|
tadashi posted:Perez isn't popular with Bernie voters because he supported Hillary What's your basis for saying this? quote: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. Why? There's symbolism at play here. You can't really escape the fact that Bernie and Warren are putting their chips behind one candidate and that a lot of people who are still pissed off over the primary are mobilizing around stopping that candidate. There's a factional power struggle going on here and that power struggle is likely to have implications for how the party interprets it's defeat in 2016. It sounds very high minded and mature to posture about the need to let bygones be bygones but is that really reflective of how political power operates in practice? A win for Ellison presumably emboldens the Bernie Bros. His defeat suggests the party is still resistant to handing them more power. I guess you could argue that it would be better if these overtones weren't projected onto the race for chairman but that's not really avoidable at this point.
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 17:31 |
|
|
I love how liberals alternate between excusing their behavior by talking down to people about realpolitik and then demand this Imperial Cult-like veneration of the political process and it's offices.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
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. 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. The NRA IS an extension of the GOP. The reality of how dems approach guns is completely and totally irrelevant, and they will be painted as wanting to give MAAAH GUUUURNS to those filthy inner city urban ferals even if they make Micheal goddamn Bay the chair. May as well own that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Right, because there is no way that the NRA would just attack every Democrat, ever, as wanting to destroy the 2nd amendment with no proof at all. I'm sure that if we go with Perez, Wayne Lapierre will go out and immediately say "actually, Democrats are fine with guns and single issue voters do not need to oppose them". Remember, Obama didn't make a peep about stricter gun regulations until the Sandy Hook shooting, which happened after the 2012 election. Before that, NRA President Wayne LaPierre said the utter lack of gun control efforts was part of a "massive Obama conspiracy" to lure us into a false sense of security. Dr Christmas fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Jan 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
I'm at the point that with guns, I'm not sure it's worth fighting. Guns on their own don't cause any problems, they just make other problems worse by an order of magnitude. I think we'd have better luck combating inner city violence without addressing guns than losing elections while getting sidetracked on guns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
Guns are not one of the major issues in the DNC chair election.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
To Keep The Fight Alive, I Think Having A Dedicated Place To Discuss Ideas And Strategies Is In Order. If You Don't Like How The Trump Presidency Looks, Consider Joining Here And Figuring Out Methods To Fight Back!
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:I'm at the point that with guns, I'm not sure it's worth fighting. They really don't though, thinking gun control matters is the left wing version of "climate change isn't real"... a gut based reason that isn't backed up by science!
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
Gun control is not one of the major issues facing the DNC chair election.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:They really don't though, thinking gun control matters is the left wing version of "climate change isn't real"... a gut based reason that isn't backed up by science! Well maybe it is, but we can't do the science thanks to the NRA, so six of one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:You mean, moreso than the fact that Ellison is a black Muslim? Alright, you got me there. That'll make him Satan incarnate automatically and I really should've considered that. Fulchrum posted:Right, because there is no way that the NRA would just attack every Democrat, ever, as wanting to destroy the 2nd amendment with no proof at all. I'm sure that if we go with Perez, Wayne Lapierre will go out and immediately say "actually, Democrats are fine with guns and single issue voters do not need to oppose them". Ehhh, I'd analogize it to the Democratic perception of Republicans on abortion being completely untrustworthy (because they are). If the Republicans came to you tomorrow and said "hey this whole abortion thing, big whoopsie on our part, let's just move on," you wouldn't suddenly stop donating to the ACLU and Planned Parenthood because hey, it's totally over now. You'd wait to see if they repeal their restrictions in deep red states on their own, and then you'd wait a generation or two before you really started to believe they'd changed. Going straight on gun control for the first half of Obama's presidency while still banning scary-looking rifles in certain deep blue states isn't going to get anyone off your case. In their shoes you wouldn't either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 03:52
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Helsing posted:What's your basis for saying this? This poo poo feels like a Christopher Nolan movie in which it's like we aren't really electing people, but rather we are electing ideas. It feels as if it isn't about the person but rather who they represent. 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. This I think cannot be stated enough. Because what is the endgame? Even if we push through a dnc chair, what can they really do, and another question is what if they fail, what will the narrative be then? I feel as if people love talking up grass roots stuff, but when it comes to local things people suddenly go silent. The great thing about internal party politics is that you usually will know most of the people involved on a somewhat personal level if you are even slightly involved.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Why? There's symbolism at play here. You can't really escape the fact that Bernie and Warren are putting their chips behind one candidate and that a lot of people who are still pissed off over the primary are mobilizing around stopping that candidate. There's a factional power struggle going on here and that power struggle is likely to have implications for how the party interprets it's defeat in 2016. Close, but not quite. This isn't a struggle over who controls the party - that's fantasy talk (the people voting for DNC chair are the same ones who voted for Hillary). It's a struggle over which demographic the Dems should focus on the hardest right now. Should they seek to shore up the left side of the Democratic coalition and motivate young voters with Ellison, or should they focus on rebuilding their collapsing support among unions and the Rust Belt with Perez? Obviously they plan to do both, but which group should they consider most important? That is the issue that Ellison vs Perez is playing proxy war for, and that is also why they're going to such lengths to drag what's normally a backroom process in front of the cameras with a televised debate and everything. They're hoping the winning pick will help them motivate a demographic now, even without actual policy changes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:should they focus on rebuilding their collapsing support among unions and the Rust Belt with Perez? Ellison is endorsed by the AFL-CIO and is from Minnesota.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
Have we discussed the possibility about physically fusing the two together and creating one super liberal?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Have we discussed the possibility about physically fusing the two together and creating one super liberal? Yeah, but we got hung up on whether to call them Thomas Ellison or Keith Perez.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Have we discussed the possibility about physically fusing the two together and creating one super liberal? the fusion dance isn't permanent and we can't get a potara without the gods
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
Condiv posted:the fusion dance isn't permanent and we can't get a potara without the gods Could we Velvet Room it? Or would we just end up with a giant penis riding a chariot as DNC head. Cause among other things, that's gonna make fighting for womens rights look real awkward. Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 09:44 on Jan 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 09:25
|
|
|
Quote is not edit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 09:43
|
|
|
Condiv posted:the fusion dance isn't permanent and we can't get a potara without the gods Even if we did, Potara between two non-kais only lasts 1 hour, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:I'm at the point that with guns, I'm not sure it's worth fighting. "Sensible Gun Safety Laws" AKA Gun Control AKA Ban Guns is the shiny electrical socket that Democrats just can't seem to stop shoving their dicks into every couple years. Dr Christmas posted:Remember, Obama didn't make a peep about stricter gun regulations until the Sandy Hook shooting, which happened after the 2012 election. He didn't make much of a peep as president, but shortly before he was elected he had stated he was in favor of banning posession of all handguns, and most rifles. Mind you this was while he was in Chicago so that probably played well there, but it's not like his feelings were unknown on the topic before sandy hook. (source: http://www.ontheissues.org/2008_Dems_Philly.htm ) Someone pointed out that gun control is not one of the major issues for the DNC Chairperson election, but right now, on a left-leaning forum, we've just been sidetracked by gun control. The Democratic party allowed a Reagan Republican (brady) to hang a nice albatross around their neck, and because in the eyes of many the party can Do No Wrong, nobody can admit it was a major mistake that's helped lead to countless lost elections and pointless disunity by defending it to the hilt. It's depressing as gently caress to watch. DeusExMachinima posted:Alright, you got me there. That'll make him Satan incarnate automatically and I really should've considered that. This is very accurate. Derail aside, yes, the DNC chair does not specifically make policy apart from "how to build a network of people to help run campaigns", and Ellison is really good at that. I hope he wins.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Gun control is by a pretty sizeable margin the most popular thing Democrats do, with 93% of Americans in agreement about it. This is higher than the social safety net, a liveable minimum wage, minority rights, police reform, virtually everything. If you think gun control is a loser issue, loving every single other issue is too. Young leftists scoff at Democrats not fighting hard enough on issues, but then you have leftists who will just start the conversation from "we need to give the NRA everything they want or they'll be mean to us. Ahh, screw the shooting victims, this is about getting elected". The hypocrisy is stunning. Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Jan 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Unfortunately, however, America's government is broken and give that remaining 7% unlimited power to oppress and rule us. So, yes, all those issues are loser issues because it's not what the 7% who own us want.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Why care about anything ever, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Great Metal Jesus posted:Why care about anything ever, I guess. Kind of the opposite, really. Should make you rage and scream more and get out there and try to force those 7% to change their mind or not vote so the views of the silent majority can be heard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't know why Dems are so obsessed with gun control and oh hey, look, another mass shooting
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Are you guys really going to let gun control derail this thread before it even hits four pages?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Gun control is by a pretty sizeable margin the most popular thing Democrats do, with 93% of Americans in agreement about it. This is higher than the social safety net, a liveable minimum wage, minority rights, police reform, virtually everything. If you think gun control is a loser issue, loving every single other issue is too. This is disingenuous as gently caress. One sub issue, universa background checks Of Some Form (generally opening up NICS to the general public), has universal support. The actual plans that are put out, (generally requiring all sales go through an ffl with a substantial fee causing used items to be more expensive than new ones) do not get anywhere near that sypport, shockingly, and when you start delving into other issues, (awb, bans based on secret lists, handgun bans, etc) that support turns negative. You know this, and yet you still try to pass it off as "widely popular" for everything. Doccers fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Jan 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Are you guys really going to let gun control derail this thread before it even hits four pages? Keith or Perez! Who wins! You don't decide! We're the democratic party and we know better!
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Doccers posted:This is disingenuous as gently caress. One sub issue, universa background checks Of Some Form (generally opening up NICS to the general public), has universal support. The actual plans that are put out, (generally requiring all sales go through an ffl with a substantial fee causing used items to be more expensive than new ones) do not get anywhere near that sypport, shockingly, and when you start delving into other issues, (awb, bans based on secret lists, handgun bans, etc) that support turns negative. You know this, and yet you still try to pass it off as "widely popular" for everything. Yes, because loving everything gets way less popular the more you go into the details and specifics. Exactly how popular is a prison system that focuses on rehabilitation and attempts to minimize all punishment aspects. But the order remain the same - with an equivalent level of detail, gun control is still ahead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Noted pornography watcher Josh Marshall of TPM interviewed Keith Ellison on his show: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/why-does-keith-ellison-want-to-be-chair-of-the-dnc
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Covok posted:Keith or Perez! Who wins! You don't decide! We're the democratic party and we know better! DNC chairman doesn't need to be popularly elected and it'd be pretty loving stupid to do so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
Sorry, wrong thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:DNC chairman doesn't need to be popularly elected and it'd be pretty loving stupid to do so. Yeah, I think this is blowing up into something much bigger than it should be, considering what the DNC chair actually does.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Zikan posted:Noted pornography watcher Josh Marshall of TPM interviewed Keith Ellison on his show: After about 15 minutes or so they get into the nitty gritty in a way I think is useful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Pete Buttiegeg, an Indiana Mayor, is entering the fray, with a bold and unique vision - doing what everyone else running for the job already wants to do. http://www.businessinsider.com.au/pete-buttigieg-vision-positions-dnc-chair-2017-1?r=US&IR=T Also, Keith Ellisson has picked a press secretary. http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/313883-keith-ellison-picks-ex-dnc-latino-as-press-secretary I'm unclear if that is a press secretary for his campaign for the position, or someone he'll pick as press secretary if he gets it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 10:40
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Yeah, I think this is blowing up into something much bigger than it should be, considering what the DNC chair actually does.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 11:48
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted: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. There's no point to his campaign.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 12:53
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:The person chosen as the DNC chair is a representation of how the DNC is going to respond to criticism of their crappy awful dogshit party and whether or not I should have even a sliver of hope that they learn a single loving lesson from this election. Changing the leadership of the party, even in trivial roles is important as a signal to me and many other progressives who think that the weak-rear end bullshit of the party will continue and whether we can continue to not give a poo poo about anything they say and continue to have miserable midterm turnout. Yeah. Look at 2014 and the miserable showing in that election which almost directly led to where we are now. Think about how if the Senate was still controlled by the Democrats when Scalia died and how different it would be right now or if Trump was president and the Senate was 51-49 in favor of the Dems. Basically giving up on midterms because "well Democrats don't vote in midterms so why bother" is a defeatist attitude that came from the top down and was parroted here by the Democrat faithful. Or how about how when people ask why certain state Democratic operations (like Wisconsin or Florida) are a mess and the response is "well that's the way it is  " and there's no follow up on how to fix those. The DNC chair matters even if it's totally symbolic because it shows that the party maybe gives a poo poo instead of just being the party of "hey those other guys are jerks right (but not really that big of jerks since we go and have drinks with them after work)." You can't look like you don't care because everything is fine and then expect people to believe you when suddenly you start campaigning as the only way to stop Republicans from loving us all.The previous DNC chair was standing up for loving payday lenders which is outrageously shameful for the supposed left leaning party. That alone should have disqualified her but even after her failure in 2014 there were still defenders saying that people are being too hard on her and then welp a SCOTUS seat was stolen so yeah it really matters. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Jan 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 17:31 |
|
|
A while ago I talked to somebody and they said something interesting. They said that it seems increasingly likely that Dems will be unable to fully galvanize a Hispanic voting base to their side, and that Perez, with his ties to Hispanic and Chicano communities, has the best chance of reversing that and (presumably) establishing a solid Latinx/Hispanic/Chicanx coalition on the level of African-American Dem support. Personally, I'd be pretty happy with either Perez or Ellison becoming DNC chair. I definitely think that electing Ellison would be a real cool and positive message by the DNC regarding Muslim voices. In a vague, general sense I just find him more interesting! Chelb fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Jan 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 19:01
|
|
