|
To me the biggest reason to prefer Ellison versus Perez is signaling, while their politics are not that far apart (although there are key differences) it is very clear which "side" each candidate represents. If the the current leadership of the Democratic Party is unwilling to allow any type of real shift, there isn't much to say at this point. I do think it is ridiculous for the left-wing of the Democratic Party to "give up" on the DNC because of its "expense of political capital." The head of the DNC matters especially during a period of rebuilding (or possible rebuilding at least). Moreover, it absurd to think there there would be any real concessions granted once the battle was over. If the left-wing of the party is content with begging of scraps from the table, lets be honest, absolutely nothing is going to change and our country is going to become an even worse fascist shithole than it already is. At this point, "reasonable compromise" with either the current leadership of the DNC and/or the GOP is an admission of failure. This country can not longer be saved through constant compromise. We will how this works out, but there is little reason for anyone on the left to be happy with Perez as the ultimate result. It is proud proclamation that absolutely nothing is going to change (rather than allowing the slim possibility of change). Ardennes fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Feb 4, 2017 |
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
Condiv posted:and he's still closer to being right on israel than perez and will almost certainly take a harder line stance against israel's atrocities than perez who is too scared to deal with israel to even entertain a question relating to said atrocities 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). 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. I hope Ellison can press forward on voter outreach to rural areas and working people. Cease to Hope posted:House members who are committee heads have more power to affect policy on Israel than the DNC head, so be careful what you're wishing for here. Ellison is not a committee head, he is the minority (non-ranking) member of the Committee and the GOP has a iron clad lock on the House. The head of the DNC is going to have far more practical power, especially since on the Democratic Party itself. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Feb 4, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Why do you feel that Perez is the centrist option in this race? 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. Also, the DNC chair is going to certainly have influence on party policy and where and how funding is going to be given even if he isn't going to penalize candidates who support Israel. It is going to be a position thats going to also matter in 2018/2020. It is significant position, and yes more important than minority seat on a committee, especially when the House is controlled by the Tea Party with an iron grip. Ellison is probably not going to accomplish too much in the house, but he certainly at least has a chance to unite the Democratic party or at least make it less aggressively punitive against its left-wing. 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?"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Push their people into positions of power, primary centrists and corporatists. That doesn't change no matter who is DNC chair. Personally, I think the narrative that "oh the DNC chair isn't important, don't worry about it" is pretty drat laughable. If you want to change the Democratic Party, it is logical to demand that the more left-wing option (even if he is still quite centrist) is chosen. If the party itself resists any change from within, how likely are you going to be primary anyway? At a certain point it becomes a hopeless rigged goose-chase (it is probably one already, but hope is a very human flaw.) Ardennes fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Feb 4, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:I guess I'm hoping for a definition here on centrist. Perez appears to be for tax increases, increased labor protections, unionization, voting rights, stronger enforcement of police misconduct rules, and stricter penalties for unfair/unsafe work practice. What of his positions do you consider centrist, aside from Israel? 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. To be honest, Ellison is fairly centrist as well but I have already made my argument at least 2-3 times. He isn't the labor secretary any more, and I haven't seen him go back on his policy. He hasn't any any inclination he is going to change his mind either. I say forced though because it is pretty evident that there is a real institutional push at the moment to get Perez in as DNC. It isn't a democratic election in the first place, but it does seem Perez came out of nowhere quickly. I will say that again, but primarying "libs" is not going to made easier by picking the candidate that is even more centrist. As for any real hope of the Democratic Party changing, all that fundraising and canvassing sounds great and all but what is the purpose when the party is implicitly hostile to its own base? Ellison wouldn't change that but at least it would a small moral victory. In the end, it may be true that yeah nothing can be done about it and Ellison will just join the rest of the establishment in the end, but that is certainly not an argument in favor of Perez.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted: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. 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. I think hoping Bannon and his pet are going to crash and burn on their own is really rolling the dice on a issue that shouldn't be negotiable. I don't think the Democrats are going to turn "alt-fascist" but their desire for an ever worsening status quo is going to keep much of their base completely demoralized. It is up the establishment and much of the centrists in the Democratic party, are they willing to build bridges with the left or will they "roll the dice" at the risk of allowing grievous damage to the country?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:This isn't the proxy war you're looking for, duder. Even if both are "insiders" there is clearly one insider that is more amenable to change and becoming clearer where the two sides stand.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Jesus Christ, this truly is the eternal slapfight. It only becomes a slapfight if you take it personally, I have had about a few dozen debates in the last year like this. As far as "improving things", the question is exactly how much and how far is he willing to go? It honestly seems Ellison will go a bit farther at least one a couple key issues. As far not liking people who like Perez, I mostly just don't like their politics because I think they are assisting turning the US into a nightmare (we are more than half way there as it is). It isn't that they actively want to make things worse but they don't present an appealing counter-narrative. The ACA is a good example, it did make some things better. It also had no price controls, people were honestly pissed when their premiums starting going up 20% a year. Trump used that anger to bolster considerable support for himself. 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." Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Feb 4, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I have really bad news for you if you think you're going to be able to fund a national campaign without taking money from people who work in industries you don't like. Yeah, I wouldn't be so sure that is the path to success.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
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. Well that is the core of the puzzle, the US is engineered for a two party system much more than any other major FPTP countries. Certain states like Oklahoma don't even allow third party ballot access, and both major parties have massive amounts of infrastructure and enormous sources of funding. Beyond that, there is the fact that multi-party systems in FPTP systems often led to one party becoming near unchallenged (look at the UK) since it a new party is almost certainly going to take votes from one party more than the other. In the case of a Social Democratic, it would pull almost entirely from Democrats. At the same time, the Democrats already are in dire shape. The Democrats know this, and triangulation is engineered around this concept but what they didn't count on is that their base eroding form under them. I think we may be trapped on a sinking ship here, from both political and structural reasons and there is no longer enough "give" in the system to address what is happening to the country.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:If the members of the DNC are going to continue to give sloppy blowjobs to the center's rapidly vanishing dick, then whether or not a viable leftist party comes up and supplants them, in the meantime you're still going to be voting for losers. The difference is having a House and Senate that are about 33% Democratic and a handful of states with Democratic governments (in effect, this is one-party rule), or a House and Senate that are nearly 100% Republican with similar results at the state level. At least in the latter case we can get on with actual leftism once centrists in the DNC are defeated, provided there is still a state left after probably two decades of GOP rule. Either way, if centrists in the DNC can't be kicked out, the likely result is a government where the GOP fully controls the national government, and enough of the state governments to amend the Constitution at will. Granted, I really wonder if free elections (in any real form) would exist after 20 years what is currently happening (if isn't Trump it would some other rear end in a top hat). My real fear is that the Democrats simply refuse to change no matter what, and there is no way to get rid of them and running a left-wing party without giving the GOP a shot at the constitution. Yeah reforming the Democratic Party is the easier part but at this point how can you really do it without the party itself melting down? The current trajectory isn't looking too great and the only other option is a jump into the unknown.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
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 Yeah, I am actually reading through it and I don't think he is making essentially great points to back up that headline. It did matter, it just wasn't the only factor. The the whole issue of racial politics in essence is pissed off working class whites, and if or was there is any way to reach them. If anything she needed to be worried (as future candidate hopefully are) about populist rhetoric taking hold of the working class voters. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Feb 14, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2012/ https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/groups-voted-2016/ Here is some data to go with the discussion. Trump did better than Romney with Hispanics (29/27), working class/lower middle class voters (41/38) and union families (43/40). While they are not massive differences we are also talking about an election that was quite close. ' Hillary did noticeably worse with working class/lower middle class voters than Obama (53 versus 60). She did quite a bit better with upper middle class voters (47/43) while Trump did much worse (47/54). I would talk about education but those numbers aren't up yet.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
Chelb posted:I disagree with those findings regarding hispanic voters. The question is if this something that changed between 2012/2016?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:I believe that Perez as DNC chair represents the old guard desperately clinging to power, but if he wins and immediately comes out of the gate swinging on voter registration drives, pushing back on voter suppression, and getting more involved at the state and local level, I will be more than happy to admit I was wrong. It certainly would be better than nothing, but at the same time far less then what the party and more importantly the country would need. Admittedly, I still don't think Perez and Ellison are that different and the head of the DNC only has so much power but I am pretty skeptical (or rather I have little to no faith) that there is going to ever going to be shift to the left on economic issues from the Democrats. The problem is they really need to, especially regarding wages and the ACA. At the same time, third parties are never going to national influence, our system is simply designed around two parties. Nevertheless, it is hard not to see much change even if Trump (or Pence?) is eventually defeated. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:We don't believe you should earn enough to survive, vote for us we the party of labor. Huh no one turned out okay that was too far left, what if we promise you even worse pay, hey where are you going? Yeah, the core of the issue is narrative building and triangulation robs the Democrats of anything to really stand for beyond being the only alternative to has become a increasingly hard to far-right GOP. Trump (or really his backers) was able to sell a narrative that didn't make necessarily logical sense but it had emotional power and preyed on the either the hope or hatred of segments of the population. If the Democratic Party is simply for whatever polls 60%+ then it doesn't really have a narrative and is a shell of a big tent party that tries to appeal to what is theoretically popular but doesn't have anything to drive what theoretically should be its base to the polls. Granted, if you are someone who already leans a bit center-right on economic issues this is fine because in all honesty the Democrats are going to get very little done and won't rock the boat, maybe a few social issues will be pushed and thats about it. Obama wasn't a radical by any stretch but he certainly had a narrative to sell people even if the results were minimal. The problem is Obama is a likable politician and a brilliant campaigner, something that is extremely rare nowadays. In reality it is a system I don't think has much of a future, especially since the population is silently becoming more hostile to the status quo but has no real electoral outlet for their frustration (expect someone like Trump).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:What the gently caress are you talking about? Nobody is saying anyone automatically agrees with anything, the complaint is that the default centrist position is to throw up your hands, go with the status quo and not bother trying to change anyone's mind about anything. Centrists are dismissive of the idea that it's possible to change public opinion, while complaining at the same time that Republicans have turned public opinion against them. To be fair, the most honest explanation is that centrists probably just don't want to rock the boat too much and they aren't necessarily confused or "ignorant" but center-left reformism is something they actively don't want. it is also why this forum regularly erupts in such acrimony, because there are actual fundamental differences between various factions in American politics but we simply don't have the vocabulary to identify them beyond "liberal" or the "left" even when it actually is much more complicated. Someone can strongly support gay marriage and not want to raise minimum wages and if anything the reverse if possible. If anything the two party system in the country really did melt our minds a bit and has made it very difficult to get a read on what is actually occurring beyond the "left" and "right." I mean if 50% of the population supports a $15 minimum wage, is that something really "left-wing" or basically everyone from the far-left to the center supports?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:That's fine. If you genuinely hate the idea of center-left reformism, you're either a Republican or politically apathetic. Either way, you don't belong in the Democratic Party, and the party really shouldn't be wasting time considering your opinion. Sorry! Sure, of course those centrists also hold a lot of political and economic power especially in coastal cities especially in NYC/DC and the question is how do you actively combat them? A political civil war inside the Democratic Party could very well be extremely ugly...of course our current trajectory is about as bad. Also, yeah they are going to be extremely pissed and politically destructive because they are use to controlling political discourse in the Democratic Party (and with significant influence on the country at large). Devotion to the status quo is its own type of orthodoxy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:I think the party civil war is inevitable and necessary, but I think it's unlikely to be a bloodbath. Trump opposition has driven a lot of Democratic leaders to surprising levels of giving a poo poo. Obviously I wish Trump hadn't been elected, but the silver lining is the Democratic party starting to wake up a bit. I don't expect Pelosi to stop being a collaborationist, or Gabbard to stop being a racist, or Manchin to stop being a waste of flesh, but the majority of the party is moving in a direction I'm happy with. To be honest, I think that is rather wishful thinking though at least on their broader trajectory. They are more actively challenging Trump that is true, especially since they have been absolutely backed into a corner but at the same time I really would have to see some pretty fundamental changes both in policy and how they present that policy. I could easily see the current Democratic Party continue to triple down on "building the middle class" and more or less minor tweaks to current policy. If there is a major break on the ACA that would actually be something, but they are at the moment more rigorously defending what is effectively the status quo. Also, centrists aren't necessarily a shadowy cabal but party politics in the US has largely confused definitions. In other countries they exist (the Lib Dems in the UK or MoDem/Macron in France) as independent entities.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Like, oh say, a public option for the ACA? I think Hillary was for that, but it doesn't matter now. At least during the 2016 campaign, I don't believe even a public option was on the platform. In reality, Hillary and the DNC was rather selective on the policies they would adopt.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Yeah, I am pretty skeptical both the Democrats or Republicans can self correct at this point and the current silent (or not so silent) political crisis the US is experiencing is only going to get worse. Third parties can't effect major state/federal level change in the US simply based on our electoral system and state level political mechanics. I think someone like Sawant is about best case scenario. Furthermore, a independent political pressure group (especially a left-leaning one) would have to be willing to stay home to have any real leverage which is probably not going to happen either. I don't think the difference between Ellison and Perez was that drastic, but there was some daylight on key issues (trade, lobbying, Israel...arguably finance). My honest hope wasn't that Ellison would be a secret leftist, but that it would give a small opening to balance its traditionalist-centrist wing. In the end, even that small opening proved impossible. That said, I kind of see the Democrats and the US as a whole running out of time. While the long-held hope has been demographics will be enough to stabilize the Democrats, it doesn't seem to be working at either the state or federal level. Moreover, the GOP is only going further right and more openly authoritarian.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
TheRat posted:Temporarily embarrassed millionaires To be honest if you are talking about the general voter, I think it is mostly political inertia, and the fact the most well known Democratic politicians are centrists. Sanders came out of nowhere and did very very well, but at the same time Hillary was a household name (for better or worse). For those more involved in politics, they are basically that Rockefeller Republicans had go to somewhere after the southern strategy. There are plenty of centrist democrats that more "temporarily embarrassed" millionaires, they legitimately have money. Maybe they are only "upper middle class" and their family's wealth is in real estate and 401ks, but they are people who the current economic order is in their best interests. They come from the top 10-20% of the population who still live very comfortable lives and genuinely don't want higher taxes much less a "political revolution." They may be well educated and "well-meaning" are vaguely would like some social progress but generally believe (or want to believe) that all the system needs is just a few tweaks. Granted, for them, it is fairly logical. They aren't starving, and probably won't starve (the super rich still need doctors and accountants) but see the outright bigotry of the GOP as unacceptable. I know this because I basically grew up around them. The problem is a system that generally is working of them is not working for much of the rest of the population. However, that population can't unite because of a multitude of racial/social/religious divisions and both parties can play off that divide. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Feb 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I think this could change if the left take heart that we nearly beat Perez, and that the dems are complaining about us bugging them/ But we need to keep being a bug for the next 12 years to make the party a pure party of the people. Also we have to ensure that the bottom falls out when the GOP is in charge. Of course I also would say that even if we take over the party we're going to perhaps have to learn about the second ammendment. My worry is that we don't have 12 years even if Trump does meltdown. Even if he crash and burns, there is still a giant opening for a right-populist out there who unfortunately could also be far more competent. At the same time, I think the establishment wing of the Democrats are going to keep on fighting tooth and nail to keep economic issues off the table. Basically, there are so many things that can go wrong at this point, it is hard not to look past electoral politics to what ever is going to happen next.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:I think if the Democrats don't win in 2018 then everything falls apart. Giving the country a neo-fascist for a President, and then losing a midterm after half the country is completely outraged and protesting/marching weekly, will be too damaging for the party to recover from. It's crucial the Democrats take a majority in the House, at the very least, in 2018. That means no more fuckups, and that also means stop pissing people off for completely unnecessary reasons, and it means proper organizing and getting funded and supported candidates on every single god drat ballot available. To be honest, it is probably far more likely the Democrats will lose a couple senate seats and maybe gain some house seats but nowhere near enough to take the house. The map is locked pretty tight at this point. The only real hope for the Democrats that by 2020 Trump is so toxic that the GOP will simply implode on itself and they can walk into a victory. Who knows what they would do after that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
icantfindaname posted:as a Wisconsinite myself, no it's literally nearly 100% the fault of upper-middle class white assholes in the Milwaukee suburbs that the state has gone to hell From personal experience, not even the liberal upper middle class actually wants to change things that much beyond social issues. Granted why would they? They already live comfortable lives, and the status quo has given them a favorable degrees of power and self-confidence. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 17:09
|
|