|
Jill Stein is not running for DNC chair, c'mon now. GreyjoyBastard posted:More or less this. Between this and the Bernie faction thing, I support Ellison but not as much as if he weren't a sitting Congressman. Ellison has pledged to step down from his House seat if elected. Fulchrum posted:Really? I'm not seeing much evidence for this lead given the huge disparity of endorsements between the two. It's talking about vocally committed votes for one candidate or the other.
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 12:31 |
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Depends. These are the highlights of his time during the Obama administration: This stuff is all really good, but I think it's important to draw a line between just "helpful/good stuff" and stuff that doesn't have near-unanimous support among Democrats. Probably the most ambitious thing I see on that list is the change to managerial overtime exemption, because that's something that has a notable effect on businesses' bottom lines. But pretty much all of that stuff would earn easy approval from almost any Democratic politician. I think that what Democrats need to focus more on (in addition to what they're already doing, not instead of) is more board, sweeping changes that will be felt by most Americans (either directly or through knowing someone directly affected) like significant increases to the minimum wage or free/heavily subsidized public college. These sorts of changes are generally harder to push through and only recently became acceptable for mainstream Democrats to support. It's also much harder for future Republican governments to roll back changes like this once they've been put in place, while it's easier to undo changes that only impact a small minority of citizens. So I guess to summarize, all that stuff Perez did is good, but it's also nothing that is particularly controversial among Democratic politicians. It's certainly good and I'd rather have him than some hypothetical "neutral" candidate, but if given a choice I'd rather have someone who pushes the envelope even further to the left (or is associated with the faction of the party who would do so).
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
I mean I know the DNC position is the most insider position possible and that the members voting probably haven't learned a goddamn thing from the presidential election, but looking at this:quote:Perez aides say he's raised more than $825,000 for his campaign, with 73 percent of the donors contributing $200 or less. against this: quote:His aides disputes Perez's lead in the race and claim a hefty advantage, though they would not share their internal count. Ellison staffers say he's raised nearly $1 million for his campaign, with 98 percent of donors contributing $200 or less. If the idea is to get a person in there who can squeeze the maximum amount of cash and keep turnout high...the man raised a million dollars for a goodamn DNC race, mostly off the backs of voters, not donors. Hell Perez got ~200,000 dollars from some sugar daddy and still raised considerably less.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:So I guess to summarize, all that stuff Perez did is good, but it's also nothing that is particularly controversial among Democratic politicians. It's certainly good and I'd rather have him than some hypothetical "neutral" candidate, but if given a choice I'd rather have someone who pushes the envelope even further to the left (or is associated with the faction of the party who would do so). Even accepting the idea that his list is uncontroversial and centrist dem (in which case, we need to pat ourselves on the back and celebrate that we've pushed the envelope this far)-there's a substantial difference between being in favor of an idea and actually having done it. I like Ellison quite a bit, but he's also been in congress for a decade and sponsored exactly 4 pieces of legislation that have passed the house- Money Remittances Improvement Act of 2014 (the only one to become law) Providing for the printing of a revised edition of the Rules and Manual of the House of Representatives for the One Hundred Twelfth Congress. Lead-Safe Housing for Kids Act of 2008 Honoring the city of Minneapolis, first responders, and the citizens of the State of Minnesota for their valiant efforts in responding to the horrific collapse of the Interstate Route 35W Mississippi River Bridge. To prohibit the use, production, sale, importation, or exportation of any pesticide containing atrazine. (this actually failed to pass the house, but it did make it out of committee, the only one of his to meet that criteria) I don't know what the list of Democrats who have experience leading organizations and have the breadth of experience and accomplishments that Perez does (immigration, women's rights, voting rights, police misconduct, institutional racial bias, workers' right, fair pay, labor in trade agreements), but I think it's a hell of a qualification for running an organization that lobbies and fights and elects people to win those battles. Your last sentence worries me a bit, to be honest, because we've already seen that happen and it's how we end up with progressive support for scummy fameseekers like Tulsi. Obviously Ellison actually has progressive views so it's not the case with him, but grifting freshly minted activists is a time honored tradition of American Politics and it's more helpful if it's the progressives delivering that warning than if it's the establishment. Paracaidas fucked around with this message at 04:24 on Feb 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
Aurubin posted:If the idea is to get a person in there who can squeeze the maximum amount of cash and keep turnout high...the man raised a million dollars for a goodamn DNC race, mostly off the backs of voters, not donors. Hell Perez got ~200,000 dollars from some sugar daddy and still raised considerably less. And that's why I've been leaning toward Ellison without really knowing much about them. It speaks a lot about where your funding comes from.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 07:24
|
|
|
since the Biden endorsement is Perez's first salvo of the big guns, Keith decided to strike back https://twitter.com/aseitzwald/status/827579771248852992
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
The sort of resigned, saddened 'why do we all have to fight' attitudes here prove that the progressive left will never have the nerve to do something like the Tea Party did in 2010 when they primaried the hell out of everyone. Admittedly, it cost them seats in the short term because many Tea primary wins became Dem general wins, but it also got them people like Ted Cruz. It also in the long term made the GOP far more radicalized: Tea Party casualty Bob Inglis was primaries out in 2010 and was last seen last year on MSNBC last year denouncing Trump. Perez/Ellison may make no tangible difference in the years to come, but one sends a sign to the establishment that there's no election loss so humiliating that it can't be apologized for. Because this last election loss is as humiliating as it could possibly get.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
I think putting the party in the hands of Tom Perez, a man who dedicated the last two years to ensuring that the only option who could actually lose a 1-on-1 race to Donald Trump became the party's presidential nominee, is the most Democrat thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
Helsing posted:You're advocating an autistic view of politics that completely ignores the role that morale plays. Granting concessions to different wings of the party is part of how a big tent organization functions. This is especially true when there's a lot of justifiable bad blood over past grievances. If the party once again ignores the endorsements of the more energized and progressive wing of the party and picks an Obama administration official whose finger pints are all over some lovely decisions like the TPP, while passing over a more progressive candidate that is the clear favorite of the Bernie/Sanders wing of the party, then that's going to be a signal about what kind of rebuilding the Democratic party is or isn't willing to consider. Concessions are very important, yes...and I would like those concessions to come in the form of progressive policy pushes, not progressive individuals being appointed to meaningless figurehead positions with zero impact or influence on policy. The faction that gets the DNC chairmanship is the one that's going to get screwed, IMO - the factions that don't get ceremonial positions will have to get some kind of policy or messaging concessions, while the "winner" of this fight will be neglected because they already got a concession in the form of a useless figurehead position. Call me an autist all you want - I'm the one with my eyes on the real prize rather being distracted by lovely decoy plays.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
The Little Kielbasa posted:I think putting the party in the hands of Tom Perez, a man who dedicated the last two years to ensuring that the only option who could actually lose a 1-on-1 race to Donald Trump became the party's presidential nominee, is the most Democrat thing to do. Actually, Tom Perez spent the two last years working to ensure people working for a living had the highest amount of protection he could ensure, and before that he spent his time cleaning up the social justice division of the DOJ, which was an absolute mess from the Bush Administration running wild; but hey, what are facts. Craptacular! posted:The sort of resigned, saddened 'why do we all have to fight' attitudes here prove that the progressive left will never have the nerve to do something like the Tea Party did in 2010 when they primaried the hell out of everyone. Admittedly, it cost them seats in the short term because many Tea primary wins became Dem general wins, but it also got them people like Ted Cruz. It also in the long term made the GOP far more radicalized: Tea Party casualty Bob Inglis was primaries out in 2010 and was last seen last year on MSNBC last year denouncing Trump. Keith Ellison is part of the Democratic Establishment and is supported by people who are in the Democratic Establishment. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Feb 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
The Little Kielbasa posted:I think putting the party in the hands of Tom Perez, a man who dedicated the last two years to ensuring that the only option who could actually lose a 1-on-1 race to Donald Trump became the party's presidential nominee, is the most Democrat thing to do. this is bullshit. perez hadn't even met clinton before becoming labor secretary. he was a big clinton supporter during the election, but their history together is fairly limited before that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Concessions are very important, yes...and I would like those concessions to come in the form of progressive policy pushes, not progressive individuals being appointed to meaningless figurehead positions with zero impact or influence on policy. The faction that gets the DNC chairmanship is the one that's going to get screwed, IMO - the factions that don't get ceremonial positions will have to get some kind of policy or messaging concessions, while the "winner" of this fight will be neglected because they already got a concession in the form of a useless figurehead position. Call me an autist all you want - I'm the one with my eyes on the real prize rather being distracted by lovely decoy plays. Do you have any evidence for this supposed trade-off being a thing? Because it seems like regardless of who is elected DNC chair, pushing the Democrats in a more progressive policy direction is going to be like herding cats. The hard fight is going to come down the line, it's not seriously effected by which of these candidates becomes DNC chair, except insofar as now is a time when the Democrats need more engagement and a symbolic victory like this would be a helpful nudge to the forces who are promoting Ellison. I just don't see why letting the establishment pick another DNC chair would make them any more likely to cede ground on policy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Do you have any evidence for this supposed trade-off being a thing? Because it seems like regardless of who is elected DNC chair, pushing the Democrats in a more progressive policy direction is going to be like herding cats. The hard fight is going to come down the line, it's not seriously effected by which of these candidates becomes DNC chair, except insofar as now is a time when the Democrats need more engagement and a symbolic victory like this would be a helpful nudge to the forces who are promoting Ellison. I just don't see why letting the establishment pick another DNC chair would make them any more likely to cede ground on policy. The fact that there's even a fight over the DNC chair at all. There's clearly a feeling among the establishment politicians that more than one of the factions in the big tent need concessions right now, as well disagreement about which factions need attention and what level of concession is appropriate for each faction. Ultimately, several factions are going to get concessions - at the very least, the DNC is almost certainly going to come up with something for organized labor and something for the Bernie wing, the two clear forerunners in the chair race. They have only one fake high-level fake concession left to give right now, so it naturally follows that whichever of those two factions doesn't get the fake concession will have to get some sort of real concession instead. On the other hand, letting them set Keith Ellison up as a DNC chair will make them even less likely to cede ground on policy, for three reasons. First of all, when real progressives agitate for progressive policies, the establishment will wave them off because they already got a concession and now they need to focus their *~political capital~* on doing things to please the other demographics in the big tent. Second of all, the massive movement of Bernie progressives will considerably reduce the level of pressure they're levelling against the Democratic establishment, because a Bernie movement figure got put in a leadership position, so surely the establishment has learned its lesson and DNC chair Keith will usher in a new progressive era, right? And last but not least, if progressives still continue to pressure the establishment, they'll just get Keith to come up and make a speech about how he's totally going to usher in a progressive revolution later if everyone just sucks it up and votes for the centrist Dems in their own districts, and everyone but the real hardcore progressives will quickly be peeled off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:this is bullshit. perez hadn't even met clinton before becoming labor secretary. I hereby retract the part of my post where I said he was a lifetime Clinton stooge (it's not there, all I said is that he was a big Clinton supporter during the primary). The Little Kielbasa fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Feb 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
The Little Kielbasa posted:I hereby retract the part of my post where I said he was a lifetime Clinton stooge (it's not there, all I said is that he was a big Clinton supporter during the primary). You said he spent the last two years "doing nothing but," which was also incredibly wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
I said "dedicated to" not "doing nothing but." I'm well aware of Perez's work at DOL. "Dedicated to" might be an exaggeration -- and I sincerely apologize for resorting to hyperbole in the hallowed halls of something awful dot com's discussion forum -- but he was a very active and vocal Hillary supporter during the primary. You may also recall that Hillary Clinton went on to lose the easiest election for Democrats since at least 1992.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
The Little Kielbasa posted:I said "dedicated to" not "doing nothing but." I'm well aware of Perez's work at DOL. "Dedicated to" might be an exaggeration -- and I sincerely apologize for resorting to hyperbole in the hallowed halls of something awful dot com's discussion forum -- but he was a very active and vocal Hillary supporter during the primary. You may also recall that Hillary Clinton went on to lose the easiest election for Democrats since at least 1992. Oh man oh man, i hit a bingo on this one
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
I mean, we at least agree that the Podesta emails were real right? So primary salt aside, I think the decisions Perez made in this strategy session reflect poorly on his potential term as DNC chair.quote:Labor Secretary Advised Clinton To Cast Sanders As Candidate Of Whites To Turn Off Minorities
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
I was actually really impressed with Pete Buttigieg's interview on Pod Save America. Though admittedly, that could just be in comparison to the interview afterwards, with the ex-lobbyist arguing how not all lobbyists are corrupt shills. I still think Ellison is the right choice for DNC chair, but I hope Buttigieg doesn't just fade away after the leadership race.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Aurubin posted:I mean, we at least agree that the Podesta emails were real right? So primary salt aside, I think the decisions Perez made in this strategy session reflect poorly on his potential term as DNC chair. What an awful article. The left used to have good writers - what the gently caress happened?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What an awful article. The left used to have good writers - what the gently caress happened? Tom Perez wrote an accurate email prior to Nevada! Then Amanda Marcotte wrote a bunch of awful poo poo. 'Berniebro' got coined. Perez is to blame! The Left still has plenty of good writers, but what we're seeing more of is the usuncut-ification of the SlatePitch. Incendiary headline that doesn't match the content of the story, and a connection to The Enemy (gently caress Marcotte for real though). For Aurubin, Kielbasa, Venomous, and others in this thread who are both Pro-Ellison and Anti-Perez... I'm curious: Is there anyone in the Democratic Party who supported Clinton in the primaries that you would vote for over Ellison if they chose to run? Who? "No" is a perfectly reasonable answer, but it changes the discussion quite a bit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
If it was Perez on his own, not Perez as a foil to Ellison with the blessing of the White House, I'd be fine with him. I was hoping he'd be Clinton's VP pick. If you search my post history, I've remarked previously why I support Ellison for his merits to the position, but I'm phoneposting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
Aurubin posted:If it was Perez on his own, not Perez as a foil to Ellison with the blessing of the White House, I'd be fine with him. I was hoping he'd be Clinton's VP pick. If you search my post history, I've remarked previously why I support Ellison for his merits to the position, but I'm phoneposting. I am happy with either of them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Jill Stein is not running for DNC chair, c'mon now. Better than halfassing both, but he's been good* there. We'd lose him in the House in favor of some newbie. Which isn't terrible, it's just a little tick in the "cons" column. * - not exceptional, but vocally progressive and with a slightly different take on things Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Feb 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Better than halfassing both, but he's been good there. We'd lose him in the House in favor of some newbie. Which isn't terrible, it's just a little tick in the "cons" column. Most likely someone from the DFL. Ellison isn't likely to be a House lifer in any case, whether or not he becomes DNC chair.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
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? How are you at this point in your d&d career an still on the fence either way with the tpp? Has jezebel not posted a blog post on it yet?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
The DNC chair does not determine the fate of TPP, or federal foreign policy in general.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:The DNC chair does not determine the fate of TPP, or federal foreign policy in general. No, but I think this DNC is going to be instrumental in shaping our policies going forward as an alternative to Sexmonster and Freinds
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:No, but I think this DNC is going to be instrumental in shaping our policies going forward as an alternative to Sexmonster and Freinds The DNC doesn't set policy, and even if it did, that would be up to the DNC membership rather than the chair.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The DNC doesn't set policy, and even if it did, that would be up to the DNC membership rather than the chair. Well actually, The DNC can help shape what the party offers. We're in a very new world of what the DNC chair could or can be doing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
The DNC chair is going to have to square the circle of delegating money and power to the regional parties without electing a bunch of blue dogs that end up stymying Democratic policy initiatives. The latter is what happened to Howard Dean's 50 state plan the first time around. Whoever wins, they're going to either have to choose how and how much to defend (for example) Joe Manchin and Claire McCaskill, and decide how to respond if one of the vulnerable Democrats gets primaries from the left. Policy matters, but specific policies generally don't. BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Well actually, Except that both Ellison and Perez are running on decentralizing the party. Neither of them is looking to dictate the party platform.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:The sort of resigned, saddened 'why do we all have to fight' attitudes here prove that the progressive left will never have the nerve to do something like the Tea Party did in 2010 when they primaried the hell out of everyone. Admittedly, it cost them seats in the short term because many Tea primary wins became Dem general wins, but it also got them people like Ted Cruz. It also in the long term made the GOP far more radicalized: Tea Party casualty Bob Inglis was primaries out in 2010 and was last seen last year on MSNBC last year denouncing Trump. No, an election loss in 2018 would be way more humiliating.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:The DNC chair is going to have to square the circle of delegating money and power to the regional parties without electing a bunch of blue dogs that end up stymying Democratic policy initiatives. The latter is what happened to Howard Dean's 50 state plan the first time around. Whoever wins, they're going to either have to choose how and how much to defend (for example) Joe Manchin and Claire McCaskill, and decide how to respond if one of the vulnerable Democrats gets primaries from the left. Help shape isn't dictate though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:The DNC chair is going to have to square the circle of delegating money and power to the regional parties without electing a bunch of blue dogs that end up stymying Democratic policy initiatives. The latter is what happened to Howard Dean's 50 state plan the first time around. Whoever wins, they're going to either have to choose how and how much to defend (for example) Joe Manchin and Claire McCaskill, and decide how to respond if one of the vulnerable Democrats gets primaries from the left. If either candidate is proposing that the DNC give undue support to incumbents in party primaries, then I want the other one. If they both propose this, then time to find a new party to vote for.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:That one's pretty easy, right? Run a fair primary. It's not about the primary, it's about allocating resources. If (eg) Manchin beats his hypothetical primary challenger by turning to the center-right even more, how much is it worth sinking money into West Virginia to make sure he retains his Senate seat? The real risk of a 50 state strategy is another Lieberman. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Feb 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
Considering all the talk from him about caucusing with the Republicans if Clinton won they should just cut him loose altogether
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
rscott posted:Considering all the talk from him about caucusing with the Republicans if Clinton won they should just cut him loose altogether
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
Doing that when he's the WV Democrats' pick for their Senate candidate is the opposite of respecting the primaries and devolving power to the local parties, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
Manchin won't get a primary challenge that would remotely be able to beat him, lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 12:31 |
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Manchin won't get a primary challenge that would remotely be able to beat him, lol Someone like McCaskill or Sherrod Brown is more likely to face that kind of challenge than a Manchin or Jon Tester, sure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 04:15
|
|