I see many posts here about "The House Dems must now do..." or "The first law the House Dems need to pass is..."

Don't forget, the House can't pass diddly shit without the ok of the R-Senate and Trump.

What they CAN do is put forward legislation that is VERY popular, push it like hell in front of the public, and try to pressure the other side
to pass it and put them on the record being for or against it. For example, the first order of business is going to be a bill to strengthen the protections for pre-existing conditions. I anticipate they will push it LOUDLY and put the R's on the CLEAR record. Yes or No. That is what they are going to do. The same with jobs, tax fairness, climate change, campaign reform, education, and infrastructure.

They will TRY to pass things, but they can't without the other chamber and Trump being onboard. (Incarceration reform and infrastructure may be a possibility, and comprehensive immigration reform.)

On oversight of Trump, they can do a lot independently.

They can also block bad bills put out by Trump and the Senate R's.

My understanding is Pelosi has already hinted at being willing to agree to a self-imposed "term limit" of one more two-year term, and then would not run again for Speaker. She is a good negotiator and is also reaching out to the various sub-caucuses such as the further-left caucus guaranteeing them key committee reps, perhaps a special climate change group, etc. She has already spoken to Fudge. I am sure she will be talking to Ryan, Moulton, etc.

My guess is they come to this understanding: Pelosi will be Speaker for another two-year term which makes some sense given a need for experience in this transition and the Trump era. Then she will step aside after the 2020 election and not run again. In fact, she may retire entirely from Congress as she has been in for so long. My guess is a similar thing will also happen with Steny Hoyer.

I think this possibility allows for a very good way forward. We need the experience now, but let's get some other people mentored up and have a change in a few years. It will be time. Those who need to can vote "present," and we can also make some additional change NOW through committee assignments that will be welcomed by those want a leadership change. Then we close ranks and head to 2020, with a strong focus on the bread and butter issues that we need to focus on.

I will say that Pelosi had a VERY good post-election speech where she committed to focusing like hell on the bread and butter issues that Dems were elected to focus on. And she is also even-keeled and won't go on a reckless investigation and impeachment rampage. She will proceed cautiously and smartly given the evidence of the Mueller investigation. But she will also make sure oversight and checks and balances occur.

It is certainly time to consider leadership changes in the relatively near future, within a few years. No question. But for now we also need experience. This makes sense.

It is not ageist. It is not sexist. My goodness, I am sure we ALL respect the service and experience of Pelosi and Hoyer and admire them as people.

I personally like both of them and think they have generally done a good job in leadership.

It is just that they have been in leadership for a llllllllllllllllllllong time, and as we move into the future I think we need to consider some change. New ideas. New leadership. Just as we have had to do at the DNC, and at state parties, etc.


*** Remember, polling shows more registered Dems in America want a change in party leadership than not.***

All organizations get stagnant after a while, and there needs to be some change.

I am fine with current leadership given their experience to continue for another year or two during this transition, but can it hurt to discuss and consider the future and coach up some other people to pick up the mantle of leadership in a few years?

At some point not too far down the road people like Fudge, Lieu, Swalwell, Bustos, and Schiff could be great in leadership. There are others too. So we have to look to the future.

For various leadership positions, these are just some good considerations.

I'm sure there are others.

The polling is clear. More Dems want some change. Nothing at all against the old guard. Bless their service and many thanks. But at least within a few years, there should be some change. It's time. And there are good EXPERIENCED people out there.

Folks this is just the fact, indisputable, and we all know it. Sure there were some far-left gains. But it was mostly won in the more moderate suburbs with more moderate candidates that could win in those purple-ish districts.

If we are going to be a viable NATIONAL party, we must be a large-tent party that can field candidates who fit their districts. And in this election, we did that.

In Maine, we have such a candidate who was able to win my district. A former combat marine who fits the more moderate to conservative northern Maine House district. And he is WAY better than the corrupt corporate toady RePUKE that he beat. So GOOD!

BUT, MAKE NO MISTAKE. Compared to RePUKEliCONS, they are ALL much more PROGRESSIVE! Progressive means PROGRESS.

And the RePUKES are the minions of their hero Donny Rotten. So any Dem is much better than ANY RePUKE. PERIOD!!

I would MUCH rather have Joe Manchin in there than ANY ReSCUMliCON.

As some have said, and as I believe she may have even hinted at:

They agree to this: She comes back for an interim year to re-adjust the House back to Dems with her experience. In a year, they have another vote and get someone new. Those who need to can vote "present".

Situation solved.


Pelosi should be honored for her service and we all honor her, but she has already done many years in leadership. I think she has generally done a good job, and of course none of this has anything to do with age or gender. I feel the same way about the entire old guard. It is time for change and some new blood. A new and DIVERSE cadre of leadership. That is healthy. But some experience is needed to get things off the ground. Get it started, and have another vote in a year.

Situation solved.

Yup, as another poster has said so well, the R's are between a rock and a crazy place.

They have allowed Donny Rotten to eat their party. Now they sit in his bowels, unwilling to upset him lest they get shit out in their primaries, but they ARE shit in their general elections. And it will only get worse.

In this midterm, with bad results for R's still coming in, the FORMER Republican Party, now Donny Rotten's Cult, have been taken to the woodshed and SPANKED by a powerful coalition of WOMEN in a big way, men, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, young people, college grads, urban and suburbanites, and Independents. They are sick to death of Donny Rotten and his R enablers and their rotten policies of ripping away healthcare, ripping away education, endless tax cuts for billionaires, no infrastructure, etc. and, of course, Donney Rotten's endless SHIT TRAIN of abject INSANITY. That have HAD IT!

So, no more R House members in New England. Bye bye. Only one lonely R House member in NJ. FORMERLY HEAVILY REPUBLICAN Orange County, CA is now very BLUE. R's getting washed away by the blue wave in NV and AZ. 336 new Dem state legislators, 7 new Dem governors, and countless new Dems in local offices all over the place. Blue wave in WI, PA, and MI which so narrowly gave Trump his 80,000 votes to win the electoral college in '16. And since Donny Rotten is only going to get crazier, he can probably say goodbye to them in 2020.

Yup. This is what happens when you allow your party to go BatShit Crazy and glue itself to a whack job like Donny Rotten. Now the R's are screwed, blued, and tattooed. If they go against him they're fucked in their primaries. If they don't, they're fucked in their general elections. And the powerful new blue coalition above will hate Donny Rotten, and his cult, even more.

In the meantime, we need to unite firmly around the bread and butter issues that Americans want addressed and advance legislation to make those things happen if we can: healthcare, jobs, infrastructure, campaign finance reform, etc. Between Donny Rotten's insanity and our focus on the bread and butter issues, we are well positioned for 2020.

Maine just made history by usuing Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) for federal level general election races. RCV is simply an Instant Runoff Voting system, similar in nature to traditional runoff systems but just done through one efficient ballot eliminating the need to hold a much more costly second election weeks or months later.

In this system where there are more than two candidates, you simply rank them in order of preference. If someone gets a majority, it's over. If not, the instant runoff kicks in. The candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and the second choices of those who voted for that candidate are re-distributed to the remaining candidates. The votes are re-tabulated. If there is then a majority winner, it is over. If not, the process continues in this manner until there is a majority winner.

Jared Golden, our Dem candidate for US House of Reps, just won yesterday with this process because there were four candidates and the votes got split. So the instant runoff was used. He was about 2000 votes behind the R, Bruce Poliquin, after the first round of tabulation, but with the instant runoff emerged ahead by about 3000 votes. It was all very close, but he won because we now have this instant runoff system.

We fought HARD to get RCV through many obstacles and legal challenges and TWO successful referendums, but got it DONE, and most people are saying it is easy and they like it and in fact want to expand it.

RCV is used in other countries and a number of other places around this country at the local level.

If you have questions about it, please let me know. As said, Maine is the first state to use it for elections at such a high level.

Great that Golden was a very good candidate, ran a tough campaign, and kudio to all who voted for him as a first or second choice. And thanks to all who have supported Ranked Choice Voting.

But a very special thanks must go to those of us who fought like HELL for RCV against HUGE obstacles including from some Democrats (though the majority supported it, as did some rank and file Republicans).

We, the advocates (myself VERY included), stood in the freezing cold and snow to get it on the ballot not just once but TWICE after the legislature (with help even from a small number of Democrats) tried to effectively kill RCV last year.

We said HELL NO! and prevailed!

Are the naysayers who like this outcome NOW glad that we have RCV? Will they help fight to EXPAND IT to the state level races with a change in the state constitution?

INCREDIBLE!