When the Democrats Didn’t Listen To Pelosi — 11/10/25

After Nancy Pelosi announced that she would not run for re-election next year, she was hailed by her fellow Democrats for the remarkable accomplishments of an extraordinary career. They praised her for her historic election as the first woman to serve as Speaker of the House of Representatives, for her instrumental work to pass both Barack Obama’s and Joe Biden’s policy priorities through a bitterly divided Congress, and for her fight to thwart Donald Trump throughout his term in office. Even many Republicans—though not Trump himself—grudgingly credited her political acumen and legislative skills and quietly contrasted her successes against the difficulties of the Ryan, McCarthy, and Johnson speakerships.

The acclaim and applause that Pelosi received were undoubtedly heartfelt. It’s clear that her party’s respect and affection for Pelosi and her accomplishments run extremely deep. But when the stakes were at their absolute highest, when the Democrats needed to listen to their former speaker more urgently than perhaps at any other time during her career, they ignored her. And for their unwillingness to listen to Pelosi’s advice when they needed it most, they are still paying the price and will continue to pay it until January of 2029.

When Biden stepped away from his re-election campaign last summer (largely as a result of Pelosi’s careful orchestration of pressure on him not to continue), Pelosi made it clear both publicly and privately that his successor should be chosen through a competitive process. But Biden quickly endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee, and most other party leaders fell in line within a matter of hours. Pelosi recognized the folly of trying to stop that political freight train and stepped aside, kept quiet about her concerns, and did her best to be a team player throughout an uninspiring and unsuccessful Harris candidacy.

The argument to immediately coalesce behind Harris was understandable. There were only three-and-a-half months until Election Day, and many believed that even an abbreviated primary process or a small number of debates would have required time that simply wasn’t available. But competition brings out the best in people and politicians. Either Harris would have risen to the occasion and then pivoted to a general election campaign against Trump as a battle-tested nominee better prepared for the meat grinder that she would face against him. Or another Democrat—perhaps Pete Buttigieg or Gavin Newsom or Gretchen Whitmer or Cory Booker—would have emerged as a better-prepared and more formidable opponent.

This would have been much easier if Biden had kept to his original commitment to serve as a “transitional president” and made this decision a year earlier. Had he even announced his withdrawal the day after his disastrous debate rather than almost a month later, some type of selection process could have been more easily constructed. And hindsight is admittedly 20/20, so it’s much easier to see the downside of the rush to Harris a year after the election than in the moment. But Pelosi saw it then. She raised her concerns, realized no one was listening, and allowed the Harris bandwagon to careen into the fall. 

It has since been reported that Obama also wanted a competitive process for the nomination, even on such a short timeline. But there is no record of the former president making that case publicly at the time, although it has since been reported that he was unhappy that Pelosi endorsed Harris the day after Biden’s withdrawal. (Harris is said to have told Obama, “That train has left the station.”)

Pelosi has been careful not to overtly criticize Biden. The closest she has come is in the days immediately after the election when she said, “The anticipation was that, if the president were to step aside, that there would be an open primary… Because the President endorsed Kamala Harris immediately, that really made it almost impossible to have a primary at that time. If it had been much earlier, it would have been different.”

The former speaker’s analysis was subdued, and her disapproval was muted. But her message was clear: if you’d listened to me, this wouldn’t have happened.

Pelosi’s friends and foes can agree that she has been a unique figure in modern American political history. It’s worth wondering why her most appreciative allies didn’t listen to her when they had the chance.