It also says he really didn't like Hillary. I think this may be underestimated. I know my parents had a completely irrational hate for Hillary. She really got screwed by years upon years of demonization by the right. So many counties in Iowa wouldn't have switched from Obama to Trump unless they couldn't have swallowed voting for Hillary. Really sucks.
-
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 2017 |OT1| From Russia with Love
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
It also says he really didn't like Hillary. I think this may be underestimated. I know my parents had a completely irrational hate for Hillary. She really got screwed by years upon years of demonization by the right. So many counties in Iowa wouldn't have switched from Obama to Trump unless they couldn't have swallowed voting for Hillary. Really sucks.
You know they must be desperately trying to hide this article from him.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Yeah, this is the kind of energy we need. Getting the Vice President (I know it was from his home state) involved and such. Hope they get Obama, Biden, Bill, Bernie etc on the trail next Fall for not just congressional candidates, but state legislative ones as well.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Has Zinke been confirmed yet? When are the special elections for GA, MT, and KS?
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Well, the next weeks scandal came early.
Feel terrible for any service member and their family at the order of Trump.
djplaeskool
Member
GA = April 18
TheLaughingStock
Member
The Democratic leadership has already talked to guys like George Lakoff about use of language to win elections against the GOP. They don't consistently apply it once they regain power and that's normal.
In any event, Hillary's L wasn't driven by the fact she's a nerd (I mean c'mon), 30 years of bad news, or the fact that she didn't show enough emotion. Hillary was perceived to be a liar, displayed poor judgement in key situations and didn't have the transformational answers (as a status quo elitist) needed to address real problems. Obama saw unjustified smearing as a minority candidate that Hillary will never come to understand as a privileged white woman and he beat the Clinton machine plus the GOP 2x. She came into races as a heavy favorite despite the GOP smear campaign. And the reason why is virtually no one else cares besides the Republican base. Hillary was a terrible candidate that had all the tools and potential but blew it. She's a choker.
Sirpopopop
Member
Seriously dude? Being called a nasty woman on stage isn't unjustified smearing?
neurosisxeno
Member
They spent 6+ years saying he couldn't have been an American Citizen because he was half black. I feel like that's a bit worse. Trump calling Clinton a "nasty woman" was smart honestly, it kept the narrative going that she was a corrupt politician. If he could have gotten away with it I'm sure he would have called her a bitch or worse....
Randolph Freelander
Member
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Hillary faced 20+ years of a smear campaign because she didn't want to just bake cookies as First Lady.
What the GOP did to Obama was absolutely unfair, but I'm not sure it's comparable to the way they treated Hillary. Especially since it largely didn't work with Obama outside of their base, but it did work with Hillary.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
So army, now Navy secretary nominees withdrew.
Well, has he actually withdrawn or is he just "expected" to right now?
jack_package_200
Banned
The hottest of takes from the dumbest of people.
Well, that draws a nice contrast to Trump. But almost anything does.
You really don't get how
"Oh, you want a progressive? Sure, as long as it isn't a sanders progressive."
Doesn't go down well?
JesseEwiak
Member
So cabinet/secretary pics are vetted and withdraw due to conflicts of interest.
But the actual president... who fucking cares, right?
To just emphasise this point, I think sexism is more "in the gut" than racism is. Racism is something that's learned, but I think sexism is very much more inherent, in that it is still learned, but it's learned from such an early age. How boys and girls play, how they interact with technology, how they are valued in the playground, how they're valued as educators, how they're valued as carers. All of these interplay with people's perception of Hillary, because she's a woman. As evidence, look at the sneering/mocking that goes on when you talk about her emails and private server. If a guy had done it, he'd be kicked for it, but it wouldn't have the same level of condescension. Why? Because there's still the undercurrent of "Women don't know how technology works" in the mainstream.
I am not for one second saying what Obama had to put up with isn't awful, nor am I saying that African Americans don't have it as bad - or worse - than women. But you can't approach racism and sexism as the same "level" of problem. One certainly has more life-threatening issues - few have been shot "because she's a woman" - but endemic sexism in society gave Hillary optics problems that Obama - as a guy - never had.
It's why Michelle running would be... interesting, for a number of reasons.
Edit: Reading that WaPo "Trump supporters worried" piece, something else about sexism. Look at how many people are saying "Give him a chance". Read that same piece, but switch it to "her" every time someone says that. Seems damn unlikely that those guys would say that, right?
And we have finally found the problem! Ding ding ding, we have a winner! :/
JesseEwiak
Member
Like maybe because I was always a data nerd or I came of political age during a Republican administration, but I never got the people who believed we should run leftists everywhere. I mean, I supported Kerry over Dean in '04.
The argument is, "but the Republican's can run right wingers everywhere and win." Yes, because a lot of the country is very right wing and honestly, pre-Tea Party, the politicians in office in the GOP were likely to the left of the party at large. Also, abortion and guns are such salient issues that are hard to crack for cultural reasons.
I've always been aware I'm in the leftist 10% of the country when it comes to my political views. What I worry about is that so many members of the Left never actually do things like read The National Review, The Federalist, or even more 'moderate' places like any non-political forum that deals in politics, so they live in an enconsed bubble where Hillary Clinton actually is a conservative.
*nods* Yeah... Bernie did a good thing in energising grassroots support, but unfortunately, I think a lot of the people he fired-up are politically naive. What I would like to see from Bernie (and to a lesser extent, Warren) is more nuanced arguments, and a kind-of... collaborative effort with his supporters. Like, it sounds sanctimonious, but he should treat his supporters like he's a teacher and they're schoolkids - lead, educate and add depth to their knowledge.
It's generalising, certainly, but when you have the one guy you look up to whining on and on about the 1%, why would you seek to educate yourself about other problems, or the "opposition" (Clinton)? I wonder how many Bernie supporters actually know about Hillary's commitment to equal rights and equal pay? Or her work getting schools to educate disabled children? They aren't "conservative" issues, or stances
MetalGearZed
Member
The hottest of takes from the dumbest of people.
yawn.
Tomi been trying too hard these past couple weeks
Aaron Strife
Banned
There are so many on the left who apply this litmus test bullshit where it's like... voting for a Democrat who's progressive on everything but then supports TPP is just as bad as voting Republican. They always take that one fucking issue where they tried to separate themselves and turn it into proof that they're a corporatist whore or something.
It's different from a one-issue voter. It's a 20-issue voter who will flunk you if you come up short on any single one of their issues.
But I guess they are one-issue voters in a sense - the issue now seems to be who does Bernie support, or who supported Bernie. Complete cult of personality.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
This, exactly
Smiles and Cries
Member
shinra-bansho
Member
What is a Sanders progressive beyond being anointed by the high sparrow? Because without a meaningful distinction your quotation example response is just jibber jabber irrationality. It again, has zero to do with "progressiveness".
I already noted that basing the decision either way solely on what Bernie Sanders does is dumb. I rattled off half a dozen reasons 235 voting members of the DNC may have preferred Perez. Similarly 200 preferred Ellison.
The result is one is Chair. One is Deputy. The other way round would also have been fine.
Knickers in a twist over this is the height of pointlessness.
When Liberal Icon Tulsi Gabbard does not win the 2020 primary over neoliberal shill Gillary Harris we will hear the same nonsense.
It's the age thing. https://t.co/GSPgtQG6pC
Us 26+ers who remember Bush and the Bush/Gore election learned our lesson the hard way.
And National Review is now far to the left of the GOP, which is crazy.
At the end of your post you bring up Gabbard so you seem to be aware of the simple fact that there are political relationships and that endorsements send signals -- but here you seem to act like it's not a real thing or that it somehow only happens with Bernie and wasn't a factor with Perez with Obama's endorsement for some reason.
It's one thing to disagree with the anger we're seeing from the Bernie wing -- I wish they'd not play it so hot too. But you are totally unwilling to empathize with them on any level and instead resort to making fun of them. I don't know if it's bitterness from Clinton losing or what, but it's a shame that we're having to deal with this petty division within the party. If you wanna claim to be on the side of the grown ups, act like it. Help cool off the Bernie wing's distrust of the DNC by giving them a real seat at the table, especially in situations like this where it basically costs the establishment nothing to throw them a bone. Mocking them is only making it worse. Acting like we can just tell them to fuck off is just foolish. Dems need them, whether you like it or not. And no, we're not talking about the mythical bernie or busters that voted trump that you all love to bring up to justify you trashing the bernie wing. We're talking about the young, politically energized cohort that generally leans left but has legitimate gripes about the DNC -- the people that will make up a big chunk of the new blood coming into the party, if there will be a party.
Lots of young people up for grabs. Outright foolish to pretend we don't need them or that we can count on them while ignoring their concerns.
I'm not even sure you're really reading my posts. I think I was pretty clear in that I wasn't talking about progressiveness on a political spectrum. Don't think I even used the term you're quoting.
We knew this drama would happen. I presume the DNC voters weren't so out of the loop that this is catching them off guard. It sends the signal of 'fuck off' to the Bernie wing, much like comments in this thread. You're right -- the other way around would have been fine... and it would have also avoided all this stupid drama, so it seems like a pretty obvious and pragmatic way to go. But apparently saying 'fuck you' to the Bernie wing is more important than party unity and 2018/2020.
It was obviously important to the bernie wing, less important to establishment at large. It's essentially saying to them "it basically makes no difference to us which one got it... and we still couldn't even give you that." It plays right into the idea that dems care more about control and power than they care about actually fighting for progressive causes. I am still struggling to get why this is so hard for people to understand.
There was a bit of it during the primary, but nowadays I hear more about Tulsi Gabbard here than anywhere else. As far as I can tell, you guys are obsessed with her way more than Bernie wing and just seem to bring her up to bash Bernie wing.
JesseEwiak
Member
Here's the thing though. If Ellison had won, there would've been no freakout by anybody on Twitter outside of Alan Dershowitz and some random 80 year old members of the DLC. The resultant thread on GAF would've gone five pages, if that. Everybody here would've moved on with their lives.
But, since Perez won, people are still freaking out.
So, it seems to me that the "Bernie" wing is upset that anybody dared run against Ellison and is freaking out he lost, despite no actual real policy differences between Ellison and Perez, except on corporate lobbying money.
Actually saying 'fuck you' would've been nominating and installing, I don't know, Rahm Emanuel or some random moderate DNCer that actually attacked Bernie on the trail.
Instead, the Obama team found somebody who they were close too and had largely the same policy positions as Ellison.
If that's seen as a fuck you to the 'Bernie" wing, then they can't be helped, since all they're going to see is slights for the next four years any Democrat doesn't react the way they want.
shinra-bansho
Member
235 people disagreed, and preferred Perez regardless. Or rather 13.5. And then the remaining 11.5 preferred Perez as their second choice.
I'm not sure where you got that I don't think Obama's approval mattered. I listed it as one of the half dozen reasons. I think it matters more than most reasons that Perez is the preference of a popular and still powerful former President.
I don't think I said anywhere I don't understand the basic premise of being upset.
But I find it stupid. This isn't a vehicle for me to convince people it's stupid. So I'm fine with making fun of the stupidity.
Liberal Icon Tulsi Gabbard is just the most prominent placeholder for Liberal Icon Alan Grayson or Liberal Icon Tim Canova or Liberal Icon Nina Turner. Liberal Icons one and all. Who will be defended for no real reason.
I'll save my empathy for shit that matters.
I'm not sure where you got that I don't think Obama's approval mattered. I listed it as one of the half dozen reasons. I think it matters more than most reasons that Perez is the preference of a popular and still powerful former President.
I don't think I said anywhere I don't understand the basic premise of being upset.
But I find it stupid. This isn't a vehicle for me to convince people it's stupid. So I'm fine with making fun of the stupidity.
Liberal Icon Tulsi Gabbard is just the most prominent placeholder for Liberal Icon Alan Grayson or Liberal Icon Tim Canova or Liberal Icon Nina Turner. Liberal Icons one and all. Who will be defended for no real reason.
I'll save my empathy for shit that matters.
excelsiorlef
Member
And I point out again that maybe Sanders shouldn't have waded in to call Biden and Perez the failed status quo... just saying that's not a great way to endear your guy to the folks whose votes you want and who all quite respect Obama and his people.
"There would be no downsides to giving it to Ellison but we decided to go with the option with downsides for some reason"
That's not smart.
This is like the third time this flawed logic has been brought up. A less progressive option would have actually been less of a 'fuck off' because it would have signaled legitimate policy differences, rather than signaling "establishment DNC is intent on keeping Bernie wing excluded from helping to direct the future of the party." It was unnecessary for Perez to jump into the race in the first place -- we already had a qualified progressive option with no downsides. What good comes from poking the bee hive? We could have just had the honey.
Can't be helped? Ellison could have been there mediating between bernie wing and the establishment to cool down that heat and make things more workable. Now that's just going to be harder.
excelsiorlef
Member
So... like this, but with different hat and "haha take that bernie"
?
JesseEwiak
Member
So... like this, but with different hat and "haha take that bernie"
?
Shockingly, people may not like to work with people who personally insult people they respect greatly and have worked closely with. Maybe if Bernie had actually done any kind of coalition building in the past 30 years in the Senate instead of yelling at clouds, he would know that.
"The guy who was elected has basically the same policies as our guy and gave our guy the #2 spot. What should we do?"
"Rage online and act like we're going to destroy the part from within, if need be."
That also sounds very smart.
You act as if actually having good close relationships with the most popular Democrat in the country who will be involved in electoral politics for the next two decades is just some small thing that doesn't matter at all. Whether you like it or not, the Obama team has been the only successful governing team for the Democrat's this millennium. So, yes, it's helpful to have somebody who is close and can work with them from Day One well.
The truth is, I'm sure Ellison would've done something within six months to make him a corpratist sellout to the groups actually upset at this anyway.
excelsiorlef
Member
So... like this, but with different hat and "haha take that bernie"
?
No it's called when you have two options that are good you might go with the one who is part of the camp that isn't insulting the other camp including the vice president as the failed status quo.
Ellison was tied to Sanders, Sanders saying stupid shit hurt Ellison.
As did Ellison claiming Mayor Pete's endorsement when he specfically did not want to endorse anyone.
JesseEwiak
Member
excelsiorlef
Member
You're justifying a worse outcome by highlighting what someone not even in the race said.
Good job on that pyrrhic victory 👍
There was behavior in the last few weeks of the campaign (complaints about other side boasting of its whip count, the Mayor Pete thing) that strongly reeked of "loser campaign."
Not in the sense that they were losing, but that these are the tactics of campaigns w/ people who don't know how to play from a position of strength.
Perez got in because people were clearly worried about Ellison, and by the end of the campaign, I think they got vindicated.
excelsiorlef
Member
A worse outcome? Perez is absolutely a good pick for the job, both men were, and both men are now working together...
But you can't make Ellison all about representing the Sanders wing and then just dismiss what Sanders himself decided to say because he wasn't the one running... This is mental gymnastics to avoid holding Sanders accountable for his own words...
eBay Huckster
Member
so you're simultaneously arguing that
1) they shouldn't have picked Perez (allegedly) as a way to spit in the face of Sanders
2) nothing Sanders said should've factored into whether they [w/c/sh]ould pick Perez (allegedly) as a way to spit in his face
this is, to say the least, inconsistent
Worse outcome, yes... all this predictable infighting, the very topic of this discussion, could have been avoided. You don't seem to think these people matter at all, which is straight up foolish.
And you made it sound like Bernie said straight up mean shit. This quote?
"Joe Biden is a friend of mine and I have a lot of respect for Tom Perez. In terms of the next chair of the DNC, however, the question is simple: Do we stay with a failed status-quo approach or do we go forward with a fundamental restructuring of the Democratic Party? I say we go forward and create a grassroots party which speaks for working people and is prepared to stand up to the top 1 percent. That's why we have to support Keith Ellison,"
That's basically the same line he's been saying since the primary. Making a mountain out of a molehill. But even if that was some new low, it's the outcome of the race that matters, not who said what beforehand. Comic still applies.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
At least the clown car had stuff like wall street speeches, donations, and past positions to hang onto as some kind of justification for their Clinton skepticism. Even from the outside looking in, I see zero logical reason to be this emotional over any of these people being picked over the other if you're a leftist.
As someone who is endlessly disappointed by how reactionary and nonsensical people's behavior tends to be, this is just annoying to witness as a spectacle of irrationality.
As someone who is endlessly disappointed by how reactionary and nonsensical people's behavior tends to be, this is just annoying to witness as a spectacle of irrationality.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
Bunp
Really? As if that justifies a stupid response in return? Is this just about keeping score for you? Are you just rationalizing all this for the sake of internet arguments?
"They're being unreasonable... let's make it worse"
Isn't the dnc establishment supposed to be the grown ups? I hold them to higher standards than inexperienced Bernie fans, and so should you.
It's simple:
-This problem was predictable and easily avoidable.
-They chose to take the stupid route and ignore it.
-Now they're paying for it and we're all stuck with this lose/lose situation.
"But.. But... Sanders and his gang deserves it!"
So... like this, but with different hat and "haha take that bernie"
?
JesseEwiak
Member
So, the grown up thing to do is acquiesce to the bits of the Bernie wing that's upset about this, now and forever? Because the truth is, whatever the evil Establishment did, no matter how much they gave in, there would've been 8,921 new sins by the Establishment before 2018. They'd just find a reason that Ellison had been corrupted by the Establishment, just like many of them thought Bernie had sold out.
Anybody pissed at this would've found some other reason to become pissed at the DNC and loudly announce that the party is corrupt and not worth supporting. I mean, let's be honest here. The 2020 Candidate, whomever it is, will have some votes or positions the loud minority of the Bernie wing won't like.
Ellison didn't get screwed in some backroom deal. Perez and he ran a campaign, more people supported Perez. Period. If anything, the Bernie wing should be happy that DWS has been replaced by a committed progressive who agrees with them on 90% of the issues.
Anybody pissed at this would've found some other reason to become pissed at the DNC and loudly announce that the party is corrupt and not worth supporting. I mean, let's be honest here. The 2020 Candidate, whomever it is, will have some votes or positions the loud minority of the Bernie wing won't like.
Ellison didn't get screwed in some backroom deal. Perez and he ran a campaign, more people supported Perez. Period. If anything, the Bernie wing should be happy that DWS has been replaced by a committed progressive who agrees with them on 90% of the issues.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked