|
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.
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 05:50 |
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:this is bullshit. perez hadn't even met clinton before becoming labor secretary. 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). The Little Kielbasa fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Feb 4, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
Did Tom Perez really just say that the Democratic primary was fixed? quote:Perez, who is seen as representing the party's establishment in his bid against Ellison, said it is the party's responsibility to make those people feel welcome. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/race-dnc-chair-tom-perez-pledges-woo-back-red-rural-n718536
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Do you have actual loving objections to Perez, or is it all "Ellison is the Sanders faction candidate and our feelings will be hurt if he doesn't win, which is irritatingly a pretty good argument in favor of Ellison"? Is "maybe a guy who thought it was a good idea to run Hillary Rodham Clinton as our 2016 presidential candidate isn't the best choice to run our political party" an illegitimate chain of reasoning? Having decent political instincts is a qualification for the job, and Perez made an enormous miscalculation in the most recent, highest-profile contest in the business. I'm not saying he had to back Bernie to be qualified. If Perez had backed Biden or tried to draft someone else, that would be acceptable proof of "not a complete loving moron" status to me. But nobody who looked at HRC in 2015 and thought "yes, this is a great candidate" is qualified to run any political party. Not even the Greens.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:On the other hand, should the Democratic party be run by morons who don't understand how political primaries work? Do you have any evidence that Ellison (or Buttigieg or any of the other candidates running for chair) don't understand how primaries work?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Not talking about Ellison, I'm talking about you. You are saying that Perez should be locked out of the candidacy, because you don't understand how political primaries work. That is, we should orient the leadership of the Democratic party around you and people like you, who know very little about anything. Why is this considered a winning strategy? 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 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
Gorelab posted:I wouldn't be surprised if Perez is being seen as a sop to labor, the same way Ellison is often seen as a gesture toward the more progressive side of the party. Hard to see that given the AFL-CIO's Ellison endorsement.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
Looks like the teachers' union is endorsing Ellison now too. vvvv NEA The Little Kielbasa fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Feb 17, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Having Manchin types deep red states (or House districts) is reasonable, and probably necessary to get the 60 Senate votes you need to actually govern. But there needs to be change in the kinds of senators sitting in blue (e.g. Delaware) and purplish-blue (e.g. Virginia) seats.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
gohmak posted:When Dems fail in 2018 will the blame be placed on progressives because Perez is you know, progressive? Perez's first act was to make noted anarchist Keith Ellison his deputy. Of course it's his fault. Tom's far, far too radical. Only a Kaine/DWS unity ticket can bring the party back together.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Not that you'll admit that, again, because it undermines the whole internecine party slapfight the Bernies so desperately feel the need to continue. The establishment picked this fight, not the left. Everyone was coalescing around Ellison until the establishment decided that they would rather maintain total control over a shattered party than cede even a shred of authority to the left.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Except they're handing it to an equally left wing guy who just isn't Bernie's Choice TM. The oh-so-reasonable "Tom is exactly like Keith, we just think it's really important for you to vote for Tom instead of Keith beca...OH LOOK, SHINY BALL" argument. Look, I certainly grant that Perez used to be a guy I'd call a moderate progressive. I was happy when he was appointed Secretary of Labor and I think he did a good job in that role given the constraints he faced. But when the establishment needed people to campaign against Bernie, Perez campaigned against Bernie. And when they needed someone to bring down Ellison, he answered the call. How many prominent progressives does Perez need to shank on the establishment's orders before it's OK to call him an establishment stooge? Do we really need to see a photograph of Perez shoving Liz Warren into Podesta's trunk before we make that judgment? The coal industry lobbyist giving his nomination speech makes it real hard to give Perez the benefit of the doubt here.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Next time trump will have an actual record to run against. Last time he was an anti-establishment outsider with no record that people projected their hopes onto. Now he'll bee a historically unpopular incumbent. I agree with you that the democrats need a policy agenda, too, but we should tailor that to fit into our anti-trump strategy, i don't think we need any radical changes from the platform we have. I'll be shocked if the message isn't "Trump sure is crazy. Don't you wish we could go back to business-as-usual politics? Cory Booker will be the kind of President who can make Washington work again by reaching across the aisle to cooperate with reasonable Republicans like Paul Ryan."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 05:50 |
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Dude's been in office like three days and you're ready to string him up. C'mon man. We wanted Little Richard and got Pat Boone. Sure, it's still rock and roll, but we're allowed to be pissed about it for a while.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2017 04:05
|
|