|
It's funny seeing people whine about Ellison not getting treated as the chosen one. How many of you people were complaining about Clinton getting that exact treatment in the primaries? Either way, you're bitching about a competition between two people much further to the left than even the majority of the Democratic party let. 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 Michigan and Wisconsin also have some of the most aggressive voter disenfranchisement in the country, which the GOP want to apply nationwide and there's nothing that can stop them from doing so unless Kennedy sides with the liberals in the current cases working up to the SC. Even then they'll just tweak things and pass it again, only they'll make sure to do so close enough to an election to ensure maximum confusion and fuckery. Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Feb 8, 2017 |
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 10:36 |
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Sure, Schumer or Pelosi step down and let a hardline leftist take their position.  This is incredibly stupid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
i'm the biggest keithomanic on the board and the fact that schumer has been able to hold together his caucus to do the mass no votes on trump nominees after the public pressure hit should give him some slack imo
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Schumer is a terrible leader for the Democrats right now. He has an awful Clinton-esque voting record, and close ties to wall street. His complete lack of principle shines through every time he speaks. For example, when the muslim ban was announced his first criticism of it was that it was sloppily executed. Not that it was completely immoral and appalling. He isn't a man who's ready to fight tooth and nail to stop the country from falling into fascism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
Chuck Schumer is the perfect leader for the Democrats if you're a Republican. The criticism writes itself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Schumer is a terrible leader for the Democrats right now. He has an awful Clinton-esque voting record, and close ties to wall street. His complete lack of principle shines through every time he speaks. For example, when the muslim ban was announced his first criticism of it was that it was sloppily executed. Not that it was completely immoral and appalling. He isn't a man who's ready to fight tooth and nail to stop the country from falling into fascism. Thats completely different from what you posted, duder.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
Zikan posted:i'm the biggest keithomanic on the board and the fact that schumer has been able to hold together his caucus to do the mass no votes on trump nominees after the public pressure hit should give him some slack imo The only one so far has been DeVos though? There's like what one or two Democrats who haven't voted for a Trump cabinet candidate and over a dozen iirc who voted for every one up until DeVos.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Thats completely different from what you posted, duder.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
Did Tom Perez really just say that the Democratic primary was fixed? quote:Perez, who is seen as representing the party's establishment in his bid against Ellison, said it is the party's responsibility to make those people feel welcome. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/race-dnc-chair-tom-perez-pledges-woo-back-red-rural-n718536
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
That's kinda a strange thing to say. I'm firmly in the leftist, Sanders-supporting wing of the party and even I think it's a huge exaggeration to say the primary was rigged.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
The Little Kielbasa posted:Did Tom Perez really just say that the Democratic primary was fixed? i feel like that was misstatement on his part, since it very clearly wasn't fixed lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
Im.Creole and I support prez for dnc chair. His ision will lead us to a new dawn of pro
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:i feel like that was misstatement on his part, since it very clearly wasn't fixed lol https://twitter.com/aseitzwald/status/829543048073850881 I like Perez,fwiw, but I'd prefer Ellison at this point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
Zikan posted:the fact that schumer has been able to hold together his caucus to do the mass no votes on trump nominees after the public pressure hit should give him some slack imo
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:I don't think that's much of an accomplishment, nothing's simplified the Democrats' messaging more than becoming a single-issue "gently caress Trump" party. as someone who lived the the bush years, you'd be surprised
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:as someone who lived the the bush years, you'd be surprised
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:They were a single-issue "gently caress the war" party during Bush's second term and it worked great then. someone clearly doesn't remember joementum
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:as someone who lived the the bush years, you'd be surprised Given the number of high-profile Dems who signaled an openness to work with him on infrastructure and stimulus without the preconditions that Reid laid out... and the number of Red State Senators up in 18 who have to thread the needle between pure (symbolic) obstruction and highlighting the worst offenses, Schumer has done a great job wrangling Senate Dems. OneEightHundred posted:They were a single-issue "gently caress the war" party during Bush's second term and it worked great then. It's also why I'm anxious for this contest to wrap up. The $1.8m raised by the top two could be better used to start filling the bench with those who have been driven to take action by the new administration. Santelli's remarks were 2/19/09. If we want to replicate that impact we need to get moving, because unless Steyn steps up, we don't have millions in astroturf assistance to maintain this passion and profile for 2 years. And it'll be tougher, because Trump's base won't gently caress him like a notable portion of Obama's did in 2010.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Given the number of high-profile Dems who signaled an openness to work with him on infrastructure and stimulus without the preconditions that Reid laid out... and the number of Red State Senators up in 18 who have to thread the needle between pure (symbolic) obstruction and highlighting the worst offenses, Schumer has done a great job wrangling Senate Dems. Yeah, and pre-9/11 Bush passed his broad-budget-busting tax cuts with some bipartisan support. He also got bipartisian support on poo poo like NCLB and all of the loving awful Patriot Act Security state bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Sure, Schumer or Pelosi step down and let a hardline leftist take their position. so your answer is no, because that is absolutely not happening. rscott posted:The only one so far has been DeVos though? There's like what one or two Democrats who haven't voted for a Trump cabinet candidate and over a dozen iirc who voted for every one up until DeVos. admittedly until we got to the devos/sessions/tillerson group the other nominees, while ideological nightmares were all qualified to hold the position and didn't have massive clouds of corruption around them, so i'm more willing to cut someone slack on voting for say, the new secretary of commerce than devos. Paracaidas posted:
if they can maintain the passion right now they should be okay. we're at "summer of 2010" levels of upset among the left right now. the biggest problem is if everyone gets outrage fatigue or does something idiotic like primarying heitkamp or tester for not being pure enough, not realizing that a FULL COMMUNISM NOW senator will never win in ND or MT. if the FULL COMMUNISM NOW wing wants to primary someone, it should be warner in VA. i've always liked him but he's being way too cooperative and VA will be so blue by 2020 that it shouldn't matter who the dems run. axeil fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Feb 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
"Rigged" isn't the best word, but it's true that the DNC violated its neutrality and tipped the scales for Clinton. She almost certainly would have won the nomination anyway, but the DNC's behavior during the campaign was still unacceptable. One can see why Bernie supporters were pissed. Even though "rigged" is a bit strong, I was really happy to see Perez validate legitimate critiques of the DNC's underhandedness. That is, until he walked back those comments. Perez as DNC chair would hurt the party too much. Bernie supporters would glean that the party isn't with them and that it learned nothing from their 2016 miscalculations. And according to the AP, Perez is the front runner, having all but locked up the nomination. This is a disaster and wagging the finger at Bernie supporters, telling them they shouldn't feel the way they feel about this will only sow more discord in the party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Jitzu_the_Monk posted:"Rigged" isn't the best word, but it's true that the DNC violated its neutrality and tipped the scales for Clinton. She almost certainly would have won the nomination anyway, but the DNC's behavior during the campaign was still unacceptable. One can see why Bernie supporters were pissed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Jitzu_the_Monk posted:"Rigged" isn't the best word, but it's true that the DNC violated its neutrality and tipped the scales for Clinton. She almost certainly would have won the nomination anyway, but the DNC's behavior during the campaign was still unacceptable. One can see why Bernie supporters were pissed. Without getting us into the mess of the primary, it's hard for me to really find validity in criticisms of a system when the people making them, repeatedly, demonstrated they had no working knowledge of it. Which I think you're bordering dangerously close to doing here. On the second thing, I don't see anything saying Perez is the front runner, so uh? This, full-stop, isn't a race of "establishment" versus "outsider." Firstly, it's a race being ENTIRELY DECIDED by party insiders. Secondly, they're both party insiders supports by varying members of the party establishment to different degrees. There are certainly *factions* within the party that represent elements that were at play in the primary, but this simply is not the "primary redux" so many people are hoping to be. It's a contest between two relatively similar candidates to essentially be the talking head of the DNC for the next several years. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Feb 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:On the second thing, I don't see anything saying Perez is the front runner, so uh? The last reporting on the state of the race was a week or so ago when Biden endorsed Perez. Perez had a solid lead, with about 3/4 of voters informally committed. I don't know - I don't know if anyone knows - if that changed after Lewis endorsed Ellison.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Jitzu_the_Monk posted:Perez as DNC chair would hurt the party too much. Bernie supporters would glean that the party isn't with them and that it learned nothing from their 2016 miscalculations. And according to the AP, Perez is the front runner, having all but locked up the nomination. This is a disaster and wagging the finger at Bernie supporters, telling them they shouldn't feel the way they feel about this will only sow more discord in the party. Goodness. A lot of antipathy for Perez there. What about him makes you this passionately against him? A Buttery Pastry posted:Couldn't the whole "clearing the field" previous to the actual primaries not also be seen as a form of rigging? Not by the DNC specifically so much as the democratic leadership in general perhaps, but I could see Bernie having a similar advantage to the one Trump had if it had been a more competitive one - standing out in a sea of establishment candidates all trying to undermine each other because they don't take him seriously. Counterfactuals are impossible, obviously, but your opinion on how much of his rise is attributable to anti-hillary sentiment vs how much is due to a latent public desire for socialism will determine your answer on this. I think a large chunk of his early support was people who didn't like Hillary/were fed up with Clintons/etc, so I think clearing the field is what let him be a halfway viable challenger-you could hold your nose #WithHer or you could Feel the Bern. If the field had included, say, any 3 of Warren, Gillibrand, Brown and Booker? I don't think that his campaign generates the critical mass to become the challenger.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Literally the only substantial difference I can see between Ellison and Perez is that Ellison explicitly backs banning lobbyist contributions to the DNC, where Perez hasn't committed to the idea. It's not as important a point as it seems anyway, since the DNC chair has no power to unilaterally impose the rule. They both acknowledge that the joint fundraising agreement with Clinton was a horrible idea, they're both for reforming the superdelegate system (though neither suggests an alternative) and they both want to return to Dean's 50 state strategy. The narrative that it's a Sanders wing / Clinton wing referendum is straight up ignorant. Neither of them has a coherent narrative, or a particularly clear vision of the future for the DNC. If you're looking for compelling leftist leadership in this race, hoo boy are you barking up the wrong tree.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Literally the only substantial difference I can see between Ellison and Perez is that Ellison explicitly backs banning lobbyist contributions to the DNC, where Perez hasn't committed to the idea. It's not as important a point as it seems anyway, since the DNC chair has no power to unilaterally impose the rule. The Joint Fundraising Agreement is such a dumb red herring though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:The Joint Fundraising Agreement is such a dumb red herring though. I mean, practically everything the DNC is concerned with is a dumb red herring. Everyone in the organization, including Ellison and Perez, are dying to get their hands on Sanders' email list. They genuinely seem to think that sending unsolicited DNC fundraising emails to loving Sanders donors is a good strategy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
If both Ellison and Perez are the same (and they kind of seem to be) then the DNC would be pretty stupid not to go with Ellison. Not only would they not get any tangible benefit with Perez but choosing him would piss off the Bernie supporters who see this as part of the left/neoliberal fight and further split the party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
wow it's almost like the people fighting the left are doing so as a matter of general principle (that is, we deserve to rule and you don't) rather than any sort of real policy difference
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
but for real if those reports are accurate that Perez has it locked up holy poo poo this party is worthless
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
This time last year the left would've been dancing in the streets at the idea of Perez leading the party and now people are crying he's an establishment puppet. Trump has broken people's brains.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:This time last year the left would've been dancing in the streets at the idea of Perez leading the party and now people are crying he's an establishment puppet. Trump has broken people's brains. I think the people treating a possible Perez victory as a vile betrayal are total morons and it annoys me that that's one of the reasons I have to prefer Ellison. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
Honestly, the weirdest thing about this is the weird narrative that Ellison is somehow hated by the establishment even while he's endorsed by a fairly large portion of it. I think he's a better fit for the position than Perez, but holy crap the narratives around this race are the dumbest poo poo ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 00:15
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:This time last year the left would've been dancing in the streets at the idea of Perez leading the party and now people are crying he's an establishment puppet. Trump has broken people's brains. Because "the left" that's crying about Perez mostly consists of the cult of personality around maple grandpa and think that because Sanders supports Ellison that Ellison is the only true progressive in the running any anyone else is Hilobama's establishment puppet.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:If both Ellison and Perez are the same (and they kind of seem to be) then the DNC would be pretty stupid not to go with Ellison. Not only would they not get any tangible benefit with Perez but choosing him would piss off the Bernie supporters who see this as part of the left/neoliberal fight and further split the party. There's plenty of benefit to Perez. He has a really, really good relationship with organized labor, and I've heard that he has strong ties to the Latino community as well. The thing is that only the left sees this as a titanic left-vs-center showdown for control of the party. Whether that's the left overestimating their own importance or the center underestimating the left's importance, I can't say, but there's definitely a big gap between their perspectives. To the center, the left is just one of several Democratic factions that need to be pacified right now, and this is just a fight of competing strategies. Trump's performance among white laborers in traditional manufacturing hubs was a decisive factor in the election, for example. And while he lost Hispanics badly, he didn't lose them nearly as badly as one would expect.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
Zerilan posted:Because "the left" that's crying about Perez mostly consists of the cult of personality around maple grandpa and think that because Sanders supports Ellison that Ellison is the only true progressive in the running any anyone else is Hilobama's establishment puppet. It's certainly dumb as hell, but as has been pointed out, it's not like going with Ellison will lose anything for the DNC. They're basically the same candidate, except he has better optics and the support of low information socialists. If Perez loses because there are enough people in America who define their narrative entirely by Sanders soundbites, that's a really, really good sign for the left. I'm having a real hard time seeing a downside to Sanders being able to rally the kind of people who usually don't vote or think very hard about politics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:If Perez loses because there are enough people in America who define their narrative entirely by Sanders soundbites, that's a really, really good sign for the left. I'm having a real hard time seeing a downside to Sanders being able to rally the kind of people who usually don't vote or think very hard about politics. The DNC chair is not a public election! All of the voters are Democratic Party officials. Everyone voting is not only involved in politics, but at least a semi-professional political organizer. In comedy news, Martin O'Malley endorsed Buttigieg.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:This time last year the left would've been dancing in the streets at the idea of Perez leading the party and now people are crying he's an establishment puppet. Trump has broken people's brains. No they wouldn't, but whatever you say chap. I don't think people will dance in the streets if Ellison wins either, it's not like he's Eugene Debs. People stating that they prefer the Sanders backed candidate, and that they are cynical of the guy dropped into the race by Obama is not crying he's an establishment puppet. It's a reasonable amount of cynicism after the past...I dunno, 45 years of Democratic Party politics and their attitude towards the left? But sure, it's Trump breaking peoples brains and not just you looking to whine about the left.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 10:36 |
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:The DNC chair is not a public election! All of the voters are Democratic Party officials. Everyone voting is not only involved in politics, but at least a semi-professional political organizer. I'm entirely aware of that. Are you arguing that public opinion has no bearing on how this vote will play out?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 01:09
|
|