|
icantfindaname posted:trump had basically no ground game and he won In order to do things like a 50-state strategy, you need people on the ground doing things like sparking turnout. In order to counter voter suppression efforts, you need people on the ground driving buses and getting people registered and explaining that they won't get in trouble if they vote with no ID. In order to serve disenfranchised groups and get them to turn out, you need people on the ground. In order to engage in the kind of machine politics you'd probably need to increase turnout substantially, you need people on the ground. In order to engage in local politics, you need loving people on the loving ground to find the loving candidates you need to run against the loving republican dogcatcher that runs unopposed. Fuckface. EDIT: Also, 3 million more people voted for Hillary Clinton, and you masturbating to the thought of her being thrown in a woodchipper won't change that. Nor will, before you start, busting out Jacobin spank banks about how reality doesn't matter.
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:01 |
|
|
average House winning campaign = $1m average Senate winning campaign = $10m so just for federal legislative elections, Democrats should be looking to fundraise something like $700m every two years. they raised $150m in 2014
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:he's also prolly an outlier and you're conflating campaign money to the money needed to fund party building on a national scale. Trump also received billions of dollars worth of national media attention so any time people mention that he had no ground game they tend to ignore that he got more coverage for free than most candidates could ever afford to buy in the first place. Who needs a ground game when you're on every major news channel each night and being covered by a media that is renowned for being utterly spineless?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:average House winning campaign = $1m This is why DWS needed sacked.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted: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. I mean, seriously. Chuck Schumer leaped at the chance to endorse Ellison.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I mean, seriously. Chuck Schumer leaped at the chance to endorse Ellison. Schumer is a close Sanders ally in the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Schumer is a close Sanders ally in the Senate. Sanders? Allied with a filthy neoliberal? Have you no shame, sir?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Schumer is a close Sanders ally in the Senate. Schumer endorsed Clinton in loving 2013, way before she even announced. This was the shadow primary that cleared the Democratic field for her. He's a big reason Bernie was her only real opponent. and anyways he's terrible
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
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. The puma types in 2008.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
These are not mutually exclusive facts. Senator Sanders is is not the enemy of everyone who didn't support him over Clinton for president. Inasmuch as a "Sanders wing" of the party exists, that wing includes a bunch of people that backed Clinton's presidential campaign.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
Insofar as a Sanders wing of the party exists, Chuck Schumer ain't in it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
smh at all the people in this thread thinking anything matters more than narrative in the post-truth reality
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted: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. Perez was routinely mentioned as on the short list for VP. He was in Obama's cabinet, and endorsed by major donors who accused Ellison of being an anti-Semite. To say Perez and Ellison are the same is pure revisionism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 06:45
|
|
|
I'm pro-Hillary neoliberal scum and I'm for Ellison. Not because I'm necessarily convinced he's what's needed to revitalize the party, but because I think Bernie's earned his man at the DNC and I'm open-minded enough to say gently caress it and try something different.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 06:55
|
|
|
NNick posted:Perez was routinely mentioned as on the short list for VP. He was in Obama's cabinet, and endorsed by major donors who accused Ellison of being an anti-Semite. Nobody said they were the same person, so I don't know why you quoted me while raving to thin air about how Obama's foul neoliberal essence has coagulated in the body of all his cabinet members, just like how Frances Perkins and Harry S Truman were politically identical back under FDR.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Nobody said they were the same person, so I don't know why you quoted me while raving to thin air about how Obama's foul neoliberal essence has coagulated in the body of all his cabinet members, just like how Frances Perkins and Harry S Truman were politically identical back under FDR. I don't know if you are missing the point on purpose. Perez comes from the Clinton/Obama wing of the party. I don't think this thread is about litigating why that wing of the party is bad, but denying it seems to me like an attempt to equivocate Ellison and Perez. Ellison is not beholden to centrists for his political career and is clearly seen as a threat to their power.. Even if Perez and Ellison were identical on policy, where they come from is informs us on who they are beholden too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
NNick posted:I don't know if you are missing the point on purpose. Ellison and Perez are both establishment Democrats from the left wing of the establishment, based on their relationship with the party and their expressed political opinions. Obsession with the prospect of Clintobaman fluoride corrupting the precious bodily fluids of one and not the other privileges personal associations over political beliefs, and transposing this onto political beliefs privileges stupidity and ignorance over knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
NNick posted:I don't know if you are missing the point on purpose. This is incredibly inaccurate. Ellison is a member of and is supported by a number of the "Clinton/Obama Wing" of the party (e.g., the loving party). No one who is going to become chair of the DNC under it's current format is going to come from outside that paradigm. How hard is that to process? Like if we were having a national, mail-in contest to see who led the DNC then, yes that kind of thing would be important -- but it's not here. Ellison is no less beholden to power brokers (who will elect him) than Perez would be. It's the very nature of how the election of the position is structured. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Feb 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
There's definitely a wing of the Democratic Party who are basically mouthpieces for their states' respective donors. That wing of the party supports Perez, which is worrisome to people who are tired of donors pulling the strings in primaries and not voters. This isn't a hard concept.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Fiction posted:There's definitely a wing of the Democratic Party who are basically mouthpieces for their states' respective donors. That wing of the party supports Perez, which is worrisome to people who are tired of donors pulling the strings in primaries and not voters. This isn't a hard concept. Many of those same people support Ellison duder.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Many of those same people support Ellison duder. Right but Perez, based on positions he's taken in the past, seems to be more of a party-line guy than someone who might push back like Ellison.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:This is incredibly inaccurate. Ellison is a member of and is supported by a number of the "Clinton/Obama Wing" of the party (e.g., the loving party). No one who is going to become chair of the DNC under it's current format is going to come from outside that paradigm. How hard is that to process? You really think that Clinton/Obama is the only wing of the Democratic Party?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
What you basically have in this thread is 3 hardline Clintonites trying to gaslight everyone into thinking that Tom Perez and Keith Ellison are the same guy and those insisting on Ellison are being whiny little partisan babies. Don't fall for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:What you basically have in this thread is 3 hardline Clintonites trying to gaslight everyone into thinking that Tom Perez and Keith Ellison are the same guy and those insisting on Ellison are being whiny little partisan babies.  Reminder, I support Ellison you dweeb. Fiction posted:Right but Perez, based on positions he's taken in the past, seems to be more of a party-line guy than someone who might push back like Ellison. Again, not really true. Ellison's only "defiance" of the party line was backing Sanders in the primary. If that's your criteria, then I think you need to backup a bit. NNick posted:You really think that Clinton/Obama is the only wing of the Democratic Party? Within the context of the people actually voting for DNC Chair and making senior level decisions at the national part level? Absolutely. Like virtually everyone of the 400-ish people who are going to vote for either of them and make decisions about which directions the party goes are more or less from either the Clinton or Obama orbits.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:What you basically have in this thread is 3 hardline Clintonites trying to gaslight everyone into thinking that Tom Perez and Keith Ellison are the same guy and those insisting on Ellison are being whiny little partisan babies. Got it. Skimming through the thread that appeared to crop up a lot. I thought it was the consensus!
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:What you basically have in this thread is 3 hardline Clintonites trying to gaslight everyone into thinking that Tom Perez and Keith Ellison are the same guy and those insisting on Ellison are being whiny little partisan babies. Ironic, given the few people doing the exact same WRT arguing Ellison is some break from the establishment while not even knowing what the gently caress they're talking about, like: NNick posted:I don't know if you are missing the point on purpose.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
NNick posted:Got it. Skimming through the thread that appeared to crop up a lot. I thought it was the consensus! He's wrong? We're suggesting that trying to turn this into a proxy primary is a bad idea and that a lot of people are just transferring their grievances of the primary onto this contest -- which is, I would think, pretty obvious at this point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:n, not really true. Ellison's only "defiance" of the party line was backing Sanders in the primary. If that's your criteria, then I think you need to backup a bit. What else would you suggest? I know Perez was good to labor as Secretary but I'm not sure that's enough to convince me he'll make the right hard choices.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Fiction posted:What else would you suggest? I know Perez was good to labor as Secretary but I'm not sure that's enough to convince me he'll make the right hard choices. Take a look at his record. He's responsible for, for example, the DoL fudicary rule, the 40-hour overtime rule, his work with labor unions over the years, his work cleaning up the social justice division of DoJ. The knock on Perez, to my mind, is that he doesn't have a whole lot of experience with elective politics. (Though Ellision's experience is running in one of the bluest districts in the nation, so.) But there's no reason to believe he's some sort of centrist corporate shill, based on his actual record. Neither of them like, true leftists in any real sense. Ellison is a fairly mainstream Democrat who is supported by a number of party establishment figures. So is Perez. Like you're literally not going to get elected DNC chair without having the support (and if your theory of support = being behold to, then also true) of the party establishment. It's the nature of the position. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Feb 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:What you basically have in this thread is 3 hardline Clintonites trying to gaslight everyone into thinking that Tom Perez and Keith Ellison are the same guy and those insisting on Ellison are being whiny little partisan babies. this. i think the DNC election is more simple than people are trying to make it appear. Bernie Sanders, the most popular politician in the country right now, endorsed Keith Ellison. People really like and respect Bernie Sanders, so his backing means a lot to them. Perez was endorsed by Obama. Many people are feeling let down by the Obama administration and despite all their great rhetoric, excellent platform, and amazing promises, they failed to actually live up to their word. Therefore people are distrustful of the argument "their platforms are virtually the same" and instead are rightfully wondering how dedicated a given candidate is to actually implementing the the things they promise. But its mostly "people love Bernie" and loath much of the historically disappointing party infrastructure and want the guy who they trust said was cool.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Take a look at his record. He's responsible for, for example, the DoL fudicary rule, the 40-hour overtime rule, his work with labor unions over the years, his work cleaning up the social justice division of DoJ. Signing onto the TPP was pretty corporatist in my mind, despite what the Hillfolk in this thread might have you believe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
He didn't support Bernie, QED.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:He's wrong? We're suggesting that trying to turn this into a proxy primary is a bad idea and that a lot of people are just transferring their grievances of the primary onto this contest -- which is, I would think, pretty obvious at this point. It is a proxy war because the grievances are real and the fear of history repeating itself is real.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
I've been hearing different things on this. Kinda getting worried that Ellison isn't going to win.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:What you basically have in this thread is 3 hardline Clintonites trying to gaslight everyone into thinking that Tom Perez and Keith Ellison are the same guy and those insisting on Ellison are being whiny little partisan babies. What significant differences are there between the strategies and vision proposed by these two candidates? You seem to think this is a progressive vs centrist referendum, what evidence led you to this belief?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
NNick posted:It is a proxy war because the grievances are real and the fear of history repeating itself is real. Do you believe that Ellison represents a major shift in strategy for the DNC? What led you to this belief?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Fiction posted:Signing onto the TPP was pretty corporatist in my mind, despite what the Hillfolk in this thread might have you believe. He was the Labor Secretary for the President who approved it? But are you also just saying that support for a trade agreement is unilaterally bad? Or do you have specific criticisms about TPP that are actually real and valid. And how does support for a trade agreement effect the role of the chair of the DNC, who's job is mostly raising money to fund the party activities? NNick posted:It is a proxy war because the grievances are real and the fear of history repeating itself is real. Most of the "grievances" are fictive though. Like "super delegates were created for Hillary to win!" (said like a page ago) is like, completely false. "it's a ratfuck if Perez wins and Schumer doesn't step down!" (Schumer supports Ellison!) So it's hard to like process this kind of poo poo as valid. On specific criticism of the primary, though, both Perez and Ellison have said we should open up reforming the primary process. Based on Perez' record in the past, there's no real reason to believe he isn't sincere.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:He was the Labor Secretary for the President who approved it? But are you also just saying that support for a trade agreement is unilaterally bad? Or do you have specific criticisms about TPP that are actually real and valid. And how does support for a trade agreement effect the role of the chair of the DNC, who's job is mostly raising money to fund the party activities? I'm saying the TPP was bad and there's plenty of critical reading you can do about it, and that he went along with it because Obama was doing it is a bad sign considering where Obama took the party under his leadership.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
How are the polls looking for the DNC election, now two weeks away?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:01 |
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:He's wrong? We're suggesting that trying to turn this into a proxy primary is a bad idea and that a lot of people are just transferring their grievances of the primary onto this contest -- which is, I would think, pretty obvious at this point. If it seems like this is the primary rehashed, it's because the main problem with the Democratic Party that was raised during that contest - that they've been completely captured by the donor class, more specifically the finance industry - hasn't been resolved. In fact the banker pigs are holding on tighter than ever. I just checked my post history and you're the guy who told me that the article I posted about Tom Perez sucking banker dick "doesn't say what I think it does." Instead of allowing you to gaslight me, I'm just going to post the original context for it: https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/829862641828925440 You're literally telling me that the reporter who wrote the article doesn't understand how to interpret his own reporting. Take a hike, kid. Here's my incredibly controversial hot take on Tom Perez: he's a nice guy who will do exactly as much as the financial wing of the party allows him to do. Which is not at all controversial in the slightest and is an observation made by many others.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:22
|
|