Lamb ran as a "moderate," though, whatever that means, and did what Democrats like to do when running in Republican territory-- distance themselves from Democratic leadership. Does that matter? The former does, at least a little. We have plenty of academic studies showing that extremism hurts you in elections, particularly if you are "out of step," to borrow the title of the most famous article. "Out of Step, Out of Office: Electoral Accountability and House Members' Voting," by Brandice Canes-Wrone, Dave Brady and John Cogan, from the American Political Science Review, 2002, Volume 96, No. 1. Here's an ungated copy.
Talking trash about the leaders themselves? The data are less than clear on that. In order for that to matter, people would have to know who the leaders are. If you are reading a political scientist's morning blog, you know who Nancy Pelosi is. Most people? Eh... We actually ask about this stuff in the American National Election Studies survey as a way to measure general political knowledge! In 2016, the Speaker of the House was Paul Ryan, not Nancy Pelosi. How many people knew that? 54%. Back in 2008, though, we had an election during which Pelosi was Speaker, so we asked about that for her! How many people knew who she was then, at the height of her power and hence fame? 56.5%.
It's gonna be lower now that she hasn't held the Speaker's gavel for 8 years. We don't bother asking about her anymore. If I had to guess at how many people have an inkling of who she is right now, I'd put the number at somewhere south of 40%, but that's just a guess. And keep in mind that a bunch of those people are Democrats.
So, how much can Conor Lamb or other candidates gain by bashing Pelosi? Not much. By running as moderates, particularly in districts Trump won? More. We have replicated research on that.
But, anecdotes play better than statistics, so guess what gets more attention? In Roll Call this morning, there's chatter about dumping Pelosi-- or at least running against her in campaigns-- based on the notion that the Democrats couldn't win the House in 2010, 2012, 2014, or 2016 because of her.
No, it doesn't work that way.
I'll call out Pelosi when she fucks up. Pelosi fucked up pushing for the shutdown, but there really wasn't any damage done. Overall, though, the idea of pushing her out is built around two fallacies: 1) that the sequence of elections is a reflection of her rather than other political forces, and 2) that they have anyone else with a brain in the caucus. Yes, she erred with the shutdown, but so did plenty of others in the caucus, and I haven't seen much self-reflection on that point. If Pelosi goes, who do they pick?
Now, part of this is just room for anti-Pelosi position-taking in the caucus, and... fine. No harm done to the party. Remember what happened to the GOP, though. John Boehner was, by far, the smartest person in the House Republican caucus, and anti-Boehner positioning forced him out, leaving the party with Ryan holding the gavel, and... while Ryan isn't some tea-bagging mouth-breather, let's just say that if he showed up at Boehner's weekly poker game, good ole' John could renovate his house on his winnings.
There's a great quote in the Roll Call article from John Larson about Pelosi. He thinks Pelosi would tell any Democrat to say whatever they need to say to get elected.
That was pretty much how John Boehner treated his position, until the Freedom Caucus sacked him. Now, the party and the country are stuck with Paul Ryan.
I still don't think the country fully understands how many times John Boehner saved this country or how brilliant he was as a Speaker. Nancy Pelosi was a brilliant Speaker too, and I kind of feel like I've read this book before.
To borrow a phrase from my grad school advisor, Nelson Polsby: "Famous sayings migrate into famous mouths." With that in mind, I don't care who actually came up with this one: History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
What rhymes with "San Francisco?"
