Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Fulchrum
Apr 16, 2013

by R. Guyovich
AKA the person whose job it is to unfuck everything. No pressure

February 23rd will see the committee members meet to elect the new chairperson of the DNC, the person who will effectively coordinate the Democrats efforts to undermine and resist Republican rule and take back as much power as they can in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and beyond.

Incoming chairperson Donna Brazille will not be seeking re-election. So 5 people have so far thrown their hat into the ring.

Raymond Buckley, chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party since 2007

Keith Ellison, U.S. Representative from Minnesota since 2007

Thomas Perez, United States Secretary of Labor since 2013

Sally Boynton Brown, Executive Director of the Idaho Democratic Party since 2012

Jaime Harrison, chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party since 2013


Howard Dean was first to announce a bid, but withdrew after his enthusiasm for the job was met with almost deafening silence.

All 5 candidates have stressed a need to grow support for Democrats from the ground up and make a connection with voters in every state and every county, each supporting

Of the 5, four (Perez, Ellisson, Buckley and Harrison) have reiterated that Democrats guiding principles are strong, and we must both talk about and commit more to these principles. Brown has meanwhile said we must become more like Republicans. I think she is doing this solely to get attention.

So far, Ellisson is the favorite for the position, with the backing of Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, and the AFL-CIO. Perez is next with the backing of several sitting governors, as well as the Firefighters union and the United Foodworkers. Behind them is Jaime Harrison, who has the endorsement of Jim Clyburn and pretty much no-one else. Raymond Buckley and Sally Brown are in last with no endorsements. Which, you have to feel sorry for Buckley about. Here he is, a genuinely good option, and he's stuck in last with the worst possible option.

So its a 5 person race wherein only two of the people running have any real chance of winning it. One candidate pulled in a great deal of endorsements early on, and it was believed that the entire affair would be a coronation, before a popular challenger emerged who began gaining ground fast. Also, the former has a number of scandals in their past that could potentially haunt them. Something about this is sounding very familiar.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

FactsAreUseless
Feb 16, 2011

It should obviously be Brown, because she's the head of the Idaho Democrats, which means she knows how to fight in the face of utter defeat.

Zikan
Feb 29, 2004

For those wondering, the chairperson is selected by a vote of the committee members, not the general party memberships like the UK labor party so all of those endorsements probably have more weight. The committee members are the state chairpersons and vice chairpersons, a proportional number of voting members for each state and a bunch of people in random committees like the democratic association of city mayors and stuff like that.

There's also going to be a debate on Jan 18th if you want to see it http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/huffpost-hosting-dnc-debate-january-18th_us_5859f64ee4b0d9a594567e3b

Armack
Jan 27, 2006
Am I correct in my understanding that Perez supported TPP while Ellison did not? If so, that seems to be a good argument for supporting Ellison.

stone cold
Feb 15, 2014

Jitzu_the_Monk posted:

Am I correct in my understanding that Perez supported TPP while Ellison did not? If so, that seems to be a good argument for supporting Ellison.

That is their one and only policy difference, yes, but seeing as how Perez was Secretary of Labor, what substantive argument do you have to make against TPP?

In other words, I'd be happy with either :shrug:

Armack
Jan 27, 2006

stone cold posted:

That is their one and only policy difference, yes, but seeing as how Perez was Secretary of Labor, what substantive argument do you have to make against TPP?

In other words, I'd be happy with either :shrug:

For instance the left is understandably skeptical of the ISDS, also left and right rust belt voters alike notice that globalization has distributed wealth out of their communities. I say that as someone who knows that NAFTA is considered to have been a net positive for the US economy and that globalization isn't going to get "switched off" just because a trade deal gets blocked.

What I'm saying is that there are politically significant states in which it is easy to see why voters hate TPP. And in a climate where the Democratic party is smeared as catering to "elite" interests, is it really wise for a TPP supporter to run the DNC? Sure, most voters don't attend to the minutiae of DNC elections, but to the extent that the party gets tied to these big trade deals, it will hurt the ability of the party to grow.

I understand that as Secretary of Labor, Perez was going to support Obama’s trade policy no matter what, but I'd prefer a DNC chair who never supported it.

Zikan
Feb 29, 2004

Perez has also never won a electoral race higher then the county level while Ellison has focused on increasing the turnout in his district every election year, even though he's in a safe district and could just coast to victory.

Cease to Hope
Dec 12, 2011
It's Ellison versus anyone but Ellison. Ellison's main liabilities are that he's progressive, Muslim and not pro-Israel (which is the only reason the ADL smear has gotten any traction al all), and tied heavily to Sanders and Warren. Pushing Perez, who is progressive, not Muslim, and nominally friendly with Clinton but very closely tied to Obama, into the race seems like an obvious triangulation on the part of the president to hedge against another centrist hack like DWS.

Gringostar
Nov 12, 2016
Morbid Hound

Cease to Hope posted:

It's Ellison versus anyone but Ellison. Ellison's main liabilities are that he's progressive, Muslim and not pro-Israel (which is the only reason the ADL smear has gotten any traction al all), and tied heavily to Sanders and Warren. Pushing Perez, who is progressive, not Muslim, and nominally friendly with Clinton but very closely tied to Obama, into the race seems like an obvious triangulation on the part of the president to hedge against another centrist hack like DWS.

Only, unlike DWS Perez isn't horrible and IIRC is actually loved by unions so much they had Obama nominate Lynch to replace Holder instead of Perez.

Cease to Hope
Dec 12, 2011

Gringostar posted:

Only, unlike DWS Perez isn't horrible and IIRC is actually loved by unions so much they had Obama nominate Lynch to replace Holder instead of Perez.

Perez is a hedge against a DWS-style hack. His liabilities - Clinton endorsement, TPP support - make him ideal for anyone-but-Ellison Democrats to rally around, and leave less room for a centrist, corporatist, or Clintonlander to try and brand themself the Ellison Alternative.

blackguy32
Oct 1, 2005

Say, do you know how to do the walk?
This just seems like yet another primary proxy battle that will be fought over the thinnest of differences. Have any of them put out any plans on moving the party forward?

Gringostar
Nov 12, 2016
Morbid Hound

Cease to Hope posted:

Perez is a hedge against a DWS-style hack. His liabilities - Clinton endorsement, TPP support - make him ideal for anyone-but-Ellison Democrats to rally around, and leave less room for a centrist, corporatist, or Clintonlander to try and brand themself the Ellison Alternative.

I misinterpreted what you wrote, but also the huge issue with Perez is that he's only ever won a county seat and been appointed to everything else and not the Clinton or TPP support.

awesmoe
Nov 30, 2005

Pillbug
Seems like two really good options, and I REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY hope it doesn't become a circular firing squad where supporters of the losing candidate (or worse, the candidate themselves) take their ball and go home (and supporters of the winner become unbearable smuglords)
Either one of them could happily run the DNC and the other could do a bunch of other useful progressive stuff in another role.

A Buttery Pastry
Sep 4, 2011

Delicious and Informative!
:3:

blackguy32 posted:

This just seems like yet another primary proxy battle that will be fought over the thinnest of differences. Have any of them put out any plans on moving the party forward?
Which primary battle do you think was fought over the thinnest of differences? Actually, what do you even mean by "proxy battle"?

Cease to Hope
Dec 12, 2011

blackguy32 posted:

This just seems like yet another primary proxy battle that will be fought over the thinnest of differences. Have any of them put out any plans on moving the party forward?

Their biggest change from existing party policy is that they both want to devolve funding from the national party to local parties.

That said, if you can find a difference between their stated plans for the party, I'd like to hear it!

Helsing
Aug 23, 2003

DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU :love::love::love: JOE BIDEN
The fact that the White House has all but endorsed Perez over Ellison is arguably one of the best arguments for Ellison. Given the awful results that the Clinton and Obama people have produced why would you follow their endorsement?

botany
Apr 27, 2013

by Lowtax

awesmoe posted:

Seems like two really good options, and I REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY hope it doesn't become a circular firing squad where supporters of the losing candidate (or worse, the candidate themselves) take their ball and go home (and supporters of the winner become unbearable smuglords)
Either one of them could happily run the DNC and the other could do a bunch of other useful progressive stuff in another role.

I don't think enough people are really paying attention to this for it to get that heated. That said, go Team Ellison! :colbert:

Fulchrum
Apr 16, 2013

by R. Guyovich

Helsing posted:

The fact that the White House has all but endorsed Perez over Ellison is arguably one of the best arguments for Ellison. Given the awful results that the Clinton and Obama people have produced why would you follow their endorsement?

Obama is also pro-breathing, I assume you want to stop doing that?

My policy on this is basically anyone but goddamn Brown, but knee-jerk opposing literally anything because Obama is for it with no further thought is literally tea party logic.

Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Jan 4, 2017

blackguy32
Oct 1, 2005

Say, do you know how to do the walk?

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Which primary battle do you think was fought over the thinnest of differences? Actually, what do you even mean by "proxy battle"?

The most recent Democratic primary battle. But that is a discussion for another thread (it already has been discussed to death). Proxy battle in that I think sides are going to form just because of who is backing them.

Fulchrum posted:

Obama is also pro-breathing, I assume you want to stop doing that?

My policy on this is basically anyone but goddamn Brown, but knee-jerk opposing literally anything because Obama is for it with no further thought is literally tea party logic.

At this point, I am undecided too.

LiterallyTheWurst
Feb 5, 2015

Sendik's Original

Zikan posted:

Perez has also never won a electoral race higher then the county level while Ellison has focused on increasing the turnout in his district every election year, even though he's in a safe district and could just coast to victory.
Ellison's district includes much of Minneapolis, but I'm glad he wasn't resting.
Ellison and Perez are both excellent choices, but I'd bet that Ellison knows more about winning elections. Also, Ellison is probably going to have more knowledge as to what Democrats in rural areas need, being a DFL member.
I wouldn't want any DNC Chairperson to require much on the job training with 2018 coming up.

LiterallyTheWurst fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Jan 4, 2017

Helsing
Aug 23, 2003

DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU :love::love::love: JOE BIDEN

Fulchrum posted:

Obama is also pro-breathing, I assume you want to stop doing that?

My policy on this is basically anyone but goddamn Brown, but knee-jerk opposing literally anything because Obama is for it with no further thought is literally tea party logic.

Sorry but for an analogy to be effective -- even as a sarcastic throw away -- there needs to be some actual underlying similarity. If you want the party to be under new management then it logically follows that you'd be extra skeptical toward the guy who is being promoted by the current managers of the party. That's not "Tea Party Logic", whatever the hell that would mean, it's common sense.

If you want to argue that Obama or the various Clinton allies who have been in charge of the party recently have been doing a good job and should continue to guide the direction the party takes then feel free to defend that position on it's merits. Or are you really so naive as to think that the mobilization around Perez is exclusively because they just genuinely think he's more qualified and isn't intended to derail the candidacy of the guy backed by the Sanders and Warren wing of the party?

MizPiz
May 29, 2013

by Athanatos

Fulchrum posted:

Obama is also pro-breathing, I assume you want to stop doing that?

My policy on this is basically anyone but goddamn Brown, but knee-jerk opposing literally anything because Obama is for it with no further thought is literally tea party logic.

Tea Party logic lead to the Republican's sweeping the House and Senate, what has liberal logic done lately?

Fulchrum
Apr 16, 2013

by R. Guyovich

LiterallyTheWurst posted:

Ellison and Perez are both excellent choices, but I think Ellison knows a thing or two about winning elections. Also, Ellison is probably going to have more knowledge as to what Democrats in rural areas need, being a DFL member. I wouldn't want any DNC Chairperson to require much on the job training with 2018 coming up.
Again, you cannot both say Ellisson has experience winning tough elections, and that his seat is safe as possible and won't go red in a million years. These are contradictory ideas.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the people in the rust belt need good, safe jobs, strong worker rights and a strong union to protect them, right? And a whole bunch of infrastructure spending and treatment of the opioid epidemic but, mainly the jobs? Who better to spearhead that than the most leftist labor secretary since FDRs?

As for on the job training, well, which of them has coordinated a national organisation? That does require training any way you slice it.

Again, Ellisson is a great option who I think would make a great chairperson, but the arguments his supporters put forward for why he is better for it than Perez all seem pretty flawed.

WHOOPS
Nov 6, 2009
Ellison's district is primarily Minneapolis and for the most part is within the Twin Cities beltway. His constituency hasn't involved any kind of rural voters, unless you count people like me who left rural communities for the city. I'm very pro-Ellison as a progressive but I wouldn't assume he has some built in knowledge about rural demands just because he's from Minnesota.

Fulchrum
Apr 16, 2013

by R. Guyovich

Helsing posted:

Sorry but for an analogy to be effective -- even as a sarcastic throw away -- there needs to be some actual underlying similarity. If you want the party to be under new management then it logically follows that you'd be extra skeptical toward the guy who is being promoted by the current managers of the party. That's not "Tea Party Logic", whatever the hell that would mean, it's common sense.

If you want to argue that Obama or the various Clinton allies who have been in charge of the party recently have been doing a good job and should continue to guide the direction the party takes then feel free to defend that position on it's merits. Or are you really so naive as to think that the mobilization around Perez is exclusively because they just genuinely think he's more qualified and isn't intended to derail the candidacy of the guy backed by the Sanders and Warren wing of the party?

If that were the case they would have coalesced around Dean, not waited for Perez. And you seem to be ignoring that Perez's endorsements aren't coming from any Clinton people, and many aren't even from Obama people. The UFCW and the firefighters unions both broke with the AFL-CIO to back Perez over Ellisson after he announced, I assume food workers and firemen are also the fat cat elites who ruined everything?

Also I like that you're claiming Chuck Schumer as a part of the Sanders wing.

Fulchrum
Apr 16, 2013

by R. Guyovich

MizPiz posted:

Tea Party logic lead to the Republican's sweeping the House and Senate, what has liberal logic done lately?

I dunno, I quit doing the hell dump over a year ago for my mental health.

Bah dum tish.

awesmoe
Nov 30, 2005

Pillbug
Is the job of the DNC chair primarily policy, or strategy around election organization (ie sending money places, directing how money is spent at the state level)?

Gringostar
Nov 12, 2016
Morbid Hound

awesmoe posted:

Is the job of the DNC chair primarily policy, or strategy around election organization (ie sending money places, directing how money is spent at the state level)?

Second one.

WHOOPS
Nov 6, 2009

Fulchrum posted:

Again, you cannot both say Ellisson has experience winning tough elections, and that his seat is safe as possible and won't go red in a million years. These are contradictory ideas.

Not really. Ellison's first election wasn't necessarily a coronation. The primary was fairly contentious because a ton of people threw their hats in the ring after Martin Sabo retired unexpectedly and even after Ellison got the DFL endorsement, there was an independent candidate that threatened to split the vote. Like, Ellison still won handily but he still had to navigate mudslinging around his faith and past associations with Nation of Islam.

Helsing
Aug 23, 2003

DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU :love::love::love: JOE BIDEN

Fulchrum posted:

If that were the case they would have coalesced around Dean, not waited for Perez. And you seem to be ignoring that Perez's endorsements aren't coming from any Clinton people, and many aren't even from Obama people. The UFCW and the firefighters unions both broke with the AFL-CIO to back Perez over Ellisson after he announced, I assume food workers and firemen are also the fat cat elites who ruined everything?

Also I like that you're claiming Chuck Schumer as a part of the Sanders wing.

I'm not claiming anything of the sort. Use your head here and stop trying to make dumb gotcha posts for a second. Hopping on the bandwagon and throwing your support behind a candidate you think is likely to win doesn't necessarily say anything about your ideological preferences, especially in Washington. Arguing that Ellison is the choice of the Sanders doesn't imply that everyone who has voiced support for Ellison is now automatically a progressive in good standing or something.

And I'm not really sure why you're citing union endorsements as anti-establishment bonafides within the context of an internal Democratic party selection process. The UFCW also endorsed Hilary Clinton during the primary.

Dr. Arbitrary
Mar 15, 2006

Bleak Gremlin

MizPiz posted:

what has liberal logic done lately?

Haven't actually heard much from them in the crazy forwarded email thread, it's all about EPORW these days

Edit for actual content:

I prefer Ellison, but I'm pleased with both choices. I was hoping Perez would have been chosen for VP during the election.

Fulchrum
Apr 16, 2013

by R. Guyovich

Dr. Arbitrary posted:

Haven't actually heard much from them in the crazy forwarded email thread, it's all about EPORW these days

Yeah, I retired from the job after I was in hospital for clinical depression.

Still trying to figure out a way to get my browser to stop suggesting their url.

Fulchrum
Apr 16, 2013

by R. Guyovich

Helsing posted:

Hopping on the bandwagon and throwing your support behind a candidate you think is likely to win doesn't necessarily say anything about your ideological preferences, especially in Washington.

.....

The UFCW also endorsed Hilary Clinton during the primary.
You don't see aaany problem putting these two thoughts in the same post?

Helsing
Aug 23, 2003

DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU :love::love::love: JOE BIDEN

Fulchrum posted:

You don't see aaany problem putting these two thoughts in the same post?

Saying that not everyone who backs Ellison is necessarily a strong progressive, and then pointing out that the UFCW's endorsement isn't a particularly strong litmus test for being an establishment outsider, are in no way contradictory statements.

This is now the third time in this thread you've avoided any kind of substantive engagement so that you can make really dumb "gotcha!" style posts that have no internal logical coherence. Do you actually think this kind of debate by insinuation is effective or convincing?

Fulchrum
Apr 16, 2013

by R. Guyovich
Didn't you start off the debate by claiming that any support for Perez is equivalent to saying that Debbie Wasserman Schultz should be brought back and put in charge? How is your entire style not based on stupid gotcha arguments?

Helsing
Aug 23, 2003

DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU :love::love::love: JOE BIDEN

Fulchrum posted:

Didn't you start off the debate by claiming that any support for Perez is equivalent to saying that Debbie Wasserman Schultz should be brought back and put in charge? How is your entire style not based on stupid gotcha arguments?

No. I said, and would continue to say, that if you think the current team of Democrats in the White House have done a bad job of running the party then you should be skeptical of candidates they endorse for the DNC.

Brainiac Five
Mar 28, 2016

by FactsAreUseless

Helsing posted:

No. I said, and would continue to say, that if you think the current team of Democrats in the White House have done a bad job of running the party then you should be skeptical of candidates they endorse for the DNC.

Why should this override the candidate's stated beliefs and actions?

LiterallyTheWurst
Feb 5, 2015

Sendik's Original

WHOOPS posted:

Ellison's district is primarily Minneapolis and for the most part is within the Twin Cities beltway. His constituency hasn't involved any kind of rural voters, unless you count people like me who left rural communities for the city. I'm very pro-Ellison as a progressive but I wouldn't assume he has some built in knowledge about rural demands just because he's from Minnesota.

Now that I'm reading into this more, I am probably making a stretch. I'm assuming that Ellison's membership in the DFL makes it more likely he's heard some of the complaints rural Democrats have about a lack of support from the DNC.

TROIKA CURES GREEK
Jun 30, 2015

by R. Guyovich

Helsing posted:

No. I said, and would continue to say, that if you think the current team of Democrats in the White House have done a bad job of running the party then you should be skeptical of candidates they endorse for the DNC.

But the current people running the white house are doing a pretty good job all considered? All the Obama people in the world can't change the fact that Clinton consistently surrounds herself with an echo chamber of dumbshit sycophants and refused to campaign in key swing states.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Helsing
Aug 23, 2003

DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU :love::love::love: JOE BIDEN

Brainiac Five posted:

Why should this override the candidate's stated beliefs and actions?

I wouldn't say it should override everything they've done, skepticism doesn't necessarily mean total opposition, it just means you should be wary of why this candidate is getting the endorsements they are getting. In this case I think he's essentially the anyone-but-Ellison candidate and that elements of the democratic party who are resistant to giving ground to progressives are endorsing him for that reason.

TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:

But the current people running the white house are doing a pretty good job all considered? All the Obama people in the world can't change the fact that Clinton consistently surrounds herself with an echo chamber of dumbshit sycophants and refused to campaign in key swing states.

If you feel that way then it would be logical for you to count their endorsement of Perez as a positive. I don't really share your view that Obama did a pretty good job, even if he did face a lot of hurdles to success. I think he was to the right of his own party on a bunch of important issues and I think his mishandling of certain issues contributed significantly to Republican victories throughout Obama's term, culminating in the election of Trump.

  • Locked thread