|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Perez is the canary in the coal mine. For years the party has told progressives and the left to sit down and shut up about their major proposals because it was too risky and could lead to 1,000 years of republican darkness. We are now in year zero of that thanks to the risk averse strategy so the national party needs to send a signal that they're willing to finally listen to us and that signal, for better or worse, is Ellison It's really not and once again this is just an arbitrary thing you've decided.
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 22:26 |
|
|
http://www.electproject.org/national-1789-present When you look at the data, since women's suffrage presidential election turnout rate has hovered between 50-60%, and midterm election turnout rate has hovered between 30-45%. It doesn't really seem credible that people stopped voting because of the DLC, because that doesn't appear anywhere in the data. So it also doesn't seem likely that public repudiations will heighten turnout significantly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:It's really not and once again this is just an arbitrary thing you've decided. well it's apparently not just me based on this thread and those articles about people outside the DNC making it a proxy fight
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:well it's apparently not just me based on this thread and those articles about people outside the DNC making it a proxy fight It's so painfully obvious though. Like it's another great example of the left picking really loving dumb fights that half the people getting riled up about don't even have a basic conception of what they're supposed to be mad about really means. There are so many other things for people to get mad about and direct their energy towards. A mostly inside baseball process fight over a largely symbolic post, where both candidates have pledged to essentially do the same thing is really, really silly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:It's so painfully obvious though. Like it's another great example of the left picking really loving dumb fights that half the people getting riled up about don't even have a basic conception of what they're supposed to be mad about really means. There are so many other things for people to get mad about and direct their energy towards. A mostly inside baseball process fight over a largely symbolic post, where both candidates have pledged to essentially do the same thing is really, really silly. welp maybe the party should have thrown us a goddamn bone earlier if they didn't want this to happen
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:welp maybe the party should have thrown us a goddamn bone earlier if they didn't want this to happen They, did? And plenty of "establishment" people are behind Ellison. You're just tilting at windmills with this poo poo. Like at the point you can't even argue that Ellison is a substantively better pick and your argument just comesdown to "but but we deserve a pound of flesh, and cookies and cake too" it's pretty unpersuasive. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Feb 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:http://www.electproject.org/national-1789-present I really would not characterize the 20th century as some sort of bastion in political authenticity and relatableness to the people. People have been saying for decades "It doesn't matter how I vote: all politicians are liars and they don't care about us." I'm suggesting that the Democrats can benefit by addressing that directly. People were extremely positive about Sanders, and he was drawing respect and support even from the opposing side. There's a reason for this! (And it's not entirely that the Republicans were trying to prop up a Hillary opponent.) I don't want to, and won't, re-litigate the primary/election but the Democrats can learn from this and can take advantage of the current mass outcry and enthusiasm that people are exhibiting. If we want to fix this horrible mess we're in, we need to do things differently. BI NOW GAY LATER posted:It's so painfully obvious though. Like it's another great example of the left picking really loving dumb fights that half the people getting riled up about don't even have a basic conception of what they're supposed to be mad about really means. There are so many other things for people to get mad about and direct their energy towards. A mostly inside baseball process fight over a largely symbolic post, where both candidates have pledged to essentially do the same thing is really, really silly. Well too bad and too late, the base is paying close attention to inside baseball now. We all thought we could ignore stuff like this and it'd just workout nicely for us. November 8th disabused millions of people of that idea. This is what people care about now; deal with it instead of scolding them for thinking that way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:They, did? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSMGrKSUgj4 e: christ is there a non-lovely clip of this anywhere
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:Well too bad and too late, the base is paying close attention to inside baseball now. We all thought we could ignore stuff like this and it'd just workout nicely for us. November 8th disabused millions of people of that idea. This is what people care about now; deal with it instead of scolding them for thinking that way. For like the 50th time, I support Ellison as chair. I am just beyond exasperated with idiots who think Perez, who is a life-long public servant, and from the Obama wing of the party, is somehow a surrender to Evil Clintonite Forces and some sort of surrender on 2020. Like I am perfectly fine with talking about the actual merits of why Ellison is a better pick for the future of the party; I am just real over the tiny-baby tantrum bullshit of "if we don't get everythink we want, and sprinkles too, we're going to submit ourselves to losing out of spite."
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:I really would not characterize the 20th century as some sort of bastion in political authenticity and relatableness to the people. People have been saying for decades "It doesn't matter how I vote: all politicians are liars and they don't care about us." I'm suggesting that the Democrats can benefit by addressing that directly. People were extremely positive about Sanders, and he was drawing respect and support even from the opposing side. There's a reason for this! (And it's not entirely that the Republicans were trying to prop up a Hillary opponent.) I don't want to, and won't, re-litigate the primary/election but the Democrats can learn from this and can take advantage of the current mass outcry and enthusiasm that people are exhibiting. So all you've got are platitudes and insisting that while, on the one hand, boosting turnout will require radically different changes to how the United States is, on the other, doing so is easy and can be done without actually holding political power. Uh huh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:For like the 50th time, I support Ellison as chair. lol yes ellison is everything with sprinkles and a cherry on top instead of the first and most visible signal that the base of the party is being listened to. actually comparing endorsements picking perez is p much telling the party's base to go gently caress themselves
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSMGrKSUgj4 She's talking about medicare for all, which won't ever come to pass but okay? I'd say you're being a wilful idiot here, but I have plenty of cases of knowing you're just an actual idiot when it comes to stuff. The woman risked her husbands presidency to try and get UHC and gave us CHIPS, and has repeatedly said she wants some kind of UHC -- even if that means it's not single-payer. Like she wanted to make universal childcare, a thing. Bernie's people got to have unparalleled input into the platform process and got a huge amount of what they wanted into it. Raskolnikov38 posted:lol yes ellison is everything with sprinkles and a cherry on top instead of the first and most visible signal that the base of the party is being listened to. It is because you're focusing on the person and not the actual substance of what both of them are promising, as per usual.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:For like the 50th time, I support Ellison as chair. I wasn't trying to attack you with that comment, sorry. I was saying that this is the reality of the situation. The enthusiastic Democratic base really, really wants Ellison. That's how it is. No Ellison will be interpreted by them as a betrayal by the establishment. I do not think it's helpful for the DNC to go "Well, no, you're wrong and we won't listen to you, but don't worry, it'll actually be just fine". Especially because the last time they pulled that, we ended up getting a piss baby as President. Brainiac Five posted:So all you've got are platitudes and insisting that while, on the one hand, boosting turnout will require radically different changes to how the United States is, on the other, doing so is easy and can be done without actually holding political power. Uh huh. I'm not talking about the structure of the United States, I'm talking about DNC strategy. They don't need to hold power to change their political and electoral strategy. Kaine/DWS's approach gave us 6 years of Republican control of Congress and obstruction of Obama, then Trump and a Republican Senate. It doesn't work! Do something different!
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:I wasn't trying to attack you with that comment, sorry. I was saying that this is the reality of the situation. The enthusiastic Democratic base really, really wants Ellison. That's how it is. No Ellison will be interpreted by them as a betrayal by the establishment. I do not think it's helpful for the DNC to go "Well, no, you're wrong and we won't listen to you, but don't worry, it'll actually be just fine". It's really not what's going on though. Both of them have said we need to make changes and both of them largely agree on the changes we need to make. Like it's not like Perez is saying we don't need to make changes and everything is just fine and diddly dandy here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:I'm not talking about the structure of the United States, I'm talking about DNC strategy. They don't need to hold power to change their political and electoral strategy. Kaine/DWS's approach gave us 6 years of Republican control of Congress and obstruction of Obama, then Trump and a Republican Senate. It doesn't work! Do something different! A strategy predicated on getting the people who don't vote to vote is not likely to work in the short term without a revival of straight-up machine politics and patronage. Which, even if it was practical to do such a thing in unsafe states, is still pretty dubious. In the mid term, sure, reorient our civics educational standards and make election day a federal holiday and all that jazz. Those are good things to do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Outside of the slap fight, if you haven't had a chance both Perez and Buttigeig talked with Brian Beutler on Primary Concerns: http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/primary-concerns/e/49148653?autoplay=true Ellison declined to appear, but I think there's a lot to get out of it. I really do hope Buttigeig runs for office in Indiana.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:It's really not what's going on though. Both of them have said we need to make changes and both of them largely agree on the changes we need to make. Like it's not like Perez is saying we don't need to make changes and everything is just fine and diddly dandy here. I know, man. I've already said I think Perez will be fine. The optics of the situation matter really a lot, though. It might be dumb but that's how it is, because the base has decided that they care about this choice. Hillary had incredibly bad optics, also for very dumb reasons, and it was a big factor in the loss. Brainiac Five posted:A strategy predicated on getting the people who don't vote to vote is not likely to work in the short term without a revival of straight-up machine politics and patronage. Which, even if it was practical to do such a thing in unsafe states, is still pretty dubious. I agree about the structural changes, that will really help in the medium term. In the short term, don't you think embracing authenticity and trying to directly connect to citizens will get more people to turn out to vote? It worked for Obama. Not every politician is Obama, no, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Outside of the slap fight, if you haven't had a chance both Perez and Buttigeig talked with Brian Beutler on Primary Concerns: http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/primary-concerns/e/49148653?autoplay=true Is there a transcript available?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:Is there a transcript available? Unfortunately I don't think so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Everybody should be able to vote absentee, why waste time at a voting booth?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:lol yes ellison is everything with sprinkles and a cherry on top instead of the first and most visible signal that the base of the party is being listened to. Why are Bernie voters "the base" as opposed to Clinton voters, given that, you know, there were more of them?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:It's so painfully obvious though. Like it's another great example of the left picking really loving dumb fights that half the people getting riled up about don't even have a basic conception of what they're supposed to be mad about really means. There are so many other things for people to get mad about and direct their energy towards. A mostly inside baseball process fight over a largely symbolic post, where both candidates have pledged to essentially do the same thing is really, really silly. Like I understand where you're coming from but it seems you don't realize you're just buttressing Raskolnikov38's point for him: if this is not such a big deal then the resistance to Ellison from the Dem establishment is even more worrying, because it signals they are going to continue to marginalize and stymie the left on everything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:It is because you're focusing on the person and not the actual substance of what both of them are promising, as per usual. well i and the party's base of activists and unions want the person so the DNC should give us the person instead of going "they're both okay." regardless if their policies are the same the base has clearly decided which messenger it prefers WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Why are Bernie voters "the base" as opposed to Clinton voters, given that, you know, there were more of them? i'm talking about unions and activists groups which have overwhelmingly picked ellison
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:It's possible and even likely that there are people who will be dissatisfied no matter what. But after the drubbing of that election, a symbolic gesture to the Bernie wing seems at least appropriate. They got the platform, and they didn't care. How many gestures do they need?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:well i and the party's base of activists and unions want the person so the DNC should give us the person instead of going "they're both okay." regardless if their policies are the same the base has clearly decided which messenger it prefers How are unions "the base" if they can't deliver votes?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Why are Bernie voters "the base" as opposed to Clinton voters, given that, you know, there were more of them? Because there are millions upon millions of would-be democrats just waiting for the party to be pure enough before they actually turn out to vote.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:If it's such a silly and pointless fight then why put forward Perez at all? Why not let the leftists have this one? The point is that the resistance isn't the establishment. The establishment (as a reminder everyone involved in this vote is a member of it) is split between them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Speaking of optics, choosing a black Muslim to head the resistance against Trump is probably a good idea.JeffersonClay posted:They got the platform, and they didn't care. How many gestures do they need? Three million more people voted for Hillary than Trump. We cared, and we still care, and the Democrats should think about taking care of the people who strongly and enthusiastically care instead of going "Well, we gave you this one thing, that's enough now isn't it?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:They got the platform, and they didn't care. How many gestures do they need? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/25/the-democratic-convention-is-chaotic-the-democratic-base-isnt/ http://www.gallup.com/poll/109957/obama-gains-among-former-clinton-supporters.aspx I'm sure your first move will be to poo poo on my sources but honestly this story you're telling yourself that the Bernie wing abandoned the party and handed the Presidency to Trump is, at best, looking pretty dubious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:Speaking of optics, choosing a black Muslim to head the resistance against Trump is probably a good idea. Tom Perez is a person of color to, duder.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
Really it does seem to me that it's the "moderates" who are more likely to jump ship and vote 3rd party, or Republican, or not at all, than the leftists. And for what it's worth that makes more sense intuitively as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Really it does seem to me that it's the "moderates" who are more likely to jump ship and vote 3rd party, or Republican, or not at all, than the leftists. And for what it's worth that makes more sense intuitively as well. really i'm just hoping ellison wins and jc's head explodes from rage
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
I didn't say Bernie people abandoned Clinton, we don't know if that's true or not. I said Bernie people already got a (huge, non-symbolic) concession in the form of the platform, so why do they need another (small, symbolic) concession now?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Really it does seem to me that it's the "moderates" who are more likely to jump ship and vote 3rd party, or Republican, or not at all, than the leftists. And for what it's worth that makes more sense intuitively as well. And you're too dense to realize this spells disaster for the party if it takes a hard left. If you're claiming that the democrats will necessarily gain votes by moving left, it must be the case that fewer moderates will abandon the party than leftists will start supporting the party. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Feb 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:If it's such a silly and pointless fight then why put forward Perez at all? Why not let the leftists have this one? Stymie the left how? This isn't exactly a position that hammers out policy. I am also questioning why people are referring to the left as "the base". I really don't see it considering how wishy washy that base seems to be when it comes to voting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:really i'm just hoping ellison wins and jc's head explodes from rage
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I didn't say Bernie people abandoned Clinton, we don't know if that's true or not. I said Bernie people already got a (huge, non-symbolic) concession in the form of the platform, so why do they need another (small, symbolic) concession now? Because it's not a "concession", it's what the members of the party want. The platform doesn't matter anymore. It doesn't exist. Trump won, we aren't going to see a single one of these planks take effect until 2020. JeffersonClay posted:And you're too dense to realize this spells disaster for the party if it takes a hard left. If the party shifts towards policies that actually and actively help people economically and socially, policies that ensure and secure civil rights and liberties for these people, and this is what causes people to vote for the Republicans (who, I remind you, are currently subservient to Nazis), then these people weren't people we want in the party. JeffersonClay, yes, it's likely we'll lose some people that were on the rightward fringe of the party's base. What people are saying is that we'll gain much more people than we'll lose.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
I think Perez makes a good point about why he'd be a good pick (again I still support Ellison) and why I hope he's part of our future even if Ellison does win -- he has a lot of experience in fixing broken agencies and I think that skill set will be very valuable in rebuilding the DNC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:And you're too dense to realize this spells disaster for the party if it takes a hard left. It's my view that the Democratic party essentially doesn't have a base right now. The fractured coalition of disempowered leftists and moderates embarrassed by the GOP, is not enough to reliably win elections with anything less than the most charismatic politicians. That's not something to build a winning coalition around. What we need is a strategy where even the Democratic equivalent of Mitch McConnell can reliably win elections.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 22:26 |
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:Because it's not a "concession", it's what the members of the party want. This is what purity looks like. The Democrats at the moment are a pretty big tent of people from different demographics, which is why I believe it is much easier for Republicans to vote lockstep with each other. Policies that help people aren't really universally liked, even among the party's voters. Remember the affordable care act? Most people like it currently, but that was hardly the case when it was being passed. I am not particularly sold on the Bernie wing of the party, because I still don't really trust them when it comes to racial issues. But in terms of the party chair position, I don't really care who wins. But the question is, when do the concessions stop? Will there be another thing to get pissed about next time? Is everything in the party's future going to be a proxy battle even though all signs point to that not really being the case? I guess we will find out in the future. Kilroy posted:If this were a zero-sum game you'd be right. It's not. African Americans have been a key part of the party's base since the 1960s and I don't think that will change anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 20:01
|
|