WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

MD Gov: Perez

DNC Chair: Buttigieg

2020 Nominee: Ellison

tbqh

Convergence posted:

Maryland's republican governor is actually pretty great and has a >70% approval rating, and is no threat because of the eternally blue legislature. He's one of the very, very few examples of actual functional fiscal conservatives (and not insane corrupt ideologues). He also loathes Trump.

So basically, save Perez for a different state

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

virtually everyone who serves in a part-time legislature has another job. for years my delegate in WV worked for the rail roads.

Convergence posted:

Maryland's republican governor is actually pretty great and has a >70% approval rating, and is no threat because of the eternally blue legislature. He's one of the very, very few examples of actual functional fiscal conservatives (and not insane corrupt ideologues). He also loathes Trump.

So basically, save Perez for a different state

Convergence posted:

Maryland's republican governor is actually pretty great and has a >70% approval rating, and is no threat because of the eternally blue legislature. He's one of the very, very few examples of actual functional fiscal conservatives (and not insane corrupt ideologues). He also loathes Trump.

So basically, save Perez for a different state

Convergence posted:

Maryland's republican governor is actually pretty great

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

the republicans are exactly one state away from being able to call a constitutional convention and he must be deposed at all costs.

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

I don't really care if the governor of Maryland is the second coming of black baby jesus, the republicans are exactly one state away from being able to call a constitutional convention and he must be deposed at all costs.

Cease to Hope posted:

He's also 60 and a cancer survivor. He's going to retire at some point.


Legislatures do this. (And it's close but not quite this close; several states are nominally Republican-majority but have bicameral legislatures with Dems in control of one house.) In any event, governors don't get a (direct) say in the matter.

Convergence posted:

Maryland's republican governor is actually pretty great and has a >70% approval rating, and is no threat because of the eternally blue legislature. He's one of the very, very few examples of actual functional fiscal conservatives (and not insane corrupt ideologues). He also loathes Trump.

So basically, save Perez for a different state

mcmagic posted:

Don't play into the farming of "oh look it's a Republican who isn't a frothing at the mouth racist and is well media trained with the politics of Bob Dole, he must be great!"

Fiction posted:

Yeah, and I'm sure there'll be a lot of "just doing his job" to help the donors if he's made chair.

Main Paineframe posted:

Well, yes, that is literally the job of the DNC chair. Perez and Ellison both know what the role entails and have signaled their full willingness to carry it out. Ellison has already demonstrated (with actions, not words) that he intends to back establishment candidates against progressive challengers, throw the public under the bus in order to please donors, and give his full and unconditional support to Pelosi and Schumer. It's just that it no longer matters what he says or does, because the narrative's already been built and no one's going to let pesky things like facts get in the way of daydreams about Keith destroying the Democratic establishment forever and singlehandedly laying the groundwork for full socialism at last.

Funny how that narrative just so happens to exclude Buttigieg, Brown, and every other candidate except for the two candidates who were very obviously being fully backed by establishment factions before they even declared their candidacy. I don't understand how the supposedly anti-establishment wing don't understand that they've been downright suckered into choosing between two establishment candidates by a false narrative that essentially silences every other candidate, freezing out potential dark horses and out-of-nowhere challengers. If nothing else, the establishment has demonstrated that it's still utterly excellent at clearing the field.

Main Paineframe posted:

Well, yes, that is literally the job of the DNC chair. Perez and Ellison both know what the role entails and have signaled their full willingness to carry it out. Ellison has already demonstrated (with actions, not words) that he intends to back establishment candidates against progressive challengers, throw the public under the bus in order to please donors, and give his full and unconditional support to Pelosi and Schumer. It's just that it no longer matters what he says or does, because the narrative's already been built and no one's going to let pesky things like facts get in the way of daydreams about Keith destroying the Democratic establishment forever and singlehandedly laying the groundwork for full socialism at last.

Funny how that narrative just so happens to exclude Buttigieg, Brown, and every other candidate except for the two candidates who were very obviously being fully backed by establishment factions before they even declared their candidacy. I don't understand how the supposedly anti-establishment wing don't understand that they've been downright suckered into choosing between two establishment candidates by a false narrative that essentially silences every other candidate, freezing out potential dark horses and out-of-nowhere challengers. If nothing else, the establishment has demonstrated that it's still utterly excellent at clearing the field.

mcmagic posted:

The entire congressional party has lined up behind Pelosi and Schumer. I'm not sure how you get past that.

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

It's a race being decided on by party loving insiders dude.

mcmagic posted:

The entire congressional party has lined up behind Pelosi and Schumer. I'm not sure how you get past that.

Main Paineframe posted:

Yeah, but because the insiders put forward two candidates rather than one, the other candidates don't even get press. If there was just one horse being backed by the establishment, the news would make a big deal about the outsiders in hopes of striking a more interesting narrative than "single candidate with no credible opposition sails to totally predictable victory", and outsider candidates would also likely attract the attention of the anti-establishment voters. Because there's two candidates, though, both the media and the anti-establishment voters instead focus on the one-on-one horse race and utterly sidelines the actual outsiders. And since both establishment candidates are acceptable to and loyal to the establishment and have essentially identical policies, it hardly matters to them who wins. People keep asking "but what about the perception and the symbolism" without realizing that the party insiders put Ellison in the race for the explicit purpose of creating that perception and symbolism.


Start replacing Congressmen until they get the idea. If no acceptable candidate can win the race, then you're running the wrong race.

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

You're way over thinking this.

Lightning Knight posted:

I think he has a fair point, it just also doesn't really matter and there's nothing we could do about it either way.

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

Even if Perez hadn't ran, no one would give a poo poo about the others.

Chelb posted:

If Ellison is smart, he knows he probably has a future in the Democratic Party that lies outside of the Democratic National Chair.

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

Fulchrum posted:

If Buttigieg was serious and not just trying to raise his profile nationally by running to the left of Ellisson and Perez, he would have thrown in when Dean did and failed to get any endorsements. He wouldn't have waited til mid January to announce.

He is doing this because he wants national attention, not because he wants the job. He's trying to kick off a 2018 house or senate run, or a 2020 presidential run.

Ytlaya posted:

There seems to be some sort of general opinion that Buttigieg is to the left of Ellison/Perez. Why is this? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with it, but I can't find anything specific that seems to point towards that conclusion.

Cease to Hope posted:

Definitely Congress or a governorship, not president. He's only ever held office as the mayor of a small city.

Ytlaya posted:

There seems to be some sort of general opinion that Buttigieg is to the left of Ellison/Perez. Why is this? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with it, but I can't find anything specific that seems to point towards that conclusion.

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

Ytlaya posted:

There seems to be some sort of general opinion that Buttigieg is to the left of Ellison/Perez. Why is this? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with it, but I can't find anything specific that seems to point towards that conclusion.

quote:

None of this is theoretical for me. I didn’t see Afghanistan on the news, I saw it through the armored windshields of the vehicles I drove or guarded on dozens of missions outside the wire, and as a Reservist I could be sent back to war if a reckless president leads us into peril. I don’t think about gun violence as an abstraction, not when I’ve had to attend funerals and console the mothers of victims in my city — and swear in police officers alongside family members who pray they will come home safe every day. Marriage equality isn’t a political rallying cry for me, it is a legal fact without which my future family cannot even exist. Obamacare isn’t a political football for me, it’s a matter of household finance: it’s how my partner pays for his health care and how his mother pays for the chemotherapy on which her life depends. Climate change isn’t about polar bears for me. It’s about the South Bend families whose homes I stood in last summer, their basements flooded with muck and excrement while children wandered around the porch the night before school started, because our city had just experienced one of those unprecedented rainfalls that science kept warning us about.

Commentators have focused on candidates and their antics as though that mattered most. But politics, for our city and for most Americans, isn’t about The Show. Its consequences don’t happen in the Beltway or on Twitter or on television. Politics happens in, and to, our homes, in the lives of the people we care about, like the people in my household, my family, and my community. That’s why this all matters so much. The process matters because of what it means to us voters as human beings, not the other way around.

At home, I ran and won, twice, by telling my blue-collar community that Studebaker was never going to come back and make cars in our city, and that it was all right, because there is a way forward. Now Democrats need to absorb the fact that winning the popular vote is not enough, see that the future trends of the electoral map alone will not save us, and know that it’s all right, because there is a way forward.

Our values are American values, and a values-led strategy (backed by a formidable organization) will prevail if we are true to it, and if we keep it close to the earth. I am not a candidate for a position in the national party, but I am watching closely to see if any of the declared candidates will articulate this message: it is time to organize our politics around the lived experience of real people, whose lives play out not in the political sphere but in the everyday, affected deeply and immediately by how well we honor our values with good policy.

With over 40 per cent of voters in my generation describing themselves as independent, our future as a party will depend on reminding people how their lives have been improved by good Democratic policies, and when a voter thinks that isn’t true in her life, we had better listen closely and try to understand why.

When it comes to my part of the country, we will recover our ability to reach people only when we take them seriously, connecting our plans to their actual, personal lived experience rather than focusing on The Show. We need to invite individual people to assess how their individual lives changed — how their safety, their income, their access to health care, their gun rights, their marriages — have actually been affected, if at all, by what goes on in Washington.

Taking people seriously also means treating the constituency groups that traditionally support Democrats as more than a disconnected patchwork of interests to cater to, served by a great political salad bar of something different for everyone. The various identity groups who have been part of our coalition should be there because we have spoken to their values and their everyday lives — not because we contacted them, one group at a time and just in time for the next election, to remind them of some pet issue that illustrates why we expect them to support us. Laundry lists will not inspire.

Democrats need a true turnaround, just like my city did when I ran for mayor. In the last five years, my “rust belt” city went from being described by Newsweekas one of America’s ten dying communities to seeing its fastest pace of population and investment growth in recent memory. That’s how I got re-elected with 80 percent of the vote last year, in the seat of a county that would split its vote evenly between Clinton and Trump a year later. We earned support from residents on both sides of the aisle, not by becoming ideologically conservative but by listening to people about what matters to them, facing our problems, and delivering results on the ground to earn confidence and trust. In the same way, I am convinced that, for our politics and for our nation, salvation begins with the local.

mcmagic posted:

Actually not. He has 2 young'ish popular senators in his state that are going to be there a while.

quote:

When it comes to my part of the country, we will recover our ability to reach people only when we take them seriously, connecting our plans to their actual, personal lived experience rather than focusing on The Show. We need to invite individual people to assess how their individual lives changed — how their safety, their income, their access to health care, their gun rights, their marriages — have actually been affected, if at all, by what goes on in Washington.

Sapozhnik posted:

i think you missed the part where he's one of The Gays and he's married to another one of The Gays

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

Mmm:


he can gently caress right on off