|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:So Perez is still pretty decent right? This isn't Ellison vs some crappy stiff right? Depends. These are the highlights of his time during the Obama administration: *Pushing for ENDA *Running the rollout of Hate Crime enforcement *Spearheading the use of Title IX for interstudent behavior on campuses (laying the foundation that's now being used to force colleges to set standards and processes for dealing with sexual assault and harassment that may not rise to "beyond a reasonable doubt" or that the police are unwilling to meaningfully investigate) *Making Arpaio's life miserable *Successfully overturning blatant disenfranchisement in SC and Texas *Implementing a rule change where 'exempt' managerial workers had to have substantively different responsibilities than those that they supervised in order to avoid paying overtime (You can't have a 'Shift Lead' at Taco Bell working 60hr weeks for $28k if the only difference between them and the rest of the shift is the shift lead picks up the phone when someone calls) *Implementing a since-blocked rule that would double the minimum salary required for exemption from overtime pay *A shitload of other blocked rules as head of Labor, designed to make unionizing easier and unionbusting more difficult and public I think the guy with executive experience in multiple governmental bodies, who can point to a track record of rules and policies that (would) have dramatically improved life for those in the working and middle classes, who has successfully fought back disenfranchisement across the country, who was the point person for the DoJ's Trayvon response, who fought for workers in the TPP process, and who helped lead the charge on stemming collegiate sexual assault is a drat sight better than pretty decent. I'd love to hear the reasons he's a neoliberal centrist though. Helsing posted:This is especially true when there's a lot of justifiable bad blood over past grievances. Justifiable, in this case, being the important word. Turns out that a lot of those who are angry feel that their grievances are justifiable while the majority of the party appear to find at least most of the concerns overblown (based, if nothing else, on their votes). There are parallels to how the fringey evangelical right felt in 2012 after Romney/Santorum. Call it rehabilitation vs retribution-I'm all for discussing and implementing policies that would fix the inequities perceived by the wing that adopted Sanders... but the performances of Strickland and Feingold make me skeptical that a purge to establish an identity as fiery antineoliberals fixes the Dem EC and Gerrymandering disadvantage. Posters in this thread make me skeptical that antineoliberalism would maintain any consistent or coherent definition.
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 17:55 |
|
|
Tab8715 posted:What did Perez do to make Arpaio's life miserable? He was AAG of Civil Rights when the snowball started to really get trucking, so the profiling report that cost him/MCSO the authority to do anything with immigration. As importantly, he lead the suit that wound up likely being the nail in his coffin after Joe refused to settle with a monitored consent decree-though was at Labor by the time judgement came down. Evil Fluffy posted:Yes because Democrats by and large are crazy fucks who are wishy-washy about vaccinations, or believe in things like healing crystals and other Jill Stein insanity.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:So I guess to summarize, all that stuff Perez did is good, but it's also nothing that is particularly controversial among Democratic politicians. It's certainly good and I'd rather have him than some hypothetical "neutral" candidate, but if given a choice I'd rather have someone who pushes the envelope even further to the left (or is associated with the faction of the party who would do so). Even accepting the idea that his list is uncontroversial and centrist dem (in which case, we need to pat ourselves on the back and celebrate that we've pushed the envelope this far)-there's a substantial difference between being in favor of an idea and actually having done it. I like Ellison quite a bit, but he's also been in congress for a decade and sponsored exactly 4 pieces of legislation that have passed the house- Money Remittances Improvement Act of 2014 (the only one to become law) Providing for the printing of a revised edition of the Rules and Manual of the House of Representatives for the One Hundred Twelfth Congress. Lead-Safe Housing for Kids Act of 2008 Honoring the city of Minneapolis, first responders, and the citizens of the State of Minnesota for their valiant efforts in responding to the horrific collapse of the Interstate Route 35W Mississippi River Bridge. To prohibit the use, production, sale, importation, or exportation of any pesticide containing atrazine. (this actually failed to pass the house, but it did make it out of committee, the only one of his to meet that criteria) I don't know what the list of Democrats who have experience leading organizations and have the breadth of experience and accomplishments that Perez does (immigration, women's rights, voting rights, police misconduct, institutional racial bias, workers' right, fair pay, labor in trade agreements), but I think it's a hell of a qualification for running an organization that lobbies and fights and elects people to win those battles. Your last sentence worries me a bit, to be honest, because we've already seen that happen and it's how we end up with progressive support for scummy fameseekers like Tulsi. Obviously Ellison actually has progressive views so it's not the case with him, but grifting freshly minted activists is a time honored tradition of American Politics and it's more helpful if it's the progressives delivering that warning than if it's the establishment. Paracaidas fucked around with this message at 04:24 on Feb 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What an awful article. The left used to have good writers - what the gently caress happened? Tom Perez wrote an accurate email prior to Nevada! Then Amanda Marcotte wrote a bunch of awful poo poo. 'Berniebro' got coined. Perez is to blame! The Left still has plenty of good writers, but what we're seeing more of is the usuncut-ification of the SlatePitch. Incendiary headline that doesn't match the content of the story, and a connection to The Enemy (gently caress Marcotte for real though). For Aurubin, Kielbasa, Venomous, and others in this thread who are both Pro-Ellison and Anti-Perez... I'm curious: Is there anyone in the Democratic Party who supported Clinton in the primaries that you would vote for over Ellison if they chose to run? Who? "No" is a perfectly reasonable answer, but it changes the discussion quite a bit.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i am. keith ellison is a better choice as DNC head in every respect and hopefully he can push the party in a better direction on a lot of issues What in Perez's background makes you feel he is an inferior option for the practical tasks involved with running the Democratic National Committee? Ardennes posted:To be perfectly honest, I wish there was a candidate left of both of them, but there is no reason to support the more centrist option at this point. Why do you feel that Perez is the centrist option in this race? Ytlaya posted:In this particular case it just so happened that nothing particularly incriminating was actually uncovered, and your argument should focus on why the stuff in the e-mails isn't actually bad rather than some sort of weak claim that it's unfair it was revealed in the first place. There's a belief in some circles that this set of Wikileaks is weaker than a single anonymous source (the only thing we know for certain about where they obtained these emails is that they're lying), and as such shouldn't be the sole source for a story out of basic journalistic ethics... but that it can be used as a platform and a roadmap for digging deeper. To mix metaphors, it's inadmissible but there is no such thing as fruit of the poisonous tree. I believe that this is generally where he was coming from. I don't really agree with that argument, since all but the  know it's from one of the two Russian intrusions at this point-but I can understand why some people prefer not to ignore the context. In this case, it's a nothing story that falls apart under the slightest scrutiny and accuses Perez of exploiting minority pain for political gain by.... mentioning that the status quo is harmful. Ytlaya posted:As for Perez's support of Clinton, I only think it's a bad thing in the sense that I agreed more with Sanders politically (and thus probably disagree with Perez in the same sense). I encourage you to examine this more, especially given the insider/outsider dynamic of the primary. It means there are enough other factors involved that the parenthetical is likely reductive.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Condiv posted:he's never won a contested position in his life and his fundraising game sucks compared to ellison considering ellison's got more with less wealthy donors (and without the clinton wing giving him a leg up) More bluntly-which do you believe is a better qualification for running the DNC, having lead an organization or department to progressive policy victories or having won an election in one of the nation's safest blue seats? Ardennes posted:To me Perez is the MORE centrist option, Ellison in all honesty is also quite centrist and the real options in the race are quite limited. I don't think the differences between them are extreme but as I mentioned signaling is important here, but also the TPP (the Democrats just have to go a different route on trade), Ellison is more aggressive on limiting campaign contributions and Perez seems if anything even more pro-Israel than Ellison. Moreover, I looked over their campaign material and Ellison seems to be focused on "working voters/people" while Perez seems to focus more on the middle class. They aren't that different, but about pushing for the best out of a poo poo situation. Regarding the TPP, what do you think the proper action is for the head of Labor to take when the administration is negotiating Trade Policy? I'll admit that my concerns on that facet are mitigated by Perez coming out early, and strongly, and saying that NAFTA wound up devastating many American workers and his goal was to make sure he put in protections to prevent that from occurring. Ardennes posted:Btw, what is the left-wing on the Democratic party suppose to do if Perez is forced though? Just keep taking the same poo poo because the only option choice is more open "alt-Fascism?" I guess that depends on what 'forced through' means. Is it possible, to you, for Perez to win a legitimate victory so long as Ellison is running? Beyond that, I'd think our role is to continue pressuring incumbents, recruiting and supporting candidates for uncontested seats (at all levels), primarying poo poo libs (while clearly spelling out the differences-it's important for the warning of these primaries to be, for instance, "If you back down on nominees, union rights, or tax breaks, we're coming for you" rather than "if we're dissatisfied with you broadly, here we come") and amp up the ground game substantially given the damage the AG, Justice and the Courts will be doing on disenfranchisement. These are all critical elements, but the last one may have the most impact on the party. Large fundraising lists are nice, but we see how easily those can be overwhelmed by folks like Steyr. If you can guarantee canvassers and phonebanking to candidates who Fight for 15, support unions, and expand the social safety net... those will become mainstream drat quickly. It's why Dem action in the last couple weeks has been exciting for me-donations do a bit more than "facebanking", but if the Left can get people to take time rather than donate money, we've got a real chance at taking back statehouses and mansions and redrawing districts, which has been the key GOP advantage this decade.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:In all honesty, that is pretty centrist stuff. I am not necessarily blown away that a labor sec under a Democrat president is for some type of unionization or labor protections. We've got a wide gap on the definition of centrism, which is fine. The alternate definition is "essentially a Republican", so I'll drop the topic since it's clearly not the one you're using. "Out of nowhere" is a hell of a way to describe someone prominently placed on many VP shortlists, but to each their own. With that said, it's clear that you won't accept the legitimacy of a Perez victory, so is there any point in continued conversation? I'm happy to discuss anyone as a candidate, and I think the top 3 would all be a marked improvement over DWS. If this is only going be a proxy battle for the relitigation of the primaries though, I'm out. It's tedious as gently caress and frankly unfair to the candidates. Also a bit gross that their impressive lifetimes of public service (and potential futures) are condensed down to which of the elderly white candidates they supported for 13 months of their career.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
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. Show me where Perez argues that we don't need to improve things and/or we need to appease Bannon, and I'll consider it relevant. What I'm hearing is that you don't like the people who like Perez, which, whatever? There's no argument that's going to somehow make Peter Daou less of a useless fuccboi. If there was a blue dog running, I'd be all about loving his triangulating rear end up. There's not. It's tedious as hell and, again, a disservice to the candidates. Step back for a moment. The "establishment" has been forced to unite behind a candidate who strongly supports (in action and rhetoric) labor, increasing taxes, voting rights, protecting immigrants, helping the working and middle classes, and purging racist law enforcement agencies. This isn't a proxy battle, it's the capitulation of the Third Way. Frijolero posted:How many Democrats are fired up about Perez? Thanks for the insight to your social circle. The man has endorsements from UA, UFW, IAFF and more (Ellison has AFL-CIO, IBEW and others. It's mixed, but I've not seen a union come out against Perez. Would welcome examples if they're available). I know a large number of people fired up about Perez, predominatlyprogressive, and from a very diverse set of socioeconomic backgrounds . If my posting hasn't made it clear, I'm one of them. I also know a number of people who are fired up about Ellison-they're very similar to the ones who are eager for Perez. These are two compelling, progressive candidates and the party will be improved by either one of them winning. Given his track record of progressive victories while leading organizations, I prefer Perez and think that we're better off with Ellison as the vocal and visible leader of the CPC
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It only becomes a slapfight if you take it personally, I have had about a few dozen debates in the last year like this. It's a slapfight because it's a largely contentless circular argument that ignores the actual topic in favor of nebulous larger themes. I'd call it a circlejerk but at least that eventually reaches a climax. There's no hurt feelings involved, it's just tiresome and an incredibly efficient way to drain nuance from important discussions. We've seen Perez actually improve things via his rule changes in Labor. Unable to unilaterally win the Fight for 15, he instead eliminated a primary method of avoiding paying out minimum wage. One of many examples, which quickly devolve into wonk wankery. I haven't seen any concrete examples of "how much and how far" from Ellison's record... so I don't know why his statements would be given more credibility than Perez? I dislike many people who like Perez-politically and/or personally (again, Daou is an easy example), but that only reflects on his candidacy if you're assuming Perez should be responsible for the views of his supporters. Ardennes posted:As far as selling Perez as a "capitulation" of the third way, was Obama or Hillary also a capitulation of the third way because they were generally for all of that...on the surface. Perez during the debate seem to be open to accepting large/corporate contributions, while Ellison wanted to make the subject "democratic." We are again clearly operating under different definitions of terms if Obama was the Third Way Centrist Blue Dog in 2008.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Like, being against voter disenfranchisement, being against racist law enforcement, protecting immigrants, even helping unions, these are all very good things but they're also things that cost the wealthy very little. Even the tax increases proposed usually amount to little more than undoing tax decreases under Republicans; they're increases which are palatable to the Democratic portion of wealthy Americans The Third Way, New Democrat Triangulation that I recall involved over-the-top displays of being Tough on Crime (Ricky Ray), 'sparing' social security by slashing the Department of Labor, loosening environmental restrictions, and cutting back worker protections. Because McGovern and Mondale lost and we'd just experienced 24 years of Republican presidential dominance with only Watergate allowing for a brief (and disastrous) Carter hiatus, so the American people obviously wanted Democrats to be Republicans too. Thank God it looks like they've been beaten down to a fringe. I guess my problem is that I remember when "The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party" was biting and accurate snark, so the sturm und drang over two pretty progressive candidates has me a bit confused. My brief foray into trying to figure it out has me pretty convinced it's the slapfight mk ∞, so I guess that's something. Switching gears, what does the thread think of reverting back to having a general chairperson (elected official) and a national chairperson (party official)? There's some appeal to being able to essentially have a split ticket for the party. Also allowing those who are in the Ellison mold (relatively young, creating a base of strength) greater coordination with the DSCC/DCCC while remaining in congress, allowing fresher blood to gain influence in areas where the establishment is typically a bit slower to adapt. The other big draw, for me, is that it seems like the perfect way to adapt the rules to allow a vote of the party's membership (for general chair). This also may help with the registration difficulties insurgent candidates have been having with their supporters.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2017 07:04
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Schumer's endorsement was a peace offering to the left to basically say "we'll give you the chairmanship if you leave the minority leadership positions alone". It looked like that's how things were going to go down until Obama started pushing back against Ellison through his proxies. Now it looks like the establishment might ratfuck the left out of the only meager concession it seemed it might get. If so the Democrats are actually finished for good. Is there any scenario where Perez wins without it being a ratfuck, in your eyes?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:While I don't agree about it being a ratfuck, I don't think you can use this logic about something that isn't a public election, especially if the person is being chosen from inside the party apparatus. It's not like the Hillary vs Bernie thing where you could say "it's fair because she got more votes," since in this case the votes are solely coming from within the DNC itself. If Perez was actually a really bad candidate (which I don't personally believe), it would be completely reasonable to consider him winning to be an unjust outcome regardless of how it transpired. It's also not as if Keith Ellison is somehow outside the party apparatus-what as congressman for a decade and cochair of the CPC. As has been repeated throughout the thread, it's a disservice to each candidate to treat this as a continuation of the eternal slapfight and the actual matchup is one that defies easy categorization as establishment/insurgency, insiders/outsiders, progressive/centrist, or really anything other than Bernie's Legacy/Literally Anything Else. It's perfectly reasonable to feel that Ellison is a better candidate. He has solid progressive credentials and while I'm skeptical about the national applicability of the lessons of his campaigns (thoroughly untapped immigrant/refugee population in the urban center of a reliably blue state), he's had electoral success. If the only determinant of legitimacy, though, is an Ellison victory-it's not worth the strain on Radium's rickety infrastructure to build an affirmative case for Perez. Edit: To expand on that a bit- MN-5 is one of the safest D districts in the nation. Ellison won his primary against the handpicked successor and former chief of staff of the retiring 9-term incumbent. The MoJo article covers it more deeply, but he did so by activating the immigrant and refugee populations of an area that had long been taken for granted, organizing and sustaining a successful movement based on engagement and turnout. He then proceeded to win the general... with the smallest vote share by a Democrat in the district in years (decades?). The lesson I draw from his primary and his machine/methodology is that he's a fantastic resource and has an effective playbook for progressives and outsiders to follow when looking for primary victories. I'm not convinced it's particularly applicable to general elections in rural Michigan, suburban Georgia, or anywhere outside the urban centers of the rust belt. Paracaidas fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Feb 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:as someone who lived the the bush years, you'd be surprised 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. OneEightHundred posted:They were a single-issue "gently caress the war" party during Bush's second term and it worked great then. It's also why I'm anxious for this contest to wrap up. The $1.8m raised by the top two could be better used to start filling the bench with those who have been driven to take action by the new administration. Santelli's remarks were 2/19/09. If we want to replicate that impact we need to get moving, because unless Steyn steps up, we don't have millions in astroturf assistance to maintain this passion and profile for 2 years. And it'll be tougher, because Trump's base won't gently caress him like a notable portion of Obama's did in 2010.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
Jitzu_the_Monk posted:Perez as DNC chair would hurt the party too much. Bernie supporters would glean that the party isn't with them and that it learned nothing from their 2016 miscalculations. And according to the AP, Perez is the front runner, having all but locked up the nomination. This is a disaster and wagging the finger at Bernie supporters, telling them they shouldn't feel the way they feel about this will only sow more discord in the party. Goodness. A lot of antipathy for Perez there. What about him makes you this passionately against him? A Buttery Pastry posted:Couldn't the whole "clearing the field" previous to the actual primaries not also be seen as a form of rigging? Not by the DNC specifically so much as the democratic leadership in general perhaps, but I could see Bernie having a similar advantage to the one Trump had if it had been a more competitive one - standing out in a sea of establishment candidates all trying to undermine each other because they don't take him seriously. Counterfactuals are impossible, obviously, but your opinion on how much of his rise is attributable to anti-hillary sentiment vs how much is due to a latent public desire for socialism will determine your answer on this. I think a large chunk of his early support was people who didn't like Hillary/were fed up with Clintons/etc, so I think clearing the field is what let him be a halfway viable challenger-you could hold your nose #WithHer or you could Feel the Bern. If the field had included, say, any 3 of Warren, Gillibrand, Brown and Booker? I don't think that his campaign generates the critical mass to become the challenger.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Actually not. He has 2 young'ish popular senators in his state that are going to be there a while. He's CoChair of the CPC and if the left's assumption holds true that 2018's gains will come from progressive enthusiasm... that'll put him in line for House Leadership, tenure be damned. Klobuchar has been a trendy pick for a ticket or the bench for years, Franken is a "youngish" 65, and Ellison would immediately be among the favorites to replace Governor Dayton at the end of his term. Given your track record of thorough incompetence, maybe you should find something other than politics to spend your time discussing?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Careful, if you kneejerk any harder you might kick yourself in your own face. What's so offensive about "we should talk to actual people to find out what they think about gun rights and how their individual lives are affected by them, rather than having party leadership dictate a Washington consensus down onto people"? You're making a different point than the argument Bi Now quoted. Buttigieg is calling on Dems to connect to people on an individual level and having them reflect on what rights have actually been encroached on. Buttigieg's point (that I also misread at first, bi now) is that Dems and gays are dragged down by the narrative of the attack on traditional marriage and dems coming to steal your guns. You don't fight those deeply held pieces of common knowledge with big ad buys. You fight them with personal conversation, with pressing people to explain how buying guns is now harder for them, or how their marriage has been devalued. You probe until they realize that they were wrong and the people who made them panic lied. It's how you sway the small minority of people willing to hop parties. If that's 5% in a district, that can beat a gerrymander. One of the priorities of a reconstructed DNC needs to be on working with local parties and candidates for how to spread these messages in the grassroots manner Buttigieg suggests. It's why I'd rather Ellison not be in the role. As the Congressional Representative of the Bernie Movement-he can fundraise for and share his insurgent (notadogwhistle) playbook with progressive primary candidates. He's restricted (and supposedly barred) from doing that as Chair.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Fados posted:the rise of islamo-fascism I'm honored that Tulsi has chosen to join our humble thread.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
2 sets of logic that baffle me, and I'm earnestly looking for someone to explain to me what I'm missing. Based on reading and participating in this thread, I don't believe either of these are strawmen. First - two of the main strengths I've seen brought up for Ellison is that he's a favorite of a portion of the progressives who are gaining steam, and that he's demonstrated an ability to activate the grassroots in order to defeat a handpicked establishment opponent in a primary. The last few pages also show a desire to primary out establishment centrists. Why would you (so fervently) want such a great resource for that tactic in a role where he is forced to maintain neutrality? Second - The Hillary wing (or neoliberal, centrist, establishment, etc) has failed in the last election(s) and need to be replaced by messengers who promote an ideology with broader geographical appeal, specifically in the Rust Belt. How does this mesh with Hillary's running markedly ahead of Feingold, despite the latter's populist campaign going against a multimillionaire tea partier? How does that fit with Portman in Ohio, among the least populist senators, easily outpacing Trump? I'm in favor of (race-concious) populist messaging, but I've not seen any indication it'll cure what ails the Democratic Party.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
Thanks for the replies!SKULL.GIF posted:Feingold got barely any assistance from the DNC (thanks Debbie! Great job!), Johnson was an incumbent, and a whole lot of goddamn loving retards expected Hillary to be President so voted for a Republican Congress to "balance" the government. I know multiple people here in Wisconsin who went straight from two-time Obama voters to Trump, it's not at all uncommon. Crowsbeak posted:1. He will take that experience of greassroots organizing nation wide. So will his grassroots playbook work to elect the sort of Dems you've been railing against thus far? Enough to overcome aggressively negative gerrymandering (his victories have come in a seat cynically drawn for almost certain victory-so his first dem primary was the only competitive race he won)? If the idea is that it's just the tactics that are wrong, I understand it more. But if you believe more progressive/populist/nonestamblishment candidates are needed, DNC chair can't help them win their primaries and I'm back to being confused. Again, if there's a latent thirst for populism that's being turned off by the supposed neoliberalism of the establishment, I'd have expected stronger performances against Portman (a Washington insider and trade lobbyist) and by the populist, well liked Feingold. Not necessarily victories, but at least outrunning a (as you say) mostly - absent Hillary. That, along with the primary, is still leaving me skeptical.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Well if you're "Skeptical" then lets hear your answers. How do you save the democrats. I mean if we're all full of poo poo as you claim. Tell us your answer. Cálmate. Nobody is calling you full of poo poo. I've been chalking most of the overheated preferences for either candidate as primary rewarming. I'm pressing for more clarification on other factors while attempting to ignore the common theme of fail/be failed, since that would confirm my priors rather than add insight. What would I do?
I prefer Perez because he's led departments and divisions to progressive victories in the past, while I'm nervous about the time it'll take Ellison to scale up to leading at an executive level and how transferable his strategy is. I'm more confident in Perez' ability to have Virginia and Georgia Dems implementing a grassroots plan while he's fundraising in New Mexico than I am Ellison in the same scenario. Perez' voting rights victories impress me more than Ellison's constitutional amendment. It's not that Ellison is bad or incapable, I just think the learning curve is a risk and I'd rather he play to his strengths than have to lean on skills he's yet to demonstrate. The reason I asked about Portman and Feingold is that I don't believe that there's a silver bullet in populism (or however you want to phrase the big-P Progressive attempt to stake a claim on Economic Justice) that will ease the journey back to power, but I wanted perspectives on what I might be missing. What I'm hearing is people (especially here in the Rust Belt) are tired of Washington and the Corporate Elite and want someone who rejects that to fight for them.... but that those races and the Primary, where people voted for what I'm told they're tired of and Hillary outperformed, aren't good examples. The Kingfish posted:A populist upstart just won the presidency for the first time in almost two centuries and people are skeptical that Americans are feeling populist? Paracaidas fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2017 06:32
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I want to say that it's pretty funny that the general assumption is that if the far-left doesn't get on board with the center-left and let the center-left win, then the right wing will overrun us all. It feels like an admission that there's no reason to be centrist. A proper centrist should draw enough votes from the Republicans that losing a few radicals shouldn't matter. It's because they're overly reductive labels that have lost all meaning but still have weight attached to them, so they're still brought up (almost exclusively) in arguments like these. Everyone's usage is relative to their own position-because obviously whatever terms I'm using are correct. So if I'm left-the reasonable, proper kind-anyone to my right (on issues that matter to me) must be center left. Or centrist, if they're really far over. If you're to my left (especially on issues that don't matter to me), you must be far left. I've long believed there's a cognitive bias, where the accuracy of one's description is inversely related to the passion with which they hold it (or the frequency with which they attempt to label others). Craptacular! posted:Also, can we admit that if we do recalibrate our meaning of left/right that some old voting blocks might become less powerful? Part of the reason I've speculated that the Sanders left was viewed as a bunch of white boys who couldn't get black people to vote for them may be because, as a national demographic, black people have a strong role for the church in their communities. I have periodically thought that, if the Republicans weren't always attacking the poor as a signal of attacking black people, that their anti-abortion, pro-church viewpoints would get them more traction in the black demographic. It's possible that the Democrats 98% support among black people might need to erote to 70% or so if we're to move further leftward, and we'd just have to accept that.  I think you can stop speculating. Are you familiar with Moral Mondays? How do you foresee black people voting Republican moving the Dems leftward-like, in what way are black voters holding the party back, and how is that helped by giving extra votes to the GOP?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2017 07:24
|
|
|
Hey. More primary chat. Great. Like clockwork, with the loweffort trolling and the sickburnz and the meeting of effort with no effort. You're all very smart and special and we're all quite impressed with your [intellect/care/lack of care/sharp wit/level of irony]. Now please, literally anywhere else. I hear dadchat likes this sort of thing? Re content: Pretty sure someone has hosed up at The Hill on their counts. I don't think even Ellison is claiming that wide of a margin over Perez. Charitably, their nonresponders must be skewing Perez, which should spur a little selfreflection for the editor and the writer about their story and contact method. A reminder that Ellison claimed Perez' number was "unverifiable", which is either classic MN passive aggression or an indictment of his whip operation.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
Alternate Universe Condiv posted:Perez used an unrelated matter, outside his jurisdiction, as justification to prevent unions from choosing what to do with their own pensions, the first time it has ever happened. drat neoliberals in this party won't even let unions control their own money. One day, you'll get pissed at The Intercept for knowing better and assuming you don't. The only way The Intercept article is a damning indictment of his softness on finance is if you believe that Perez should have
I think that the Justice settlement was incredibly weak, that it failed to chasten the financial industry, and that it failed to give voters the sense that instrumental figures in the economic downturn that cost livelihoods and lives were actually punished. I also think it's disingenuous to lay that at the feet of Perez. Is anyone seriously going to argue that the Obama administration wasn't opposed to jailing anyone over the crash, it's just that nobody in Justice had considered trying to get individual bank employees on a misdemeanor charge? I think it's a shame that unions wanted CS to manage their funds even after the banks malfeasance. I also think that Labor stripping unions of their autonomy on financial matters is insane and I'm glad that the principle of autonomy won out over what would have been a meaningless, symbolic punishment of the bank. It's less sexy, but Perez withdrawing and clarifying the 2008 memo on Environmental, Social, and Governance is an example of the sort of Big loving Deal that takes power away from Capital and puts it in the hands of workers. Allowing Unions and others to consider factors other than immediate returns, it opens up huge divestment opportunities-strengthening BDS, allowing another vector for fighting NoDAPL, and gives unions and activists more ammunition in fighting their battles. Prior to this rule, the AFL-CIO and SEIU couldn't back the NEA by divesting from any organization that was assisting with DeVos' charter scheme. Now they can.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Yeas I do support destroying the settlement that Obama and Holder got. Why? Because that settlement pissed off alot of voters who wanted to see the filth that caused them to lose their homes punished. Them paying fines was not punishment. Them getting 20 years to life would have been punishment. I do love how centrists libs jerk off to the idea that sociopathic bankers don't get whats coming to them. If you'd have read the post that you quoted, you'll know that I agree with you. The question is if Perez should have unilaterally blown up the settlements-pissing away the opportunity to (very successfully!) reform the OCR-in order to push for charges that, even if filed, would have been dropped immediately upon his "resignation"? It's disingenuous as gently caress to blame Perez for Obama's desire to not jail anyone. Condiv posted:yes to both. the settlement was a disgrace, like all the loving wall street settlements under obama. also, the banks in question had cost pensions tons of money over the decade of them scamming everyone, i think that warrants them not getting a waiver. Condiv posted:yes the obama administration was opposed to jailing anyone. how much criminal poo poo came out during his presidency? HSBC laundering money for drug dealers? banks foreclosing on active duty service members, banks forging paperwork so they can foreclose on people, the forex scandal, libor, etc. Nothing but slaps on the wrist. Reread the post. I agree with you. My point was that Perez charging people for the misdemeanors that he was able to enforce wouldn't have gone anywhere (certainly not to trial) because Obama and Holder very clearly didn't want them to. This only falls on Perez if you believe that Obama and Holder would have allowed him to keep his job and actually try those cases. Based on what we both agree was Obama's policy, he very clearly wouldn't have been.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
nachos posted:What is the argument for Perez again? He's got a lot of union support? All I'm hearing is "no really he's not that bad and is basically the same as Ellison" Easily a better topic than Primarychat! To start with: These are easily the two most progressive viable candidates up for chair since (at least) the DNC went back to having a single chair. Either would be a great pick, but I prefer Perez. Slightly reformatted from an earlier post of mine: The highlights of Perez' time in the Obama Administration-first at Justice (Office of Civil Rights) and then as head of Labor:
He also has strong union support (it's important not to misread their endorsement of Ellison as a lack of support for Perez. They have a preference for Ellison, but I haven't seen any unions come out against Perez, nor have I see anyone walk back past praise of him). He has executive experience in multiple governmental bodies and has shown an ability to reform and rebuild those institutions while actually accomplishing progressive goals. I'm not aware of anyone in the party who has done more to improve the economic lives of the working and middle classes in the last decade. That he's managed to do that while also winning major voting rights cases and clamping down on police abuse and college sexual assault is even more impressive. He's one of the few (the only?) Democrats who can stand up in front of unions, hourly workers, salaried workers, BLM, Moral Mondays, and the Women's March and point to actual victories and concrete steps he's taken to address their concerns with results, not just rhetoric.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Nobody could ever be expected to do what's right if it might cost them their high-prestige job. When given the choice between
Condiv posted:it's not about union autonomy. should we let doctors that have killed patients through massive malpractice continue to deal with willing patients cause their patients happen to like them? No! These companies have shown themselves not the least bit responsible to their clients or their nation and therefore, they should not be eligible for waivers to administer pensions for unions. we don't need those pensions hosed in some shady illegal scheme! The waiver required, among other things, consistent training of CS staff on their legal and ethical obligations and forced them to submit to enhanced oversight to ensure that they were playing by the rules and not engaging in shady illegal schemes. Training, though generally useless, is critical in this waiver process- it denies the banks, executives, and employees any opportunity to escape prosecution by pointing to the "knowingly" portion of relevant statutes (their typical, and wildly effective, defense). Meanwhile, I would think that the threat of Puzder at Labor would have made incredibly clear the dangers of Government dictating the management of Union funds.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Condiv posted:enhanced oversight would make me feel better if this wasn't the same industry caught hiring prostitutes for the people charged with overseeing them. they should not have been managing pensions period. the magnitude of their crimes in recent memory was well beyond probationary poo poo like enhanced oversight. So, again, Perez was supposed to tell union workers to gently caress off because he knows best how to manage their money? I believe unions have a right to determine how their money is used and managed, and workers wouldn't (and shouldn't) respond positively to the government telling them they aren't smart enough to make their own decisions. The exemption was for a conviction that was not related to union funds, and was not committed by the Asset Managers (or their firms) who were seeking the waivers. As a condition of the waiver, they could not directly or indirectly influence the managed funds into entering into any transaction with CS, or to use CS for any (direct or indirect) fee-generating service or transaction. Literally, the unions asked that CS be granted a waiver so that subsidiaries may be used to manage union funds, with strict rules that CS cannot gain any revenue or benefit from the subsidiary managing the fund. Neoliberal centrism: Arguing for the union autonomy since wait, what the gently caress do words even mean anymore?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:But thhey didn't reform it. The right thing would have been imprision the parasites. Edit: Upon rereading, I see what you meant. I consider taking an office that was underfinanced, undermanned, and mistargeted under the Bush Admin and using it to overturn voter suppression efforts, suing over discrimination, and fighting corrupt and abusive cops to be reform. As such, I disagree that failing to override the administration on charging bank employees with misdemeanors means he failed to reform the OCR. Condiv posted:are you serious? yes! just like a food inspector has the right to close down your favorite restaurant when they commit too many violations. if the banks in question want to service union pensions, then they need to obey our laws. This would be like the food inspector shutting down your favorite local franchise because a different restaurant, with different ownership and management, in the same chain but under a different name committed a violation in another state. It's too bad, your local spot promised not to get any ingredients or supplies from the offending chain, but any moron dumb enough to eat there has to be saved from himself. Condiv posted:i support ellison winning in favor of perez cause then racism loses in the dem party To save everyone a click Glenn Greenwald posted:There’s no evidence that Saban’s attack on Ellison is what motivated the White House to recruit an opponent. But one would have to be indescribably naïve about the ways of Washington to believe that such a vicious denunciation by one of the party’s most influential billionaire funders had no effect at all. Paracaidas fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Condiv posted:and? the banks knew the law before they committed their crimes and they flouted the law for a decade. it sucks for the unions if they liked those orgs, but they don't have a right to do business with criminal institutions I linked the exemption upthread. The relevant section for your question is quoted below. For context, "Section I(g) of PTE 84-14" is the "don't be a criminal" rule that the unions sought a waiver for. So (a) can be rephrased as "Were it not for this specific conviction [that (b)-(e) make clear we were uninvolved in and did not profit from, we would not need this waiver" http://webapps.dol.gov/FederalRegister/HtmlDisplay.aspx?DocId=27931&AgencyId=8&DocumentType=3 posted:(a) Any failure of the Credit Suisse Affiliated QPAMs or the Credit So: the company (and its staff) that the union wants to manage their money did not commit, participate in, or directly benefit from the crime that requires a waiver being sought. The crime did not directly or indirectly involve any pension or IRA money. CS-AG (the convicted organization) did not provide any fiduciary services for the pensions or IRAs outside of the essentially being a transactional courier-a role in which they did not engage in any wrongdoing. If you feel that CS (and all subsidiaries and any companies in which they own at least 5% of a stake) should be punished for actions outside of the conviction in question, I can see how you get there, but casting Perez as the bank-friendly shill for not denying the waiver based on actions outside his jurisdiction (whose prosecution he has/had zero control over) is wrong. JeffersonClay posted:"I'm not ratfucked, I'm not ratfucked" I continue to insist as I slowly transform into a matryoshka doll. Paracaidas fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Can we  it now or does Fans still need to hit Gaddafi Did Nothing Wrong for Internecine Bullshit bingo?The vote is tomorrow. Important things to remember:
... this is a Burger King drive thru? Oops. Whopper Jr, please.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:but...that's boring Welcome to I'm lying because I'm a plant of the establishment and want to keep you passionate people out. Real campaigns and party offices, even on the local level, are exactly like The West Wing and your local office is waiting for you to come in and be their Toby Ziegler. Definitely, Maybe is certainly not the most accurate representation of being a local campaign worker that Hollywood has ever produced Cease to Hope posted:The first vote is tomorrow. It may go all weekend.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I wondered about this too. Like if the Perez and Ellison camps couldn't get to a majority after the second or third ballot if they'd go "fine, here you go Pete." I think it's more likely than not that Perez either has a majority, or a commanding enough lead he can pick off a couple stragglers on the second ballot... but yeah, the only thing that would surprise me at this stage is Ellison winning outright on the first ballot because there's no reason for him to play it close to the vest if his whip has him that close. GreyjoyBastard posted:Based on my anecdotal outside-SA experience, it's been hugely good at raising his profile. Cease to Hope posted:This is extremely unlikely because, as you said, there's no much difference between Ellison and Perez. Whip counts are inconsistent enough I don't have a great feel for the state of the race. Brokering is always unlikely, but if there are Eternal Slapfighters among the party functionaries as well, I'm sure they're more hated than they are here. The combination of Dean's backing, hardliners not wanting to give Clinton/Bernie another win, and everyone else being loving tired of it could give Buttigieg a chance if it goes deeper than a couple ballots.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Wrap it up, Primaliures!https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...m=.d61262749967 posted:A third DNC candidate, South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, spent Friday hoping that Democrats would dodge a backlash by deadlocking and then giving him a chance. At a lunch for supporters, Buttigieg estimated that he had around 30 votes, and told reporters that scores of DNC members have told him he was their second choice if the race dragged on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiPXoIt3k-o
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
 https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/835513176770895874
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 17:55 |
|
|
Buttigieg out, doesn't endorse anyone.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2017 19:01
|
|