|
Chelb posted: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. His reasoning before was that he wanted to focus exclusively on the DNC chair role and not short change his constituents. No matter how close he works with Perez I can't imagine the deputy chair would take that much time from him, but we'll see. I'd hate to lose him in the house.
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 00:51 |
|
|
readingatwork posted:Good article on currentaffairs on why this was a terrible move for the Democrats: Why do people keep linking to this random phd student?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted: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. obama won, democrats lost in off years and fail to run viable candidates in lots of places Would you argue what the other guy was arguing, that it's obama's fault democrats are out of power?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
Argas posted:Then why does his experience in winning general elections matter? because the DNC chair is responsible for raising up a poo poo ton of candidates that need to win their generals in 2018? readingatwork posted:Good article on currentaffairs on why this was a terrible move for the Democrats: it's not a good article cause this election didn't matter. like at all. it was a nothingburger. and those never matter at all for the dems.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted: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. Never mind four years, dude. America's gonna look different by the midterms, and I struggle to see a future in which people are still talking about this by 2018 that doesn't involve Perez being a DWS-level disaster - which I don't think he will be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
I'm a real Progressive/Leftist and I would rather let Trump win than give those stinking Democrats another chance! Who cares if people suffer in the meantime? I'll remain ideologically pure and when mincome is finally instituted I can live comfortably!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
Argas posted:I'm a real Progressive/Leftist and I would rather let Trump win than give those stinking Democrats another chance! Who cares if people suffer in the meantime? I'll remain ideologically pure and when mincome is finally instituted I can live comfortably! i'd love to give dems another chance. too bad they refuse to take it instead they want to keep on losing the same way they have been for years that is why they went with the status quo yet again when people are howling for change
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Condiv posted:
Yes, I'm sure that Trump's point is that Perez does not represent the Sanders wing and is therefore a sign of less than complete surrender. Not just this racist pile of poo poo meat saying "he's not white! Sad!" Trump's political knowledge has shown such impressive sophistication. LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:B-b-b-but we gave them a platform and the deputy chair, what else could they possibly want, other than for us to step down because we've demonstrated over the past decade that we're incapable of winning elections anymore and it's time for someone else to at least try, but who could possibly want that, right? Well I'm sure that the people who demand the field be cleared for them before they even start to get organised, and whose first, last and only response to any setback is "I give up, this is a conspiracy against me, everything needs to be burned down, I'm voting third party!" will be an unstoppable political juggernaut who will win everything. If you had it in you to win races against Republicans, "Establishment" boogeyman would not be able to stop you, let alone try to. Majorian posted:I guarantee you, he had a similar tweet cued up for Ellison, Buttigieg, and the rest. Similar? It was the same tweet with the name changed. The message is identical - "Dems have picked a far leftist who is not a straight white Christian male, losers!" Only some people are holding it up the exact same goddamn way people were holding up Breitbart as telling the truth about Hillary Clinton. Choosing once again to side with the far right over the Democrats. Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Feb 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
Ellison, incidentally, states my position towards these divides clearer than I could.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Good article on currentaffairs on why this was a terrible move for the Democrats: For a group of people who think that identity politics are the worst and that's why Clinton lost, they sure seem pretty set on getting their identity recognized and pandered to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
Chelb posted:Ellison, incidentally, states my position towards these divides clearer than I could. Unironically Ellison for President 2020.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
Chelb posted:Ellison, incidentally, states my position towards these divides clearer than I could. it's the same thing bernie tried to do, cleaning up after the dems lovely choices. too bad it won't be enough this time if the centrists were actually unified with us, it might be different, but this vote shows they aren't Condiv fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Feb 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
I knew this would happen. I look forward to a bunch of lovely blue dogs to vote for in 2018, and some loving corporate stooge to run in 2020. When they write the epitaph of the Democratic party, make sure they put down that the cause of death was self inflicted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
Argas posted:I'm a real Progressive/Leftist and I would rather let Trump win than give those stinking Democrats another chance! Who cares if people suffer in the meantime? I'll remain ideologically pure and when mincome is finally instituted I can live comfortably! And it's that non-participation by "progressives" that allows the Republicans to keep winning elections. That's what happens with dimwit ideological purists. Not that I don't want a more radical progressivsm, of course, but it's either the insanity of conservatism vs. reformism. I know which side I'll vote for. Maybe once millennials start taking politics seriously, then none of that pragmatic poo poo will matter and I won't have to compromise my own political views to vote for something that is a little left of center. Look at all their support for Bernie, its hopeful and encouraging that centrism is on the wane.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
Edible Hat posted: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. Even if we pretend that half of that 20% is pro Perez you've still potentially pissed off 10% of your base in a big way. The Democrats are already in a hole right now so they don't have that kind of political capital to burn.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:If you had it in you to win races against Republicans, "Establishment" boogeyman would not be able to stop you, let alone try to. Do you literally have any idea whatsoever about how campaigns work? You don't just run the entire thing yourself. I've had a friend who got completely ratfucked in his race from his campaign manager refusing to accept that he won't endorse Hillary and still gained a damned good result compared to the last candidate. Probably would have won if the establishment boogeymen were just boogeymen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
Everyone handwringing about how they don't see the difference between Perez and Ellison are either concern trolling or being intentionally obtuse. The obvious difference is the fact that Perez refuses to reinstate the ban of corporate lobbyist money from going to the DNC. He also supports TPP, has never won an election, and was put forth specifically by the corporatist wing of the party to stop Ellison's election and the subsequent ascension of the noncorporatist wing of the party. It is all about money, and the rich corporate wing is going to fight tooth and nail to maintain control of the party. If you don't want to be in a party controlled by corporate fascism-lite interests, then don't join the Democratic party. I'll likely be changing my own registration today to independent or socialist. I mean, the arguments in this thread about why Perez is Just As Left are the same exact arguments that were made in favor of two times failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who couldn't even beat Cheeto Benito. When are economic leftists going to realize they aren't welcome in the Democratic party if pushing any actual leftist economic proposals? I voted for Clinton and Trump still won because of the lukewarm bullshit policies she put out. Pay ten percent of my income for student loans and another 10 percent for Healthcare for the majority of my life? loving please. Get actual leftists with actual leftist policy if you want leftist votes, and stop licking corporate boots. Don't give me any bullshit about compromise either. Leftists always compromise, and you liberal pieces of poo poo coopt popular revolutionary movements into reformist movements so you can sit comfortable in your middle class existence while you continue to gently caress the poor and tell us how we refuse to compromise as you sell the farm to fascists. Dont act confused about why leftists want to give liberals the bullet also when you're the ones enabling fascism because you can't get your lips off the corporate teat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
Aesculus posted:Do you literally have any idea whatsoever about how campaigns work? You don't just run the entire thing yourself. I've had a friend who got completely ratfucked in his race from his campaign manager refusing to accept that he won't endorse Hillary and still gained a damned good result compared to the last candidate. Probably would have won if the establishment boogeymen were just boogeymen. Maybe we all should all be focusing on blaming the candidates for hiring lovely campaign managers and running bad campaigns rather than blaming other groups for their results?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Maybe we all should all be focusing on blaming the candidates for hiring lovely campaign managers and running bad campaigns rather than blaming other groups for their results? Yes, because it's somehow the candidate's fault that his campaign manager decided to completely shut down his internet presence instead of actually helping manage the campaign because the candidate wouldn't support the manager's candidate.  that doesn't even make sense
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Ellison's name has to be first so everyone knows the left won and the center stinks! The politics of the man are important, but they're not the only thing. That's what people who keep pointing out that Ellison and Perez aren't that far apart don't seem to get - Ellison was the compromise candidate for the left already. That the Democrats couldn't even accept that, and instead had to put forward their own "compromise" and push him through instead, signals that they (the centrist establishment) are going to hold on to power in the party to the death and that they're not, as usual, terribly concerned about alienating leftists. It means that any time going forward the left expects any real concessions they should expect basically a JeffersonClay post in response. Some of us will still vote Democratic, I guess, but we're going to be harder to convince as opposed to just voting for the socialist, than we would have been with Ellison as chair. It means that we'll take the Democratic party about as seriously as they take us. Chelb posted:Ellison, incidentally, states my position towards these divides clearer than I could.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:DWS, kaine etc Yes. Because Obama won and then installed idiots like Kaine and DWS to run the DNC, while also yanking funding from state and local parties as he dismantled the fifty-state strategy in favor of using big data to target money only into highly competitive races (just like he did in his presidential campaign) and dismiss red areas as just a waste of resources. Moreover, his own personal popularity and campaigning skills hid the effects of these policies, allowing the Dems to think they were riding high based on their gains in 2008 and 2012 - even though they got walloped in the midterms when his name wasn't on the ballot. Also, his crappy performance as an executive left Congressional Dems with not much to run on in the midterms, because he did poo poo like spend most of 2010 debating austerity plans and signalling that he was open to cutting SS and Medicare, while leaving easy progressive moves like DADT repeal until after the midterms.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Arri posted:Everyone handwringing about how they don't see the difference between Perez and Ellison are either concern trolling or being intentionally obtuse. Ellison refused to ban corporate donations too. So...
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Even if we pretend that half of that 20% is pro Perez you've still potentially pissed off 10% of your base in a big way. The Democrats are already in a hole right now so they don't have that kind of political capital to burn. I can speak for myself: I supported Ellison in this race and have followed his career since his House campaign in 2006 and I'm not pissed off. Additionally, I can't imagine any Ellison supporter caring about this beyond next week or beyond, to the 2018 midterm. (I can also mention the people who would have been pissed off if Ellison had won, like the ADF.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
Aesculus posted:Yes, because it's somehow the candidate's fault that his campaign manager decided to completely shut down his internet presence instead of actually helping manage the campaign because the candidate wouldn't support the manager's candidate. Uh yes? The candidate should probably have hired a campaign manager they matched ideologically, but at the end of the day, the buck stops with the candidate. Like, if your friend was a bad candidate because they didn't know how to run for office, that's the kind of flaw that we can fix and is emblematic of the overall issues the party has. That's the communication and support issue I'm talking about. Another example, Hillary Clinton is to blame for Paul Manafort being a lovely campaign manager.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Foreploy posted:For a group of people who think that identity politics are the worst and that's why Clinton lost, they sure seem pretty set on getting their identity recognized and pandered to. Is it really so unreasonable to expect a party to at least pretend to care about you if they're going to demand your vote like it was their God damned birthright? If they won't even make symbolic gestures to people like me why should I make any effort to support them in turn? Chelb posted:Ellison, incidentally, states my position towards these divides clearer than I could. This was really good of him to say. Too bad it doesn't matter at this point because progressives didn't actually want Ellison. They wanted a gesture of goodwill from the party and were soundly denied one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
Ellison as deputy chair isn't enough of a gesture of goodwill. I need more! Bigger! Bigly!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Is it really so unreasonable to expect a party to at least pretend to care about you if they're going to demand your vote like it was their God damned birthright? If they won't even make symbolic gestures to people like me why should I make any effort to support them in turn? Why don't the Deptuy chair position, the DNC reform committee and the platform changes count as even a "symbolic gesture"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:You jest, but you're not far off. An Ellison win would have signaled that the Democratic establishment is finally ready to accept leftists into their party as peers, and not just as votes that they're meant to rely on without really doing anything to earn them. It would have meant that finally, after locking them out of power for decades, saying "fine, let's try things your way". It's amazing how your definition of "like peers" actually means 'give us everything, don't even talk back, have absolutely no say and be blamed for everything bad ever." There was never a locking out of power. You simply never cared enough to walk through the open door and build any kind of structure within the party. Even now, you are demanding that you start at the top floor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Arri posted:Don't give me any bullshit about compromise either. Leftists always compromise, and you liberal pieces of poo poo coopt popular revolutionary movements into reformist movements so you can sit comfortable in your middle class existence while you continue to gently caress the poor and tell us how we refuse to compromise as you sell the farm to fascists. Dont act confused about why leftists want to give liberals the bullet also when you're the ones enabling fascism because you can't get your lips off the corporate teat. I hate liberals as much as you do, if not more so, but I'm not going to be delusional into thinking that anyone from the putative left has any sort of real clout in America. We are grossly outnumbered. Did I loathe HRC's thew-less reformism, of course, but these are party elections between Republican and Democrat, so I'm forced to be pragmatic here. Hey if there is a real grassroots movement that spins off from the Bernie campaign, awesome and I'll help support it anyway I can, but I can't be naive about the reality of American politics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Argas posted:I'm a real Progressive/Leftist and I would rather let Trump win than give those stinking Democrats another chance! Who cares if people suffer in the meantime? I'll remain ideologically pure and when mincome is finally instituted I can live comfortably! The reason Trump and republicans have been able to do so much damage and so quickly is because democrats in general (voters and the party) have focused disproportionately on the presidency to the detriment of other federal, state and local positions, and didn't use the chances they had to build the kind of social programs that could both convince voters of democratic efficacy and act as safeguards in case a republican president was elected. Instead, democratic lawmakers concentrated on compromises with conservatives while being blind to how the game was changing and how moderate republicans were being replaced by people who didn't want to play by the old rules of a friendly give and take. The reason that many leftists/progressives are so adamant about it is that democrats are still relying on disintegrating prestige and infrastructure from the great society era. Meanwhile, every republican president does damage that takes at least a generation to recover from, leaving democratic presidents to react and do damage control instead of set their own agenda. We need to go all out and build something overly ambitious political structure that will take at least a generation for republican lawmakers to recover from, allowing us to stay on the offensive instead of on the defensive. Hopefully perez and ellison will be able to do this
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:The reason Trump and republicans have been able to do so much damage and so quickly is because democrats in general (voters and the party) have focused disproportionately on the presidency to the detriment of other federal, state and local positions, and didn't use the chances they had to build the kind of social programs that could both convince voters of democratic efficacy and act as safeguards in case a republican president was elected. Instead, democratic lawmakers concentrated on compromises with conservatives while being blind to how the game was changing and how moderate republicans were being replaced by people who didn't want to play by the old rules of a friendly give and take. Oh I agree, but "progressives" taking their ball and going home is dumb because Confounding Factor posted:I can't be naive about the reality of American politics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Is it really so unreasonable to expect a party to at least pretend to care about you if they're going to demand your vote like it was their God damned birthright? If they won't even make symbolic gestures to people like me why should I make any effort to support them in turn? So, is installing Ellison a mere '"symbolic gesture" or will the Perez win lead to the permanent installation of corporate stooges in key positions of the Democratic Party's apparatus? Maybe you should move on, fight for leftist candidates in the primaries, and not believe that potential for a worldwide socialist revolution has collapsed because your preferred candidate is not in a "symbolic" role.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
lol 4ever that the Democratic Party couldn't resist hitting it's own dick with a hammer one last time
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:There was never a locking out of power. You simply never cared enough to walk through the open door and build any kind of structure within the party. Even now, you are demanding that you start at the top floor. The DNC chair isn't the top floor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:It's amazing how your definition of "like peers" actually means 'give us everything, don't even talk back, have absolutely no say and be blamed for everything bad ever." The democratic party is mostly old people, they have to know that they need someone to replace them and act as volunteers on the ground It probably would have been smarter to arrange it so Ellison was the head in name, and if Perez could be actual acting head as deputy, they could be. the advantage in this would be capitalizing on all the interest and would-be-enthusiasm in the young bernie wing by getting them excited by a victory-in-name and deploying them as useful idiots for 2018 GOTV efforts But the party's gonna do what it's gonna do, and it does not concern be because I have already given up politics in lieu of starting an apocalypse cult.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Gratuitous French aside, compare that to the host of controversies surrounding Trump at the same time. The hypodermic needle model of the DNC hacks is utterly laughable because it relies on them being released in a vacuum, which they didn't, and it also likes to pretend the information is fallacious even though it can't outright claim as such - case in point, Hillary Clinton attempting to elucidate on a leak from her hidden transcript during a debate, going on about Lincoln or something for a full five minutes, then ending the monologue with, "We don't even know if these leaks are true." That's an awfully full response to something that's a lie then. Shorter Richard Nixon: why are the democrats so mad about me breaking into the watergate if the poo poo we stole wasn't true.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted: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. She lost because she ran on a fake political ideology. It’s gonna be real funny 4 years from now when the same milquetoast liberals still blame the left and racists for all their electoral shortcomings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
YodaTFK posted:His reasoning before was that he wanted to focus exclusively on the DNC chair role and not short change his constituents. No matter how close he works with Perez I can't imagine the deputy chair would take that much time from him, but we'll see. I'd hate to lose him in the house. Worth noting: The person who most likely would have replaced him (Peggy Flanagan) is also extremely progressive. He isn't leaving the senate since he didn't get the chair, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:lol 4ever that the Democratic Party couldn't resist hitting it's own dick with a hammer one last time followed by centrists coming in to say "well it's not that bad, you need to stay with the party or else trump will win!" as if trump isn't gonna win anyway against the ineffective clownshow we call leadership
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 00:51 |
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:She lost because she ran on a fake political ideology. And what was that "fake ideology?" You can keep on posturing about how you're the only real leftist or whatever, it's cute.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:04
|
|