The Democratic National Chairperson election 2017

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Democratic National Chairperson election 2017

Raskolnikov38: Mar 3, 2007; We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

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.

well perez can drop out and go run for governor of maryland which would make all sides very happy i feel

# ? Feb 19, 2017 20:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 11, 2024 14:06

Fados: Jan 7, 2013; I like Malcolm X, I can't be racist!

Put this racist dipshit on ignore immediately!

blackguy32 posted:

But the question is, when do the concessions stop? Will there be another thing to get pissed about next time?

The left-wing has been conceding the liberal pro 'free' market wing for the last 30 years. Maybe it's time THEY start conceding that their poo poo isn't working anymore

# ? Feb 19, 2017 20:07

BI NOW GAY LATER: Jan 17, 2008; So people stop asking, the "Bi" in my username is a reference to my love for the two greatest collegiate sports programs in the world, the Virginia Tech Hokies and the Marshall Thundering Herd.

Raskolnikov38 posted:

well perez can drop out and go run for governor of maryland which would make all sides very happy i feel

So do you think Perez is being disingenuous when he says we need to spend less money on dumb ads and more money on organizing with more 12-month staffers in more states and supporting state parties to be able to win races in areas the party has more or less written off, that we need to have a full-time, well-staffed unit in the DNC that does nothing but fight voter suppression?

# ? Feb 19, 2017 20:08

Raskolnikov38: Mar 3, 2007; We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

So do you think Perez is being disingenuous when he says we need to spend less money on dumb ads and more money on organizing with more 12-month staffers in more states and supporting state parties to be able to win races in areas the party has more or less written off, that we need to have a full-time, well-staffed unit in the DNC that does nothing but fight voter suppression?

no? again the base of the party wants ellison and i, and i assume the others who think similar to me, would be very happy to see perez run for governor of maryland

# ? Feb 19, 2017 20:09

BI NOW GAY LATER: Jan 17, 2008; So people stop asking, the "Bi" in my username is a reference to my love for the two greatest collegiate sports programs in the world, the Virginia Tech Hokies and the Marshall Thundering Herd.

Raskolnikov38 posted:

no? again the base of the party wants ellison and i, and i assume the others who think similar to me, would be very happy to see perez run for governor of maryland

So you just want Ellison because you want him, not because of any other reason.

# ? Feb 19, 2017 20:10

Raskolnikov38: Mar 3, 2007; We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

So you just want Ellison because you want him, not because of any other reason.

how has this not been established

# ? Feb 19, 2017 20:14

BI NOW GAY LATER: Jan 17, 2008; So people stop asking, the "Bi" in my username is a reference to my love for the two greatest collegiate sports programs in the world, the Virginia Tech Hokies and the Marshall Thundering Herd.

Raskolnikov38 posted:

how has this not been established

"I am a big white entitled baby" for 500, Alex. Hot drat it's a daily double.

# ? Feb 19, 2017 20:16

Sapozhnik: Jan 2, 2005; Nap Ghost

JeffersonClay posted:

And you're too dense to realize this spells disaster for the party if it takes a hard left.

Going cautiously right has been failing for the better part of the last decade. Obama tried to actually negotiate with the Republicans in good faith like a goddamn idiot, then two years later Congress went hard to the Republicans and lost his golden window to ram some progressive policy through. poo poo has been going downhill ever since. Same big business-friendly anti-worker poo poo as usual, same interventionist warmongering as usual.

How long do we have to keep trying the same strategy and seeing it go nowhere before you conclude that it isn't working? Nobody wants Diet Republicans for gently caress's sake.

# ? Feb 19, 2017 20:16

Raskolnikov38: Mar 3, 2007; We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

"I am a big white entitled baby" for 500, Alex. Hot drat it's a daily double.

god forbid the party i gave my goddamn money to give me something i want in return

# ? Feb 19, 2017 20:17

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

SKULL.GIF posted:

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.

Members of the party want different things, and giving the Bernie wing control over the platform was obviously a concession from Clinton's wing. The platform still matters, because (as we've discussed in the last few pages) there would be significant costs for Democrats to water down the platform next time, by say going from a 15 to a 12 dollar minimum wage.

quote:

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.

We aren't in any position to be talking about democratic votes we don't need. That's insanity at this point.

quote:

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.

If you're saying moving left will gain more votes than it'll lose, it must be the case that moderates are less likely to abandon the party than leftists. That's just math, dude.

Kilroy posted:

If this were a zero-sum game you'd be right. It's not.

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.

No, the point I made does not require voting to be zero sum. You claim that more centrists would abandon the party if we move left than leftists abandoned the party by running the centrist hillary clinton. So obviously if we go left, we'll gain fewer leftists than we'll lose moderates. It's just math. You haven't worked through the implications of your claims.

# ? Feb 19, 2017 20:18

BI NOW GAY LATER: Jan 17, 2008; So people stop asking, the "Bi" in my username is a reference to my love for the two greatest collegiate sports programs in the world, the Virginia Tech Hokies and the Marshall Thundering Herd.

Raskolnikov38 posted:

god forbid the party i gave my goddamn money to give me something i want in return

Like I said, you're focused on the wrong poo poo.

# ? Feb 19, 2017 20:19

SKULL.GIF: Jan 20, 2017

blackguy32 posted:

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.

I think this would have been a real problem if Hillary had won and the dissension from the primary continued into this weird split between economic and social issues, whether one or the other should get the primary focus, in the party.

I think Trump's presidency, however, shocked almost all the Bernie supporters into realizing that they need to stand in solidarity with the rest of the people on the left on all the leftist issues and to stand with all minorities against this poo poo. Maybe I'm being optimistic, but all the diehard Bernouts I know have been active in fighting back against his racist EOs and the other insane poo poo he's been doing. The grumbling about "identity politics" between the election and the inauguration has vanished and is now, from what I've seen, almost exclusively a right-wing activity.

# ? Feb 19, 2017 20:19

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

Sapozhnik posted:

Going cautiously right has been failing for the better part of the last decade. Obama tried to actually negotiate with the Republicans in good faith like a goddamn idiot, then two years later Congress went hard to the Republicans and lost his golden window to ram some progressive policy through. poo poo has been going downhill ever since. Same big business-friendly anti-worker poo poo as usual, same interventionist warmongering as usual.

How long do we have to keep trying the same strategy and seeing it go nowhere before you conclude that it isn't working? Nobody wants Diet Republicans for gently caress's sake.

We haven't been going cautiously right, we've been going cautiously left. Obama rammed through the ACA in the short window where he had 60 votes in the senate (and getting 60 required a ton of compromise). Appealing to the middle worked great for Obama and Bill. I'm not sure you have a coherent understanding of what's actually been going on, here.

# ? Feb 19, 2017 20:23

Raskolnikov38: Mar 3, 2007; We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

Like I said, you're focused on the wrong poo poo.

i dont really trust a party incapable of giving its base so simple of a concession, to the point that's not even a goddamn concession, of accomplishing anything of note

# ? Feb 19, 2017 20:23

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

You already got a concession in the platform, which apparently you've completely forgotten about, which does not imply giving you further concessions will stop your incessant whining, so what's the point?

# ? Feb 19, 2017 20:25

Raskolnikov38: Mar 3, 2007; We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

as you and others have so amply pointed out, it does not matter which person is the chair, they are both the same. the election is a health check of the party as a whole. if the power players in the party cannot do this one simple thing why should they be trusted on anything else

# ? Feb 19, 2017 20:25

SKULL.GIF: Jan 20, 2017

JeffersonClay posted:

Members of the party want different things, and giving the Bernie wing control over the platform was obviously a concession from Clinton's wing. The platform still matters, because (as we've discussed in the last few pages) there would be significant costs for Democrats to water down the platform next time, by say going from a 15 to a 12 dollar minimum wage.

That's a great point I hadn't considered, thanks for bringing it up. The platform still matters!

JeffersonClay posted:

If you're saying moving left will gain more votes than it'll lose, it must be the case that moderates are less likely to abandon the party than leftists. That's just math, dude.

No, the point I made does not require voting to be zero sum. You claim that more centrists would abandon the party if we move left than leftists abandoned the party by running the centrist hillary clinton. So obviously if we go left, we'll gain fewer leftists than we'll lose moderates. It's just math. You haven't worked through the implications of your claims.

These conclusions don't follow logically from what you quoted.

Hillary got much fewer votes than 2008 Obama did, and slightly less than 2012 Obama. There's a lot of room to pick these Obama voters back up.
There are a bunch of people who are disinterested in politics because they're convinced politicians don't care about them. Platforms and policies that directly address their needs and concerns are likely to pull them back into voting. These people aren't necessarily currently leftist, but if they can be shown that leftist policies will benefit them, then they will convert. (Witness the enthusiasm for the piss baby after he directly addressed and promised to deliver what his base wanted and thought they needed. This effect was most apparent in the Republican primary.)
There is also a big enthusiasm dropoff because people were so utterly convinced that Hillary would win that they weren't as motivated to go out to vote. I am absolutely sure that this cost her a ton of votes. You don't get people excited and enthusiastic by arguing over careful incrementalism. You don't get that by going for safe, sane political triangulation. You get them enthusiastic by going for the gusto, such as $15 minimum wage.

Gore, Kerry, and Clinton all lost incredibly narrowly. Obama won bigly. What's the difference here? When Campaign Obama gave way to President Obama, and the Democrats were perceived as shifting back to the moderate center, look at how many votes he lost, look at what happened in the 2010 midterms.

# ? Feb 19, 2017 20:28

BI NOW GAY LATER: Jan 17, 2008; So people stop asking, the "Bi" in my username is a reference to my love for the two greatest collegiate sports programs in the world, the Virginia Tech Hokies and the Marshall Thundering Herd.

Raskolnikov38 posted:

as you and others have so amply pointed out, it does not matter which person is the chair, they are both the same. the election is a health check of the party as a whole. if the power players in the party cannot do this one simple thing why should they be trusted on anything else

Raskolnikov38 posted:

i dont really trust a party incapable of giving its base so simple of a concession, to the point that's not even a goddamn concession, of accomplishing anything of note

there is no such thing as the democratic base. there's a core and it's most certainly not entitled white men living in deep blue states.

# ? Feb 19, 2017 20:34

Fulchrum: Apr 16, 2013; by R. Guyovich

Raskolnikov38 posted:

welp maybe the party should have thrown us a goddamn bone earlier if they didn't want this to happen

You mean like, say, conceding the entire goddamn platform last year?

Are you ever going to abandon this persecution complex? Or is it going to still be you inventing a boogeyman to explain a lack of popular support for your ideas and demanding sacrifices as payment for your schizophrenic illusions of being slighted? Cause you like the ideas, so obviously America wants these ideas so much and the mean old dems just want to stop you because they're mean, and hate apple pie, ice cream and puppies.

Raskolnikov38 posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSMGrKSUgj4

e: christ is there a non-lovely clip of this anywhere

You know, if you want to be treated like adults, maybe don't go into apoplectic fits of rage whenever someone treats you like an adult and thinks you can handle the truth.

# ? Feb 19, 2017 20:43

Raskolnikov38: Mar 3, 2007; We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

there is no such thing as the democratic base. there's a core and it's most certainly not entitled white men living in deep blue states.

well from the endorsements the core wants ellison

# ? Feb 19, 2017 20:44

BI NOW GAY LATER: Jan 17, 2008; So people stop asking, the "Bi" in my username is a reference to my love for the two greatest collegiate sports programs in the world, the Virginia Tech Hokies and the Marshall Thundering Herd.

Raskolnikov38 posted:

well from the endorsements the core wants ellison

the difference is those people aren't going to go cry in a corner about how they didn't get what they want. they're going to continue to work to make the party better. but again, you've already admitted this is just about your fee-fee's and not any general concern about the future of the party so i am not really capable of taking you remotely serious on this.

# ? Feb 19, 2017 20:47

Dr. Fishopolis: Aug 31, 2004; ROBOT

SKULL.GIF posted:

Gore, Kerry, and Clinton all lost incredibly narrowly. Obama won bigly. What's the difference here? When Campaign Obama gave way to President Obama, and the Democrats were perceived as shifting back to the moderate center, look at how many votes he lost, look at what happened in the 2010 midterms.

This is the part that baffles me most. It's like the party completely forgot what Obama actually ran on in 2008. Candidate Obama was a hard left, progressive motherfucker, and he won harder than any Democrat since FDR.

I feel like you have to ignore a whole lot of poo poo to say "we have to have broad appeal and not rock the boat" when every available piece of evidence that shows us how we can be successful in a national election says the exact opposite thing. All I want from the party is to give us Hope and Change candidates that actually stick with it when they get into office.

# ? Feb 19, 2017 20:49

Raskolnikov38: Mar 3, 2007; We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

well its up to them to decide on whatever their own personal breaking point is for the national party but my money is better spent on something i believe works. its only a few hundred dollars a year but at least i won't feel like i'm setting it on fire

# ? Feb 19, 2017 20:50

BI NOW GAY LATER: Jan 17, 2008; So people stop asking, the "Bi" in my username is a reference to my love for the two greatest collegiate sports programs in the world, the Virginia Tech Hokies and the Marshall Thundering Herd.

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

This is the part that baffles me most. It's like the party completely forgot what Obama actually ran on in 2008. Candidate Obama was a hard left, progressive motherfucker, and he won harder than any Democrat since FDR.

I feel like you have to ignore a whole lot of poo poo to say "we have to have broad appeal and not rock the boat" when every available piece of evidence that shows us how we can be successful in a national election says the exact opposite thing. All I want from the party is to give us Hope and Change candidates that actually stick with it when they get into office.

Obama ran as a center-center-left, and lol, LBJ won a loving landslide. Hell Bill won 379 electoral votes in 1996 and 370 in 1992. Please kindly stop saying this poo poo.

Raskolnikov38 posted:

well its up to them to decide on whatever their own personal breaking point is for the national party but my money is better spent on something i believe works. its only a few hundred dollars a year but at least i won't feel like i'm setting it on fire

even if perez did everything that ellison would do, you still believe this. jesus.

BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Feb 19, 2017

# ? Feb 19, 2017 20:51

Raskolnikov38: Mar 3, 2007; We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

i do not view the democratic party as healthy or functioning and i am completely unaware of another opportunity to see how the national organization functions between now and november 2018

but hey maybe perez wins and he turns it all around anyhow, if we're all still alive in 2018 i can donate then but 2017 is doneskis for me if he wins

# ? Feb 19, 2017 20:55

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

SKULL.GIF posted:

[*]There is also a big enthusiasm dropoff because people were so utterly convinced that Hillary would win that they weren't as motivated to go out to vote. I am absolutely sure that this cost her a ton of votes.

This undermines the rest of your argument. If the enthusiasm problem wasn't about policy, and instead was about flawed expectations, why would we think that changing policy is necessary to increase enthusiasm?

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

This is the part that baffles me most. It's like the party completely forgot what Obama actually ran on in 2008. Candidate Obama was a hard left, progressive motherfucker, and he won harder than any Democrat since FDR.

That's not what happened, at all. Obama 2008 was not hard left. Clinton 2016 was further left.

# ? Feb 19, 2017 20:56

Evil Fluffy: Jul 13, 2009; Scholars are some of the most pompous and pedantic people I've ever had the joy of meeting.

Confounding Factor posted:

Everybody should be able to vote absentee, why waste time at a voting booth?

Because it helps depress turnout, especially among Democrat-heavy groups. If higher turnout actually helped Republicans they wouldn't be trying to make voting as hard as possible.

JeffersonClay posted:

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.

Some people are actually dumb enough to believe this, yes.

Raskolnikov38 posted:

no? again the base of the party wants ellison and i, and i assume the others who think similar to me, would be very happy to see perez run for governor of maryland

The tantrum-throwing far left is not the Democratic base no matter how badly you wish it was.

That you're hung up on wanting a concession, while ignoring all the concessions in the 2016 platform, is even more of a reason why you aren't worth paying attention to with your goldfish-like memory. The DNC should not be some concession to whiny babies who immediately forget when they get something they want and are never happy unless constantly being catered to.

# ? Feb 19, 2017 20:57

Fulchrum: Apr 16, 2013; by R. Guyovich

Because [insert socialist purity group #254 here] is healthy and active and gonna make huge gains in 2018 guys, this is the time! They just doubled in size today, and if qe get two more members well have doubled again. If that rate keep a up we'll totally get a seat somewhere in 2018!

# ? Feb 19, 2017 20:58

thechosenone: Mar 21, 2009

Well dang, I guess Marx was right about liberals. Eh, It'll sort itself out.

# ? Feb 19, 2017 20:59

Dr. Fishopolis: Aug 31, 2004; ROBOT

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

Obama ran as a center-center-left, and lol, LBJ won a loving landslide. Please kindly stop saying this poo poo.

"Shut up" is not a counter argument. If you'd like to challenge my assertion, present some evidence or sit down.

# ? Feb 19, 2017 21:00

Dr. Fishopolis: Aug 31, 2004; ROBOT

JeffersonClay posted:

That's not what happened, at all. Obama 2008 was not hard left. Clinton 2016 was further left.

Her platform was, not her campaign, which is why she failed.

# ? Feb 19, 2017 21:00

Calibanibal: Aug 25, 2015

gently caress off crybaby leftists

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Feb 19, 2017 21:01

thechosenone: Mar 21, 2009

Calibanibal posted:

gently caress off crybaby leftists

Perhaps I will, If you can explain how Obama ran as center left to me.

# ? Feb 19, 2017 21:02

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

Obama ran on ending the partisan divide

# ? Feb 19, 2017 21:02

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Fulchrum posted:

You mean like, say, conceding the entire goddamn platform last year?

Are you ever going to abandon this persecution complex? Or is it going to still be you inventing a boogeyman to explain a lack of popular support for your ideas and demanding sacrifices as payment for your schizophrenic illusions of being slighted? Cause you like the ideas, so obviously America wants these ideas so much and the mean old dems just want to stop you because they're mean, and hate apple pie, ice cream and puppies.

You know, if you want to be treated like adults, maybe don't go into apoplectic fits of rage whenever someone treats you like an adult and thinks you can handle the truth.

You do realize that in an electoral democracy you don't win by scolding voters as if they're children, right?

# ? Feb 19, 2017 21:02

Dr. Fishopolis: Aug 31, 2004; ROBOT

Calibanibal posted:

gently caress off crybaby leftists

This is the slogan that will rocket the Democrats to victory.

# ? Feb 19, 2017 21:02

thechosenone: Mar 21, 2009

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

Obama ran on ending the partisan divide

Wasn't it hope and change?

# ? Feb 19, 2017 21:03

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

JeffersonClay posted:

They got the platform, and they didn't care. How many gestures do they need?

Platform doesn't mean poo poo it's who us pushing it and how authentic they are.

# ? Feb 19, 2017 21:03

BI NOW GAY LATER: Jan 17, 2008; So people stop asking, the "Bi" in my username is a reference to my love for the two greatest collegiate sports programs in the world, the Virginia Tech Hokies and the Marshall Thundering Herd.

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

"Shut up" is not a counter argument. If you'd like to challenge my assertion, present some evidence or sit down.

Well, you were materially wrong about "Obama winning harder than any Democrat since FDR," since three other times Democrats outperformed him. You're also materially wrong about him running as some far-left politician -- he didn't. He ran as a fairly center-left dude. Reminder that Candidate Obama didn't support marriage equality.

# ? Feb 19, 2017 21:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 11, 2024 14:06

blackguy32: Oct 1, 2005; Say, do you know how to do the walk?

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

This is the part that baffles me most. It's like the party completely forgot what Obama actually ran on in 2008. Candidate Obama was a hard left, progressive motherfucker, and he won harder than any Democrat since FDR.

I feel like you have to ignore a whole lot of poo poo to say "we have to have broad appeal and not rock the boat" when every available piece of evidence that shows us how we can be successful in a national election says the exact opposite thing. All I want from the party is to give us Hope and Change candidates that actually stick with it when they get into office.

Wait what? 2008 Obama was hardly a left wing progressive candidate. Maybe slightly left of center, but a moderate candidate nonetheless. It easily showed when he tried to work with the other side.

It helps that he fired up a bunch of people because he was a minority, and it helps that the economy tanked right in the final months of the Presidential election.

SKULL.GIF posted:

I think this would have been a real problem if Hillary had won and the dissension from the primary continued into this weird split between economic and social issues, whether one or the other should get the primary focus, in the party.

I think Trump's presidency, however, shocked almost all the Bernie supporters into realizing that they need to stand in solidarity with the rest of the people on the left on all the leftist issues and to stand with all minorities against this poo poo. Maybe I'm being optimistic, but all the diehard Bernouts I know have been active in fighting back against his racist EOs and the other insane poo poo he's been doing. The grumbling about "identity politics" between the election and the inauguration has vanished and is now, from what I've seen, almost exclusively a right-wing activity.

I am not convinced after the frontman of their movement basically stuck his foot in his mouth when talking about Identity politics shortly after the election. He focused on his economic message and said that it wasn't enough for a candidate to be a woman or black. But what does he know? Under his logic, we would have never had Barack Obama as President. Something that was immensely important to a lot of minorities. I honestly believe it is a tad optimistic, because race is a great way to fracture coalitions. It has happened before with the New Deal coalition, and the populist movement.

# ? Feb 19, 2017 21:04

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Democratic National Chairperson election 2017

«‹›156 »