|
Cease to Hope posted:In comedy news, Martin O'Malley endorsed Buttigieg. 
Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Feb 10, 2017 |
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:28 |
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:I'm entirely aware of that. Are you arguing that public opinion has no bearing on how this vote will play out? It's a proxy war for Establishment Dems to remind lefties that they get absolutely nothing from the party and are held in contempt (see: Kaine, Tim) so no, actually, I don't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:It's a proxy war for Establishment Dems to remind lefties that they get absolutely nothing from the party and are held in contempt (see: Kaine, Tim) so no, actually, I don't. Its not?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:It's a proxy war for Establishment Dems to remind lefties that they get absolutely nothing from the party and are held in contempt (see: Kaine, Tim) so no, actually, I don't. Do you have actual loving objections to Perez, or is it all "Ellison is the Sanders faction candidate and our feelings will be hurt if he doesn't win, which is irritatingly a pretty good argument in favor of Ellison"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
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 could have sworn he was still running.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:I'm entirely aware of that. Are you arguing that public opinion has no bearing on how this vote will play out? Of course it doesn't. Party officials' perception of public opinion has some bearing on how the vote will play out, but I don't think anyone in this thread has accused Dem party officials of being good at accurately judging public opinion. Perception goes to the heart of this election, really - after all, the DNC chair race is perceived by some as a fight for control of the party, the only meaningful difference between Ellison and Perez is how they're perceived by various demographics, and the only reason that this fight is even a big deal to anyone besides party officials is that the left perceives this fight as being all about them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Of course it doesn't. Party officials' perception of public opinion has some bearing on how the vote will play out, but I don't think anyone in this thread has accused Dem party officials of being good at accurately judging public opinion. Perception goes to the heart of this election, really - after all, the DNC chair race is perceived by some as a fight for control of the party, the only meaningful difference between Ellison and Perez is how they're perceived by various demographics, and the only reason that this fight is even a big deal to anyone besides party officials is that the left perceives this fight as being all about them. So maybe the left are just a bunch of idiots?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted: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 The DNC is not a policy position, but one of power. Since Perez comes from the Clinton wing of the party, people outside of that wing are skeptical he can remain neutral. Ellison represents a shift to the left in who has organizing power. The democrats need those people to organize.. centrists don't organize. Since the Clinton democrats blew the last election, when it was her turn, now it should be someone who represents the people routinely demonized and delegimized during the primary for being impractical. A claim that became an absurdity when Clinton lost.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
NNick posted:The DNC is not a policy position, but one of power. "And Perez does not meet these characteristics." I am totally on board with an Ellison win and hope it happens, but PEREZ IS NOT MEANINGFULLY MORE ESTABLISHMENT IN ANY REASONABLE SENSE THE WORD IS USED YOU... VERY NICE PEOPLE WITH REASONABLE OPINIONS
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
NNick posted:The DNC is not a policy position, but one of power. Perez doesn't "come from the Clinton wing of the party" any more than Ellison does. Both are firmly on the left wing of the Democratic establishment. Neither will give the Bernie-Or-Busters what they want.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
Jitzu_the_Monk posted:
Link?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:So maybe the left are just a bunch of idiots? People of all political persuasions are a bunch of idiots. It's just that the combination of being emotional/passionate and dumb looks worse than being a dumb centrist/moderate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:So maybe the left are just a bunch of idiots? The argument seems to be "the left is irrationally committed to Ellison and if they don't get their way they'll throw a tantrum" which does not remind me of anything else that has happened recently at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Do you have actual loving objections to Perez, or is it all "Ellison is the Sanders faction candidate and our feelings will be hurt if he doesn't win, which is irritatingly a pretty good argument in favor of Ellison"? Is "maybe a guy who thought it was a good idea to run Hillary Rodham Clinton as our 2016 presidential candidate isn't the best choice to run our political party" an illegitimate chain of reasoning? Having decent political instincts is a qualification for the job, and Perez made an enormous miscalculation in the most recent, highest-profile contest in the business. I'm not saying he had to back Bernie to be qualified. If Perez had backed Biden or tried to draft someone else, that would be acceptable proof of "not a complete loving moron" status to me. But nobody who looked at HRC in 2015 and thought "yes, this is a great candidate" is qualified to run any political party. Not even the Greens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Do you have actual loving objections to Perez, or is it all "Ellison is the Sanders faction candidate and our feelings will be hurt if he doesn't win, which is irritatingly a pretty good argument in favor of Ellison"? He's a shill for finance. http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/obama-administration-waives-penalty-against-convicted-bank-credit-suisse-allowing
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:He's a shill for finance. That doesn't say what you think it says. JeffersonClay posted:The argument seems to be "the left is irrationally committed to Ellison and if they don't get their way they'll throw a tantrum" which does not remind me of anything else that has happened recently at all. "I am going to stay home and not vote and let fascism win because its not 100% the person I want" is still real unconvincing to me, and even less so when it's for a position that has no real policy power and is being ginned up because people are pissed about a primary that happened a year ago.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
The Little Kielbasa posted:Is "maybe a guy who thought it was a good idea to run Hillary Rodham Clinton as our 2016 presidential candidate isn't the best choice to run our political party" an illegitimate chain of reasoning? On the other hand, should the Democratic party be run by morons who don't understand how political primaries work?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:On the other hand, should the Democratic party be run by morons who don't understand how political primaries work? Do you have any evidence that Ellison (or Buttigieg or any of the other candidates running for chair) don't understand how primaries work?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
The Little Kielbasa posted:Do you have any evidence that Ellison (or Buttigieg or any of the other candidates running for chair) don't understand how primaries work? Not talking about Ellison, I'm talking about you. You are saying that Perez should be locked out of the candidacy, because you don't understand how political primaries work. That is, we should orient the leadership of the Democratic party around you and people like you, who know very little about anything. Why is this considered a winning strategy?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:"And Perez does not meet these characteristics." Perez won't agree to ban corporate contributions. Tried to capitalize on Ellison being an ADL target by basically coming out in support of Israeli settlements. He was a vocal supporter of Hillary during the campaign. Those are all pretty meaningful things to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Perez won't agree to ban corporate contributions. Tried to capitalize on Ellison being ADL target by basically coming out in support of Israeli settlements. He was a vocal supporter of Hillary during the campaign. Those are all pretty meaningful things to me. Well, bad news for you, Ellison was also a vocal supporter of Hillary. And he also supported a dude who lost a primary pretty obviously. Guess he's out too. Gosh let me see if I can find someone who hasn't supported a losing candidate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
I like that the Democratic party now has to, at a point where it needs money more than ever, support itself entirely on the backs of the poor. Possibly unions too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Not talking about Ellison, I'm talking about you. You are saying that Perez should be locked out of the candidacy, because you don't understand how political primaries work. That is, we should orient the leadership of the Democratic party around you and people like you, who know very little about anything. Why is this considered a winning strategy? Please tell me how primaries work in a way that explains why Perez backing HRC was not, as it appears to us mortals, a mistake but rather a brilliant move worthy of Augustus Caesar 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
The Little Kielbasa posted:Please tell me how primaries work in a way that explains why Perez backing HRC was not, as it appears to us mortals, a mistake but rather a brilliant move worthy of Augustus Caesar quote:Is "maybe a guy who thought it was a good idea to run Hillary Rodham Clinton as our 2016 presidential candidate isn't the best choice to run our political party" an illegitimate chain of reasoning? The only way for you to say this while understanding how the US Democratic Party selects presidential candidates is if you were to conclude that the party leadership should have resisted the will of the Democratic Party membership and rigged the primaries for Bernie, or if you were to conclude that Hillary Rodham Clinton should have uniquely been banned from running as a candidate in the primaries for the 2016 presidential candidate nomination. Both of those things would mean that you should still be locked out of any power within the Democratic Party, as you are announcing your intent to abuse that power and hijack democratic decision-making in favor of a oligarchic tyranny. Alternatively, you don't know poo poo about poo poo but want to trumpet how much you hate that uppity HRC. Your choice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
The Little Kielbasa posted:Please tell me how primaries work in a way that explains why Perez backing HRC was not, as it appears to us mortals, a mistake but rather a brilliant move worthy of Augustus Caesar But Ellison also backing the wrong horse isn't disqualifying, how?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Perez won't agree to ban corporate contributions. Neither will Ellison. You know who has, though? Buttigieg.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Neither will Ellison. Yeah, this is the real problem with the whole Ellison vs Perez debate: Buttigieg is to the left of both of them, and has far fewer establishment ties, but by throwing Ellison into the ring the establishment effectively froze out real anti-establishment candidates. Sure, Buttigieg has zero chance, but the nature of this race is such that outsiders never had a chance; thanks to Ellison, though, he doesn't even get press. Setting up Ellison as the "true" leftist outsider candidate and setting it up as a one-on-one outsider vs establishment race means that the only reason anyone even remembers Buttigieg is because he's got a funny name, and I wouldn't be surprised if the establishment was quietly pushing that view themselves to make sure that the two establishment candidates totally dominate the discourse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Neither will Ellison. Ellison backs banning lobbyist contributions to the DNC BI NOW GAY LATER posted:But Ellison also backing the wrong horse isn't disqualifying, how? It's not about backing the wrong horse. It's that Ellison supported the more ideologically left-wing candidate during the primaries. Perez's choice on the other hand makes no sense from a progressive standpoint, because Clinton is one of the more conservative, hawkish members of the party. It was cynical careerism at best and reflects poorly on him. Red and Black fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Feb 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
Reminder: the primaries literally had a built-in method for ignoring the will of the party voters, they were called "superdelegates" and all they loudly announced that they were going to vote for Clinton right out of the gate. I'm sure this didn't effect Sanders turnout at all, though. Neither did the AP calling the race for Clinton the day before the California primary because of those superdelegates.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Reminder: the primaries literally had a built-in method for ignoring the will of the party voters, they were called "superdelegates" and all they loudly announced that they were going to vote for Clinton right out of the gate. I'm sure this didn't effect Sanders turnout at all, though. Neither did the AP calling the race for Clinton the day before the California primary because of those superdelegates.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 05:16
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:and two weeks later, he walked that back by saying that he'd put the question of whether to ban lobbyist donations to the DNC, a move designed to fail Well I find that deeply disappointing and that makes me less optimistic about Ellison. I still don't like Perez.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Reminder: the primaries literally had a built-in method for ignoring the will of the party voters, they were called "superdelegates" and all they loudly announced that they were going to vote for Clinton right out of the gate. I'm sure this didn't effect Sanders turnout at all, though. Neither did the AP calling the race for Clinton the day before the California primary because of those superdelegates. And yet the margin of victory for Clinton was greater than the total number of superdelegates, which was not true in 2008. It's far more reasonable, without resorting to the inane argument that there was this silent majority of Bernie voters who would have voted if not for the rascally superdelegates and the criminal Associated Press, to say that the 2008 primary was rigged for Obama than that 2016 was rigged for Hillary. Neither one is reasonable in absolute terms, either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
If Bernie wanted some of that superdelegate support maybe he should have been part of the party years earlier and started preparing earlier for his presidential run. The party has a preference for the person actually active in the party? SCANDALOUS
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
Zerilan posted:If Bernie wanted some of that superdelegate support maybe he should have been part of the party years earlier and started preparing earlier for his presidential run. The party has a preference for the person actually active in the party? SCANDALOUS And have had that system in place, virtually unchanged, for over thirty years?!?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
The French Communist Party, which distinguishes between party leadership and lay membership similarly to how the superdelegate system does, is counter-revolutionary. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I like that the Democratic party now has to, at a point where it needs money more than ever, support itself entirely on the backs of the poor. Possibly unions too. turns out elections are actually determined by live human voters, not money, as HRC found out last november
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 05:38
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:turns out elections are actually determined by live human voters, not money, as HRC found out last november You need money to pay human workers. Can't rely on volunteer labor indefinitely, not just for the moral reasons, but for the simple pragmatic reason that people need to loving eat you loving moron.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:You need money to pay human workers. Can't rely on volunteer labor indefinitely, not just for the moral reasons, but for the simple pragmatic reason that people need to loving eat you loving moron. trump had basically no ground game and he won turns out if people don't want to vote for you you lose no matter how much money, staffers and door knockers you have
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:28 |
|
|
icantfindaname posted:trump had basically no ground game and he won he's also prolly an outlier and you're conflating campaign money to the money needed to fund party building on a national scale.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 05:42
|
|