Support NeoGAF

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

NOTE TO REPORTERS: I'm told the House repeal bill will be delayed because the CBO score was horrific. @PeterSullivan4 @sahilkapur

Tfw you are bad.

https://mobile.twitter.com/TopherSpiro/status/834536789020962821?p=v

 

[royalan]

The thing that bothers me (perhaps the most) is how much anger and focus there is over something most people don't even understand. I've listened to Bernie supporters talk about it and it's like they think the DNC chair is the face of the party, in charge of everything, etc etc. Hence the obsession over purity on legislation or economic views.

The end result, much like the primaries, is that if Bernie doesn't get his way: everything is rigged, everything is corrupt, take your ball and go home. These people are fucking idiots. I can't think of a civil way to put it.

Perez is probably going to win. Do I think he made a big mistake by announcing the level of support he has? Yes. But ultimately it is what it is. And furthermore...what has Ellison DONE to warrant absolute praise or even qualify for the job in people's minds? I have no problem with him, he'd be a good DNC chair, but it's not like he has some noteworthy level of organizing experience. He's being heralded because...he supported Bernie, and Bernie supported him.

Nor do I think this has much to do with Clinton. The Clintons are finished, thank god. This is not some proxy war with promises on the line, 2020 in discussion, etc. That ship has sailed. Perez is not a Clinton lackey.

This is a great example. lol

Ellison's opposition in the party shouldn't be labeled as Clinton-ites. It's Democrats.

And, I mean, I get it. Frankly, at this point, I don't give a fuck WHO gets it. They're all capable. But it SHOULD be Perez. He has the experience and the clear backing of the party. I mean, that's how this shit is supposed to work.

But if he doesn't get it, or if he does get it and we go through weeks more of proxy war hell, it'll be because of Bernie Fucking Sanders. And...jesus fuck is that annoying at this point.

 

[chadskin]

Tom Cotton town hall livestream: http://www.arkansasonline.com/cottontownhall/

hoo boy

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

Tom Cotton town hall livestream: http://www.arkansasonline.com/cottontownhall/

hoo boy

This is good for everyone to see. I think the right is way too obsessed with the idea that all democrats are "liberal snowflakes" in Portland or whatever.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Cassidy feeling the heat down here too.

http://www.theadvocate.com/new_orle...cle_d16859da-f92d-11e6-b55e-cf4e042958ec.html

 

[NeoXChaos]

The Senate is not the end-all, be-all. Winning back the House, while a tall task, is not impossible. And perhaps more important -- and definitely more winnable -- are a ton of governorships and other state legislature seats around the country, all of which will be crucial in determining the next round of redistricting in 2021.

+ the senate is a 2 part feat anywho. The best outcome in 2018 is to hold all seats and pick up NV. Then try to oust Collins Tiller and Gardner for a 52-48 split come 2021 with a hopeful House majority in 2019 and reelect for D-D-D in 2021. By that point remove the filibuster.

Any seat lost by the Trump 10 and it gets dicey. You basically start running out of pickup opportunities and have to wait for 2022 which if you oust Trump in 2020 that will be a midterm for the new D president and we all know how 2010 went.

 

[tuxfool]

Tom Cotton town hall livestream: http://www.arkansasonline.com/cottontownhall/

hoo boy

He is handling it better than the others.

 

[tbm24]

The thing that bothers me (perhaps the most) is how much anger and focus there is over something most people don't even understand. I've listened to Bernie supporters talk about it and it's like they think the DNC chair is the face of the party, in charge of everything, etc etc. Hence the obsession over purity on legislation or economic views.

The end result, much like the primaries, is that if Bernie doesn't get his way: everything is rigged, everything is corrupt, take your ball and go home. These people are fucking idiots. I can't think of a civil way to put it.

Perez is probably going to win. Do I think he made a big mistake by announcing the level of support he has? Yes. But ultimately it is what it is. And furthermore...what has Ellison DONE to warrant absolute praise or even qualify for the job in people's minds? I have no problem with him, he'd be a good DNC chair, but it's not like he has some noteworthy level of organizing experience. He's being heralded because...he supported Bernie, and Bernie supported him.

Nor do I think this has much to do with Clinton. The Clintons are finished, thank god. This is not some proxy war with promises on the line, 2020 in discussion, etc. That ship has sailed. Perez is not a Clinton lackey.

These people are just addicted to the primary fight and the drama that resulted. This DNC chair race is going to end, if a vocal segment of Bernie supporters become upset, let them. The DNC chair is not a role that's going to get public attention be it Ellison or Perez.

 

[TiredofWinning]

He is handling it better than the others.

Yea I have to say Cotton's keeping himself pretty composed through this whole thing. He has the right demeanor for this type of event.

 

[LostMyNarbles]

Christ stop clapping at every word I want to hear what she actually has to say.

 

[Vestal]

Wow crowd just lost it with the Independent investigation question.

 

[Holmes]

Who will be more finished come mid-2017: the Clintons or Perriello when he loses the nomination for VA-Gov?

 

[KingK]

It's pretty easy...if you don't have to spend time worrying about appealing to the influential moneyed interests that largely have power both within the Democratic Party, and the country as a whole, that have a vested interest in not rocking the boat too much economically.

Most people's issue priorities, even among marginalized groups, are tied into economic issues anyway (polling shows this repeatedly), so I actually don't agree with the premise that those groups were "turned off" by economic talk or that they keep them in completely separate bubbles as the debate often implies. I often feel like this is more of a debate for us hardcore followers of politics, rather than the mass voting population in those groups.

Black people use social security too. Latinos need jobs as well. Women do more than just get abortions. Gay people need health care, and not just via marriage.

Sure, one can always improve how they connect and talk about all of these issues, so I'm not opposed to that. And obviously, there are some people that might get turned off by it. But I don't think "economics vs. identity" is some bitter divide among the vast majority of voters, Democrat or otherwise, the way we often make it sound.



And I agree with this as well, since even if you have the message, your bio/history/record also has to support it. The issue isn't that Democrats "don't campaign on the economy". It's that, at least in the specific case of the 2016 election (and maybe even going back the past 6-8 years), candidates often aren't very credible on it, and largely don't really offer a bold new vision that motivates people. I don't think it's a surprise to say that many people (rightfully, imo) were skeptical that a Clinton was going to challenge power in any way to get us on the road to major change. One could argue that 2016 Hillary is obviously more progressive than 1992 Bill, but considering the Clintons pretty much perfected the idea of "triangulation" what's to stop them from doing the same if they have to deal with a more right-wing 2016 GOP congress? The pressure to "compromise and get something done" would be strong, and the Clintons have certainly in the past had no issue with embracing right-wing framing and policies on various issues. And the Clinton side of the party doesn't seem to be very grassroots focused; after all, her main selling point was that she's the best one that can work inside the system, and not challenge it.

As with Obama's signature progressive accomplishment, it was done in a way that tries to not challenge power at all. Which can certainly lead to some improvements, and is "pragmatic", but it's hard to build increased turnout around that. And if you're not a charismatic, transformative speaking figure the way Obama is, you need that issue credibility to shore up that weakness. Unfortunately, Clinton (and one can argue, Democrats as a whole) didn't have that, and was unable to compensate for it in key states.

Of course, it's easy to say "yeah, but you should still vote for the one that isn't fucking Donald Trump", but just on a pure psychology level, that's not really the greatest GOTV message. And then when you get things like that Joy Reid tweet about latinos, it almost becomes abusive in a way, since it's not like those same issues just started happening when Trump was elected. "Silly Latinos, why didn't you vote for the party that deported your family...but spoke really nicely about it" doesn't really seem like a good political message to win people over, to say the least.

Just wanted to say that I find myself strongly agreeing with, like, every post I've ever seen from you.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Cassidy feeling the heat down here too.

http://www.theadvocate.com/new_orle...cle_d16859da-f92d-11e6-b55e-cf4e042958ec.html

Doesn't surprise me - I suspect Cassidy is more moderate than he lets on.

Warren's office told people to call Cassidy during the first Obamacare repeal vote because they believed he was still on the fence, and he coauthored Collins' replace bill. I think he knows the ramifications if they pull the rug out from ACA without having anything to replace it with.

+ the senate is a 2 part feat anywho. The best outcome in 2018 is to hold all seats and pick up NV. Then try to oust Collins Tiller and Gardner for a 52-48 split come 2021 with a hopeful House majority in 2019 and reelect for D-D-D in 2021. By that point remove the filibuster.

Any seat lost by the Trump 10 and it gets dicey. You basically start running out of pickup opportunities and have to wait for 2022 which if you oust Trump in 2020 that will be a midterm for the new D president and we all know how 2010 went.

Our targets in 2020 should be Maine, North Carolina and Colorado (as you mentioned), but I'll also add Montana, Georgia and (tentatively) Iowa and Alaska to that list.

Montana someone needs to convince Steve Bullock to run. I expect Mark Begich to give it another shot in Alaska. Not sure who we could get in Georgia or Iowa, but we might have more of a bench following the 2018 elections.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

+ the senate is a 2 part feat anywho. The best outcome in 2018 is to hold all seats and pick up NV. Then try to oust Collins Tiller and Gardner for a 52-48 split come 2021 with a hopeful House majority in 2019 and reelect for D-D-D in 2021. By that point remove the filibuster.

Any seat lost by the Trump 10 and it gets dicey. You basically start running out of pickup opportunities and have to wait for 2022 which if you oust Trump in 2020 that will be a midterm for the new D president and we all know how 2010 went.

AZ, MT, TX, AK, and GA should all have serious attempts made for their seats, which success with would give us a 58-42 split. Not saying this will happen, but only focusing on Clinton state pickups and holds isn't a good idea imo

 

[Holmes]

People jeering and bitching at Cotton is pretty awesome though.

 

[jtb]

The Clinton breakdown offers a pretty clear path to a house majority (sun belt), but that won't be a good strategy for a Senate majority. Which is fine.

 

[BadenBadenLily]

Not sure who we could get in Georgia or Iowa, but we might have more of a bench following the 2018 elections.

Iowa Dems have nobody outside of Loebsack who will probably run for governor in 2018 and lose.

Only hope of knocking out Ernst is if someone convinces Vilsack to run (not happening).

 

[Aaron Strife]

AZ, MT, TX, AK, and GA should all have serious attempts made for their seats, which success with would give us a 58-42 split. Not saying this will happen, but only focusing on Clinton state pickups and holds isn't a good idea imo

Yeah. If we just focused on Clinton states we'd top out at 40 seats. We need to be able to play in red states.

 

[Bishman]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/bernie-sanders-loyalists-are-taking-over-the-democratic-party-one-county-office-at-a-time-1487780384

In Washington, Democrats are grappling with what it means to be a minority party in the age of Donald Trump. In the rest of the country, populist followers of Sen. Bernie Sanders are mounting a sustained effort to answer the question from the bottom up.

In California, supporters of the 2016 presidential contender packed the obscure party meetings that chose delegates to the state Democratic convention, with Sanders backers grabbing more than half the slots available.

They swept to power in Washington state at the Democratic state central committee, ousting a party chairman and installing one of their own in his place. Sanders acolytes have seized control of state parties in Hawaii and Nebraska and won posts throughout the party structure from coast to coast.

Those gains come from an under-the-radar blitz in a debate over the future of the party following its bruising 2016 losses. While Democrats nationwide have put the focus on President Trump, the Sanders wing of the party has engaged in an intramural fight to remake the party in a more populist, liberal mold.

“It is absolutely imperative that we see a major transformation of the Democratic Party,” Mr. Sanders said in an interview last week. The party has “to do what has to be done in this country, to bring new energy, new blood.”

The party will choose its new chairman on Saturday at a meeting in Atlanta. Some in the Democratic old guard harbor concerns that a sharp turn to the left could alienate centrist voters, jeopardize the party’s position in the next presidential election and, before then, lead to primary challenges to incumbent Democrats in the 2018 midterm elections.

“Is the Bernie Sanders-Elizabeth Warren wing of the party going to push us too far to the left?” asked former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, who also served as chairman of the Democratic National Committee. “Only if they start going after incumbent moderate Democrats in primaries like the tea party did.”

The broader goal is not only to pull the party to the left on policy, but also to fundamentally alter how it operates by eschewing corporate donors, shifting resources from television advertising to neighborhood organizing and stripping power from longtime party elders—including the “superdelegates” who can tip presidential primary contests—ahead of the 2020 election.

The highest-profile test of the clout of the Sanders faction will come when DNC members gather this week in Atlanta to choose their next party chairman. Mr. Sanders, his supporters and Our Revolution are backing Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison. Most of the party’s establishment, loyal to Mr. Obama and 2016 presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, support former Labor Secretary Tom Perez.
Whichever candidate prevails in Atlanta, he will preside over a party that is rapidly being populated by activists partial to the Sanders brand of liberal populism. “A lot of people are concerned that if Keith [Ellison] is not elected, there could be a backlash,” said Michelle Deatrick, a former Sanders campaign staffer from Michigan who last year won a seat on the DNC.

The Ellison organizing effort risks a backlash of its own. Pennsylvania Democratic Party Chairman Marcel Groen was annoyed recently when a group tweeted to urge followers to call him to show support for Mr. Ellison. More than 300 calls came in, jamming his line.

“They are putting an awful lot of pressure on people; it’s over the top,” said Mr. Groen, who subsequently endorsed Mr. Perez. “It’s counterproductive.”

DNC debate is tonight!

 

[kirblar]

The Clinton breakdown offers a pretty clear path to a house majority (sun belt), but that won't be a good strategy for a Senate majority. Which is fine.

Can't really do a Senate majority without an insano wave this year. Just holding ground is fine.

 

[Wilsongt]

Looks like a lot of GOP reps are getting flak. Our former Brazilian escapades governor said that he had a lot of protestors at his town hall, but he stated they were local.

 

[tuxfool]

Looks like a lot of GOP reps are getting flak. Our former Brazilian escapades governor said that he had a lot of protestors at his town hall, but he stated they were local.

The more wise among them will realise that telling people honestly expressing their opinions that they are paid shills only antagonizes them more.

 

[Cybit]

Quotes are failing on mobile - but two reminders

1) voting data indicates a higher percentage of dem Bernie primary voters voted for Clinton than Dem Clinton primary voters voted for Obama (91-94% for Bernie, mid to low 80s last I saw for Clinton)

2) Clinton also had the most racially progressive policy for a presidential candidate in history, on the heels of BLM, and the only major demographic voter turnout drop were young POC voters across the country. It's pretty intellectually dishonest to claim Bernie voters abandoned progressive concessions made by Clinton and ignore that the young minority voter turnout is what hurt Dems the most internally. (Unless you want to argue that maybe the social justice focused campaign of Clinton didn't appeal to young POC voters).

Don't put motives into why people did or did not vote that maliciously unless you can back it up. (Which you can't this election)

 

[shinra-bansho]

Is Chuck Schumer not part of the establishment anymore.

Also, eschewing "corporate donors" presumably means... donations from people who happen to work at corporations? Based on how people have interpreted Open Secrets data. Or I guess high net worth donations.

Yeh, good luck taking the House and Senate without those.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Not that I think Cotton will ever lose his seat, but AR-2 is only R+8, probably should make a shot for it in two years.

 

[JDB]

preach

 

[B-Dubs]

Is Chuck Schumer not part of the establishment anymore.

Also, eschewing "corporate donors" presumably means... donations from people who happen to work at corporations? Based on how people have interpreted Open Secrets data. Or I guess high net worth donations.

Yeh, good luck taking the House and Senate without those.

I dunno, I can't keep track anymore.

 

[KingK]

The Democratic Party crafted its most progressive platform ever last year, thanks in part to Bernie.

And the Bernie wing gave not a fuck about that, because at the end of the day they gave not a single shit about progressive policies. They wanted Bernie. That's it.

The 2016 platform was super-mega-hyper-ultra-progressive.

They didn't care. Because what they say they care about isn't what they actually care about.

I mean, I guess I'd be considered part of the "Bernie wing" and I absolutely cared about how good the platform ended up being. I'm glad my vote helped move the party in that direction, and I was able to point to many of those policies to convince a lot of friends to vote in the general. Clinton still lacked credibility for a lot of people on some of those issues, but it was appreciated by me and a lot of others like myself.

I had kinda hoped that this poliGAF trend ended by now. Some of you seem to obsessively read Twitter for some stupid comments by people (who, from all available data, represent <10% of Bernie support) and use that to collectively shit on anybody to the left of Obama and any ideas or opinions they have.

Like, I agree with you guys much of the time. Royalan especially, since the election I've agreed with a lot of what I've read from you in OT threads. So it's discouraging when I constantly see shit like this that makes me feel like the respect isn't exactly mutual, or that my motives will be met with suspicion any time I criticize a Democrat or espouse an opinion. Like, I don't think any of you have said anything shitty to me personally. I guess I'm just making a comment on how I don't see the demonization of the left (or Bernie wing or whatever) by the center-left as doing much good.

Also, apologies if this didn't make much sense. I just smoked a joint after not smoking for a few months so I'm pretty gone lol.

 

[JesseEwiak]

I'm going to continue to demonize th Dumb part of the Left to make sure the Democrats don't get taken over by them like the GOP did.

 

[TiredofWinning]

https://twitter.com/sarahkliff/status/834531938362875904?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

Per @emma_sandoe, Kansas’ House just voted 85-40 in favor of expanding Medicaid.

Welp Brownback's got another veto on his hand.

 

[jtb]

I think it's obvious that, at this point, the vast majority of grassroots, progressive energy is directed in the right direction: against Trump and the Republicans.

The town halls, the women's march, etc. were reassuring that progressives are going to be just fine and that anyone who is actually directing their energy against Corporate Globalist Neoliberal Clintonites in the Rigged DNC is an idiot and a very very tiny very very vocal subset of the party base. Ditto for the Peter Daou's of the world as well.

 

[royalan]

I mean, I guess I'd be considered part of the "Bernie wing" and I absolutely cared about how good the platform ended up being. I'm glad my vote helped move the party in that direction, and I was able to point to many of those policies to convince a lot of friends to vote in the general. Clinton still lacked credibility for a lot of people on some of those issues, but it was appreciated by me and a lot of others like myself.

I had kinda hoped that this poliGAF trend ended by now. Some of you seem to obsessively read Twitter for some stupid comments by people (who, from all available data, represent <10% of Bernie support) and use that to collectively shit on anybody to the left of Obama and any ideas or opinions they have.

Like, I agree with you guys much of the time. Royalan especially, since the election I've agreed with a lot of what I've read from you in OT threads. So it's discouraging when I constantly see shit like this that makes me feel like the respect isn't exactly mutual, or that my motives will be met with suspicion any time I criticize a Democrat or espouse an opinion. Like, I don't think any of you have said anything shitty to me personally. I guess I'm just making a comment on how I don't see the demonization of the left (or Bernie wing or whatever) by the center-left as doing much good.

Also, apologies if this didn't make much sense. I just smoked a joint after not smoking for a few months so I'm pretty gone lol.

Apologies if you felt my post was aimed at you personally. It was admittedly strongly worded.

My ire is not aimed at you or anybody here. It's aimed at the "earn our support" mentality that is taking shape within the Bernie wing. That isn't just wayward tweets. It's the developing strategy of what's left of Bernie's movement, spurned on by Bernie himself. Bernie is STILL attacking establishment Dems, and to this day he still refuses to share his email list with the party over some stupid idea that Democrats need to "earn it" despite Democrats bending over backwards for him and drafting the most progressive platform in our party's history with HIS direct help.

And the damn fact is the whole reason the DNC Chair contest is a fucking big deal, instead of the quiet thing that nobody pays attention to like it should be, is because Democrats are literally afraid of what the fallout is going to be if anybody but Ellison gets it.

Bernie Sanders, and by extension what remains of his campaign, have to this day not acknowledged the unprecedented concessions the party made to get him and his supporters on board. I can't apologize for that rubbing Democrats the wrong way, because it should and it does.

 

[Holmes]

Not that I think Cotton will ever lose his seat, but AR-2 is only R+8, probably should make a shot for it in two years.

That's the only one that's winnable.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

There is no meaningful left-left, I wish there was. Bernie only made it as far as he did because he was riding off the same coattails that Trump was juicing on. The idea that he, or Obama for that matter, is going to turn around and organize some national movement that gets new majorities elected in Congress is beyond laughable. Even in a hyper-liberal enclave like Seattle, we can only get what, one socialist elected to the City Council every 100 years?

And we're pretending that the Democrats are somehow going to be competitive running socialists in District and State-wide contests? Give me a fucking break, if there was an appetite for socialism on that level we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. No, the only way Democrats take power again is going to be off the back of national outrage against Trump, same as 2006's anti-Iraq War wave. It ain't about what Democrats are selling, it's just voters eating the Republican's shit sandwich and instinctively vomiting.

Of course it's not really the left-left's fault either. Little point to getting organized on that level when the entire institutional system is stacked against you; no parliamentary system and FPTP fucking sucks.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

https://twitter.com/sarahkliff/status/834531938362875904?ref_src=twsrc^tfw



Welp Brownback's got another veto on his hand.

Too bad he can't run for reelection, he'd get clobbered

Dude won by 3% as a Republican incumbent in Kansas in 2014. Think he's the most hated governor in the country?

I also still maintain that the Democratic Party needed (and still needs to) do a better job of highlighting the absolutely dreadful job Republicans have done in Kansas

 

[Holmes]

Too bad he can't run for reelection, he'd get clobbered

Dude won by 3% as a Republican incumbent in Kansas in 2014. Think he's the most hated governor in the country?

Him and Malloy.

 

[Y2Kev]

1) Bernie sucks, but

2) Being an adult is about making compromises. Rarely in life do you get to make a compromise where you don't actually give anything up. If giving the DNC chair-- a position everyone with a brain thinks is mostly meaningless-- to someone in particular placates a vocal wing of the party and costs you nothing, why wouldn't you do that? I just don't understand.

 

[TiredofWinning]

Him and Malloy.

I haven't been following Connecticut politics lately but I didn't think Malloy was that unpopular.

 

[kirblar]

I mean, I guess I'd be considered part of the "Bernie wing" and I absolutely cared about how good the platform ended up being. I'm glad my vote helped move the party in that direction, and I was able to point to many of those policies to convince a lot of friends to vote in the general. Clinton still lacked credibility for a lot of people on some of those issues, but it was appreciated by me and a lot of others like myself.

I had kinda hoped that this poliGAF trend ended by now. Some of you seem to obsessively read Twitter for some stupid comments by people (who, from all available data, represent <10% of Bernie support) and use that to collectively shit on anybody to the left of Obama and any ideas or opinions they have.

Like, I agree with you guys much of the time. Royalan especially, since the election I've agreed with a lot of what I've read from you in OT threads. So it's discouraging when I constantly see shit like this that makes me feel like the respect isn't exactly mutual, or that my motives will be met with suspicion any time I criticize a Democrat or espouse an opinion. Like, I don't think any of you have said anything shitty to me personally. I guess I'm just making a comment on how I don't see the demonization of the left (or Bernie wing or whatever) by the center-left as doing much good.

Also, apologies if this didn't make much sense. I just smoked a joint after not smoking for a few months so I'm pretty gone lol.

If you're not part of it, don't lump yourself in with it. Sarah Silverman, Jamelle Bouie, Melissa Byrne- they were Bernie voters too, but they aren't what we're talking about. They're not people trying to implement purity tests, to turn the Dems into a carbon copy of Corbyn's Labour. They're part of the Democrats. They understand that compromise, pragmatism, etc. are required in politics. Ellison is pushing 50-state, which is the complete opposite of a far-left platform. These people aren't part of the "Bernie Wing", they're part of the Dems!

The issue is that the "Bernie Wing" we're referring to- they still believe the election was stolen. Just like Sanders, they refuse to believe that their ideas are actually rejected by the voters - they believe that if everyone voted their conscience, they'd win! They're the political equivalent of scrubs in fighting games. When they lose, they don't try to learn and do better- they turn their backs and walk away. They also tend to strongly be white, straight, and male- effectively Reddit incarnate. They're the lefty equivalent of the libertarians who pay lip service to social issues but vote straight GOP every time anyway. This is why "Identity politics" complaints can suddenly come out of the mouths of "Progressive" individuals, because Three quarters of whites don't have any non-white friends.

And because this wing thinks they'd win if they got control (but can't actually win mainstream elections!) they go after their own in a horribly misguided attempt to "win by running to the left." It's the type of self-immolating behavior we're seeing out of people like Cenk that Melissa Byrne (Bernie's GOTV manager) went in on. Again, if you're not part of this purity-obsessed horde- you're not who I'm talking about. The "Bernie Wing" from the primaries no longer exists- most of them are back in the fold. The issue is the ones who aren't, because they were really never in the fold to begin with.

There is no meaningful left-left, I wish there was. Bernie only made it as far as he did because he was riding off the same coattails that Trump was juicing on. The idea that he, or Obama for that matter, is going to turn around and organize some national movement that gets new majorities elected in Congress is beyond laughable. Even in a hyper-liberal enclave like Seattle, we can only get what, one socialist elected to the City Council every 100 years?

And we're pretending that the Democrats are somehow going to be competitive running socialists in District and State-wide contests? Give me a fucking break, if there was an appetite for socialism on that level we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. No, the only way Democrats take power again is going to be off the back of national outrage against Trump, same as 2006's anti-Iraq War wave. It ain't about what Democrats are selling, it's just voters eating the Republican's shit sandwich and instinctively vomiting.

Of course it's not really the left-left's fault either. Little point to getting organized on that level when the entire institutional system is stacked against you; no parliamentary system and FPTP fucking sucks.

It was just straight up populism, coming in the milder Left-wing know-nothing version and the virulently racist right wing know-nothing version. And as usual, the right wing version won out. Trump and Sanders were clearly two sides of the same coin during the primaries.

1) Bernie sucks, but

2) Being an adult is about making compromises. Rarely in life do you get to make a compromise where you don't actually give anything up. If giving the DNC chair-- a position everyone with a brain thinks is mostly meaningless-- to someone in particular placates a vocal wing of the party and costs you nothing, why wouldn't you do that? I just don't understand.

I think people are too concerned (though rightfully so) about GOP narratives in an era where Trump is actively discrediting them. Obama loyalists + Perez's Labor connections are likely also in play here. I also don't get it, but some of Ellison's recent behavior has worried me a bit.

 

[Emerson]

1) Bernie sucks, but

2) Being an adult is about making compromises. Rarely in life do you get to make a compromise where you don't actually give anything up. If giving the DNC chair-- a position everyone with a brain thinks is mostly meaningless-- to someone in particular placates a vocal wing of the party and costs you nothing, why wouldn't you do that? I just don't understand.

I mean, yeah, but you say this as if there's one person you're arguing with who has the power to make the decision. Obviously not the case.

So yeah, if I could just put Ellison in charge and move on I probably would. But since this is a decision being made by several hundred people, it doesn't tend to go that smoothly. And so, in discussing it, I'll continue to think "Ellison or bust" is an idiotic stance to take.

 

[Manmademan]

1) Bernie sucks, but

2) Being an adult is about making compromises. Rarely in life do you get to make a compromise where you don't actually give anything up. If giving the DNC chair-- a position everyone with a brain thinks is mostly meaningless-- to someone in particular placates a vocal wing of the party and costs you nothing, why wouldn't you do that? I just don't understand.

 

[TiredofWinning]

Hey guys if you want to stop re litigating the primary stop engaging people who want to do so.

 

[royalan]

2) Being an adult is about making compromises. Rarely in life do you get to make a compromise where you don't actually give anything up. If giving the DNC chair-- a position everyone with a brain thinks is mostly meaningless-- to someone in particular placates a vocal wing of the party and costs you nothing, why wouldn't you do that? I just don't understand.

It's all going to come down to how people vote.

Who do I know best? Who has the experience and who do I trust to do the job? Perez wins, hands down.

...Fuck. This. Drama. Can we just move the hell on already? Ellison wins.

For a lot of people, it's going to come down to wanting to avoid drama versus making the decision you believe in. I won't pretend that's going to be easy.

 

[Makai]

Who do I know best? Who has the experience and who do I trust to do the job? Perez wins, hands down..

Never even heard of Perez until the primary. Ellison's been on news talk forever.

 

[kirblar]

Never even heard of Perez until the primary. Ellison's been on news talk forever.

How's he been when on those shows? That's like THE public-facing job of the DNC chair.

 

[metalslimer]

Never even heard of Perez until the primary. Ellison's been on news talk forever.

Which is fine because the DNC chair shouldn't be the public face of the party anyway. It's an organizing position, which I'd trust Perez with more, but I think both are fine for the job. Just fucking end this already dear god. This should have been done with in January

 

[shinra-bansho]

He was the Secretary of Labor...

 

[Brawndo Addict]

bump to new page

edit: d'oh

 

[Blader]

I haven't been following Connecticut politics lately but I didn't think Malloy was that unpopular.

My girlfriend's parents are Connecticut liberals and they hate Malloy.

How's he been when on those shows? That's like THE public-facing job of the DNC chair.

I think Perez is a much better speaker. Ellison stumbles a lot and every time I've heard him speak he sounds like he's coming into it with zero prepared remarks.