5 ms·

Very gutsy move considering her congressional district is San Francisco. Are there enough local techies to vote her out of office, or is the anti-Republican bia

Very gutsy move considering her congressional district is San Francisco. Are there enough local techies to vote her out of office, or is the anti-Republican bias too high?

rdl 13y ago
A Republican has basically no chance in San Francisco. (In local politics, it's kind of amusing. Anywhere but SF, Gavin Newsom would have been a Republican (except on the LGBT issue); basically in SF politics the Democrats are the right wing, and the Greens are the left wing; the Republicans are essentially as relevant locally as a party like UKIP is in the UK). A Democratic primary challenger won't work because she is minority leader. The best option is probably a Green Party or other left third party, overtly allied with the Democratic Party in the house otherwise.
- bratsche 13y ago
  Can you explain why it matters to SF that she's minority leader? Why is that reason enough to not allow a Democrat challenger?
  - rdl 13y ago
    Usually there is a lot of value to a district or state in having a powerful member of congress (the right committees, leadership roles, etc.), in terms of what things he or she can bring back to the district. It's unclear how much value SF actually gets from her; SF people probably care about union and (especially) environmental issues, but don't particularly need direct government spending ("pork" or real). LGBT (marriage equality, etc.) and immigration are probably the other big issues, and "traditional left values" like abortion access, racial/etc. equality, etc., which arguably a powerful representative in the senate is likely to support -- and sending one from SF to do it rather than a potentially more conservative democrat from elsewhere should help those issues. However, even on those issues, Pelosi is a pretty worthless congresswoman. I don't think there's much real value in having her in Congress for anyone (except her and a limited number of donors), but perception and reality may not be the same.
  - redler 13y ago
    Seniority, power, ability to control the agenda (theoretically to the benefit of the district she represents), potential to be speaker. These are strong selling points against a primary challenger who would start at the back of a very long line if elected.
  - greenyoda 13y ago
    Having someone who's that powerful in the House is useful for other Democrats in California. She has influence and connections that can be used to help raise funds for other Democrats and make political deals. Whoever replaces her as her district's representative would be a newcomer to the House with very little political influence. I don't think the Democratic Party could actually prevent a challenger to Pelosi from running, but they could put all their support behind Pelosi, which would probably ensure her victory.
  - smsm42 13y ago
    Because party leader being voted out by local voters would be a huge fail for the whole party. Which means any challenger would have to work against his own party, not with it. Chance of winning a challenge to an entrenched opponent while your own party is working against you is very low, and how you can actually be a candidate from Democrats if the Democrat party does not support you? If you're really that independent, you should be running with the other party then. Being in the party implies some cooperation with the party structures. Of course, in politics many weird things are possible, and people can win election of a party seat despite the party not supporting them. But doing it in Democratic stronghold against one of the leaders of the party... Highly unlikely.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      But potentially with the massive support of the tech community.
      - rdl 13y ago
        Which is maybe helpful for money, but not really for votes. Much stronger voting blocs in SF are LGBT, "traditional liberal", union, Chinese, and hispanic/latino. I think the active opposition by a challenger's party would make it harder to run as a democrat in the primaries (where the party can fuck a candidate a lot more) vs. in the main election. A viable third-party candidate could probably get the 10-15% Republican vote as well as ideally strong wins in some of the major blocs (by being latino, gay, etc. himself or herself), which might be enough in the general election. Pelosi herself is also rich ($58mm net worth), and has the full backing of the party, so it would be difficult for a tech-financed third party candidate to really win. OTOH, SF is a relatively small city, so a grass roots campaign shouldn't be expensive with lots of volunteer labor.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        I don't think tech could do it alone, but I don't think party opposition from outside would dominate when money is taken out of the mix. It would, quite obviously, need to involve getting the voters in the district on board. Note that with CA's current system, the top two vote-getters go on regardless of party, so the dynamics are a bit different... I'm honestly not sure exactly how it all shakes out, but I don't know that anyone else is either.
  - gorbachev 13y ago
    She will receive the Democratic party's full support against any challenger. It's a huge advantage. Obviously anyone can challenge her in the next election, but it's going to be an uphill battle. The only way it's going to work is if the challenger has a REALLY active grassroots movement behind him/her, and even then Pelosi is probably going to outspend you 10:1 or worse.
- hkmurakami 13y ago
  went through the same thought process and concluded that for exactly the reasons you stated, pelosi is all but immune in 2014 and beyond, which is honestly a disgusting thought if you think about it. I used to think that public service would be one way I could give back to the country, like how a professor or mine did back in the 80s but I'm afraid our political institutions have changed dramatically since those days for the worse.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- Uhhrrr 13y ago
  Being minority leader might actually hurt her in this case - not only does she support bad things, she influences the rest of the party to support bad things. So voting against her is especially worthwhile.

Very gutsy move considering her congressional district is San Francisco. Are there enough local techies to vote her out of office, or is the anti-Republican bias too high?

rdl 13y ago

A Republican has basically no chance in San Francisco. (In local politics, it's kind of amusing. Anywhere but SF, Gavin Newsom would have been a Republican (except on the LGBT issue); basically in SF politics the Democrats are the right wing, and the Greens are the left wing; the Republicans are essentially as relevant locally as a party like UKIP is in the UK). A Democratic primary challenger won't work because she is minority leader. The best option is probably a Green Party or other left third party, overtly allied with the Democratic Party in the house otherwise.

bratsche 13y ago
Can you explain why it matters to SF that she's minority leader? Why is that reason enough to not allow a Democrat challenger?
- rdl 13y ago
  Usually there is a lot of value to a district or state in having a powerful member of congress (the right committees, leadership roles, etc.), in terms of what things he or she can bring back to the district. It's unclear how much value SF actually gets from her; SF people probably care about union and (especially) environmental issues, but don't particularly need direct government spending ("pork" or real). LGBT (marriage equality, etc.) and immigration are probably the other big issues, and "traditional left values" like abortion access, racial/etc. equality, etc., which arguably a powerful representative in the senate is likely to support -- and sending one from SF to do it rather than a potentially more conservative democrat from elsewhere should help those issues. However, even on those issues, Pelosi is a pretty worthless congresswoman. I don't think there's much real value in having her in Congress for anyone (except her and a limited number of donors), but perception and reality may not be the same.
- redler 13y ago
  Seniority, power, ability to control the agenda (theoretically to the benefit of the district she represents), potential to be speaker. These are strong selling points against a primary challenger who would start at the back of a very long line if elected.
- greenyoda 13y ago
  Having someone who's that powerful in the House is useful for other Democrats in California. She has influence and connections that can be used to help raise funds for other Democrats and make political deals. Whoever replaces her as her district's representative would be a newcomer to the House with very little political influence. I don't think the Democratic Party could actually prevent a challenger to Pelosi from running, but they could put all their support behind Pelosi, which would probably ensure her victory.
- smsm42 13y ago
  Because party leader being voted out by local voters would be a huge fail for the whole party. Which means any challenger would have to work against his own party, not with it. Chance of winning a challenge to an entrenched opponent while your own party is working against you is very low, and how you can actually be a candidate from Democrats if the Democrat party does not support you? If you're really that independent, you should be running with the other party then. Being in the party implies some cooperation with the party structures. Of course, in politics many weird things are possible, and people can win election of a party seat despite the party not supporting them. But doing it in Democratic stronghold against one of the leaders of the party... Highly unlikely.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    But potentially with the massive support of the tech community.
    - rdl 13y ago
      Which is maybe helpful for money, but not really for votes. Much stronger voting blocs in SF are LGBT, "traditional liberal", union, Chinese, and hispanic/latino. I think the active opposition by a challenger's party would make it harder to run as a democrat in the primaries (where the party can fuck a candidate a lot more) vs. in the main election. A viable third-party candidate could probably get the 10-15% Republican vote as well as ideally strong wins in some of the major blocs (by being latino, gay, etc. himself or herself), which might be enough in the general election. Pelosi herself is also rich ($58mm net worth), and has the full backing of the party, so it would be difficult for a tech-financed third party candidate to really win. OTOH, SF is a relatively small city, so a grass roots campaign shouldn't be expensive with lots of volunteer labor.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        I don't think tech could do it alone, but I don't think party opposition from outside would dominate when money is taken out of the mix. It would, quite obviously, need to involve getting the voters in the district on board. Note that with CA's current system, the top two vote-getters go on regardless of party, so the dynamics are a bit different... I'm honestly not sure exactly how it all shakes out, but I don't know that anyone else is either.
- gorbachev 13y ago
  She will receive the Democratic party's full support against any challenger. It's a huge advantage. Obviously anyone can challenge her in the next election, but it's going to be an uphill battle. The only way it's going to work is if the challenger has a REALLY active grassroots movement behind him/her, and even then Pelosi is probably going to outspend you 10:1 or worse.
hkmurakami 13y ago
went through the same thought process and concluded that for exactly the reasons you stated, pelosi is all but immune in 2014 and beyond, which is honestly a disgusting thought if you think about it. I used to think that public service would be one way I could give back to the country, like how a professor or mine did back in the 80s but I'm afraid our political institutions have changed dramatically since those days for the worse.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
Uhhrrr 13y ago
Being minority leader might actually hurt her in this case - not only does she support bad things, she influences the rest of the party to support bad things. So voting against her is especially worthwhile.