-
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.
Rep. Keith Ellison: I will resign my seat if I win DNC Chair
- Thread starter Killthee
- Start date
- Status
ultratruman
Banned
BrutishMrFish
Member
Your evidence for the decline in Democrats being due to identity politics (and not the abandonment of the 50 state strategy) is where, exactly?
He/she can't prove that. Can certainly try and link them. All American politics is identity politics, trust me when these guys talk, you know who they're talking to.
freeofgreed
Member
Lol when did this happen? And if anything identity politics is exactly what got Trump elected.
Also people keep ignoring that Hilary had the popular vote. Why she lost had nothing to do with "left wing pandering" as so many people on this site love to push.
I can think of a dozen reasons why she lost and identity politics from her side would be nowhere near the top.
freeofgreed
Member
And that graph proves Clinton lost because of identity politics?????
VendettaRed07
Member
I just don't want to hear any excusing from him or anyone else in the party as to why they couldn't do x y or z
Do republicans sit around and go "but the senate map is too hard :0(" or whatever?
No they figure out ways to win. We lost 64 house seats in 2010. Donald trump is the most disliked person to ever become president. I expect RESULTS from Keith if he takes this job. If he can't win anything given the Republican Party leader is a mentally unstable, sexually predatory reality TV Star who refuses to disclose his financial information and has arguably already broken laws before even taking office... the Democratic Party needs to fucking dissolve because we will literally never win anything.. and I mean anything in the future if we can't find a way to win under these circumstances
Do republicans sit around and go "but the senate map is too hard :0(" or whatever?
No they figure out ways to win. We lost 64 house seats in 2010. Donald trump is the most disliked person to ever become president. I expect RESULTS from Keith if he takes this job. If he can't win anything given the Republican Party leader is a mentally unstable, sexually predatory reality TV Star who refuses to disclose his financial information and has arguably already broken laws before even taking office... the Democratic Party needs to fucking dissolve because we will literally never win anything.. and I mean anything in the future if we can't find a way to win under these circumstances
This is good news. I'd also like to hear more about what he plans to do re: 50-state strategy.
I think it's pretty clear the DNC's election failures post-08 had everything to do with part-time chairs and ditching the 50-state strategy, and almost nothing to do with "identity politics", unless you have evidence to the contrary?
I think it's pretty clear the DNC's election failures post-08 had everything to do with part-time chairs and ditching the 50-state strategy, and almost nothing to do with "identity politics", unless you have evidence to the contrary?
identity politics didn't lose us the election. inaccurate polling and hillary's arguably bad campaign lost the election. identity politics didn't lose us the house, a racist uprising that led to gerrymandering the districts, apathetic millennials, and a weak DNC that didn't energize said millenials lost us the house. identity politics didn't lose us the senate, the weak DNC did and apathy did.
what we need is another 2008: a candidate that represents a huge step forward towards progressive and populist policies with the backing of a grassroots movement, and this time around we need to keep the grassroots in place and work towards ensuring that liberals will vote between presidential elections.
freeofgreed
Member
This.
People on this site have been trying waaaaaay to hard to use Clinton's loss as a passive aggressive way to bitch about "SJWs" and it's honestly so annoying when any one who was paying attention to the election can see that there were dozens of other more pertained reason why she lost.
This is silly because Pelosi was leader in 2006 and 2008 when Democrats made big gains. Not only that, she was able to jam a lot of left-wing policies through her House that the Senate could not, even with a more "centrist" caucus.
Dude, that graph starts in '08, when democrats had the most power in generations. People were calling '08 the end of the republican party, because they were in a worse position than the DNC is today. That kind o lead is unsustanble, no matter who your leader is.
It's not a good starting point for a graph.
I don't understand the excitement about this guy. No one talked about him at all then a video went viral of him on ABC's "This Week" warning about Trump being the GoP nominee and everyone at the table laughing and all of a sudden he is the go to?
I feel like the Dems were like "omg he went viral we got no one quick put him in charge!"
I feel like the Dems were like "omg he went viral we got no one quick put him in charge!"
I am fine with Ellison in this job, especially if he's committing to it full-time, but I do think a lot of the hype around him comes from people who fundamentally do not understand what the party chair is (and isn't).
People are excited about his broad appeal and support from several leaders in the party.
legacyzero
Banned
freeofgreed
Member
I don't know what or when that video was posted. But I know he had a lot of buzz because both Bernie, and Schumer endorsed him, and he seems to be well like by dems from both the center and the left. Plus he seems really progressive which is why he's been getting a lot of buzz recently.
Roland_Gunner
Member
There are issues with the DNC that need to be looked at but the idea that having a full-time chair will magically fix the tendency of Democratic voting groups to only show up when huper-motivated is pretty nuts.
Like Clinton, he went around and got support, locking it down, before ever announcing his candidacy.
A lot of people like him just because he endorsed Bernie and vice-versa.
But I'm willing to give him a chance. I just hope he believes the DNC Chair is for building up the party as a whole.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
I've liked him for a long time. He's unabashedly progressive, the first Muslim elected to Congress and, sure, it doesn't hurt that he displayed some impressive foresight by taking Trump seriously from the start. His ascension is a sign that the democrats understand where the party is heading and embracing it rather than fighting against it, which I feel they largely did during the election cycle.
jack_package_200
Banned
Good.
Now bring in Howard Dean as the assistant to the DNC Chair. Dean is a useful resource. Man knows strategy and fundraising.
Also lol at the "identity politics" whining. The only person who ran any sort of identity politics this election was Donald Trump.
Now bring in Howard Dean as the assistant to the DNC Chair. Dean is a useful resource. Man knows strategy and fundraising.
Also lol at the "identity politics" whining. The only person who ran any sort of identity politics this election was Donald Trump.
ultratruman
Banned
What do you mean 'those guys'? You know nothing about me.
Democrats have talked about changing demographics and 'the emerging Democratic majority' since the beginning of this century. All of the rhetoric from Obama's elections have been about how the new, multicultural america has made a Democratic consensus irreversible.
Whether or not this was true (as I've said in an earlier post re Hispanic males, theres plenty of evidence it's not), ethno-nationalism is extremely volatile and works both ways. Republican appeals to whites have met limited success before. It took the perception that the Democratic party no longer needed them for working class white people to vote for Trump in historic numbers.
The GOP is now the White Party. The Democrats need to adapt to deal with this, they can't play the same tune louder and expect more people to sing along.
Exactly, when dems have to moderate, you need strong leaders like Pelosi that is able to whip the votes to the left.
actually, centrists on here and lib pundits in general were boosting the lobbyist and arguing against Ellison purely on the prospect of being part time chair. it was just a cover because they oppose him on idealogical grounds for being too left, or swallowed the torrent of islamaphobic propaganda being hurled around
schumer is a total snake and read the tea leaves and just latched on to secure his position
I don't think the two points are as separate as you're implying. The whole point of the party chair is to implement strategies and push candidates that bolster turnout. If Ellison can commit to that as his one and only job, that's obviously more attention he can pay to state and national Dem turnout, as opposed to splitting his time between that and his own district.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
The future looks better between both these bits of news.
I don't think being more progressive is a good plan tbh. I think centrists or pragmatists are more successful. If the lesson from the election for Dems is that they weren't progressive enough then I think they got it wrong. While I think Bernie had a better chance against Trump it was more to do with the populism than the progressivism imo.
This is the type of leader I'm hoping Ellison doesn't end up like; more interested in declaring war on the party than in winning elections.
SecretMoblin
Member
I was personally boosting Dean because he was an enormously successful party chair, and my main concern with Ellison was he was not willing to commit to the job full time as Dean did and said he would again.
Although maybe I'm just lying to myself and actually do hate Muslims!
Bull. We need a full time chair. Obama ignored the DNC and used it as a political handout, like an ambassadorship. (He put his real focus into OFA, but that hasn't worked out for the party at large.) That has to end, and part of that ending is putting a full time head in charge. The ideology doesn't matter for this position- the key is finding and funding candidates nationwide that can win in their districts.
If you ask 100 random people what Reince Priebus' personal views are? I bet 100 of them wouldn't be able to answer you because they have been completely and totally irrelevant to his job.
Ellison's platform is mostly good, the biggest issue is the fundraising plank, because Obama tried something similar and it was a huge handicap. You can't fight with a hand tied behind your back.
I'm good w/ him getting a chance now that he's promised to resign the seat.
Ugh, we just have to frame disagreements in a way that assumes the people not taking our preferred side are prejudiced? I guess that is much easier then engaging a persons reasoning.
How about some people prefer Dean because he is experienced and has proven himself? Despite me not liking some of his baggage like being tied to a pharm lobby.
This removes one of my biggest concerns with Ellison's run for the chair, but the questions of his qualifications and ability to execute remain for me. But if the Democrats go for Ellison, I will support him and hope for the best.
Trump got 58% of the white vote in the 2016 election. Romney got 59% of the white vote in the 2012 election.
Roland_Gunner
Member
And I think you're massively over estimating the influence a party chair has in election outcomes. By all accounts Dean did a great job in the mid-2000's but the Democrats didn't start winning elections until after Bush became massively unpopular. The GOP started winning because Obama is massively unpopular with a group of voters who turn out in high numbers and are over-represented in key areas. If the economy thrives the next few years, 2018 is going to be bad for the Dems no matter who the chair is.
The biggest difference? Where the white votes were.
Veritigo_X
Member
Now I'm officially on board. I kinda figured this would happen after Dean called him out on this.
Most of the party leaders seems on board too so this feels like a done deal.
Most of the party leaders seems on board too so this feels like a done deal.
Roland_Gunner
Member
Please don't use the exit polls as definitive proof of anything. Everyone who has looked at them from Nate Silver on down has said that they do not match up with the actual county level results.
Clinton won 7 out of the 14 GOP controlled house districts in California. Dems didn't pickup any of those seats. That's an enormous failure. (https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/806358203764248577)
The DNC's job is to make sure Dems have proper campaigns in each and every one of those districts and, when a wave/electoral shift/etc. comes, capitalize on it.
When I said you in my post I wasn't referring to you, I was being general, I'm indifferent to anything specifically about you. You can say all what you want about that issue but you cannot refute my other post.
If Obama won only one term you might have a point but he didn't so in my mind you don't. If Trump had one by bigger margins in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania you might have a point but he didn't so you don't. If 85,000 voters in Michigan didn't leave the box for president blank, you might have a point, but they did so you don't. If you think there is any realistic strategy in completely ditching the platform that got Obama elected twice then I honestly don't know what to tell you.
Your posts are alluding to a reality that doesn't exist. One in which Trump won resoundingly and with widespread popular appeal and not only that will generate enough goodwill to garner even more than he currently has. What can you point to that shows this?
Roland_Gunner
Member
Oooorr there are a disproportionate number of California Republicans who didn't like Trump and were willing to ticket split. The DCCC (not the DNC) spent millions on these races but it didn't work out. Just saying Clinton won, the House candidate didn't so the DNC sucks lol is so, so lazy.
If Ultratruman wants to use more definitive numbers to defend his claims of white voters voting for Trump in "historic numbers" or Republican appeals to white voters "having met with limited success before", he can feel free.
ultratruman
Banned
So now your point is that the Republican party is the party of the less-educated whites?
From your own source, the Washington Post, white voters voted for Trump at 57%. They voted for Romney at 59%.
If you want to turn this into an education thing, say so now.
Of course there's a ton of factors that play a role in this. But it's still a very very clear opportunity. People only ticket split if you let them. A conservative district? Run blue dogs. etc. It's the party's job to tie the GOP agenda to Trump. And vice versa.
I would find this argument more compelling if there were high rates of ticket splitting in Senate races this year. But straight ticket voting for Pres/Senate has never been higher (which fits in with larger empirical trends on ticket splitting). So I think it's fair to say the House was a missed opportunity (and that goes for the reverse too -- Dem districts that Trump carried).
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked