Brainiac Five posted:

Characterizing a Jewish person as a phony infiltrator attempting to hijack politics from real Americans is sketchy. So is using terms like "donor class", and singling out Jewish people as exemplars of this "donor class" that apparently is distinct from the bourgeoisie. There are perfectly innocent explanations, I am sure, but y'all can't control your fool mouths for long enough to throw some bloodthirstiness at auto execs alongside "unmanly" industries like finance and entertainment.

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

Im still not sure how backing Clinton is disqualifing, but backing a dude who couldn't win a primary isn't.

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

It kind of plays fast and loose with the truth, as _the Intercept is wont to do, and again, fails to illustrate in any concrete way how Ellison is any different other than, he backed a different candidate (who lost) in the primary, before becoming a vocal supporter of HRC in the general (to the extent that some people ITT were saying how disappointed they were in him.)

So again, my point has been that in typically every case where people are turning this into a proxy primary, they're simply saying BUT ELLISON SUPPORTED BERNIE AND BERNIE LIKES HIMS as sufficient evidence that he is different from Perez in some meaningful way at the job they're both attempting to secure. Who someone supported in a primary should not be a qualification for who is going to run the damned party, I am sorry.

Brainiac Five posted:

I enjoy how the Bernie or Bust people are dumb enough to think that open white supremacy and misogyny makes you a bad candidate in American politics. We definitely should let you all have control of anything more important than a model train set.

The Glumslinger posted:

He managed to best ever republican field ()




Whether he intended to or not, he tapped into the pure id of a lot americans

Cease to Hope posted:

AP and other outlets were reporting that Perez had a solid lead after Biden endorsed him, about a week ago.

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

And this has what to do with the DNC chair nomination?

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

So you like candidates who lose elections now?

Zerilan posted:

Aside from losing by a massive margin.

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

Again, I think Ellison is a much more telegenic person who I think is better suited to be the de facto face of the party for two years until we hit 2020 primary bullshit. He's obviously a more natural communicator.

I do think Perez's involvement with labor and knowing how to work things "behind the curtain" are important skills and I would hope if he does not become the DNC chair that get him to run for some kind of office.

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

Because they set it up as a false choice? Maybe they should put on their big kid pants and pick better fights? Hell that's half of the left's problem -- picking the right loving targets for poo poo.

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

I don't think creating it as some sort of conflict that it's not is a good idea. I've said that all the way along. I like Perez, and I am mildly annoyed that Bernie decided to shove himself into the race, but I support Ellison. We have so much other poo poo we need to be focusing on and so many other people in the party that we need to be hounding that getting all worked up like this is the biggest decision we're going to make, when it's fairly low on the priorities list, seems like a waste of limited resources.

Like, I'd way rather y'all who are really worried about the future of the Democratic party, be calling up House Reps and Senators and getting involved in community action groups. Like, call Nancy Pelosi and tell her that you think we need to go full obstruction.

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

How important is winning to you.

Convergence posted:

Maryland's republican governor is actually pretty great and has a >70% approval rating, and is no threat because of the eternally blue legislature. He's one of the very, very few examples of actual functional fiscal conservatives (and not insane corrupt ideologues). He also loathes Trump.

So basically, save Perez for a different state

Main Paineframe posted:

Well, yes, that is literally the job of the DNC chair. Perez and Ellison both know what the role entails and have signaled their full willingness to carry it out. Ellison has already demonstrated (with actions, not words) that he intends to back establishment candidates against progressive challengers, throw the public under the bus in order to please donors, and give his full and unconditional support to Pelosi and Schumer. It's just that it no longer matters what he says or does, because the narrative's already been built and no one's going to let pesky things like facts get in the way of daydreams about Keith destroying the Democratic establishment forever and singlehandedly laying the groundwork for full socialism at last.

Funny how that narrative just so happens to exclude Buttigieg, Brown, and every other candidate except for the two candidates who were very obviously being fully backed by establishment factions before they even declared their candidacy. I don't understand how the supposedly anti-establishment wing don't understand that they've been downright suckered into choosing between two establishment candidates by a false narrative that essentially silences every other candidate, freezing out potential dark horses and out-of-nowhere challengers. If nothing else, the establishment has demonstrated that it's still utterly excellent at clearing the field.

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

Paracaidas posted:

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?

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

I think Ellison would be a good choice for Governor or VP 2020, but I am fine with him as DNC chair.

Fiction posted:

No? You need to define your base based on the message your party wants to have. If one of those messages isn't popular, though, like say "let's make it basically impossible to buy a gun," and you want to bend everyone's arm to have full deference to that message, then you'll be in trouble. Just like the Democrats are right now!

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

Small but very loud and well-funded.

Fiction posted:

do you know what it means to not do something versus doing the opposite of it? i'm just commenting on how ferociously it seems you defend the party orthodoxy on something that's not high on the list of problems for most people right now.

Fiction posted:

this goes just as much for how many petty bourgeoisie city dwellers who fear guns more than anything else there are out there and how many congressional districts their vote affects

actually this isn't even a gunchat issue you could replace the issue at hand with anything. the creeps at the DNC probably think means-tested, overly complicated financial benefits are a slam dunk issue for everyone in a similar fashion.

Fiction posted:

whatever the gently caress they have going on in new jersey

and that's all i'll say on the matter

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

I would prefer him to win, but on otoh if you can wrangle the votes of these assholes, idk how you're going to make the wheels of power turn.

TyrantWD posted:

Ellison needs to stay away from the DNC. Let Perez deal with the sausage making, and step forward to become the de facto leader of the entire party instead.

Condiv posted:

neither will democrats at this rate. so what's your point?

Nevvy Z posted:

Actually I think if you look closely you'll find that voting for the greater of two evils is what got us trump. You have this weird insistence that it's the democrats fault that Trump is president even though the Republicans are the ones who ran him and voted for him and in fact many democrats actually voted in the general election for the most likely other person to win and in turn prevent him from winning.

JeffersonClay posted:

Which is why voting for the lesser of two evils, rather than purity posturing, is your ethical duty.

Condiv posted:

voting is not a duty at all. that's why it's legal to not bother voting. the longer you keep pretending that people are obligated to vote for your party, instead of trying to convince them to vote for your party, the more support the dems will bleed. hth

Condiv posted:

no it's just effectively the same thing

also, pretending it is an ethical obligation is just a nice excuse for the "lesser evil" refusing to appeal to voters, otherwise you're saying over half of the US is unethical

Condiv posted:

nearly half the nation didn't vote for anyone, and yet for some reason you think they're unethical too

Condiv posted:

they didn't enable trump to be president at all, that's not how voting works.

also it's p hosed up that you think a large majority of america is unethical because they didn't give a vote to your precious abuela.

Condiv posted:

still disagreed. choosing not to vote is not unethical.

also, if the only ethical choice is to vote for hillary then you obviously don't think she sucks.

Condiv posted:

By your definition hillary herself is unethical since she angled to have trump as her opponent, and she was too lazy and arrogant to do everything she could to make sure he doesn't win.

readingatwork posted:

So if Trump ran as the Democrat and the Republicans literally ran Hitler would I still be a terrible person for voting for Jill Stein? Just curious how far one's duty to vote for the lesser evil goes.

Condiv posted:

Nope because people may not have realized how hosed up trump was, what with being detached non voters.

By insisting voters come to the dems on their own instead of trying to attract voters you only enable mad men like trump, making you unethical too.

Condiv posted:

Lol really? The populace is perfectly informed and not swamped in a stew of fake news and disinformation?

Condiv posted:

Yes, that's why you have people that were even trump supporters who are saying poo poo like "I didn't realize he'd be like this!" I doubt the populace in general was as informed on the election as you bngl.

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

They're lying?


And in no way shocking; again good luck finding someone to primary him only to lose to Evan Jenkins who will vote for everything they want, not just some of it.