The Coin Return Foundational Fundraiser is here! Please donate!
DNC Chair Election: Tom Perez Wins
enlightenedbum
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So when last we could discuss Democratic politics, there was only one candidate in the race to be the new chair of the Democratic National Committee. That was Keith Ellison, the Congressman from Minnesota. He has the endorsements of some establishment members of the party (Chuck Schumber, notably) and major figures who are popular with the liberal base, like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. The one concern people had was that Democrats want a full time chairperson, so Ellison has promised to resign his seat in Congress if he were elected chair. There were a few minor figures, like the chair of the New Hampshire Dems, running, but it didn't look like much of a race.
The New York Times says that is about to change. Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez has decided to run for the position, rather than attempting to become Governor of Maryland in 2018. Perez has a really interesting background. Is the Secretary of Labor, and has been a good one by most progressive accounts. Used to be a civil rights lawyer in Justice. Born in Buffalo so is familiar with the Rust Belt experience. Is the son of Dominican immigrants so has Latino roots as well. He's on the left side of the party ideologically, but can fairly be described as more establishment than Ellison. He'll probably have Obama's tacit backing, if not formal backing, for example. A flaw is he has little electoral experience.
My opinion: both good candidates, though I'd rather have Perez try to knock off Hogan as he's a guy who with some electoral experience could become a powerful force for Democrats. Dunno if he would if he loses this. Both have backgrounds that understand the importance of organizing. Not really sure we can lose here unless people become really partisan and obnoxious about the whole thing.
So on that note:
This thread is Jeffe approved.
He hated me for bringing that link to his attention and asking to make the thread though.
Because all of our Democratic threads become acrimonious threads full of goosery.
Let's not do that.
No discussion of the Presidential election itself, though if you think there are demographic groups one candidate or the other is more likely to appeal to that you feel like Democrats need, in that narrow circumstance it might be OK to discuss the results. Definitely no relitigating of the Democratic primary. Please.
The New York Times says that is about to change. Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez has decided to run for the position, rather than attempting to become Governor of Maryland in 2018. Perez has a really interesting background. Is the Secretary of Labor, and has been a good one by most progressive accounts. Used to be a civil rights lawyer in Justice. Born in Buffalo so is familiar with the Rust Belt experience. Is the son of Dominican immigrants so has Latino roots as well. He's on the left side of the party ideologically, but can fairly be described as more establishment than Ellison. He'll probably have Obama's tacit backing, if not formal backing, for example. A flaw is he has little electoral experience.
My opinion: both good candidates, though I'd rather have Perez try to knock off Hogan as he's a guy who with some electoral experience could become a powerful force for Democrats. Dunno if he would if he loses this. Both have backgrounds that understand the importance of organizing. Not really sure we can lose here unless people become really partisan and obnoxious about the whole thing.
So on that note:
This thread is Jeffe approved.
He hated me for bringing that link to his attention and asking to make the thread though.
Because all of our Democratic threads become acrimonious threads full of goosery.
Let's not do that.
No discussion of the Presidential election itself, though if you think there are demographic groups one candidate or the other is more likely to appeal to that you feel like Democrats need, in that narrow circumstance it might be OK to discuss the results. Definitely no relitigating of the Democratic primary. Please.
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
enlightenedbum on
+9
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
I'm neither here nor there on whether Ellison or Perez would be a better DNC head, but the impact on Maryland race is kind of a thing.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I think the role of the head of the DNC is also VASTLY overestimated. It seems primarily to exist as a scapegoat in the imagination of Democrats. The DNC can't magically create good candidates willing to run and doesn't really have the power to dictate campaign strategy for sitting Congressmen/Governors/Senators (or to rig primaries).
Maybe it should be more powerful like the head of the RNC is but it doesn't seem likely to occur unless we become as disciplined as Republicans. Given the fractious and unreliable nature of a good part of the Democratic base, that seems unlikely.
I am glad there doesn't seem to be a big white working class are everything candidate
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Also the figurehead status is not unimportant, given how many lefties got in a twist over DWS this election. We can help unify the party by ensuring the appearance of unification and unicorn-hood. Hope both these guys are very, very clean.
Wasserman was terrible though
Was 2014 the one where the strategy was for Democrats to run away from Obama as fast as possible?
Refusing to even admit they voted for him, yes
Perez would also be good as a means of trying to continue the Obama legacy, but I think I'd lean Ellison based on what the party seems to need at this moment.
He's a Republican in a Dem state, but with a very high approval rating even among Dems. It's going to be a tough race, and I don't know if it's fair to call it a long shot for Dems two years in advance, but we need the best candidate we can get.
No one has been able to say in what way. We had very few no uncontested Congressional seats. Fundraising was fine. She's not in charge of an agenda. This is what I mean by scapegoat. Dean also got too much credit in 2006
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Right, but that didn't happen. Some Democrats, primarily those in red states or districts did. But they didn't do it because DWS told them to. They did it because we're in an incredibly polarized, nationalized political environment and emphasizing independence was the only way many of them thought they had a chance when every indication said the GOP would make substantial gains. It was a midterm with a Democratic President, Obama's net job approval was -10 and in many places it was far lower.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Both of these guys have made a career out of throwing the finger to Republican policies (and in Perez's case, donors). Ellison has occasionally co-sponsored stuff in congress with Republicans, but only completely non-controversial, National Puppy Day sort of things. Perez worked in the Obama administration, but as Labor secretary, which basically makes him the Bizarro Lex Luthor to Republicans.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Are there none in the Democrat party?
That's a good description of both Ellison and Perez.
Folks that could actually be shown the ropes for getting involved in politics & offered a reasonably credible position within the organization without being burdened with an inter-party campaign.
People that young are building their political careers rather than running for president. Guys 40-60 are probably the ideal age for running for president.
What are you even talking about? There's no major party in the world offering major positions to 30 year-olds. That would be insane.
Ellison is 55, Perez is 53. Each is still looking at at least two more decades of political action, probably more.
The DNC has never been a springboard for higher office. It's an internal position that requires steady leadership and vision. That's the kind of thing that generally takes a while to develop.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
DNC Chair is a terminal or near-terminal position.
It's really not the sort of thing you use as a "career outlet" to people who are "figuring out their career stuff in life," any more than it makes sense to hire a kid straight out of undergrad as the CEO of GE because you think more young people should get involved with tech.
It's also only one position, so it's not like saying you'll open it up to 30 year olds will suddenly attract hundreds of thousands of young people to become permanently involved with the party.
Nepotism.
He's also been endorsed by the AFL-CIO. For those not following along, this is the largest federation of unions in the United States. Granted, union strength isn't what it used to be, but this is a big get for Ellison.
One thing the Democrats need to do: fix that. Without access to power and stability through the unions, working class men are really lashing out, flirting with far-right politics.
Public unions are done as soon as the new justice is in.
That milk is spilled.
This has been a long running problem for decades, though, thanks to America's unique conflation of class and race. Socially conservative union members fucking themselves over by aligning with capital on social issues has been going on for decades.
Part of the question is how much will there is to do that. Labor has been systematically defanged on many fronts in this country, and the Democrats had a fair bit to do with that, going back at least to Jimmy Carter deregulating the airline and trucking industries. The old guard of the Democratic party, for all the terror that's unfurled after this past month, has not shown itself to be moving quickly and aggressively towards change. So far we've had Chuck Schumer endorsing Ellison... and that's about it. About the only significant move at the top level of the party since then has been Nancy Pelosi getting her position as House Democratic Leader renewed, which is definitely not a sign of change.
This leaves labor, as well as a lot of more progressive voters, mulling over their options, which really fall into two well-tread paths: another party, or reforming the Democratic party from within. I think most of us here can agree that trying to start a new party is a dead end. If you're curious about the roadblocks in the path of that option, this is a very good read. Ever heard of the 1990s Labor Party? If not, look that article over.
My personal fear is that what has happened is not enough. After Romney lost in 2012 there were about four months before the RNC put out their infamous autopsy report, but in those four months there was a lot of handwringing and arguing in the Republican establishment about mistakes made. So far, personally, speaking, what I've seen in the Democratic establishment has not been that. It's been casting about for sources of external blame. In that atmosphere, I read something like Chuck Schumer endorsing Keith Ellison less as a sign of real progressive change for the party, and more as a move by Schumer to keep the hounds from baying for his blood.
It may take another loss, a big one, before the party is forced to change. And I say forced for a reason. I'm not confident a course correction will come from the top down, even if Ellison does nab the DNC chair.
Both meet the progressive litmus test, so the question of qualifications comes from who is more well-connected and who has the ability to rally support, and i would say that is Ellison with legislative experience and his midwestern connections would be better-suited for what we're doing rather than Perez who has experience only in and around the beltway, apparently.
Perez should try for Maryland governor, he has more of a future politically than Ellison probably does.
Young people do get involved in politics. That's where old people in politics come from. What young people don't do is vote. But they don't vote, like, everywhere.
Buttigieg: dark horse but emerging as second choice and a possible compromise for the assholes making Ellison/Perez a Sanders/Clinton fight.
Perez: Trump's claims about illegal voters are "bullshit, plan and simple.' Also says "We can't go to a knife fight with a spoon - we've got to come with a bazooka."
Ellison: Referencing the old Republican speech about how they win when fewer people vote.
Where *can* we flex acceptably? Can candidates be anti-Roe v. Wade, or merely personally pro-life but won't vote against reproductive rights, or do they have to be enthusiastically pro-choice? Can certain candidates stand up for the 2nd amendment and say guns are fine, we just need to be safe about them. Can candidates be pro-war?
The rest is only strategy. Should we only focus on winnable races, how do we impact turnout, and how can we reconcile winnable races with the ideological requirements?
I don't know if he's ready to lead the national party yet, but he's definitely got one hell of an attractive personality. I don't know that I've encountered someone who didn't like Pete almost immediately. And he's somehow managed to give South Bend a bit of civic pride again, which is incredible given that that city had spent nearly fifty years in mourning over the demise of the Studebaker Corporation.
He seems young enough that he should be shooting for higher office. Dem candidate for the next round against the new Indiana governor in 2020, perhaps, and then parlay that into a presidential run in 2024 if he does well and the country is still standing (assuming 8 years of Trump, if not he can hold off till 2028 to succeed the antitrump).
Perez too should be pursuing higher office (succeed Larry Hogan). Ellison seems best-suited for the position, because climbing from Congressman is a slower route and Minnesota already has a Dem governor and two Dem senators. For strategic purposes alone, Ellison should be the man.
I disagree. I believe we should not back down from our ideals, but we need broad consensus on what those ideals are. Republicans win in midterms and in this past election because they believe they have something to vote for, an ideological goal to pursue. Democrats, notoriously, do not. They lost this election not to some great rising of the Right but due to the apathy of the Left. It feels like "Trump is a monster" should have been sufficient, but it clearly wasn't.
The demographic makeup that did not turn out was largely young, minority, or working class. Whoever the DNC chair is needs to put together a simple, straightforward, appealing message that speaks to those constituencies and fires them up in a way previous messaging did not. Only then will races be won.
We should not be considering how to woo people who will almost certainly never vote democrat. We need to ignite the spirits of the people who would like to vote democratic, but see no compelling reason to.
My thinking is more on 50-state strategies. Candidates running in states that are red and trending redder shouldn't hobble themselves by taking positions on wedge issues that immediately alienate the majority, *especially* for state-level races where you don't need their cooperation for national efforts.
I guess really, the question of ideological flexibility is only a problem for federal races so that you get a majority that can actually agree on progressive legislation.