It's worth noting that the person she's filling the seat for won a 51/49 squeeker two years ago. Hansen won 58/41 And turnout was UP for the special election, compared to 2014, entirely among Democrats.
I'm not sure how her numbers compared to the Presidential race.
It's a small win. But they all are until they add together.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds.2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
0
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
For those of you who don't want to take my word for it, here are a couple of articles that sum up a lot of the Leftist reaction to the DNC race I'm seeing outside of this website:
These are representative of what seem to be fairly widespread sentiments. The left-center divide in the Democratic party isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
For those of you who don't want to take my word for it, here are a couple of articles that sum up a lot of the Leftist reaction to the DNC race I'm seeing outside of this website:
These are representative of what seem to be fairly widespread sentiments. The left-center divide in the Democratic party isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
Eh. We'll see if it's actually widespread. My suspicion is most of the base isn't even paying attention.
Those people writing that stuff continue to be morons though.
+11
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
For those of you who don't want to take my word for it, here are a couple of articles that sum up a lot of the Leftist reaction to the DNC race I'm seeing outside of this website:
These are representative of what seem to be fairly widespread sentiments. The left-center divide in the Democratic party isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
Eh. We'll see if it's actually widespread. My suspicion is most of the base isn't even paying attention.
Those people writing that stuff continue to be morons though.
The center dismisses these points of view at its own peril.
It could be that left activists are unhappy, but it's not all bad. Being inside is just one way to change things to your liking; there are movement politics, primaries, etc. And they're free to squeeze as hard they want.
For those of you who don't want to take my word for it, here are a couple of articles that sum up a lot of the Leftist reaction to the DNC race I'm seeing outside of this website:
These are representative of what seem to be fairly widespread sentiments. The left-center divide in the Democratic party isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
Eh. We'll see if it's actually widespread. My suspicion is most of the base isn't even paying attention.
Those people writing that stuff continue to be morons though.
The center dismisses these points of view at its own peril.
Maybe. Or maybe it's just a few cranks and this whole fight was a goddamn fantasy spun from nothing. The two guys question certainly seem to think so.
No, there's definitely something about Ellison that caused him to finish second even though he seemed to be the early favorite no one had objections to.
No, there's definitely something about Ellison that caused him to finish second even though he seemed to be the early favorite no one had objections to.
Perez had more friends?
There's lots of potential reasons that have nothing to do with the continued implications being made.
Didn't he enter the race relatively early? If so, then of course he would be an early favorite. That doesn't mean someone people end up liking more won't enter.
For those of you who don't want to take my word for it, here are a couple of articles that sum up a lot of the Leftist reaction to the DNC race I'm seeing outside of this website:
These are representative of what seem to be fairly widespread sentiments. The left-center divide in the Democratic party isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
Eh. We'll see if it's actually widespread. My suspicion is most of the base isn't even paying attention.
Those people writing that stuff continue to be morons though.
The center dismisses these points of view at its own peril.
For those of you who don't want to take my word for it, here are a couple of articles that sum up a lot of the Leftist reaction to the DNC race I'm seeing outside of this website:
These are representative of what seem to be fairly widespread sentiments. The left-center divide in the Democratic party isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
Eh. We'll see if it's actually widespread. My suspicion is most of the base isn't even paying attention.
Those people writing that stuff continue to be morons though.
The center dismisses these points of view at its own peril.
The left perpetuates them at its own peril
This kind of back-and-forth sniping isn't productive. The progressive left needs to learn that the good is not the enemy of the perfect. The center left needs to understand that some people won't be happy with just small, incremental changes and that they need to throw some red meat to the base once in a while to get them to the polls.
We need to work together and find a way to vote in lockstep or we're going to continue to lose. Perez is fine as DNC chair. Now what I expect to see from him is a bottom-to-top effort to start a blood transfusion in the party. That means getting new progressives and center-left people running for previously uncontested seats. That means directing funds to ambitious, wonky, center-left allies in areas where they can be competitive, and bold, radical populists in areas where they can be competitive. That means knocking off the incestuous power trading and forging new paths for advancement in the Democratic Party by scouting talent and rewarding it.
We need each other. If we don't find a way to re-forge the Democratic coalition in a healthy, viable in the long term manner, we will never sit at the helm again.
People on the left aren't crazy to think they lost. They did lose, they had preferred candidate and for whatever reason he wasn't the winner, which is fine because you don't get to dictate outcomes. But it's not a fantasy for them to think that they lost, and the message of you well you actually won because you totally got you wanted just candidate with a different name that is the other people's preference, and actually there was no real contest here, and this position doesn't even matter (even though it seem to matter enough for plenty of energy to be spent on it) is all pretty unconvincing.
+11
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
People on the left aren't crazy to think they lost. They did lose, they had preferred candidate and for whatever reason he wasn't the winner, which is fine because you don't get to dictate outcomes. But it's not a fantasy for them to think that they lost, and the message of you well you actually won because you totally got you wanted just candidate with a different name that is the other people's preference, and actually there was no real contest here, and this position doesn't even matter (even though it seem to matter enough for plenty of energy to be spent on it) is all pretty unconvincing.
Can anyone articulate what they think will not be achieved by Perez that would have been achieved by Ellison? Because it seems they just became proxies for morons who want to fight about the primary, when we lost the general 4 months ago. They certainly seem to think there's no real daylight between them. I trust Ellison to know what he wants more than someone who has likely never even met the guy.
People on the left aren't crazy to think they lost. They did lose, they had preferred candidate and for whatever reason he wasn't the winner, which is fine because you don't get to dictate outcomes. But it's not a fantasy for them to think that they lost, and the message of you well you actually won because you totally got you wanted just candidate with a different name that is the other people's preference, and actually there was no real contest here, and this position doesn't even matter (even though it seem to matter enough for plenty of energy to be spent on it) is all pretty unconvincing.
This tweet basically illustrates what is being said to counter your assertion here:
They didn't get the exact candidate they wanted? Yeah.
The idea as put forward by things like the articles fakefaux posted above about this being the establishment striking a blow at the progressive wing is ridiculous though.
It's what they think they lost that is what makes the idea crazy.
The one thing that I found truly questionable about this affair was the opposition research that was disseminated claiming Ellison to be an anti-Semite.
The Obama people wanting Perez to run doesn't really strike me as nefarious - with their chosen successor having lost the presidency, they wanted one of their own at the helm of the party's organizing apparatus. Of course now it's incumbent on Perez to work double-time on demonstrating he wants the organizing/fundraising apparatus to change, and keeping Ellison in the org's orbit immediately after Perez was confirmed is a good initial step (and now Ellison gets to continue his presence in the house).
But why was there talk of Ellison's college-age involvement/interest in the Nation of Islam? Why the fuck are we hearing from Alan goddamned Dershowitz, as if he is anybody relevant to the Dem party's interests and future? That's the part of this whole "this vote is only a symbolic formality, nothing to see here" frame which doesn't jive with me.
CptKemzik on
+3
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
For those of you who don't want to take my word for it, here are a couple of articles that sum up a lot of the Leftist reaction to the DNC race I'm seeing outside of this website:
These are representative of what seem to be fairly widespread sentiments. The left-center divide in the Democratic party isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
Eh. We'll see if it's actually widespread. My suspicion is most of the base isn't even paying attention.
Those people writing that stuff continue to be morons though.
The center dismisses these points of view at its own peril.
The left perpetuates them at its own peril
This kind of back-and-forth sniping isn't productive. The progressive left needs to learn that the good is not the enemy of the perfect. The center left needs to understand that some people won't be happy with just small, incremental changes and that they need to throw some red meat to the base once in a while to get them to the polls.
We need to work together and find a way to vote in lockstep or we're going to continue to lose. Perez is fine as DNC chair. Now what I expect to see from him is a bottom-to-top effort to start a blood transfusion in the party. That means getting new progressives and center-left people running for previously uncontested seats. That means directing funds to ambitious, wonky, center-left allies in areas where they can be competitive, and bold, radical populists in areas where they can be competitive. That means knocking off the incestuous power trading and forging new paths for advancement in the Democratic Party by scouting talent and rewarding it.
We need each other. If we don't find a way to re-forge the Democratic coalition in a healthy, viable in the long term manner, we will never sit at the helm again.
Fun fact: Ellison pledged to ban corporate lobbyist donations to the DNC while Perez refused to rule it out. Another fun fact, mentioned in that second link, is refusing such donations was originally an Obama era policy that was quietly dropped under Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
This was of the few open policy differences between the two candidates.
People on the left aren't crazy to think they lost. They did lose, they had preferred candidate and for whatever reason he wasn't the winner, which is fine because you don't get to dictate outcomes. But it's not a fantasy for them to think that they lost, and the message of you well you actually won because you totally got you wanted just candidate with a different name that is the other people's preference, and actually there was no real contest here, and this position doesn't even matter (even though it seem to matter enough for plenty of energy to be spent on it) is all pretty unconvincing.
But what was the end goal? How you define winning or losing seems to depend on that quite a bit.
Was the final goal to elect a better leader of the DNC, since DWS was so bad at the job? Or was the goal to only elect this one guy specifically?
Because if winning or losing is only measured by whether or not you get your way, then yeah some people will never be happy. But then it seems like they have their own personal desires as more important than the larger goal.
People on the left aren't crazy to think they lost. They did lose, they had preferred candidate and for whatever reason he wasn't the winner, which is fine because you don't get to dictate outcomes. But it's not a fantasy for them to think that they lost, and the message of you well you actually won because you totally got you wanted just candidate with a different name that is the other people's preference, and actually there was no real contest here, and this position doesn't even matter (even though it seem to matter enough for plenty of energy to be spent on it) is all pretty unconvincing.
But what was the end goal? How you define winning or losing seems to depend on that quite a bit.
Was the final goal to elect a better leader of the DNC, since DWS was so bad at the job? Or was the goal to only elect this one guy specifically?
Because if winning or losing is only measured by whether or not you get your way, then yeah some people will never be happy. But then it seems like they have their own personal desires as more important than the larger goal.
They definitely have a larger goal, and like other people participating in the politics believe that their way how you achieve that larger goal. If they didn't, they would care.
I'm disappointed in the results but also I do think they are kind of right. Until millennials actually show up for non-4 year ballots, well, you can't really argue against it.
This thread consistently manages to depress me and/or enrage me in a way that even the various Trump threads cannot.
Maybe because I expected Trump to be a nightmare, but naively assumed seeing what a GOP-dominated government does to America would allow the left to get its shit together.
I am far-left on pretty much everything. I think far-left policies should be the mainstream of the Democratic party, and would work better than what we've been doing. And yet the behavior of Bernie drove me to Clinton, and I'm worried and angry that the Bernie-Bro types will our-way-or-the-highway us right back to centrist policy, because they refuse to be assimilated and make their policies part of the mainstream party.
I want Ellisons to win, but losing to a Perez isn't a bad thing. Before now, it wouldn't have been a Perez! This is significant progress.
(I hope that's not too harsh, I had like two or three drafts I went through that definitely weren't appropriate. I'm super upset by what the DNC election has revealed, I guess.)
Kamar on
+6
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
This thread consistently manages to depress me and/or enrage me in a way that even the various Trump threads cannot.
Maybe because I expected Trump to be a nightmare, but naively assumed seeing what a GOP-dominated government does to America would allow the left to get its shit together.
I am far-left on pretty much everything. I think far-left policies should be the mainstream of the Democratic party, and would work better than what we've been doing. And yet the behavior of Bernie drove me to Clinton, and I'm worried and angry that the Bernie-Bro types will our-way-or-the-highway us right back to centrist policy, because they refuse to be assimilated and make their policies part of the mainstream party.
I want Ellisons to win, but losing to a Perez isn't a bad thing. Before now, it wouldn't have been a Perez! This is significant progress.
(I hope that's not too harsh, I had like two or three drafts I went through that definitely weren't appropriate. I'm super upset by what the DNC election has revealed, I guess.)
The issue is, the leftists don't beleive their goals and ideals would be assimilated if they just stepped into line. From their perspective, only putting pressure on the party will make it change.
This thread consistently manages to depress me and/or enrage me in a way that even the various Trump threads cannot.
Maybe because I expected Trump to be a nightmare, but naively assumed seeing what a GOP-dominated government does to America would allow the left to get its shit together.
I am far-left on pretty much everything. I think far-left policies should be the mainstream of the Democratic party, and would work better than what we've been doing. And yet the behavior of Bernie drove me to Clinton, and I'm worried and angry that the Bernie-Bro types will our-way-or-the-highway us right back to centrist policy, because they refuse to be assimilated and make their policies part of the mainstream party.
I want Ellisons to win, but losing to a Perez isn't a bad thing. Before now, it wouldn't have been a Perez! This is significant progress.
(I hope that's not too harsh, I had like two or three drafts I went through that definitely weren't appropriate. I'm super upset by what the DNC election has revealed, I guess.)
The issue is, the leftists don't beleive their goals and ideals would be assimilated if they just stepped into line. From their perspective, only putting pressure on the party will make it change.
But that's out of tune with reality. As evidenced by how rapidly much of the establishment has shifted left in recent years. Whether it's pressure from the left forcing them left or just having maneuvering room to take the positions they wanted to take, the fact of the matter is that it has happened.
I'm fine with contentious primaries, if they end at the primary. Hell, I'm fine with primaries that end up putting a republican in a seat, if the democrat in question sucks enough--scare the Blue Dogs a bit, so they'll at least try to be democrats when they can.
The far-right bitches and pushes then votes R. The far-left bitches and pushes then stays home or votes I.
Is it a Muslim Ban or a Basic Income that seems more likely to you right now?
No, there's definitely something about Ellison that caused him to finish second even though he seemed to be the early favorite no one had objections to.
I think the Obama administration panicked after seeing what Jeremy Corbyn has done to the Labour Party. And Ellison's history as a member of the Nation of Islam had them imagining, wrongly, in my opinion, that he would be an American Corbyn leading the Democrats into irrelevancy.
It could be that left activists are unhappy, but it's not all bad. Being inside is just one way to change things to your liking; there are movement politics, primaries, etc. And they're free to squeeze as hard they want.
Yes, because Democrats have no history of playing for keeps when facing leftists within their own party and playing pattycake with the Great Adversary.
It could be that left activists are unhappy, but it's not all bad. Being inside is just one way to change things to your liking; there are movement politics, primaries, etc. And they're free to squeeze as hard they want.
Yes, because Democrats have no history of playing for keeps when facing leftists within their own party and playing pattycake with the Great Adversary.
Why such a strong dichotomy between leftists and the Democratic party?
Right now the party is not reacting remotely like they did in response to Reagan, H.W., or other major defeats, probably because the issue is seen as one of turnout and organization rather than being murdered on nearly every level like in 1988 and ideology getting the blame.
I think Perez's candidacy, and ultimately his win, was pretty definitely a move by the existing power structure of the party to try and keep what is in their mind a gaggle of inmates from ending up in charge of the asylum. And, completely unsurprisingly given the fact that there's been essentially no turnover in that power structure since the election, he won. By that token, the progressive wing pushing Ellison lost.
At the same time, it's important to recognize that they had to meet Progressives in at least the middle to get this W. Perez was on a lot of VP shortlists for the exact reason that he brings a ton of progressive cred to the table. People like me, a dyed in the wool activist progressive, really like the guy absent the larger context of this race. The power-holders didn't get a rout, they got a moderately successful rear guard action against what looks to be a rapidly changing outlook for the party. When the likes of Chuck Schumer is throwing in behind Ellison, you know the winds are changing. We're not a party of comfortable, quiet moderates anymore, and we're going to need to embrace that.
Ultimately, I don't think Perez is a bad pick for the job at all. The position is largely technocratic, and he's really good at that. He has his priorities in order for the most part, as well. And he was smart enough to recognize that he didn't get an outright win with this, while being friendly enough with a big chunk of the party dissenters to effectively address that. I expect he'll be good at the job, and right now that's what matters more than anything.
It could be that left activists are unhappy, but it's not all bad. Being inside is just one way to change things to your liking; there are movement politics, primaries, etc. And they're free to squeeze as hard they want.
Yes, because Democrats have no history of playing for keeps when facing leftists within their own party and playing pattycake with the Great Adversary.
Why such a strong dichotomy between leftists and the Democratic party?
Right now the party is not reacting remotely like they did in response to Reagan, H.W., or other major defeats, probably because the issue is seen as one of turnout and organization rather than being murdered on nearly every level like in 1988 and ideology getting the blame.
Which is funny, because they've been murdered much worse this time around, rendering them weaker than they've been in a century. Yet there's significant resistance towards any criticism of party ideology.
The Democrats do not want election reform. They do not want to fix things. They want to say "It was Russia. They won because they cheated." and continue on their merry way.
The Democrats do not want election reform. They do not want to fix things. They want to say "It was Russia. They won because they cheated." and continue on their merry way.
I don't really know how you can say this when Hillary and Bernie both ran with a stated goal of overturning citizens united.
It could be that left activists are unhappy, but it's not all bad. Being inside is just one way to change things to your liking; there are movement politics, primaries, etc. And they're free to squeeze as hard they want.
Yes, because Democrats have no history of playing for keeps when facing leftists within their own party and playing pattycake with the Great Adversary.
Why such a strong dichotomy between leftists and the Democratic party?
Right now the party is not reacting remotely like they did in response to Reagan, H.W., or other major defeats, probably because the issue is seen as one of turnout and organization rather than being murdered on nearly every level like in 1988 and ideology getting the blame.
Which is funny, because they've been murdered much worse this time around, rendering them weaker than they've been in a century. Yet there's significant resistance towards any criticism of party ideology.
There's a criticism of strategy. Our ideology is spot-on, as far as referendum results across the country seem to be indicating, as well as general responses to polling about our positions. The problem, broadly acknowledged, is that the party is failing to even field candidates for some winnable races and the party has this weird seniority system for who "deserves" to be nominated for a race, leading to Own Goals like running Martha Coakley for Governor in Massachusetts.
The current tragedy of the Democratic party is one of unforced errors, while the hard left seems to fixate on the 15% of issues where there's disagreement between them and the party platform.
The Democrats do not want election reform. They do not want to fix things. They want to say "It was Russia. They won because they cheated." and continue on their merry way.
I don't really know how you can say this when Hillary and Bernie both ran with a stated goal of overturning citizens united.
And when it's demonstrably true that Russia interfered heavily in the election.
The Democrats do not want election reform. They do not want to fix things. They want to say "It was Russia. They won because they cheated." and continue on their merry way.
Patently false, given Obama's stated interest in redistricting and people like Jason Kander starting groups to directly address voter suppression (https://www.letamericavote.org/).
It could be that left activists are unhappy, but it's not all bad. Being inside is just one way to change things to your liking; there are movement politics, primaries, etc. And they're free to squeeze as hard they want.
Yes, because Democrats have no history of playing for keeps when facing leftists within their own party and playing pattycake with the Great Adversary.
Why such a strong dichotomy between leftists and the Democratic party?
Right now the party is not reacting remotely like they did in response to Reagan, H.W., or other major defeats, probably because the issue is seen as one of turnout and organization rather than being murdered on nearly every level like in 1988 and ideology getting the blame.
Which is funny, because they've been murdered much worse this time around, rendering them weaker than they've been in a century. Yet there's significant resistance towards any criticism of party ideology.
There's a criticism of strategy. Our ideology is spot-on, as far as referendum results across the country seem to be indicating, as well as general responses to polling about our positions. The problem, broadly acknowledged, is that the party is failing to even field candidates for some winnable races and the party has this weird seniority system for who "deserves" to be nominated for a race, leading to Own Goals like running Martha Coakley for Governor in Massachusetts.
The current tragedy of the Democratic party is one of unforced errors, while the hard left seems to fixate on the 15% of issues where there's disagreement between them and the party platform.
Yeah, like, I don't see alot of big voices or big support for tacking centre from where, like, Clinton was.
0
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
It could be that left activists are unhappy, but it's not all bad. Being inside is just one way to change things to your liking; there are movement politics, primaries, etc. And they're free to squeeze as hard they want.
Yes, because Democrats have no history of playing for keeps when facing leftists within their own party and playing pattycake with the Great Adversary.
Why such a strong dichotomy between leftists and the Democratic party?
Right now the party is not reacting remotely like they did in response to Reagan, H.W., or other major defeats, probably because the issue is seen as one of turnout and organization rather than being murdered on nearly every level like in 1988 and ideology getting the blame.
Which is funny, because they've been murdered much worse this time around, rendering them weaker than they've been in a century. Yet there's significant resistance towards any criticism of party ideology.
There's a criticism of strategy. Our ideology is spot-on, as far as referendum results across the country seem to be indicating, as well as general responses to polling about our positions. The problem, broadly acknowledged, is that the party is failing to even field candidates for some winnable races and the party has this weird seniority system for who "deserves" to be nominated for a race, leading to Own Goals like running Martha Coakley for Governor in Massachusetts.
The current tragedy of the Democratic party is one of unforced errors, while the hard left seems to fixate on the 15% of issues where there's disagreement between them and the party platform.
Yeah, like, I don't see alot of big voices or big support for tacking centre from where, like, Clinton was.
Clinton was at the center.
+2
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
That's the concern I was seeing going through this whole thing. Specifically it had to do with DWS removing a rule in the 2016 election that resulted in lobbyist money flowing in. Whether or not it did anything is up to debate, but the gesture alone turned off a lot of people who have concerns about politicians serving those who pay them extra vs the constituency. (I say extra because all us tax payers pay politicians already, and a lot of money at that)
I was really surprised to see how hostile people on social media would get when, even mild-manneredly, Tom Perez would be questioned about undoing what DWS did when it came to lobbyist money. It struck a nerve very fast and it has me wondering how desperate people feel in the political fights to come, or how much they care about the sanctity of the job.
It could be that left activists are unhappy, but it's not all bad. Being inside is just one way to change things to your liking; there are movement politics, primaries, etc. And they're free to squeeze as hard they want.
Yes, because Democrats have no history of playing for keeps when facing leftists within their own party and playing pattycake with the Great Adversary.
Why such a strong dichotomy between leftists and the Democratic party?
Right now the party is not reacting remotely like they did in response to Reagan, H.W., or other major defeats, probably because the issue is seen as one of turnout and organization rather than being murdered on nearly every level like in 1988 and ideology getting the blame.
Which is funny, because they've been murdered much worse this time around, rendering them weaker than they've been in a century. Yet there's significant resistance towards any criticism of party ideology.
There's a criticism of strategy. Our ideology is spot-on, as far as referendum results across the country seem to be indicating, as well as general responses to polling about our positions. The problem, broadly acknowledged, is that the party is failing to even field candidates for some winnable races and the party has this weird seniority system for who "deserves" to be nominated for a race, leading to Own Goals like running Martha Coakley for Governor in Massachusetts.
The current tragedy of the Democratic party is one of unforced errors, while the hard left seems to fixate on the 15% of issues where there's disagreement between them and the party platform.
Yeah, like, I don't see alot of big voices or big support for tacking centre from where, like, Clinton was.
Clinton was at the center.
The centre of what exactly? According to what scale? She fielded the most progressive platform the Democratic party has had in many decades if not ever.
This election saw the Democrats move even more leftward and there seems little appetite in the currently reforming-itself DNC to change that.
Posts
I'm not sure how her numbers compared to the Presidential race.
It's a small win. But they all are until they add together.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Establishment Democrats Just Won a Needless Proxy War
Be clear about what happened to Keith Ellison
These are representative of what seem to be fairly widespread sentiments. The left-center divide in the Democratic party isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
Eh. We'll see if it's actually widespread. My suspicion is most of the base isn't even paying attention.
Those people writing that stuff continue to be morons though.
The center dismisses these points of view at its own peril.
Maybe. Or maybe it's just a few cranks and this whole fight was a goddamn fantasy spun from nothing. The two guys question certainly seem to think so.
Perez had more friends?
There's lots of potential reasons that have nothing to do with the continued implications being made.
That is a low bar to clear.
The left perpetuates them at its own peril
This kind of back-and-forth sniping isn't productive. The progressive left needs to learn that the good is not the enemy of the perfect. The center left needs to understand that some people won't be happy with just small, incremental changes and that they need to throw some red meat to the base once in a while to get them to the polls.
We need to work together and find a way to vote in lockstep or we're going to continue to lose. Perez is fine as DNC chair. Now what I expect to see from him is a bottom-to-top effort to start a blood transfusion in the party. That means getting new progressives and center-left people running for previously uncontested seats. That means directing funds to ambitious, wonky, center-left allies in areas where they can be competitive, and bold, radical populists in areas where they can be competitive. That means knocking off the incestuous power trading and forging new paths for advancement in the Democratic Party by scouting talent and rewarding it.
We need each other. If we don't find a way to re-forge the Democratic coalition in a healthy, viable in the long term manner, we will never sit at the helm again.
Can anyone articulate what they think will not be achieved by Perez that would have been achieved by Ellison? Because it seems they just became proxies for morons who want to fight about the primary, when we lost the general 4 months ago. They certainly seem to think there's no real daylight between them. I trust Ellison to know what he wants more than someone who has likely never even met the guy.
This tweet basically illustrates what is being said to counter your assertion here:
They didn't get the exact candidate they wanted? Yeah.
The idea as put forward by things like the articles fakefaux posted above about this being the establishment striking a blow at the progressive wing is ridiculous though.
It's what they think they lost that is what makes the idea crazy.
The Obama people wanting Perez to run doesn't really strike me as nefarious - with their chosen successor having lost the presidency, they wanted one of their own at the helm of the party's organizing apparatus. Of course now it's incumbent on Perez to work double-time on demonstrating he wants the organizing/fundraising apparatus to change, and keeping Ellison in the org's orbit immediately after Perez was confirmed is a good initial step (and now Ellison gets to continue his presence in the house).
But why was there talk of Ellison's college-age involvement/interest in the Nation of Islam? Why the fuck are we hearing from Alan goddamned Dershowitz, as if he is anybody relevant to the Dem party's interests and future? That's the part of this whole "this vote is only a symbolic formality, nothing to see here" frame which doesn't jive with me.
Fun fact: Ellison pledged to ban corporate lobbyist donations to the DNC while Perez refused to rule it out. Another fun fact, mentioned in that second link, is refusing such donations was originally an Obama era policy that was quietly dropped under Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
This was of the few open policy differences between the two candidates.
But what was the end goal? How you define winning or losing seems to depend on that quite a bit.
Was the final goal to elect a better leader of the DNC, since DWS was so bad at the job? Or was the goal to only elect this one guy specifically?
Because if winning or losing is only measured by whether or not you get your way, then yeah some people will never be happy. But then it seems like they have their own personal desires as more important than the larger goal.
They definitely have a larger goal, and like other people participating in the politics believe that their way how you achieve that larger goal. If they didn't, they would care.
Maybe because I expected Trump to be a nightmare, but naively assumed seeing what a GOP-dominated government does to America would allow the left to get its shit together.
I am far-left on pretty much everything. I think far-left policies should be the mainstream of the Democratic party, and would work better than what we've been doing. And yet the behavior of Bernie drove me to Clinton, and I'm worried and angry that the Bernie-Bro types will our-way-or-the-highway us right back to centrist policy, because they refuse to be assimilated and make their policies part of the mainstream party.
I want Ellisons to win, but losing to a Perez isn't a bad thing. Before now, it wouldn't have been a Perez! This is significant progress.
(I hope that's not too harsh, I had like two or three drafts I went through that definitely weren't appropriate. I'm super upset by what the DNC election has revealed, I guess.)
The issue is, the leftists don't beleive their goals and ideals would be assimilated if they just stepped into line. From their perspective, only putting pressure on the party will make it change.
But that's out of tune with reality. As evidenced by how rapidly much of the establishment has shifted left in recent years. Whether it's pressure from the left forcing them left or just having maneuvering room to take the positions they wanted to take, the fact of the matter is that it has happened.
I'm fine with contentious primaries, if they end at the primary. Hell, I'm fine with primaries that end up putting a republican in a seat, if the democrat in question sucks enough--scare the Blue Dogs a bit, so they'll at least try to be democrats when they can.
The far-right bitches and pushes then votes R. The far-left bitches and pushes then stays home or votes I.
Is it a Muslim Ban or a Basic Income that seems more likely to you right now?
I think the Obama administration panicked after seeing what Jeremy Corbyn has done to the Labour Party. And Ellison's history as a member of the Nation of Islam had them imagining, wrongly, in my opinion, that he would be an American Corbyn leading the Democrats into irrelevancy.
Yes, because Democrats have no history of playing for keeps when facing leftists within their own party and playing pattycake with the Great Adversary.
Why such a strong dichotomy between leftists and the Democratic party?
Right now the party is not reacting remotely like they did in response to Reagan, H.W., or other major defeats, probably because the issue is seen as one of turnout and organization rather than being murdered on nearly every level like in 1988 and ideology getting the blame.
So is the American left.
At the same time, it's important to recognize that they had to meet Progressives in at least the middle to get this W. Perez was on a lot of VP shortlists for the exact reason that he brings a ton of progressive cred to the table. People like me, a dyed in the wool activist progressive, really like the guy absent the larger context of this race. The power-holders didn't get a rout, they got a moderately successful rear guard action against what looks to be a rapidly changing outlook for the party. When the likes of Chuck Schumer is throwing in behind Ellison, you know the winds are changing. We're not a party of comfortable, quiet moderates anymore, and we're going to need to embrace that.
Ultimately, I don't think Perez is a bad pick for the job at all. The position is largely technocratic, and he's really good at that. He has his priorities in order for the most part, as well. And he was smart enough to recognize that he didn't get an outright win with this, while being friendly enough with a big chunk of the party dissenters to effectively address that. I expect he'll be good at the job, and right now that's what matters more than anything.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Which is funny, because they've been murdered much worse this time around, rendering them weaker than they've been in a century. Yet there's significant resistance towards any criticism of party ideology.
I don't really know how you can say this when Hillary and Bernie both ran with a stated goal of overturning citizens united.
There's a criticism of strategy. Our ideology is spot-on, as far as referendum results across the country seem to be indicating, as well as general responses to polling about our positions. The problem, broadly acknowledged, is that the party is failing to even field candidates for some winnable races and the party has this weird seniority system for who "deserves" to be nominated for a race, leading to Own Goals like running Martha Coakley for Governor in Massachusetts.
The current tragedy of the Democratic party is one of unforced errors, while the hard left seems to fixate on the 15% of issues where there's disagreement between them and the party platform.
And when it's demonstrably true that Russia interfered heavily in the election.
Patently false, given Obama's stated interest in redistricting and people like Jason Kander starting groups to directly address voter suppression (https://www.letamericavote.org/).
Yeah, like, I don't see alot of big voices or big support for tacking centre from where, like, Clinton was.
Clinton was at the center.
I was really surprised to see how hostile people on social media would get when, even mild-manneredly, Tom Perez would be questioned about undoing what DWS did when it came to lobbyist money. It struck a nerve very fast and it has me wondering how desperate people feel in the political fights to come, or how much they care about the sanctity of the job.
The centre of what exactly? According to what scale? She fielded the most progressive platform the Democratic party has had in many decades if not ever.
This election saw the Democrats move even more leftward and there seems little appetite in the currently reforming-itself DNC to change that.