|
Evil Fluffy posted:In a sane world this would be a strike against Ellison if it's true and not just Schumer being Schumer. Schumer's early endorsement of Ellison is what made him seem a shoe-in before Perez announced
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 15:09 |
|
|
MooselanderII posted:At a bare minimum, embracing leftist positions on a rhetorical level at least provides a coherent vision for the future that "not trump!" simply does not. "Not Trump" is basically your vision for the future, JeffersonClay, and it is downright pathetic, uninspired, and doomed to fail (again). Running against trump the anti-establishment candidate and against trump the historically unpopular president are very different propositions. If "embraceing leftism on a rhetorical level" means doing a better job selling the economic platform, I don't disagree, but at least for the next election anti-trump is going to be the right strategy. If trump is at or above 50% approval in a year, sure, gently caress it, go hard left because nothing matters. But it sure looks like his approval is going to look more like 35 than 50, and you're nuts if you think making elections about an unpopular incumbent doesn't work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
That's no good, there still needs to be something the democrats want to do. Relying on voters to turn out against Trump is a bad idea, the DNC already lost once like that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
Why not take advantage of the upsurge of anti-Trumpism to actually get some real leftists into power, though?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:Why not take advantage of the upsurge of anti-Trumpism to actually get some real leftists into power, though? People like them might start voting for the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:A thousand times Not particular strong but I think Ellison would be slightly better in Congress and Perez would probably be better behind the scenes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 04:12
|
|
jesus christ people are the worst. 
" types and then everyone else, but the primary chat is obscuring some of the lines of "reasoning".
|
JeffersonClay posted:Running against trump the anti-establishment candidate and against trump the historically unpopular president are very different propositions. If "embraceing leftism on a rhetorical level" means doing a better job selling the economic platform, I don't disagree, but at least for the next election anti-trump is going to be the right strategy. If trump is at or above 50% approval in a year, sure, gently caress it, go hard left because nothing matters. But it sure looks like his approval is going to look more like 35 than 50, and you're nuts if you think making elections about an unpopular incumbent doesn't work. I agree that the Democrats have a much better chance in 2020 if his approval numbers are in the toilet and Americans want him out. I know its hard to admit this, but it seems that Trump's election win was a good thing in the sense it has sort of roused up more people to start taking politics a bit more seriously. I know our democracy breeds a kind of passivity but I am optimistic there should be a higher turnout in 4 years. The other thing is Millennials need to vote, and since that generation is now larger than the dying Boomers, our country's destiny is sorta in their hands if they wish to seize on it. But it's not just presidential elections, but all other levels of governing including school boards. I get your argument that Democrats don't necessarily need to go hard left, but these voters who picked Obama twice but went for Trump obviously is a frustration with establishment style politicians. You're average voter in Gary Indiana is sick of lying politician after politician going into their towns and promising x, y, z and never delivering. That's why the Rust Belt states voted the way they did, they hear news about better job numbers, lower unemployment, more wealth, etc but they aren't seeing that in their daily lives. Nothing was really done under Obama's administration to reverse the misfortunes of the financial crisis. Anyway, Trump is going to open up an opportunity in the next 3 years where we can get a grassroots "lefty" kind of political movement going and I'm not sure how optimistic I am on the Democrats seizing it. Democrats have a continued history on never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity. I'd rather have Ellison as chair but Perez is OK with me, either way the era of New Democrat ideology is dead and good riddance to that. My fear is Democrats lack any sort of self reflection on this election cycle and we are back to a new Democratic party that is the same as the old one. What should keep Democrats up at night is if in the slimmest of possibilities where Trump and co are a flash in the pan, the economy improves nationally, etc then what are you going to do? I'm not saying this is a likely scenario, far from it, but if that is the case then you might as well toss out that "It's ok if we do a left-centrist thing cause Trump is so unpopular" agenda out the window.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Running against trump the anti-establishment candidate and against trump the historically unpopular president are very different propositions. If "embraceing leftism on a rhetorical level" means doing a better job selling the economic platform, I don't disagree, but at least for the next election anti-trump is going to be the right strategy. If trump is at or above 50% approval in a year, sure, gently caress it, go hard left because nothing matters. But it sure looks like his approval is going to look more like 35 than 50, and you're nuts if you think making elections about an unpopular incumbent doesn't work. Making it about the incumbent is only half the battle, providing a meaningful alternative is required to seal the deal. Otherwise, Kerry would have beaten Bush.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Running against trump the anti-establishment candidate and against trump the historically unpopular president are very different propositions. If "embraceing leftism on a rhetorical level" means doing a better job selling the economic platform, I don't disagree, but at least for the next election anti-trump is going to be the right strategy. If trump is at or above 50% approval in a year, sure, gently caress it, go hard left because nothing matters. But it sure looks like his approval is going to look more like 35 than 50, and you're nuts if you think making elections about an unpopular incumbent doesn't work. Even if that strategy wins a general election, it does nothing for the House, let alone state and local. The Democrats have been running on "we're less bad than those guys" forever, and it's gotten us nowhere. Clinton had half a term before the rug got pulled out, and ever since then we've been losing ground whether we hold the executive branch or not. "Not Trump" is not a strategy, it's a disingenuous apology from a party with no ideas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
The democratic base is as angry and engaged as it has ever been. This has occurred despite a bare minimum of authentic leftist engagement activism rhetoric from the DNC or the neoliberals or whoever. If you think the people at the town hall meetings who are screaming at the republicans to do their job and investigate trump are secretly mad and fired up about a lack of real leftism in the party, I don't know what to tell you. The base is calling for an anti-trump strategy. We're in no position to deny them what they want. If you want to have a bench set up with the socialist vanguard just in case trump gets real popular, feel free. If Trump miraculously turns things around and gets to a plausible approval rating, the party's yours.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
Hillary 2020, she's not-Trump! She's what the country wants.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hillary 2020, she's not-Trump! She's what the country wants. Things No One Wants fr 5000
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:In a sane world this would be a strike against Ellison if it's true and not just Schumer being Schumer. He is in fact at least nominally anti-BDS and has dramatically toned down his criticism of Israeli policy in Palestine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The democratic base is as angry and engaged as it has ever been. This has occurred despite a bare minimum of authentic leftist engagement activism rhetoric from the DNC or the neoliberals or whoever. If you think the people at the town hall meetings who are screaming at the republicans to do their job and investigate trump are secretly mad and fired up about a lack of real leftism in the party, I don't know what to tell you. The base is calling for an anti-trump strategy. We're in no position to deny them what they want. The base is calling for an anti-Trump strategy, sure...but each person's preferred anti-Trump strategy is whatever they thought the best political strategy was pre-Trump, only harder. The left's preferred anti-Trump strategy is to turn left, the center-right's preferred anti-Trump strategy is to turn center-right, and so on. Trump has certainly created enthusiasm among the Dems, but all of it boils down to "the Dems should do what I've always wanted them to do, only better". It also doesn't necessarily have any staying power - sure, the base seems pumped and is able to mobilize big protests now, but where were all those anti-war protesters in 2004?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The base is calling for an anti-Trump strategy, sure...but each person's preferred anti-Trump strategy is whatever they thought the best political strategy was pre-Trump, only harder. The left's preferred anti-Trump strategy is to turn left, the center-right's preferred anti-Trump strategy is to turn center-right, and so on. Trump has certainly created enthusiasm among the Dems, but all of it boils down to "the Dems should do what I've always wanted them to do, only better". It also doesn't necessarily have any staying power - sure, the base seems pumped and is able to mobilize big protests now, but where were all those anti-war protesters in 2004? why are centrists so dumb that they think trying the same poo poo that lost the election in 2016 is the ticket to victory in 2020?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
Good news, progressive policy is in the ascendance and virtually everyone running for DNC chair wants the same things for the party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Good news, progressive policy is in the ascendance and virtually everyone running for DNC chair wants the same things for the party. perez wants to coddle banks some more, other people don't want that
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
Condiv posted:perez wants to coddle banks some more, other people don't want that [citation needed]
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:I didn't vote for HRC and I'd do the same again. You made a stupid and bad decision.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
Condiv posted:perez wants to coddle banks some more, other people don't want that He doesn't, but guess what the DNC Chair has virtually zero power over? -- Unrelated, but Politico has a sort of broad look at the early 2020 field: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/democrats-2020-presidential-field-235335 The Tl;dr is that basically every person in the party is going to make some noise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:[citation needed] citation posted a few pages back. the intercept did an article about how buddy buddy perez was with banks while at the DoJ and DoL. Condiv fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:He doesn't, but guess what the DNC Chair has virtually zero power over? yeah, after a recent slimy dnc chair that loved the hell out of banks, i'd rather not deal with another slimy bank loving dnc chair that abuses their powers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Perez winning just has the optics of the same decision making process that ended up with Hillary Clinton as the nominee.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
I really can't care about 2020 yet. Winning 2018 is absolutely imperative if this country has any future. BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Good news, progressive policy is in the ascendance and virtually everyone running for DNC chair wants the same things for the party. In that case it's literally the correct move to not make a pick that will enrage a large subset of the people that would vote for Democrats. Perez would be the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot for absolutely no good reason whatsoever other than licking the collective shaft of the Clintonians. As many people have been saying, Perez and Ellison would ostensibly be making the same moves and strategy to get Democrats back into power from the ground level upwards to Congress. So why intentionally gently caress off the activists and progressives? mcmagic posted:Perez winning just has the optics of the same decision making process that ended up with Hillary Clinton as the nominee. And as I've been saying: optics matter. They don't matter for Trump because of the reality distortion field, but for the Democrats it matters so god drat loving much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Condiv posted:yeah, after a recent slimy dnc chair that loved the hell out of banks, i'd rather not deal with another slimy bank loving dnc chair that abuses their powers. You really like just talking out of your rear end, don't you? mcmagic posted:Perez winning just has the optics of the same decision making process that ended up with Hillary Clinton as the nominee. I think that's a bit of a reach. SKULL.GIF posted:Perez would be the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot for absolutely no good reason whatsoever other than licking the collective shaft of the Clintonians. As many people have been saying, Perez and Ellison would ostensibly be making the same moves and strategy to get Democrats back into power from the ground level upwards to Congress. So why intentionally gently caress off the activists and progressives? Two things here: first Perez is more supported by the Obama wing than the Clinton wing, they're different people and the Clinton people are less part of this than the Obama Wing. And again, I support Ellison. I am just not goingt o bern the house down over it. SKULL.GIF posted:And as I've been saying: optics matter. They don't matter for Trump because of the reality distortion field, but for the Democrats it matters so god drat loving much. Maybe we're too concerned with Optics BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Perez winning just has the optics of the same decision making process that ended up with Hillary Clinton as the nominee. Her winning by 3 million votes?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Good news, progressive policy is in the ascendance and virtually everyone running for DNC chair wants the same things for the party. THEN WHY IS PEREZ EVEN RUNNING
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:You really like just talking out of your rear end, don't you? dws was forced out for abusing her position and she loves the hell out of banks. loves payday lenders
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Her winning by 3 million votes? and yet still managing to flub the election by playing 11-d chess in iowa
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
Fiction posted:THEN Maybe he thinks he's the better person? Why does anyone run for anything? Condiv posted:dws was forced out for abusing her position and she loves the hell out of banks. loves payday lenders lol. dws =/= perez
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It also doesn't necessarily have any staying power - sure, the base seems pumped and is able to mobilize big protests now, but where were all those anti-war protesters in 2004? This is something I see brought up a lot when talking about rallies, OWS, anti-Iraq War protests... why do you think they didn't vote? Why is "the people who cared enough to spend days of their lives traveling and protesting, didn't care enough to vote" the default assumption, and not "they cared enough to vote, but other people who didn't care enough to protest probably also didn't care enough to vote"? I was involved in the 2011 labor protests against Walker, and I certainly voted in the prior election and all the subsequent ones. Almost everyone from the protests who I knew well enough to know their voting habits also voted, because they cared. The problem is reaching the giant portion of the population, 50-60%, who don't bother to vote at all. It seems so strange to look at protests of 1-2 million, then at an election involving hundreds of millions, and go "Heh, guess these protestors didn't turn out to vote!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:And as I've been saying: optics matter. "If Perez isn't a deeply in the pockets of the big banks why do I keep insisting that he is?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Maybe we're too concerned with Optics Yeah clearly that's why the Democrats decided to run the most disliked candidate in the past hundred years who was under active FBI investigation. Because they cared too much about optics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Maybe he thinks he's the better person? Why does anyone run for anything? There's documented evidence that he was pushed by Obama's wing of the party to run because they fear giving any concessions whatsoever to the Sanderistas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:Yeah clearly that's why the Democrats decided to run the most disliked candidate in the past hundred years who was under active FBI investigation. Because they cared too much about optics. Actually the most disliked candidate in the past hundred years and also under an active FBI investigation won the electoral college? Fiction posted:There's documented evidence that he was pushed by Obama's wing of the party to run because they fear giving any concessions whatsoever to the Sanderistas. Okay, and? You don't have to support Bernie to be a progressive. Or at least last I checked it wasn't a pre-requisite for having progressive ideals to also support an old white guy from Vermont.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Her winning by 3 million votes? Who cares about the 3 million votes?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Who cares about the 3 million votes? The President does.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:"If Perez isn't a deeply in the pockets of the big banks why do I keep insisting that he is?" The optics are that a candidate who is widely liked among both disaffected progressives and the party establishment itself is being contested by proxy by the Obama wing with a candidate who has no such credentials. It's a blatant power grab. BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Okay, and? You don't have to support Bernie to be a progressive. Or at least last I checked it wasn't a pre-requisite for having progressive ideals to also support an old white guy from Vermont. See above.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Her winning by 3 million votes? How'd that work out for her, by the way?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 15:09 |
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:lol. dws =/= perez yes, i'm sure he'll be ethical. he's already done a good job of showing his ethics by letting banks who foreclose on active duty service members illegally get off with a slap on the wrist
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:51
|
|