|
Indeed, better policies (like, say, the platform last cycle) are good and helpful but not at all a silver bullet; just as and I'd argue more important are boring things like supporting local and state parties and ensuring you've got people running in all races, not just the ones you think are most important (though focusing on those with extra money is okay and good). I've seen a lot of people asking for both a fifty state strategy AND fewer moderate Democrats but those two things are pretty much impossible, though as the Republican party shows, it becomes easier to accomplish both at once if you gerrymander everything in your favor. Or end partisan gerrymandering altogether, ideally.
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 11:09 |
|
|
Buttigieg out, doesn't endorse anyone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Buttigieg out, doesn't endorse anyone. I feel a great disturbance in the force, as though a million butts cried out at once, and then were silenced.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
nachos posted:They won't technically die, they will just continue to hemorrhage every level of government except the presidency which will be won every now and then thanks to a well timed economic crash. Well yeah, but that's a different argument. I agree if they keep clinging onto the old leadership and don't embrace the obvious leftist streak of its most energized voters, they'll flounder around and be less effective than they should be. Hopefully, we can primary these people. And it looks like we might have to! https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/835548598079209474
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
Edible Hat posted:I said this in the Clinton kvetching thread after the election: is it possible that the party moving toward your preferred ideology will not result in better electoral prospects? It's quite a coincidence that leftists believe that Ellison winning will inevitably lead to electoral gains, but Perez winning will inevitably cause the base to abandon the Democratic Party and mealy-mouthed centrists will lead to its collapse. As someone who supported Sanders and supports Ellison as chair and thinks the party should move leftward (although Perez being chair will definitely lead to that too), I also recognize the risk of the Democratic Party embracing democratic socialism. It's a risk I'm more than willing to take, but it's a risk nonetheless. Dems have been chasing the center forever, and where are they now?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
nachos posted:What is the risk? What else is left to lose? At the federal level, Democrats are in much better shape than the Republicans in 2008, despite having a system that is stacked against them. (At the state level, they are worse off than the 2008 GOP, but not much worse.) In other words, they have a lot of room to shrink. On the other hand, Tea Party extremism coincided with electoral gains for the GOP (with other factors contributing to those, of course), so the waters are a bit muddied. My point is that a leftward shift won't necessarily lead to a great 2018 or 2020. That seems like an obvious point, but most of the posters in this thread don't seem to agree with it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Wraith of J.O.I. posted:Dems have been chasing the center forever, and where are they now? They've been moving leftward since 2006.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
fsif posted:They've had a horrible stretch of six years or so and have been stymied by the incompetence and complacency of their leaders, but they're going to die as a political party. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot once again with a Perez nominee, but anyone predicting the collapse of the two-party system over this is seriously overstating its significance. Yeah I didn't mean to say the party itself would die like the Whigs or something, but instead be locked out of power by stuff like voter suppression and a new round of gerrymandering in 2020. That's what I meant by "It's not so much '[...] the dems are dead,' it's more 'the dems [...] need all the support they can get to regain any semblance of power.'"
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
People need to stop saying this is a symbolic role and thus it's dumb for two similar people to run for it. DWS's fuckups and Dean's success is pretty solid proof that's not the case and if two people with similar views think they're the best pick, good. They're both far to the left of what we'll have had and it'd be hard for either of them to gently caress up harder than DWS did.fsif posted:Well yeah, but that's a different argument. I agree if they keep clinging onto the old leadership and don't embrace the obvious leftist streak of its most energized voters, they'll flounder around and be less effective than they should be. Hopefully, we can primary these people. Perez isn't "old leadership" and the amount of twisted reality poo poo in this thread is ridiculous. People are crying about him being a Clinton stooge because she considered him for VP for fucks sake, in addition to idiots constantly parroting nonsense about him and ignoring when they're corrected (repeatedly). I'm fine with either of them, but the "PEREZ IS A FUKKIN OLD GUARD CENTRIST BANK LOVIN TRAITOR" people are just as bad as the "ELLISON IS AN ANTI-SEMITE AND HATES THE JEWS" assholes like Dershowitz. Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Feb 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:10
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Because Ellison has "bad optics." This is a really dumb argument. Like, how many republicans who came out to vote even know the name of their chairperson, let alone the DNC's? How many of them don't already think that the democrats are the muslim party but would fall for this? You're also making the argument that the only reason people have to like the muslim ban is because of the way we paint it, instead of the way they understand it, and all of the arguments of "It's not a muslim ban, it's a ban on these 7 countries that even Obama thought were dangerous." Don't assume people know as much about this poo poo as you do. Evil Fluffy posted:Perez isn't "old leadership" and the amount of twisted reality poo poo in this thread is ridiculous. People are crying about him being a Clinton stooge because she considered him for VP for fucks sake, in addition to idiots constantly parroting nonsense about him and ignoring when they're corrected (repeatedly). I think the fear is more that Perez only ran because he was pretty forcibly prodded in by the clinton/obama wing, and the main reason for them to do that is to maintain control of the party, which is what got us into this mess in the first place. It's not really about Perez's qualities, it's about why Perez is in the race in the first place. LITERALLY MY FETISH fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Feb 25, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
Edible Hat posted:At the federal level, Democrats are in much better shape than the Republicans in 2008, despite having a system that is stacked against them. (At the state level, they are worse off than the 2008 GOP, but not much worse.) In other words, they have a lot of room to shrink. On the other hand, Tea Party extremism coincided with electoral gains for the GOP (with other factors contributing to those, of course), so the waters are a bit muddied. My point is that a leftward shift won't necessarily lead to a great 2018 or 2020. That seems like an obvious point, but most of the posters in this thread don't seem to agree with it. It's really easy to condense complex events to a morality play, people have been doing it since we had events and stories about those events. So it's really tempting to say Trump Won Because Neoliberalism or whatever. It's even in many cases a good thing-- just like it's easy to create simple stories that feel good even if they elide complexities, it's easy to consume them, and the electorate looooooooves easily consumed stories. So maybe we should be more comfortable with dumb morality plays if they work? Dunno.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Wraith of J.O.I. posted:Dems have been chasing the center forever, and where are they now? Wait what? While they still support some very corporate decisions, I would hardly say that they have stayed at the center. In fact, they have moved quite a bit leftward in a few areas. Edible Hat posted:At the federal level, Democrats are in much better shape than the Republicans in 2008, despite having a system that is stacked against them. (At the state level, they are worse off than the 2008 GOP, but not much worse.) In other words, they have a lot of room to shrink. On the other hand, Tea Party extremism coincided with electoral gains for the GOP (with other factors contributing to those, of course), so the waters are a bit muddied. My point is that a leftward shift won't necessarily lead to a great 2018 or 2020. That seems like an obvious point, but most of the posters in this thread don't seem to agree with it. I agree with this. I am not convinced that doing what people are suggesting in this thread will lead to more votes. LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:I think the fear is more that Perez only ran because he was pretty forcibly prodded in by the clinton/obama wing, and the main reason for them to do that is to maintain control of the party, which is what got us into this mess in the first place. It's not really about Perez's qualities, it's about why Perez is in the race in the first place. Yes, but that is just people reaching at straws and guessing. blackguy32 fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Feb 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Perez isn't "old leadership" and the amount of twisted reality poo poo in this thread is ridiculous. Of all people Chuck Todd has framed it in Sanders/Warren vs Obama/Clinton, and he's nowhere in this thread. And I don't see anyone crying of islamophobia holding Ellison back the way he did.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Like we live in a world where like it or not Trump's muslim ban is *popular* It's not among people who would be willing to vote D though, which I think is kind of key. Trying to appeal to conservative voters who aren't going to vote for you anyway is how we got into this mess. A more motivated base is far more useful electorally than higher (but still low) approval ratings among the population at large. Evil Fluffy posted:Perez isn't "old leadership" and the amount of twisted reality poo poo in this thread is ridiculous. People are crying about him being a Clinton stooge because she considered him for VP for fucks sake, in addition to idiots constantly parroting nonsense about him and ignoring when they're corrected (repeatedly). As someone who thinks Perez winning would have nasty consequences for the party and thus country at large, I agree there's not really anything wrong with the guy himself (afaik anyway). The election has just become a symbol of something greater than the individual behind the wheel, and him winning is going to piss off a relatively small but still very important part of the base. It doesn't even really matter whether them getting pissed off or not would be justified.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:This is a really dumb argument. Like, how many republicans who came out to vote even know the name of their chairperson, let alone the DNC's? How many of them don't already think that the democrats are the muslim party but would fall for this? Ok, I'm clearly not making my argument well. The only reason anyone has to "like" the muslim ban is that they're racist and bigoted against Muslims. Unfortunately that fear is a big driver of Republican voting right now and it's a winning move on the Republican's part because the majority of the country supports a "muslim ban" even when you just call it a "muslim ban" and don't try to sugarcoat it. Ellison as chair hands the Republicans an easy attack on the same lines. Just as they always call us the Democrat Party, once and if Ellison is chosen as leader, that soundbite will be replaced with "Democrat Muslim Party." it's an obvious and easy line of attack that will get repeated a thousand times an hour on Fox News until the end of time. Maybe it's wrong to cave on that point because it's succumbing to racism but it isn't irrational for Democrats to be looking for alternate options. z0glin Warchief posted:It's not among people who would be willing to vote D though, which I think is kind of key. Trying to appeal to conservative voters who aren't going to vote for you anyway is how we got into this mess. A more motivated base is far more useful electorally than higher (but still low) approval ratings among the population at large. I'mn not sure that's the case; such things can make a big difference for turnout even if they aren't changing minds. All that said, I'm not trying to argue that Ellison is a bad choice. I'm just trying to explain one reason why well-intentioned Democrats might like Ellison's platform but nevertheless believe Perez is a better option. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Feb 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:People need to stop saying this is a symbolic role and thus it's dumb for two similar people to run for it. DWS's fuckups and Dean's success is pretty solid proof that's not the case and if two people with similar views think they're the best pick, good. They're both far to the left of what we'll have had and it'd be hard for either of them to gently caress up harder than DWS did. I like Perez (he's a Bills fan!). If this chairmanship were him versus Dean, I'm sure I'd be very invested in his win. I agree that a lot of his strongest opponents have a pretty hyperbolic/absurd view on who he is. But it's pretty clear this has morphed into a fight of the new guard versus the old guard. Ellison won support from both establishment types and the leftist types, and then Perez entered the race a month later. It's hard to imagine why the party would put up another candidate unless there are people who are uncomfortable with Ellison. I think the New Republic summed it up pretty well: https://newrepublic.com/article/140847/case-tom-perez-makes-no-sense fsif fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Feb 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Ellison as chair hands the Republicans an easy attack on the same lines. Just as they always call us the Democrat Party, once and if Ellison is chosen as leader, that soundbite will be replaced with "Democrat Muslim Party." it's an obvious and easy line of attack that will get repeated a thousand times an hour on Fox News until the end of time. https://twitter.com/randygdub/status/796229362643152896
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Perez is a clinton proxy, clearly incompetent for the chair, and a nasty little freak
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
This is going to end with Democrats shooting themselves in the foot instead of uniting with those Filthy Sanders Lefties isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'mn not sure that's the case; such things can make a big difference for turnout even if they aren't changing minds. I'm not sure I get what you're saying here. That having a Muslim in a position of power would(/could) reduce Democratic turnout? Hieronymous Alloy posted:The only reason anyone has to "like" the muslim ban is that they're racist and bigoted against Muslims. Unfortunately that fear is a big driver of Republican voting right now and it's a winning move on the Republican's part because the majority of the country supports a "muslim ban" even when you just call it a "muslim ban" and don't try to sugarcoat it. Do you have any polling to show this? From what I can see googling, it seems like approval for the "travel ban" is (barely) under 50%, let a lone a straight up Muslim ban.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:35
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Ok, I'm clearly not making my argument well. Oh, don't get me wrong, it's what they'll do. At the same time, with what's going on with the republican congressmen right now and how they're handling it, I'm not sure it would matter. More importantly, putting up Ellison actually shows that the DNC is a coalition party, as well, not just a "white people who sometimes do decent things for minorities, but lots of great stuff for corporations" party. Ellison would, at this point, probably gain voters versus Perez. It would also show that the old guard is realizing that they have to concede to a younger party, and that maybe their time is waning and they should hand over the reigns to the party gracefully in order to help guide from behind instead of lead.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
Fiction posted:I'll be fine with him if he loses. If he wins, you're drat sure my local DNC is getting an earful and there'll probably be more vicious primaries.  Ghetto SuperCzar posted:This is going to end with Democrats shooting themselves in the foot instead of uniting with those Filthy Sanders Lefties isn't it? No, because it's the Sander's lefties losing their poo poo over this nothing of an election, not the Dems.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Uhh you know whoever wins it isn't going to be a white dude.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:41
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:
If it's a nothing of an election, why are they bothering to fight for it? Why not let Ellison win to appease the sanderistas?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:No, because it's the Sander's lefties losing their poo poo over this nothing of an election, not the Dems. The point I would make is that if it really is a nothing of an election, that would be the perfect time to throw the Sanders wing a bone and get them organizing for you. You know they're going to flip their poo poo if you don't, and Democrats need every bit of help they can get to win back the house in 2018.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
It's telling that the main line of attack on the sanders wing is to try and reduce the importance of this election and call them a bunch of tryhards. Enthusiasm? In my party?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
I don't think children throwing temper tantrums should be bought the toys they are demanding, but that's just me. "He's only throwing things around because he's enthusiastic. Don't you want your child to be excited to go to the store"
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:Uhh you know whoever wins it isn't going to be a white dude. I'm for Ellison, but the weird racial erasure of Tom Perez troubles me. It's also not totally unexpected from the dregs of Bernie supporters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:
Ugh all these engaged and vocal people asking for a small if symbolic concession smh
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Wraith of J.O.I. posted:Ugh all these engaged and vocal people asking for a small if symbolic concession smh Asking?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:47
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I don't think children throwing temper tantrums should be bought the toys they are demanding, but that's just me. Oh okay, you're fishing for bites. Carry on, then.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I don't think children throwing temper tantrums should be bought the toys they are demanding, but that's just me. lol yeah why are these children being so political and making demands what the hell? they need to grow up and listen to mommy and daddy
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
I unironically desperately want to see a tie, each of them gets half a gavel and they have to pilot the Demojaeger together.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I don't think children throwing temper tantrums should be bought the toys they are demanding, but that's just me. This analogy assumes that they are incapable of either hurting or helping your chances in elections, and so ignoring them doesn't matter. For better or worse though, that's not true; these are actual voters, and ones particularly motivated to volunteer and organize at that. If politics really is about pragmatism, blowing off a bunch of would-be supporters just to "teach them a lesson" or whatever instead of cynically playing them for all their worth seems like a bad move.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
There will be box lunches, there is a vegetarian option.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Ghetto SuperCzar posted:This is going to end with self described progressives shooting themselves in the foot instead of uniting with that Filthy Establishment isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:the majority of the country supports a "muslim ban" even when you just call it a "muslim ban" and don't try to sugarcoat it. This is not remotely true. You're looking at old data. http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban-poll/ http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/318330-poll-over-half-oppose-trump-travel-ban https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/02/07/a-new-poll-shows-a-surprisingly-big-public-swing-against-trumps-muslim-ban/
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
z0glin Warchief posted:This analogy assumes that they are incapable of either hurting or helping your chances in elections, and so ignoring them doesn't matter. For better or worse though, that's not true; these are actual voters, and ones particularly motivated to volunteer and organize at that. You managed to confuse throwing them a concession with conceding to them on every point and making them the only group who ever gets what they want.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:You managed to confuse throwing them a concession with conceding to them on every point and making them the only group who ever gets what they want. https://twitter.com/karpmj/status/835563363019198464
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 11:09 |
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I don't think children throwing temper tantrums should be bought the toys they are demanding, but that's just me. Wait what the hell. Do you think people protesting trump are also children throwing temper tantrums?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 20:00
|
|