Support NeoGAF

[B-Dubs]

Ellison not gaining a since vote on the second ballot is extremely surprising

Not really. His team may have killed any chances he had to gain votes after that text thing. Plus Perez was literally one vote away, the whole thing was basically decided after the first ballot came back.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

As far as I know, basically nothing.

They both had a very strong focus on grassroots and wanted a revival of the 50 state plan.

The only really significant difference I'm aware of is their stance on lobbyist contributions - Ellison against, Perez for.

 

[Crocodile]

I'm not going to argue it its the right call or not but basically saying "you should have let the other guy have it not because he was clearly better but because some people would be irrationally and childishly upset!" is just......a depressing a fuck sentiment? At least the Nebraska coalition leader they interviewed on TV earlier provided a good argument for why she and her fellows preferred Ellison over Perez. I'm not really seeing that expressed elsewhere.

was Ellison calling Perez a corporate shill?

Did anyone accuse Ellison of that? I thought some people were upset that some in his campaign tweeted out a false (or maybe they just got confused?) endorsement. Perez isn't being attacked by Ellison but by some hardcore Sanders stans. Am I misunderstanding something.

 

[Y2Kev]

I was talking about people in this thread, actually, who spent weeks telling us how little they cared and have suddenly broken out the joyous fist-pumping on Perez's win.

Where is the joyous fist-pumping that Perez won?

 

[Tall4Life]

Yes, king of not actually being a democrat

Here we fucking go again! How does his political affiliation, which is not conservative at all, have ANY BEARING at all on how he wants to IMPROVE the Democratic party? Please enlighten me!

 

[Sibylus]

As far as I know, basically nothing.

They both had a very strong focus on grassroots and wanted a revival of the 50 state plan.

So in essence we're squabbling over who has the right optics, like we have the entire failed election campaign before this. Maybe being obsessed with how candidate A or B looks is not the way to go here.

 

[metalslimer]

Where is the joyous fist-pumping that Perez won?

If anything, people are scared that people will react negatively.

 

[PBY]

Yes, king of not actually being a democrat

How is this sentiment helpful in any way?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I'm not going to argue it its the right call or not but basically saying "you should have let the other guy have it not because he was clearly better but because some people would be irrationally and childishly upset!" is just......a depressing a fuck sentiment? At least the Nebraska coalition leader they interviewed on TV earlier provided a good argument for why she and her fellows preferred Ellison over Perez. I'm not really seeing that expressed elsewhere.

No. It's a really important statement. If you had two equally good candidates in terms of capability, but one came from a very wealthy background, and the other came from absolute poverty, you have very good reason to chose the latter. People want to see themselves in their politicians. They want to know they are represented, that they have a voice, that they matter as more than just vote automatons instructed to scrawl an X in the ballot box every two years. That's not irrational at all.

 

[kirblar]

Ellison not gaining a since vote on the second ballot is extremely surprising

Pretty sure we know exactly why that happened.

 

[Crocodile]

No, it actually has been inflicted. Things like these do matter to people. Symbolism is enormously important. If you made Obama a white guy, he'd have passed basically all the same legislation (probably more, having to battle against racism) and done his job just as well, but that doesn't mean he'd have had the same impact on America. Sometimes people are important for who they are, and what they represent. Ellison came to represent a DNC willing to listen. Perez came to represent a DNC that was going to continue down the same old path.

Please don't equate all the struggles Obama had to endure as a Black Man, all the accomplishments he was able to make under that mantle and what it meant for all Black people around the world to "endorsed by politician X". Thanks.

No. It's a really important statement. If you had two equally good candidates in terms of capability, but one came from a very wealthy background, and the other came from absolute poverty, you have very good reason to chose the latter. People want to see themselves in their politicians. They want to know they are represented, that they have a voice, that they matter as more than just vote automatons instructed to scrawl an X in the ballot box every two years. That's not irrational at all.

Please don't equate all the struggles one must endure living through abject poverty and overcome to achieve a high position in life through hard work and by ethical means to "endorsed by politician X". Thanks.

 

[thehypocrite]

I mean, if what the "far left" wants is people who literally have no experience in politics so they're not tainted sorry but I'm not sure how we work with that

That's not what that means. Politics it's about engaging your audience for the long haul where they are, not where you want them to be. If the people wanted Ellison than fuck what Obama wants this isn't about him, as it wasn't about crowning queens before, that's not how it works. It ain't about fundraising getting priority about engaging with voters where they are. This should be obvious by now.

 

[tbm24]

Where is the joyous fist-pumping that Perez won?

There's mine if anything. Perez didn't get the VP slot like I wanted, but I'm happy he's DNC chair.

 

[Emerson]

For the record I still don't think this is going to matter at all. You think this ground swell of opposition to Trump is simply going to evaporate? Ideological purists simply need perspective, and everything we've seen over the last month has shown us they gained that perspective by seeing who exactly took office.

 

[eBay Huckster]

If you made Obama a white guy, he'd have passed basically all the same legislation (probably more, having to battle against racism) and done his job just as well, but that doesn't mean he'd have had the same impact on America.

you're right!

we probably wouldn't have had whitelash nearly as severe last year and would be able to push further-left policy for at least the next four. instead, we got The End of Democracy featuring yet another fucking internecine left-wing slapfight.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Please don't equate all the struggles Obama had to endure as a Black Man, all the accomplishments he was able to make under that mantle and what it meant for all Black people around the world to "endorsed by politician X". Thanks.

blah blah blah

This is a strawman, I know it's a strawman, you know it's a strawman. Trying to bat for the moral superiority team without having a leg to stand on doesn't win internet arguments.

EDIT: especially when your colleague eBay Huckster is making the argument above.

 

[metalslimer]

It's also a little sad that we apparently can't celebrate the first Latino chair of the party and a man who literally came from nothing.

 

[The Technomancer]

That's not what that means. Politics it's about engaging your audience for the long haul where they are, not where you want them to be. If the people wanted Ellison than fuck what Obama wants this isn't about him, as it wasn't about crowning queens before, that's not how it works. It ain't about fundraising getting priority about engaging with voters where they are. This should be obvious by now.

Who is "the people" who want Ellison? Because this is such a niche thing, this is less prominent than even the primaries, I don't think any side in this thing can actually claim to speak for Democrat voters as a whole

 

[dramatis]

Of course not cause much has changed since then. Only a fool would have the same attitude with all the negative shit that are impacting the lives of everyone here. Do you?

This is what you said, don't go deflecting into other subjects.

Oh well, that's how it goes. Same old same. The people that lost everything want to continue in control of everything cause they have the power to do so.

The "people who lost everything" in June 2016 turned into the biggest sore losers, did they not? Spending months screaming and smearing, helping the enemy more than they were helping allies. They demanded accelerationism, and they sure got it, because they would rather tear everything down and have everyone live shitty lives than to concede.

What position are they and you in right now to complain that "the people who lost everything want to continue in control of everything"? Is that not the same that applied to the losers in June 2016? How are you any different?


What these elections were about is democratic power. What never crossed the minds of the losers is that perhaps within the party, their ideas and candidates were not the choice of the party. It is a warping of reality to assert a majority and victory above what the evidence indicates. In the end complaining about the 'control' of the winning party is just a way to delegitimize the win and the race. What can you actually complain about here, when Keith Ellison started off with the backing of Sanders and Schumer and even a major labor union? Why is it always when you lose, it was because the other side had unfair advantages? Why is it that your side is always the victim?

 

[thehypocrite]

Who is "the people" who want Ellison? Because this is such a niche thing, this is less prominent than even the primaries, I don't think any side in this thing can actually claim to speak for Democrat voters as a whole

Sure, but you know who cares more about this than others, pretending otherwise is disingenuous. They don't speak for everyone but nobody does, that doesn't mean that you are right to ignore them cause they do care about it. Just allow them to participate and reward them for it, this isn't the moment or the position to shock them instead of giving them cheese. You want them to continue to participate for more and greater rewards.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Anyway, best of luck to Perez. Looking at the 2018 line-up, he's really going to need it.

 

[Crocodile]

blah blah blah

This is a strawman, I know it's a strawman, you know it's a strawman. Trying to bat for the moral superiority team without having a leg to stand on doesn't win internet arguments.

EDIT: especially when your colleague eBay Huckster is making the argument above.

Don't fucking lecture me on what representation is or isn't. I understand the concept perfectly well. The concept of degree actually matters here. Ethnicity (as well as class, gender, orientation, etc.) are huge modifiers on someone's life. An endorsement is not. I can understand disappointment. "The party is dead" and "so much for listening to the base" are just stupid, hyperbolic statements.

Spoiler

My colleague eBay Huckster? What does that even mean? There aren't sides here - I just don't like it when people say stupid things

 

[royalan]

No. It's a really important statement. If you had two equally good candidates in terms of capability, but one came from a very wealthy background, and the other came from absolute poverty, you have very good reason to chose the latter. People want to see themselves in their politicians. They want to know they are represented, that they have a voice, that they matter as more than just vote automatons instructed to scrawl an X in the ballot box every two years. That's not irrational at all.

Well thank God this is for a boring DNC chair position.

 

[Holmes]

Anyway, best of luck to Perez. Looking at the 2018 line-up, he's really going to need it.

If you're talking about the Senate, you mean to wish luck to DSCC chairman Van Hollen.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

you're right!

we probably wouldn't have had whitelash nearly as severe last year and would be able to push further-left policy for at least the next four. instead, we got The End of Democracy featuring yet another fucking internecine left-wing slapfight.

If we're following this line of reasoning, should we only run white men who can just vote like women or minorities since symbolism and representation doesn't matter?

That's ridiculous right? So a group wanting one of their own people in a position of power as a symbolic gesture of unity shouldn't matter then right?

edit: obviously I'm taking it to an extreme and I want greater representation from all groups, and I'm not trying to say the left is as marginalized as minorities in the US

Who is "the people" who want Ellison? Because this is such a niche thing, this is less prominent than even the primaries, I don't think any side in this thing can actually claim to speak for Democrat voters as a whole

The activist base frustrated when Pelosi says "we're a party of capitalists, sorry, that's just the way it is" or Palmieri goes on TV and says the mass mobilization doesn't mean people want left-wing policy and "all they care about is identity" are the people who'd probably want Ellison because they feel the party is largely uninterested in them and Ellison would be a gesture of goodwill that they care and feel the left should be represented.

 

[thehypocrite]

This is what you said, don't go deflecting into other subjects.

The "people who lost everything" in June 2016 turned into the biggest sore losers, did they not? Spending months screaming and smearing, helping the enemy more than they were helping allies. They demanded accelerationism, and they sure got it, because they would rather tear everything down and have everyone live shitty lives than to concede.

What position are they and you in right now to complain that "the people who lost everything want to continue in control of everything"? Is that not the same that applied to the losers in June 2016? How are you any different?


What these elections were about is democratic power. What never crossed the minds of the losers is that perhaps within the party, their ideas and candidates were not the choice of the party. It is a warping of reality to assert a majority and victory above what the evidence indicates. In the end complaining about the 'control' of the winning party is just a way to delegitimize the win and the race. What can you actually complain about here, when Keith Ellison started off with the backing of Sanders and Schumer and even a major labor union? Why is it always when you lose, it was because the other side had unfair advantages? Why is it that your side is always the victim?

I don't give a shit anymore about the primaries, plus keep making monoliths of a collective of people who all took different directions after that and you failed to bring into the fold and have decided to demonize them, converting an opportunity into a failure and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory to give us president fucking tweet.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Don't fucking lecture me on what representation is or isn't. I understand the concept perfectly well. The concept of degree actually matters here. Ethnicity (as well as class, gender, orientation, etc.) are huge modifiers on someone's life. An endorsement is not. I can understand disappointment. "The party is dead" and "so much for listening to the base" are just stupid, hyperbolic statements. [/SPOILER]

It wasn't because of an endorsement. It's because Ellison willingly and actively made it clear he intended to listen to and connect with that particular segment of the party. They saw part of themselves in him. Trying to reduce it to just an endorsement just displays how little you understand, and how little the party actually listened.

The Democrats obviously aren't dead, they're too huge an institution, but you'll forgive me a shitpost every now and then, I don't want to be showy.

 

[The Technomancer]

No. It's a really important statement. If you had two equally good candidates in terms of capability, but one came from a very wealthy background, and the other came from absolute poverty, you have very good reason to chose the latter. People want to see themselves in their politicians. They want to know they are represented, that they have a voice, that they matter as more than just vote automatons instructed to scrawl an X in the ballot box every two years. That's not irrational at all.

A shame we got the son of Dominican immigrants with a decades long record of caring about civil rights in the position then. I'm sure none of the Democratic party sees themselves in that guy

 

[JesseEwiak]

A shame we got the son of Dominican immigrants with a decades long record of caring about civil rights in the position then. I'm sure none of the Democratic party sees themselves in that guy

Nah, those are all neoliberals who only care about identity politics.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

If you're talking about the Senate, you mean to wish luck to DSCC chairman Van Hollen.

They are both involved, actually. In fact IIRC one of Keith's ideas was trying to reduce institutional overlap because of how inefficient it is making the whole process.

 

[Mirand]

Perez seems well-qualified for the job

 

[BreezyLimbo]

A shame we got the son of Dominican immigrants with a decades long record of caring about civil rights in the position then. I'm sure none of the Democratic party sees themselves in that guy

I like Tom Perez because we share a name

 

[Deleted member 231381]

A shame we got the son of Dominican immigrants with a decades long record of caring about civil rights in the position then. I'm sure none of the Democratic party sees themselves in that guy

I think the point just went sailing over your head.

 

[thehypocrite]

Best of luck to Perez, Ellison and Mayor Pete. I whish him all the success in the world, now get out there and make it happen.

 

[chadskin]

I like Tom Perez because we share a name

Nice to meet you, Perez Hilton.

 

[Zereta]

For the record, I don't really have much problem with Perez. I quite like the guy - you might remember I was suggesting him as an alternative to Tim "Who?" Kaine as Clinton's VP choice. I'm not really disappointed Perez as a person is DNC chair. However, I think the open and obvious rejection of a candidate who clearly had more popular support from the party grassroots was an absolutely terrible message to send. It just cements the DNC as out of touch and encourages disengagement.

So someone capable of doing the job, essentially as well as Ellison, and has elected Ellison to basically work right alongside with him as his number two...

Is still not enough?

If this is all about symbolism, then the Democratic Party is fucked anyway.

DNC chair race is nothing. The three major candidates all agree on the same basic strategy. If hard-leftist wing can't throw that aside and work towards the goal that EVERYONE believes in, Dems are done.

 

[Wilsongt]

Now that we are passed the chair vote, maybe the DNC can begin working towards getting some candiates worked up for 2018.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

Nice to meet you, Perez Hilton.

Tom Hanks.

 

[The Technomancer]

Sure, but you know who cares more about this than others, pretending otherwise is disingenuous. They don't speak for everyone but nobody does, that doesn't mean that you are right to ignore them cause they do care about it. Just allow them to participate and reward them for it, this isn't the moment or the position to shock them instead of giving them cheese. You want them to continue to participate for more and greater rewards.

You make them sound like children. You, not me

 

[Deleted member 231381]

So someone capable of doing the job, essentially as well as Ellison, and has elected Ellison to basically work right alongside with him as his number two...

Is still not enough.

Not really, no. It's like getting the vice-presidential position, or being a professional Nick Clegg. Nobody cares.

As I said, I like Perez. You should all know I like Perez, I spent some time telling you how much I liked him a few months back. That doesn't mean I can't recognize this for being as dumb as it was.

 

[thehypocrite]

So someone capable of doing the job, essentially as well as Ellison, and has elected Ellison to basically work right alongside with him as his number two...

Is still not enough?

If this is all about symbolism, then the Democratic Party is fucked anyway.

DNC chair race is nothing. The three major candidates all agree on the same basic strategy. If hard-leftist wing can't throw that aside and work towards the goal that EVERYONE believes in, Dems are done.

It's nothing, has no value but let's not give it to the collective that wants it the most because ..... Reasons. No concessions, fuck them!!!

 

[The Technomancer]

I think the point just went sailing over your head.

What point? Lets be honest here: if Bernie had endorsed Perez early on because Perez is frankly just as great of a person as Ellison is, this conversation would be 100% inverted. Lets not pretend it wouldn't.

 

[thehypocrite]

You make them sound like children. You, not me

Being a child isn't a bad thing, plus we all are in more ways we are willing to concede no matter how high and mighty you consider yourself to be.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

What point? Lets be honest here: if Bernie had endorsed Perez early on because Perez is frankly just as great of a person as Ellison is, this conversation would be 100% inverted. Lets not pretend it wouldn't.

Right, but Sanders didn't endorse Perez for a reason (lobbyist donations). So your argument is something like: if the universe was totally different, the universe would be totally different. Which is like: no shit, cool. In this real world, Ellison was the candidate less favourable to corporate influence. That made him the candidate for the grassroots. That just got ignored.

Also, I'm fine with doing work. I do party work all the time. I ruined my best shoes campaigning in Stoke the other week when it was pissing down, and I've never voted for Corbyn and don't live in Stoke. It's still pretty reasonable to point out that not everyone is as functionally utilitarian as I am, and sometimes they need to feel inspired, and accordingly that this was a dumb move, while also wanting to do work.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Nice to meet you, Perez Hilton.

Oh god kill me

 

[The Technomancer]

Being a child isn't a bad thing, plus we all are in more ways we are willing to concede no matter how high and mighty you consider yourself to be.

On November 8th we all had to become adults. Immedietly.

 

[Zereta]

It's nothing, has no value but let's not give it to the collective that wants it the most because ..... Reasons. No concessions, fuck them!!!

Look, I'm an Ellison supporter. I was rooting for him. More because he has experience in mobilizing.

However, as an Ellison supporter, I can recognize that the election of Perez is only bad if as an Ellison supporter, you refuse to concede that Perez and Ellison (and Buttigeg) largely ran on the same platform. They want the same things.

Only difference is one endorsed by Warren and Sanders, and the other by Biden (possibly Obama).

None of this mattered. What, are you worried about the symbolism? Who gives a shit? Ellison and Perez both are advocating unity.

 

[Crocodile]

It wasn't because of an endorsement. It's because Ellison willingly and actively made it clear he intended to listen to and connect with that particular segment of the party. They saw part of themselves in him. Trying to reduce it to just an endorsement just displays how little you understand, and how little the party actually listened.

The Democrats obviously aren't dead, they're too huge an institution, but you'll forgive me a shitpost every now and then, I don't want to be showy.

Honestly, I don't think many who were in favor of Ellison have done a good job arguing this point. Even most people in here over the weeks have argued basically "give it to Ellison so some Sanders supporters don't throw a tantrum".

 

[Sibylus]

In fairness, symbolism has won some pretty rad martyrdoms and literary prizes.

 

[Wilsongt]

Right, but Sanders didn't endorse Perez for a reason (lobbyist donations). So your argument is something like: if the universe was totally different, the universe would be totally different. Which is like: no shit, cool. In this real world, Ellison was the candidate less favourable to corporate influence. That made him the candidate for the grassroots. That just got ignored.

Also, I'm fine with doing work. I do party work all the time. I ruined my best shoes campaigning in Stoke the other week when it was pissing down, and I've never voted for Corbyn and don't live in Stoke. It's still pretty reasonable to point out that not everyone is as functionally utilitarian as I am, and sometimes they need to feel inspired, and accordingly that this was a dumb move, while also wanting to do work.

Oh, right, I forgot you were in the UK. Why are you all up in arms about who American Democrats voted for DNC chair again?