|
The Muppets On PCP posted:did they give any reasoning beyond perez having a hispanic last name? Perez has a life-long history of work within the community and especially strong ties with the SEIU. The SEIU's membership is overwhelmingly hispanic and is a really good example of how to galvanize the hispanic population as a more unitary bloc. His work before becoming Labor secretary was at DoJ under Holder cleaning house in the social justice unit that has been fantastic under Obama and was a total and complete mess under the Bush Administration. I think either would be a great choice to lead the party and both have upsides and downsides.
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 15:31 |
|
|
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 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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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: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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Manchin won't get a primary challenge that would remotely be able to beat him, lol
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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: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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Sure, Schumer or Pelosi step down and let a hardline leftist take their position.  This is incredibly stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Schumer is a terrible leader for the Democrats right now. He has an awful Clinton-esque voting record, and close ties to wall street. His complete lack of principle shines through every time he speaks. For example, when the muslim ban was announced his first criticism of it was that it was sloppily executed. Not that it was completely immoral and appalling. He isn't a man who's ready to fight tooth and nail to stop the country from falling into fascism. Thats completely different from what you posted, duder.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
The Little Kielbasa posted:Did Tom Perez really just say that the Democratic primary was fixed? i feel like that was misstatement on his part, since it very clearly wasn't fixed lol
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:i feel like that was misstatement on his part, since it very clearly wasn't fixed lol https://twitter.com/aseitzwald/status/829543048073850881 I like Perez,fwiw, but I'd prefer Ellison at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:I don't think that's much of an accomplishment, nothing's simplified the Democrats' messaging more than becoming a single-issue "gently caress Trump" party. as someone who lived the the bush years, you'd be surprised
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:They were a single-issue "gently caress the war" party during Bush's second term and it worked great then. someone clearly doesn't remember joementum
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Given the number of high-profile Dems who signaled an openness to work with him on infrastructure and stimulus without the preconditions that Reid laid out... and the number of Red State Senators up in 18 who have to thread the needle between pure (symbolic) obstruction and highlighting the worst offenses, Schumer has done a great job wrangling Senate Dems. Yeah, and pre-9/11 Bush passed his broad-budget-busting tax cuts with some bipartisan support. He also got bipartisian support on poo poo like NCLB and all of the loving awful Patriot Act Security state bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
Jitzu_the_Monk posted:"Rigged" isn't the best word, but it's true that the DNC violated its neutrality and tipped the scales for Clinton. She almost certainly would have won the nomination anyway, but the DNC's behavior during the campaign was still unacceptable. One can see why Bernie supporters were pissed. Without getting us into the mess of the primary, it's hard for me to really find validity in criticisms of a system when the people making them, repeatedly, demonstrated they had no working knowledge of it. Which I think you're bordering dangerously close to doing here. On the second thing, I don't see anything saying Perez is the front runner, so uh? This, full-stop, isn't a race of "establishment" versus "outsider." Firstly, it's a race being ENTIRELY DECIDED by party insiders. Secondly, they're both party insiders supports by varying members of the party establishment to different degrees. There are certainly *factions* within the party that represent elements that were at play in the primary, but this simply is not the "primary redux" so many people are hoping to be. It's a contest between two relatively similar candidates to essentially be the talking head of the DNC for the next several years. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Feb 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Literally the only substantial difference I can see between Ellison and Perez is that Ellison explicitly backs banning lobbyist contributions to the DNC, where Perez hasn't committed to the idea. It's not as important a point as it seems anyway, since the DNC chair has no power to unilaterally impose the rule. The Joint Fundraising Agreement is such a dumb red herring though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:It's a proxy war for Establishment Dems to remind lefties that they get absolutely nothing from the party and are held in contempt (see: Kaine, Tim) so no, actually, I don't. Its not?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Of course it doesn't. Party officials' perception of public opinion has some bearing on how the vote will play out, but I don't think anyone in this thread has accused Dem party officials of being good at accurately judging public opinion. Perception goes to the heart of this election, really - after all, the DNC chair race is perceived by some as a fight for control of the party, the only meaningful difference between Ellison and Perez is how they're perceived by various demographics, and the only reason that this fight is even a big deal to anyone besides party officials is that the left perceives this fight as being all about them. So maybe the left are just a bunch of idiots?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:He's a shill for finance. That doesn't say what you think it says. JeffersonClay posted:The argument seems to be "the left is irrationally committed to Ellison and if they don't get their way they'll throw a tantrum" which does not remind me of anything else that has happened recently at all. "I am going to stay home and not vote and let fascism win because its not 100% the person I want" is still real unconvincing to me, and even less so when it's for a position that has no real policy power and is being ginned up because people are pissed about a primary that happened a year ago.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Perez won't agree to ban corporate contributions. Tried to capitalize on Ellison being ADL target by basically coming out in support of Israeli settlements. He was a vocal supporter of Hillary during the campaign. Those are all pretty meaningful things to me. Well, bad news for you, Ellison was also a vocal supporter of Hillary. And he also supported a dude who lost a primary pretty obviously. Guess he's out too. Gosh let me see if I can find someone who hasn't supported a losing candidate.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
The Little Kielbasa posted:Please tell me how primaries work in a way that explains why Perez backing HRC was not, as it appears to us mortals, a mistake but rather a brilliant move worthy of Augustus Caesar But Ellison also backing the wrong horse isn't disqualifying, how?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Reminder: the primaries literally had a built-in method for ignoring the will of the party voters, they were called "superdelegates" and all they loudly announced that they were going to vote for Clinton right out of the gate. I'm sure this didn't effect Sanders turnout at all, though. Neither did the AP calling the race for Clinton the day before the California primary because of those superdelegates. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 05:16
|
|
|
Zerilan posted:If Bernie wanted some of that superdelegate support maybe he should have been part of the party years earlier and started preparing earlier for his presidential run. The party has a preference for the person actually active in the party? SCANDALOUS And have had that system in place, virtually unchanged, for over thirty years?!?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:trump had basically no ground game and he won he's also prolly an outlier and you're conflating campaign money to the money needed to fund party building on a national scale.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:average House winning campaign = $1m This is why DWS needed sacked.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
NNick posted:I don't know if you are missing the point on purpose. This is incredibly inaccurate. Ellison is a member of and is supported by a number of the "Clinton/Obama Wing" of the party (e.g., the loving party). No one who is going to become chair of the DNC under it's current format is going to come from outside that paradigm. How hard is that to process? Like if we were having a national, mail-in contest to see who led the DNC then, yes that kind of thing would be important -- but it's not here. Ellison is no less beholden to power brokers (who will elect him) than Perez would be. It's the very nature of how the election of the position is structured. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Feb 10, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
Fiction posted:There's definitely a wing of the Democratic Party who are basically mouthpieces for their states' respective donors. That wing of the party supports Perez, which is worrisome to people who are tired of donors pulling the strings in primaries and not voters. This isn't a hard concept. Many of those same people support Ellison duder.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:What you basically have in this thread is 3 hardline Clintonites trying to gaslight everyone into thinking that Tom Perez and Keith Ellison are the same guy and those insisting on Ellison are being whiny little partisan babies. Reminder, I support Ellison you dweeb. Fiction posted:Right but Perez, based on positions he's taken in the past, seems to be more of a party-line guy than someone who might push back like Ellison. Again, not really true. Ellison's only "defiance" of the party line was backing Sanders in the primary. If that's your criteria, then I think you need to backup a bit. NNick posted:You really think that Clinton/Obama is the only wing of the Democratic Party? Within the context of the people actually voting for DNC Chair and making senior level decisions at the national part level? Absolutely. Like virtually everyone of the 400-ish people who are going to vote for either of them and make decisions about which directions the party goes are more or less from either the Clinton or Obama orbits.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
NNick posted:Got it. Skimming through the thread that appeared to crop up a lot. I thought it was the consensus! He's wrong? We're suggesting that trying to turn this into a proxy primary is a bad idea and that a lot of people are just transferring their grievances of the primary onto this contest -- which is, I would think, pretty obvious at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Fiction posted:What else would you suggest? I know Perez was good to labor as Secretary but I'm not sure that's enough to convince me he'll make the right hard choices. Take a look at his record. He's responsible for, for example, the DoL fudicary rule, the 40-hour overtime rule, his work with labor unions over the years, his work cleaning up the social justice division of DoJ. The knock on Perez, to my mind, is that he doesn't have a whole lot of experience with elective politics. (Though Ellision's experience is running in one of the bluest districts in the nation, so.) But there's no reason to believe he's some sort of centrist corporate shill, based on his actual record. Neither of them like, true leftists in any real sense. Ellison is a fairly mainstream Democrat who is supported by a number of party establishment figures. So is Perez. Like you're literally not going to get elected DNC chair without having the support (and if your theory of support = being behold to, then also true) of the party establishment. It's the nature of the position. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Feb 10, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Fiction posted:Signing onto the TPP was pretty corporatist in my mind, despite what the Hillfolk in this thread might have you believe. He was the Labor Secretary for the President who approved it? But are you also just saying that support for a trade agreement is unilaterally bad? Or do you have specific criticisms about TPP that are actually real and valid. And how does support for a trade agreement effect the role of the chair of the DNC, who's job is mostly raising money to fund the party activities? NNick posted:It is a proxy war because the grievances are real and the fear of history repeating itself is real. Most of the "grievances" are fictive though. Like "super delegates were created for Hillary to win!" (said like a page ago) is like, completely false. "it's a ratfuck if Perez wins and Schumer doesn't step down!" (Schumer supports Ellison!) So it's hard to like process this kind of poo poo as valid. On specific criticism of the primary, though, both Perez and Ellison have said we should open up reforming the primary process. Based on Perez' record in the past, there's no real reason to believe he isn't sincere.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Fiction posted:I'm saying the TPP was bad and there's plenty of critical reading you can do about it, and that he went along with it because Obama was doing it is a bad sign considering where Obama took the party under his leadership. I have done a whole lot of reading about the TPP and a lot of the "criticism" is overheated nonsense, but again how does support for the TPP as Labor Sec at all translate to his role as essentially, fundraiser in chief, for the democratic national committee? And again for full-disclosure: I signed Bernie's petition for Ellison and support him for chair.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 15:31 |
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:The loving funny thing is the people defending Perez are saying "he's so good with unions!" as a key talking point Uh, I see you don't know anything about the state of Nevada, where unions are not only dead but they helped hold Reid's senate seat and get a house seat. But sure, continue to talk about this like you know what you're talking about. Fiction posted:It shows where his priorities lie, as does that incident above with him granting waivers to Credit Suisse because they were friendly with the donor base. His priorities of doing his job as secretary of labor, huh. Periodiko posted:his endorsement of Clinton, Summarized your post.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 18:27
|
|