We gotta start racking up wins somewhere. If the Senate map still looks rough in a year or so, there are other places to go.
The House is gerrymandered to hell and back, but those districts aren't designed to protect individual representatives so the margins of election for a lot of Republicans were pretty thin. The level of energy on the ground right now could flip a lot of that around fairly easily if it keeps up.
And we need to find candidates for every race. In every state, every township. I think both these guys get that, from the way they talk.
Yes and they need money. Saw something fly by on Facebook about a Georgia district where HRC won by 1.5% and no DCCC money is incoming to potential Dem candidates for the next elections because lol Georgia. That right there is where we need change.
There was a minor shitstorm over the party not having a single boot on the ground for the upcoming special election in Georgia. Places like DailyKos fired up the progressive internet money hose and the party got it's shit together and now things are looking up for what seems to be a pretty great candidate running for that seat.
It takes some time to turn the bloated, water-logged corpse of something as big as a national party apparatus around. Just like any other hard thing, though, pouring in energy seems to work.
Energy is what we've got right now. Glad to hear that race was addressed.
If you're talking about the Price seat that's going up for special election, then it did. The DCCC's got 9 organizers heading in and Ossoff has raised something north of $1 million from the internet.
Maybe this is the path forward?
Find us the candidates and let leftist groups help with the funding?
Non-presidential years only matter because of they imply a lack of energy and engagement on the part of Democrats.
This morning at the gym, all 4 televisions in front of my machine were showing some flavor of Democrats being highly engaged and rather full of energy.
Combine with the midterm disappointment swing, which should be just brutal this time around, and the fact that the Republican majority in the House lives and dies on 3-5 point races in heavily gerrymandered districts, and I wouldn't be surprised if we did some real damage in 2018.
I would be happy to see it change but I will believe it when I see it.
0
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
We gotta start racking up wins somewhere. If the Senate map still looks rough in a year or so, there are other places to go.
The House is gerrymandered to hell and back, but those districts aren't designed to protect individual representatives so the margins of election for a lot of Republicans were pretty thin. The level of energy on the ground right now could flip a lot of that around fairly easily if it keeps up.
And we need to find candidates for every race. In every state, every township. I think both these guys get that, from the way they talk.
Yes and they need money. Saw something fly by on Facebook about a Georgia district where HRC won by 1.5% and no DCCC money is incoming to potential Dem candidates for the next elections because lol Georgia. That right there is where we need change.
There was a minor shitstorm over the party not having a single boot on the ground for the upcoming special election in Georgia. Places like DailyKos fired up the progressive internet money hose and the party got it's shit together and now things are looking up for what seems to be a pretty great candidate running for that seat.
It takes some time to turn the bloated, water-logged corpse of something as big as a national party apparatus around. Just like any other hard thing, though, pouring in energy seems to work.
Energy is what we've got right now. Glad to hear that race was addressed.
If you're talking about the Price seat that's going up for special election, then it did. The DCCC's got 9 organizers heading in and Ossoff has raised something north of $1 million from the internet.
Maybe this is the path forward?
Find us the candidates and let leftist groups help with the funding?
The trick there is picking candidates leftist groups will be willing to put their weight behind. It's essential that the DNC chair know how to do that.
We gotta start racking up wins somewhere. If the Senate map still looks rough in a year or so, there are other places to go.
The House is gerrymandered to hell and back, but those districts aren't designed to protect individual representatives so the margins of election for a lot of Republicans were pretty thin. The level of energy on the ground right now could flip a lot of that around fairly easily if it keeps up.
And we need to find candidates for every race. In every state, every township. I think both these guys get that, from the way they talk.
Yes and they need money. Saw something fly by on Facebook about a Georgia district where HRC won by 1.5% and no DCCC money is incoming to potential Dem candidates for the next elections because lol Georgia. That right there is where we need change.
There was a minor shitstorm over the party not having a single boot on the ground for the upcoming special election in Georgia. Places like DailyKos fired up the progressive internet money hose and the party got it's shit together and now things are looking up for what seems to be a pretty great candidate running for that seat.
It takes some time to turn the bloated, water-logged corpse of something as big as a national party apparatus around. Just like any other hard thing, though, pouring in energy seems to work.
Energy is what we've got right now. Glad to hear that race was addressed.
If you're talking about the Price seat that's going up for special election, then it did. The DCCC's got 9 organizers heading in and Ossoff has raised something north of $1 million from the internet.
(And he's going to lose by 30 points in the runoff)
The trick is finding people who can get elected? Like especially in areas that are plus R right now.
I'm not talking about putting in shit people like Manchin, but not everyone running is going to be someone that is the most progressive person ever.
Not to mention that not every progressive candidate is going to be the best choice, either. The MD Senate primary comes to mind here, where progressives fielded a candidate with serious constituent support issues.
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
I'm not saying they have to be the most progressive person ever. But picking someone the progressives don't immediately reject is worthwhile too. We need unified support behind the people we pick.
Non-presidential years only matter because of they imply a lack of energy and engagement on the part of Democrats.
This morning at the gym, all 4 televisions in front of my machine were showing some flavor of Democrats being highly engaged and rather full of energy.
Combine with the midterm disappointment swing, which should be just brutal this time around, and the fact that the Republican majority in the House lives and dies on 3-5 point races in heavily gerrymandered districts, and I wouldn't be surprised if we did some real damage in 2018.
Yeah, if the winds keep blowing the way they have been for the past month or so, the midterms actually look really good in the House imo.
Trump's behaviour is going to energize the Democratic base and suppress some big sections of the Republican one.
Non-presidential years only matter because of they imply a lack of energy and engagement on the part of Democrats.
This morning at the gym, all 4 televisions in front of my machine were showing some flavor of Democrats being highly engaged and rather full of energy.
Combine with the midterm disappointment swing, which should be just brutal this time around, and the fact that the Republican majority in the House lives and dies on 3-5 point races in heavily gerrymandered districts, and I wouldn't be surprised if we did some real damage in 2018.
Yeah, if the winds keep blowing the way they have been for the past month or so, the midterms actually look really good in the House imo.
Trump's behaviour is going to energize the Democratic base and suppress some big sections of the Republican one.
Hm I disagree with the bolded I think. I don't think Dems should count on fewer Repubs voting. Gotta focus on getting as many Dems out as possible, in as many districts as possible, and putting up fights where we haven't put up fights before. I think we should assume little to no fall off in Repub voting patterns.
Non-presidential years only matter because of they imply a lack of energy and engagement on the part of Democrats.
This morning at the gym, all 4 televisions in front of my machine were showing some flavor of Democrats being highly engaged and rather full of energy.
Combine with the midterm disappointment swing, which should be just brutal this time around, and the fact that the Republican majority in the House lives and dies on 3-5 point races in heavily gerrymandered districts, and I wouldn't be surprised if we did some real damage in 2018.
Yeah, if the winds keep blowing the way they have been for the past month or so, the midterms actually look really good in the House imo.
Trump's behaviour is going to energize the Democratic base and suppress some big sections of the Republican one.
Hm I disagree with the bolded I think. I don't think Dems should count on fewer Repubs voting. Gotta focus on getting as many Dems out as possible, in as many districts as possible, and putting up fights where we haven't put up fights before. I think we should assume little to no fall off in Repub voting patterns.
There's no strategizing around a drop in GOP votes. Whether you expect it or not, you do the same shit and get your people out.
But I think you are definitely gonna see lowered turnout for the GOP in the midterm unless something changes drastically. Trump is not gonna deliver shit and many of the more marginal GOP voters are gonna walk away. The GOP is also now the establishment party and so people looking to "shake things up" are gonna slough off too.
Non-presidential years only matter because of they imply a lack of energy and engagement on the part of Democrats.
This morning at the gym, all 4 televisions in front of my machine were showing some flavor of Democrats being highly engaged and rather full of energy.
Combine with the midterm disappointment swing, which should be just brutal this time around, and the fact that the Republican majority in the House lives and dies on 3-5 point races in heavily gerrymandered districts, and I wouldn't be surprised if we did some real damage in 2018.
Yeah, if the winds keep blowing the way they have been for the past month or so, the midterms actually look really good in the House imo.
Trump's behaviour is going to energize the Democratic base and suppress some big sections of the Republican one.
Hm I disagree with the bolded I think. I don't think Dems should count on fewer Repubs voting. Gotta focus on getting as many Dems out as possible, in as many districts as possible, and putting up fights where we haven't put up fights before. I think we should assume little to no fall off in Repub voting patterns.
There's no strategizing around a drop in GOP votes. Whether you expect it or not, you do the same shit and get your people out.
But I think you are definitely gonna see lowered turnout for the GOP in the midterm unless something changes drastically. Trump is not gonna deliver shit and many of the more marginal GOP voters are gonna walk away. The GOP is also now the establishment party and so people looking to "shake things up" are gonna slough off too.
Y'know, I just don't know. Maybe accomplishing little to nothing is what they want to see from their president. He'll continue his rallies and continue saying a bunch of lies he'll never follow through on. Maybe some people will actually think he IS shaking things up. It's too hard to predict, so yeah the best thing to do is just focus on Dem voters and getting candidates in races.
Non-presidential years only matter because of they imply a lack of energy and engagement on the part of Democrats.
This morning at the gym, all 4 televisions in front of my machine were showing some flavor of Democrats being highly engaged and rather full of energy.
Combine with the midterm disappointment swing, which should be just brutal this time around, and the fact that the Republican majority in the House lives and dies on 3-5 point races in heavily gerrymandered districts, and I wouldn't be surprised if we did some real damage in 2018.
Yeah, if the winds keep blowing the way they have been for the past month or so, the midterms actually look really good in the House imo.
Trump's behaviour is going to energize the Democratic base and suppress some big sections of the Republican one.
Hm I disagree with the bolded I think. I don't think Dems should count on fewer Repubs voting. Gotta focus on getting as many Dems out as possible, in as many districts as possible, and putting up fights where we haven't put up fights before. I think we should assume little to no fall off in Repub voting patterns.
There's no strategizing around a drop in GOP votes. Whether you expect it or not, you do the same shit and get your people out.
But I think you are definitely gonna see lowered turnout for the GOP in the midterm unless something changes drastically. Trump is not gonna deliver shit and many of the more marginal GOP voters are gonna walk away. The GOP is also now the establishment party and so people looking to "shake things up" are gonna slough off too.
Y'know, I just don't know. Maybe accomplishing little to nothing is what they want to see from their president. He'll continue his rallies and continue saying a bunch of lies he'll never follow through on. Maybe some people will actually think he IS shaking things up. It's too hard to predict, so yeah the best thing to do is just focus on Dem voters and getting candidates in races.
His base will, yes. But Trump won the election off the backs of more then just those people. People who wanted change and wanted those jobs he said he would bring back.
I think that if Trump does nothing except make people's lives worse (which he will do), there won't be any blowback until 2020 and he's up again. 2018 it too soon and I think people will be able to rationalize it as "they didn't have enough time" especially if the senate democrats go full fuck off mode to protect the gains of the 111th congress, which they should.
The DNC chair has to work toward that 2020 mark, while also trying to win governor races and other state races to prepare for redistricting. 2020's census is important beyond reason. If we don't win in 2020 and win big, I don't think the partisan gerrymandering snapping our political system in half will ever be fixed.
This is getting a little afield, but talking about repubs failing to vote because of trump's lack of accomplishing things strikes me as unrealistic.
They're fervently re-writing their own reality, and their voters have long shown no appetite for anything else. In their minds, trump will have a list of "accomplishments" longer than any other president in history, in part because trump will likely say that explicitly.
+2
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
This is getting a little afield, but talking about repubs failing to vote because of trump's lack of accomplishing things strikes me as unrealistic.
They're fervently re-writing their own reality, and their voters have long shown no appetite for anything else. In their minds, trump will have a list of "accomplishments" longer than any other president in history, in part because trump will likely say that explicitly.
OTOH, part of me honestly sees Trump as not even running for a second term.
Its clear he doesn't like his job and can you imagine how exhausted and bored of it he will be in 4 years? Plus the DNC will be able to point out all the things he has done to ruin the country (no blank slate like the first time) and with Trump seeing the writing on the wall, I think he would just be done with politics so he can claim he was the best politician ever and never lost.
Kind of like that friend that comes over to your house, plays a game against you once and wins through some shenanigans you never saw coming and then will never play it again so he can just say he is the best at that game.
This is getting a little afield, but talking about repubs failing to vote because of trump's lack of accomplishing things strikes me as unrealistic.
They're fervently re-writing their own reality, and their voters have long shown no appetite for anything else. In their minds, trump will have a list of "accomplishments" longer than any other president in history, in part because trump will likely say that explicitly.
OTOH, part of me honestly sees Trump as not even running for a second term.
Its clear he doesn't like his job and can you imagine how exhausted and bored of it he will be in 4 years? Plus the DNC will be able to point out all the things he has done to ruin the country (no blank slate like the first time) and with Trump seeing the writing on the wall, I think he would just be done with politics so he can claim he was the best politician ever and never lost.
Kind of like that friend that comes over to your house, plays a game against you once and wins through some shenanigans you never saw coming and then will never play it again so he can just say he is the best at that game.
I can see him handing it over to Ivanka, though. He's President for Life and can do that, right? He signed an EO saying so.
This is getting a little afield, but talking about repubs failing to vote because of trump's lack of accomplishing things strikes me as unrealistic.
They're fervently re-writing their own reality, and their voters have long shown no appetite for anything else. In their minds, trump will have a list of "accomplishments" longer than any other president in history, in part because trump will likely say that explicitly.
OTOH, part of me honestly sees Trump as not even running for a second term.
Its clear he doesn't like his job and can you imagine how exhausted and bored of it he will be in 4 years? Plus the DNC will be able to point out all the things he has done to ruin the country (no blank slate like the first time) and with Trump seeing the writing on the wall, I think he would just be done with politics so he can claim he was the best politician ever and never lost.
Kind of like that friend that comes over to your house, plays a game against you once and wins through some shenanigans you never saw coming and then will never play it again so he can just say he is the best at that game.
His pride would never let him. He's going to be personally miserable either way, so you might as well be miserable in the White House.
Plus the longer he's in the longer he can shield his own ass from backlash from the grift. I don't think a president can pardon themselves, even if he can protect everyone around him...
+2
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
I still say the ACA was one of the greatest legislative achievements in 40 years and that Obama was a great President.
As a Republican the bolded is why you people keep losing. Excuse me but the greatest legislative accomplishment your party came up with in half a century is "everyone now has to buy health insurance"? Really?
Say what you will about Trump but at least his plans had sizzle. "We're going to stop outsourcing. We're going to build an enormous wall on the border." What did the Democrats run on? "Things will be marginally less worse" Gee, that's a great campaign slogan.
And it's what the Democratic Party has run on for the past 20 years. "Vote for us, we'll stop the Republicans." How the hell does that inspire voters? It's always, always defensive. No new environmental legislation- just stopping Republicans from selling mining leases in national parks. No new worker's legislation, just stopping Republicans from privatizing Social Security. No overruling states on expanding unemployment benefits, just trying to prevent Republicans from taking it away nationally.
See what I mean? It's all reactive, and if I had to guess why it's because the establishment's corporate donors don't want new protected land or getting rid of right to work. It doesn't matter if either Perez or Ellison gets in, they have to change the message or your party's sunk.
they have to change the message or your party's sunk.
That was the argument used against the Republicans message for the last few cycles. But they just kept doubling down and blamed everything on the other team while gridlocking the legislature. And it turns out that's all you need to capture the House, Senate and Presidency.
So long as you aren't in power and things aren't perfect, the electorate is myopic enough that it works. Not that it leads to actual good governance.
I still say the ACA was one of the greatest legislative achievements in 40 years and that Obama was a great President.
As a Republican the bolded is why you people keep losing. Excuse me but the greatest legislative accomplishment your party came up with in half a century is "everyone now has to buy health insurance"? Really?
Say what you will about Trump but at least his plans had sizzle. "We're going to stop outsourcing. We're going to build an enormous wall on the border." What did the Democrats run on? "Things will be marginally less worse" Gee, that's a great campaign slogan.
And it's what the Democratic Party has run on for the past 20 years. "Vote for us, we'll stop the Republicans." How the hell does that inspire voters? It's always, always defensive. No new environmental legislation- just stopping Republicans from selling mining leases in national parks. No new worker's legislation, just stopping Republicans from privatizing Social Security. No overruling states on expanding unemployment benefits, just trying to prevent Republicans from taking it away nationally.
See what I mean? It's all reactive, and if I had to guess why it's because the establishment's corporate donors don't want new protected land or getting rid of right to work. It doesn't matter if either Perez or Ellison gets in, they have to change the message or your party's sunk.
I agree. Democrats need to run on a liberal as hell message. Stuff like the ACA is a start and I want more aggressive, bold policy like it.
Flawed as the ACA was, the new chair should understand something from some of the political failures that it spawned in 2010. There will likely be electoral successes under the incoming chair, and at some point hopefully some new legislation. All legislation has flaws, but if the reaction to the flaws is an attitude that everyone runs on their own to the right of whatever legislation was passed to avoid potential backlash, the results are terrible for the party. If the opposition is united, and there is no coherent and united response defending the gains made and presenting a leftist vision for how to fix or render moot the inevitable flaws, then the conservative opposition is validated. It is understandable that individual representatives would care deeply about their own short term interest, and hopefully our chair will work against those tendencies.
To say that we're arriving at the age where all politics is national is not a gross exaggeration.
This is getting a little afield, but talking about repubs failing to vote because of trump's lack of accomplishing things strikes me as unrealistic.
They're fervently re-writing their own reality, and their voters have long shown no appetite for anything else. In their minds, trump will have a list of "accomplishments" longer than any other president in history, in part because trump will likely say that explicitly.
You can't generalize the hardcore supporters onto the rest imo. There's many marginal voters there who will walk away if the new establishment doesn't tangibly improve their lives.
This is getting a little afield, but talking about repubs failing to vote because of trump's lack of accomplishing things strikes me as unrealistic.
They're fervently re-writing their own reality, and their voters have long shown no appetite for anything else. In their minds, trump will have a list of "accomplishments" longer than any other president in history, in part because trump will likely say that explicitly.
OTOH, part of me honestly sees Trump as not even running for a second term.
Its clear he doesn't like his job and can you imagine how exhausted and bored of it he will be in 4 years? Plus the DNC will be able to point out all the things he has done to ruin the country (no blank slate like the first time) and with Trump seeing the writing on the wall, I think he would just be done with politics so he can claim he was the best politician ever and never lost.
Kind of like that friend that comes over to your house, plays a game against you once and wins through some shenanigans you never saw coming and then will never play it again so he can just say he is the best at that game.
I can see him handing it over to Ivanka, though. He's President for Life and can do that, right? He signed an EO saying so.
He's not handing the presidency over to a girl (though among his family she'd be the best of the bunch), he'd give it to Eric.
0
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
They did! The House passed all kinds of proactive stuff in 2009-2010. This myth is so fucking frustrating.
Not big things. Not things the public knows about. Campaign on reaching for the stars and take what you can get once in office. Don't start out in the campaign by promising the incremental approach. No voter has ever liked the politician who promised only a quarter chicken in every pot. Promise them the whole dang bird and go from there once you're in.
Also, that description of ACA is one only a silly goose like yourself would use.
That's essentially what it is! I mean, why run on "healthcare reform" that's not universal healtcare? You're the left-wing party! Adopting ideas that fifty years back were the Republican plan is how the country (and your party) has become more and more right-leaning these last twenty years.
All legislation has flaws, but if the reaction to the flaws is an attitude that everyone runs on their own to the right of whatever legislation was passed to avoid potential backlash, the results are terrible for the party.
Exactly! Look, as much as I hate to say it my party's going to say no to you guys no matter what. Don't do their jobs for them and water down your ideas before they're even proposed. The GOP is going to do that on their own. Start out from a hard left position and move rightward, instead of starting out in the center in some vain attempt to appease the opposition.
I mean, that's how we do it. All those nutball schemes to defund the whatever start out far right and move left, and eventually end up reducing funding or slashing regulation or something. Either way it's a victory. It's very effective and something you guys should do too. Like, where's the crazy socialist ideas? Where's nationalizing telecoms or raising the estate tax to 50%?
You have a powerful asset in your left wing. Use it! I don't know a lot about Perez or Ellison beyond what you do but if they're status quo, business as usual Democrats things aren't going to be looking good in four years.
They did! The House passed all kinds of proactive stuff in 2009-2010. This myth is so fucking frustrating.
Not big things. Not things the public knows about. Campaign on reaching for the stars and take what you can get once in office. Don't start out in the campaign by promising the incremental approach. No voter has ever liked the politician who promised only a quarter chicken in every pot. Promise them the whole dang bird and go from there once you're in.
Also, that description of ACA is one only a silly goose like yourself would use.
That's essentially what it is! I mean, why run on "healthcare reform" that's not universal healtcare? You're the left-wing party! Adopting ideas that fifty years back were the Republican plan is how the country (and your party) has become more and more right-leaning these last twenty years.
All legislation has flaws, but if the reaction to the flaws is an attitude that everyone runs on their own to the right of whatever legislation was passed to avoid potential backlash, the results are terrible for the party.
Exactly! Look, as much as I hate to say it my party's going to say no to you guys no matter what. Don't do their jobs for them and water down your ideas before they're even proposed. The GOP is going to do that on their own. Start out from a hard left position and move rightward, instead of starting out in the center in some vain attempt to appease the opposition.
I mean, that's how we do it. All those nutball schemes to defund the whatever start out far right and move left, and eventually end up reducing funding or slashing regulation or something. Either way it's a victory. It's very effective and something you guys should do too. Like, where's the crazy socialist ideas? Where's nationalizing telecoms or raising the estate tax to 50%?
You have a powerful asset in your left wing. Use it! I don't know a lot about Perez or Ellison beyond what you do but if they're status quo, business as usual Democrats things aren't going to be looking good in four years.
Because it was what they could pass? And because it would (and has) saved at least tens of thousands of lives.
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Marcus, promising the moon runs you into problems when you can't deliver. The left got upset when Obama promised hope and change and didn't magically solve everything. The right has been promising its voters shit and not delivering for decades and that's why they voted for a crazy old man over 16 GOP regulars. Lying to voters about moon shots is a recipe for political instability over the long term.
I still say the ACA was one of the greatest legislative achievements in 40 years and that Obama was a great President.
As a Republican the bolded is why you people keep losing. Excuse me but the greatest legislative accomplishment your party came up with in half a century is "everyone now has to buy health insurance"? Really?
Say what you will about Trump but at least his plans had sizzle. "We're going to stop outsourcing. We're going to build an enormous wall on the border." What did the Democrats run on? "Things will be marginally less worse" Gee, that's a great campaign slogan.
And it's what the Democratic Party has run on for the past 20 years. "Vote for us, we'll stop the Republicans." How the hell does that inspire voters? It's always, always defensive. No new environmental legislation- just stopping Republicans from selling mining leases in national parks. No new worker's legislation, just stopping Republicans from privatizing Social Security. No overruling states on expanding unemployment benefits, just trying to prevent Republicans from taking it away nationally.
See what I mean? It's all reactive, and if I had to guess why it's because the establishment's corporate donors don't want new protected land or getting rid of right to work. It doesn't matter if either Perez or Ellison gets in, they have to change the message or your party's sunk.
The ACA was actually created by the GOP, you may know of it as Romneycare. And as far as I know Republicans love the ACA when its called by other names like Kynect - which is popular in Kentucky with Republicans. And yes, it may not be perfect but it's helped a lot of people and would have been even better had the GOP not watered it down to the current shape. Or don't they get credit for that?
Trump wasn't selling sizzle, he was lying. It's great for campaigning, its terrible for governing because he's literally got nothing substantial to give his supporters who voted for those ideas.
If you think Democrats have only been reactive to the GOP (which is important btw, unless you don't like having the EPA, IRS, OSHA, Department of Energy and Education etc functioning) you haven't been paying attention. The reason why those things don't get much air time is because the GOP is able to obstruct a lot of those ideas from being made and/or watering them down. And stopping SS being privatized is a big deal, if they didn't back in W.'s term everyone would have been fucked after the economic implosion in 2008.
Here are some bills proposed by the Obama administration
As far as I know the Federal government can't over rule states under certain conditions, that's why they couldn't threaten to withdraw payment to states that refused Obamacare. The state's citizens needed up paying for that decision by SCOTUS.
The President is not a king, and Democratic presidents have more restraints than Republicans for various reasons, like they try to govern like kings, and the GOP are very competent at what they do in obstructing how they rule.
I see a lot of hate here for Dems not being perfect, and I'm trying real hard here to take this on good faith but what is disappointing here is that the GOP is sidelined or ignored completely. As if the Dems were somehow fighting against themselves when we have a Democratic president rather than having one of the strongest political parties in the western world. How powerful do you think the GOP is here? It's like you're ignoring what they've managed to do during 15 years. Stealing a SCOTUS seat from a Democratic president and shutting the government down more than once* are quite large achievements in my view and those are just off the top of my head.
This is why it's important for the Dems not to have their standards that Republicans give them, because it's the point to discredit political foes who can't ever reach impossible standards while the GOP pretends to be the party of family values then elects Donald Trump. It's a tactic to demoralize the left voting blocs from participating, so by election time they can clean up.
I'm seriously wondering why you're a Republican or like Trump if we take your opinions at face value. In our last arguments when I bought up Trump's bad history with unions it didn't seem to dissuade you from defending him, despite the fact that you didn't like Hillary for not supposedly being popular with unions.
edit: If any party is reactive its the GOP. Anything vaguely common ground or the Dems compromising (Romneycare, Merrick Garland) they're instantly the worst thing ever, despite them being the ones who bought them up.
First thing I want the DNC to do: in each and every district where a Republican rep is refusing to do town halls, find a preferred candidate, have those candidates show up to the town halls and basically say "they're too scared to talk to their constituents, but we will." Then proceed to do so. A lot. With the message of "yeah, this is awful" then sugue into making a difference starting at the local and state level.
The people going to those town halls? They're passionate, if nothing else. We need candidates at the state and local level. There's certainly worse places to start looking.
They did! The House passed all kinds of proactive stuff in 2009-2010. This myth is so fucking frustrating.
Not big things. Not things the public knows about. Campaign on reaching for the stars and take what you can get once in office. Don't start out in the campaign by promising the incremental approach. No voter has ever liked the politician who promised only a quarter chicken in every pot. Promise them the whole dang bird and go from there once you're in.
Also, that description of ACA is one only a silly goose like yourself would use.
That's essentially what it is! I mean, why run on "healthcare reform" that's not universal healtcare? You're the left-wing party! Adopting ideas that fifty years back were the Republican plan is how the country (and your party) has become more and more right-leaning these last twenty years.
All legislation has flaws, but if the reaction to the flaws is an attitude that everyone runs on their own to the right of whatever legislation was passed to avoid potential backlash, the results are terrible for the party.
Exactly! Look, as much as I hate to say it my party's going to say no to you guys no matter what. Don't do their jobs for them and water down your ideas before they're even proposed. The GOP is going to do that on their own. Start out from a hard left position and move rightward, instead of starting out in the center in some vain attempt to appease the opposition.
I mean, that's how we do it. All those nutball schemes to defund the whatever start out far right and move left, and eventually end up reducing funding or slashing regulation or something. Either way it's a victory. It's very effective and something you guys should do too. Like, where's the crazy socialist ideas? Where's nationalizing telecoms or raising the estate tax to 50%?
You have a powerful asset in your left wing. Use it! I don't know a lot about Perez or Ellison beyond what you do but if they're status quo, business as usual Democrats things aren't going to be looking good in four years.
Well, what I'm talking about is a general principle. It applies both for progressive liberal policies and borrowed Republican ideas since the chair doesn't get to, directly, make choices about that sort of thing although they have some influence. I'm not a Republican policies guy, but it's useful either way.
I disagree completely that the left wing of the party is more concerned about signaling than policy, unless that statement is completely and only specific to this specific election.
Anything else is by definition off topic, so let's assume I meant that in the narrow on topic sense.
In that case, I'd agree somewhat. There are significant portions of the party out left that feel like the way the election went down illustrates a significant weakness in the party, a feeling that grew as elected Democrats showed that they really didn't grasp the scope of the fight in the first couple of weeks with Trump at the wheel. To those people, someone like Ellison who they identified with through the campaign is preferable to someone like Perez that they may not recognize but is vaguely associated in their minds with the party apparatus and the Clinton candidacy.
Those folks would view Ellison getting the nod as a sign that things were maybe turning around, and him not as a sign that nothing was changing. Which isn't true, but voters are not perfectly informed rational creatures, so ya get what ya get.
I doubt it helps that the vote is entirely internal by people that are already largely suspect to the group that supports Ellison anyway. I don't know what could realistically be done about that, but I'm sure it brings up feelings from the primary for a good number them, too.
I just don't buy the narrative of the cool pragmatic centrists who see Ellison and Perez as interchangeable. They are similar politicians, but from the beginning Ellison seemed to attract "he seems nice, but" sentiments. He's nice, but isn't this is a fulltime job? He seems nice and no real objections are raised, and yet here we have produced another candidate that is largely similar. Ellison is nice, nothing against Ellison and it's great that you like him, but how about someone else but be assured that they are exactly the same. You could ask about why not just Ellison and the answer is of course a cool and pragmatic 'we would be entirely happy to have Ellison!' secure in the knowledge that Ellison is not happening. There is something about it that I just find deeply condescending.
However, this is a loss I won't be heartbroken to take, and hopefully not too many garments are rendered over it. It's an establishment-heavy process, which should always be seen as a long term fight, and there are better things to spend energy on and call representatives over. It's best to keep powder dry for future fights that are less opaque and actually involve public voting and mass energy.
Elki on
+7
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I disagree completely that the left wing of the party is more concerned about signaling than policy, unless that statement is completely and only specific to this specific election.
Anything else is by definition off topic, so let's assume I meant that in the narrow on topic sense.
In that case, I'd agree somewhat. There are significant portions of the party out left that feel like the way the election went down illustrates a significant weakness in the party, a feeling that grew as elected Democrats showed that they really didn't grasp the scope of the fight in the first couple of weeks with Trump at the wheel. To those people, someone like Ellison who they identified with through the campaign is preferable to someone like Perez that they may not recognize but is vaguely associated in their minds with the party apparatus and the Clinton candidacy.
Those folks would view Ellison getting the nod as a sign that things were maybe turning around, and him not as a sign that nothing was changing. Which isn't true, but voters are not perfectly informed rational creatures, so ya get what ya get.
I doubt it helps that the vote is entirely internal by people that are already largely suspect to the group that supports Ellison anyway. I don't know what could realistically be done about that, but I'm sure it brings up feelings from the primary for a good number them, too.
I just don't buy the narrative of the cool pragmatic centrists who see Ellison and Perez as interchangeable. They are similar politicians, but from the beginning Ellison seemed to attract "he seems nice, but" sentiments. He's nice, but isn't this is a fulltime job? He seems nice and no real objections are raised, and yet here we have produced another candidate that is largely similar. Ellison is nice, nothing against Ellison and it's great that you like him, but how about someone else but be assured that they are exactly the same. You could ask about why not just Ellison and the answer is of course a cool and pragmatic 'we would be entirely happy to have Ellison!' secure in the knowledge that Ellison is not happening. There is something about it that I just find deeply condescending.
Secure in the knowledge that Ellison is not happening? Until the vote count the other day, I wasn't aware that anybody knew one candidate was ahead of the other--just that Ellison and Perez were on top, followed by Buttigege.
Personally I don't think either of these guys actually represents me, because neither of them seems angry and upset and passionate about taking on this fight. Ellison has kind of a good-natured, easy-going pleasantness to him, while Perez has (the same) right ideas but seems to come from a place of cool appraisal, like this is abstract to him. Maybe it's weird for me to want a political organizational leadership position to attract a candidate with some fire to them but that's what I want out of this moment. Maybe the election feels pretty "both sides the same" to me partly because both men seem to embody the way the Democrats are lagging in energy levels behind the voters and protestors. And I worry that if the Dems don't catch up to that energy, they won't be able to harness it, even if they implement the daring new ideas of contesting all the states and knocking on doors between elections sometimes.
I disagree completely that the left wing of the party is more concerned about signaling than policy, unless that statement is completely and only specific to this specific election.
Anything else is by definition off topic, so let's assume I meant that in the narrow on topic sense.
In that case, I'd agree somewhat. There are significant portions of the party out left that feel like the way the election went down illustrates a significant weakness in the party, a feeling that grew as elected Democrats showed that they really didn't grasp the scope of the fight in the first couple of weeks with Trump at the wheel. To those people, someone like Ellison who they identified with through the campaign is preferable to someone like Perez that they may not recognize but is vaguely associated in their minds with the party apparatus and the Clinton candidacy.
Those folks would view Ellison getting the nod as a sign that things were maybe turning around, and him not as a sign that nothing was changing. Which isn't true, but voters are not perfectly informed rational creatures, so ya get what ya get.
I doubt it helps that the vote is entirely internal by people that are already largely suspect to the group that supports Ellison anyway. I don't know what could realistically be done about that, but I'm sure it brings up feelings from the primary for a good number them, too.
I just don't buy the narrative of the cool pragmatic centrists who see Ellison and Perez as interchangeable. They are similar politicians, but from the beginning Ellison seemed to attract "he seems nice, but" sentiments. He's nice, but isn't this is a fulltime job? He seems nice and no real objections are raised, and yet here we have produced another candidate that is largely similar. Ellison is nice, nothing against Ellison and it's great that you like him, but how about someone else but be assured that they are exactly the same. You could ask about why not just Ellison and the answer is of course a cool and pragmatic 'we would be entirely happy to have Ellison!' secure in the knowledge that Ellison is not happening. There is something about it that I just find deeply condescending.
However, this is a loss I won't be heartbroken to take, and hopefully not too many garments are rendered over it. It's an establishment-heavy process, which should always be seen as a long term fight, and there are better things to spend energy on and call representatives over. It's best to keep powder dry for future fights that are less opaque and actually involve public voting and mass energy.
I don't understand, why is Perez spoken of as though a puppet put forward by a faction rather a person running for the position because he thinks he would be a good fit for the position? I think Ellison would be my choice for the job if I had a vote but this whole "Perez is just a tool of the establishment" line of thinking seems rather unfair (not to mention counter productive if you think he should run for office elsewhere).
Ellison announced a month before Perez, before the election in fact. Perez's announcement came during the period after the election when the heat on the party establishment was at its most incandescent, having just lost the election due at least in part to some really stupid decisions about force allocation. Perez himself has no personal campaign experience, but he has worked in both the Obama and Clinton administrations. It's not hard to see how he could be seen as the avatar of the establishment, one seen to value loyalty over ability in a lot of circles, in this race.
I disagree completely that the left wing of the party is more concerned about signaling than policy, unless that statement is completely and only specific to this specific election.
Anything else is by definition off topic, so let's assume I meant that in the narrow on topic sense.
In that case, I'd agree somewhat. There are significant portions of the party out left that feel like the way the election went down illustrates a significant weakness in the party, a feeling that grew as elected Democrats showed that they really didn't grasp the scope of the fight in the first couple of weeks with Trump at the wheel. To those people, someone like Ellison who they identified with through the campaign is preferable to someone like Perez that they may not recognize but is vaguely associated in their minds with the party apparatus and the Clinton candidacy.
Those folks would view Ellison getting the nod as a sign that things were maybe turning around, and him not as a sign that nothing was changing. Which isn't true, but voters are not perfectly informed rational creatures, so ya get what ya get.
I doubt it helps that the vote is entirely internal by people that are already largely suspect to the group that supports Ellison anyway. I don't know what could realistically be done about that, but I'm sure it brings up feelings from the primary for a good number them, too.
I just don't buy the narrative of the cool pragmatic centrists who see Ellison and Perez as interchangeable. They are similar politicians, but from the beginning Ellison seemed to attract "he seems nice, but" sentiments. He's nice, but isn't this is a fulltime job? He seems nice and no real objections are raised, and yet here we have produced another candidate that is largely similar. Ellison is nice, nothing against Ellison and it's great that you like him, but how about someone else but be assured that they are exactly the same. You could ask about why not just Ellison and the answer is of course a cool and pragmatic 'we would be entirely happy to have Ellison!' secure in the knowledge that Ellison is not happening. There is something about it that I just find deeply condescending.
However, this is a loss I won't be heartbroken to take, and hopefully not too many garments are rendered over it. It's an establishment-heavy process, which should always be seen as a long term fight, and there are better things to spend energy on and call representatives over. It's best to keep powder dry for future fights that are less opaque and actually involve public voting and mass energy.
I don't understand, why is Perez spoken of as though a puppet put forward by a faction rather a person running for the position because he thinks he would be a good fit for the position? I think Ellison would be my choice for the job if I had a vote but this whole "Perez is just a tool of the establishment" line of thinking seems rather unfair (not to mention counter productive if you think he should run for office elsewhere).
It would be uncharitable to Perez to call him a puppet but there is plenty of reporting of people in the Clinton and White House circles urging Perez to run prior to his entrance. Fair enough, Ellison is owed nothing and neither am I or anyone else who supported Ellison. It's politics. Then after his announcement plenty of talk about how everyone is entirely happy to have either candidate. Well, clearly not.
+6
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Perez knew he'd be out of a job, and Ellison thought he might be part of a majority. Maybe it was just logistics of timing.
I disagree completely that the left wing of the party is more concerned about signaling than policy, unless that statement is completely and only specific to this specific election.
Anything else is by definition off topic, so let's assume I meant that in the narrow on topic sense.
In that case, I'd agree somewhat. There are significant portions of the party out left that feel like the way the election went down illustrates a significant weakness in the party, a feeling that grew as elected Democrats showed that they really didn't grasp the scope of the fight in the first couple of weeks with Trump at the wheel. To those people, someone like Ellison who they identified with through the campaign is preferable to someone like Perez that they may not recognize but is vaguely associated in their minds with the party apparatus and the Clinton candidacy.
Those folks would view Ellison getting the nod as a sign that things were maybe turning around, and him not as a sign that nothing was changing. Which isn't true, but voters are not perfectly informed rational creatures, so ya get what ya get.
I doubt it helps that the vote is entirely internal by people that are already largely suspect to the group that supports Ellison anyway. I don't know what could realistically be done about that, but I'm sure it brings up feelings from the primary for a good number them, too.
I just don't buy the narrative of the cool pragmatic centrists who see Ellison and Perez as interchangeable. They are similar politicians, but from the beginning Ellison seemed to attract "he seems nice, but" sentiments. He's nice, but isn't this is a fulltime job? He seems nice and no real objections are raised, and yet here we have produced another candidate that is largely similar. Ellison is nice, nothing against Ellison and it's great that you like him, but how about someone else but be assured that they are exactly the same. You could ask about why not just Ellison and the answer is of course a cool and pragmatic 'we would be entirely happy to have Ellison!' secure in the knowledge that Ellison is not happening. There is something about it that I just find deeply condescending.
However, this is a loss I won't be heartbroken to take, and hopefully not too many garments are rendered over it. It's an establishment-heavy process, which should always be seen as a long term fight, and there are better things to spend energy on and call representatives over. It's best to keep powder dry for future fights that are less opaque and actually involve public voting and mass energy.
I don't understand, why is Perez spoken of as though a puppet put forward by a faction rather a person running for the position because he thinks he would be a good fit for the position? I think Ellison would be my choice for the job if I had a vote but this whole "Perez is just a tool of the establishment" line of thinking seems rather unfair (not to mention counter productive if you think he should run for office elsewhere).
It would be uncharitable to Perez to call him a puppet but there is plenty of reporting of people in the Clinton and White House circles urging Perez to run prior to his entrance. Fair enough, Ellison is owed nothing and neither am I or anyone else who supported Ellison. It's politics. Then after his announcement plenty of talk about how everyone is entirely happy to have either candidate. Well, clearly not.
Why not? You seem to be inventing divisiveness out of nothing here. "he seems nice, but" applies the opposite way exactly the same way for the most part, except for the people who want to make this a re-litigation of the primaries. From the beginning the two seem to have attracted "I can't really tell them apart" sentiments from my experience from those who don't actually get to vote on the DNC chair. You hear them both talk and I can't think why I'd want one over the other really as they both seem to be saying the same shit.
Like, you entire argument seems to be based on nothing more then timing. Ellison ran first, so why did Perez bother? Well, maybe he also wanted the job. Maybe he wanted it earlier but thought he'd have other opportunities available. Maybe people prefer one over the other for reasons that wouldn't make any real difference.
Posts
Maybe this is the path forward?
Find us the candidates and let leftist groups help with the funding?
I would be happy to see it change but I will believe it when I see it.
The trick there is picking candidates leftist groups will be willing to put their weight behind. It's essential that the DNC chair know how to do that.
I'm not talking about putting in shit people like Manchin, but not everyone running is going to be someone that is the most progressive person ever.
pleasepaypreacher.net
(And he's going to lose by 30 points in the runoff)
I live in GA-6. It's fun times! (It isn't)
Not to mention that not every progressive candidate is going to be the best choice, either. The MD Senate primary comes to mind here, where progressives fielded a candidate with serious constituent support issues.
Yeah, if the winds keep blowing the way they have been for the past month or so, the midterms actually look really good in the House imo.
Trump's behaviour is going to energize the Democratic base and suppress some big sections of the Republican one.
Hm I disagree with the bolded I think. I don't think Dems should count on fewer Repubs voting. Gotta focus on getting as many Dems out as possible, in as many districts as possible, and putting up fights where we haven't put up fights before. I think we should assume little to no fall off in Repub voting patterns.
There's no strategizing around a drop in GOP votes. Whether you expect it or not, you do the same shit and get your people out.
But I think you are definitely gonna see lowered turnout for the GOP in the midterm unless something changes drastically. Trump is not gonna deliver shit and many of the more marginal GOP voters are gonna walk away. The GOP is also now the establishment party and so people looking to "shake things up" are gonna slough off too.
Y'know, I just don't know. Maybe accomplishing little to nothing is what they want to see from their president. He'll continue his rallies and continue saying a bunch of lies he'll never follow through on. Maybe some people will actually think he IS shaking things up. It's too hard to predict, so yeah the best thing to do is just focus on Dem voters and getting candidates in races.
His base will, yes. But Trump won the election off the backs of more then just those people. People who wanted change and wanted those jobs he said he would bring back.
The DNC chair has to work toward that 2020 mark, while also trying to win governor races and other state races to prepare for redistricting. 2020's census is important beyond reason. If we don't win in 2020 and win big, I don't think the partisan gerrymandering snapping our political system in half will ever be fixed.
They're fervently re-writing their own reality, and their voters have long shown no appetite for anything else. In their minds, trump will have a list of "accomplishments" longer than any other president in history, in part because trump will likely say that explicitly.
OTOH, part of me honestly sees Trump as not even running for a second term.
Its clear he doesn't like his job and can you imagine how exhausted and bored of it he will be in 4 years? Plus the DNC will be able to point out all the things he has done to ruin the country (no blank slate like the first time) and with Trump seeing the writing on the wall, I think he would just be done with politics so he can claim he was the best politician ever and never lost.
Kind of like that friend that comes over to your house, plays a game against you once and wins through some shenanigans you never saw coming and then will never play it again so he can just say he is the best at that game.
I can see him handing it over to Ivanka, though. He's President for Life and can do that, right? He signed an EO saying so.
His pride would never let him. He's going to be personally miserable either way, so you might as well be miserable in the White House.
Plus the longer he's in the longer he can shield his own ass from backlash from the grift. I don't think a president can pardon themselves, even if he can protect everyone around him...
Say what you will about Trump but at least his plans had sizzle. "We're going to stop outsourcing. We're going to build an enormous wall on the border." What did the Democrats run on? "Things will be marginally less worse" Gee, that's a great campaign slogan.
And it's what the Democratic Party has run on for the past 20 years. "Vote for us, we'll stop the Republicans." How the hell does that inspire voters? It's always, always defensive. No new environmental legislation- just stopping Republicans from selling mining leases in national parks. No new worker's legislation, just stopping Republicans from privatizing Social Security. No overruling states on expanding unemployment benefits, just trying to prevent Republicans from taking it away nationally.
See what I mean? It's all reactive, and if I had to guess why it's because the establishment's corporate donors don't want new protected land or getting rid of right to work. It doesn't matter if either Perez or Ellison gets in, they have to change the message or your party's sunk.
Also, that description of ACA is one only a silly goose like yourself would use.
So long as you aren't in power and things aren't perfect, the electorate is myopic enough that it works. Not that it leads to actual good governance.
I agree. Democrats need to run on a liberal as hell message. Stuff like the ACA is a start and I want more aggressive, bold policy like it.
To say that we're arriving at the age where all politics is national is not a gross exaggeration.
You can't generalize the hardcore supporters onto the rest imo. There's many marginal voters there who will walk away if the new establishment doesn't tangibly improve their lives.
He's not handing the presidency over to a girl (though among his family she'd be the best of the bunch), he'd give it to Eric.
That's essentially what it is! I mean, why run on "healthcare reform" that's not universal healtcare? You're the left-wing party! Adopting ideas that fifty years back were the Republican plan is how the country (and your party) has become more and more right-leaning these last twenty years.
Exactly! Look, as much as I hate to say it my party's going to say no to you guys no matter what. Don't do their jobs for them and water down your ideas before they're even proposed. The GOP is going to do that on their own. Start out from a hard left position and move rightward, instead of starting out in the center in some vain attempt to appease the opposition.
I mean, that's how we do it. All those nutball schemes to defund the whatever start out far right and move left, and eventually end up reducing funding or slashing regulation or something. Either way it's a victory. It's very effective and something you guys should do too. Like, where's the crazy socialist ideas? Where's nationalizing telecoms or raising the estate tax to 50%?
You have a powerful asset in your left wing. Use it! I don't know a lot about Perez or Ellison beyond what you do but if they're status quo, business as usual Democrats things aren't going to be looking good in four years.
Because it was what they could pass? And because it would (and has) saved at least tens of thousands of lives.
The ACA was actually created by the GOP, you may know of it as Romneycare. And as far as I know Republicans love the ACA when its called by other names like Kynect - which is popular in Kentucky with Republicans. And yes, it may not be perfect but it's helped a lot of people and would have been even better had the GOP not watered it down to the current shape. Or don't they get credit for that?
Trump wasn't selling sizzle, he was lying. It's great for campaigning, its terrible for governing because he's literally got nothing substantial to give his supporters who voted for those ideas.
If you think Democrats have only been reactive to the GOP (which is important btw, unless you don't like having the EPA, IRS, OSHA, Department of Energy and Education etc functioning) you haven't been paying attention. The reason why those things don't get much air time is because the GOP is able to obstruct a lot of those ideas from being made and/or watering them down. And stopping SS being privatized is a big deal, if they didn't back in W.'s term everyone would have been fucked after the economic implosion in 2008.
Here are some bills proposed by the Obama administration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jobs_Act
http://fortune.com/2016/11/23/federal-judge-obama-administration-overtime-rule/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Ledbetter_Fair_Pay_Act_of_2009
http://nymag.com/news/features/obama-climate-change-2013-5/index1.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38311093
As far as I know the Federal government can't over rule states under certain conditions, that's why they couldn't threaten to withdraw payment to states that refused Obamacare. The state's citizens needed up paying for that decision by SCOTUS.
The President is not a king, and Democratic presidents have more restraints than Republicans for various reasons, like they try to govern like kings, and the GOP are very competent at what they do in obstructing how they rule.
I see a lot of hate here for Dems not being perfect, and I'm trying real hard here to take this on good faith but what is disappointing here is that the GOP is sidelined or ignored completely. As if the Dems were somehow fighting against themselves when we have a Democratic president rather than having one of the strongest political parties in the western world. How powerful do you think the GOP is here? It's like you're ignoring what they've managed to do during 15 years. Stealing a SCOTUS seat from a Democratic president and shutting the government down more than once* are quite large achievements in my view and those are just off the top of my head.
This is why it's important for the Dems not to have their standards that Republicans give them, because it's the point to discredit political foes who can't ever reach impossible standards while the GOP pretends to be the party of family values then elects Donald Trump. It's a tactic to demoralize the left voting blocs from participating, so by election time they can clean up.
I'm seriously wondering why you're a Republican or like Trump if we take your opinions at face value. In our last arguments when I bought up Trump's bad history with unions it didn't seem to dissuade you from defending him, despite the fact that you didn't like Hillary for not supposedly being popular with unions.
edit: If any party is reactive its the GOP. Anything vaguely common ground or the Dems compromising (Romneycare, Merrick Garland) they're instantly the worst thing ever, despite them being the ones who bought them up.
* they did this when Clinton was president
The people going to those town halls? They're passionate, if nothing else. We need candidates at the state and local level. There's certainly worse places to start looking.
Well, what I'm talking about is a general principle. It applies both for progressive liberal policies and borrowed Republican ideas since the chair doesn't get to, directly, make choices about that sort of thing although they have some influence. I'm not a Republican policies guy, but it's useful either way.
I just don't buy the narrative of the cool pragmatic centrists who see Ellison and Perez as interchangeable. They are similar politicians, but from the beginning Ellison seemed to attract "he seems nice, but" sentiments. He's nice, but isn't this is a fulltime job? He seems nice and no real objections are raised, and yet here we have produced another candidate that is largely similar. Ellison is nice, nothing against Ellison and it's great that you like him, but how about someone else but be assured that they are exactly the same. You could ask about why not just Ellison and the answer is of course a cool and pragmatic 'we would be entirely happy to have Ellison!' secure in the knowledge that Ellison is not happening. There is something about it that I just find deeply condescending.
However, this is a loss I won't be heartbroken to take, and hopefully not too many garments are rendered over it. It's an establishment-heavy process, which should always be seen as a long term fight, and there are better things to spend energy on and call representatives over. It's best to keep powder dry for future fights that are less opaque and actually involve public voting and mass energy.
Secure in the knowledge that Ellison is not happening? Until the vote count the other day, I wasn't aware that anybody knew one candidate was ahead of the other--just that Ellison and Perez were on top, followed by Buttigege.
Personally I don't think either of these guys actually represents me, because neither of them seems angry and upset and passionate about taking on this fight. Ellison has kind of a good-natured, easy-going pleasantness to him, while Perez has (the same) right ideas but seems to come from a place of cool appraisal, like this is abstract to him. Maybe it's weird for me to want a political organizational leadership position to attract a candidate with some fire to them but that's what I want out of this moment. Maybe the election feels pretty "both sides the same" to me partly because both men seem to embody the way the Democrats are lagging in energy levels behind the voters and protestors. And I worry that if the Dems don't catch up to that energy, they won't be able to harness it, even if they implement the daring new ideas of contesting all the states and knocking on doors between elections sometimes.
I don't understand, why is Perez spoken of as though a puppet put forward by a faction rather a person running for the position because he thinks he would be a good fit for the position? I think Ellison would be my choice for the job if I had a vote but this whole "Perez is just a tool of the establishment" line of thinking seems rather unfair (not to mention counter productive if you think he should run for office elsewhere).
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
It would be uncharitable to Perez to call him a puppet but there is plenty of reporting of people in the Clinton and White House circles urging Perez to run prior to his entrance. Fair enough, Ellison is owed nothing and neither am I or anyone else who supported Ellison. It's politics. Then after his announcement plenty of talk about how everyone is entirely happy to have either candidate. Well, clearly not.
Why not? You seem to be inventing divisiveness out of nothing here. "he seems nice, but" applies the opposite way exactly the same way for the most part, except for the people who want to make this a re-litigation of the primaries. From the beginning the two seem to have attracted "I can't really tell them apart" sentiments from my experience from those who don't actually get to vote on the DNC chair. You hear them both talk and I can't think why I'd want one over the other really as they both seem to be saying the same shit.
Like, you entire argument seems to be based on nothing more then timing. Ellison ran first, so why did Perez bother? Well, maybe he also wanted the job. Maybe he wanted it earlier but thought he'd have other opportunities available. Maybe people prefer one over the other for reasons that wouldn't make any real difference.