|
Fulchrum posted:Yes, it is utterly without any form of parallel or historical precedent that the party that holds the white house loses in midterms and gets replaced after 2 terms in the white house. Truly this utterly without parallel situation, never before seen in politics, must be seen as a sign that democrats are dead forever and we need to purge just for the sake of purging. I mean, this is possible (though there's a bunch of pretty concrete stuff Democrats have been doing poorly when it comes to strategy and winning down-ballot races), but I would prefer to remove a bunch of current Democrats just because I disagree with them politically. I think many people feel the need to have some sort of "pragmatic" excuse for this, but it's okay to just say "I want people who are more closely aligned with what I believe to replace current Democratic politicians." I think it remains to be seen whether American discontent with Democrats will continue to become a more serious issue. It hasn't been long enough to get a clear picture yet (since we haven't seen how, for example, Democratic voters respond to a Republican/Trump presidency at the polls), but it's at least plausible that what we're seeing is the genuine result of people responding to years of economic stagnation (not in terms of GDP, but for the average American). Certain norms (for example "the mere mention of socialism as political suicide") are being overturned, possibly due to a combination of newer voters with different worldviews entering the equation and the aforementioned economic dissatisfaction. Fulchrum posted:Also, any situation that includes the word socialist and viable in the same sentence about American politics is a joke. This is clearly changing; Sanders' association with socialism was well known and he was still pretty competitive with Clinton in the primaries.
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:51 |
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Those always swing against the presidency too. If you want to gauge how well the socialists did in this election go ahead and wait about a decade and look at how well the Democratic party is doing by then, at this rate. Should be roughly the same.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I mean, this is possible (though there's a bunch of pretty concrete stuff Democrats have been doing poorly when it comes to strategy and winning down-ballot races), but I would prefer to remove a bunch of current Democrats just because I disagree with them politically. I think many people feel the need to have some sort of "pragmatic" excuse for this, but it's okay to just say "I want people who are more closely aligned with what I believe to replace current Democratic politicians." quote:This is clearly changing; Sanders' association with socialism was well known and he was still pretty competitive with Clinton in the primaries.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:And yet the best example you have for this lack of impartiality is someone saying the fuck8ng obvious. i'm glad you admit the DNC wasn't impartial, ditto that they ratfucked their voters by breaking their clearly stated rules, multiple times and in multiple ways (hell, the rule I quoted says the DNC chair is supposed to be fulltime, but hillary dems ignored the hell out of that too huh?) Main Paineframe posted:Obama got plenty of small donors too and look at how anti-establishment he turned out obama was a real disappointment yes, but he was the best viable option in 2008 and voting for hillary wouldn't have done me any good. in the same vein, keith ellison is the best viable option for DNC chair, and it's in my best interest to support him and his theoretically anti-establishment campaign than to support perez and his obviously pro-establishment campaign. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:* As a cringe-worthy story related to this, this one liberal girl I know posted on Facebook about how she now follows John McCain and Glenn Beck on Twitter after being so impressed by their anti-Trump views. Stuff like this basically supports my theory that in America how "liberal / left-wing" you are is defined not by the policies you support, but by how vocally you are against Republicans. If a person lays down a sweet burn on Republicans, they are perceived as being very liberal. Jon Stewart is a great example of this. Ask her how often McCain votes against something Trump wants passed. Maybe you'll get lucky and be able to clue her in to the fact that he's going to do what the party (Trump) says constantly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
This isn't the thread for relitigating the primary. We get it, Perez is Clinton and Ellison is Sanders. Point made.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:This isn't the thread for relitigating the primary. We get it, Perez is Clinton and Ellison is Sanders. Point made. if the point was made then you wouldn't support perez at all. i mean even though the clinton wing likes replacing dems with republicans, i don't think it's a viable strategy for our party's future
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:It's this. Usually in a party system when the party loses an election the leadership resigns, and certainly after losing more than a couple. Instead, we've still got basically the same crew despite the Democrats getting their asses kicked up and down the ballot for 8 straight years. It's ridiculous and frankly if Main Paineframe is right then it doesn't matter who wins between Ellison and Perez - the party is beyond saving anyway. It's clear that Democrats in Congress are utter poo poo based on their leadership choices, what remains to be seen is if the Democratic party itself can be saved. If they elect Ellison and then consider their obligations to the progressive wing fulfilled, or if they elect Perez at all, then it's time to take another long, hard look at a viable Democratic Socialist party to replace the Democrats. Well that is the core of the puzzle, the US is engineered for a two party system much more than any other major FPTP countries. Certain states like Oklahoma don't even allow third party ballot access, and both major parties have massive amounts of infrastructure and enormous sources of funding. Beyond that, there is the fact that multi-party systems in FPTP systems often led to one party becoming near unchallenged (look at the UK) since it a new party is almost certainly going to take votes from one party more than the other. In the case of a Social Democratic, it would pull almost entirely from Democrats. At the same time, the Democrats already are in dire shape. The Democrats know this, and triangulation is engineered around this concept but what they didn't count on is that their base eroding form under them. I think we may be trapped on a sinking ship here, from both political and structural reasons and there is no longer enough "give" in the system to address what is happening to the country.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Condiv posted:if the point was made then you wouldn't support perez at all. Just because you made it as well as you're going to doesn't mean it's convincing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Just because you made it as well as you're going to doesn't mean it's convincing. i was being facetious. i don't think ellison is bernie and perez is hillary. i think ellison is an out and out superior candidate for DNC chair, and perez is just in the race so the flailing establishment can keep hold of the party. there's really no reason for him to be running, especially since he's worse both practically and ideologically, other than as a way for the establishment to cede no power to the left wing of the party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Well that is the core of the puzzle, the US is engineered for a two party system much more than any other major FPTP countries. Certain states like Oklahoma don't even allow third party ballot access, and both major parties have massive amounts of infrastructure and enormous sources of funding. Beyond that, there is the fact that multi-party systems in FPTP systems often led to one party becoming near unchallenged (look at the UK) since it a new party is almost certainly going to take votes from one party more than the other. In the case of a Social Democratic, it would pull almost entirely from Democrats. At the same time, the Democrats already are in dire shape. (Of course, this is a false dichotomy, and the correct answer is to infiltrate the party apparatus, kick the centrist bastards out, and replace them with people who represent us. The DNC bylaws make it more resilient to this than the GOP, from what I can tell, but it's far better than either of the two options presented above.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:If the members of the DNC are going to continue to give sloppy blowjobs to the center's rapidly vanishing dick, then whether or not a viable leftist party comes up and supplants them, in the meantime you're still going to be voting for losers. The difference is having a House and Senate that are about 33% Democratic and a handful of states with Democratic governments (in effect, this is one-party rule), or a House and Senate that are nearly 100% Republican with similar results at the state level. At least in the latter case we can get on with actual leftism once centrists in the DNC are defeated, provided there is still a state left after probably two decades of GOP rule. Either way, if centrists in the DNC can't be kicked out, the likely result is a government where the GOP fully controls the national government, and enough of the state governments to amend the Constitution at will. Granted, I really wonder if free elections (in any real form) would exist after 20 years what is currently happening (if isn't Trump it would some other rear end in a top hat). My real fear is that the Democrats simply refuse to change no matter what, and there is no way to get rid of them and running a left-wing party without giving the GOP a shot at the constitution. Yeah reforming the Democratic Party is the easier part but at this point how can you really do it without the party itself melting down? The current trajectory isn't looking too great and the only other option is a jump into the unknown.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:This isn't the thread for relitigating the primary. We get it, Perez is Clinton and Ellison is Sanders. Point made. Buttgeig is Sanders, Ellison is Obama: the decoy floated by the establishment to draw gullible Sanders supporters into the fold.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
Gullible Sanders supporters. For example, Sanders.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Keyword here being in the primaries. In the context of just among democrats, it's viable for an individual. However, in nationwide polling as a concept, it still polls poorly. That's hardly a point worth defending. Yeah, if you run a nationwide poll and ask people "would you vote for a socialist president" the result should be obvious. It says less than nothing about how an actual socialist with a solid narrative would perform in an election. Sanders had something that Clinton lacked: a clear vision of the future. Centrism just isn't a narrative. To win anything, Democratic candidates have to be able to articulate a clear picture of what the future looks like. The only way you can win anything with 3rd-way-ism is if the candidate themselves have a powerful enough personal narrative to fill in the gaps. Whether you call it socialism or not, a well-articulated, progressive vision of the future will win elections. Hell, Booker is a bald-faced, obvious hypocrite but he's still a superstar for being able to do what people like Pelosi and Schumer can't: Paint a loving Picture.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Like, being against voter disenfranchisement, being against racist law enforcement, protecting immigrants, even helping unions, these are all very good things but they're also things that cost the wealthy very little. Even the tax increases proposed usually amount to little more than undoing tax decreases under Republicans; they're increases which are palatable to the Democratic portion of wealthy Americans The Third Way, New Democrat Triangulation that I recall involved over-the-top displays of being Tough on Crime (Ricky Ray), 'sparing' social security by slashing the Department of Labor, loosening environmental restrictions, and cutting back worker protections. Because McGovern and Mondale lost and we'd just experienced 24 years of Republican presidential dominance with only Watergate allowing for a brief (and disastrous) Carter hiatus, so the American people obviously wanted Democrats to be Republicans too. Thank God it looks like they've been beaten down to a fringe. I guess my problem is that I remember when "The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party" was biting and accurate snark, so the sturm und drang over two pretty progressive candidates has me a bit confused. My brief foray into trying to figure it out has me pretty convinced it's the slapfight mk ∞, so I guess that's something. Switching gears, what does the thread think of reverting back to having a general chairperson (elected official) and a national chairperson (party official)? There's some appeal to being able to essentially have a split ticket for the party. Also allowing those who are in the Ellison mold (relatively young, creating a base of strength) greater coordination with the DSCC/DCCC while remaining in congress, allowing fresher blood to gain influence in areas where the establishment is typically a bit slower to adapt. The other big draw, for me, is that it seems like the perfect way to adapt the rules to allow a vote of the party's membership (for general chair). This also may help with the registration difficulties insurgent candidates have been having with their supporters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 07:04
|
|
|
"General Secretary", please. Otherwise, sounds good to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
Gloria Steinem has endorsed Ellison So are we going to keep pretending that this is a rehash of Sanders and Hillary?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
Mother Jones ran a profile of Ellison.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Gloria Steinem has endorsed Ellison Frankly, it would be more shocking if he didn't win at this point. It'd be a nasty rebuke to much of the top leadership.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
You screwed up the link.  http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/02/keith-ellison-democratic-national-committee-chair
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
 keith ellison about to activate his stand powers
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Gloria Steinem has endorsed Ellison It's not a rehash but it's a contest that is now inextricably linked to the events of 2016 (and before). The fact it's not a 1:1 mirror of how the primary played out isn't exactly a profound observation but it also doesn't in any way disprove the idea that this contest is in part a proxy battle for different factions within the Democratic party to test their influence over the direction the party is going to take.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Helsing posted:It's not a rehash but it's a contest that is now inextricably linked to the events of 2016 (and before). The fact it's not a 1:1 mirror of how the primary played out isn't exactly a profound observation but it also doesn't in any way disprove the idea that this contest is in part a proxy battle for different factions within the Democratic party to test their influence over the direction the party is going to take. You cannot draw up any form of coherent factional groupings to slot all of the supporters for any side into these camps. It's not establishment v. outsiders, moderate v. extreme or anything, it's purely along individual lines.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:You cannot draw up any form of coherent factional groupings to slot all of the supporters for any side into these camps. It's not establishment v. outsiders, moderate v. extreme or anything, it's purely along individual lines. The most prominent and visible advocate of social democracy within the Democratic party has explicitly endorsed Ellison as the best available agent of change and has framed their support for him around the assertion that he will help carry forward a larger project of fundamentally reforming the Democratic party and excising the influence of monied interests. You're free to completely ignore this and pretend it has no significance, or to pretend that rejecting Ellison wouldn't be seen as a gently caress you to left-leaning parts of the Democratic party who are throwing themselves behind his candidacy, but I think you'd be missing the forest for the trees.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The most prominent and visible advocate of social democracy within the Democratic party has explicitly endorsed Ellison as the best available agent of change and has framed their support for him around the assertion that he will help carry forward a larger project of fundamentally reforming the Democratic party and excising the influence of monied interests. Wow, I've never heard Chuck Schumer described in such glowing terms before.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Edit: yeah, DaveWoo said it better.
Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Feb 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
Why you think that Schumer's endorsement contradicts the idea that this contest is going to be used as a litmus test of how willing the party establishment is to let Sanders and co exercise more influence over the direction of the party? Presumably he's decided that endorsing Ellison is going to help bolster his own credibility as a ranking leader of the party, and perhaps also because he thinks it will help the Democrats as they maneuver themselves into position to take better advantage of the support Sanders was able to develop during his primary run.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Keep in mind, Schumer has had people camped outside his house in Brooklyn screaming at the top of their lungs pretty much constantly since the inauguration. The locals have made it pretty clear that he either stands up for progressives or gets voted the gently caress out. My favorite moment was around 100 people showing up with literal spines. At least here in New York, the opposition to Trump has very little centrism in it, and it's starting to rub off on Schumer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Keep in mind, Schumer has had people camped outside his house in Brooklyn screaming at the top of their lungs pretty much constantly since the inauguration. The locals have made it pretty clear that he either stands up for progressives or gets voted the gently caress out. My favorite moment was around 100 people showing up with literal spines. That's nice. He backed Ellisson November 16th.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Keep in mind, Schumer has had people camped outside his house in Brooklyn screaming at the top of their lungs pretty much constantly since the inauguration. The locals have made it pretty clear that he either stands up for progressives or gets voted the gently caress out. My favorite moment was around 100 people showing up with literal spines. Schumer's endorsement was a peace offering to the left to basically say "we'll give you the chairmanship if you leave the minority leadership positions alone". It looked like that's how things were going to go down until Obama started pushing back against Ellison through his proxies. Now it looks like the establishment might ratfuck the left out of the only meager concession it seemed it might get. If so the Democrats are actually finished for good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
Schumer and Sanders are long-time allies though, and Schumer tends to go wherever the AFL-CIO points. The Democratic "establishment" isn't a monolith.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Schumer's endorsement was a peace offering to the left to basically say "we'll give you the chairmanship if you leave the minority leadership positions alone". It looked like that's how things were going to go down until Obama started pushing back against Ellison through his proxies. Now it looks like the establishment might ratfuck the left out of the only meager concession it seemed it might get. If so the Democrats are actually finished for good. Is there any scenario where Perez wins without it being a ratfuck, in your eyes?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Is there any scenario where Perez wins without it being a ratfuck, in your eyes? Sure, Schumer or Pelosi step down and let a hardline leftist take their position.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 06:45
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Is there any scenario where Perez wins without it being a ratfuck, in your eyes? While I don't agree about it being a ratfuck, I don't think you can use this logic about something that isn't a public election, especially if the person is being chosen from inside the party apparatus. It's not like the Hillary vs Bernie thing where you could say "it's fair because she got more votes," since in this case the votes are solely coming from within the DNC itself. If Perez was actually a really bad candidate (which I don't personally believe), it would be completely reasonable to consider him winning to be an unjust outcome regardless of how it transpired.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 10:26
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:That's nice. He backed Ellisson November 16th. Maybe he did it as a birthday present for me then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:While I don't agree about it being a ratfuck, I don't think you can use this logic about something that isn't a public election, especially if the person is being chosen from inside the party apparatus. It's not like the Hillary vs Bernie thing where you could say "it's fair because she got more votes," since in this case the votes are solely coming from within the DNC itself. If Perez was actually a really bad candidate (which I don't personally believe), it would be completely reasonable to consider him winning to be an unjust outcome regardless of how it transpired. It's also not as if Keith Ellison is somehow outside the party apparatus-what as congressman for a decade and cochair of the CPC. As has been repeated throughout the thread, it's a disservice to each candidate to treat this as a continuation of the eternal slapfight and the actual matchup is one that defies easy categorization as establishment/insurgency, insiders/outsiders, progressive/centrist, or really anything other than Bernie's Legacy/Literally Anything Else. It's perfectly reasonable to feel that Ellison is a better candidate. He has solid progressive credentials and while I'm skeptical about the national applicability of the lessons of his campaigns (thoroughly untapped immigrant/refugee population in the urban center of a reliably blue state), he's had electoral success. If the only determinant of legitimacy, though, is an Ellison victory-it's not worth the strain on Radium's rickety infrastructure to build an affirmative case for Perez. Edit: To expand on that a bit- MN-5 is one of the safest D districts in the nation. Ellison won his primary against the handpicked successor and former chief of staff of the retiring 9-term incumbent. The MoJo article covers it more deeply, but he did so by activating the immigrant and refugee populations of an area that had long been taken for granted, organizing and sustaining a successful movement based on engagement and turnout. He then proceeded to win the general... with the smallest vote share by a Democrat in the district in years (decades?). The lesson I draw from his primary and his machine/methodology is that he's a fantastic resource and has an effective playbook for progressives and outsiders to follow when looking for primary victories. I'm not convinced it's particularly applicable to general elections in rural Michigan, suburban Georgia, or anywhere outside the urban centers of the rust belt. Paracaidas fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Feb 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
if the democrats hadn't underperformed in urban centers in the rust belt like detriot, flint, and milwaukee clinton would be president now tho
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
Zikan posted:if the democrats hadn't underperformed in urban centers in the rust belt like detriot, flint, and milwaukee clinton would be president now tho Presidential election strategy is handled by the candidates, not the DNC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:51 |
|
|
Paracaidas posted:It's also not as if Keith Ellison is somehow outside the party apparatus-what as congressman for a decade and cochair of the CPC. As has been repeated throughout the thread, it's a disservice to each candidate to treat this as a continuation of the eternal slapfight and the actual matchup is one that defies easy categorization as establishment/insurgency, insiders/outsiders, progressive/centrist, or really anything other than Bernie's Legacy/Literally Anything Else. I think you misunderstood me; I wasn't talking about Perez being inside the party apparatus as opposed to Ellison or whatever. I meant that because the candidate isn't chosen by the general public, if someone happened to believe that 1. the DNC was bad/corrupt and 2. Perez (or whoever) was also bad then it would make sense for them to consider the outcome unjust regardless of how it transpired otherwise. In the case of a general election, assuming there isn't any literal corruption/cheating you can at least claim the results are legitimate even if you don't like the person who won, but in the case of an internal election like this it's possible to say "if this bad person is selected it will be bullshit regardless of how it transpires." Either way it doesn't really apply much to this situation since I don't think Perez is bad (I don't think he's ideal either, but neither is Ellison). Your post just reminded me of people after the primaries who said "Is there anything that would convince you Clinton's nomination was just/acceptable?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 16:44
|
|