The Democratic National Chairperson election 2017

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Democratic National Chairperson election 2017

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Cease to Hope posted:

This is fear of winning. Sometimes you will win and it won't work out as well as you hoped. That isn't a reason to stop trying, or worse yet to actively play to lose.

It's also the constant problem on the left where anything other than total victory/perfect policy is perceived as worse than the status quo. It's very frustrating.

# ¿ Jan 24, 2017 15:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 3, 2024 00:35

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

AlouetteNR posted:

I was actually really impressed with Pete Buttigieg's interview on Pod Save America. Though admittedly, that could just be in comparison to the interview afterwards, with the ex-lobbyist arguing how not all lobbyists are corrupt shills. I still think Ellison is the right choice for DNC chair, but I hope Buttigieg doesn't just fade away after the leadership race.

All lobbyists aren't corrupt shills though? :confused:

Or are you arguing that Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, the ASPCA, etc. are big money corporate shills?

Sometimes lobbying can actually be good! making GBS threads on lobbyists in general seems to be code for "people with money advocating for something I don't like" which...fine but don't smear all of lobbying just because you don't think interest groups should have a say at the table. That way leads to groups that you probably agree with being shut out of the process.

And honestly, lobbying isn't really the problem, it's campaign contributions. If all races were 100% publicly financed there wouldn't be the corruption issue when say, the family of a Secretary of Education nominee donates money to the Senate campaigns of those who have to confirm her.

axeil fucked around with this message at 05:21 on Feb 4, 2017

# ¿ Feb 4, 2017 05:15

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Chomskyan posted:

Sure, Schumer or Pelosi step down and let a hardline leftist take their position.

so your answer is no, because that is absolutely not happening.

rscott posted:

The only one so far has been DeVos though? There's like what one or two Democrats who haven't voted for a Trump cabinet candidate and over a dozen iirc who voted for every one up until DeVos.

admittedly until we got to the devos/sessions/tillerson group the other nominees, while ideological nightmares were all qualified to hold the position and didn't have massive clouds of corruption around them, so i'm more willing to cut someone slack on voting for say, the new secretary of commerce than devos.

Paracaidas posted:

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.

if they can maintain the passion right now they should be okay. we're at "summer of 2010" levels of upset among the left right now. the biggest problem is if everyone gets outrage fatigue or does something idiotic like primarying heitkamp or tester for not being pure enough, not realizing that a FULL COMMUNISM NOW senator will never win in ND or MT.

if the FULL COMMUNISM NOW wing wants to primary someone, it should be warner in VA. i've always liked him but he's being way too cooperative and VA will be so blue by 2020 that it shouldn't matter who the dems run.

axeil fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Feb 9, 2017

# ¿ Feb 9, 2017 18:07

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

I think the biggest issue right now is just building a bench for the Dems. Take a look at how much State House and State Senate members make. It's pathetic. A VA House of Delegates member makes less than $25k a year. When you're not the party of big business and can't rely on tons of "gifts" from big business that let you get the operating cash you need, how is the next Obama going to get started? A friend of mine has considered running for local office out here but he can't do it because even if he won the salary would leave him destitute, much less the personal expense he'd incur by running.

The Dems need a shitload of money and they need it now so that they can start building a bench at the state level.

The good news is that this isn't that hard to fund. You'd only need a few million to fund a candidate for every open seat in the VA House and VA Senate this year. If the Dems could build a $200m warchest and apply it to only state-level races they'd be in great shape by 2018.

If Ellison as DNC chair brings in the Bernie folks and motivates them to donate, I say go hog wild. If Perez can bring union $$$ to accomplish the same thing, then bully for him. If one of them (or someone else) can do both then that person should win.

Building a bench so the party doesn't do crazy poo poo like not running candidates in Congressional Districts that Hillary won should be the goal.

That's also why I really like this organization and I hope they do well: https://www.runforsomething.net/. The party has to start courting Millennials not just as a voting or donor bloc but as an actual candidate bloc.

edit: it would also be nice if Democratic organizations would stop sending me 5+ fundraising emails a day. I'm not giving you money every single time Trump does something stupid, I'm not that rich.

axeil fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Feb 10, 2017

# ¿ Feb 10, 2017 23:07

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

VA House of Delegates is 60 days.

Right, but presumably you'd still need some income for the other 305 days a year. Plus, that still doesn't account for how much it costs to run a campaign, even a small local one and the opportunity cost of switching your career from "whatever you're doing now" to "politician". When your campaign manager is your mom, you're not going to do as well as if your campaign manager is someone with at least some level of experience (but who requires money so they don't starve).

# ¿ Feb 10, 2017 23:11

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

virtually everyone who serves in a part-time legislature has another job. for years my delegate in WV worked for the rail roads.

I'm curious if that fact isn't well-known and might be suppressing interested candidates. I mean, my friend would probably have to quit his job if he ran because he's a federal employee and I am pretty sure being an elected Delegate is an issue if you're also an employee of the Executive branch.

But even 60 days a year you can't do your job is an issue. I imagine there are lots of people where if they told their employer "hey I need to take the next 2 months off" they'd be shown the door.

Maybe the party should push for full-time state legislatures to allow younger folks to run?

Lightning Knight posted:

Serious question, what state parties don't suck for the Democrats? If I get into my state's party, who am I looking at for "state party that is cool and good?"

Virginia's seems pretty good. They have found candidates for every single State House/State Senate district that Hillary won that is currently held by the Republicans and managed to hold off the 2014 slaughter. Not taking down Comstock hurts but I'm pretty sure she's going to get crushed in '18.

axeil fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Feb 10, 2017

# ¿ Feb 10, 2017 23:18

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Evil Fluffy posted:

"Bob can't be in the office for 60 days out of the year, I guess we should fire him since that's better than having direct access to the state government. They definitely wouldn't be able to retaliate against us in any way either."

Maybe some companies are staffed/owned by people stupid enough to do so but the vast majority aren't.

I mean, yes, it'd be valuable to have that access but then at the same time that is borderline corruption. You don't think a company would lean on someone to vote "the right way" or risk being found to be "not a team player"?

# ¿ Feb 10, 2017 23:33

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Fulchrum posted:

The single solitary environmental accomplishment the Greens have ever managed is getting Bush elected.

Well and Trump, considering Jill Stein was likely also a Russian stooge who was coerced to run aggressively to siphon off Clinton votes.

Third Parties Are For Idiots.

readingatwork posted:

Yeah I'm not seeing the issue here. We're not asking for perfection on every issue. We just want someone we reasonably feel will work in our interests. Unfortunately most of the major players in the Domocratic party don't meet this standard.

Yep because complete Republican Party control of the Federal government is going to be sooo good for your interests :rolleyes:

# ¿ Feb 16, 2017 14:36

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Typo posted:

Support for free trade rise to new highs!

Well duh. Free Trade is universally good. Protectionism is about as a dumb as Mercantilism in the modern world.

Cease to Hope posted:

Politico reports that the UAW is going to endorse Ellison, and that the SEIU is going to informally encourage members to vote for him. The article has a good breakdown of which unions have endorsed who, so far.

Something I missed from a couple weeks ago: Gloria Steinem endorsed Ellison.

In actual news, that appears to be a big blow to Perez. If you're the former Labor Secretary and can't snag the UAW or SEIU you're in a bit of trouble.

JeffersonClay posted:

I don't think it's self evident that the political strategy the left is outlining will make it easier to win the next election. I don't intend to mistake the things I want to be true for the things that actually are true, again, after making that mistake this past election. That's how I'm participating in that debate.

It's also a bit galling to have people who just got ratfucked without batting an eye claim that the election somehow validates the sophistication of their politics. Like I don't necessarily think Bernie would have lost, but it seems like the height of naive hubris to be utterly convinced he would have won. And so insofar as the DNC election has been turned into a proxy battle for that argument, I'm not really excited for Ellison to win precisely because it would validate a strategy I think has significant risks. Which is not to say I don't think we should keep pushing democrats left or that we should never take risks. I do think it's really disingenuous to suggest a Perez win would signal a Democratic Party that has no interest in moving left.

I hate this whole DNC election bullshit because it's forcing us to succumb to the bullshit "feels not reals" things the Republicans have been stuck in since the Bush era. If we're going to make policy and have internal party elections based on not the reality on the ground but what people feel like is true, how the hell can we claim to be the adults in the room?

axeil fucked around with this message at 14:23 on Feb 17, 2017

# ¿ Feb 17, 2017 14:19

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

So this election is this week right? Seems like Ellison is picking up ~*momentum*~

# ¿ Feb 20, 2017 14:40

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

Their strategy is to build a bench of new candidates that are willing to be explicitly anti-corporatist and build campaigns on widespread small donations. What do you think their strategy is, and why is it absurd?

Because where the gently caress are they going to come from? As I discussed in I think this thread, it costs a lot of money to run for office, not just in what it costs to campaign but how your own career will be affected. If right now you have 25-35 year olds saying "I don't have $100k, nor any real means to get it, being Mayor of $TOWNNAME pays $15k a year and I would like to eat, gently caress running" there won't be any candidates.

Find me the person who can effectively crowd-fund a race for some podunk State House or Mayoral or other minor race and I'll be shocked. The only groups willing to fund that are the parties at large, the Koch brothers and people who themselves are already rich. You can't revolutionize the party and throw out all the people you feel are too moderate if you can't even fund their primary campaigns, less their general election ones. So yes, the Dems do have to take the big money because they will be crushed without it. I don't care how awesome your message is, if I only hear your opponent's voice and not yours I'm not going to be voting for you because I have no idea you exist/who you are.

The real solution is to mandate federal/state/local funding for all election races and ban all outside/private funding but good luck doing that before you even have control of the apparatus of government.

edit: Also I (and most Americans) don't think all big corporations are evil by default but that's heresy in this thread so I didn't even bother bringing up the argument that large corporate donations are theoretically valid and realistically cannot be banned because of the 1st Amendment, I only focused on the tactical argument about why they're needed.

axeil fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Feb 20, 2017

# ¿ Feb 20, 2017 22:58

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Kilroy posted:

well I don't know if that's such a good idea and perhaps we should try to elect more people like manchin *fartz*

I'll take a million Joe Manchins over Mitch McConnells, Paul Ryans and Marco Rubios.

SKULL.GIF posted:

What have people like Reid, Pelosi, and Feinstein given us? I'm sick of being governed by ancient wrinkled Methuselahs (obviously Reid is gone, but I have a political memory longer than a goldfish's) who will scold us for not building sufficient political capital in the face of goddamn fascism. Where the hell are the Gen X, where the hell are the Millennial politicians who will actually fight to improve the lives of all Americans instead of burning endless political capital on incrementalism? Why are they being locked out of the party?

Because running is expensive as gently caress and the Party has shown no willingness to start funding low level races. No one jumps from "John/Jane Smith, random employee at $CORP" to "Representative John/Jane Smith". They first end up on city councils, school boards or state legislatures. But when the party is doing almost nothing to fund/encourage people to run for that stuff, you don't have a crop of people who naturally want to move up to national office so you keep getting rich business owners or party insiders running for the House/Senate/Governor.

It's why Run For Something is I think the best organization to emerge from the disaster that was last November. They're doing their best to fill up candidate slates for elections in VA and NJ and have actually managed to find a candidate for every single VA House of Delegates race where Hillary won the State House district. This is crucial because the GOP has a 33 seat majority (66 GOP, 33 Dem, 1 vacant) which is absurd for a state that Hillary won easily. Only the Governor's Mansion and a 19 Dem/21 GOP State Senate have kept VA from becoming the next North Carolina. The Dems only need to hold the Governor's Mansion, gain 1 Senate seat and 18 House seats to have control of everything but the Judicial Branch in VA. It's very doable, but the important thing is running candidates everywhere.

Run for Something posted:

Run for Something will recruit and support talented, passionate youngsters who will advocate for progressive values now and for the next 30 years, with the ultimate goal of building a progressive bench.

We�ll take a chance on people the usual �institutions� might never encounter. We�ll help people run for offices like state legislatures, mayorships, city council seats, and more. We�ll do whatever it takes to get more under-35 year-olds on the ballot.

https://www.runforsomething.net/

axeil fucked around with this message at 14:44 on Feb 21, 2017

# ¿ Feb 21, 2017 14:27

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

So this is encouraging. Dems will be challenging 45 (out of 66) House of Delegates districts held by the GOP, including 17 where Hillary won. They need 18 seats for a majority.

If the Dems can manage to take the House of Delegates and State Senate in VA it'll be a really encouraging sign for 2018.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...fb61_story.html

Washington Post posted:

Buoyed by a wave of progressive activism that began after the election of President Trump, Virginia Democrats plan to challenge 45 GOP incumbents in the deep-red House of Delegates this November, including 17 lawmakers whose districts voted for Democrat Hillary Clinton.

In some districts, multiple candidates will compete in Democratic primaries for the chance to challenge a Republican incumbent. And at least one Democratic incumbent from Northern Virginia will face a primary challenge, from a local school board member who said Clinton�s defeat helped propel her to run.

Republicans hold 66 of the 100 seats in the House, and GOP leaders say many districts � including those won by Clinton � remain Republican strongholds for state elections.

Still, if Democrats succeed in running 45 challengers, it would be a significant increase over 2015, when only 21 Democrats ran against GOP lawmakers.

In addition to trying to wrest control of the House, fielding a strong Democratic slate is critical to showing the nation that �Virginia is shifting and becoming a more progressive state,� said Del. Charniele Herring (Alexandria), chair of the House Democratic caucus.

�It�s important because we know those districts can change,� said Herring, who credited Trump�s election and years of recruiting efforts with fueling the surge. �I think the tide is turning.�

John Whitbeck, the chairman of the state Republican Party, described the GOP�s 16-year majority in the House as �near insurmountable� and said his party plans to challenge incumbents in heavily Democratic districts in Arlington and Fairfax this fall, too.

�Until they have 51 winnable races, they shouldn�t be talking,� Whitbeck said. �I just don�t buy it. We consistently win those Hillary Clinton districts with good, solid Republicans.�

Some potential candidates were encouraged to run by such newly formed political organizations as Run for Something, founded by former Clinton outreach worker Amanda Litman. Others said they were influenced by the Jan. 21 Women�s March on Washington.

�We�re focusing on down-ballot offices to help build a long-term, progressive bench,� Litman said in an interview. �We are actively recruiting young progressives, and our goal is that no races should go uncontested.�

Three Democrats will compete to challenge 25-year incumbent Del. Bob Marshall (R-Manassas) in the 13th District, which Clinton won on Election Day with 54 percent of the vote. Two others are battling for the Democratic nomination to oppose Del. Scott Lingamfelter (R-Woodbridge) in the 31st District, where Clinton captured 51 percent of the vote.

Elizabeth Guzman, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Peru and longtime party volunteer, said she decided to run because she and her family have endured years of harassing comments about their ethnicity, as well as unprovoked traffic stops.

�Then Trump gets elected, and my son, my 9-year-old, said, �Mommy, we have to get out because Mr. Trump doesn�t like people who speak Spanish.� That decided it,� Guzman said. �My district is in�cred�ibly diverse, and I think it is time to bring that diversity to Richmond.�

In the June 13 primary, she faces Sara Townsend, a seventh-grade civics teacher who lost to Lingamfelter in 2015. Protecting public schools is her passion, she said, �and with the election of Trump, and his appointment of [Betsy] DeVos as education secretary, there�s no question of me running or not this year.�

In Marshall�s district, Mansimran Singh Kahlon, 24, is seeking to be the first Sikh elected to the House of Delegates. �Mostly, I feel there�s a void between the lives of people and the legislation presented in Richmond,� Kahlon said.

Danica Roem, an LGBT activist who would be the first openly transgender person in the chamber, said she�d been weighing a run since August, but Trump�s election �convinced me there�s literally nothing in my backstory that would disqualify me. . . . But I�m not running against Donald Trump, I�m running against Delegate Marshall.�

Steven Jansen, a former Wayne County, Mich., prosecutor who now directs the nonprofit group Prosecutors Against Gun Violence, said Trump�s election also shocked him. But what made him enter the race was Marshall�s decision to introduce legislation forbidding transgender people from using bathrooms for the gender with which they identify.

�He�s not representing his district, he has this extremist agenda, and he�s trying to bully transgender kids,� Jansen said.

Not all of the prospective candidates have filed the required paperwork, Herring said. The deadline is March 30 for primaries; independents and candidates running against someone from another party can file as late as June 13.

In Alexandria, school board member Karen Graf will challenge fellow Democrat and first-term Del. Mark H. Levine for the nomination to represent the very liberal 45th District. Graf said she has no particular criticism of Levine, but was prompted to run by �national issues� that demand local responses.

�The timing is right for women and for education, but also for someone who cares about health care, immigration and other issues,� said Graf, who has served five years on the school board.

Levine won a five-way Democratic primary in 2015 with 28 percent of the vote and had no Republican opposition in the general election.

A self-defined progressive, he has sponsored or co-sponsored bills that have passed the House to preserve evidence for victims of sexual assault and protect people from defamation lawsuits when speaking on matters of public concern. He also has supported stricter gun laws and spoken out against Trump�s travel ban; he has the endorsement of Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) and 36 other state and local elected officials.

Graf said she�s proud of her tenure on the school board, which included four years as chair. She helped hire a new superintendent, kept the state from taking control of the academically challenged Jefferson-Houston School, launched a capital improvement plan in response to growing enrollment pressures and strengthened fiscal oversight.

In Herring�s district, Charles Sumpter Jr. filed paperwork establishing a campaign committee to run against her. But Sumpter, who chairs the Alexandria Commission on HIV/AIDS, said in a Facebook message Tuesday that he has reconsidered and will not run this year.

No other incumbent Democrats in Northern Virginia face primary challengers so far, Herring said, but there are still six weeks to go.

All 100 House seats are up for election this year. Local parties decide how to select their nominees.

# ¿ Feb 21, 2017 18:41

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Main Paineframe posted:

That's not really an accurate portrayal of either Reid or Pelosi. As for the millenials, the only things locking them out of Congress are the minimum ages imposed by the Constitution for Congressional seats and their own failure to win elections.

Also funding. Millennials on the whole don't have a lot of money and you need money to run.

# ¿ Feb 21, 2017 18:56

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

snyprmag posted:

Deportations, arrests, police brutality and war happened under democratic governance. Democrats keep running on those issues and then not fixing them and then wonder why people don't show up to vote for them.

My point it more that we need to find out why people aren't voting, not just shaming them.

Aw boo hoo, you didn't get everything you wanted. No one ever gets everything they wanted. That doesn't mean you take your ball and go home. You support the person who gives you most of what you want and then keep pressuring them? Do you think the LGBT groups abandoned Obama en masse because when he ran in 2008 he wasn't in favor of gay marriage? No. They kept the pressure up and then hey guess what, the dude endorsed gay marriage.

If these issues are so drat precious to you then run yourself or get active in your party or write letters or do something. Unironically engaging in No True Scotsman contests doesn't help anyone, except it does help you feel smugly superior...so congrats on that I guess?

# ¿ Feb 21, 2017 23:25

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

SKULL.GIF posted:

You seem to be the most centrist poster in this thread (via rhetoric, if not actual political stance), so I'm going to present this to you. I don't mean this as an attack on you or an aspersion upon your political stances, merely as demonstrative of what I and others have been arguing here:

How far would the Democrats have to shift left before you decided to vote for the fascistic Republicans?

I'll bite since I'm also one of those ~*neo-liberals*~ that everyone seems to hate. I'd vote GOP if the Dems got to the point where they were seizing people's private property or engaging in economically suicidal ideas like protectionist tariffs, outlawing automation, dissolving the big banks, etc.

Of course this assumes the GOP isn't FULL FASCISM NOW at that point. In an election between fascism and communism we're right hosed.

edit: For the record, I want Ellison to win because I think it's a good bone to throw to the Bernie people and Ellison/Perez are aligned on how to move the party forward. Also I think there's immense rhetorical power in picking a Muslim to run the Party while Trump is trying to deport all of them.

# ¿ Feb 23, 2017 17:51

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

SKULL.GIF posted:

So basically there's an incredible amount of room here for the Democrats to enact progressive policy without losing too many votes. Just do sensible things that will improve the lives of our citizens!

Yes...with the caveat that going hard left might not lose them voters but could lose them funding. That makes me cautious about going too far too fast, which is a very unfortunate situation, but is the reality. In 2010 the Dems got crushed money-wise because the banks had their feelings hurt and didn't do their standard thing of giving equally to both parties so they could have access.

However, if you're gonna do it, don't be dumb and propose stuff that doesn't hold up when you start poking at it. Referring here to Bernie's plans last year on healthcare/taxes that were held together with the same voodoo math Paul Ryan uses. I don't want to have some politician stick their neck out for something like GMI, win, and then fail horribly at implementation like we saw with Obamacare and hold us back from any further improvements. You've got to have a solid framework from the start.

Re: the actual election, is that today or this weekend?

axeil fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Feb 23, 2017

# ¿ Feb 23, 2017 18:03

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

JeffersonClay posted:

I'm not suggesting the stock market should be a big focus for democrats, I'm suggesting "LOL KKKapitalists and their stock market" is really tone deaf to a significant number of people in our coalition. 52% of Americans have some stake in the market.

poo poo like 401(k)s and the stock market are great, because they're really the only reliable method for working/middle class people to boost themselves up into the upper classes. Or if not them then at least their heirs. If you save prudently you can retire a multi-millionaire and make the money last indefinitely. You might not have the conspicuous consumption, but when you no longer have to trade your labor for money I'd say you've transitioned from working/middle class to upper class.

I'd be super pissed if the Dems (or GOP) closed the loopholes that make that sort of wealth accumulation by people who don't make 250k a year possible.

# ¿ Feb 23, 2017 18:07

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

So the race for VA Governor this year should be interesting. You have incumbent Lt. Governor Ralph Northam going up against former Congressman Tom Perriello. A lot of people are trying to re-cast it as another re-fight of the Endless Primary but Perriello at least is trying really hard to push back against it.

As a Virginian I was definitely leaning Northam before, but after reading Perriello's interview here I'm now more undecided. I'm curious how this primary race ends up going. I think it also has good thoughts and ideas on how the party moves forward and what to do (re-fighting the Endless Primary not being one of them).

Again, for Democrats to take control of VA they only need to pick up 18 Delegates, 1 Senator and retain the Governor's Mansion. I'm hopeful that it'll happen.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/02/tom_perriello_wants_to_prove_that_the_party_s_best_bet_is_moving_left.html

Slate posted:

As a congressman, Virginia Democrat Tom Perriello made national waves for holding a series of town hall meetings with Tea Party critics and for supporting the strongest elements of the Obama agenda despite representing a deep red district. In January, he surprised the commonwealth by challenging the Democratic lieutenant governor, Ralph Northam, in the race for Virginia�s governorship, which is up for grabs this November as Terry McAuliffe steps down from his term-limited position.

Perriello�s entry into the race as a populist, running on the pledge to fight gerrymandering and work for Virginians who�ve been left behind by the 21st century economy, has met with a mixture of enthusiasm and worry among state Democrats. Despite the fact that almost every elected official in the state had already endorsed Northam, Perriello has managed to draw even in polls and appears to be setting the tone of the debate, with calls to make Virginia a firewall against Trump and for a policy agenda that includes free community college and criminal justice reform. The Virginia gubernatorial race draws together big themes of the 2016 presidential election about the place of populism, the value of primaries, and what the future of the Democratic Party looks like. It�s also threatening to devolve into battles about the future of progressivism, from identity politics to ideological purity tests, that turned off so many Democratic voters in the 2016 race.

I reached out to Perriello to get his thoughts on the lessons he learned from 2016, how progressives should think about �states� rights,� and the place of faith in Democratic politics. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Dahlia Lithwick: A lot of party leaders saw your entry into the race as late and disruptive. How do you respond to those who say this will re-create the problems of the 2016 Democratic presidential primary?

Tom Perriello: Trying to fit this primary into a frame of last year�s race is lazy. Unlike Hillary, neither Ralph nor I have had to overcome decades of gendered public attacks. Neither of us have shattered glass ceilings, run the State Department, or systematically elevated the role of women around the world. Unlike Bernie, neither Ralph nor I have inspired millions to join a grass-roots revolution against inequality and corruption.

Democrats should be more focused on producing the next generation of ideas than on clearing primary fields that might help produce them. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change the political balance in Virginia, but only if our voters care enough to show up in November. I was inspired by the vast number of Virginians who showed up to the Women�s March and the protests at Dulles Airport. But I also was concerned that the majority of marchers didn�t know there was a governor�s race in 2017. My goal�my hope�is to build a campaign that connects the governor�s race to the movement we�ve seen rise in response to President Trump�s attacks on our core values. But Democrats should not assume anti-Trump advocates are sold on our party. We have to earn that support.
Get the best of Slate in your inbox.

I want to give you a chance to respond to critics from the left, including here at Slate, about your support of the Stupak Amendment, and your voting record on abortion and women�s reproductive health.

I have always been pro-choice and marched and organized to defend Roe v. Wade before and during my time in Congress. I voted for Planned Parenthood funding and was proud to vote for the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits insurance companies from discriminating against women and provides universal access to contraception. However, during the health care debate in marathon town hall meetings, I made a promise to my constituents that I would stick to the commitment previously made by the White House and vote for the Affordable Care Act if it excluded federal funding for abortion. I have expressed my deep regret for that vote and engaged actively after my tenure in Congress in fights against TRAP laws and other efforts to limit reproductive health access in Virginia and around the country. I have promised as governor to veto the onslaught of anti-choice legislation that passes our heavily gerrymandered legislature, including draconian restrictions on abortion providers in Virginia, efforts to restrict the availability of contraception, and moves to defund Planned Parenthood.

I know you have thought an awful lot about the role states may play in the coming years: You were at Dulles Airport the day after the president�s executive order on immigration went into effect. What do you think might happen at the state level, and what role will states� rights and federalism�not words that trip off the progressive tongue�play in the next four years?

As governor, I will use all legal executive authority to block federal abuses of power and fundamental rights. I don�t say this lightly. Growing up in Virginia, I know firsthand that the �states� rights doctrine� has often been used to block progress. Racists in my hometown of Charlottesville were at the forefront of Massive Resistance, shutting down public schools rather than allow the federal government to integrate. However, there are other examples throughout American history where states have been progressive leaders and used the 10th Amendment and every other tool at their disposal to stand up to unjust and inhumane federal policies. Jefferson and Madison used similar arguments to resist the Alien and Sedition Acts under President Adams.

As the great historian Eric Foner and others have noted, progressive governors in the 19th century heroically refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. They barred the use of state jails, state judges, and state law enforcement officials in the rendition of fugitive slaves, and the Supreme Court upheld their actions, holding that the Constitution did not permit the national government to conscript states into the enforcement of federal law. Only 20 years ago, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that ruling in a decision joined by all of the court�s conservative justices. I believe the fierce moral urgency of the Trump moment requires that same resistance from deep within our American progressive tradition.

Do Democrats get too focused on the meta stories and forget to act locally and at a state level? If so, why is that? Is the Tea Party model of resistance a useful template for Democratic organizers?

Democrats must be able to resist and advance at the same time. We must be fearless in opposing President Trump�s policies of hate and attacks on our democratic institutions. But we must respond with equal intensity to his actions that risk the pensions and Medicare of our seniors. There is nothing meta about resisting Trump if you are an African American parent wondering what Jeff Sessions will do to civil rights or a second-generation immigrant wondering if your family will be torn apart.

States are increasingly the first line of both attack and defense for progressive causes, from reproductive rights to criminal justice reform to student debt. Some of the clearest victories thus far for the movement for black lives have been in local prosecutor races. Our race for governor will determine the political map of Virginia for a generation with enormous implications for justice and fairness. This is not just about three years from now, when I would be able to veto any of the radical redistricting maps that have paralyzed Virginia politics for a decade, but also about this year redefining the Virginia electorate that shows up for state elections.

The breadth, depth, and creativity of the resistance since November has been awe-inspiring. I am particularly proud of Indivisible�s rise because one of the authors of the Indivisible Guide, Leah Greenberg, was a member of my congressional staff and now serves as a policy adviser for my campaign. Social change is not a majoritarian enterprise as much as an intensity enterprise, but at this point I think we have both factors on our side.

As a veteran of the crushing town halls of the ACA era, what are your thoughts on the fact that so many Republicans in Congress are going home this week and not meeting with their constituents?

In Congress, I held more marathon town halls than any member during the contentious health care debate, with some lasting as long as six hours. Even when my constituents were angry, I showed up�because I worked for them. This week, I have spent time in Republican districts hearing directly from folks about how we can advance an inclusive Virginia. These town hall meetings aren�t scary. They give Virginians a chance to hold their leaders accountable, ask questions, and participate in their democracy. Right now, Republicans should have the courage to meet with their constituents.

If there is one lesson you take from the 2016 election, what is it? I have almost no patience for postmortems and finger pointing, but I am wondering what your vision of how to move forward from such a colossal defeat looks like.

The forces of economic and racial anxiety, if left unaddressed, are on a collision course in America. Internecine debates about which factor is stronger obscure the interconnection and thus acceleration of both. We also often miss the fact that economic anxiety is not limited to those below certain income levels.

Too often, Democrats defend the status quo, noting positive GDP and unemployment numbers instead of speaking to the underlying forces that threaten economic security. When we say our only problem is with messaging, we imply that voters are too dumb to realize how great we have been for them or would be for them. People are smarter than elites think. They already know that both parties were na�ve about the costs of globalization and can see that both parties are again failing to address the impact of new forces like economic consolidation, automation, and exclusion.

Many people I meet know that Trump is full of smoke and mirrors. They recognize that he is two decades behind, and that we are no longer losing our manufacturing to China, but rather to computers. But at least Trump showed up and acknowledged their pain. As Democrats, we need to show up. We need to tell the brutal economic truth that of these jobs aren�t coming back, and we need to offer a better solution than blaming minorities. We can do this.

One of the things you and I have talked about in the past is whether there is a role for faith and religion in Democratic politics. I know it�s an incredibly fraught proposition, but am I wrong in thinking that ceding all discussion of religion to the right has been kind of a disaster for progressives? Do you have an idea for how to think about this in ways that don�t cause more rifts on the left?

North Carolina provided a preview of Trump�s agenda, and Moral Mondays created a blueprint of how to respond. We take this seriously in Virginia because winning this governor�s race is the only way to prevent the entire onslaught of the Carolina crisis�the gutting of public education and voting rights, the bigotry of bathroom bills�from setting Virginia back a generation. The Rev. William Barber�s prophetic response, like Sister Simone Campbell�s �Nuns on the Bus� tour against the Ryan budget�s impact on the poor, pulled back the cobwebs of progressive faith leadership in calling our nation to its best self.

Some liberals dismiss faith as part of the problem. Pluralist faith leadership inspires us to find the best of the role of spirituality and universal moral values while limiting the frequency with which it is used to otherize and divide. In general, the progressive movement has a tendency to be all logos and no mythos, and it is true that American conservatives overcorrect in the other direction. But the art and culture we celebrate on the left draws heavily from the truth of mythos, and we are wrong to dismiss this space. It is part of why we tend to err towards policy depth over narrative. We see this too often as intellectually more sound, but only within a narrow framing of intellect. Policy and decisions should be based on evidence, but our values and our story come from a deeper place.

# ¿ Feb 24, 2017 18:49

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Alter Ego posted:

This Perriello fellow seems like A Good Guy, and you should vote for him.

Yeah he seems good, but Northam has also been a pretty good Lt. Governor although it's a shame he didn't get to do much due to the obvious corruption in the State Senate with a Dem Senator resigning to give the GOP control and receiving a massive amount of cash in return. I don't want to kick him to the curb unilaterally. Hoping we get some primary debates and an idea of what each guy is running on policy-wise.

Being a Dem in a blood red district who voted for Obamacare and actively campaigned on it, knowing he'd probably lose takes balls so kudos to him for that. He also seems pretty sharp, at least from this interview, so I don't have any fears he'd try and come up with a platform that was politically unworkable.

Can't wait till the Chair election is over and we can focus on some actual real races in VA and NJ. Anyone know who's planning on running for NJ governor?

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

I wish he wouldn't. You don't get to say "this is nothing like the primary" when you're a progressive black sheep candidate primarying the DNC establishment from the left. Just go with it, man.

He's not super progressive though. He's from VA-05, that thing is as red as blood. He's using the outsider tactics Bernie used but not necessarily the same rhetoric/policy goals.

# ¿ Feb 24, 2017 19:11

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

The point is you don't have to loving lie to people. Like I am arguing that we don't have to give into that conceit. That we can win on honest, straight forward, unabashed leftism.

Except ~*Brands*~ Matter. I don't care if the thing is nothing like Medicare, but Medicare is super popular and if you call the thing Medicare For All it's going to resonate well with people. If there's some alternative branding that is extremely popular then go for it, but we know everyone likes Medicare, so why not use the branding?

# ¿ Feb 24, 2017 19:14

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

WampaLord posted:

I can't believe that people are unable to grasp this poo poo.

Campaigning is marketing.

Agreed. Trump is a sniveling little poo poo, but the dude is good at marketing.

A smart Dem campaign for 17/18/20 is to pair anti-Trump stuff like the Russian hacking with actual policy goals like "fixing Trump's dumbness", Medicare for All, Student Loan Reform/Education Reform, etc.

The student loan thing is huge. My generation has almost no wealth because they're saddled with huge loans that are not discharged in bankruptcy. Now, student loans are structured like that for good reason (can't repossess knowledge, unsecured loans require huge interest rates to work) but the key is you don't have to keep that framework. If you re-structure how higher education is funded you can do away with that stuff. The only time you get me going "Well Actually..." is when people argue we should just discharge all student loan debt or keep the same framework but make student loans dischargable in bankruptcy and banks will keep on giving them out because :confused:

.

Solid leftist stuff is fine with me, a very centerist Dem, provided the proposal doesn't unintentionally break poo poo and make it worse than it is now. That's all I want.

Main Paineframe posted:

At some point people are going to notice that they're not even slightly similar. Marketing doesn't rewrite reality.

People still think Obamacare and the ACA are different things. If you are good at messaging you can absolutely pull something like Medicare For All not really being Medicare off.

# ¿ Feb 24, 2017 19:19

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

rscott posted:

The plan that Ellison and Perez put forward for the future of the party weren't very different in the debate they had so it's probably a good idea to see what they're actually gonna do before you throw your hands up and say gently caress it.

Pretty much this. I'd rather it was Ellison but I trust Perez because he cleaned up the civil rights group at Justice and was an excellent Secretary of Labor.

# ¿ Feb 25, 2017 22:22

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

YodaTFK posted:

You're literally mad that a good canidate beat another good candidate. Tell me about how I should be purged for supporting progressive policy. Go on, do it.

Also this. The reactions itt are astoundingly childish. It's like complaining you got a blue Lexus instead of the green one you wanted for your 16th birthday. Perez is so left wing the GOP Senate delegation staged the biggest ever attempt to block a Cabinet appointee until what just happened with DeVos.

Calm the gently caress down people.

# ¿ Feb 25, 2017 22:26

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Quorum posted:

Really? Because you haven't won conclusively and destroyed all of your foes in THREE MONTHS it's forever pointless? Reminder that being involved in your local party is how you alter the makeup of the DNC, it's not some nebulous body of party insiders who sit around smoking cigars made of money (or, rather, if it is, it's because that's who's been involved in local party politics up until now). They're elected up through the levels of party committees, and dropping out of involvement with the local ones is exactly 100% how you ensure that what you predict is correct.

That's a feature, not a bug. If you sit on the sidelines and never get involved, the party not reflecting 100% of what you think is now an excuse for your continued non action.

If you all are really this distraught over it, go work with your local party and get yourself in. Congrats, you now have an ability to affect change. If you aren't willing to do that then shut the gently caress up about how the party betrayed you and Ellison as vice chair instead of chair is going to usher in a thousand years of darkness. It makes you look like an idiot.

# ¿ Feb 25, 2017 22:36

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Trabisnikof posted:

how dare the civil rights division focus on police brutality and voter suppression, why that makes me so mad!!!

Or more accurately "how dare someone let their bosses do something instead of self immolating for no real change".

It's so loving telling that's what people are grasping to...Because only someone who has never been in a position with something to lose would suggest a bargain that idiotic. Torch your career for objecting to something that you have no ability to change and/or so you can slap people with misdemeanor charges that probably won't be followed through on. Wow. What a great thing to sacrifice yourself for.

# ¿ Feb 25, 2017 22:39

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Dead Cosmonaut posted:

The Democrats have literally no qualified people to run in 2020 against Trump at the moment, other than HRC. What a coincidence~

I too remeber front runner 2004 presidential candidate Al Gore. Man his second run really did suck.

Oh wait.

# ¿ Feb 25, 2017 22:42

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Queering Wheel posted:

that's not the POINT you IDIOT

Since the two of them are so similar then why not just give the chair to Keith and piss nobody off, instead of giving it to Perez and pissing off an important part of the base? Why couldn't they even do that much? Because they're idiot losers and they suck, that's why. Have fun voting for HRC in 2020 again or whoever the gently caress

Because maybe they liked the idea of putting someone in charge who was better at combating voter supression or had more experience fixing broken institutions?

Not everything is a conspiracy or done solely for ~*optics*~. While Ellison and Perez generally agreed on strategies they both have very different toolsets for accomplishing those goals.

# ¿ Feb 25, 2017 22:43

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Condiv posted:

how is it immoral? i think my time is better spent working for other parties now and convincing other dems to abandon the dem party.

Cool. I'm sure you're gonna do that. Yep. Definitely. Totally not just internet tough guy posting. :rolleyes:

# ¿ Feb 25, 2017 22:45

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Condiv posted:

dems loving die, get replaced by a party that actually represents its voters.

I'm sure the party is quaking in their boots that SA poster Condiv is going to destroy the party by sitting on the sidelines and wishing for a magical left-wing party to spring forth from the ground fully formed...Which is the exact same thing he/she did before. Just absolutely terrified.

# ¿ Feb 25, 2017 22:48

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Trabisnikof posted:

Really, not immediately entering the race is shady?

Wouldn't it be shadier if the establishment had a candidate lined up from the beginning?

No you don't get it, see no matter what Perez had done it would've been proof of a vast Establishment conspiracy.

# ¿ Feb 25, 2017 22:52

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Raskolnikov38 posted:

looking foward to binning the DNC fundraiser letters I've been holding on to when I get home

Oh no throwing away fundraising letters! That's a problem right there and not something pretty much everyone does because holy poo poo the DNC sends so many fundraising letters.

Everyone who is having a meltdown because last year's arch progressive won and the guy they wanted got vice chair instead of the guy they wanted getting chair and the arch progressive getting vice chair needs to take a deep breath, take some time to yourself and chill.

# ¿ Feb 25, 2017 22:56

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:

I don't care what would look shadier or whether it actually was or not. What I'm saying is that it doesn't look good, and you shouldn't brush aside people worried about that as being literal children like a lot of you are doing ITT. These are valid concerns that should be addressed, and brushing them off as being just wrong is what makes people stay home and not give a poo poo and the dems will continue losing elections. There's a direct correlation in this that you're missing.

No. They. Aren't.

Because if he had been in from the start you'd have been saying "See! see! It was rigged from the get go"

There is literally no pleasing you people so why even bother?

# ¿ Feb 25, 2017 22:58

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Trabisnikof posted:

Where do you live that the Socialist Party is fielding a full slate of non-mediocre candidates at the local level?

His/her own fantasy reality.

Or France :laffo:

# ¿ Feb 25, 2017 22:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 3, 2024 00:35

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Last post on this matter. If you all are really and truly upset and not just arguing on the Internet for fun then go get involved with your local party. Even in the deep blue stronghold that is NOVA the local party had plenty of things that need done and seats that need filled. If you want to change the party, then do what Bernie encouraged his supporters to do at the end of his campaign and get involved.

If you succeed then congrats you're helping change the party away from all the people like me you seem to hate. If you lose, well now you've got evidence of this vast conspiracy you all seem to think people like me are involved in. Either way you win.

So go get involved in your local party. Prove me wrong.

# ¿ Feb 25, 2017 23:03

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Democratic National Chairperson election 2017