pacino wrote:what is your opinion on net neutrality, jh

I haven't really followed the debate before this week. Most of the people I follow on Twitter oppose it. It seems like a tussle between the big broadband cable companies and the large web content companies, and I'm not really clear on why I should think either side has the high ground or how one side winning would clearly affect the average Internet user more negatively. I read this - The Net Neutrality End Game - from a free market think tank that I thought was pretty compelling. I followed a debate from an old professor of mine who is very lefty but smart on media/Internet stuff (@davekarpf) with a libertarian tech policy guy I like (@jonhenke) that made it seem like 90% of the net neutrality debate is both sides talking past each other.

I don't think I actually managed to work up any significant level of caring, but I would say I'd default to opposing the government imposing new regulations in the absence of seeing a clear reason for them.

Wave? What Wave? - Politico interview with the woman who will hopefully be House Minority Leader for decades to come, Nancy Pelosi

The absolute lack of challenge to either Pelosi or Reid is astonishing. Congressional GOP folks might be unrealistic in their goals and dumb in a lot of ways, but if we'd lost like this (again), at least there'd be calls for fresh blood to get new faces in leadership and maybe a change in direction. The only Dems voicing desire for different leadership are from the party's center, and they aren't real complaints, just members feigning distance from unpopular leadership to show independence.

Pelosi is 74, Hoyer is 75, Clyburn is 74. Reid is 74, Durbin turns 70 next week, Schumer is only 63! I like that of the two sets of Democratic leadership, the one affirmative step of change that seems like it is being explored is trying to create a new position so Liz Warren (65) can join Senate Dem leadership. Do Democrats on the Hill have members who are in their 40s or 50s?

The one silver lining there for the party of America's youth is at least the near certain 2016 nominee is that spry, up and comer HillDawg and not some has been.

i agree that they need to change leaders. pretty dumb it hasnt happened.

their age isnt a very good reason to change leadership, though

think it is a factor. maybe get someone younger, more connected generationally with a younger set of voters.

My guess is that nobody wants to move into congressional leadership.

Think about it: you become a face (in event of majority, "the" face) of perhaps the most despised institution in public life. It tanks your popularity--to the point that Mitch McConnell, in a deep-red state in a very Republican year, trailed for awhile against a woman with no accomplishments whose evident campaign strategy was to say nothing. If he runs again in 2020, with the presidential-year electorate and after a time in the full spotlight, I think it's even money he loses. Harry Reid would have lost in 2010 had the Republicans not nominated a hateful psychopath.

Sadly, it's become a role about politics only. Other than if you're Speaker of the House (and sometimes, as the current guy shows, not even then), you have little actual power to move anything forward. If you're inclined to bipartisan compromise and deal-making, given how the system works now it's actively harmful to be in leadership--so I doubt you'd see, for instance, Ron Wyden or Michael Bennett challenge Reid.

As for the larger question of the Democratic "bench": when Obama took office, few if any of the Republican front-runners for 2016 other than Jeb Bush had national profile. Christie won in 2009. Walker and Rubio won in 2010. Cruz won in 2012. I think it's actually opposition that accelerates the emergence of next-wave contenders. This makes sense if you think about what drives grass-roots intensity: the Democratic "base" came to life under W., and seems comatose under Obama.

Net Noot deserves its own thread

pacino wrote:their age isnt a very good reason to change leadership, though

I think the age plays into it. Pelosi has been in Congress since 1987, Hoyer 1981, Clyburn 1993, Reid 1983, Durbin 1983, Schumer 1981. Every member of the top three in leadership has been in Congress more than two decades.

On the other side of the coin you have Boehner 1991, McCarthy 2007, Scalise 2008, McConnell 1985, Cornyn 2002, Thune 1997. Not that GOP leadership in Congress is something you want to emulate in every fashion, but getting people who haven't spent the past 20-30 years in the Capitol, and the past several congressional sessions in leadership, might bring some fresh perspectives or ideas.

you then mentioned Warren's age as though it was of some importance. you can't have it both ways.

pacino wrote:you then mentioned Warren's age as though it was of some importance. you can't have it both ways.

I think the age thing matters on its own as well. I'm glad the GOP is able to put members of leadership out there who aren't past retirement age. But the bigger problem is the staleness of the leadership teams, especially on the House side.

dajafi wrote:My guess is that nobody wants to move into congressional leadership.

Think about it: you become a face (in event of majority, "the" face) of perhaps the most despised institution in public life. It tanks your popularity--to the point that Mitch McConnell, in a deep-red state in a very Republican year, trailed for awhile against a woman with no accomplishments whose evident campaign strategy was to say nothing. If he runs again in 2020, with the presidential-year electorate and after a time in the full spotlight, I think it's even money he loses. Harry Reid would have lost in 2010 had the Republicans not nominated a hateful psychopath.

Sadly, it's become a role about politics only. Other than if you're Speaker of the House (and sometimes, as the current guy shows, not even then), you have little actual power to move anything forward. If you're inclined to bipartisan compromise and deal-making, given how the system works now it's actively harmful to be in leadership--so I doubt you'd see, for instance, Ron Wyden or Michael Bennett challenge Reid.

As for the larger question of the Democratic "bench": when Obama took office, few if any of the Republican front-runners for 2016 other than Jeb Bush had national profile. Christie won in 2009. Walker and Rubio won in 2010. Cruz won in 2012. I think it's actually opposition that accelerates the emergence of next-wave contenders. This makes sense if you think about what drives grass-roots intensity: the Democratic "base" came to life under W., and seems comatose under Obama.

McConnell did end up winning by over 15%. It could be the skills needed to navigate your way through leadership battles and unite disparate caucuses are different than the skills needed to become a safe bet for reelection, or that the home state political problems leaders have had are unique to the politicians themselves. There are additional difficulties that come from the visibility of being leader, but Reid and McConnell both faced tough reelections before they were in leadership and neither are the most electric of politicians. Being in leadership has shined a spotlight on their shortcomings, but I think they'd have problems either way.

The points about the actual utility of being in leadership being low and being out of power helping to restock the national talent pool are both fair. If they do win majorities back though, you have a permanent seat at the table if you're in leadership. That's got to be appealing on some level. You can carve out a niche outside leadership on an issue or two, but you won't be involved in everything. And if Hillary wins in 2016, the Dem bench is going to regenerate itself somehow. I guess whoever she taps as VP would all of a sudden become a huge person in the party.

To broaden the point further, it might be that the most electric and charismatic politicians don't gravitate toward institutional leadership. Reid and McConnell might be particularly unpleasant, but Bill Frist and Tom Daschle weren't rock stars either. The exciting ones basically position themselves for presidential runs. Given the long-term and bipartisan shift of power from Congress to the executive, this is a pragmatic choice whenever feasible. The last legislative leader to play on the national stage was Bob Dole, who lost badly (not really his fault, but still). Before that, you had Ford (who got there through a unique route) and LBJ (same), suggesting that if congressional leadership and presidential aspirations aren't quite mutually exclusive, they're moving that way.

You are right that the rewards of leadership in the House majority are real. But the Democrats have no prospect at all of a House majority for three more cycles, so if you're an ambitious junior Democratic congressperson, you're probably thinking either of the Senate, leaving to make money, or maybe a statewide office. Leadership probably only helps with the middle of those three options.

While ordinary voters probably don't get this, I'd guess it's going to be awhile before someone goes from the Senate to the White House again.

jerseyhoya wrote:Do Democrats on the Hill have members who are in their 40s or 50s?

Republican/reactionary young lions include Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton, Rand Paul, and Joanie Ernst.

I'll take stale, thanks

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Do Democrats on the Hill have members who are in their 40s or 50s?

Republican/reactionary young lions include Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton, Rand Paul, and Joanie Ernst.

I'll take stale, thanks

There are some young people that can be groomed like Kennedy, Castro, etc

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Do Democrats on the Hill have members who are in their 40s or 50s?

Republican/reactionary young lions include Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton, Rand Paul, and Joanie Ernst.

I'll take stale, thanks

You prefer Democrats over Republicans? That's really interesting. I'm glad you shared that with us.

Get um Barack.

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Do Democrats on the Hill have members who are in their 40s or 50s?

Republican/reactionary young lions include Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton, Rand Paul, and Joanie Ernst.

I'll take stale, thanks

You prefer Democrats over Republicans? That's really interesting. I'm glad you shared that with us.

So you agree that the chronological ages of leadership really don't make all that much difference when it comes to their capabilities. why do you type so much when you don't actually intend to mean anything?