Stop.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT15| Orange is the New Black
- Thread starter Y2Kev
- Start date
- Status
Stop.
Officerrob
Banned
This is bullshit. Many "HillaryGAF" people would be more than fine with Bernie's choice of Ellison if he could do the job full-time. Then when Dean comes forward, the Bernie purists come out and show their ass (one in particular)
Now only if that argument he made didn't fall apart upon the slightest scrutiny. Or did Bernie tell his constituents he'd be changing party affiliation to run for president half way through his term when he was running originally?
whyamihere
Banned
Agreed. We all need to cool it for a second. Myself included.
Basileus777
Member
All of this bickering and still no one has offered a cogent argument against Dean.
I think we know her name cause Bernie bots left messages on her answering machine lol
ErasureAcer
Banned
Howard Dean caused this. We don't want the Hillary shit. We don't want Hillary supporters running the DNC even if she isn't running. You owe us for Debbie! HELL NO. HELL NO. HELL NO!
And they lie to their constituents. Sanders should have never said that he would be raising taxes in order to implement universal healthcare. We all know it has to be done but that would absolutely doom him in a general election.
So you either lie or keep things extremely vague. We are already in a post-policy political environment and the media finds it acceptable. That wont change in 2020.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
That was a separate response, rather than a comment on the Dean argument. I have no real opinion on Dean yet, I'd need to think about it. I'd like to agree with Stumpakow's argument in OT that: Dean did well in the sixth year of opposition, something literally anyone would do reasonably well in; it's difficult to tell how much of that was Dean specifically and how much was the context (Bush's approval ratings being as poor as they were by that stage). Even if it was Dean, the political climate is so different between 2016 and 2006, it is entirely unclear to me that what worked in 2006 is what would work in 2016. I don't think they are at all. Trump would never have won in 2000 or 2004 or 2008. It seems to me that, on face value, saying "we should pick Dean as DNC chair because he did well in 2006" is like saying "we should pick Clinton as Democratic nominee because she did well in 2008"; we know how that turned out.
Not that I'm saying don't pick him, mind, I'm just advising caution.
GoldenEye 007
Member
What does wanting someone who made Dems not dead fish at local levels and can commit full-time have to do with HillaryGAF.
I don't know much about Ellison, but it is good Sanders likes him. However, he can apparently only do it part-time?
Edit: Crab, fair. I think people are frenzied because we need answers and a plan ASAP. I'm sure the DNC will take some time to name a person. I just hope it's full-time regardless.
I don't know much about Ellison, but it is good Sanders likes him. However, he can apparently only do it part-time?
Edit: Crab, fair. I think people are frenzied because we need answers and a plan ASAP. I'm sure the DNC will take some time to name a person. I just hope it's full-time regardless.
Officerrob
Banned
Don't hold your breath
I don't mind it. It's reflective of the civil war that's about to take place within the party. It's clearly a conversation that will be had and needs to be had.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
Yup.
They always fall in line. Democrats have shown that, for the most part, are egotistical more than not and won't fall in line if ONE damn thing is not to their liking.
We saw the divide at the DNC with the damn Bernie chants. We saw the divide with all the Bernie bros. They were simply a symptom to the disease that is the ego.
whyamihere
Banned
Okay, so, here's the thing: There are very effective members of the Democratic party who backed Hillary. You will need them. You will need their votes. You will need the votes of the people, especially people of color, who voted for Hillary in the primaries. Without them, you cannot win.
Get it?
So the best thing we can do now is find a consensus candidate that both sides this is plausible. I don't actually think it matters that Ellison is in office.
Isaac Otherworld
Member
Dean pushed as hard as anyone for Hillary Clinton to be the nominee despite the wealth of evidence that she was struggling against Trump should she face him in the General Election.
He picked the losing strategy this election. He said she would win in a landslide and that Bernie was unelectable. He's going to pick the losing strategy next election.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
They're obviously separable, though. People govern on different things to what they campaign on all the time. Obama campaigned on being anti-NAFTA then spent most of his presidency working on TPP.
ShironRedshift
Member
Indeed, feel exactly the same way and been loving your posts. Fully aboard with everything. But I'm a sexual minority so it ain't really a question for me to begin with.
I know I don't have to tell you this, but do your best to stay safe, man. Lots of love. <3
benicillin
Banned
For the record I like Dean and think he'd be great, I'd prefer Ellison out of the current options but it really should be a full time gig, and unless someone else becomes apparent he should be a sure bet, I just think it's sad that a few assholes on Twitter or Reddit (full of assholes) and the vibe here seems again to be "Sanders and his supporters are ruining the party."
In general, this is false. Politicians generally work on the things they campaigned on, because the incentives point in that direction.
ErasureAcer
Banned
whyamihere
Banned
I, personally, do not think Dean is the right choice.
We need to go for someone fresher and younger.
We need to go with someone who uniquely suited to the Democratic coalition of 2016 (again, he's a white guy).
We need to go with someone who, like Obama (though less important), can bridge the gap between Technocrat and Social Democrats. We need both parts of the party moving forward.
We need to go for someone fresher and younger.
We need to go with someone who uniquely suited to the Democratic coalition of 2016 (again, he's a white guy).
We need to go with someone who, like Obama (though less important), can bridge the gap between Technocrat and Social Democrats. We need both parts of the party moving forward.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
The Dem autopsy based on the internal polling should be basically this:
White people were perfectly fine with racism and misogyny, but some white people shifted from Obama to Trump because they thought Hillary was a criminal because she sent emails and Benghazi and Whitewater and a billion other bullshit "scandals."
Basically, we need to nominate someone who has higher favorables next time and we should be fine if millions of people went from Obama to Trump because of the emails.
Assuming that we have elections in 2020.
White people were perfectly fine with racism and misogyny, but some white people shifted from Obama to Trump because they thought Hillary was a criminal because she sent emails and Benghazi and Whitewater and a billion other bullshit "scandals."
Basically, we need to nominate someone who has higher favorables next time and we should be fine if millions of people went from Obama to Trump because of the emails.
Assuming that we have elections in 2020.
You are once again correct. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trust-us-politicians-keep-most-of-their-promises/
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Wow, that's a hell of a declaration with no evidence to speak of.
excelsiorlef
Member
Barbara Boxer?
edit shit that was the other one that got shit on there.
Roberta Lange
There we go
whyamihere
Banned
Counter: He also had a winning strategy when he was DNC chair. So he's 1 for 2!
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I'm not in for Dean because I think he was uniquely talented at making 2006 happen, but like I outlined in that thread I am in for Dean because he's done it before and he's done it successfully, which proves at least a baseline standard of competency and means he comes into it already with the knowledge of how you run this operation, and right now when I look at 2018 I don't want an untested wildcard and I do want us to hit the ground and start work...now
Fully agree. Also must be a party of leftist economics.
More like 2 for 3 given 2006 and 2008 were both under him.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
I think right now, is that she lost because she wasn't focused on the rust belt. She had a blind spot and it lost her some of the most important states that would've likely guaranteed her victory.
Basileus777
Member
The DNC chair isn't running for office and isn't that much of a public figure, I don't see why an internal party official's race needs to be non-white. How does it impact his organizational ability?
SandersGAF if you're so adamant that Dean is not the one, bring up some names. My only input is that it should be a full time gig. Dems we bombed hard this time whoever does this needs to dedicate their time in making grounds in state legislatures and also making ground in some red states. I mean look how efficient the GOP is at those levels.
i feel like the bernie supporters are confusing dean's role and relationship with the clinton's with someone like... rahm. (who, by all accounts, was also instrumental in flipping the house in 2006). I don't really know that there's much/any evidence that dean has any kind of relationship with the clinton's. he's hardly one of their inner circle loyalists... and they have a lot of those.
we don't need to bring rahm back.
we don't need to bring rahm back.
whyamihere
Banned
Well, unfortunately, whomever the party chair is is about to become a huge public figure. Because while the DNC won't do anything when their president is in power, they're absolutely going to be more active when their party is out of party. This person is going to be a natural public figure. I'd prefer them to reflect the future of our coalition, though that might just be me.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
The implications of the FBI not only unprecedently meddling in a presidential campaign but successfully meddling in it is quite terrifying for the future. 
GoldenEye 007
Member
I get that. Many people backed Clinton, though. And many dismissed Trump. Everyone thought this would be a conventional campaign. It wasn't until late in the primaries that we could have even to have begun to saw that "something was going on." That populism and anti-establishment was the real issue.
Now was he for Clinton or was he also colluding to stack things further in Clinton's favor during the primary? Does he have a plan for building the infrastructure? Messaging will come from the candidates. What the DNC needs is infrastructure that can understand what is really going on at the ground level.
Screw that. These aren't progressives. As an actual boots on the ground getting the real work done progressive, I refuse to share the label or have it hijacked. These are extremists. I mean, when we're seriously arguing purging the DNC of anyone who associated with a Clinton, that's when you know you're dealing with a contingent that's as potentially harmful to the left as the Tea Party. Let's not go down the road of "Purity above all."
excelsiorlef
Member
Basileus777
Member
I don't really agree with this. People following politics know party heads, but they aren't mainstream figures.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
I wouldn't credit Dean for 2006 much more than I'd credit Michael Steel for 2010. Context is key. Bush was historically unpopular and the Iraq war was a disaster. Democrats were well organized around the country in complete opposition to the president and his war. DWS could have been DNC chair at the time and dems would have sweep to massive victories.
Is the DNC chair important? Yes. Was Dean's 50 state strategy good at the time? Sure. But I think a lot of people give it too much credit without recognizing that it works best when large amounts of people in nearly every state loathe the president. A 50 state strategy for democrats in 2010 would have resulted in the same massacre, it just would have wasted more money. And for the same reason: it's hard to defend an incumbent president who is loathed in many states, specifically in the south when it came to Obama in 2010.
I don't know who should be DNC chair. I'd like it to be someone who does the job full time. Now that the DNC/California cold war is presumably over since the Clintons no longer have power, I'd love to bring Jerry Brown in. Not necessarily as DNC chair after his term ends, but as an advisor. He's someone who knows how to build coalitions, he was in many ways the Bernie Sanders of his era and still is, he understands organizing, maybe he wants to help pave the way for Kamala Harris down the line, etc. There are a lot of reasons to bring him in.
Outside of that, I'd hope for someone who worked on the Obama campaign in 08 or 12.
Is the DNC chair important? Yes. Was Dean's 50 state strategy good at the time? Sure. But I think a lot of people give it too much credit without recognizing that it works best when large amounts of people in nearly every state loathe the president. A 50 state strategy for democrats in 2010 would have resulted in the same massacre, it just would have wasted more money. And for the same reason: it's hard to defend an incumbent president who is loathed in many states, specifically in the south when it came to Obama in 2010.
I don't know who should be DNC chair. I'd like it to be someone who does the job full time. Now that the DNC/California cold war is presumably over since the Clintons no longer have power, I'd love to bring Jerry Brown in. Not necessarily as DNC chair after his term ends, but as an advisor. He's someone who knows how to build coalitions, he was in many ways the Bernie Sanders of his era and still is, he understands organizing, maybe he wants to help pave the way for Kamala Harris down the line, etc. There are a lot of reasons to bring him in.
Outside of that, I'd hope for someone who worked on the Obama campaign in 08 or 12.
ShironRedshift
Member
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
pigeon, stop being dumb. Politicians do the things they promise to do, yes, but they can also do other things they didn't promise if it doesn't contradict those promises. That's, like, politics in a nutshell.
Saying that messages need to be targeted is, like, common sense. The Democrats need to be a party of minority issues and minority rights, yes. When they campaign in minority areas, where minorities provide the crucial votes, they need to emphasize what they do for minority issues. But when they campaign in areas where minority votes are not the crucial votes, then they don't need to. That doesn't mean they're anti-minority. It doesn't even mean that, when in office, they don't implement racial justice reforms. It just means that the emphasis of the message is elsewhere. Racial justice is still in the manifesto, it's still in the party platform, but it isn't the focus of the campaign leaflets and rallies, etc.
If you think the way to winning back Wisconsin is to turn up at the rusted out remains of the old factories and start telling cranky old white men about why they need to vote Democrat because otherwise there won't be police reform, you're going to lose. We literally just tried that, that's why Clinton lost.
And if you think you're going to get racial justice without winning over Wisconsin, you're nuts. To be President, you have to win 270 votes in the electoral college. I will always vote for racial justice unconditionally. Always have, always will. But I have the basic common sense to work out that there's not enough people like you and I to win office. That requires building a coalition - you scratch my back, I scratch yours. Cranky old white guys in Wisconsin will vote for people who assist with racial justice. We know because at least some of them voted Obama. But in return, they want people who assist with the auto industry, and so on.
That's the thing about allies, and alliances. They're not unconditional. They're mutual.
RustyNails
Member
Just join the green party will you. Let adults form a coalition.
Party purity will be the death of democrats.
Wait till the counting and actual analysis is done.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked