Greg Griffin

This is exactly what I was saying about Pelosi, she was a grand dame tyrant who did more harm than good. Case in Point was Rep Tim Bishop from NYCD1, a true swing district and she did nothing to help him by elevating his profile. Eventually lost seat to an R.

One of the things that will happen, I had these conversations with Grok, is people will start saying no, until you can tell me who should be speaker, then they tell you why that person shouldn't be, therefore, stick w/ Jeffries. 1st thing is to open position and see who applies

Chris Van Hollen lays down the gauntlet on war funding: “Not a penny more.” He dares Trump to shut down the government in order to continue an unpopular war he promised never to launch in the first place. With Van Hollen open to a bid to challenge Schumer, this puts pressure on Schumer to match his commitment.

Dem members of Congress and base voters see Hakeem Jeffries very differently. I'll try to make the case *for* Jeffries, from the perspective of members. Ironically, they like him for the same reason voters don't, which is that he's nice and passive. He's NOT Pelosi. Pelosi was a control freak, she tracked everything and bossed around the caucus with detail-oriented savviness. To give you a specific example, Pelosi made sure that only a few members could have staff with classified clearances, while most could not. That was a mechanism to ensure that just a few Dems would be able to make key decisions on national security. She also was the Democrat who took over from the GOP Congress first elected in 1994. Gingrich (and his side kick Tom Delay) had taken apart a bunch of important Dem-leaning institutions to run Congress, centralizing control in the hands of leadership and corporate think tanks. That was the 'K Street Project.' It was a Strong Speaker model. Pelosi had the chance to undo those changes, but she doubled down on the Strong Speaker approach. It wouldn't be a return to the Office of Technology Assessment and powerful caucuses, it would be the Wall Street-funded Center for American Progress and Congressional leadership in charge. She was a pro-choice Gingrich. Subsequent GOP leaders basically kept this arrangement in place, with Trump operating as the de facto latest strong speaker. If she liked you, you could do anything. If she didn't. you got virtually nothing. She was in charge. When committees selected new members, Pelosi had a big say. When legislation needed to be finalized, that was Pelosi's call and her advisors choosing which lobbyists to listen to. She raised money, she allocated favors, handed out metaphorical parking spots. She knew everything. The upside is that Pelosi could whip close votes, and could rule the House. She was able to save the ACA when Obama was ready to give up on it, because of her centralized control of the House. She governed. In some ways, she sort of saved the Obama administration. If you liked the direction she wanted to go, you were happy. If you didn't, you were not. But there were a few significant institutional downsides. The Democratic Party suffered because Pelosi was a God-awful communicator. Just utter trash. She sounded entitled, she stuttered, she gave wandering obnoxious speeches, and couldn't articulate any coherent goals. To have someone that bad as the party front-person, and then to have the rest of the caucus admiring her, well, it made the party look bad. On an 'office politics' level, the House was a miserable place where a few people made decisions, and all other elected Dems outside of leadership were merely ornamental. Talented House Democrats often jumped at other job opportunities, because the House was a waste of their talents. On a substantive level, what it meant is that legislation could only be as good as Pelosi's people could make it. A San Francisco out of touch rich lady, and her advisors, were the ones structuring policy. Pelosi cut out much of the caucus, which means she cut out much of the country. That dramatically reduced the quality of what the House was doing. On a party level, Pelosi's iron-fisted approach meant that no new leaders could emerge. Rather than embracing, say, the Squad, Pelosi went to war with them. That's not to say the Squad was good, just that Pelosi didn't create space for them to do their thing, whatever that might have been. The result was that there were no dynamic young Democratic leaders in the House, which should have been a talent pool for new people and ideas. Instead the House was a slightly younger nursing home than the Senate. And Jeffries? Like Pelosi, Jeffries is a very communicator. So to outsiders, he seems similar. But he's completely different as a House leader. He doesn't track very much, he doesn't know what is happening in every corner of the caucus, and he doesn't have strong views. He won't set a direction. He'll listen, he will act if there's a consensus, but otherwise will sort of let things play out. You can talk to him about your concerns, he'll listen and be sympathetic. No one is worried about crossing Jeffries. The downsides to Jeffries are pretty clear. He's widely disliked as a speaker, he makes the Democratic Party look bad because he clearly doesn't have a view of how to govern. He likes Israel and big money, but he'll do populist things if pushed. He proposed no agenda for the 2026 election, so there's no obvious specific mandate. Do something about 'affordability,' sure, but what? He also won't be able to manage the House. He won't be able to whip close votes, he won't set a direction, and the committee chairs or caucuses will likely run the place. When he speaks publicly, he'll lack the credibility to speak for the caucus. He won't be able to negotiate with Trump one on one, Trump will just go around him to other groups of Dems. It'll be chaos. He's also not creative. Like Pelosi, he isn't going to reverse the Gingrich changes that ripped out the institutional capacity of the House. But he won't be strong enough to manage the centralized control that implies. The upside is the same as the downside. Chaos. The House Democrats are going to have to set the agenda themselves, through organizing, committee hearings, and pure hustle. An entrepreneurial member or set of members working together on something will be able to get a real hearing for what they want. New leaders could emerge. There will be bitter fights between and among caucuses. Members could demand real structural changes to how Congress works and make it functional again, and Jeffries would probably eventually go along. I don't know that members have thought through exactly why they like Jeffries or these dynamics. Certainly the newly elected class has different views, they never experienced Pelosi's management and they don't know Jeffries. Still, when I see Jeffries speak, I am not convinced he speaks *for* the Democratic caucus. I don't think anyone does. And that's good, we need all of those new members from Trump-y districts to have the space to find their voice.