|
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. Someone I was talking with at work made that argument (specifically he said Democrats need to just lay back and coast on through in 2020). I believe this sort of view (among non-politicians at least) ultimately stems from a lack of empathy/understanding. From the perspective of your average liberal, Trump is terrible and they can't really understand why anyone would think otherwise (and just assume people will feel the same, which is helped by selectively consuming news about mainstream Republicans being anti-Trump and what have you*). I tried to make the argument that if Trump being terrible was enough to make him lose, he would have lost the election, which was obviously full of stories about Trump doing terrible things. * As a cringe-worthy story related to this, this one liberal girl I know posted on Facebook about how she now follows John McCain and Glenn Beck on Twitter after being so impressed by their anti-Trump views. Stuff like this basically supports my theory that in America how "liberal / left-wing" you are is defined not by the policies you support, but by how vocally you are against Republicans. If a person lays down a sweet burn on Republicans, they are perceived as being very liberal. Jon Stewart is a great example of this.
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 15:22 |
|
|
Ardennes posted: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. We've got a wide gap on the definition of centrism, which is fine. The alternate definition is "essentially a Republican", so I'll drop the topic since it's clearly not the one you're using. "Out of nowhere" is a hell of a way to describe someone prominently placed on many VP shortlists, but to each their own. With that said, it's clear that you won't accept the legitimacy of a Perez victory, so is there any point in continued conversation? I'm happy to discuss anyone as a candidate, and I think the top 3 would all be a marked improvement over DWS. If this is only going be a proxy battle for the relitigation of the primaries though, I'm out. It's tedious as gently caress and frankly unfair to the candidates. Also a bit gross that their impressive lifetimes of public service (and potential futures) are condensed down to which of the elderly white candidates they supported for 13 months of their career.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
I continue to maintain that Pete Buttigieg is unqualified to hold any position of authority based on his last name alone
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted: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. Well shucks, I sure am glad they picked up 6 more seats to bring their minority up to a whopping 44% of the House. I'm not saying "argh the establishment." What I'm saying is, if they keep loving failing, shouldn't there be some sort of shake-up? How many voters do you know who are fired up about Schumer/Pelosi? How many Democrats are fired up about Perez?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:We've got a wide gap on the definition of centrism, which is fine. The alternate definition is "essentially a Republican", so I'll drop the topic since it's clearly not the one you're using. The core of the issue is that both candidates during the primary and both DNC candidates are proxies of a larger war inside the Democratic Party and war that has been a long time in coming. As I said, I don't think they are that different, but it is enough since the party is becoming pulled in two opposite directions. The only thing that is going to unite it if there is a shift not only rhetoric but also in policy. I think hoping Bannon and his pet are going to crash and burn on their own is really rolling the dice on a issue that shouldn't be negotiable. I don't think the Democrats are going to turn "alt-fascist" but their desire for an ever worsening status quo is going to keep much of their base completely demoralized. It is up the establishment and much of the centrists in the Democratic party, are they willing to build bridges with the left or will they "roll the dice" at the risk of allowing grievous damage to the country?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:Well shucks, I sure am glad they picked up 6 more seats to bring their minority up to a whopping 44% of the House. Their (Pelosi and Schumer) jobs aren't to explicitly elect more Democrats, but they'd certainly like to I am sure. Pelosi's job is to keep the Dem caucus together -- which she's done absolutely an amazing job of doing. You never hear about House Dems breaking rank unless she lets them vote how they want. She runs an incredibly tight ship. Schumer's job was to be Reid's lieutenant, and now it's too lead the minority and basically be a pain in the rear end for Mitch. The last time he was chair of DSCC, we won back the majority. I don't expect voters to be fired up about either of them because most people don't know what either of them do, because most voters could use a lesson in civics. We shouldn't cast aside capable leaders because the "dem base" (whatever that is) thinks they need some pounds of flesh to sate them. As for Perez, there are plenty of people in labor and the Hispanic community who are excited about Perez. Don't make the mistake of thinking that because some people on twitter have latched on to Ellison as a proxy that they're the only ones excited. (Nor do you really need to be EXCITED for the DNC chair! It's not like we're picking who's going to run for President in 2020, and if you're really excited and want Ellison to have a future in elective politics, then you don't want him to run for DNC chair anyway.) Ardennes posted:The core of the issue is that both candidates during the primary and both DNC candidates are proxies of a larger war inside the Democratic Party and war that has been a long time in coming. As I said, I don't think they are that different, but it is enough since the party is becoming pulled in two opposite directions. The only thing that is going to unite it if there is a shift not only rhetoric but also in policy. This isn't the proxy war you're looking for, duder.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
Ardennes posted: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 opposed to Ellison, who had endorsements from top Dem leadership before he even officially announced his candidacy? Ellison and Perez are both clearly being pushed by core members of the establishment - this isn't a war between outsiders and insiders, it's a mild strategy disagreement between different flavors of insider.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:This isn't the proxy war you're looking for, duder. Even if both are "insiders" there is clearly one insider that is more amenable to change and becoming clearer where the two sides stand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The core of the issue is that both candidates during the primary and both DNC candidates are proxies of a larger war inside the Democratic Party and war that has been a long time in coming. As I said, I don't think they are that different, but it is enough since the party is becoming pulled in two opposite directions. The only thing that is going to unite it if there is a shift not only rhetoric but also in policy. Show me where Perez argues that we don't need to improve things and/or we need to appease Bannon, and I'll consider it relevant. What I'm hearing is that you don't like the people who like Perez, which, whatever? There's no argument that's going to somehow make Peter Daou less of a useless fuccboi. If there was a blue dog running, I'd be all about loving his triangulating rear end up. There's not. It's tedious as hell and, again, a disservice to the candidates. Step back for a moment. The "establishment" has been forced to unite behind a candidate who strongly supports (in action and rhetoric) labor, increasing taxes, voting rights, protecting immigrants, helping the working and middle classes, and purging racist law enforcement agencies. This isn't a proxy battle, it's the capitulation of the Third Way. Frijolero posted:How many Democrats are fired up about Perez? Thanks for the insight to your social circle. The man has endorsements from UA, UFW, IAFF and more (Ellison has AFL-CIO, IBEW and others. It's mixed, but I've not seen a union come out against Perez. Would welcome examples if they're available). I know a large number of people fired up about Perez, predominatlyprogressive, and from a very diverse set of socioeconomic backgrounds . If my posting hasn't made it clear, I'm one of them. I also know a number of people who are fired up about Ellison-they're very similar to the ones who are eager for Perez. These are two compelling, progressive candidates and the party will be improved by either one of them winning. Given his track record of progressive victories while leading organizations, I prefer Perez and think that we're better off with Ellison as the vocal and visible leader of the CPC
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i'm not sure why you're in the dem party if you hold opinions like that fulchrum I don't. Which is why I'm not the one claiming that the Dems should have intervened and overturned the rules to give the nomination to Sanders. You know, actually ratfucking their voters. 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). Frijolero posted:Well shucks, I sure am glad they picked up 6 more seats to bring their minority up to a whopping 44% of the House. Because the tea party, they goddamn beat their dicks off about Boehner and Priebus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
This is not the primary thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Even if both are "insiders" there is clearly one insider that is more amenable to change and becoming clearer where the two sides stand. I don't think that's really accurate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Both Perez and Ellison are running against DWS (and Brazile). Using up local party donation caps to launder donations to the presidential campaign left a huge impression, and both of them are running on not only ending that but reversing the flow of money to support local candidates and parties.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Jesus Christ, this truly is the eternal slapfight. It only becomes a slapfight if you take it personally, I have had about a few dozen debates in the last year like this. As far as "improving things", the question is exactly how much and how far is he willing to go? It honestly seems Ellison will go a bit farther at least one a couple key issues. As far not liking people who like Perez, I mostly just don't like their politics because I think they are assisting turning the US into a nightmare (we are more than half way there as it is). It isn't that they actively want to make things worse but they don't present an appealing counter-narrative. The ACA is a good example, it did make some things better. It also had no price controls, people were honestly pissed when their premiums starting going up 20% a year. Trump used that anger to bolster considerable support for himself. As far as selling Perez as a "capitulation" of the third way, was Obama or Hillary also a capitulation of the third way because they were generally for all of that...on the surface. Perez during the debate seem to be open to accepting large/corporate contributions, while Ellison wanted to make the subject "democratic." Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Feb 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
How long until we know who gets the chair?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
I have really bad news for you if you think you're going to be able to fund a national campaign without taking money from people who work in industries you don't like.Tab8715 posted:How long until we know who gets the chair? Feb 25, when they meet in Atlanta.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Perez is gonna get the chair thrown at him
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:How long until we know who gets the chair? depends on how the appeals process turns out, although the governor could intervene at any time
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Anyone know how Warren's speech was received amongst the Democratic establishment? It doesn't matter terribly much who is the DNC chair as long as their sentiments match up to what she said
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I have really bad news for you if you think you're going to be able to fund a national campaign without taking money from people who work in industries you don't like. Yeah, I wouldn't be so sure that is the path to success.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
rscott posted:Anyone know how Warren's speech was received amongst the Democratic establishment? It doesn't matter terribly much who is the DNC chair as long as their sentiments match up to what she said Warren, being the Senior Senator from the State of Massachusetts, is the Democratic establishment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It only becomes a slapfight if you take it personally, I have had about a few dozen debates in the last year like this. It's a slapfight because it's a largely contentless circular argument that ignores the actual topic in favor of nebulous larger themes. I'd call it a circlejerk but at least that eventually reaches a climax. There's no hurt feelings involved, it's just tiresome and an incredibly efficient way to drain nuance from important discussions. We've seen Perez actually improve things via his rule changes in Labor. Unable to unilaterally win the Fight for 15, he instead eliminated a primary method of avoiding paying out minimum wage. One of many examples, which quickly devolve into wonk wankery. I haven't seen any concrete examples of "how much and how far" from Ellison's record... so I don't know why his statements would be given more credibility than Perez? I dislike many people who like Perez-politically and/or personally (again, Daou is an easy example), but that only reflects on his candidacy if you're assuming Perez should be responsible for the views of his supporters. Ardennes posted:As far as selling Perez as a "capitulation" of the third way, was Obama or Hillary also a capitulation of the third way because they were generally for all of that...on the surface. Perez during the debate seem to be open to accepting large/corporate contributions, while Ellison wanted to make the subject "democratic." We are again clearly operating under different definitions of terms if Obama was the Third Way Centrist Blue Dog in 2008.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:I'd call it a circlejerk but at least that eventually reaches a climax. The Democratic National Orgone Engine
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
karthun posted:Warren, being the Senior Senator from the State of Massachusetts, is the Democratic establishment. She is part of one wing of it, but she's a first term senator. How much support does this have with the insiders who were backing Clinton all the way back in 2012 and 13? That will tell you which way the party is going to be steered.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
rscott posted:She is part of one wing of it, but she's a first term senator. How much support does this have with the insiders who were backing Clinton all the way back in 2012 and 13? That will tell you which way the party is going to be steered. While there are long-time Clinton insiders in the DNC race (e.g. Greene), only Perez and Ellison are likely to win, and neither of them fit that description.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:While there are long-time Clinton insiders in the DNC race (e.g. Greene), only Perez and Ellison are likely to win, and neither of them fit that description. The power in the party doesn't lie with the chair though, it lies in the hands of the various cliques who control state/county parties. If they're on board with the narrative Warren put up then it will be far easier to get progressive candidates in local elections to build the bench.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:How many Democrats are fired up about Perez? If Ellison weren't running I'd be profoundly delighted to have Perez as the frontrunner. As it stands I'd say I'm reasonably fired up about Perez-or-Ellison-whichever reforming DNC strategy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted: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. i've been voting for dems like a good little democrat for a while now. if they triangulate towards fascism in 2018 i'm done with them Cease to Hope posted:Perez is not an "alt-fascist". not yet at least, but with how weather-vaney recent dems have been it wouldn't surprise me if he triangulated towards fascism in a pragmatic hunt for the political center Fulchrum posted:I don't. Which is why I'm not the one claiming that the Dems should have intervened and overturned the rules to give the nomination to Sanders. You know, actually ratfucking their voters. too bad they ignored their rules and were not impartial in the slightest during the primary Article 5, Section 4 DNC Charter posted:The National Chairperson shall serve full time and shall receive such compensation as may be determined by agreement between the Chairperson and the Democratic National Committee. In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process. whoops. looks like dem voters got ratfucked Cease to Hope posted:Both Perez and Ellison are running against DWS (and Brazile). Using up local party donation caps to launder donations to the presidential campaign left a huge impression, and both of them are running on not only ending that but reversing the flow of money to support local candidates and parties. oh? has perez actually taken a stance on that now? last I heard he was refusing to make the same pledge ellison did (yet another reason he's a bad choice imo)
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:If Ellison weren't running I'd be profoundly delighted to have Perez as the frontrunner. As it stands I'd say I'm reasonably fired up about Perez-or-Ellison-whichever reforming DNC strategy. i'd probably be ok with perez if we didn't already have ellison and ellison wasn't straight out superior to perez in every way
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Step back for a moment. The "establishment" has been forced to unite behind a candidate who strongly supports (in action and rhetoric) labor, increasing taxes, voting rights, protecting immigrants, helping the working and middle classes, and purging racist law enforcement agencies. This isn't a proxy battle, it's the capitulation of the Third Way. I think I'll try to explain where the main difference in opinion is here. Democrats have always been passing (or attempting to pass) legislation/policies that are genuinely good and genuinely help people. What Perez has done is good. What people have noticed, however, is that there's been a hard line drawn at any sort of broader/wider-reaching policy which would have a significant impact on wealthier Americans/corporations. Like, being against voter disenfranchisement, being against racist law enforcement, protecting immigrants, even helping unions, these are all very good things but they're also things that cost the wealthy very little. Even the tax increases proposed usually amount to little more than undoing tax decreases under Republicans; they're increases which are palatable to the Democratic portion of wealthy Americans. To use a specific example, there's a subset of Americans who want some sort of genuinely universal, possibly single-payer, healthcare to be passed. They do not believe the current path Democrats are on - even more left-leaning Democrats, like Perez - will ever lead to that destination. They will continue to patch very real holes in the "ship" of America, but won't do anything particularly ambitious that requires more from wealthy American individuals and corporations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
Condiv posted:
Like, you do understand that exercising impartiality and being unable to tell if there is any difference between any candidate are not the same thing, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:I'm not saying "argh the establishment." What I'm saying is, if they keep loving failing, shouldn't there be some sort of shake-up?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Both Perez and Ellison are running against DWS (and Brazile). Using up local party donation caps to launder donations to the presidential campaign left a huge impression, and both of them are running on not only ending that but reversing the flow of money to support local candidates and parties. Well, that plus the fact that a sizable portion of the voters in this race are state and local party officials who obviously would very much like to have the DNC sending money to their area. Paracaidas posted:We are again clearly operating under different definitions of terms if Obama was the Third Way Centrist Blue Dog in 2008. He was. Or, to be more precise, every candidate was. It's just that Obama was charismatic enough that the left not only projected their own views onto him but took upward of two years to run out of excuses for his centrism and finally stop defending him. When he halfassed economic stimulus and let the bankers go free, so-called progressives whined about he just had no choice because of the mean Republicans. When he made austerity his main priority and put Social Security and Medicare "on the table" for deficit reduction, the self-proclaimed left blathered on about eleventh-dimensional chess and political capital. It took loving forever for the leftists of 2008 to give up their illusions and face the fact that they elected a centrist, and it seems clear that the same thing is going to happen with Keith Ellison. He hasn't even been elected yet and people are already making excuses for his centrism. Endorsing and supporting establishment candidates against progressive challengers? There was a whole queue of people lining up to say that he's just acting to please the establishment voters and he'll totally change his tune once he's elected. Blew off the Women's March to go attend a Dem donor retreat with Perez and Schumer? All just an unfortunate campaign tactic, I'm told, and he'll totally make up for it later. You know what? Every time a so-called progressive tells me Keith Ellison is an outsider who will change the DNC, all I hear is "this is why the American left is dead". Condiv posted:oh? has perez actually taken a stance on that now? last I heard he was refusing to make the same pledge ellison did (yet another reason he's a bad choice imo) What, the no-lobbyists pledge? Ellison's backed down on that, didnt you hear? All just a cunning trick, I'm sure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Dems have held MN-5 since 1962...and 2006 was the first time in (best as I can tell) decades that the Democrat running failed to receive at least 60% of the vote, despite being a wave election nationally. While Ellison deserves credit for his fundraising prowess, it seems disingenuous to mention Perez being propped up by the Clinton Wing while not acknowledging the boost that Ellison gets from having Bernie's endorsement and fundraising list. bernie's endorsements and fundraising may be giving ellison quite the leg up, but imo that's just more of a testament to the bernie wing's methods than anything. those endorsements, and that cachet did not exist a year and a half ago, it sprung to life over a short period of time, and if ellison can produce the same results he's much better equipped to rejuvenate the party. quote: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? I think being able to win an organize an election is an extremely necessary skillset considering the dire straights the dem party is in right now. I'd have to say being able to win elections is a better qualification, merely because if you asked if hillary was better qualified to be DNC chair than ellison because she was SoS I'd say no.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:It's this. Usually in a party system when the party loses an election the leadership resigns, and certainly after losing more than a couple. Instead, we've still got basically the same crew despite the Democrats getting their asses kicked up and down the ballot for 8 straight years. It's ridiculous and frankly if Main Paineframe is right then it doesn't matter who wins between Ellison and Perez - the party is beyond saving anyway. It's clear that Democrats in Congress are utter poo poo based on their leadership choices, what remains to be seen is if the Democratic party itself can be saved. If they elect Ellison and then consider their obligations to the progressive wing fulfilled, or if they elect Perez at all, then it's time to take another long, hard look at a viable Democratic Socialist party to replace the Democrats. Yes, it is utterly without any form of parallel or historical precedent that the party that holds the white house loses in midterms and gets replaced after 2 terms in the white house. Truly this utterly without parallel situation, never before seen in politics, must be seen as a sign that democrats are dead forever and we need to purge just for the sake of purging. Also, any situation that includes the word socialist and viable in the same sentence about American politics is a joke.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Did you seriously think this means that even beyond their conduct (which was objectively impartial) they need to purge any and all personal feelings from their body and not be allowed to think anything? uh, their conduct was not impartial. we already know that for a fact, so I'm not sure why you're trying to pretend otherwise. brazile using her connections to give hillary debate questions in advance is not impartial behavior, and that was not the only impartiality the DNC exhibited (or was caught on). Main Paineframe posted:What, the no-lobbyists pledge? Ellison's backed down on that, didnt you hear? All just a cunning trick, I'm sure. he's gathered a vast majority of his money from under $200 donations so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
Condiv posted:uh, their conduct was not impartial. we already know that for a fact, so I'm not sure why you're trying to pretend otherwise. brazile using her connections to give hillary debate questions in advance is not impartial behavior, and that was not the only impartiality the DNC exhibited (or was caught on). Hey, Wasserman Schultz told the Hillary campaign it was sunny, but didn't tell the Sanders campaign the same. Total ratfucking them!
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Yes, it is utterly without any form of parallel or historical precedent that the party that holds the white house loses in midterms and gets replaced after 2 terms in the white house. Truly this utterly without parallel situation, never before seen in politics, must be seen as a sign that democrats are dead forever and we need to purge just for the sake of purging. Anyway, it seems you think state and local races aren't a thing. Spoken like a true Democrat - well done.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Condiv posted:he's gathered a vast majority of his money from under $200 donations so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt Obama got plenty of small donors too and look at how anti-establishment he turned out
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 15:22 |
|
|
Kilroy posted:In fact, any party that loses a Presidential election to Donald Trump is a joke. Those always swing against the presidency too. And wanna clue me in on how well the socialist party did in the election?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 23:14
|
|