|
Helsing posted: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. But why would they back a progressive candidate like Perez if their goal is to forestall progressivism? This is, and I must admit being gleeful at the chance to use this phrase, "9-dimensional chess".
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 11:30 |
|
|
Helsing posted: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. This is sort of how I feel when using a political candidate's wealth as a basis for judging them. I'm not going to decide who to vote for solely on that basis (unless everything else is equal) but I'm inherently going to be a little more skeptical of a wealthy person's commitment to fixing issues like income equality (especially if they were born into a wealthy family) than I am someone who isn't as wealthy. Obviously policy is more important, but it's still one of many factors I think are worth considering. Normally I wouldn't really care much about Perez's more direct involvement with Obama (and I still don't really care much about it for that matter), but given that he seems to be pretty much the same as Ellison when it comes to policy it's enough to tip the scales in favor of Ellison. The same also goes for Ellison being Muslim; not even close to a deciding factor, but it's a nice bonus to help tip the scales, since it's always good to have more people of minority faiths in leadership positions. I think more broadly these issues are mostly related to how much you feel you can trust a candidate to pursue their stated goals. If you want a candidate to change the status quo, for example, someone involved more closely with the previous administration is inherently going to be at least a little bit less trustworthy than someone less involved (though don't confuse this with me saying they're not trustworthy; it's slightly less relative to the alternative).
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:But why would they back a progressive candidate like Perez if their goal is to forestall progressivism? This is, and I must admit being gleeful at the chance to use this phrase, "9-dimensional chess". supporting the TPP isn't progressive
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
Condiv posted:supporting the TPP isn't progressive So the sole litmus test should be: do they support trade deals y/n?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:So the sole litmus test should be: do they support trade deals y/n? tpp is a poo poo trade deal. sorry if i think a guy who's for nafta 2: nafta harder isn't progressive. plus, perez has other problems like suggesting the "bernie is for whitey" meme during the primary, refusing to take a stand against dems taking mega-donor money, being in the pocket of the same establishment that has been screwing over the poor for 8 years, etc. All good reasons to support ellison over him, as well as ellison having actual election experience
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
Condiv posted:tpp is a poo poo trade deal. sorry if i think a guy who's for nafta 2: nafta harder isn't progressive. plus, perez has other problems like suggesting the "bernie is for whitey" meme during the primary, refusing to take a stand against dems taking mega-donor money, being in the pocket of the same establishment that has been screwing over the poor for 8 years, etc. All good reasons to support ellison over him, as well as ellison having actual election experience Okay, so Perez's sins are 1) he insulted Saint Bernard Sanders of Burlington, 2) he refused to advocate running the Democratic party on no budget, 3) he held public office under the Obama administration which has been actively hurting the poor, unlike white presidential administrations, and 4) he distinguished between NAFTA and the TPP, which is another insult against Saint Bernard Sanders of Burlington.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Okay, so Perez's sins are 1) he insulted Saint Bernard Sanders of Burlington, 2) he refused to advocate running the Democratic party on no budget, 3) he held public office under the Obama administration which has been actively hurting the poor, unlike white presidential administrations, and 4) he distinguished between NAFTA and the TPP, which is another insult against Saint Bernard Sanders of Burlington. 1) making false attacks against a primary candidate sucks, and i think he's not trustworthy because of it 2) bernie seemed to run his campaign well enough on small donors, ditto obama. maybe the dems should have to appeal to the general populace instead of taking billions from mega-donors only to lose. 3) yep, he's the pick of an administration that has been coddling bankers after they destroyed the economy and letting said bankers kick people out of their houses. obama letting the banks off with a slap on the wrist after they were caught forging ownership documents so they could evict people is hosed up, and I'd like as few people associated with that poo poo in control of the party 4) nafta is terrible and has been used to gently caress over the poor in all signing countries for the benefit of the upper class. TPP is nafta redux and is poo poo, and a supposed labor advocate and progressive should be against it. got it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
I don't think some of you even understand what the DNC chair does. Stop trying to apply a purity test to it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
Condiv posted:1) making false attacks against a primary candidate sucks, and i think he's not trustworthy because of it Well, to judge from the Bernie diehards, it wasn't a false attack at all. Furthermore, it's also possible for someone to be wrong about something without it being a nefarious conspiracy to destroy you. Sure, let's rely on squeezing money from the people least able to afford it, because by god, we're gonna run this place on the cheap instead of taking advantage of the free money being handed to us by idiots. Okay, let's blacklist everyone who held public office as a Democrat before 2016, except for the Blue Dogs who disavowed Obama and got their asses kicked in elections. TPP isn't poo poo and latching onto it as a nefarious gambit by Haim Saban and George Soros to drain the blood of the poor is one of the many reasons why Bernie diehards can't be trusted with power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Well, to judge from the Bernie diehards, it wasn't a false attack at all. Furthermore, it's also possible for someone to be wrong about something without it being a nefarious conspiracy to destroy you. except he knew it was wrong. it was a smear campaign. also love that you are clinging to "bernie diehards" to try to win an argument quote:Sure, let's rely on squeezing money from the people least able to afford it, because by god, we're gonna run this place on the cheap instead of taking advantage of the free money being handed to us by idiots. money from mega-donors is not free, it's always got strings attached. also, bernie didn't have to run his campaign cheap, and neither did obama. what did the excessive donations to the hillary campaign buy her? a loss to an orange clown who had half her money quote:Okay, let's blacklist everyone who held public office as a Democrat before 2016, except for the Blue Dogs who disavowed Obama and got their asses kicked in elections. nah, just the ones being pushed by the obama administration. you can tell the difference right? quote:TPP isn't poo poo and latching onto it as a nefarious gambit by Haim Saban and George Soros to drain the blood of the poor is one of the many reasons why Bernie diehards can't be trusted with power. yeah, i'm not gonna believe that after nafta was pushed the same way and then turned out to hollow out the poor and middle class.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Sure, let's rely on squeezing money from the people least able to afford it, because by god, we're gonna run this place on the cheap instead of taking advantage of the free money being handed to us by idiots. quote:
And yet only the mighty consider free trade an unequivocal good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
the mega donor thing is that ellison has stated that the dnc will not take lobbyist money under his watch. this hilariously enough was the policy of the dnc under the obama dnc until it was changed for a certain presidential candidate by debbie wasserman schultz! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/keith-ellison-ban-lobbyist-contributions-dnc_us_586cd2aae4b0d9a5945d2e4d quote:In a new video interview with The Huffington Post, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) pledged to ban contributions from lobbyists to the Democratic Party if he’s elected as its next chairman.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
I like Ellison better than Perez because he's a more effective and experienced organizer, but I don't see how Perez is meaningfully tainted by association with Obama or Clinton. He hasn't been part of Clinton's poorly-run campaigns, he favors the same sort of decentralized volunteer-led politics that Ellison (and Sanders) do, and he's not indebted to Clinton for his political career to date. I understand that he's not The Sanders Faction Candidate, and I don't like the DNC defeating Ellison just to symbolically punch left. Other than that he's not Ellison, what's wrong with Perez? Brainiac Five posted:TPP isn't poo poo and latching onto it as a nefarious gambit by Haim Saban and George Soros to drain the blood of the poor is one of the many reasons why Bernie diehards can't be trusted with power. what the hell is this garbage
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
Condiv posted:except he knew it was wrong. it was a smear campaign. also love that you are clinging to "bernie diehards" to try to win an argument You can't prove that, you are engaging in conspiratorial rhetoric. In fact, all your thoughts on the issue seem to be purely half-baked. You want to punish that uppity Obama because someone told you he personally destroyed the middle class with NAFTA, so you pretend that Democrats generally were all in favor of having wild horses tear all bankers apart on live TV and only oppressed into silence by B-Rock the Islamic Shock. You insist that Obama funded his campaign on small donors, but people donating the maximum legally made up a full third of Obama donors as compared to a quarter donating $200 or less. Bernie Sanders, meanwhile, also took money from PACs and large-scale individual donors as well. You basically are ignorant of a great many things and subsist solely on memes rather than actual thought. Your mind has been wasted. Agnosticnixie posted:The only idiots are the people who think oligarch money is a gift rather than an investment to ensure that the party remains a watchdog of capital. Money doesn't allow people to mind-control you, moron. Actually, the really rich don't like free trade as such, preferring trade rigged in their favor. It's academics who push for free trade as such.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
Also if you're interested in hearing Ellison talk himself about his candidacy and not the arguments of nerds on a dead comedy forum, he did an interview on Keepin' It 1600. 25 minutes in if you want to skip everything else https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/keepin-it-1600/id1111751047?mt=2&i=378123779
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:
quote:Actually, the really rich don't like free trade as such, preferring trade rigged in their favor. It's academics who push for free trade as such.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:Good thing there are no other ways to manipulate things and people besides physical coercion and telepathy. The whole reason taking money is considered corrupting is because of the sense of reciprocity, which is not inevitable, and the worry of losing further money, which is an asinine thing to consider because it ignores why businesses donate money to politicians in the first place. OK, well, if we want to play semantics games, I'll say that you're committing a foul by using hazy definitions that are whatever you want them to be to win the argument, which is against the rules and disqualifies you from speaking for the next three turns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
For people wondering about Keith's election chops, this article makes him look like he knows what he is doing imo http://www.startribune.com/how-to-get-out-the-vote-keith-ellison-demonstrates/284044361/ quote:Now for some good turnout news: In the Fifth Congressional District, anchored by Minneapolis, turnout was up nearly 11,000 votes from the previous presidential midterm election, in 2010. That’s about a 0.5-percentage-point gain, compared with a 5-percentage-point turnout decline statewide.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
I feel like a goddamn O'Malley supporter here, but can we talk Buckley for a second? Just so people will stop trying to rip each other's throats out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:You can't prove that, you are engaging in conspiratorial rhetoric. In fact, all your thoughts on the issue seem to be purely half-baked. You want to punish that uppity Obama because someone told you he personally destroyed the middle class with NAFTA, so you pretend that Democrats generally were all in favor of having wild horses tear all bankers apart on live TV and only oppressed into silence by B-Rock the Islamic Shock. first, bill clinton signed nafta into law against the wishes of unions. he also hosed up welfare among other things so yeah, he seemed to be p anti-middle class. second, barack obama definitely shielded bankers from prosecution. we could've sent a poo poo ton of them to jail for the stuff they did in the leadup to the 2008 recession, and we could've sent more to jail after the robo-signing scandal, but we didn't because obama and his DoJ was banker friendly. quote:You insist that Obama funded his campaign on small donors, but people donating the maximum legally made up a full third of Obama donors as compared to a quarter donating $200 or less. Bernie Sanders, meanwhile, also took money from PACs and large-scale individual donors as well. You basically are ignorant of a great many things and subsist solely on memes rather than actual thought. Your mind has been wasted. meanwhile, nearly half of hillary's primary donors gave the legal maximum. definitely something we need to shrink
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Obama, Holder, and Clinton are not running for DNC chair.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
Buckley is pretty good, stayed neutral during the primary, the NH democratic party has been pretty successful in all of it's races. He just can't get any oxygen in room due to the heavyweight and the mediumweight "duking it out" (it's actually super tame compared to the immediate comparison of UK labor). Maybe he'll get traction from the debate! He won't
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
Please don't relitigate the Primary in this thread, which is for discussing the Democratic National Chairperson election 2017.Brainiac Five posted:latching onto it as a nefarious gambit by Haim Saban and George Soros to drain the blood of the poor Brainiac Five posted:You can't prove that, you are engaging in conspiratorial rhetoric. In fact, all your thoughts on the issue seem to be purely half-baked. You want to punish that uppity Obama because someone told you he personally destroyed the middle class with NAFTA, so you pretend that Democrats generally were all in favor of having wild horses tear all bankers apart on live TV and only oppressed into silence by B-Rock the Islamic Shock. [..] You basically are ignorant of a great many things and subsist solely on memes rather than actual thought. Your mind has been wasted. Cut this poo poo out
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Obama, Holder, and Clinton are not running for DNC chair. the obama admin's pick is though. i don't want his wing of the party in control anymore
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:I feel like a goddamn O'Malley supporter here, but can we talk Buckley for a second? Just so people will stop trying to rip each other's throats out. Buckley is a blue dog who owned this car.  Condiv posted:the obama admin's pick is though. i don't want his wing of the party in control anymore Ellison is endorsed by Schumer and many other DNC "establishment" figures I don't especially like. There is no path to DNC chair that doesn't at least require the assent of these people. I still want to know what quality Perez has that makes him and his policies undesirable. What are you worried he's do as DNC chair? What connection does he have to Obama and why does that connection make him undesirable? Is it just that he's not the Sanders-endorsed guy? Help me out here. I favor Ellison but I just don't see the problem with Perez. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Jan 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
imo, perez isn't the worst thing ever for a DNC chair pick but his lack of election experience as opposed to ellison makes him strictly inferior to ellison, as well as ellison having called trump's ascendancy better than most dems.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
Condiv posted:imo, perez isn't the worst thing ever for a DNC chair pick but his lack of election experience as opposed to ellison makes him strictly inferior to ellison, as well as ellison having called trump's ascendancy better than most dems. gonna have to be more specific, because calling his ascendancy better could mean "was willing to entertain a .01% possibility"
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:gonna have to be more specific, because calling his ascendancy better could mean "was willing to entertain a .01% possibility" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHkPadFK34o
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
Condiv posted:imo, perez isn't the worst thing ever for a DNC chair pick but his lack of election experience as opposed to ellison makes him strictly inferior to ellison, as well as ellison having called trump's ascendancy better than most dems. While Perez may not have experience running for elections Ellison doesn't have experience running institutions. I also don't like the idea of having a 53 year old Chief Deputy Whip resign from Congress when we have a 76 year old minority leader and a 77 year old Minority Whip. You know what I like better then DNC Chairman Keith Ellison, Speaker of the House Keith Ellison.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 07:09
|
|
|
karthun posted:While Perez may not have experience running for elections Ellison doesn't have experience running institutions. I also don't like the idea of having a 53 year old Chief Deputy Whip resign from Congress when we have a 76 year old minority leader and a 77 year old Minority Whip. You know what I like better then DNC Chairman Keith Ellison, Speaker of the House Keith Ellison.  ellison is one of nine chief deputy whips, so reaching speaker is not a clear line of succession for keith ellisoni'd rather have him take the position of power he's closer to taking than a longshot that may take 10-20 years for him to reach.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 07:32
|
|
|
Why oh why would you ever favor Ellison over Perez, at least in results-oriented terms on the national level?quote:MAHER: Then why doesn't your party come out against the Second Amendment? It's the problem. That's on tape. Not background checks, not assault rifles. The Second Amendment. Are the people supporting Ellison, like, congenitally incapable of learning from past results?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 07:45
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Ellison isn't running for a popular election. Being a gun control hardliner isn't a liability in this case. The fact that you're trying to treat opposing Heller as a bad thing probably means you're just concern trolling though
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 07:56
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Why oh why would you ever favor Ellison over Perez, at least in results-oriented terms on the national level? not particularly worried about it. it's not like perez is gonna be much better. the full quote from that interview: quote:MAHER: Why doesn't your party come out against the Second Amendment? It's the problem. and here's perez pushing for common-sense gun safety laws i'd prefer the dems give up on gun control, especially after the terrible no-fly list sit-in, but neither candidate is really gonna be the NRA's friend and i don't think gun control was the deciding issue this election.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 07:58
|
|
|
I'd follow Bernie off a cliff but I kind of wish Dean hadn't dropped out. He can get people elected, which is what the job entails.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 08:22
|
|
|
Ramrod Hotshot posted:I'd follow Bernie off a cliff but I kind of wish Dean hadn't dropped out. He can get people elected, which is what the job entails. Dean's plan was to get blue dogs elected, and he did, and it's part of how the Democrats ended up in the mess they're in now. It's part of why DNC leadership agenda doesn't neatly map into political record. Dean the politician was progressive, Dean the DNC head envisioned a big-tent Democratic Party that managed to somehow include everyone from progressives like himself to southern conservatives. I'm honestly not sure how Ellison or Perez are going to decentralize Democratic control while also effectively promoting a consistent progressive agenda! (The need to do so is the subtext of all of those pseudocontroversial "we need people devoted to equality but also the economy" Sanders speeches, incidentally.) Dean didn't do a very good job of it, and arguably didn't even consider it a priority. Also, Dean and Sanders don't get along, and Dean has been working as a lobbyist in the interim.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 09:10
|
|
|
He tried everything to get people to like him. He was the only person to have the balls to call Bannon an out and out nazi.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 10:11
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Ellison isn't running for a popular election. Being a gun control hardliner isn't a liability in this case. I really, really think that putting him at the wheel would open up the Dems as a whole to being defined by a soundbite that will be played over and over. The law that was overturned by the Heller decision can and did punish people for having an assembled gun in a safe so you're definitely opening yourself up to a "regulating poo poo out of existence" attack angle. I know Perez is against the NRA too but typically almost everyone has the brains to deliver it with a "I support the 2nd but..." and/or a "we don't have to choose between gun rights and gun safety" pitch. Ellison really didn't have to put that out there in the way he did, like, at all. It's baffling. DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 13:01 on Jan 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 12:57
|
|
|
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)? The job of the DNC chair is primarily strategy around election organization. To be specific, their main jobs are fundraising and soliciting donations, directing the usage of those resources to protect incumbent Dems and elect new ones, and so on. They have no real say over policy; at best, they can somewhat guide national-level messaging and ad buys. Their ability to change the party is fairly limited - they're not in any position to tell centrist Dems to gently caress off and back primary challengers against them, or anything like that. And most importantly of all, the chair is not a dictator, and is very limited in their ability to do something that the DNC's 400-plus members disagree with. For example, the initial draft of the 2016 Democratic platform was composed by a committee of 15 DNC members, and was finalized by a committee of 187 DNC members. Even on executive decisions, the chair's power is nowhere near absolute - the DNC also has five vice-chairs and a National Finance Chair, all of whom are elected by the entire DNC membership. There's not much info out there on the day-by-day workings of the DNC, but as far as I can tell, it doesn't much matter who wins the chairman battle - both viable candidates have pretty much the same plan for the party anyway. It's mainly just a proxy battle being waged by various factions intent on getting a symbolic victory to demonstrate their power over the future of the party. What matters far more for changing the direction of the party is changing the composition of the DNC as a whole, which mostly means putting new people in high positions in state-level DNCs - which we should be doing anyway as part of reversing Dems' heavy losses in state governments. Honestly, the focus on the national DNC chair might be damaging that effort - both because people are directing resources and attention at that rather than at the far-more-important state races, and also because progressives are directing their attention and resources toward a guy who's actively undermining state-level progressive efforts. The Sanders folks in Florida are not happy with Ellison, who endorsed an establishment megadonor against their preferred candidate in the race for Florida DNC chair, and I can say from personal experience that being a Florida progressive is discouraging enough already without being outrighr betrayed like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The job of the DNC chair is primarily strategy around election organization. To be specific, their main jobs are fundraising and soliciting donations, directing the usage of those resources to protect incumbent Dems and elect new ones, and so on. They have no real say over policy; at best, they can somewhat guide national-level messaging and ad buys. Their ability to change the party is fairly limited - they're not in any position to tell centrist Dems to gently caress off and back primary challengers against them, or anything like that. Perez isn't popular with Bernie voters because he supported Hillary Ellison isn't popular with Southern minorities because he supported Bernie Jaime Harrison isn't popular with voters because they have no idea who he is and, if you google him, the first thing you find out after that he's the SC Party chair is he's a lobbyist People are going to have to put their delicate opinions to the side and largely forget who supported who in the primaries if they want to find the right candidate for the job.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 11:30 |
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I really, really think that putting him at the wheel would open up the Dems as a whole to being defined by a soundbite that will be played over and over. You mean, moreso than the fact that Ellison is a black Muslim? Anyway, nobody outside of the party knows or cares about the particular political positions of the DNC head. "Who the gently caress is Tim Kaine?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 22:45
|
|