|
A while ago I talked to somebody and they said something interesting. They said that it seems increasingly likely that Dems will be unable to fully galvanize a Hispanic voting base to their side, and that Perez, with his ties to Hispanic and Chicano communities, has the best chance of reversing that and (presumably) establishing a solid Latinx/Hispanic/Chicanx coalition on the level of African-American Dem support. Personally, I'd be pretty happy with either Perez or Ellison becoming DNC chair. I definitely think that electing Ellison would be a real cool and positive message by the DNC regarding Muslim voices. In a vague, general sense I just find him more interesting! Chelb fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Jan 12, 2017 |
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 02:57 |
|
|
themrguy posted:I mean I do prefer Ellison because he has experience running a campaign, but if you look at Perez's history it's kinda hard to deny he is a genuine progressive. That's why I find all the vitriol disappointing. It's not like John Corzine is running. The progressive wing of the party has probably never been more powerful in the last couple of decades. Yeah. I personally appreciate Ellison's charisma and the message he would send as DNC chair, and thus prefer him, but Perez has plenty of accomplishments to his name as well and probably doesn't deserve some of the stuff being lobbed at him.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
that is to say the corporatist criticism of Perez isn't entirely without merit. To be honest I just really don't care for the battle lines that got drawn between bernie/ellison and clinton/obama/perez and hope that we're still not talking about "bernie candidates" or "clinton candidates" come 2018
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
check post history and primary past
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Unions won a major SCOTUS case last year in Friedrichs v. California Teachers rear end'n, a case notable in that Scalia died right after it was argued
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
i'd like to take this moment to remind folks that unions are one of the most consistent supporters for better pay and working conditions for people of color For example, do you know that four out of ten USPS employees are minorities? USPS is also heavily unionized, and consistently targeted by the GOP because of it
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Frankly I struggle to come up with a reaction towards "unions are a permanently dead concept that nobody likes" that doesn't involve me rolling my eyes so hard they detach from their socketsISeeCuckedPeople posted:Meanwhile in the real world. There's actually a pretty interesting conversation to have regarding the GOP's slow and steady erosion of labor rights in the last several decades. There's also cool stuff to talk about regarding unions being one of the best representatives of minorities and the working class out there. Note that none of those two discussions at all involve the concept that unions should not exist because it's a monumentally stupid idea that capitulates to conservative rhetoric, offers no solutions to any problems, and denigrates disadvantaged groups that rely on and/or support union activities
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:You are putting words in my mouth. No one said unions shouldn't exist. But fighting for unions and their rights at this point is an unwinnable war Distilling all this down to realpolitik is kinda gross imo. Union's rights are worker's rights, and to abandon unions is to abandon a now historically smaller but still important resource for dems to fundraise, organize, and support minority work issues. To put this in perspective, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the largest trade union of public employees in the U.S., is one of the Democratic Party's largest supporters on a financial level. They were Bill Clinton's biggest donor! You can't abandon unions without abandoning the financial and political structures that unions utilize. You can't abandon unions without abandoning the Democratic Party. But regardless I'd be pretty interested to hear what alternatives you might have towards safeguarding workers rights in a political environment where any dem proposal toward that effect would get shot down immediately anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Here are some more union facts: The Service Employees International Union raised 50 million dollars and spent 55 million bucks in 2016, and virtually exclusively supported Dems. The AFSCME raised and spent 24 million dollars, also for the Dems. Abandoning unions would destroy the Democratic Party. So Perez, as an operator within the Democratic Party, is good to support them.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
I don't think it's necessarily unfair to say that criticism of wealthy Jewish individuals can sometimes take on implicit tones and tenors of antisemitism, and I think those implications can at least seem to be present when the concept of wealth corrupting politics is brought up and a Jewish guy is the first name to appear. Obviously Saban has some relevance irt large-scale political donors and as an example of unfair criticism of Ellison, but a post like this:Fiction posted:I grasp it well. I'm saying I and people like me trust Ellison more than Perez to play the game in a way that actually reflects how voters feel, and not how Haim Saban feels. just strikes me as rather disrespectful of Perez as a human being with personal autonomy, who (as far as I know!) has not been vocally supported by Saban.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
Fiction posted:I'm basing it on his record of lacking said personal autonomy, so I don't think it's unfair to him to insinuate. If Perez's record boils down to "Supporting the TPP as Obama did while he was secretary", and "granting a waiver to Credit Suisse Asset Management services due to there not being enough evidence of QPAM's involved in criminal activities" - then all I'm seeing is a weird false equivalency between what a person does (and is expected to do) when they're appointed by the most powerful person in the United States and what they do when they're elected to an important but low-key political position mainly concerned with organization and fundraising.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
I think that Ellison is a downright more charismatic figure than Perez - though I don't think that matters much irt being DNC chair - and I think electing Ellison would send a real cool statement. In a world where Republicans control all three branches of government, electing a Muslim person of color is an uplifting message that the Democratic party isn't interested in kowtowing to the GOP's bigotry.Fiction posted:Hillary Clinton managed to be a worse candidate than Donald Trump lmao. RaySmuckles posted:yeah, i'm sorry too. now Donald Trump is president. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Barring a Buttigieg upset or an outbreak of Buckleymentum, a man of color is winning no matter what. Well, yeah. Sorry if that post sounded like I was ignoring that Perez is Hispanic.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Donald Trump is not running for the DNC chair. no don't you'll jinx us
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
I strongly doubt that electing either candidate would form or deepen rifts in the Democratic Party, or even be particularly noticed by anybody that isn't the comparatively tiny amount of individuals in the United States who think about the DNC in any notable capacity
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:It doesn't matter. Thats one of the reason Trump won. Considering that you also win elections based on effective advertisement, which union money helps pay for, perhaps you don't have as great of an idea about capital P Politics as you think you do. Lightning Knight posted:Does Perez even have a realistic chance at beating Ellison? I was under the impression Ellison had it more or less locked up. There were a few news reports saying that Perez had an early voting lead (note: iirc this was before john lewis expressed his support for Ellison), but because the DNC Chair vote deliberations are exclusively insider issues there's not very much concrete and detailed info about what's going on. I'm expecting Ellison to win based solely on the gigantic list of endorsements he has received from Democratic figures of every stripe.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:Bill Gates has more money than every single union combined. Hmm, on second thought, get rid of my "perhaps"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
Considering the extent and breadth of Ellison's endorsements I'd honestly be surprised if he didn't get chosen. An early voting lead is good info to have but without knowing the specifics of how DNC voting works - that is, how important early leads are, how often votes are changed before Feb 23-26, etc. - it might not mean anything at all.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Again, I think Ellison is a much more telegenic person who I think is better suited to be the de facto face of the party for two years until we hit 2020 primary bullshit. He's obviously a more natural communicator.  I'd hate for Perez to just disappear, I think he has valuable skills that should be utilized in the future to Dem benefit whether we're talking about the DNC or something else
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
vince foster was only a test run !!!!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
If Buttigieg is smart, he knows he probably has a future in the Democratic Party that lies outside of the Democratic National Chair.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
A little bird with bad hair is whispering in my ear that not campaigning in Michigan and some other states much probably didn't matter
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah, I am actually reading through it and I don't think he is making essentially great points beyond Trump also needed Pennsylvania. I'm not sure what's so unconvincing about drawing comparisons between states that clinton (or trump) campaigned in heavily but still lost, or pointing to earlier presidential elections where ground game seemed less important than other factors (c.f. 2012), but okay. I used to think the ultimate problem lied in fatal ground-game based mistakes too, but eventually that reasoning falls apart on a few levels. We wouldn't have heard about Hillary's ground game if she had won, so a conversation like this is in a sense biased by the victor; A ton of people, me included, thought she had a good ground game, with ample funds, a ton more field offices, and favorable polling for most of the campaign; demographics explain political shifts much better than candidate campaigning does. Anyway, sorry for adding to the derail. I like all 3 of the notable candidates offered for the DNC chair and will not be unhappy regardless of the choice.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
I also really don't know about the argument that the Dems have lost or are losing working class voters. The two lowest income brackets in the U.S. ($30,000 - $50,000) preferred Hillary. Incidentally, those brackets also have larger proportions of minorities and disadvantaged groups. It's the middle class and wealthier that supported Trump and the Republicans the strongest, and a primarily white middle/upper class at that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2012/ I disagree with those findings regarding hispanic voters. A more comprehensive analysis by Latino Decisions has the hispanic results at 79-18 for Hillary, and I'm more apt to accept these results given the depth that it goes into.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The question is if this something that changed between 2012/2016? Well, Election results in 2012 by Latino Decisions notes that the hispanic vote was 75% in favor of Obama. If anything, Hispanic and Latino/Latinx advocacy groups record more Hispanics breaking for the Dems in 2016! Chelb fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Feb 14, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Let's not forget that lower-than-expected black turnout played a part in the election as well, and not just because of voter suppression. I think an attitude like this runs the risk of discounting the chillingly effective efforts by the GOP to suppress minority turnout, particularly in states like Michigan, Florida, Wisconsin, and the Carolinas. 300,000 people lacked the voter ID required in Wisconsin and pushed by Scott Walker. North Carolina shuttered polling stations and made black people wait for several hours to vote. One in four Floridian black persons could not vote due to criminal record-based voter suppression. Multiple people have covered this. It's entirely fair to say that Republican efforts at disenfranchising the minority vote has been more effective than it's been in a long time, and all signs point to it getting worse. On the other hand, I'm not sure if there's much solid evidence regarding black people being more apathetic in 2016.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Wasn't there some issue where they didn't even have Spanish language organizers in many places? A cursory google search doesn't give me anything quite like you're saying. Some organizers were denied Spanish language scripts, and Hillary apparently waited until September to launch Spanish-language campaigns in traditional markets (i.e. television rather than online). Every available evidence from Hispanic and Latinx political advocacy groups shows that Hillary won among them by at least Obama's levels, if not more so. And I'm going to trust the results of groups like Latino Decisions when it comes to those demographics' votes.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:From what you've posted, plus with Trump having such a poo poo ground game, seems to indicate that ground game doesn't matter at all. Well, going back to that 538 article (which seems pretty level-headed to me), it's not that it doesn't matter at all, it's just that for presidential elections, it doesn't matter very much. Hillary won New Hampshire despite its high proportion of non-college educated and nationally trump-leaning whites, which could be seen as evidence of a good ground game in that state. It's reasonable to say that the hundreds of millions of dollars of free publicity given by the media to Trump went a long way towards making up organizational differences. It's also reasonable to say that a ground game is much more important when it comes to low turnout situations like midterms or more local elections. Chelb fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Feb 14, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:I definitely remember seeing a lot of interviews in black communities by different journalists to gauge their feelings about the two candidates, and there was a lot of apathy towards Hillary and Democrats in general. A lot of respondents didn't like Trump but felt the Democrats didn't do anything for them so they were not going to vote. Interviews are anecdotes, and anecdotes do not constitute evidence. They especially don't when in comparison to the issue of GOP-led voter suppression, which is well-researched and substantiated. Anyway, even if it's true that younger black generations were less hype for the Dems - which I don't think has been proven - it's also true that older black generations have consistently and enthusiastically been Dem voters and supporters.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
tsa posted:Well this is just laughable nonsense, did you work for the Hilary data team lmbo you can, you know, give some evidence to refute me if u want
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:im curious how yall maintain this level of mortally aggrieved outrage for so long. it must cause heartburn. I recommend chamomile and a soothing night of not caring about which extremely competent human being is elected to a behind-the-scenes organizational role while a malicious orange sex criminal is paying russians to urinate on him
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
Condiv posted:To a dyed in the wool dem maybe. Why would detached non-voters tune in to a trump rally or debate though? You're confusing not being aware of a candidate's racism for explicitly participating in a racist system and hell, enjoying that they get to do so
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Did Hillary, and the Dems, do too much or too little to tell people that Donald Trump was an awful human being who campaigned on hate? Do y'all remember when imprisoning his political opponent was a serious topic of discussion? You cannot look at the modern day American political system, believe that apathetic bystanders were simply uninformed as to his bigotry, and be intellectually credible. There was evidence of it on every news channel, every news website, and on every square inch of trump's words and actions. Condiv posted:Choosing not to vote is not participating in a racist system or enjoying doing so. You're right, not voting is not by itself, an endorsement of racism. Not voting against one of the most spiteful popular figures in recent memory is. Not acting is as important as acting, and by not acting against Donald Trump you are complicit in his rise.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Ok you win, America is unethical and loves trump. We will never win again because a well informed populace chose evil and will continue to choose evil. A well informed populace chose Hillary Clinton, and were denied their choice due to the vagaries of the electoral college system (buoyed by rampant voter suppression).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Nah. This isn't the trolley problem. I don't know if you're conflating me with other posters or if i just can't fathom the depths of stupidity you are operating under
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:I agree with all of this. I voted for Bernie in the primary, and I actively campaigned for Hillary once she was the nominee, and I was overjoyed that she adopted Bernie's platform wholesale. I don't necessarily disagree with this. I do think Hillary Clinton espoused policies during her campaign that explicitly moved away from her husband, but the bigger questions I have are these: Does Ellison represent the progressive wing? If he does, why doesn't Perez also represent the progressive wing? Whichever candidate becomes DNC chair, can we expect them to be beholden to any progressive wing of the party? Condiv posted:Nope. The populace chose trump as per your previous post. Those who didn't vote + those who did is a greater proportion of america than wise hillary voters. They're also all unethical and racist so we don't have a chance anymore There are many, many millions of Americans who are prevented from voting due to voter ID laws, felony laws, the GOP-led shuttering of polling stations, and through working minimum income dead-end poo poo jobs that provide no time off to vote. All of those count as voter suppression. Are you going to refute that, or are you going to stamp your feet like a child and pretend I'm claiming something I'm not?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
There is a very good conversation to have regarding the ethics of voting. We live in a world inundated with information, distorted or otherwise, but the problem isn't that people don't know enough about political candidates. The problem is that they're unwilling to fully consider the importance of political systems, and unwilling to draw the appropriate conclusions from a candidate's message. The reasons behind this are multifaceted and complex, but it shouldn't be difficult to see that those who have no opinions regarding hatred are clearly enabling it through their apathy.Condiv posted:We don't have a chance of reversing that because our party no longer has enough power and the vast majority of America is racist and unethical. Get rid of the unethical part and add "White" before "America", and I'll be glad you agree with me. quote:I'm not the one who was claiming that every person who abstained from voting is unethical and racist. IMO those voters are dispirited and if dems were willing to put in the work we'd be able to bring them into the party. IMO, the people claiming non voters are unethical are throwing a tantrum. Are they dispirited? Let's put ourselves into the shoes of a person who is not being held back from voting due to voter suppression - say, a white male with a decent job that offers enough downtime for him to easily vote. When he read on the news that Donald Trump was recorded bragging about sexually assaulting women, or that he mocked a disabled reporter, or that he insulted the parents of a dead veteran for no reason other than that they find him reprehensible, what do you think he thinks when he decides not to vote? That both sides are equally bad? That what he's heard all around him, very nearly shouted from the rooftops, on TV or the internet, are lies? I can see two options. Either he doesn't understand the effects politics has on himself and on others, or he doesn't care. The first one is something that can potentially be solved through all sorts of ways, from charismatic political messaging to proper education to drawing a few logical conclusions about how cause and effect works. The second one is irredeemable. So now that we've got that out of the way, which one is more prevalent, ignorance or deliberate disinterest? Considering the attitudes white america has had and continues to have regarding people of different races, genders, and religions, and considering that Donald Trump coalesces and expresses verbally those attitudes - the answer is the latter, op.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 02:57 |
|
|
Condiv posted:if you don't believe people who abstain from voting are unethical why are you butting into an argument about whether or not they are unethical? congrats on answering a truncated post and presuming that me saying white americans are racist means that they're permanently opposed to democratic messaging, and not that modern leftist movements have no reliable safeguards against ideologies built upon vocal hate 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 19:36
|
|