I support AOC for Speaker of the House.

[KWR65]

She is a great leader and will fairly handle her office for everyone in the House of Representatives.

[hlthe2b]

1. No. Just no. I like AOC, but this is not the time nor her time.

[DonViejo]

4. Agreed...

[Arkansas Granny]

14. I feel the same.

[brush]

19. We'd never win another House seat outside deep blue districts as every Dem candidate...

will be targeted as another democratic socialist like her. She made a huge mistake in following Sanders by calling herself a democratic socialist.

She has great potential but she's got to figure out how to distance herself from that stance and it could take years.

[abqtommy]

24. Gotta agree. Sometimes the status quo is a good thing.

[Spazito]

2. LOL n/t

[Fiendish Thingy]

3. She's not even running for speaker. Pelosi will retire in 2022, Schiff should be next. Nt

[octoberlib]

7. Love Adam Schiff. I'd like to see him in the Senate as well.

[octoberlib]

5. When Pelosi retires, I predict Hakeem Jeffries will be the next Speaker.

[PunkinPi]

29. This. nt

[brush]

31. Rep. Jeffties is a good bet, as is Rep. Schiff.

[musette_sf]

33. + 1

[bigtree]

6. she'll likely vote for Nancy Pelosi

...like the entirety of progressives in the House.

Only moderates in that body have deemed it appropriate to actually mount challenges to the long-serving Speaker over the past few elections.

[mcar]

8. ...

[drray23]

9. she would be a complete disaster.

AOC is great at pushing for progressive issues. Not so much for building coalitions and getting stuff done.

[Adelante]

10. Inexperienced

And too twittery. IMHO.

[Botany]

11. Really bad idea

n/t

[betsuni]

12. Click ... click ... click ... click ... click.

[obamanut2012]

13. lolololol

Oh boy.

[SidDithers]

15. Oh FFS...

Sid

[Bleacher Creature]

16. She's 31 and has served less than two years.

Maybe one day, but this would be lunacy today when there's so much at stake.

[mtnsnake]

17. I think AOC as Speaker could be the kiss of death for some of our future elections

but that's partly because much of this country just isn't ready yet for some of what she suggests, and she sometimes comes off as it's her way or the highway, IMO.

[randr]

18. She has more important work to do

The job is not a popularity contest, it requires deep knowledge of procedural workings

[USALiberal]

20. Are you serious? nt

[awesomerwb1]

21. LMAO

[boston bean]

22. Hell fucking no.

[rso]

23. AOC

I like her, but she does not have the experience required .

[NoRoadUntravelled]

25. Pelosi has been an excellent leader throughout the Trump debacle.

I like AOC a great deal and see her moving into leadership positions in the future. I feel strongly that this is not yet the time. Trump has caused so much turmoil and we'll all do better to let the Biden administration settle in and move forward from there.
Pushing the river at this point wouldn't be helpful.

[Siwsan]

26. And I'd like to wake up every morning to George Clooney making me breakfast. Ain't gonna happen.

AOC needs to get much more experience under her belt. She's make a big improvement, IMHO, in her communication skills but she's really not anywhere near ready for anything close to Speaker of the House.

[SlogginThroughIt]

27. Oh Hell No!

Being vocal in one of the country’s safest districts isn’t nearly qualifies enough. There are others who are far more qualified and deserving. Maybe someday but right now. No way.

[Dem4Life1102]

28. Way too junior and Pelosi is doing a fine job.

No need for a change.

[LexVegas]

30. ...

[onetexan]

111. Exactly my response

[Raven123]

32. She doesn't have the support to win the position.

[MineralMan]

34. That is not going to happen.

Nancy Pelosi will be re-elected as Speaker.

[BannonsLiver]

35. ...

[we can do it]

36. NO

[jalan48]

37. I'd prefer she run for President when she becomes eligible.

[BainsBane]

39. How about we see if she can win a statewide race in NY first?

That should be easy for someone you think--presumably--could win a majority of the electoral college.

[jalan48]

42. Anyone can run for President. Look at Mayor Pete, he'd never won a statewide office. I don't

recall anyone telling him he shouldn't run.

[BainsBane]

46. I recall lots of people

saying he wasn't qualified. So sure, she can be an also ran. I thought you might have been serious about wanting her as president. My mistake.

[jalan48]

51. I'm serious about seeing AOC on the debate stage and seeing how the public responds. Of course, we

could also have those in the know tell us who our candidates should be.

[BainsBane]

61. So you are serious?

But don't want her to seek the office of Governor or Senator? Why is that?

I'm far from in the know, but I have watched a few elections in my lifetime.
This election we had a sense of how the electorate responded. The GOP successfully tethered Biden and down ballot Dems to AOC and Bernie--frequently mentioned by name--and while Biden survived many of the down ballot Dems, like Senatorial candidates, didn't.

And of course we've seen Bernie lose twice in the primary, but you evidently see AOC as more electable. Only time will tell.

Somehow you take exception to the notion that she or anyone seeking the presidency should try to acquire more experience, but I myself actually look for qualifications when choosing a candidate. Granted, I'm probably not a standard voter in that regard. If I were, Trump would never have been president.

[jalan48]

66. I simply said I would like to see her run. The idea of her running seems to upset you. If she

wants to run for the Senate I have no problem with that either.

[BainsBane]

75. It doesn't upset me

though I would be unlikely to vote for her, especially if she doesn't acquire some qualifications.

Actually, one thing that does sort of upset me is the tendency by some Democrats to insist that anyone they like should run for President. It happened with Beto O'Rourke; it's happened with many dozens of others. Anyone who captures the public attention is held up as a presidential candidate, while other races are ignored. There is something odd about Democrats and the Presidency, and that is in part why we lose so much power at the local and judicial level.

[jalan48]

79. I would like to see her ideas get a national audience. I thought the debates this time were good

even though we had a lot of candidates. I think including strong voices from different parts of our party is a good thing and creates a sense of fairness in the process.

[BainsBane]

104. I can't disagree with that. nt

[jalan48]

106. Thanks, and glad to see you back on DU.

[BainsBane]

107. Thank you

That's kind of you to say. I'm glad to be back here.

[Tarheel_Dem]

103. "...the tendency by some Democrats to insist that anyone they like should run for President."

Ain't it the truth? Remember when some were flirting with the idea of this guy running? Like you, I would not support an AOC, or even her equivalent in a serious presidential campaign.

[BainsBane]

105. Yes, I remember

[brush]

98. She'll be 35 in four years so she could run in 2024, but...

democratic socialists don't do well outside of deep blue districts. It'll be a while before she lives that down, if ever.

[Takket]

72. Except for the voters, who rejected him

[NurseJackie]

54. Oh, you!

How about we see if she can win a statewide race in NY first?

Oh, you! Always so sensible!

[Demsrule86]

50. Ok then.

[mathematic]

81. You think she should primary President Biden in '24?

I'm sure that's a controversially position around here.

[jalan48]

84. No, I don't.

[BainsBane]

38. Obviously you don't know what the role of speaker is

and fortunately you and the rest of her fan club doesn't have a vote on the matter--with very good reason. Whether she is your favorite congresswoman is irrelevant. She's already shown that she doesn't have the ability, or even desire, to hold the caucus together, which Nancy does incredibly well. Speaker isn't a beauty contest or a vote for fav personality. And Nancy has already been chosen. Her record is unimpeachable. As much as some might like to see the party is constant disarray, those serving in congress knows that only benefits the GOP.

Lesson number 678,852,478 in why I am eternally grateful that the interwebz doesn't choose our party leadership or Biden's cabinet.

Last time Nancy Pelosi was up for re-election, a certain minority of DUers decided that Tim Ryan, an anti-choice Democrat, who later went on to vote for the Trump tax cuts, was the more "progressive" choice.

[NurseJackie]

48. I prefer someone with experience and a history of results.

There's a reason that Nancy Pelosi doesn't spend all day on Twitter making outrageous statements, or trying to troll adversaries... instead, she's busy working. She's forming alliances, finding common ground and mutual interests (in other words, she's busy making progress.) As we all know, even a little progress is better than NO progress. There's always going to be give-and-take.

Last time Nancy Pelosi was up for re-election, a certain minority of DUers decided that Tim Ryan, an anti-choice Democrat, who later went on to vote for the Trump tax cuts, was the more "progressive" choice.

I remember that. I think his gender and his age (rather than his record and experience) was what many found to be desirable. Or his loudest supporters could have been members of the "let's-shake-things-up" camp (you know the ones I mean.)

[BainsBane]

55. Yes, I remember well

and I agree with you about the qualifications for Speaker.

[bottomofthehill]

62. A big part of what made him desire able was his message

In PA, OH, MI, and WI. Places we needed to win house seats and the Presidency. Ryan is an old school progressive, maybe not woke enough for some but progressive. That said Speaker Pelosi was the right person for the job then, and remains the right person for the job now!

Her leadership in the Trump years has been amazing when in the minority and in the majority.

[NurseJackie]

68. That sounds like a job for someone in charge at the DNC, not the Speaker.

Such traits may have made him "desirable" but what we need is effective leadership.

[bottomofthehill]

74. The Speakers first roll is to create a majority

That’s the only way to run for Speaker, if not, you are running for minority leader.

That said, I still believe that Speaker Pelosi was the right person for the job. She proved under her leadership that the majority could be expanded in places like Kansas, Iowa and the upper mid west, aging industrial states.

You have to go where there cotes are and that is was a very few in the Caucus were looking for when promoting Tim Ryan.

As usual, Speaker Pelosi proved them wrong.

[StarfishSaver]

91. Thank you!

[Demsrule86]

49. Tim Ryan is not anti-choice. He was at one time but has changed his mind...he comes from

a red state and thus like Manchin must be given some slack. There are only I think three house members left in Ohio because of the gerrymandering as much as anything else...but he is pretty much the lone Democrat in Trumbull county. He should not be the speaker as a speaker must come from a safe seat.

[BainsBane]

53. Oh, I see.

He once was. Well, that qualifies him for deciding what happens to my civil rights.
The point was whether or not he should be elected to congress but that he was held up as a MORE PROGRESSIVE Speaker of the House than Pelosi. The whole notion was absurd, but in that era progressive meant white and male. I give AOC credit for disrupting that view.

[Demsrule86]

60. As I recall it was not that he was more progressive but that he was less progressive...

I know Tim Ryan and in a different district, he would be able to let his true progressive beliefs show. He is in a red state in a red district so that alone makes a speakership impossible. However, there are more districts like his than those like AOC...sadly. And I think we have work to do so we don't lose the House in 22 and make no mistake, it is endangered. I support Nancy. Also, you said Ryan was anti-choice. He is not, and would not vote against choice. I would also point out that if for some reason we lost Ryan, we would not replace him with a Democrat...he is like Manchin in this regard.

[BainsBane]

64. You recall incorrectly

about his being held up as progressive.

And you yourself said he used to be anti-choice. I see no reason to believe he wouldn't vote against abortion rights when he's already proven he'll vote with the GOP on taxes for the rich.

Whatever, I don't really care about him or his pro-GOP career. And I'm glad to have any organizing vote for the Dem party. I raised his name only to illustrate the incredibly poor judgement of the internet gallery when it comes to Speaker or even what constitutes "progressive."

[StarfishSaver]

89. Everything you just said x 1,000

[brooklynite]

40. Describe the capabilities she has that makes her a candidate for Speaker.

[mtnsnake]

44. The OP already did that.

I don't agree with them that she should be Speaker, but it's right there in the OP as to why the OP thinks she'd qualify.

[brooklynite]

57. No, the OP asserted that AOC would be a "great leader"

I'm looking for the evidence in support of that assertion.

Managerial skills?
Ability to build voting coalitions?
Messaging of the PARTY's (rather than her) positions on critical issues?

[BainsBane]

65. Seriously?

If that's all they can say, that's just sad.

[mtnsnake]

88. Yes "seriously." It's right there in their OP

Whether or not you think they described it to your satisfaction is another thing.

[BainsBane]

102. It's not a persuasive case

that's for sure.

[mtnsnake]

113. Agreed. nt

[themaguffin]

70. No, the OP didn't.

[NurseJackie]

78. ...

[Watchfoxheadexplodes]

41. Hell no

Not ever

[LeftInTX]

43. Are you AOC?

Sorry you're catching flack here, AOC is just not experienced enough. Speaker is an extremely thankless job.

[Demsrule86]

45. No....just no.

[doc03]

47. Hell NO!

[Kahuna]

94. This nt

[NightWatcher]

52. She cannot get shit done. That's the Speaker's job, not to make (good) noise.

[treestar]

56. Not there long enough

Not ready for that job.

[Celerity]

58. she lacks the institutional experience, her day may come, but not anytime soon

I am not going to get into the weeds and deep waters of the ideological battles. Pelosi will serve at least one more term anyway. I support that, and I suspect AOC will as well.

[Amishman]

59. absolutely not

to be an effective speaker you need a brutal pragmatist and someone more manipulative than Machiavelli. AOC's more of a hard charging true believer - the absolute opposite of what the role calls for.

[BlueInPhilly]

63. NO, just NO

We are about to lose majority and I find your suggestion absolutely troubling.

[AnyFunctioningAdult]

67. No Thanks

Want to lose more elections?

[Takket]

69. Is this for real?

I like AOC. I share many of her views. But she absolutely does not have what it takes at this point to lead the caucus.

[PBC_Democrat]

71. On the off chance that you're serious ...

Can you explain how the Democrats with their 155 seats out of 435 will get anything done?

The advertising was brutal enough when she was a first-termer ... imagine what they would be if she is the Speaker.

Maybe not the worst idea I've ever heard ... but certainly in the top ten

[brush]

112. Agreed, but check your math. We have more than 155 seats.

We're still in the majority but with a democratic socialist as Spreaker, we'd loss that horribly in the next election.

[BusyBeingBest]

73. No. Seriously. No thanks.

[LizBeth]

76. Pelosi. Kept Trump at bay the last two years, she has earned it.

[still_one]

77. LOL, that might be a problem since AOC isn't running for speaker

[Happy Hoosier]

80. lol.... no. nt

[ismnotwasm]

82. And if she stays in politics, something she's expressed doubts about

She may decide that’s something she wants to do. Now, however, she’s not trying, and there are far more experienced and qualified people more qualified if Pelosi steps down.

[Demonaut]

83. nope, not seasoned enough

[maxsolomon]

85. Then you don't understand how things work.

I say that as a "Far Leftist" who loves AOC. Even she would say she's not ready.

I'm not even sure you're serious.

[Polybius]

86. Do you want a massive Red Wave in 2022?

Because that's exactly what would happen.

[mtnsnake]

108. I'm not for AOC as Speaker, but there are more than a few who think Nancy Pelosi caused red waves

in 2016 and again in 2020. Personally, I think Nancy has done a marvelous job, but because she is so talented and because she got so much done on our behalf for so many years, she has automatically become one of the most vilified Democrats in the eyes of Republicans. The radical Right often makes presidential elections more about her than it does for the actual person who is running.

[StarfishSaver]

87. I don't think the Speaker job is what you think it is

I suspect this is the last job that AOC would want.

[betsuni]

90. Yes, she said "Democrats can be too big of a tent."

[R B Garr]

92. I lulz'd

[ehrnst]

93. Even if she was running, it's up to the Democrats in congress to decide. She has to convince them

that she's the best choice, because they're the ones who really know what it takes to do the job, and how qualified whoever is running is to do it.

[hamsterjill]

95. No. Just plain no.

Nancy’s doing fine in my view and AOC needs a few more years under her belt. She’s fiery and committed and I like that about her. But she needs to learn better how to use those qualities and THAT comes with maturity and experience.

In due time, but not yet.

[Autumn]

96. I think next term she would be fine as speaker. Of course I support her for anything.

President would be my dream.

[lettucebe]

97. No. Not her time.

[TeamPooka]

99. and a unicorn for majority leader?

[Politicub]

100. After some more years of experience.

It’s no accident that Pelosi is so great at her job. She worked to get there.

[GoCubsGo]

101. SMGDH.

Maybe in 20 years, if she's still around--and earns it. Until then, FUCK NO.

[Dem2]

109. I don't

She's doing well in the roll she's in now.

[GoneOffShore]

110. Gin and tonic shot out of my nose! ROFLMAO. She doesn't yet have the nous for that job.