|
Can you people who think Ellison as chair would've magically ended corporate donations and other personal wishlist stuff stop posting and actually go read about what the DNC chair does? Because it's not "dictate to the entire party what it will and will not do" like you seem to think. Though going by a lot of the No True Scotsman posts here, I'm not sure some of you think much beyond "I want thing gimme thing now." Also Ellison backed down on corporate donations as well. Blocking it would be great from some purist political view, but in reality you'll just kneecap your party. XyrlocShammypants posted:Maybe they felt Perez was more qualified and their personal experiences with him led them to support his run. Oh wait no it can't be that it has to be that a minority part of the Democratic Party is so amazing and threatening that backroom smoke filled rooms were assembled to put arch conservative Perez in power and Red Belly Ellis at his side like salacious crumb. But if they don't hand the party over to a vocal minority that sits far to the left of the majority of the party and instead go with someone with better appeal, including to non-insane leftists, it won't give babby what they want.  Main Paineframe posted:They did have a candidate lined up from the beginning. Ellison had a number of prominent establishment endorsements before he even officially entered the race. Literally the only reason these people don't consider Ellison to be an 'establishment' pick is because he was Bernie's chosen one and they're a bunch of disillusioned bernouts. Ellison had Chuck loving Schumer as one of his earliest and biggest supporters. I've said before, Bernouts are the same as Paulbots. They didn't want Ellison because of who Ellison is, they wanted him because Bernie supported him and just looked for things to like afterwards, while trying to find things to hate about Perez. And unlike these posters who're complaining about him, Perez has actually done things to help people. Majorian posted:You can probably quantify it as fairly close to the amount of people in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin who voted for Obama, but didn't turn out for Clinton. And their feelings on the matter should probably count for something. I'll honestly be surprised if WI and MI don't have historically low turnout in 2018 if their current laws remain intact. Clinton actually focusing on those states might've been enough to make a difference but Wisconsin and Michigan have some pretty hosed up, NC-grade voting suppression poo poo going on and if the 2018 elections don't continue making them worse (and on a national level now) I'll be surprised because literally the only hope against that stuff now is if lawsuits against Wisconsin actually get Kennedy to agree that they go too far, which they should going by his (theoretical) requirements mentioned in an older voting case.
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:26 |
|
|
Condiv posted:TPP is not supporting labor groups. ellison is better on all the points you listed AND has experience winning elections. Why does Labor love Perez so much?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
Argas posted:Side A: Hey, let's work together. side a doesn't actually want to work together or they'd actually compromise sometimes instead of telling side B to gently caress off
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
Condiv posted:TPP is not supporting labor groups. ellison is better on all the points you listed AND has experience winning elections. I just have no idea what to say to this post other than that it betrays a lack of knowledge of basic facts, reality, or intelligence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Why does Labor love Perez so much? why do you love white people so much you were talking about national socialism being the only way forward?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Condiv posted:TPP is not supporting labor groups. ellison is better on all the points you listed AND has experience winning elections. Well that experience didn't help him win this election. Condiv posted:side a doesn't actually want to work together or they'd actually compromise sometimes instead of telling side B to gently caress off Side A: Look we need to oppose Trump together. Side B: gently caress everything, gently caress you, gently caress everyone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Condiv posted:side a doesn't actually want to work together or they'd actually compromise sometimes instead of telling side B to gently caress off *ignores DNC reform committee* *ignores Ellison as Dep. Chair*
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:Stop wasting so much loving time with this fake ideology intersectionalism bullshit. You don’t have that privilege when you have only 618 days to make the first attempts at seriously undermining Trump and the GOP. lol intersectionality isn't "a waste of time" and political correctness is a nonsense buzzword of the right, gently caress off with this poo poo. There is no future for leftism for white people only.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:It's almost as if the skillset to get elected from a major metropolitan cocktail circuit and the skillset to get elected Literally Anywhere Else are contradictory. Sure would be a shame if there was a recent election that demonstrated this in a crushingly embarrassing fashion. There was a recent election that demonstrated that centrists can't win elections outside of states with cities while leftists can? When? Because 2016 certainly doesn't fit that description. The Kingfish posted:It's a really job that doesn't involve winning an election. Well, Perez won one today!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
Condiv posted:why do you love white people so much you were talking about national socialism being the only way forward? I agree with you that we need an actual socialist party in America to compete with the Republicans and Democrats. They can't make an impact if they are regional, so it has to be a national socialist party as a third-way between Capitalism and Communism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
What on earth is the difference between a Perez chair/Ellison co chair and a Ellison chair/Perez co chair? Like isn't the situation right now maybe the second best possibility at worst?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
Chelb posted:I just have no idea what to say to this post other than that it betrays a lack of knowledge of basic facts, reality, or intelligence. Labor union bosses thanked Trump for killing TPP, the fact you are here claiming he is pro labor is a joke.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I agree with you that we need an actual socialist party in America to compete with the Republicans and Democrats. They can't make an impact if they are regional, so it has to be a national socialist party as a third-way between Capitalism and Communism.  You are the best gimmick poster. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Chelb posted:I just have no idea what to say to this post other than that it betrays a lack of knowledge of basic facts, reality, or intelligence. so you don't think poo poo like new york having its reg date for the dem primary so far back isn't a form of voter suppression? Trabisnikof posted:*ignores DNC reform committee* ellison got a made up position  Argas posted:Well that experience didn't help him win this election. the establishment knew what they wanted, and it wasn't a black muslim who doesn't like big banks and who called the 2016 election correctly. they wanted the empty suit that was loyal to obama! quote:Side A: Look we need to oppose Trump together. ah, so now side B should help clean up side A's mess until side A gets power again and ignores side B again?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:What on earth is the difference between a Perez chair/Ellison co chair and a Ellison chair/Perez co chair? no it's the worst possibility. ellison out of congress, and given a position with no real power in exchange for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:What on earth is the difference between a Perez chair/Ellison co chair and a Ellison chair/Perez co chair? Ellison's name has to be first so everyone knows the left won and the center stinks!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:lol intersectionality isn't "a waste of time" and political correctness is a nonsense buzzword of the right, gently caress off with this poo poo. There is no future for leftism for white people only. There are other means for promoting equality other than just throwing a bunch of contradicting ideologies together and pretending to be progressive. Good luck with your corporate hack that you run in 2020. I’m sure he’ll do great against Trump while you’re screaming like a little girl at rust belt voters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
Condiv posted:the establishment knew what they wanted, and it wasn't a black muslim who doesn't like big banks and who called the 2016 election correctly. they wanted the empty suit that was loyal to obama! So you're saying that Ellison's experience in winning elections didn't help him at all? Well, if Side B likes to minimize their involvement in the only political party where they currently have a voice, that's their choice. Maybe they could start a third political party that won't have a voice but feel better about their ideological purity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
Condiv posted:no it's the worst possibility. ellison out of congress, and given a position with no real power in exchange for it. Why are you assuming that, in a deal made before the vote, Ellison would agree to a position with no real power? You think he is that dumb?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Condiv posted:no it's the worst possibility. ellison out of congress, and given a position with no real power in exchange for it. Why is it a problem that Ellison is out of Congress? His district is super blue and clearly has no problem voting for a progressive. Sounds like a good opportunity to get another leftist into the Democratic roster to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
In many ways Obama was a disaster for the party too since him being elected saw unprecedented ground being lost for the Democrats on a local and state level, and by doing so enabled Trump have less in the way of his horrendous poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:In many ways Obama was a disaster for the party too since him being elected saw unprecedented ground being lost for the Democrats on a local and state level, and by doing so enabled Trump have less in the way of his horrendous poo poo. That was more DWS's fault, assuming that because Obama won everything was fine
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:There are other means for promoting equality other than just throwing a bunch of contradicting ideologies together and pretending to be progressive. Good luck with your corporate hack that you run in 2020. I’m sure he’ll do great against Trump while you’re screaming like a little girl at rust belt voters. Oh please you loving coward. Hiding behind buzzwords and nonsense, just say what you want to say. "I'm a moron who thinks that feminism and anti-racism are the things holding leftism back."
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
If only the Democrats had allowed the Republicans to dominate after GWB, Leftists would've taken won in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Mnoba posted:Labor union bosses thanked Trump for killing TPP, the fact you are here claiming he is pro labor is a joke. I mean, I guess you could look at TPP and literally nothing else. You could also look at his actions that let home care workers receive a proper wage and overtime, his visiting workers when he could to listen to their opinions, his efforts assisting veterans in seeking employment, his (struck down) attempts to force employer's attorneys to publically disclose anti-union advice, and his (ultimately struck down) seeking to double maximum salary for required overtime positions. And that's not even getting into his work as Maryland's Secretary of Labor, who spearheaded the state's movement for a living wage and relieved its shortage of healthcare workers by making it easier for immigrants to attain registered nurse status.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Ellison's name has to be first so everyone knows the left won and the center stinks! This but unironically. Making Ellison chair would have been a good fig leaf to the left that would have done a lot to bring the various warring factions in line. Instead the DNC just inflicted a huge wound on itself that may never fully heal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Oh please you loving coward. Hiding behind buzzwords and nonsense, just say what you want to say. "I'm a moron who thinks that feminism and anti-racism are the things holding leftism back." You’re the real loving coward for refusing to look at the reasons Hillary lost to a cartoon villain. And guess what? If you run someone like her again you can expect a similar result. You absolutely have to win back the rust belt voters and the working class that she completely alienated during her campaign. That is not optional.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
Argas posted:So you're saying that Ellison's experience in winning elections didn't help him at all? not in an insider election, no. general elections and the like it would help, but clearly the establishment got this stiched up beforehand. quote:Well, if Side B likes to minimize their involvement in the only political party where they currently have a voice, that's their choice. Maybe they could start a third political party that won't have a voice but feel better about their ideological purity. that's the direction i was going yes. you guys don't give a poo poo about us, so why bother voting for your candidates anymore? it's not like you need the left to win, just like you didn't need the left in 2016. Trabisnikof posted:Why are you assuming that, in a deal made before the vote, Ellison would agree to a position with no real power? he probably saw it as a magnanimous gesture to perez, as well as an attempt to keep the party from ripping in half like an idiot decision like perez as DNC chair would cause. Main Paineframe posted:Why is it a problem that Ellison is out of Congress? His district is super blue and clearly has no problem voting for a progressive. Sounds like a good opportunity to get another leftist into the Democratic roster to me. weren't you idiots literally claiming that we shouldn't pick ellison cause he'd be out of congress and that'd be bad? why are you now trying to argue that it's good he's out of congress and in a powerless position.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:You’re the real loving coward for refusing to look at the reasons Hillary lost to a cartoon villain. So is that your argument? Hillary lost because of intersectionality and "political correctness?" Lmao bro, if you think that you're posting in the wrong forum, r/thedonald is over that way. You're just being an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:What on earth is the difference between a Perez chair/Ellison co chair and a Ellison chair/Perez co chair? They have invested themselves in opposing "the establishment" and Keith Ellison is, like Sanders before him, the person they've latched onto. It doesn't matter that it isn't true, they just think it is and thats what is really important.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
Condiv posted:not in an insider election, no. general elections and the like it would help, but clearly the establishment got this stiched up beforehand. woah man, so if Ellison won he would've been running for president in 2020?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
I think the DNC's reasoning is "Hey we lost the 2016 election on a small margin, we just need to tweak things just a bit and we'll be fine, keep our platform as anti-Trump" but pander just enough for the Bernie wing. Like let's not really commit on going full on progressive, but somewhat. I think this was one of HRC's fundamental flaws in her campaign, she tried to cater to every ideological wing in the party. I mean I get the reasoning behind it, but why miss out on a golden opportunity that Trump has opened up to seize a more progressive agenda? I can already see in 4 years how bad its going to get with healthcare, jobs, income, infrastructure, etc. and it would be the perfect time to push for progressive ideas that addresses these things that matter to Americans. There's going to be a huge shift in more wealth to the top and that income inequality is going to be wider, so that should make it real easy to provide a different vision for America. Maybe Perez, with his labor background, can do that and help from Ellison. Right now the optics do look bad, but America is going to look a lot different in 4 years to where these squabbles between progressives vs reformers are gonna look pretty insignificant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
Argas posted:woah man, so if Ellison won he would've been running for president in 2020? probably not. i'm not sure who's running for president in 2020 other than hillary (who the dems will do their best to make candidate again).
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:This but unironically. Making Ellison chair would have been a good fig leaf to the left that would have done a lot to bring the various warring factions in line. Instead the DNC just inflicted a huge wound on itself that may never fully heal. Remember when the DNC inflicted a wound on itself when Dean was elected after Roemer dropped out in '05? Remember Roemer, Fowler, Webb, and Frost? No? It's almost like DNC race isn't actually a thing that matters very much, but add that to the big ol' list of things morons don't understand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
It's still unclear whether ellison will continue to keep his seat in Congress. He only said he'd resign if he was elected chair, but now he's deputy chair. Maybe we should wait a little for things to clarify before assuming he's gone from it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
Argas posted:woah man, so if Ellison won he would've been running for president in 2020? I mean, he's pretty free to run now. I would pull the lever so hard for Ellison in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
Condiv posted:probably not. i'm not sure who's running for president in 2020 other than hillary (who the dems will do their best to make candidate again). Then why does his experience in winning general elections matter?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:That was more DWS's fault, assuming that because Obama won everything was fine Wow, the narrative has gotten really disconnected from the facts, hasn't it? DWS didn't become DNC chair until mid-2011 (after the big losses in 2010), and Obama was the one who appointed her to that position in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:This but unironically. Making Ellison chair would have been a good fig leaf to the left that would have done a lot to bring the various warring factions in line. Instead the DNC just inflicted a huge wound on itself that may never fully heal. Oh brother. I read one poll that indicated that less than 20 percent of Democrats even know that a DNC chair race is going on. Get a grip.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:26 |
|
|
Good article on currentaffairs on why this was a terrible move for the Democrats: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/02/they-must-be-trying-to-fail quote:Now, progressives in the party are further alienated. Good luck getting them to vote for Democrats. No matter how many people may have insisted that Ellison/Perez wasn’t a replay of Sanders/Clinton, it’s impossible to deny that in some ways it was. The progressives needed to receive some kind of gesture. And they have received one: an enormous middle finger.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:30
|
|