|
Does Perez even have a realistic chance at beating Ellison? I was under the impression Ellison had it more or less locked up.
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 22:49 |
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:AP and other outlets were reporting that Perez had a solid lead after Biden endorsed him, about a week ago. Oh. Well that's actually kind of unfortunate. I mean I'm ok with Perez but I was honestly getting excited for Ellison after reading more about him. Is there like, somebody we can call and pester about voting for Ellison, or is not elected officials that get to vote?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Neither Clinton nor Trump are running for DNC head. No but it would be remiss of us to not see that the DNC chair battle is a proxy for the primary for the accelerationist bernouts that didn't show up last November. I like Ellison because I don't think he'd sell out immigrants, minorities, or other marginalized groups for left-wing populism no war but the class war stuff and because so far as I know he actually understands how international trade works. Perez is also ok but the truth is, we all know people are gonna throw a fit if Ellison doesn't win, and Ellison is actually Cool and Good so we get something good out of him winning anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Bernie's campaign was much more impressive in every aspect than Hillary's. Growth vs Proficiency. I'm actually inclined to agree with this. Bernie's first mistake was treating his primary run as a purely symbolic action. He should have planned more for the possibility to actually win and started in on campaigning and backdoor alliance making in 2012 for his run in 2016, and he almost certainly would've won. If we want a more progressive candidate in 2020 we have to start now. Once somebody less progressive is already the frontrunner a year out it's way, way too late to get in and change things. The election cycle never ends, and the conservatives never go home. We shouldn't either.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
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. Last I heard they wanted him to do something in Maryland if he didn't become DNC chair, no? Either Governor or Senator, I don't recall.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Noted accelerationist bernouts Chuck Schumer, John Lewis, Elizabeth Warren, and, uh, Bernie Sanders. I meant your average person, not the party establishment. There's a shitload of dumb, butthurt people who didn't show up to vote or voted third party and were mad about Crooked Hillary who want Ellison. Ellison is Cool and Good. So give them Ellison. It's a win-win to me.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:The DNC race is a symbolic struggle between the Sanders wing of the party and much of the rest of it, but it's not a re-run of the primary, and the "Sanders wing" doesn't map perfectly onto the people who supported Sanders in the primary. Ok, but the basic point still stands. You can placate people who are really mad by giving them the candidate they want. The candidate they want happens to be cool, good, and qualified. So everybody wins. Perez gets to go try to be Governor of Maryland or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Are we now disputing that DWS and Brazile did in fact act in a way that was unethical and more importantly looked really stupid for no particular gain? I think that arguing that the primaries were rigged or that Hillary didn't otherwise legitimately win substantially more votes is silly but the DNC did attempt to cheat. Poorly, like morons.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:They didn't "cheat" or "rig the system." The calendar was set before Bernie ran. The super-delegate system hasn't changed since like 1984. The DNC emails only revealed some mildly stupid poo poo, but conveniently missed where we know the DNC helped Sanders campaign as well. I categorically do not think the primaries were rigged or that anything the DNC did had a substantial impact on who won. But the DNC did act like morons and ended up looking really bad. Perception matters more than reality and so here we are with millions of dumb people who legitimately believe Bernie would've won if not for the DNC  .What does "clearing the field" actually entail? I keep seeing diehard Bernie supporters complaining about it. Is it just up-and-coming people deciding not to run because they're told this one person has a lot of institutional support or are they being taken to a back room and ordered not to run? Like what is the assertion here?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:It's back room dealing where you more or less tell people not to run because you won't support them. So like, when Bernie ran for senate, the DSCC declined to recruit a challenger and made it known they were going to support Bernie. Do you feel that this is a good thing or a bad thing, on principle? In the sense that it exists at all, not in its practical application.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
Does open primary mean that you don't have to be a registered member of the party to vote? I believe we have that in Wisconsin, it doesn't seem awful. Is brigading/outside sabotage by conservatives a meaningful problem?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:It handed Michigan to George Wallace. It happens, especially when there's an incumbent president running for a second term. I see. On balance, would we gain more from having open primaries than we'd lose?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I think there are argument for and against open primary systems. On one hand, nominating a candidate for represent the party is, explicitly, not entirely a democratic imperative and, as I said, is a relatively new idea -- primaries weren't really a thing until the 60's and 70's-- but on the other-hand, there's a lot of value in the whole process being "open" and democratic as a matter of principle. Brainiac Five posted:I think that depends on the state, to be honest. Which is why letting state parties decide is probably the best idea. So I guess the real question is, how do we get more people to actually participate in the primary process?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Yeah, and the problem with like NY is that's all well out of the DNC's control, but tbh the NY State Dem Party is hilariously awful. Serious question, what state parties don't suck for the Democrats? If I get into my state's party, who am I looking at for "state party that is cool and good?"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I mean it depends on what you mean by suck. The NY State Party is pretty good at getting Democrats elected. It's odious when it comes to be free, open and not relatively corrupt and machine like. Compare that to say, Florida, where the state party is just loving terrible at everything. Is "getting people consistently elected but also being corrupt and lovely and your candidates suck" and "not routinely getting people elected but being not corrupt and having good candidates" mutually exclusive? 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:Yeah, I'm sure we have some states that fit into the "not routinely getting people elected but also being corrupt and lovely and your candidates suck" section of that bit Not everyone can be Florida. Florida is special. BI NOW GAY LATER posted:How important is winning to you. gently caress. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Has this been posted yet?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:You're way over thinking this. I think he has a fair point, it just also doesn't really matter and there's nothing we could do about it either way.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Even if Perez hadn't ran, no one would give a poo poo about the others. Agreed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
I thought that was a pretty good article and that, that guy is pretty smart. He should run for Congress.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
I am surprised more people didn't get mad that he acknowledged the factories aren't coming back and that the future is in moving on to new things, to be honest. This guy got reelected with 80% of the vote and his town is experiencing economic renewal, we should be taking notes.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:It's true that white people have never stopped being appealed to, but the working class? The working class hasn't been appealed to in a substantive manner in ages. I think that threading the needle on "appeal to Midwestern white people without being racist" means taking an overt stand against the platform of people like Scott Walker. Stand up to right-to-work, at will employment, anti-union collective bargaining laws, anti-closed shop laws and anti-striking and organizing laws. Get these people invested in collective worker action and centralize the politics around that. Then figure out how to stop them from keeping black people out of their unions. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:He won a municipal election in a town that hasn't elected a Republican for mayor since Nixon. And yet the area went evenly for Trump and Clinton, according to him. Clearly something is wrong with that picture.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:You can't really compare municipal elections to national election results. Maybe not, but the messaging is resonating with him as the messenger. Like I don't think he can or should become DNC chair realistically but he seems like he knows what he's talking about and has a good message for both progressives and conservative Democrats.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:Also slay this stupid loving "Brocialism" meme or progressives are never going to gain any traction. Brocialist/brogressives are basically like the concept of Tumblr SJWs, they exist as a loud minority on the internet but have no meaningful impact on actual politics. The real political battle in the party proper is on whether or not the party wants to advocate for anti-immigration and/or tariffs to appeal to the Rust Belt.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Yes they were. Around the 90s Democrats made a conscious decision to abandon labor in favor of the professional classes. The assumption was that labor would have nowhere to go so they could get away with just throwing them scraps while simultaneously undermining them with things like NAFTA. This strategy worked for a time but is finally coming home to roost now that Trump is offering an alternative trade vision. It's nowhere near as simple as "they're entitled racists" This continues to only be the second half of the story. The first half was the part where the Republicans broke the New Deal coalition by drawing middle class blue collar white voters with opposition to desegregation and then killed their unions.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:It was. The Democrat campaign were so convinced that the entire election was a formality that they didn't even grace Michigan with their presence. Instead they did dumb poo poo like chasing the dream of a blue Texas. Which on election day was actually being talked about as if it was up for grabs right up until the upsets started rolling in and the color drained from everybody's face as they realized what was happening. This is more or less true. The desire to try and expand the map is a good idea in theory, but they gambled on an important election and got burned and we shouldn't make the same mistake again.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Chelb posted: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 This is really interesting and also very, very bad. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:Indeed I mean, I live in Wisconsin. I straight up don't think this state is recoverable. Or at least, any Democratic recovery would be a much more conservative and lovely set of Dems than anybody here would likely appreciate. But we probably have to try anyway because we need to win.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:That still involves us using that stupid word so uh... Google only brings up poo poo sources for this, where did it come from? Also even if he did he can gently caress off, nobody cares what he thinks and lol if you think Ellison would accept the endorsement.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The question is if this something that changed between 2012/2016? There have always been conservative Hispanics. It's a dumb label that encompasses millions of diverse people, they're never going to act as a monolith.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Hillary ran a garbage campaign that shortchanged efforts to encourage Hispanic voters. Wasn't there some issue where they didn't even have Spanish language organizers in many places? 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Chelb posted: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). 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.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Time to start beefing up the DSA I guess - the Democratic party is lost. This is dumb and you know it's dumb. Even if Ellison wins he sets organizational policy, not the platform, and the difference between him and Perez in that sense is nil.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
Only the circular firing squad would manage to turn "both major candidates want to do what we said they should do and have the backing of major left wing organizations and unions" into a negative over symbolism politics.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i don't want the tpp Ok, what does the TPP have to do with the DNC chair election? Besides, that would be a meaningful statement if Hillary had won. She didn't. Perez not being inspiring is irrelevant for what his job is. He literally has the backing of the largest union in the country lol. Like, I want Ellison to avoid exactly this problem, but Perez is fine.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Condiv posted:you said perez wanted the same things I wanted. TPP is something I really do not want. and it's not a moot statement because theoretically we're trying to get dems back in power. if they get back in power just to put together more crappy trade deals that let companies poo poo on worker rights more, then that's pretty bad and I definitely do not want that. Perez wants to do the same strategy that was generally preferred, a 50 state focus and more support for smaller races. He doesn't set platform from DNC chair. Lol if you think "how charismatic is the guy who does fundraising for the party???" is going to matter in a year. Edit: also, readingatwork, you live in California. Nobody cares if you vote third party to protest.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I think the symbolism is important because I don't agree with Maine Painframe that each interest group under the Democratic party has Pandering Bucks they are allotted and which they get to spend on things, and if we don't get Ellison as DNC chair that just means the left has more Pandering Bucks to spend on other things. The election of Perez means the DNC establishment has the power to continue to freeze out the left, and that they are gleefully going to do it. I'm not sure how you can look at Tom Perez, policy nerd and darling of unions, and determine that the DWS types have won, but ok. Like I said, I like Ellison and Ellison is good and it'd be better if he won so we didn't have to have this dumb argument. But I think that drama queening about how much worse Perez is than Ellison for this position when that is clearly untrue based on their stated positions and actions in the past six months is dumb. Besides that, is it really a great victory for the left if Ellison goes from awesome congressperson to lame fundraiser guy?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:For the last time--Perez wouldn't even be in the race if the Obama people hadn't asked him to run out of "fear" that Keith Ellison would become chairman. Ok, but we've reached the point where "a relic of the old guard" is a pro-union member of the previous, popular liberal administration. The Overton window is already shifting. I think we're also understating just how awful DWS was. Besides that, with how little we know of what's happening in the process for sure, how do we even know Perez is actually winning? How do we lobby for this? Who should we be calling/emailing? We got one tweet and now the sky is falling, we're doomed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 22:49 |
|
|
Kilroy posted:Perez is their candidate regardless of whatever his actual policy positions are (which I do not have a problem with). Whatever he thinks he wants to do as chair, once he's there he will toe the party line for the centrists or they will undermine him every chance they get, and unlike Ellison I don't think he'll fight back (actually I think it's a moot point because he happily toe the establishment line, but whatever). I don't know that Ellison would actually fare hugely better, tbh. We're making a lot of assumptions about how much power a single person has over the system. One change in leadership does not a revolution make.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 18:42
|
|