Support NeoGAF

[Killthee]

Rep. Keith Ellison: I will resign my seat if I win DNC Chair

WASHINGTON – U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison will vacate his Congressional seat if he wins the chairman job at the Democratic National Committee, he told the Star Tribune Wednesday morning.

Ellison conceded Wednesday that a full-time chair is what the party wanted after the losses of the 2016 presidential and Congressional elections. He said he came to the decision after difficult soul-searching and hearing from the more than 400 voting members of the DNC who said they wouldn’t vote him as long as he was a sitting member of Congress.

The previous chair, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, was a Florida congresswoman.

“Serving my neighbors in Congress and fighting for them has been the best job I’ve ever had,” Ellison said, in an e-mail. “Whether it was for immigration reform, worker’s rights, gender equity, or social justice, we stood side by side so that every person in American ... is treated with respect and given every opportunity to succeed. Until the DNC Chair election, I plan to continue doing just that.”

The 447 voting members of the DNC will cast ballots for their party leader on Feb. 23 in Atlanta, with a simple majority needed to win. Should Ellison win, staffers say he would resign his seat on Capitol Hill the following week.

His platform can be found here: https://keithfordnc.org/platform

 

[Kimawolf]

Good. Do that and you have my support.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

Good to hear. I have faith in Ellison.

 

[Gnome Scat]

Well he has my support then, this is what we need if we want to have a chance of winning in 2020.

 

[Trojita]

and hearing from the more than 400 voting members of the DNC who said they wouldn’t vote him as long as he was a sitting member of Congress.

There we go. That's literally 400+/447 so at least their is a consensus that the new boss has to get things done without being sidetracked.

 

[ultratruman]

First Pelosi, now Keith '9/11 was a Reichstag Fire' Ellison. DNC are so fucked if they choose this man. I mean 2016 UK Labour FUCKED.

 

[bachikarn]

Good. Like him a lot but if he wins, hope he doesn't try just pushing the progressive agenda everywhere. Need to trade Republicans with Conservative democrats in some of these southern/conservative states. Not ideal, but much better situation than we currently are in.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Full time is needed and is my biggest issue. If he's willing to go full-time, then that's great.

 

[Courage]

First Pelosi, now Keith '9/11 was a Reichstag Fire' Ellison. DNC are so fucked if they choose this man. I mean 2016 UK Labour FUCKED.

wat

 

[Isaac Otherworld]

There we go. That's literally 400+/447 so at least their is a consensus that the new boss has to get things done without being sidetracked.

They didn't care when DWS was driving the party into a ditch. But now that it's a possible progressive they're suddenly really concerned.

Anyway, if Keith needs to step down to secure his position as DNC chair then fine. What I find really concerning are liberal and democratic establishment groups smearing Ellison as antisemetic and using islamophobia to do so. J Street and the Anti Defamation League have both said that Ellison has been a lifelong ally to fighting antisemitism. It's fucking disgusting.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

First Pelosi, now Keith '9/11 was a Reichstag Fire' Ellison. DNC are so fucked if they choose this man. I mean 2016 UK Labour FUCKED.

Huh?

Pretty much every facet of the Democrats, from the moderates to the ultra liberal want Ellison

Also you're going to need to go on a bit more about Pelosi.

 

[KuwabaraTheMan]

That makes sense, and I think it's probably for the best. If he becomes chair, he'll need to focus on it full time.

 

[Finalizer]

Definitely a step in the right direction, and a boost of confidence if this guy gets the job. Still hope Dean sticks around in some advisory form for whoever wins though.

 

[_Ryo_]

First Pelosi, now Keith '9/11 was a Reichstag Fire' Ellison. DNC are so fucked if they choose this man. I mean 2016 UK Labour FUCKED.

What? Explain yourself.

 

[Laevateinn]

First Pelosi, now Keith '9/11 was a Reichstag Fire' Ellison. DNC are so fucked if they choose this man. I mean 2016 UK Labour FUCKED.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Definitely a step in the right direction, and a boost of confidence if this guy gets the job. Still hope Dean sticks around in some advisory form for whoever wins though.

I think Dean has said he is willing to do this and will also respect whoever is chosen.

 

[Meowster]

You have my support now.

 

[mlclmtckr]

First Pelosi, now Keith '9/11 was a Reichstag Fire' Ellison. DNC are so fucked if they choose this man. I mean 2016 UK Labour FUCKED.

9/11 kicked off the American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and caused extreme instability in the middle east and led to the rise of ISIS and the current refugee crisis and, hell, the election of Donald Trump. 9/11 was the most successful terror attack in human history.

Why is it so offensive to compare 9/11 to the Reichstag Fire?

 

[guek]

Thank the Lord

 

[BajiBoxer]

First Pelosi, now Keith '9/11 was a Reichstag Fire' Ellison. DNC are so fucked if they choose this man. I mean 2016 UK Labour FUCKED.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[ultratruman]

Huh?

Pretty much every facet of the Democrats, from the moderates to the ultra liberal want Ellison

Also you're going to need to go on a bit more about Pelosi.

By choosing Nancy Pelosi, the party has changed absolutely nothing in the face of another catastrophic election result. The party has lost 1 in every 5 seats it held in the house after 2008, but virtually changed nothing about the team in charge.

If the party chooses Keith Ellison, they'll be doing exactly what UK Labour did after Ed Milliband's defeat in 2015: being too nice to blame to themselves or their leader, other than they weren't quite ideological enough. It's a SUICIDAL strategy that people with knowledge of elections before the 1990s should know better than to follow.

 

[bionic77]

I like Ellison but I don't trust people in this country at all.

Republicans are going to go after the fact that he is a Muslim and I think that might end up hurting the Dems.

 

[B-Dubs]

First Pelosi, now Keith '9/11 was a Reichstag Fire' Ellison. DNC are so fucked if they choose this man. I mean 2016 UK Labour FUCKED.

What's wrong with Pelosi?

I like Ellison but I don't trust people in this country at all.

Republicans are going to go after the fact that he is a Muslim and I think that might end up hurting the Dems.

This isn't really a political position, which is why the Dems have been avoiding a big fight about it. They don't want to turn it into one so Dean dropped out.

 

[phanphare]

wellthereitis.gif

great news and now there should be no question that he's the right person for the job

 

[KuwabaraTheMan]

By choosing Nancy Pelosi, the party has changed absolutely nothing in the face of another catastrophic election result. The party has lost 1 in every 5 seats it held in the house after 2008, but virtually changed nothing about the team in charge.

If the party chooses Keith Ellison, they'll be doing exactly what UK Labour did after Ed Milliband's defeat in 2015: ascribing no blame to themselves, other than they weren't ideological enough. It's a SUICIDAL strategy that people with knowledge of elections before the 90s should know better than to follow.

Legitimate question: Do you understand the difference between Speaker of the House/House Minority Leader and DNC Chair?

 

[Memento Mori]

Why is it so offensive to compare 9/11 to the Reichstag Fire?

The implication being it was a false flag operation. Keith Ellison later clarified his comments and said the Bush administration wasn't responsible for 9/11.

 

[Vixdean]

I like Ellison but I don't trust people in this country at all.

Republicans are going to go after the fact that he is a Muslim and I think that might end up hurting the Dems.

Doesn't really matter. Most people couldn't name the current chair of the DNC until their emails got hacked.

 

[kittenbreath]

By choosing Nancy Pelosi, the party has changed absolutely nothing in the face of another catastrophic election result. The party has lost 1 in every 5 seats it held in the house after 2008, but virtually changed nothing about the team in charge.

If the party chooses Keith Ellison, they'll be doing exactly what UK Labour did after Ed Milliband's defeat in 2015: being too nice to blame to themselves or their leader, other than they weren't quite ideological enough. It's a SUICIDAL strategy that people with knowledge of elections before the 1990s should know better than to follow.

So you think the party isn't changing enough, but also that they're changing too much?

 

[Bronx-Man]

Nice to hear! He's got my support.

 

[B-Dubs]

wellthereitis.gif

great news and now there should be no question that he's the right person for the job

Well, I mean there's still some stuff in his platform that's a little hinky.

LOW-DOLLAR FUNDRAISING: Actively pursue grassroots fundraising, setting a goal that low-dollar contributions from everyday Americans account for 33% of revenue. Boost revenues of the Dollars for Democrats and State Party Victory Fund programs, and make it easier for state parties to target effective direct mail and phone fundraising.

For example. It sounds good, but it's something that can easily be rigged by taking in less money overall. I'd feel better about it if he didn't put in that 33%, since he wouldn't have a number to target and possibly fudge his way towards. If anything the Dems need to be bringing in more money.

 

[Instro]

Better. Still not quite sure if this the job for him, but at least it will be his only job.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

By choosing Nancy Pelosi, the party has changed absolutely nothing in the face of another catastrophic election result. The party has lost 1 in every 5 seats it held in the house after 2008, but virtually changed nothing about the team in charge.

If the party chooses Keith Ellison, they'll be doing exactly what UK Labour did after Ed Milliband's defeat in 2015: being too nice to blame to themselves or their leader, other than they weren't quite ideological enough. It's a SUICIDAL strategy that people with knowledge of elections before the 1990s should know better than to follow.

Nancy Pelosi has two jobs as minority leader

1. Organize Democrat votes
2. Fundraise

How is Nancy Pelosi bad at either of these? Also please keep in mind she's the #1 best fundraiser the Democrats have. And also the house Democrats like working with her and her decade of experience.

 

[davepoobond]

So you think the party isn't changing enough, but also that they're changing too much?

It just needs to do what the greatest political analyst (himself) tells the party it should do

 

[ultratruman]

Legitimate question: Do you understand the difference between Speaker of the House/House Minority Leader and DNC Chair?

I don't really know what you're trying to imply with this question. I'm talking about the future leadership of the Democratic party.

So you think the party isn't changing enough, but also that they're changing too much?

The word 'changing' isn't really useful here. The Democratic party is at a remarkable low ebb in its history, and it needs young, ambitious politicians with values that connect with the majority of the US public. Neither Pelosi nor Ellison offer this, just more of the same rhetoric that delivered Clinton's stunning defeat, only louder.

It just needs to do what the greatest political analyst (himself) tells the party it should do

Now you're catching on.

 

[KuwabaraTheMan]

I don't really know what you're trying to imply with this question. I'm talking about the future leadership of the Democratic party.

They aren't really comparable positions as far as the leadership of the party goes.

The DNC chair isn't an especially forward facing position, and doesn't have a lot to do with policy. It's not really a comparable position to that of the House Minority Leader, so I don't see what the equation is with Pelosi, whose job is completely different.

 

[Laevateinn]

If Ellison wins, I'll start donating to the DNC again.

 

[ultratruman]

They aren't really comparable positions as far as the leadership of the party goes.

The DNC chair isn't an especially forward facing position, and doesn't have a lot to do with policy. It's not really a comparable position to that of the House Minority Leader, so I don't see what the equation is with Pelosi, whose job is completely different.

Wasserman-Schulz had a huge impact on the DNC Primary in 2016, and considering Democrats hold the leadership over no positions of government, these positions really will have an impact. If your argument is simply that the ideological views of the Democratic National Chair doesn't matter, I don't really know/want to argue against that because it's just too daft.

 

[kirblar]

I don't really know what you're trying to imply with this question. I'm talking about the future leadership of the Democratic party.

Nancy Pelosi has zero to do with recruiting candidates. That is not her job.

 

[kittenbreath]

The word 'changing' isn't really useful here. The Democratic party is at a remarkable low ebb in its history, and it needs young, ambitious politicians with values that connect with the majority of the US public. Neither Pelosi nor Ellison offer this, just more of the same rhetoric that delivered Clinton's stunning defeat, only louder.

Sorry, but that's just a bunch of platitudes absent strategy. What direction, specifically, do you believe they should take? Your criticism of Pelosi, vague as it was, implied you were opposed to the center-left establishment. Your criticism of Ellison implies you believe he is too radical.

I also take issue with your claim that the Democrats' 2016 message failed to register with the public at large. Hillary won the popular vote by over 2.5 million votes, and Democrats made a net gain in both houses of Congress. In both cases, Democrats were screwed over by the geographic distribution of their voters, not in absolute numbers. Do you believe the Democrats should do more to appeal to middle America? That would be a valid suggestion. But make an argument for it, and explain your logic, instead of throwing around empty talking points.

 

[dramatis]

Wasserman-Schulz had a huge impact on the DNC Primary in 2016, and considering Democrats hold the leadership over no positions of government, these positions really will have an impact. If your argument is simply that the ideological views of the Democratic National Chair doesn't matter, I don't really know/want to argue against that because it's just too daft.

Instead of complaining about everybody who is or might be capable of the job, how about you offer some alternatives.

Otherwise you're just like a Republican, whining about existing measures with no viable solutions.

 

[Kin5290]

Pelosi has two jobs as House Minority Leader: to fundraiser for her party and to make sure that Democrats in the House are voting according to the party platform. By all accounts she's been very successful at doing both.

 

[Back-In-Black]

By choosing Nancy Pelosi, the party has changed absolutely nothing in the face of another catastrophic election result. The party has lost 1 in every 5 seats it held in the house after 2008, but virtually changed nothing about the team in charge.

If the party chooses Keith Ellison, they'll be doing exactly what UK Labour did after Ed Milliband's defeat in 2015: being too nice to blame to themselves or their leader, other than they weren't quite ideological enough. It's a SUICIDAL strategy that people with knowledge of elections before the 1990s should know better than to follow.

Legitimate question: Do you understand the difference between Speaker of the House/House Minority Leader and DNC Chair?

Please, answer this question because I don't think you understand the U.S. political system.

 

[Deleted member 80556]

Good, because he pretty much seems like he's going to be the one who wins now.

I hope he ushers into a new era for the DNC, the Republicans shouldn't have gotten this far with a party that's in shambles.

 

[Codeblue]

Great news. Hope he does well.

 

[biggersmaller]

As a Minnesotan, I would hate to see him go...but it would be for the good of the country.

 

[ultratruman]

Nancy Pelosi has zero to do with recruiting candidates. That is not her job.

Never said it was. Pelosi's refusing to step aside for almost a decade leading house democrats has blocked another generation getting their shot at leading the party, which is sorely needed right now.

Sorry, but that's just a bunch of platitudes absent strategy. What direction, specifically, do you believe they should take? Your criticism of Pelosi, vague as it was, implied you were opposed to the center-left establishment. Your criticism of Ellison implies you believe he is too radical.

I also take issue with your claim that the Democrats' 2016 message failed to register with the public at large. Hillary won the popular vote by over 2.5 million votes, and Democrats made a net gain in both houses of Congress. In both cases, Democrats were screwed over by the geographic distribution of their voters, not in absolute numbers. Do you believe the Democrats should do more to appeal to middle America? That would be a valid suggestion. But make an argument for it, and explain your logic, instead of throwing around empty talking points.

Ok, I'll be honest and tell you I don't exactly know what form a new Democratic leadership should take to counter Trump's GOP. What I do think is absolutely vital is for the space for a new Democratic party to work that out.

We all know what did not work though: tacking to the left with identity politics, as the (average age 76) Democratic party leadership in general has since 2008.

1. Pelosi's time is clearly up, regardless of your politics she has presided over the worst electorally performing Democratic party for a generation. Her (not overwhelming) re-election blocks a potential path for a new changemaker to come forward.

2. Keith Ellison would bring more of the same rhetoric that lead to Trump winning the most counties as a Republican since Ronald Reagan. Identity politics has utterly failed the Democrats in elections, and some are beginning to realise that politically, minorities perhaps do not unite strongly enough to overcome the core 'white vote'. See the swing to Trump among Hispanic men.

 

[Back-In-Black]

Never said it was. Pelosi's refusing to step aside for almost a decade leading house democrats has blocked another generation getting their shot at leading the party, which is sorely needed right now.



Ok, I'll be honest and tell you I don't exactly know what form a new Democratic leadership should take to counter Trump's GOP. What I do think is absolutely vital is for the space for a new Democratic party to work that out.

We all know what did not work though: tacking to the left with identity politics, as the (average age 76) Democratic party leadership in general has since 2008.

1. Pelosi's time is clearly up, regardless of your politics she has presided over the worst electorally performing Democratic party for a generation. Her (not overwhelming) re-election blocks a potential path for a new changemaker to come forward.

2. Keith Ellison would bring more of the same rhetoric that lead to Trump winning the most counties as a Republican since Ronald Reagan. Identity politics has utterly failed the Democrats in elections, and some are beginning to realise that politically, minorities perhaps do not unite strongly enough to overcome the core 'white vote'. See the swing to Trump among Hispanic men.

 

[VendettaRed07]

Good.

But if he doesn't win the house in 2018, fire him. Anything less than that is unfucking acceptable. We are 21 down and DONALD FUCKING TRUMP is president.

If he can't figure out a way to do it he's incompitent and needs to be canned

 

[JP_]

Good.

But if he doesn't win the house in 2018, fire him.

...dems were never going to win house in 2018

 

[Barzul]

Never said it was. Pelosi's refusing to step aside for almost a decade leading house democrats has blocked another generation getting their shot at leading the party, which is sorely needed right now.



Ok, I'll be honest and tell you I don't exactly know what form a new Democratic leadership should take to counter Trump's GOP. What I do think is absolutely vital is for the space for a new Democratic party to work that out.

We all know what did not work though: tacking to the left with identity politics, as the (average age 76) Democratic party leadership in general has since 2008.

1. Pelosi's time is clearly up, regardless of your politics she has presided over the worst electorally performing Democratic party for a generation. Her (not overwhelming) re-election blocks a potential path for a new changemaker to come forward.

2. Keith Ellison would bring more of the same rhetoric that lead to Trump winning the most counties as a Republican since Ronald Reagan. Identity politics has utterly failed the Democrats in elections, and some are beginning to realise that politically, minorities perhaps do not unite strongly enough to overcome the core 'white vote'. See the swing to Trump among Hispanic men.

Explain two terms of Obama then.Trump won with less than 100k votes across 3 states and is losing the pop vote by over 2m, but somehow minorities don't matter anymore. Dems piss off minorities and they will never win another election. Take that to the bank. Demographics still are changing. White voters dropped from 72%-70% of the electorate this election. But go ahead and ignore that.