|
AKA the person whose job it is to unfuck everything. No pressure February 23rd will see the committee members meet to elect the new chairperson of the DNC, the person who will effectively coordinate the Democrats efforts to undermine and resist Republican rule and take back as much power as they can in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and beyond. Incoming chairperson Donna Brazille will not be seeking re-election. So 5 people have so far thrown their hat into the ring. Raymond Buckley, chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party since 2007 Keith Ellison, U.S. Representative from Minnesota since 2007 Thomas Perez, United States Secretary of Labor since 2013 Sally Boynton Brown, Executive Director of the Idaho Democratic Party since 2012 Jaime Harrison, chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party since 2013 Howard Dean was first to announce a bid, but withdrew after his enthusiasm for the job was met with almost deafening silence. All 5 candidates have stressed a need to grow support for Democrats from the ground up and make a connection with voters in every state and every county, each supporting Of the 5, four (Perez, Ellisson, Buckley and Harrison) have reiterated that Democrats guiding principles are strong, and we must both talk about and commit more to these principles. Brown has meanwhile said we must become more like Republicans. I think she is doing this solely to get attention. So far, Ellisson is the favorite for the position, with the backing of Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, and the AFL-CIO. Perez is next with the backing of several sitting governors, as well as the Firefighters union and the United Foodworkers. Behind them is Jaime Harrison, who has the endorsement of Jim Clyburn and pretty much no-one else. Raymond Buckley and Sally Brown are in last with no endorsements. Which, you have to feel sorry for Buckley about. Here he is, a genuinely good option, and he's stuck in last with the worst possible option. So its a 5 person race wherein only two of the people running have any real chance of winning it. One candidate pulled in a great deal of endorsements early on, and it was believed that the entire affair would be a coronation, before a popular challenger emerged who began gaining ground fast. Also, the former has a number of scandals in their past that could potentially haunt them. Something about this is sounding very familiar.
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 12:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:11 |
|
|
Helsing posted:The fact that the White House has all but endorsed Perez over Ellison is arguably one of the best arguments for Ellison. Given the awful results that the Clinton and Obama people have produced why would you follow their endorsement? Obama is also pro-breathing, I assume you want to stop doing that? My policy on this is basically anyone but goddamn Brown, but knee-jerk opposing literally anything because Obama is for it with no further thought is literally tea party logic. Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Jan 4, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
LiterallyTheWurst posted:Ellison and Perez are both excellent choices, but I think Ellison knows a thing or two about winning elections. Also, Ellison is probably going to have more knowledge as to what Democrats in rural areas need, being a DFL member. I wouldn't want any DNC Chairperson to require much on the job training with 2018 coming up. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the people in the rust belt need good, safe jobs, strong worker rights and a strong union to protect them, right? And a whole bunch of infrastructure spending and treatment of the opioid epidemic but, mainly the jobs? Who better to spearhead that than the most leftist labor secretary since FDRs? As for on the job training, well, which of them has coordinated a national organisation? That does require training any way you slice it. Again, Ellisson is a great option who I think would make a great chairperson, but the arguments his supporters put forward for why he is better for it than Perez all seem pretty flawed.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Sorry but for an analogy to be effective -- even as a sarcastic throw away -- there needs to be some actual underlying similarity. If you want the party to be under new management then it logically follows that you'd be extra skeptical toward the guy who is being promoted by the current managers of the party. That's not "Tea Party Logic", whatever the hell that would mean, it's common sense. If that were the case they would have coalesced around Dean, not waited for Perez. And you seem to be ignoring that Perez's endorsements aren't coming from any Clinton people, and many aren't even from Obama people. The UFCW and the firefighters unions both broke with the AFL-CIO to back Perez over Ellisson after he announced, I assume food workers and firemen are also the fat cat elites who ruined everything? Also I like that you're claiming Chuck Schumer as a part of the Sanders wing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:Tea Party logic lead to the Republican's sweeping the House and Senate, what has liberal logic done lately? I dunno, I quit doing the hell dump over a year ago for my mental health. Bah dum tish.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Haven't actually heard much from them in the crazy forwarded email thread, it's all about EPORW these days Yeah, I retired from the job after I was in hospital for clinical depression. Still trying to figure out a way to get my browser to stop suggesting their url.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Hopping on the bandwagon and throwing your support behind a candidate you think is likely to win doesn't necessarily say anything about your ideological preferences, especially in Washington.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Didn't you start off the debate by claiming that any support for Perez is equivalent to saying that Debbie Wasserman Schultz should be brought back and put in charge? How is your entire style not based on stupid gotcha arguments?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
I feel like a goddamn O'Malley supporter here, but can we talk Buckley for a second? Just so people will stop trying to rip each other's throats out.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
He tried everything to get people to like him. He was the only person to have the balls to call Bannon an out and out nazi.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 10:11
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I really, really think that putting him at the wheel would open up the Dems as a whole to being defined by a soundbite that will be played over and over. The law that was overturned by the Heller decision can and did punish people for having an assembled gun in a safe so you're definitely opening yourself up to a "regulating poo poo out of existence" attack angle. I know Perez is against the NRA too but typically almost everyone has the brains to deliver it with a "I support the 2nd but..." and/or a "we don't have to choose between gun rights and gun safety" pitch. Ellison really didn't have to put that out there in the way he did, like, at all. It's baffling. The NRA IS an extension of the GOP. The reality of how dems approach guns is completely and totally irrelevant, and they will be painted as wanting to give MAAAH GUUUURNS to those filthy inner city urban ferals even if they make Micheal goddamn Bay the chair. May as well own that poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
Condiv posted:the fusion dance isn't permanent and we can't get a potara without the gods Could we Velvet Room it? Or would we just end up with a giant penis riding a chariot as DNC head. Cause among other things, that's gonna make fighting for womens rights look real awkward. Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 09:44 on Jan 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 09:25
|
|
|
Quote is not edit.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 09:43
|
|
|
Gun control is by a pretty sizeable margin the most popular thing Democrats do, with 93% of Americans in agreement about it. This is higher than the social safety net, a liveable minimum wage, minority rights, police reform, virtually everything. If you think gun control is a loser issue, loving every single other issue is too. Young leftists scoff at Democrats not fighting hard enough on issues, but then you have leftists who will just start the conversation from "we need to give the NRA everything they want or they'll be mean to us. Ahh, screw the shooting victims, this is about getting elected". The hypocrisy is stunning. Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Jan 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Doccers posted:This is disingenuous as gently caress. One sub issue, universa background checks Of Some Form (generally opening up NICS to the general public), has universal support. The actual plans that are put out, (generally requiring all sales go through an ffl with a substantial fee causing used items to be more expensive than new ones) do not get anywhere near that sypport, shockingly, and when you start delving into other issues, (awb, bans based on secret lists, handgun bans, etc) that support turns negative. You know this, and yet you still try to pass it off as "widely popular" for everything. Yes, because loving everything gets way less popular the more you go into the details and specifics. Exactly how popular is a prison system that focuses on rehabilitation and attempts to minimize all punishment aspects. But the order remain the same - with an equivalent level of detail, gun control is still ahead.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Pete Buttiegeg, an Indiana Mayor, is entering the fray, with a bold and unique vision - doing what everyone else running for the job already wants to do. http://www.businessinsider.com.au/pete-buttigieg-vision-positions-dnc-chair-2017-1?r=US&IR=T Also, Keith Ellisson has picked a press secretary. http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/313883-keith-ellison-picks-ex-dnc-latino-as-press-secretary I'm unclear if that is a press secretary for his campaign for the position, or someone he'll pick as press secretary if he gets it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 10:40
|
|
|
Yeah, African American is one culture because every black person had their culture before a certain point taken away.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Well this is weird. 300 prominent american jewish figures have come out with a petition supporting Ellisson, but not endorsing him. http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/300-Jewish-leaders-sign-letter-supporting-Rep-Keith-Ellison-478580
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 07:07
|
|
|
It's moot anyway since Perez's candidacy never really took off in the way that people anticipated. A month after he announced, and the only endorsement he has gained to add to the four governors and three unions he started with is the outgoing secretary of agriculture. So it seems like it's still Ellison's coronation, essentially.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
Also, to add a new name to the participation trophy winners, we have Jehmu Greene, whose job up until last Thursday was as an analyst at Fox.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
Condiv posted:electing perez dnc chairman would be like bring spoon to a knife fight 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 07:45
|
|
|
Venomous posted:The DNC elections should've been democratised years ago. If they had, you'd have elected Ellison for sure. Instead, they're probably about to elect another neoliberal. Great job. If it was democratised people would have elected Jill goddamn Stein. Cease to Hope posted:Biden endorsed Perez, and various outlets are citing a 66-vote lead in favor of Perez at the moment. Really? I'm not seeing much evidence for this lead given the huge disparity of endorsements between the two.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
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. No, an election loss in 2018 would be way more humiliating.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
So we're back to "black people shouldn't have been allowed to vote"? Cause I fail to see how one candidate getting more votes is ratfucking.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I mean, this is possible (though there's a bunch of pretty concrete stuff Democrats have been doing poorly when it comes to strategy and winning down-ballot races), but I would prefer to remove a bunch of current Democrats just because I disagree with them politically. I think many people feel the need to have some sort of "pragmatic" excuse for this, but it's okay to just say "I want people who are more closely aligned with what I believe to replace current Democratic politicians." quote:This is clearly changing; Sanders' association with socialism was well known and he was still pretty competitive with Clinton in the primaries.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Gullible Sanders supporters. For example, Sanders.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
Gloria Steinem has endorsed Ellison So are we going to keep pretending that this is a rehash of Sanders and Hillary?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
Helsing posted:It's not a rehash but it's a contest that is now inextricably linked to the events of 2016 (and before). The fact it's not a 1:1 mirror of how the primary played out isn't exactly a profound observation but it also doesn't in any way disprove the idea that this contest is in part a proxy battle for different factions within the Democratic party to test their influence over the direction the party is going to take. You cannot draw up any form of coherent factional groupings to slot all of the supporters for any side into these camps. It's not establishment v. outsiders, moderate v. extreme or anything, it's purely along individual lines.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
Edit: yeah, DaveWoo said it better.
Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Feb 7, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Keep in mind, Schumer has had people camped outside his house in Brooklyn screaming at the top of their lungs pretty much constantly since the inauguration. The locals have made it pretty clear that he either stands up for progressives or gets voted the gently caress out. My favorite moment was around 100 people showing up with literal spines. That's nice. He backed Ellisson November 16th.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:The DNC chair is not a public election! All of the voters are Democratic Party officials. Everyone voting is not only involved in politics, but at least a semi-professional political organizer. I could have sworn he was still running.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
Zerilan posted:She'll still be younger in 2020 than Bernie was in 2016. Won't she be younger than Trump is now?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Brown has said Democrats need to be more like Republicans, and another attacked Ellisson as unfit for the position because he is a Muslim, and therefore Homophobic. Why in the gently caress would you want these asshat to have more of a chance?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
What ideas does he have that Ellisson and Perez don't?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:11 |
|
|
If Buttigieg was serious and not just trying to raise his profile nationally by running to the left of Ellisson and Perez, he would have thrown in when Dean did and failed to get any endorsements. He wouldn't have waited til mid January to announce. He is doing this because he wants national attention, not because he wants the job. He's trying to kick off a 2018 house or senate run, or a 2020 presidential run.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 06:42
|
|