The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Alright Keith, its probably you
Now don't fuck up
Now don't fuck up
-
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.
John Lewis Endorses Keith Ellison for DNC Chair
- Thread starter legacyzero
- Start date
- Status
It's surprising that Ellison was so bad with the Keeping it 1600 gang. Buttigieg was very compelling in his interview with him and I'd never even heard of the guy before.
Incidentally, while Buttigieg is probably a bad fit for DNC chair, he sounds like a good fit for a congressional seat. He's an openly gay Navy veteran who won elected office in Indiana, and he had the right answers, although I'm not knowledgeable on his politics.
Byakuya769
Member
Governor would be smart. MoCo loves the guy.
Big Baybee
Member
That's the left all right.
Same impression. Buttigieg had a very good interview. I sources on Keith after his 1600 interview.
Why is that?
jack_package_200
Banned
.
Why though, these are the arguments I don't get. What 'grossroots' specifically, what is one grassroots campaign in one state may not necessarily reflect that of another in a different state. DNC chair will have absolutely little to do with pushing forward agendas broadly since mobilization will be based off of local state networks requiring way, way more flexibility than simply pushing a one size fits all mantra. You can't expect to shoehorn support for everyone based on the expectations of a few states.
Sinfamy
Member
It's not me saying it, you must clearly not be aware at just how split the base is right now.
Any return to the previous status quo of corporatist Democrats is a slap in the face.
I don't think it's at all worth putting any stock in a grass roots movement unwilling to even Google Perez if that's your assumption.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Which I'm still trying to understand their opposition to him. Do they have any arguments other than him being a Sanders guy?
What would you say to someone like Buttigieg getting it, I mean look at his platform at least in that regard.
He likely won't win, but he sounds like a fantastic choice if you're aiming for even ground come 2020 for all DNC candidates and making sure all groups get a fair chance to be heard. Again regardless of who wins, the DNC chair isn't magically going to make 2018 any easier and it certainly isn't going to ensure some wing of the party gets a nomination in 2020 despite whatever conspiracy theories people keep pushing.
My read is that they're just trying to hold onto control.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Buttigieg would be the perfect way arround the proxy battle stuff.
I'm still not entirely convinced that Perez's own supporters aren't seeing it as a proxy battle with Sanders too, since who they supported in the primaries seems to be the main difference between the two.
Aaronology
Member
Kind of wish I hadn't glanced. There are moments where I feel America truly deserved Trump, and going through the replies to that tweet brought about another one.
There shouldn't even be talk of proxy battles. It's strange to think that democrats are suddenly going to turn from the party considering what's been going on for the past two weeks of the Trump presidency. I'm not convinced anyone will give 2 shits after a DNC chair is named which is why I hope they just name someone so we can actually get back to prepping for 2018.
curiouscharles
Member
Jimmy Dore doesn't like anybody though ;p
Ellison is legit, he's the leader the DNC needs in the face of this new age of populism we find ourselves in.
The Democratic base would sacrifice any number of firstborn to have Barack Obama back in office again, and Perez is from the Obama camp. Not even far left progressives would be be stupid enough to mistake a labor activist for a corporatist.
Especially since both camps are mostly backing Ellison, whose gotten endorsements from Bernie, Warren, Schumer, and Pelosi -- and the Clintons encouraged people close to them to support Ellison if they want.
Only Obama and Biden seem to be the major backers behind Perez, though obviously they aren't nobodies.
That's my thinking too. Buttigeg is too talented to spend the next four or more years in this job; Perez, too, depending on how realistic his prospects to run for governor next year may be. Ellison, on the other hand, doesn't have a lot of room to grow right now; Minnesota has a Democratic governor, both senators are Dems, and his congressional seat is safe. So, all things being equal, moving into the party chair slot would be a good move for Ellison whereas it may rob Perez and Buttigeg of some good opportunities to run for higher office in the next year or more.
titiklabingapat
Member
If you think Perez is corporatist...then I have ten bridges in Alaska to sell you.
legacyzero
Banned
It has to be done. DWS and her shenanigans, along with the corporatist Democrats INSISTED on Hillary. That didn't work out for us. Now we're looking at at least 2 years of near-fascist rule.
VendettaRed07
Member
Ultimately it won't matter. Well get Perez shoved down our throats because it is what Obama wants and this party has learned fucking nothing
Aaronology
Member
I'm pretty sure the millions of voters who backed Hillary over her opponent is why she got the nomination, not because of DWS or the DNC.
Why this has to keep being repeated is beyond me.
VendettaRed07
Member
It's true that she won the nomination and I don't think Bernie was "screwed over"
But the field was cleared because the party didn't want a tough primary fight and discouraged everyone from running. Had a real challenger been allowed to run she may* have not won the nomination. Especially someone who didn't dismiss the email scandal or w/e (I can't imagine 08 Obama letting Hillary off the hook for something like that)
What is the problem with Perez other than Obama and Biden endorsed him (and assuming those endorsements are problems)?
Unless there's evidence to the contrary I'm not aware of, I don't think DWS and co. pressured all of these would-be challengers not to run. The party pressured themselves out of not running; they knew Hillary was going to be running again and assumed she would win the nomination easily, so why bother putting in the time and money it takes to run a primary campaign that you're confident will lose anyway?
The only person I know of who was really pressured out of running was Biden, and that was in no small part because he still hadn't recovered from his son's death (and the pressuring there was done by Obama and David Plouffe, not by DWS or party leadership).
titiklabingapat
Member
While there was no doubt that the establishment preferred Hillary over Bernie, she still won convincingly. Do you really think that more than 50% of the Democrats that voted for her are in with DWS' shenanigans?
If anything, the diehard party members mostlypreferred her. It's the outsiders and fair-weather Democrats that backed Bernie.
"The Establishment"
"The Party"
"The DNC"
It's insane how people won't just say it: Do people's brains explode when they have to face the fact that she was Obama's designated successor and had his explicit support?
(This is a big erason why I don't trust his camp on handling internal party politics.)
legacyzero
Banned
Because you keep wanting to not admit that the early superdelegate support, DNC behind the scenes meddling by DWS with places like MSNBC when they DARED to speak against her, etc.
You just dont wanna talk about that. That early superdelegate support was unfair, and gives a erroneous sense of lead that doesn't exist.
"But Republicans dont have superdelegates, and they wish they did now!"
Fuck that. The PEOPLE got what they wanted. Better or worse.
VendettaRed07
Member
Edit: misunderstood
Hillary had early superdelegate support in 2008 too.
Anyone who didn't vote for Bernie, or vote at all in the primary, because the superdelegate count discouraged them clearly give did not give enough of a shit in the first place.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
You don't even know what a DNC chair does.
I don't care about Perez' political beliefs, or Ellison's. The question is whether they can do the job of organizing the party. Perez unquestionably has more experience doing similar stuff. Ellison is not a bad choice either. Stop making this a bigger issue than it is. I'm fucking tired of Sanders supporters who didn't pay attention to politics until 2016 suddenly deciding they run the show, or taking their ball home when they lose things.
jimmypython
Member
Keith Ellison is relentless...probably a good trait for the job.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Why is the OP derailing his own thread?
Likely the main agenda for this thread to begin with since I believe the OP was surprised a democrat would support another democrat and not play team politics.
Orbis Tabula
Member
This seems like a complete non sequitur.
I don't think it's opposition, as much as them supporting Perez. Nothing wrong with that either, Perez is a good dude, and I'm sure he'd be a great DNC Chair, even if it's not the one it particularly needs right now. He can also do a lot of good as a representative or senator. Nothing wrong with a bit of competition though (even though Ellison winning is almost a sure thing).
Edit: Re-reading this thread. SMH, this has nothing to do with Hillary, stop making it about her. The primary ended half a year ago, let it go people. Even Hillary supporters in '08 weren't this bad, and they were pretty bad.
legacyzero
Banned
How many people actually understood how Super Delegates worked?
And I submit to 2008, because Barack Obama was way more charismatic, and actually, 2008 defends my point, because even Obama HIMSELF attacked Hillary for the same shit Bernie did (Like NAFTA and her support/not support)
Thank you for getting it back on track.
It's a thread loosely tied to the Bernie Wing. Not really a de-rail. But that Avatar is telling to why you'd post that.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
I would imagine the super delegates did.
This. His input on anything should largely be ignored. Dore wouldn't be happy unless it was Sanders himself.
Everyone but people under 25, it seems. If you saw Obama/Clinton play out, you knew to ignore them.
legacyzero
Banned
I only loosely understood it back then. I remember gravitating to Obama so hard. I could listen to his speeches for hours.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
It's February and you're still crying about super delegates, what the fuck. He lost. It wasn't close. Super delegates shift as the race goes. If Sanders had actually prepared to win (instead of selecting a strategy that had 0 chance of winning, ie ignoring the south) and started winning more states and delegates to even the race, super delegates would come to him. But he didn't, he lost by millions of votes, Clinton barely raised a finger (imagine if she had opened the money chest on him like she did to Obama in 08)...the end.
You can talk about the early super delegate count all you want, no one who understands the process gives a fuck. I seem to remember a long shot candidate destroying the Clinton machine back in 2007/2008. I seem to remember him leaving behind a pretty clear blueprint on how to do it. If only someone had decided to try that instead of whining.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
This is one area I don't trust the Obama camp very much with. They clearly haven't been very good about down ballot races at all.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Oh my god, I knew it would happen but is every fucking battle in the Democratic Party going to be this proxy Clinton vs. Sanders horseshit?
I mean I think it's telling that Ellison started out with both establishment and Sanders wing support (endorsements by Schumer and Reid, alongside Warren and Sanders) but people still want to make it this "Keith vs. THE MAAAAAN" thing.
Like gee, someone who supported Clinton supports Keith? Wacky and crazy! In spite of the fact that Keith and Bernie are not the same candidate, they're not running for the same job and 2017 is not 2016.
Just give it a fucking rest.
I mean I think it's telling that Ellison started out with both establishment and Sanders wing support (endorsements by Schumer and Reid, alongside Warren and Sanders) but people still want to make it this "Keith vs. THE MAAAAAN" thing.
Like gee, someone who supported Clinton supports Keith? Wacky and crazy! In spite of the fact that Keith and Bernie are not the same candidate, they're not running for the same job and 2017 is not 2016.
Just give it a fucking rest.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
By the way, does Ellison or Perez have a strong stance on what they're going to do about super delegates, if anything?
You'd think that'd be one of the bigger issues facing them for this position.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked