|
Will Perez force the dems left? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
33 | 6.38% |
| No |
|
343 | 66.34% |
| Keith Ellison |
|
54 | 10.44% |
| Pete Buttigieg |
|
71 | 13.73% |
| Jehmu Green |
|
16 | 3.09% |
| Total: | 416 votes | ||
|
All you dems may remember the contentious shitshow the 2016 primary was, especially when it came out that the DNC had not remained neutral during the contest in contravention of their own bylaws. Because of this incident, the new DNC chair Perez has promised a more transparent DNC going forward, however he may well be doing that.Jason Rae posted:Many of you have inquired regarding the ballot review process. Our office has begun to receive requests to view the ballots from the contested elections. I have received an email from Julie Greene that the vote tallies will be sent out on Monday to all that requested them, myself included. We'll see, but I'm hopeful that the DNC complies, showing Perez is at least interested in giving the impression of walking the walk.  so, do people still think perez signals a change in direction for the dems, or is he the same as his predecessors? Condiv fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Mar 5, 2017 |
#
¿
Mar 5, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 07:01 |
|
|
Jason Rae asked dems to contact him if we had any concerns about the DNC policy wrt to viewing the vote tally, but did not provide any contact information in said post. Here is his twitter, and the phone number and email address he used as a consultant should you feel the need to contact him: @JasonRRae rae@nationconsulting.com 715-790-4334
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:Maybe it is a very good idea to not represent their membership and instead represent the public at large. maybe, but this is contrary to the party system and democratic party policy especially. if dems were interested in representing the public at large then we'd have more open primaries instead of ones closed to everone who's not a registered dem
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:That's only for reviewing the actual physical ballots that were used in the election. You don't need an in-person appointment for the simple tally of who voted what, you only need it if you want to see the exact pieces of paper that the voters actually wrote their votes on during the election. This is what happens when you outrage first and read later - you end up looking like a fool because you got mad about something that wasn't even true. where's the tally of who voted for what then? I'll add that to the OP as well as a correction. quote:In the interest of transparency, as well as in compliance with the DNC Rules regarding no secret ballots, we have consulted with the Chair and a tally sheet of how each member voted in contested elections will be made available to interested parties upon request. This sheet will list each member and how his or her votes were cast. edit: jason rae's post seems to disagree with you double-edit: i have emailed the secretary's office of the DNC (secretaryoffice@dnc.org) as well as Julie Greene (greenej@dnc.org) requesting the vote tally for the 2017 DNC Chair election. Hopefully your interpretation is right and they will hand over the tally. Condiv fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Mar 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
I've received an email from Julie Greene that vote tallies will be distributed on Monday to all who've requested them! I've updated the op accordingly 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:idk why you are assuming that the "berniecrats" are a majority of the democratic party, op. sanders supporters might be a significant portion of democrats, but the success of moderates within the party has not been invented out of whole cloth. cause the centrists have been hemorrhaging seats? cause very few people were actually excited for centrist supreme hillary as opposed to thought she was the safe choice/lesser evil? maybe i'm wrong and leftism is an extreme splinter of the party, but I'd like to see some hard evidence of that first, like a non-rigged primary
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:The Liebermans and the JeffersonClays of the Democratic party still have a pretty tight grip on it, and have made it absolutely clear they'll see the Democratic party vanish from national politics altogether before they admit they were wrong about anything or resign. It remains to be seen if the bastards can be replaced or if the party is doomed. The election of Perez to DNC chair shows that DNC members totally out of touch, but Perez himself might be an adequate chairperson. i'm hopeful the release of this tally shows perez is actually going to be a voice for change and unity in the party. if the center will actually work with the left, and not just demand 100% centrism 24/7 the party might just win in 2018. maybe i'm being a bad leftist and compromising too early, but i'd really like to believe the dems can change 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:i would probably blame the lack of attention on downballot seats, increased self-sorting, and the normal metronome of politics for the erosion of democratic support, not the party being insufficiently partisan. while democrats themselves have become somewhat more liberal, the number of people in the u.s. population self-identifying is only about 24%. some of the rhetoric i have seen from the far-left remind me a lot of the tea party and ted cruz, who believed that there was this mythical hidden majority that would embrace hardline conservatism if given the chance. the tea party has been wildly successful compared to us and just saw their candidate elected. also, dem party losses are so heinous that the repubs can drat near call a constitutional convention on their own. i'd say that falls outside of your metronome theory of politics (btw, what kind of idiot metronome only swings right and center?)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:If we are importing drama from that other bad thread, i would still like to know who the pedophile is who's importing drama? don't do that in this thread
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:idk if i would classify donald trump as tea party. he certainly took some themes from the movement, but i don't associate him with the movement in the same way as someone like ted cruz. the tea party would. http://time.com/4688825/donald-trump-rallies-tea-party-spirit-america/ quote:that said, only 32% of tea party backed candidates won in the 2010 general election and only a handful of gop incumbents lost their seats to tea party-supported candidates. many of those radicals ended up being so far outside the mainstream that they allowed the opposition to win what should have been easy races or became national embarrassments several years later. so the GOP gained seats with tea party candidates there was very little self-consumption, and the GOP grew stronger from the tea party? quote:the tea party was most successful when it just riled up support for existing politicians who were able to rebrand themselves and, even then, the success is difficult to separate from the Koch Brothers' Red Map project. don't really see that, since tea partiers are basically running the country now... quote:even if i accept your conception, you are going to need to explain how an outpouring of support for hard-right candidates proves the success of a far-left agenda. or why the democrats should embrace a strategy that, if successful, will leave them as rudderless and divided as the gop currently is i think the outpouring of support for a leftist candidate, bernie sanders, who is still extremely popular (obama or greater levels of popular) is indication that the leftist agenda is able to bring us electoral success. bernie started late in the primaries and he wasn't considered an actual possible candidate for president for a good while in the primaries. i think the amount of success his run had despite how last-minute and unprepared it was indicates that there's a hunger not specifically for leftism, but for the ideas that are linked to it. Things like much cheaper or free university, healthcare for all, and protecting and raising the wages of low-income workers. and no, i don't think bernie should run in 2020, but I think if we can find a younger person capable of claiming bernie's mantle, we'd do real well in the 2020 elections
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:And look at the substantial shifts in GOP opinion on free trade and Russia since Trump got the nomination. He told the base to get hosed on those issues and they loved him for it. he didn't really tell the base to get hosed, just leapt on their opinion changing when russia leaked hillary's dirty laundry
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:He really did tell them to get hosed did you pay attention to the Republican primary at all? i did not watch the republican primary cause i'm not a republican. that being said, i don't see trump telling his base to get hosed in that clip. he deflects from russia as much as he can, and when supporting them or syria it's always couched in "well, what about those guys obama's supporting? who knows what the hell they're up to!" that's not anywhere near telling your base to get hosed jefferson
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Did you see the end where he was bagging on Bush's failed foreign policy? bush isn't russia quote:Here's another debate where he yells at the crowd booing him due to his Russia position and he suggests they're all Jeb's special interest supporters and lobbyists. He also shits on Lindsay Graham for the same reason. lol he didn't yell at the crowd, and they started clapping as soon as he started deflecting as quick as possible
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No, he's the republican establishment that was uniformly anti-Russia. that's a pretty big leap from "told his base to get hosed on russia" to "he poo poo on bush, who was anti-russia" JeffersonClay posted:LOL he called the crowd special interests and lobbyists when they booed him on his Russia position. But keep raging against reality dude. which he then deflected from until they started clapping. still far from telling his base to get hosed jefferson.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
stone cold posted:If you click here: actually i started a whole nother argument. thanks for your concern tho JeffersonClay posted:In the video i just posted he was yelling at the voters in the audience who supported the establishment, dude. some voters in the audience is not "the base" jefferson. if you wanna change your argument to "trump was a jackass to a lot of people including republicans, and republicans still voted for him" i'll agree.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 01:40
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No, bush supporters were the base, until Trump told them all to get hosed and won the primary anyway. i think that the fact that his supporters weren't enough to win him the primary indicates his supporters weren't the base
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You think it's a good thing for sweatshop laborers to lose their jobs and have repeatedly stated you don't give a poo poo what happens to them as long as US manufacturing benefits. the joyful tortoise wasn't anyone's favorite lol. that's why they didn't coalesce around him.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
looks like we just got an answer, and it's not just a no, but an emphatic hell no! https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/17/hillary-clinton-ready-to-return-politics Hillary Clinton posted:“I am ready to come out of the woods and to help shine a light on what is already happening around kitchen tables, at dinners like this, to help draw strength that will enable everybody to keep going,” said Clinton, who was spotted taking a walk in the woods around her hometown of Chappaqua, New York, two days after losing the election to Donald Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Thank God. I was sick of hearing " i too am glad that unprecedented failure hillary maintains her grip on the party and we will have 8 years of trump
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2017 18:22
|
|
mean old Hillary abandoned the people and disappeared from politics, unlike real freedom fighters like Bernie". It'll be nice to hear less of that and more of "
|
looking forward to hillary leading dems to new and inventive forms of political failure
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Yeah, because she had such an iron grip on the party in 2008 and 2016. is that supposed to be a joke? https://twitter.com/BenSpielberg/status/842945874095489024/photo/1 Condiv fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Mar 18, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Where will these charismatic and powerful campaigners come from? Chicago, apparently. Bernie had a popular message, but he wasn't as good of a campaigner or politician as Obama was, and his campaign made some crucial mistakes. We're sure not gonna get more winners on the left by ignoring Bernie's weaknesses and pretending he was absolutely perfect in every way and was just robbed by the invincible, unbeatable establishment. Sure, the existing Democrats generally favored and endorsed Clinton (though there were plenty of exceptions), but that's kind of the definition of being an outsider candidate, so there's no point whining about it being unfair. The dems did more than generally favor hillary, they broke their own rules to benefit her. It's really hard to get an objective view of bernie's strengths and weaknesses when the contest was tilted in Hillary's favor by an unknown degree. Unfortunately, dems are interested in making sure we never know exactly how much the DNC intervened on her behalf.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:The primary wasn't close. Yes, the Democratic establishment favored Hillary, but it shouldn't be surprising that career Democratic party workers would prefer the person who has a long history in the party rather than the guy who joined them just to run for president (and who left right after!). it should be surprising since the dem party charter says they're supposed to remain neutral during the primary and not influence it. donna brazile leaking debate questions to hillary clinton goes far beyond "preference" to collusion. quote:The right answer is for leftists to take over the party. If we remain outsiders we will always be treated like this. i don't think bernie should run for pres in 2020, but he may be our only choice in the worst case. Condiv fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Mar 19, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Bernie couldn't come close to beating Hillary, and Hillary lost to Trump. By what logic could you see that working well at all? bernie was a last minute protest campaign that had the dem party apparatus p much aligned against it. i think he did p well considering, and if it was 2020, bernie would definitely win a primary against hillary (she can't even argue she's electable anymore). like i don't know if you're aware, but bernie's favoribility since he was in the primary has skyrocketed, to the point where he might even beat out obama's favoribility. what's hillary's favoribility? well, the last polling huffpo has for her had her at negative favorability. hillary would be dead in the water compared to bernie in 2020 if it came to that. hopefully it doesn't and we have a younger leftist candidate available by then. Condiv fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Mar 19, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:I think he did pretty poorly considering how much baggage Hillary Clinton had. He did bring out the misogynistic left wing in full force though, that was a hell of an eye opener. Then he quit the party again, because he'd rather be able to say "I told you so" than actually take part in making things better. uh.. you say you're a bernie fan yet you're spouting baddem talking points... so, you are aware that he was elected as an independent and he feels he should complete his term as an independent, but that he will run as a dem in 2018 right? also, the bernie bro myth was just that, a myth. you are also aware that bernie has been fighting hard, not just on his own behalf but on behalf of the democratic party, against donald trump. the WV townhall could be considered a masterstroke rebuttal of donald trump's listening session. dems should be on their knees thanking god every day that he has gifted them bernie sanders. it will be bad if bernie has to run in 2020, and it would be a disgrace, but only because the hillary wing had managed to staunch the growth of the left in the dem party. bernie would win the primary and beat trump if he had to though. he is just that popular, and he's bringing out everyone. Condiv fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Mar 19, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:What's baddem? I'm pointing out what I saw. I, with my own eyes, saw some pretty misogynistic poo poo from Bernie supporters directed at Hillary. I don't think Bernie supporters were much of a factor in her loss, but as a woman who cares about politics it was pretty depressing to see. misogyny was going to become a lot more visible in this kind of race, but misogynists were a tiny, tiny minority of his supporters. there are a lot of bernie posters in c-spam who are women. there are a lot of bernie posters that are PoC too. the myth that bernie attracted only misogynist white males was propagated by the clinton campaign to smear bernie. it's what she does. she did it to obama and his supporters in 2008 too.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:I didn't say anything contradicting any of this. I definitely never said that Bernie only attracted misogynistic white males, I'm sure they were a small minority. But take a good hard look at what happens when a woman says "I, with my own eyes, saw some pretty misogynistic poo poo from Bernie supporters directed at Hillary. I don't think Bernie supporters were much of a factor in her loss, but as a woman who cares about politics it was pretty depressing to see." I immediately get shouted down by people telling me it's a myth. DeadlyMuffin posted:He did bring out the misogynistic left wing in full force though, that was a hell of an eye opener I guess it was this sentence that gave me the impression that you were saying that a good deal of bernie's supporters were misogynist. why do you intimate that he was especially apt at bringing out this miniscule minority of his base?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Your impression is incorrect, I was not saying that a good deal of Bernie's supporters were misogynists. I think the reason the primary brought out the misogynistic left wing is a combination of gender being an issue in the campaign, with Hillary potentially being the first female president (and some women rightfully being excited about that), the misogyny of the Trump campaign bringing that kind of discussion to the fore on both sides, and some people who didn't like Clinton using her gender as one more thing to attack her about rather than attack her on policy. so his candidacy didn't bring misogynists out at all, hillary's candidacy just made the ones in bernie's camp more visible to you. there were misogynists in hillary's camp too
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
WillyTheNewGuy posted:Did they ever release the vote tally? yes they did
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 05:47
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:does the constant heckling of clinton serve any non-masturbatory function? this is like the sixth thread that has descended into rage-induced fantasies about vast clintonian conspiracies and establishment subterfuge. it serves as a constant reminder of what a poo poo candidate she was also, there was both ideological and personal issues with her. the personal issues appear to be more in the vein of "hillary is arrogant and condescending" than "i just don't like her" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yC7-JsR2Fk quote:idk how this is a "gently caress the democratic party" story so much as a "private consulting firm accepts client" story lol ok
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:who are you reminding? i think literally everyone on something awful dot com knows that d&d hates clinton there are a lot of hillaries in D&D for a forum that hates clinton. ones that will rush to defend her from even the mildest criticism. i'm not sure that these hillary fanatics won't be repeating that abuela is electable, and competent, etc in 2-3 years. so i think it's a good idea to periodically remind everyone that no, hillary is in fact poo poo, and she should never be trusted on anything again. as for your "personal issues matter more than ideological ones" conclusion from that article, i dunno why you'd make that conclusion from watching a video that only highlights clinton's personal issues. her ideological issues were a significant problem for her too and were a big reason why she was not able to switch to a simple message to fight trump back with. all the simple messages she could've used to counter trump do not align with the interests and ideology of her donors, so she was stripped of her ability to use them. it's incredibly amazing to me that a republican was able to claim the mantle of caring about the poor more than hillary was, entirely because she could not actually fight back in a way a traditional, non-corrupt democrat could. Condiv fucked around with this message at 14:31 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
also, i don't know how much of D&D agrees yet, but I think it's p clear by now that the clintons are heavily corrupt. their daughter received numerous well-paying gift jobs from news networks and such. i don't know how a politician can try to claim that their kid receiving a $26k a minute salary from NBC will not have any sway on their policies.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:That isn't what corruption means. Though it's very distasteful. They gave her daughter a job so that she would misuse her power to benefit them In most first world nations something like this would sink her. Not the corruption friendly US though
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Child of rich, famous and influential parents getting a good job is not a scandal. No one cares. It's SOP. Actually a lot of people care. Why do you think people call Clinton corrupt all the time? It's cause she pulls poo poo like this. Why do you think people wanted an outsider candidate so bad? Cause they want free of the corruption of the dems and republicans. By giving corrupt dems a pass, you feed the fascism that threatens to consume this country.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:They don't call her corrupt because her daughter got a dumb job. They call her corrupt because she's been in Washington for 30 years and has had 30 years of bullshit slung at her by republicans. I'm not giving her a free pass and I didn't vote for her in the primary but the idea that she's corrupt is right wing fever swamp bullshit. She's a middle of the road typical politician who made a lot of money off her position which puts her in the same position as Obama and the vast majority of members of both parties. That isn't corruption. How anyone can call that corruption after the blatant quid pro quo self dealing that we're seeing in the white house right now is mind boggling. The false equivalence is stomach turning. Lol no she's corrupt cause she had 30 years of bribes. And I strongly disagree that this arrangement isn't corruption cause everyone's doing it. People are pissed cause congress is massively corrupt and not representing their interests. Trumps massive corruption is just the natural extension of the corruption plaguing washington. Stop enabling corruption if you don't want it to grow worse.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:it's a bit odd that you're so focused on Clinton in this regard when nepotism and networking amongst the rentier class is much more a structural issue than a personal one. Like i'm sympathetic to your argument that nepotism is corruption, but it seems to me more like the inevitable result of the concentration of capital (and power) in few hands. I specifically mention Clinton cause everyone was trying to pretend she wasn't corrupt as gently caress. And yes, this nepotism and corruption is endemic, and it pisses me off that dems defend similarly corrupt politicians.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Your false equivalence here is what has enabled corruption to grow worse. It's why Trump is the president. Actually you'll find I had no actual ability to stop trump's presidency once the primary had passed. And I'd like to know how me being anti corruption actually caused more corruption. It probably requires rhetorical acrobatics similar to those used to claim minimum wage advocacy hurts the poor.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:70%+ of those who had negative views of both candidates voted for Trump. Textbook false equivalency thinking and the reason he won. Problem with that reasoning is that I live in a blood red state no one believed clinton had a snowball's chance in even when flawed polling was overestimating her chances. Of course, I took advantage of my "good fortune" by casting a protest vote for Gloria la riva that had the exact same effect on the outcome on the election that a vote for Hillary would've got me. I literally had no outcome on the election past the primary, no matter how much you want to pretend I did. If I had lived in a blue or swing state I'd have held my nose and voted for her, but as a powerless dem in a state abandoned by dems, that wasn't a choice I had to make.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:a few thousand morons just like you in wisconsin though... yeah, dems should probably stop calling people whose votes they want morons. Also maybe not abandon unions in violation of their campaign promises and actually visit states, but let's start with the easy mode goal of not attacking their own base
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 07:01 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:It's not you personally, it's the thousands of people who have the same moronic views as you. You mean the ones who held their nose and voted hillary in the general? Cause I would've if I lived somewhere where a vote for a dem president could possibly win. I'm not sure how that's responsible for hillary losing, but you're the smart guy here. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 17:11
|
|