|
Kilroy posted:That one's pretty easy, right? Run a fair primary. There's more than two candidates - right now there's six or seven (I think one got booted for being Islamophobic?)
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 17:43 |
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Someone like McCaskill or Sherrod Brown is more likely to face that kind of challenge than a Manchin or Jon Tester, sure. I can tell you now Manchin's challenge is whoever wins the republican primary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:There's more than two candidates - right now there's six or seven (I think one got booted for being Islamophobic?) None of the others matter even slightly. The race is definitely down to either Perez or Ellison at this point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
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. Why, because he tried to (and did) win? Also, leftists who are claiming to be democrats, please stop smearing putin's ratfucking bullshit everywhere, thanks. He hacked and released this poo poo precisely to inflame primary salt.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
AlouetteNR posted: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. All lobbyists aren't corrupt shills though?  Or are you arguing that Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, the ASPCA, etc. are big money corporate shills? Sometimes lobbying can actually be good! making GBS threads on lobbyists in general seems to be code for "people with money advocating for something I don't like" which...fine but don't smear all of lobbying just because you don't think interest groups should have a say at the table. That way leads to groups that you probably agree with being shut out of the process. And honestly, lobbying isn't really the problem, it's campaign contributions. If all races were 100% publicly financed there wouldn't be the corruption issue when say, the family of a Secretary of Education nominee donates money to the Senate campaigns of those who have to confirm her. axeil fucked around with this message at 05:21 on Feb 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Also, leftists who are claiming to be democrats, please stop smearing putin's ratfucking bullshit everywhere, thanks. He hacked and released this poo poo precisely to inflame primary salt.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Also, leftists who are claiming to be democrats, please stop smearing putin's ratfucking bullshit everywhere, thanks. He hacked and released this poo poo precisely to inflame primary salt. While I get where this argument is coming from, it isn't really sufficient by itself, since it's sort of self-evident that it's technically possible for stuff to be uncovered by actions like this that are so bad they can't be ignored. This isn't really the case in this specific instance of hacking, but if hacking had found that, for example, Podesta had been sacrificing children at the alter of electing Clinton president, that would still be something people should pay attention to even if only the Democrats were unfairly hacked. So I guess my argument is that "only the Democrats were unfairly hacked, therefore you should automatically ignore everything uncovered" is bad logic, because it's obviously possible for stuff to be uncovered that should be revealed regardless of how unfair the hack was. In this particular case it just so happened that nothing particularly incriminating was actually uncovered, and your argument should focus on why the stuff in the e-mails isn't actually bad rather than some sort of weak claim that it's unfair it was revealed in the first place. As for Perez's support of Clinton, I only think it's a bad thing in the sense that I agreed more with Sanders politically (and thus probably disagree with Perez in the same sense). But since the DNC chair's political views aren't particularly relevant I'm not sure how much that matters. I'm actually somewhat persuaded by Main Paineframe's argument about Ellison being selected as a concession potentially backfiring. If he isn't selected, many leftists will continue to be upset and active, whereas they might relax their efforts if Ellison wins. It's hard to say.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 08:15
|
|
|
perez is a bad choice cause he lashes out at half the dem base unprompted. we should probably avoid putting someone who will intentionally divide the dem party in as DNC chair. having someone who loves to spread fake news is probably also a bad idea
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 10:52
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Also, leftists who are claiming to be democrats, please stop smearing putin's ratfucking bullshit everywhere, thanks. He hacked and released this poo poo precisely to inflame primary salt. maybe dems shouldn't ratfuck their base and then their base won't be salty over emails released that demonstrate the ratfucking
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 10:55
|
|
|
So we're back to "black people shouldn't have been allowed to vote"? Cause I fail to see how one candidate getting more votes is ratfucking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
This isn't the thread to relitigate the primary. Condiv posted:having someone who loves to spread fake news is probably also a bad idea Perez wasn't talking about the (false) claim that Sanders supporters threw chairs, but rather an incident from the Republican primaries. The tweet (now deleted) came after a debate with Ellison where he gave more context: quote:The candidates repeatedly acknowledged the lack of fireworks, noting that they’ve all pledged to keep the campaign attack-free.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:So we're back to "black people shouldn't have been allowed to vote"? i'm not sure why you're in the dem party if you hold opinions like that fulchrum Cease to Hope posted:This isn't the thread to relitigate the primary. oh so he's a faux pas machine worse than biden. not really a mark in his favor tbh. ellison doesn't seem to have these problems Condiv fucked around with this message at 13:56 on Feb 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
Condiv, maybe you should shut up about fake news when you're spreading misleading garbage from /r/sandersforpresident just because it happens to fit your preconceived notions, eh? Especially when posting that means you couldn't be bothered to have actually watched the Huffpo debate! Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 14:31 on Feb 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Condiv, maybe you should shut up about fake news when you're spreading misleading garbage from /r/sandersforpresident just because it happens to fit your preconceived notions, eh? hmm? i saw the tweet when it was originally posted on the 18th. if it was indeed a faux pas, then it was especially dumb for perez to just delete the tweet and pretend it didn't happen instead of clarifying. like i said, not particularly good signs for a DNC chair candidate. it's a good thing we have actually good candidates like ellison, it's just too bad the dem establishment would rather push a strictly inferior candidate so they can retain their grasp on the dying dem party
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:Tea Party logic lead to the Republican's sweeping the House and Senate, what has liberal logic done lately? 3 million popular votes more than Trump and still losing the presidency. Pushing dread abuela even after all signs pointed to a Sanders insurgency Being spineless on Trump appointees despite overwhelming public sentiment against them. So, on the whole, not much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
To me the biggest reason to prefer Ellison versus Perez is signaling, while their politics are not that far apart (although there are key differences) it is very clear which "side" each candidate represents. If the the current leadership of the Democratic Party is unwilling to allow any type of real shift, there isn't much to say at this point. I do think it is ridiculous for the left-wing of the Democratic Party to "give up" on the DNC because of its "expense of political capital." The head of the DNC matters especially during a period of rebuilding (or possible rebuilding at least). Moreover, it absurd to think there there would be any real concessions granted once the battle was over. If the left-wing of the party is content with begging of scraps from the table, lets be honest, absolutely nothing is going to change and our country is going to become an even worse fascist shithole than it already is. At this point, "reasonable compromise" with either the current leadership of the DNC and/or the GOP is an admission of failure. This country can not longer be saved through constant compromise. We will how this works out, but there is little reason for anyone on the left to be happy with Perez as the ultimate result. It is proud proclamation that absolutely nothing is going to change (rather than allowing the slim possibility of change). Ardennes fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Feb 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_cDNaNWnkU yet another reason perez is bad. he supports the extreme right-wing government of israel and their genocidal actions
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
Condiv posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_cDNaNWnkU Ellison has also condemned BDS.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
and he's still closer to being right on israel than perez and will almost certainly take a harder line stance against israel's atrocities than perez who is too scared to deal with israel to even entertain a question relating to said atrocities
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
Condiv posted:and he's still closer to being right on israel than perez and will almost certainly take a harder line stance against israel's atrocities than perez who is too scared to deal with israel to even entertain a question relating to said atrocities Cease to Hope posted:The DNC chair does not determine the fate of TPP, or federal foreign policy in general. House members who are committee heads have more power to affect policy on Israel than the DNC head, so be careful what you're wishing for here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
Condiv posted:and he's still closer to being right on israel than perez and will almost certainly take a harder line stance against israel's atrocities than perez who is too scared to deal with israel to even entertain a question relating to said atrocities The thing is Ellison all things considered is certainly not left-wing as Sanders, but he is relatively to the left of Perez (who wouldn't even take a basic question on Israel). To be perfectly honest, I wish there was a candidate left of both of them, but there is no reason to support the more centrist option at this point. I hope Ellison can press forward on voter outreach to rural areas and working people. Cease to Hope posted:House members who are committee heads have more power to affect policy on Israel than the DNC head, so be careful what you're wishing for here. Ellison is not a committee head, he is the minority (non-ranking) member of the Committee and the GOP has a iron clad lock on the House. The head of the DNC is going to have far more practical power, especially since on the Democratic Party itself. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Feb 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:House members who are committee heads have more power to affect policy on Israel than the DNC head, so be careful what you're wishing for here. i am. keith ellison is a better choice as DNC head in every respect and hopefully he can push the party in a better direction on a lot of issues tom perez is inferior not only ideologically, but practically, and only makes sense as DNC head if you're worried about bernies getting control of the party (aka an idiot)
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
axeil posted:All lobbyists aren't corrupt shills though? I think that both are huge problems. It might be that I'm Canadian, and we have really stringent laws on fundraising and spending on the public dime (though how effective they are is questionable, we're kind of in the middle of a pay-for-access scandal). As I understand them, Washington restrictions are really weak, so the ACLU lobbying is great, but any given hedge fund or massive industry can outspend them ten to one and block out any suggestion the decent lobbyists could make that would be bad for their business. But I am not entirely familiar with lobbying in Washington, and concede I could be perceiving it wrong and that it's actually more fair than I think it is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The thing is Ellison all things considered is certainly not left-wing as Sanders, but he is relatively to the left of Perez (who wouldn't even take a basic question on Israel). The head of the DNC has zero influence on policy-making. Ellison may be to the left of Perez, but it doesn't matter because he would have no say in Israel policy and would likely avoid the subject entirely in order to avoid hurting Dems with differing opinions. Keith has already demonstrated that he's not going to do poo poo like cut off funding to candidates who support Israel, and he's also demonstrated that he will back the establishment just as the DNC chair job would require. Ellison is better on the issues than Perez...which is why he should stay in the House, Perez should run for office in a red district somewhere, and the chairmanship should go to Buttgeig instead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i am. keith ellison is a better choice as DNC head in every respect and hopefully he can push the party in a better direction on a lot of issues What in Perez's background makes you feel he is an inferior option for the practical tasks involved with running the Democratic National Committee? Ardennes posted:To be perfectly honest, I wish there was a candidate left of both of them, but there is no reason to support the more centrist option at this point. Why do you feel that Perez is the centrist option in this race? Ytlaya posted:In this particular case it just so happened that nothing particularly incriminating was actually uncovered, and your argument should focus on why the stuff in the e-mails isn't actually bad rather than some sort of weak claim that it's unfair it was revealed in the first place. There's a belief in some circles that this set of Wikileaks is weaker than a single anonymous source (the only thing we know for certain about where they obtained these emails is that they're lying), and as such shouldn't be the sole source for a story out of basic journalistic ethics... but that it can be used as a platform and a roadmap for digging deeper. To mix metaphors, it's inadmissible but there is no such thing as fruit of the poisonous tree. I believe that this is generally where he was coming from. I don't really agree with that argument, since all but the  know it's from one of the two Russian intrusions at this point-but I can understand why some people prefer not to ignore the context. In this case, it's a nothing story that falls apart under the slightest scrutiny and accuses Perez of exploiting minority pain for political gain by.... mentioning that the status quo is harmful. Ytlaya posted:As for Perez's support of Clinton, I only think it's a bad thing in the sense that I agreed more with Sanders politically (and thus probably disagree with Perez in the same sense). I encourage you to examine this more, especially given the insider/outsider dynamic of the primary. It means there are enough other factors involved that the parenthetical is likely reductive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:What in Perez's background makes you feel he is an inferior option for the practical tasks involved with running the Democratic National Committee? he's never won a contested position in his life and his fundraising game sucks compared to ellison considering ellison's got more with less wealthy donors (and without the clinton wing giving him a leg up)
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted: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. Either the party establishment is frightened enough to start opening up space for more progressive candidates and ideas or they are deciding to circle the wagons and resist what they view as an unwanted encroachment on their own turf. There is zero reason to think they'll act the way you're anticipating. This is some seriously ludicrous 11th dimensional chess you're playing in your own mind here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Why do you feel that Perez is the centrist option in this race? To me Perez is the MORE centrist option, Ellison in all honesty is also quite centrist and the real options in the race are quite limited. I don't think the differences between them are extreme but as I mentioned signaling is important here, but also the TPP (the Democrats just have to go a different route on trade), Ellison is more aggressive on limiting campaign contributions and Perez seems if anything even more pro-Israel than Ellison. Moreover, I looked over their campaign material and Ellison seems to be focused on "working voters/people" while Perez seems to focus more on the middle class. They aren't that different, but about pushing for the best out of a poo poo situation. Also, the DNC chair is going to certainly have influence on party policy and where and how funding is going to be given even if he isn't going to penalize candidates who support Israel. It is going to be a position thats going to also matter in 2018/2020. It is significant position, and yes more important than minority seat on a committee, especially when the House is controlled by the Tea Party with an iron grip. Ellison is probably not going to accomplish too much in the house, but he certainly at least has a chance to unite the Democratic party or at least make it less aggressively punitive against its left-wing. Btw, what is the left-wing on the Democratic party suppose to do if Perez is forced though? Just keep taking the same poo poo because the only option choice is more open "alt-Fascism?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
It would be very in character for the Democrats to decide that Trump is so bad that they will inevitably win in the next midterms and the next presidential election.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Btw, what is the left-wing on the Democratic party suppose to do if Perez is forced though? Just keep taking the same poo poo because the only option choice is more open "alt-Fascism?" Push their people into positions of power, primary centrists and corporatists. That doesn't change no matter who is DNC chair.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Helsing posted:It would be very in character for the Democrats to decide that Trump is so bad that they will inevitably win in the next midterms and the next presidential election. there's already been rumblings from establishment types along these lines. thankfully they seem to get laughed down every time it's brought up so far, and hopefully it stays that way Cease to Hope posted:Push their people into positions of power, primary centrists and corporatists. That doesn't change no matter who is DNC chair. that'd be about the only thing I'd do if the dems forced perez into place and triangulated to alt-fascism or fascism-lite. the party was nauseating enough with an alt-republican as our nominee
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
Condiv posted:that'd be about the only thing I'd do if the dems forced perez into place and triangulated to alt-fascism or fascism-lite. the party was nauseating enough with an alt-republican as our nominee It's what you should be doing either way, if you want the Democrats to shift left.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Push their people into positions of power, primary centrists and corporatists. That doesn't change no matter who is DNC chair. Personally, I think the narrative that "oh the DNC chair isn't important, don't worry about it" is pretty drat laughable. If you want to change the Democratic Party, it is logical to demand that the more left-wing option (even if he is still quite centrist) is chosen. If the party itself resists any change from within, how likely are you going to be primary anyway? At a certain point it becomes a hopeless rigged goose-chase (it is probably one already, but hope is a very human flaw.) Ardennes fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Feb 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:It's what you should be doing either way, if you want the Democrats to shift left. i dunno, if the dems adopted alt-fascism i don't know if i'd even bother with politics anymore
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Condiv posted:he's never won a contested position in his life and his fundraising game sucks compared to ellison considering ellison's got more with less wealthy donors (and without the clinton wing giving him a leg up) More bluntly-which do you believe is a better qualification for running the DNC, having lead an organization or department to progressive policy victories or having won an election in one of the nation's safest blue seats? Ardennes posted:To me Perez is the MORE centrist option, Ellison in all honesty is also quite centrist and the real options in the race are quite limited. I don't think the differences between them are extreme but as I mentioned signaling is important here, but also the TPP (the Democrats just have to go a different route on trade), Ellison is more aggressive on limiting campaign contributions and Perez seems if anything even more pro-Israel than Ellison. Moreover, I looked over their campaign material and Ellison seems to be focused on "working voters/people" while Perez seems to focus more on the middle class. They aren't that different, but about pushing for the best out of a poo poo situation. Regarding the TPP, what do you think the proper action is for the head of Labor to take when the administration is negotiating Trade Policy? I'll admit that my concerns on that facet are mitigated by Perez coming out early, and strongly, and saying that NAFTA wound up devastating many American workers and his goal was to make sure he put in protections to prevent that from occurring. Ardennes posted:Btw, what is the left-wing on the Democratic party suppose to do if Perez is forced though? Just keep taking the same poo poo because the only option choice is more open "alt-Fascism?" I guess that depends on what 'forced through' means. Is it possible, to you, for Perez to win a legitimate victory so long as Ellison is running? Beyond that, I'd think our role is to continue pressuring incumbents, recruiting and supporting candidates for uncontested seats (at all levels), primarying poo poo libs (while clearly spelling out the differences-it's important for the warning of these primaries to be, for instance, "If you back down on nominees, union rights, or tax breaks, we're coming for you" rather than "if we're dissatisfied with you broadly, here we come") and amp up the ground game substantially given the damage the AG, Justice and the Courts will be doing on disenfranchisement. These are all critical elements, but the last one may have the most impact on the party. Large fundraising lists are nice, but we see how easily those can be overwhelmed by folks like Steyr. If you can guarantee canvassers and phonebanking to candidates who Fight for 15, support unions, and expand the social safety net... those will become mainstream drat quickly. It's why Dem action in the last couple weeks has been exciting for me-donations do a bit more than "facebanking", but if the Left can get people to take time rather than donate money, we've got a real chance at taking back statehouses and mansions and redrawing districts, which has been the key GOP advantage this decade.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Democrats, in their infinite wisdom, have chosen to stay the course and keep Pelosi, Schumer, and, likely, Perez in power.  Helsing posted:It would be very in character for the Democrats to decide that Trump is so bad that they will inevitably win in the next midterms and the next presidential election. The demographics are on our side 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i dunno, if the dems adopted alt-fascism i don't know if i'd even bother with politics anymore Perez is not an "alt-fascist".
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Either the party establishment is frightened enough to start opening up space for more progressive candidates and ideas or they are deciding to circle the wagons and resist what they view as an unwanted encroachment on their own turf. There is zero reason to think they'll act the way you're anticipating. This is some seriously ludicrous 11th dimensional chess you're playing in your own mind here. You're way off. The party establishment is not scared, but they're not resisting anything either because they don't even think there's anything to resist. These are people who think a big tent party thinks making a checklist composed of every demographic in the party and then doing or saying one or two things to appeal to each of those demographics. To the establishment, the 2016 loss wasn't emblematic of some deep core problem in the party, it's just an indicator that they didn't put enough checkmarks next to certain demographics in their list. The DNC chair fight isn't a fundamental battle for the direction of the party, it's a battle over which demographics get which checkmarks - and this checkmark falls solidly in the "saying" column, not the "doing" column. Michael Steele tells a lot of stories about his time as RNC chair, and there's one that perfectly illustrates what's going on here: after he was elected, he says that a GOP lawmaker came up to him and talked about how great it was that they were going to get African-American votes now that they appointed a black person to a position if power. To that particular unnamed legislator, black people were just an item on the list of voter demographics, they needed to do a thing to appeal to that demographic, and Steele was just a checkmark in that long-empty box. Naturally, he responded that merely electing a black chairman wasn't a substitute for having better messaging and positions on minority issues, but you can see how well the Republican party has done there! Condiv posted:that'd be about the only thing I'd do if the dems forced perez into place and triangulated to alt-fascism or fascism-lite. the party was nauseating enough with an alt-republican as our nominee That's what you should be doing either way! Hell, that's what you should have been doing all along! The power of the DNC chair is tiny compared to the power of the DNC members - it's like making a fuss over who gets to be minority leader when the Senate is full of centrist shitheads anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:I guess I'm hoping for a definition here on centrist. Perez appears to be for tax increases, increased labor protections, unionization, voting rights, stronger enforcement of police misconduct rules, and stricter penalties for unfair/unsafe work practice. What of his positions do you consider centrist, aside from Israel? In all honesty, that is pretty centrist stuff. I am not necessarily blown away that a labor sec under a Democrat president is for some type of unionization or labor protections. To be honest, Ellison is fairly centrist as well but I have already made my argument at least 2-3 times. He isn't the labor secretary any more, and I haven't seen him go back on his policy. He hasn't any any inclination he is going to change his mind either. I say forced though because it is pretty evident that there is a real institutional push at the moment to get Perez in as DNC. It isn't a democratic election in the first place, but it does seem Perez came out of nowhere quickly. I will say that again, but primarying "libs" is not going to made easier by picking the candidate that is even more centrist. As for any real hope of the Democratic Party changing, all that fundraising and canvassing sounds great and all but what is the purpose when the party is implicitly hostile to its own base? Ellison wouldn't change that but at least it would a small moral victory. In the end, it may be true that yeah nothing can be done about it and Ellison will just join the rest of the establishment in the end, but that is certainly not an argument in favor of Perez.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 17:43 |
|
|
Frijolero posted:Democrats, in their infinite wisdom, have chosen to stay the course and keep Pelosi, Schumer, and, likely, Perez in power. The senate revolves around seniority and Schumer was going to be leader regardless -- reminder Harry Reid was leader until this year, Pelosi has kept the caucus together incredibly well (her actual job) AND in the darkest of days elections the DCCC asctually picked up seats, and Perez has been a cabinet official, not exactly a senior leader of the party. Ellison is hardly an outsider either, having been a part of informal leadership for most of the Obama years. Ardennes posted:As for any real hope of the Democratic Party changing, all that fundraising and canvassing sounds great and all but what is the purpose when the party is implicitly hostile to its own base? Ellison wouldn't change that but at least it would a small moral victory. In the end, it may be true that yeah nothing can be done about it and Ellison will just join the rest of the establishment in the end, but that is certainly not an argument in favor of Perez. Ellison isn't some outsider and his support isn't entirely outside either and mostly isn't. The biggest mistake you can make about the DNC chair election is to turn it into some kind of proxy primary. Ellison isn't Bernie, Perez isn't Hillary. Ellison is a great guy, with great energy and great ideas. Perez is a great guy, with great energy and great ideas. Perez has spent almost his entire career working with minority communities and organized labor. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Feb 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 19:29
|
|