Rethugs, it was 8, 24 and 2, but the Dem number grew by 7 and the Rethugs dropped by 9 in the 2018 elections)

Democrats

Sanford Bishop (Ga.)
Anthony Brindisi (N.Y.)
Julia Brownley (Calif.)
Salud Carbajal (Calif.)
Tony Cardenas (Calif.)
André Carson (Ind.)
Jim Cooper (Tenn.)
Jim Costa (Calif.)
Charlie Crist (Fla.)
Joe Cunningham (S.C.)
Debbie Dingell (Mich.)
Vicente González (Texas)
Josh Gottheimer (N.J.) co-Chair
Derek Kilmer (Wash.)
Susie Lee (Nev.)
Daniel Lipinski (Ill.)
Stephanie Murphy (Fla.)
Eleanor Norton (D.C.)
Tom O'Halleran (Ariz.)
Jimmy Panetta (Calif.)
Scott Peters (Calif.)
Collin Peterson (Minn.)
Dean Phillips (Minn.)
Max Rose (N.Y.)
Bradley Schneider (Ill.)
Kurt Schrader (Ore.)
Darren Soto (Fla.)
Abigail Spanberger (Va.)
Tom Suozzi (N.Y.)
Jeff Van Drew (N.J.)
Peter Welch (Vt.)

Republicans

Earl Carter (Ga.)
Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.)
Mike Gallagher (Wis.)
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon (Puerto Rico)
Dusty Johnson (S.D.)
David Joyce (Ohio)
John Katko (N.Y.)
Peter King (N.Y.)
Adam Kinzinger (Ill.)
Dan Meuser (Pa.)
Tom Reed (N.Y.) co-Chair
Lloyd Smucker (Pa.)
Glenn Thompson (Pa.)
Fred Upton (Mich.)
Steve Watkins (Kan.)

[Autumn]

71. The Problem Solvers Caucus were the ones who went after Nancy if I'm remembering it right?

[Celerity]

73. Yes, with some overlap from some members of the other 2 caucuses.

All 3 combine to be the dominant force in our caucus atm. I may not like that (I do not) but it is the reality, and to structurally change it is going to be VERY hard, as it will take a coordinated effort from not lust the national superstructure, but also from a shit tonne of states legislatures that we have to pull back (plus governorships etc).

The 2020 Census (and the 2020 state, local and federal elections) is a massive key, as if we fail to roll back the state-done gerrymandering, fail to also rollback the voter suppression that Rethug statewide office holders and assemblies do, and actually have even more RW gerrymandering done off of it, we are well fucked for the next decade, at multiple levels from local up to national. Even at POTUS level, as in addition, a flawed, under-counted Census can pull precious electoral voted away from Blue states and shift it to Red and pink ones, or stop red and pink from losing EV's fairly.

[bahrbearian]

40. Good post , thanks

[George II]

49. The final vote:

DEMOCRATIC Yeas - 152 Nays - 71 No Vote - 11
REPUBLICAN Yeas - 170 Nays - 14 No Vote - 14

TOTALS Yeas - 322 Nays - 85 No Vote - 25

The way I see it, 152 of 223 votes is "most Democrats".

[Celerity]

62. We have 235 members in our caucus, only 152 voted yea for final passage (170 Rethugs voted yea)

I was referring to the all-important amendment vote in the bulk of my post, and even in the final vote it only passed due to the vast majority of Rethugs supporting it.

83 Democratic defections is over a third. That is a very significant number still for the final tally.

This is, unfortunately, far, far the last vote where we will see such cleavage. It is going to be especially contentious when a small bloc of centrists from one or more of the 3 centrist caucuses (New Democrats, Blue Dogs, and/or the very problematic bi-partisan Problem Solvers group) block passage on a narrow final vote for a bill that has far more overwhelming overall Democratic support (and far more Rethug resistance).

[George II]

66. Eleven didn't vote for various reasons, they weren't "defections"...

Gabbard, Castro, Moulton, Ryan, and Swalwell were in Florida at the debate (Castro to support his brother). Only 71 voted Nay, that's less than a third of those who voted - 32% and only 30% of all Democrats.

In the House the "centrists" are not a small bloc, they're the majority of House members.

PS - we only have 234, we're still awaiting a special election in North Carolina in September.

[Celerity]

72. if you read my posts I said that the majority or close to it, in our caucus is now in one of the 3

moderate/centrist caucuses, and listed every member in all 3. In the case of the amendment however, it was a small bloc, the Problem Solvers, spearheaded by Josh Gottheimer, who led the charge in sandbagging Pelosi on the amendment vote. I laid that out in great detail.

I fully admit that the centrists control the majority of power in the caucus (a lot of that is due to artificial right-shifting of the overall national congressional district map by the Rethugs at state assembly level, and also voter suppression, etc), and the most extreme of them are going to even block, I predict, many things that are now being framed as 'reasonable' (as opposed to radical Bernie level).

I have listed multiple ones in my previous posts, but the big one I think that is near the top of the list to be most likely blocked (even if we have the POTUS, Senate, and the House) is the public option, unless it is some very watered down and incremental version (such as simply expanding the buy-in option down to 55 years old, and even that is going to be a struggle IMHO). Same for 2 years free nationwide public community college (let alone 4 years), etc etc.

[Celerity]

82. your numbers were wrong, btw, and, as usual, I provide links. If you have a link to challenge

me (you just typed out numbers with no link) then by all means, show me.

you said



that is incorrect

this was the FINAL VOTE

https://projects.propublica.org/represent/votes/116/house/1/429




this shows it was the final vote taken on it by the House

https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/116/hr3401





these are the Dem NO votes

Member Party Dist.

Alma Adams D NC-12
Pete Aguilar D CA-31
Nanette Barragán D CA-44
Karen Bass D CA-37
Donald Beyer D VA-8
Earl Blumenauer D OR-3
Suzanne Bonamici D OR-1
Brendan Boyle D PA-2
Anthony Brown D MD-4
G. K. Butterfield D NC-1
Tony Cárdenas D CA-29
André Carson D IN-7
Judy Chu D CA-27
David Cicilline D RI-1
Gilbert Cisneros D CA-39
Katherine Clark D MA-5
Yvette D. Clarke D NY-9
William Lacy Clay D MO-1
Gerald E. Connolly D VA-11
J. Luis Correa D CA-46
Danny K. Davis D IL-7
Peter A. DeFazio D OR-4
Diana DeGette D CO-1
Rosa DeLauro D CT-3
Mark DeSaulnier D CA-11
Debbie Dingell D MI-12
Lloyd Doggett D TX-35
Eliot L. Engel D NY-16
Veronica Escobar D TX-16
Adriano Espaillat D NY-13
Dwight Evans D PA-3
Ruben Gallego D AZ-7
Jesús García D IL-4
Sylvia Garcia D TX-29
Jimmy Gomez D CA-34
Raúl M. Grijalva D AZ-3
Debra Haaland D NM-1
Brian Higgins D NY-26
Katie Hill D CA-25
Steven Horsford D NV-4
Jared Huffman D CA-2
Sheila Jackson Lee D TX-18
Pramila Jayapal D WA-7
Hakeem Jeffries D NY-8
Joseph P. Kennedy III D MA-4
Ro Khanna D CA-17
Brenda Lawrence D MI-14
Barbara Lee D CA-13
Andy Levin D MI-9
John Lewis D GA-5
Ted Lieu D CA-33
Zoe Lofgren D CA-19
Alan Lowenthal D CA-47
Nita M. Lowey D NY-17
Ben Ray Luján D NM-3
Carolyn B. Maloney D NY-12
Betty McCollum D MN-4
A. Donald McEachin D VA-4
Jim McGovern D MA-2
Gregory W. Meeks D NY-5
Grace Meng D NY-6
Gwen Moore D WI-4
Debbie Mucarsel-Powell D FL-26
Jerrold Nadler D NY-10
Grace F. Napolitano D CA-32
Joe Neguse D CO-2
Donald W. Norcross D NJ-1
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez D NY-14
Ilhan Omar D MN-5
Frank Pallone D NJ-6
Bill Pascrell Jr. D NJ-9
Mark Pocan D WI-2
Ayanna Pressley D MA-7
David E. Price D NC-4
Mike Quigley D IL-5
Jamie Raskin D MD-8
Lucille Roybal-Allard D CA-40
Linda T. Sánchez D CA-38
Mary Gay Scanlon D PA-5
Jan Schakowsky D IL-9
Brad Sherman D CA-30
Adam Smith D WA-9
Darren Soto D FL-9
Jackie Speier D CA-14
Mark Takano D CA-41
Dina Titus D NV-1
Rashida Tlaib D MI-13
Paul Tonko D NY-20
Norma Torres D CA-35
Lori Trahan D MA-3
Juan Vargas D CA-51
Marc Veasey D TX-33
Filemon Vela D TX-34
Nydia M. Velázquez D NY-7
Peter Welch D VT-1

and the DNV (for whatever reason, in some cases (5 are candidates) they were out campaigning)

Did Not Vote (D)

Joaquín Castro D TX-20
Tulsi Gabbard D HI-2
Alcee L. Hastings D FL-20
Marcy Kaptur D OH-9
Seth Moulton D MA-6
Nancy Pelosi D CA-12
Cedric Richmond D LA-2
Tim Ryan D OH-13
Kurt Schrader D OR-5
Eric Swalwell D CA-15 would have voted NO https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2019/06/28/extensions-of-remarks-section/article/E867-2
Frederica Wilson D FL-24

* By tradition, the Speaker of the House votes at his or her discretion. In cases where the Speaker does not vote, that absence is not counted in the "Not Voting" totals displayed here, but Represent adds the Speaker's name to the list of people who did not vote.



House Passes Senate Border Bill in Striking Defeat for Pelosi

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/politics/border-funding-immigration.html

WASHINGTON — Congress sent President Trump a $4.6 billion humanitarian aid package on Thursday after Speaker Nancy Pelosi capitulated to Republicans and Democratic moderates and dropped her insistence on stronger protections for migrant children in overcrowded border shelters.

The vote came after a striking display of Democratic disunity and was a setback for Ms. Pelosi. Until Thursday, she had proved adept at navigating the complexities of a caucus rived by powerful progressive and moderate factions that often work at cross purposes. But their priorities clashed, the liberal flank was vanquished and the speaker — who had put her reputation on the line, calling herself a “lioness” out to protect children as she held out for stronger protections in the migrant facilities that house them — grudgingly had to accept defeat.

The final vote, 305 to 102, included far more Republicans in favor, 176, than Democrats, 129. It left House liberals furious.

“In order to get resources to the children fastest, we will reluctantly pass the Senate bill,” Ms. Pelosi said in a letter to Democratic lawmakers. “As we pass the Senate bill, we will do so with a battle cry as to how we go forward to protect children in a way that truly honors their dignity and worth.”

Her retreat came after Vice President Mike Pence gave Ms. Pelosi private assurances that the administration would abide by some of the restrictions she had sought. They included a requirement to notify lawmakers within 24 hours after the death of a migrant child in government custody, and a 90-day time limit on children spending time in temporary intake facilities, according to a person familiar with the discussions.

A last-minute revolt by centrist lawmakers ensured the demise of Ms. Pelosi’s efforts to toughen the conditions in the Senate’s $4.6 billion bill. The moderate Democrats had begun to worry about the possibility of leaving Washington on Friday for a weeklong July 4 recess without having cleared the humanitarian aid, and some were balking at a funding reduction for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That left the House floor in chaos, with emotions running high. Ms. Pelosi was left with little choice but to accept the less restrictive Senate bill, which had passed on a lopsided bipartisan vote this week and would do far less to rein in Mr. Trump’s immigration crackdown.

snip

[George II]

83. My numbers are correct, as usual. Anyone who is really interested in actual vote tallies....

....would know that they can be found on the House website:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll426.xml

DEMOCRATIC Yeas 152 Nays 71 No Vote 11
REPUBLICAN Yeas 170 Nays 14 No Vote 14
INDEPENDENT
TOTALS Yeas 322 Nays 85 No Vote 25

Propublica should clean up it's act.

You're quite welcome.

[Celerity]

84. that was NOT the final vote, as I showed, you are simply wrong

you posted Roll Call Vote 426

the FINAL VOTE (the one that passed the Bill) was Roll Call Vote 429

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll429.xml




You're quite welcome.

[DeminPennswoods]

50. Thank you for posting that

Pelosi got boxed in no doubt about that.

[Celerity]

67. yes she did, and I am puzzled why she is now pro-actively having a go at many who supported

her for Speaker, when it was the very same other group (Problems Solvers and some of the other two centrist caucuses) who actively try to block her from the Speakership. No one who ended up siding AGAINST the vast majority of Rethugs and the furthest to the centre Dems on either of the votes sandbagged Pelosi at all, certainly not like the Problem Solvers clique did, yet she is out having a pop at some of them and not a blip about the very pro-active Rethug-siders. I guess it shows where the true power is, and bodes ill for future legislation that is even a hair to the left of the centre or slightly centre-left (I am not talking about Bernie level radical at all). If we regain the POTUS and the Senate and hold the House it is going to very interesting indeed.

[bottomofthehill]

39. So the solution is to pass a bill in the House

That will never see the light of day in the senate and stand on principle while others are starving. Please note that between the 4 Members of Congress notes in this article, they have almost 2 years of Congressional experience and Zero legislative victories.

No one should be happy with what was passed but the Senate and President were happy passing nothing and letting the children and adults in detention centers continue to live in horrible conditions. Was the Speaker happy, no, did she do the human thing and best she could do under the circumstances, I believe she did.

Do the 4 Members mentioned in this article have the right to be pissed off and wish for better, sure wish away. The Speakers actions will feed the hungry, bring medical care, personal hygiene items, clean clothes and other necessary items. Will all 5 billion get to those in need, maybe not but some will and it will help to ease their suffering.

I am not hearing any other solution that could get through the Senate and survive a Presidential veto.

[infinite_wisdom]

53. Got bad news for you

The Democrats prospects for Senate control over the long run approach 0. The demographic shifts are extremely unfavorable. The less populous states still get 2 senators, this is a math based obstacle that is probably insurmountable.

For anything to happen positively for us, it will have to be a D house compromising with an R senate and being signed by a D president.

I think AOC is correct to point out that McConell and this President are two of the least honest people on the planet right now. Giving them no strings attached money is a craptacular idea. But Pelosi is right in that we are in the land of “we have no choice” because we aren’t holding the good cards.

[bottomofthehill]

60. I think I pretty much agree with you

I am hoping to draw the inside strait that brought Teump to the White House. Lot of things have to break our way to have a long shot at the senate but remember it was only 10 years ago that we had 60 votes in the senate. I know it is wishful thinking, but with Trump on top of the ticket, anything is possible

[infinite_wisdom]

75. Things could happen

that could give the D's control of the Senate.

But those things all involve catastrophes of one sort or another and I don't want to see those things happen.

Another economic catastrophe like 2008 would probably do it. It did in 2008. Or if climate change really started hitting the US hard that would probably do it to. The country still favors D's very heavily in regards to the environment.

Or if Trump in his insanity launched a nuclear weapon or did something nearly as bad. Or maybe I've been watching too much "Years and Years" on HBO. But unlike what happens on that show, I think if he did something like that the country would vote in the D's.

[bottomofthehill]

63. Little hope but hope.

Trade Doug Jones for Susan Collins, pick up Gardner in Colorado and McSalley in AZ and we are one vote away from a tie senate....... I can always hope, maybe that old pervert wins the primary and Jones holds on...Win the presidency and we have a very busy VP

[infinite_wisdom]

76. Short term there is a pretty good chance

It's just that long term, as the population moves more and more to big cities which are mostly in blue states, the current less populous red states will become more and more conservative.

I think the numbers I saw were 60% of the people will be living in 15% of the states. Somebody can correct me if that is not right.

[Celerity]

78. a fairly complete rundown of possible R to D Senate flips

Last edited Mon Jul 8, 2019, 01:52 PM - Edit history (1)

It is 53-47 Rethug now

I will go ahead and posit that Paedo Moore may well win in the Rethug primaries, so I will give us a hold with Jones, especially if Biden has coattails and if he picks a VP like Abrams, who will energise th A-A voters in GA, AL (tough pull for POTUS but the Senate not so much if Moore is the opponent), NC, SC (tough pull), FL, TX (same dynamics as AL, probably a bridge too far, but Abrams might help in the Senate race, but less hopeful there) and VA (and obviously nationwide)

So we would then need to flip FOUR seats to take it cleanly back. There are 10 targets (Rethug held or open and were Rethug) Even if Paedo fails, and a 'normal' RWNJ Repuke beats Jones, we still just need to flip 5, and there are DEFFO 5 that are flippable, in fact I see 8 or 9.

We are not in any danger of losing any other seats (Jeanne Shaheen in NH would be the only one that isn't a pure lock, but she should coast to victory).

All the following are vulnerable Rethugs (10, unless you, like me, see little hope for TX)

MT Steve Daines (Bullock would beat him and he needs to give up on POTUS and get in the race for Senate) No Bullock makes it very hard unfortunately.

AZ Martha McSally Mark Kelly has a great shot at beating her

CO Cory Gardner, even if Hickenlooper refuses to run, we still have good candidates, Gardner should go down hard. This is the surest flip of all.

GA David Perdue (Stacey Abrams really should go for this seat (if she is not the VP for someone) she would be our strongest, but we have a couple others who could knock out Perdue, he is vulnerable.

IA Joni Ernst Cindy Axne was another big refusal, she would have probably beaten Ernst, who has shit approval ratings, but we have many other good candidates, although Tom Vilsack has also declined to run. Hopefully Axne or Vilsack changes their mind, or we find another great candidate, Ernst is really vulnerable, and Trump is becoming hated due to the trade war smashing the farmers.

KY Mitch McConnell His approval rating is for shit, hopefully we can find a person to give this fucker a real run, there are 3 or 4 good candidates, including Andy Beshear, Amy McGrath (the fighter pilot), and a true wildcard who may run, Ashley Judd. Judd could do it, I so hope she gets in, but the others have a shot too, as McConnell is going to be hated almost as much as Trump by November 2020.

ME Susan Collins Yet another BIG name refused to run against her (Susan Rice), but there are multiple other good candidates, especially the just-announced Sara Gideon, the current Maine Speaker of the House. Collins is finally dropping hard in the polls.

NC Thom Tillis this one we should win IF (and same old story, 2 big names refused to run already, Anthony Foxx (BHO's Sec of Trans and Josh Stein, NC AG) we get in a great candidate. Tillis's popularity is in the toilet, he is very vulnerable, and a weak campaigner. REALLY disappointed that Foxx turned it down. He is so popular (ex Charlotte mayor and Obama's Sec of Transportation)

TN Lamar Alexander (retiring) open seat, but still we will need a great candidate (and not some old conservadem like 2018, where Phil Bredesen was a really bad candidate, Marsha Blackburn was a RWNJ who ran a shit campaign, but Bredesen was even worse and got smashed, even though it was a Blue tide election). I so hope Tim McGraw (yes, the singer, lol) changes his mind and runs.

TX John Cornyn (the hardest of all, I do not think even Beto or Castro could beat him, as he is much more popular than Cruz, but still, maybe Beto jumps in, but I doubt it, as a big loss would end his career to a great extent) and we do have a great candidate in MJ Hegar. I unfortunately am not optimistic here, but who knows. Go MJ!



IF Paedo Moore wins the Rethug Alabama primary (and IF we get some of those big names to reconsider (or get great replacements)..... then there are easily 4 or 5 or 6 that can go our way, especially if Rump loses in a landslide.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

52. Brian Fallon: the four show great moral leadership.

Link to tweet

[Grasswire2]

58. well that's interesting.....

...considering his history as Hillary's press secretary.

What is Hillary's position, I wonder?

WWHD about Trump?

[EndGOPPropaganda]

80. Here's more on Fallon's "self-radicalization"

https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-brian-fallon-hillary-clintons-press-secretary-self-radicalized-and-became-a-resistance-leader

How Hillary Clinton’s Press Secretary Self-Radicalized and Became a Resistance Leader
Once a fixture of the Democratic Party’s institution, Brian Fallon has taken a new approach fighting from the outside.

[shanny]

77. Pelosi never does this in public.

What's up with that?