|
I have to admit the more I look into it the more angry and disappointed I get with the Obama administration. It all seems like such a cludge and not really to have thought through what they wanted to do once they had gotten into the White House. Like I would have loved to see a bit less appealing to the Republicans as all the good that did seems to be precisely "dick" and "all".
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:19 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:She and Obama destroyed it. Obama abandoned it for OFA then didn't do anything with OFA for fear of scaring Republicans. Meanwhile DWS got the DNC so bankrupt it had to sell out to Hillary ahead of the primary just to stay afloat. They spent millions on consultants and shrunk the parts of the party that dealt with anything that didn't give consultant kickbacks. Remember how much the DNC loved TV ads under Obama? Well, TV ads give a healthy kickback to the media consultant. Grassroots organizing doesn't give a kickback to anyone. What is OFA?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:Obama For America I believe quote:Organizing for America, then Organizing for Action, (OFA) is a community organizing project of the Democratic National Committee.[1][2][dead link] Initially founded after the presidential inauguration of Barack Obama, the group sought to mobilize supporters in favor of Obama's legislative priorities, particularly health care reform. Eventually, the organization played a role in the midterm elections of 2010. Later, it became the grassroots arm of Obama for America. After Obama's second inauguration, it was reorganized as Organizing for Action and returned to its previous mission of organizing around the President's agenda. It has since turned into a hub of the Democratic protest movement[3].
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Jesus, what is it with Democrats and just being stupid about getting themselves elected. Yeah the above are correct. It started as the Obama campaign (Obama for America) then post election became Organizing for America, which was supposed to be a grassroots bully-pulpit organizing group using the structure of the campaign but operate within the Democratic Party. But the White House decided that using OFA too aggressively would poison the well on bipartisanship so they didn't really use it. Of course without a strong purpose who the gently caress volunteers? So it withered. Then 2012 re-election rolls around and they technically shutter Organizing for America and absorb it into the re-election campaign., After Obama wins, the 2012 campaign organization became Organizing for Action but outside the party structure. OFA is now technically non-partisan but that's just for tax reasons. Obama always hated DWS and my guess is he just decided to cede control of the DNC to her rather than risk an internal party fight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:She and Obama destroyed it. Obama abandoned it for OFA then didn't do anything with OFA for fear of scaring Republicans. Meanwhile DWS got the DNC so bankrupt it had to sell out to Hillary ahead of the primary just to stay afloat. They spent millions on consultants and shrunk the parts of the party that dealt with anything that didn't give consultant kickbacks. Remember how much the DNC loved TV ads under Obama? Well, TV ads give a healthy kickback to the media consultant. Grassroots organizing doesn't give a kickback to anyone. Of note is that the DCCC seems to be riding this grift train, with a recently released memo stipulating that candidates hire on the same batch of consultants and spend 3/4 of their campaign funds on TV advertisements.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Obama always hated DWS and my guess is he just decided to cede control of the DNC to her rather than risk an internal party fight. My understanding of events was that Obama appointing DWS was a part of a compromise with the Clintons in return for their support in 2012, and that he attempted to oust her in 2014, unsuccessfully. There was a lot of backroom fuckery associated with DWS and it’s not clear to me what exactly was happening. There was a big article explaining all this waaaay back in 2012 that I cannot find for the life of me anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
90% of the drama within the high level of the democratic party can be traced back to how much each consultant is receiving. Everything, from Obama keeping OFA money out of the DNC, to primary chat, to Donna Brazile's book, to the current "punch left at all costs" goes back to which consultants receive how much money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:My understanding of events was that Obama appointing DWS was a part of a compromise with the Clintons in return for their support in 2012, and that he attempted to oust her in 2014, unsuccessfully. There was a lot of backroom fuckery associated with DWS and it’s not clear to me what exactly was happening. There was a big article explaining all this waaaay back in 2012 that I cannot find for the life of me anymore. That's entirely possible. She was however, also planning on fighting dirty af if Obama had tried to remove her in 2013: quote:Wasserman Schultz has a different sense of herself. According to people who spoke with her, when she sensed Obama was considering replacing her as chair in 2013, she began to line up supporters to suggest the move was both anti-woman and anti-Semitic. Under fire last fall for her leadership, she took Obama’s decision not to remove her then as evidence of renewed strength and said she was confident no one could get her out of the DNC before her term is over at the beginning of 2017, according to sources who’ve spoken with her. She’s also been known to joke around the office about how having a vacation home in New Hampshire might one day be helpful in a presidential run. This is the quote I'm thinking of that seems so damning of Obama to me: quote:John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman — and a former top adviser to Barack Obama — broached the idea of replacing Wasserman Schultz as early as last fall, only to be rebuffed by the president’s team, according to two people with direct knowledge of the conversation. joepinetree posted:90% of the drama within the high level of the democratic party can be traced back to how much each consultant is receiving. Everything, from Obama keeping OFA money out of the DNC, to primary chat, to Donna Brazile's book, to the current "punch left at all costs" goes back to which consultants receive how much money. Certainly, but I'm hopeful that Perez's trend of spending money on local field consultants instead of media consultants will continue! #NotAllConsultants
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Also, a reminder that for all the pushback Donna Brazile's book received, the one thing that would have been the easiest to debunk but the DNC chose not to are her statements about the DNC budget and how much consultants were making.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Also, a reminder that for all the pushback Donna Brazile's book received, the one thing that would have been the easiest to debunk but the DNC chose not to are her statements about the DNC budget and how much consultants were making. Its also pretty much been confirmed by stuff that's coming out of the DNC Unity Commission. The recent episode of Chapo Trap House with Nomiki Konst lightly talk about some of the things that show just how insanely mismanaged the DNC was by DWS. Executive Committee members saying they never saw a single budget under DWS, etc. https://soundcloud.com/chapo-trap-house/episode-166-the-water-genious-feat-nomiki-konst-121017
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
What exactly does the national party do? My understanding is they functioned sorta like a super PAC in that they had money donated for the cause but for not any specific campaign, and strategically spent it on the races where they thought it would matter most.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:What exactly does the national party do? My understanding is they functioned sorta like a super PAC in that they had money donated for the cause but for not any specific campaign, and strategically spent it on the races where they thought it would matter most. It also can do that same function with other resources like data, institutional knowledge and staff. Along with being able to develop cross-state projects (like data sharing) or help state parties with particular needs (say turning Texas or Arizona purple). The national party is also the place where the ideological struggles occurring at the local and state level should bubble up and party leadership is determined when it doesn't control the presidency. Under DWS it basically became a presidential fundraising organization that also gave some money to state parties and other organs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:What exactly does the national party do? My understanding is they functioned sorta like a super PAC in that they had money donated for the cause but for not any specific campaign, and strategically spent it on the races where they thought it would matter most. Depends on what you mean by the "national party." DCCC and DSCC pool and distribute money for the house and senate races, respectively. The DNC runs the primaries and runs national races and campaigns. More importantly, they can coordinate with state parties. This is all important because campaign contribution limits for individual candidates and local parties are very different: https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/limits.php An individual may give 2700 to a single candidate, 5000 to a PAC, 33400 to the national committee, and 100200 to other party accounts (to organize the convention, legal proceedings and recounts, etc). As such, a lot of money ends up at the hands of the national committees, which can dole out how it chooses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Under DWS it basically became a presidential fundraising organization that also gave some money to state parties and other organs. The less charitable reading is that it became one of the biggest grifting organizations in the country.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:What exactly does the national party do? My understanding is they functioned sorta like a super PAC in that they had money donated for the cause but for not any specific campaign, and strategically spent it on the races where they thought it would matter most. Fundraising is, indeed, basically all they do. How well it's doing its job comes down to both how well it raises money and how well it allocates money. Right now the strategy seems to be raise money and spend it strategically to dispatch organizers and build infrastructure locally, which has been fairly successful so far. The tweet I posted up thread about how the Jones campaign built a well-oiled get-out-the-vote machine from scratch in the course of a few months is important, because I guarantee you the Jones campaign did not do that on its own. Something like that requires expertise, and it requires money. But those are things the national party is well-equipped to offer, effectively parachuting in and handing the campaign tools rather than funding ads and running its own media strategy from Washington.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:The less charitable reading is that it became one of the biggest grifting organizations in the country. I think you're underestimating the size of the other grifts in this great land of ours. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:The less charitable reading is that it became one of the biggest grifting organizations in the country. nothing can hold a candle to the right-wing grift machine even if DWS personally stole every dollar contributed to the DNC
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Fundraising is, indeed, basically all they do. How well it's doing its job comes down to both how well it raises money and how well it allocates money. Right now the strategy seems to be raise money and spend it strategically to dispatch organizers and build infrastructure locally, which has been fairly successful so far. The tweet I posted up thread about how the Jones campaign built a well-oiled get-out-the-vote machine from scratch in the course of a few months is important, because I guarantee you the Jones campaign did not do that on its own. Something like that requires expertise, and it requires money. But those are things the national party is well-equipped to offer, effectively parachuting in and handing the campaign tools rather than funding ads and running its own media strategy from Washington. This is the big thing, under the Perez the DNC has whole sale shifted from buying ads to building GOTV apparatuses, and so far it’s been wildly successful. Perez clearly understands organizing and how to be effective with the DNC and his success makes DWS’ failure all the more damning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Was it only ads that they were buying, in which case why were consultants making so much money?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Was it only ads that they were buying, in which case why were consultants making so much money? Because DWS is an rear end in a top hat and the DNC was basically ignored under her.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Was it only ads that they were buying, in which case why were consultants making so much money? Because that's the way TV ads work. When the DNC would buy a TV ad, they'd buy it through a media consultant who makes a flat % off the ad buys in addition to their other fees. Its a sweet racket. Also they just spent loads and loads of money on consultants directly. Like kept on all the consultants from the presidential campaign cycle and paid them to basically do nothing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
I suppose the operative question is "why" but I know the real reason is patronage. DWS is a dead horse when it comes to anything further, isn't she? Also have their been any good intro's to her political thought and personality/lack thereof?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Also they just spent loads and loads of money on consultants directly. Like kept on all the consultants from the presidential campaign cycle and paid them to basically do nothing. Yeah, apparently this was how they managed to get so deep in debt that they had to take bailout money from the Clinton campaign. Normally they'd scale down during off years, DWS kept the money taps flowing at presidential campaign levels for 8 years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I suppose the operative question is "why" but I know the real reason is patronage. it had worked in the past and changing from a thing that worked at one point to a new thing is difficult, especially if you have a whole bunch of people close to you telling you not to change (because their finances depend on the old model) e: AND dws sucked
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Obama's actions to Republicans make a lot more sense when you look at how he is ideologically closest to David Cameron and various lieutenants from the Obama campaign worked with the conservative party. He's much closer to mitt Romney (as mass governor) ideologically -- also in the pocket of wall street corporate interests. This led to him thinking that compromise was viable and literally ignoring the ground game to the huge detriment of democrats
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Quorum posted:The tweet I posted up thread about how the Jones campaign built a well-oiled get-out-the-vote machine from scratch in the course of a few months is important, because I guarantee you the Jones campaign did not do that on its own. Something like that requires expertise, and it requires money. But those are things the national party is well-equipped to offer, effectively parachuting in and handing the campaign tools rather than funding ads and running its own media strategy from Washington. that had more to do with joe trippi than any national dem orgs, which intentionally avoided making a big push in alabama
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:Obama's actions to Republicans make a lot more sense when you look at how he is ideologically closest to David Cameron and various lieutenants from the Obama campaign worked with the conservative party. He's much closer to mitt Romney (as mass governor) ideologically -- also in the pocket of wall street corporate interests. I dearly wish Bernie had run and won back in 2008.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Also, at least one of Obama's senior campaign advisors worked in Theresa May's craptacular general election campaign this year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:Also, at least one of Obama's senior campaign advisors worked in Theresa May's craptacular general election campaign this year. Jim Messina. Even a spectacular failure like him could see how much of a thundering scrap train DWS was.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:Jim Messina. Even a spectacular failure like him could see how much of a thundering scrap train DWS was. His twitter circa early this summer also makes for some primo comedy reading.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
The Muppets On PCP posted:that had more to do with joe trippi than any national dem orgs, which intentionally avoided making a big push in alabama What that article gets right is that the DNC didn't buy any TV ads. But what it gets wrong is that the DNC was there, they just weren't putting their name on anything. The DNC spent $1M on outreach to black voters and young voters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:What that article gets right is that the DNC didn't buy any TV ads. But what it gets wrong is that the DNC was there, they just weren't putting their name on anything. Yeah, that article basically says the DNC was doing everything they could that wouldn't make the newspapers to help out but desperately did not want credit before the race was over.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Yeah, that article basically says the DNC was doing everything they could that wouldn't make the newspapers to help out but desperately did not want credit before the race was over. So, it seems like that is the lesson they took from Ossoff, because that really became a huge national party battle because they got into it so prominently
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Tom Perez is good at his job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Tom Perez makes me want to join my county's Young democrat club
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Tom Perez is a shitter who had to be knocked hard by reality a few times to realize what every sensible person realized a year ago WRT electoral strategy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Blitz7x posted:Tom Perez makes me want to join my county's Young democrat club You should!
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Tom Perez is a shitter who had to be knocked hard by reality a few times to realize what every sensible person realized a year ago WRT electoral strategy. Or maybe the DNC has been a total cluster gently caress and it took time to get things working again? Perez ran for the DNC chair on building local grassroots organizing efforts so there's really no evidence he hasn't been fighting for these kind of campaigns the entire time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Tom Perez is a shitter who had to be knocked hard by reality a few times to realize what every sensible person realized a year ago WRT electoral strategy. man you are looking real hard for the brown lining on the silver cloud aren't you lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:19 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Or maybe the DNC has been a total cluster gently caress and it took time to get things working again? It doesn't take a year to right an organization like the DNC if the will is there (and given the 2016 result there really should have been), the DNC has been garbage at fundraising, and they managed to blow more money than god on a wet fart in their personal chosen battleground GA06 while starving every other special election. The obvious conclusion is that Perez thought business as usual would cut it, and now he's finally got that it won't he's belatedly changed course. botany posted:man you are looking real hard for the brown lining on the silver cloud aren't you lol You're looking real hard for any excuse to fall back into sweet complacency, aren't you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 22:05
|
|