|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 18 2017 02:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 01:56 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 18 2017 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 18 2017 01:37 kwizach wrote:On February 18 2017 01:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 18 2017 01:03 kwizach wrote:Much of the case against Perez coming from certain posters here seems to boil down to "well Sanders endorsed Ellison and not him". Perez has a fantastic record when it comes to defending both workers' rights and civil rights, and is an extremely skillful administrator and policy strategist. The idea that he isn't a progressive and that electing him would be like "giving the finger to the progressive wing" is utter rubbish. Bruh, I'm not even making a case against Perez as a candidate to do the job. Like I said, he could do the same things as vice chair. What I'm talking about is perception. A lesson you should be intimately familiar with at this point is that perception dictates political reality. It doesn't matter if Perez is better suited for the titled role, there is nothing to be gained by giving him that title, but plenty to lose. It only serves as an act of dominance. Which I can assure you will have no benefit for the party's chances in 18 or 20. No, the "perception" argument is the one you fall back to once your actual comments against Perez are addressed. Like I said, the idea that electing Perez "serves only as a finger to the progressive wing and basically lays without a rational explanation" is utter rubbish, given Perez' qualities and record, just like your comment that "it's the Obama voters that are thoroughly unimpressed with the former labor secretary's work in the rust belt" -- I'm eagerly waiting to see on what evidence and polls that comment is based on. You're not lamenting the erroneous perceptions of Perez found among some Bernie or Busters, you're actively perpetuating them. If this was only a matter of perception as opposed to what the candidates actually bring to the job, then you should precisely be telling people to change their perception of Perez, seeing as he's a great champion of workers' rights and civil rights. You should also be denouncing Sanders' toxic rhetoric about Perez. Yet you're obviously not doing that, because the reason you're supporting Ellison and not Perez does not boil down to "perception". lol. We disagree. I'm not really supporting Ellison, I think he understands what the Democratic party did wrong better than the people Perez represents, but the job is basically fundraising and being a figurehead. But this term it's perceived as much more than that. I think both Perez and Ellison have significant shortcomings, but that's not what I'm pointing out. I'm pointing out that there's nothing Perez can do as Chair that he can't do from vice-chair and that regardless if I spent every breath I took trying to disabuse people of the perception that he's giving the finger to the progressive wing (whether I agree with it or not) it's not going to change. This argument itself is further evidence of how stupid of a fight this is in the first place. EDIT: Maybe it would make more sense this way, finish this sentence: Perez must be the chair of the Democratic party instead of Ellison because.... now you're contradicting yourself. earlier you said perez has pretty much all the right ideas and ellison is purely symbolic. but now ellison is the one with his finger on the pulse of america. i don't think anyone said perez MUST be chair. like i said, i'm about 55/45. i'm just pointing out i find it ridiculous that ellison being what you've acknowledged is a largely symbolic chair matters to other people so much that they would abandon what is their best chance to move in the direction of their vision for america. I think you might want to reread what I've said? Why I said "must" is because it's not going to make a significant difference to what the DNC does one way or the other (unless they aren't being honest about their intentions). But it will make a gigantic difference in perception rightly or not. Lamenting that people make choices based off of incomplete information isn't going to make the phenomena go away, this "deal with the hand your dealt' stuff comes right out of Hillary's playbook so I don't quite understand why the same folks are so oppositional to it.
deal with the hand you're dealt is called reality.
|
On February 18 2017 01:40 Mohdoo wrote:
Kwiz, I think you hugely underestimate how many people will lose hope in a party that chooses Perez. Not only does it defy Bernie, but it also signals doubling down on a losing strategy.
I don't think the people that felt a lack of compulsion to take part in this election watch politics close enough to pay attention to who is the DNC Chair. They're more wrapped up in what Trump is or isn't doing.
|
On February 18 2017 02:07 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 02:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 18 2017 01:56 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 18 2017 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 18 2017 01:37 kwizach wrote:On February 18 2017 01:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 18 2017 01:03 kwizach wrote:Much of the case against Perez coming from certain posters here seems to boil down to "well Sanders endorsed Ellison and not him". Perez has a fantastic record when it comes to defending both workers' rights and civil rights, and is an extremely skillful administrator and policy strategist. The idea that he isn't a progressive and that electing him would be like "giving the finger to the progressive wing" is utter rubbish. Bruh, I'm not even making a case against Perez as a candidate to do the job. Like I said, he could do the same things as vice chair. What I'm talking about is perception. A lesson you should be intimately familiar with at this point is that perception dictates political reality. It doesn't matter if Perez is better suited for the titled role, there is nothing to be gained by giving him that title, but plenty to lose. It only serves as an act of dominance. Which I can assure you will have no benefit for the party's chances in 18 or 20. No, the "perception" argument is the one you fall back to once your actual comments against Perez are addressed. Like I said, the idea that electing Perez "serves only as a finger to the progressive wing and basically lays without a rational explanation" is utter rubbish, given Perez' qualities and record, just like your comment that "it's the Obama voters that are thoroughly unimpressed with the former labor secretary's work in the rust belt" -- I'm eagerly waiting to see on what evidence and polls that comment is based on. You're not lamenting the erroneous perceptions of Perez found among some Bernie or Busters, you're actively perpetuating them. If this was only a matter of perception as opposed to what the candidates actually bring to the job, then you should precisely be telling people to change their perception of Perez, seeing as he's a great champion of workers' rights and civil rights. You should also be denouncing Sanders' toxic rhetoric about Perez. Yet you're obviously not doing that, because the reason you're supporting Ellison and not Perez does not boil down to "perception". lol. We disagree. I'm not really supporting Ellison, I think he understands what the Democratic party did wrong better than the people Perez represents, but the job is basically fundraising and being a figurehead. But this term it's perceived as much more than that. I think both Perez and Ellison have significant shortcomings, but that's not what I'm pointing out. I'm pointing out that there's nothing Perez can do as Chair that he can't do from vice-chair and that regardless if I spent every breath I took trying to disabuse people of the perception that he's giving the finger to the progressive wing (whether I agree with it or not) it's not going to change. This argument itself is further evidence of how stupid of a fight this is in the first place. EDIT: Maybe it would make more sense this way, finish this sentence: Perez must be the chair of the Democratic party instead of Ellison because.... now you're contradicting yourself. earlier you said perez has pretty much all the right ideas and ellison is purely symbolic. but now ellison is the one with his finger on the pulse of america. i don't think anyone said perez MUST be chair. like i said, i'm about 55/45. i'm just pointing out i find it ridiculous that ellison being what you've acknowledged is a largely symbolic chair matters to other people so much that they would abandon what is their best chance to move in the direction of their vision for america. I think you might want to reread what I've said? Why I said "must" is because it's not going to make a significant difference to what the DNC does one way or the other (unless they aren't being honest about their intentions). But it will make a gigantic difference in perception rightly or not. Lamenting that people make choices based off of incomplete information isn't going to make the phenomena go away, this "deal with the hand your dealt' stuff comes right out of Hillary's playbook so I don't quite understand why the same folks are so oppositional to it. deal with the hand you're dealt is called reality.
So your hand is millions of people who aren't going to play the game Democrats are trying to play, which will result in them losing until they figure out an alternative plan. Now deal with it.
|
On February 18 2017 02:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 02:07 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 18 2017 02:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 18 2017 01:56 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 18 2017 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 18 2017 01:37 kwizach wrote:On February 18 2017 01:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 18 2017 01:03 kwizach wrote:Much of the case against Perez coming from certain posters here seems to boil down to "well Sanders endorsed Ellison and not him". Perez has a fantastic record when it comes to defending both workers' rights and civil rights, and is an extremely skillful administrator and policy strategist. The idea that he isn't a progressive and that electing him would be like "giving the finger to the progressive wing" is utter rubbish. Bruh, I'm not even making a case against Perez as a candidate to do the job. Like I said, he could do the same things as vice chair. What I'm talking about is perception. A lesson you should be intimately familiar with at this point is that perception dictates political reality. It doesn't matter if Perez is better suited for the titled role, there is nothing to be gained by giving him that title, but plenty to lose. It only serves as an act of dominance. Which I can assure you will have no benefit for the party's chances in 18 or 20. No, the "perception" argument is the one you fall back to once your actual comments against Perez are addressed. Like I said, the idea that electing Perez "serves only as a finger to the progressive wing and basically lays without a rational explanation" is utter rubbish, given Perez' qualities and record, just like your comment that "it's the Obama voters that are thoroughly unimpressed with the former labor secretary's work in the rust belt" -- I'm eagerly waiting to see on what evidence and polls that comment is based on. You're not lamenting the erroneous perceptions of Perez found among some Bernie or Busters, you're actively perpetuating them. If this was only a matter of perception as opposed to what the candidates actually bring to the job, then you should precisely be telling people to change their perception of Perez, seeing as he's a great champion of workers' rights and civil rights. You should also be denouncing Sanders' toxic rhetoric about Perez. Yet you're obviously not doing that, because the reason you're supporting Ellison and not Perez does not boil down to "perception". lol. We disagree. I'm not really supporting Ellison, I think he understands what the Democratic party did wrong better than the people Perez represents, but the job is basically fundraising and being a figurehead. But this term it's perceived as much more than that. I think both Perez and Ellison have significant shortcomings, but that's not what I'm pointing out. I'm pointing out that there's nothing Perez can do as Chair that he can't do from vice-chair and that regardless if I spent every breath I took trying to disabuse people of the perception that he's giving the finger to the progressive wing (whether I agree with it or not) it's not going to change. This argument itself is further evidence of how stupid of a fight this is in the first place. EDIT: Maybe it would make more sense this way, finish this sentence: Perez must be the chair of the Democratic party instead of Ellison because.... now you're contradicting yourself. earlier you said perez has pretty much all the right ideas and ellison is purely symbolic. but now ellison is the one with his finger on the pulse of america. i don't think anyone said perez MUST be chair. like i said, i'm about 55/45. i'm just pointing out i find it ridiculous that ellison being what you've acknowledged is a largely symbolic chair matters to other people so much that they would abandon what is their best chance to move in the direction of their vision for america. I think you might want to reread what I've said? Why I said "must" is because it's not going to make a significant difference to what the DNC does one way or the other (unless they aren't being honest about their intentions). But it will make a gigantic difference in perception rightly or not. Lamenting that people make choices based off of incomplete information isn't going to make the phenomena go away, this "deal with the hand your dealt' stuff comes right out of Hillary's playbook so I don't quite understand why the same folks are so oppositional to it. deal with the hand you're dealt is called reality. So your hand is millions of people who aren't going to play the game Democrats are trying to play, which will result in them losing until they figure out an alternative plan. Now deal with it.
wouldn't that just result in a pivot to the right?
|
On February 18 2017 02:20 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 02:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 18 2017 02:07 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 18 2017 02:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 18 2017 01:56 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 18 2017 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 18 2017 01:37 kwizach wrote:On February 18 2017 01:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 18 2017 01:03 kwizach wrote:Much of the case against Perez coming from certain posters here seems to boil down to "well Sanders endorsed Ellison and not him". Perez has a fantastic record when it comes to defending both workers' rights and civil rights, and is an extremely skillful administrator and policy strategist. The idea that he isn't a progressive and that electing him would be like "giving the finger to the progressive wing" is utter rubbish. Bruh, I'm not even making a case against Perez as a candidate to do the job. Like I said, he could do the same things as vice chair. What I'm talking about is perception. A lesson you should be intimately familiar with at this point is that perception dictates political reality. It doesn't matter if Perez is better suited for the titled role, there is nothing to be gained by giving him that title, but plenty to lose. It only serves as an act of dominance. Which I can assure you will have no benefit for the party's chances in 18 or 20. No, the "perception" argument is the one you fall back to once your actual comments against Perez are addressed. Like I said, the idea that electing Perez "serves only as a finger to the progressive wing and basically lays without a rational explanation" is utter rubbish, given Perez' qualities and record, just like your comment that "it's the Obama voters that are thoroughly unimpressed with the former labor secretary's work in the rust belt" -- I'm eagerly waiting to see on what evidence and polls that comment is based on. You're not lamenting the erroneous perceptions of Perez found among some Bernie or Busters, you're actively perpetuating them. If this was only a matter of perception as opposed to what the candidates actually bring to the job, then you should precisely be telling people to change their perception of Perez, seeing as he's a great champion of workers' rights and civil rights. You should also be denouncing Sanders' toxic rhetoric about Perez. Yet you're obviously not doing that, because the reason you're supporting Ellison and not Perez does not boil down to "perception". lol. We disagree. I'm not really supporting Ellison, I think he understands what the Democratic party did wrong better than the people Perez represents, but the job is basically fundraising and being a figurehead. But this term it's perceived as much more than that. I think both Perez and Ellison have significant shortcomings, but that's not what I'm pointing out. I'm pointing out that there's nothing Perez can do as Chair that he can't do from vice-chair and that regardless if I spent every breath I took trying to disabuse people of the perception that he's giving the finger to the progressive wing (whether I agree with it or not) it's not going to change. This argument itself is further evidence of how stupid of a fight this is in the first place. EDIT: Maybe it would make more sense this way, finish this sentence: Perez must be the chair of the Democratic party instead of Ellison because.... now you're contradicting yourself. earlier you said perez has pretty much all the right ideas and ellison is purely symbolic. but now ellison is the one with his finger on the pulse of america. i don't think anyone said perez MUST be chair. like i said, i'm about 55/45. i'm just pointing out i find it ridiculous that ellison being what you've acknowledged is a largely symbolic chair matters to other people so much that they would abandon what is their best chance to move in the direction of their vision for america. I think you might want to reread what I've said? Why I said "must" is because it's not going to make a significant difference to what the DNC does one way or the other (unless they aren't being honest about their intentions). But it will make a gigantic difference in perception rightly or not. Lamenting that people make choices based off of incomplete information isn't going to make the phenomena go away, this "deal with the hand your dealt' stuff comes right out of Hillary's playbook so I don't quite understand why the same folks are so oppositional to it. deal with the hand you're dealt is called reality. So your hand is millions of people who aren't going to play the game Democrats are trying to play, which will result in them losing until they figure out an alternative plan. Now deal with it. wouldn't that just result in a pivot to the right?
That seems to be what Democrats currently think. Unfortunately it will probably take a few primaries and losses for them to figure out that's not the ticket.
Truth is that there are a great number of people that dont consider themselves left or right that just want things like universal healthcare, a living wage, more equitable wealth distribution, etc... You can see it even in "the right" where those things get 2-4 out of 10 Republicans to support them. From the traditional view the ~1/2 of our country that doesn't vote leans left so if nothing else but increasing turnout 10-20% would give Democrats more than enough votes to sweep Republicans out. But they want to focus on trying to change the minds of people (with political theater) who already vote and to only pay lip service (or look at them with disdain like some here have alluded to) to those who don't.
That's a strategy that led to Trump being elected by a bunch of people who either don't see how disconnected from reality he is or simply don't care.
|
He rather loses on all fields if he can't win... kinda trumpian.
|
why specifically do you lean towards perez ticklish? i assume if you had to make the decision you would choose perez. so what's your rationale if you had to explain it to GH?
|
I don't mind Perez because he knows labor and labor is the way. His ties to the establishment can be mitigated by his experience with grassroots politics is the hope.
|
Okay so we have one side who thinks it's not very important which one goes through, something like 55-45, and one side who thinks it's very important which one goes through. So since we're equal in this partnership, you're going to account for how important it's for the other side and choose the person who they think is important, right?
Right?
|
On February 18 2017 02:27 farvacola wrote:
I don't mind Perez because he knows labor and labor is the way. His ties to the establishment can be mitigated by his experience with grassroots politics is the hope.
It's not as if his understanding of labor evaporates if he isn't chair. Take one for the team and give up the title and bring that expertise to the vice chair position. Or you know, force him on the millions of Democrats who don't want him and roll the dice for the hell of it I guess.
|
On February 18 2017 02:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Okay so we have one side who thinks it's not very important which one goes through, something like 55-45, and one side who thinks it's very important which one goes through. So since we're equal in this partnership, you're going to account for how important it's for the other side and choose the person who they think is important, right?
Right?
It'd be a mistake to let anyone carry the standard for 45 or 55 percent of interested Democrats. GH convincing you that millions of people would consider Perez "forced" on them is him doing good politics more than it is an accurate representation of where folks actually fall on the issue. Either will still provide for the realignment that needs to happen imo.
|
On February 18 2017 02:34 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 02:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Okay so we have one side who thinks it's not very important which one goes through, something like 55-45, and one side who thinks it's very important which one goes through. So since we're equal in this partnership, you're going to account for how important it's for the other side and choose the person who they think is important, right?
Right? It'd be a mistake to let anyone carry the standard for 45 or 55 percent of interested Democrats. GH convincing you that millions of people would consider Perez "forced" on them is him doing good politics more than it is an accurate representation of where folks actually fall on the issue. Either will still provide for the realignment that needs to happen imo.
I'll take the compliment, but nope. Perez wont, and even if he made a sincere and full effort, any perception of forcing the establishment candidate (let's be real we all know Perez will support whichever democratic candidate Obama/Hillary would have supported) will be a trigger for those needed for this "realignment".
There's no need to risk it, and I'll say it again since it doesn't seem to be sticking, there's no reason Perez has to be chair of the DNC for him to do what you all think he'd do as chair.
|
Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't change the fact that the same rule of thumb applies to the logic you're using to justify sole support for Ellison. The movement to bring establishment liberalism up to date doesn't live or die on who becomes DNC chair, though the drama queen routine makes sense given your goals.
|
On February 18 2017 02:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 02:20 Toadesstern wrote:On February 18 2017 02:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 18 2017 02:07 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 18 2017 02:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 18 2017 01:56 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 18 2017 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 18 2017 01:37 kwizach wrote:On February 18 2017 01:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 18 2017 01:03 kwizach wrote:Much of the case against Perez coming from certain posters here seems to boil down to "well Sanders endorsed Ellison and not him". Perez has a fantastic record when it comes to defending both workers' rights and civil rights, and is an extremely skillful administrator and policy strategist. The idea that he isn't a progressive and that electing him would be like "giving the finger to the progressive wing" is utter rubbish. Bruh, I'm not even making a case against Perez as a candidate to do the job. Like I said, he could do the same things as vice chair. What I'm talking about is perception. A lesson you should be intimately familiar with at this point is that perception dictates political reality. It doesn't matter if Perez is better suited for the titled role, there is nothing to be gained by giving him that title, but plenty to lose. It only serves as an act of dominance. Which I can assure you will have no benefit for the party's chances in 18 or 20. No, the "perception" argument is the one you fall back to once your actual comments against Perez are addressed. Like I said, the idea that electing Perez "serves only as a finger to the progressive wing and basically lays without a rational explanation" is utter rubbish, given Perez' qualities and record, just like your comment that "it's the Obama voters that are thoroughly unimpressed with the former labor secretary's work in the rust belt" -- I'm eagerly waiting to see on what evidence and polls that comment is based on. You're not lamenting the erroneous perceptions of Perez found among some Bernie or Busters, you're actively perpetuating them. If this was only a matter of perception as opposed to what the candidates actually bring to the job, then you should precisely be telling people to change their perception of Perez, seeing as he's a great champion of workers' rights and civil rights. You should also be denouncing Sanders' toxic rhetoric about Perez. Yet you're obviously not doing that, because the reason you're supporting Ellison and not Perez does not boil down to "perception". lol. We disagree. I'm not really supporting Ellison, I think he understands what the Democratic party did wrong better than the people Perez represents, but the job is basically fundraising and being a figurehead. But this term it's perceived as much more than that. I think both Perez and Ellison have significant shortcomings, but that's not what I'm pointing out. I'm pointing out that there's nothing Perez can do as Chair that he can't do from vice-chair and that regardless if I spent every breath I took trying to disabuse people of the perception that he's giving the finger to the progressive wing (whether I agree with it or not) it's not going to change. This argument itself is further evidence of how stupid of a fight this is in the first place. EDIT: Maybe it would make more sense this way, finish this sentence: Perez must be the chair of the Democratic party instead of Ellison because.... now you're contradicting yourself. earlier you said perez has pretty much all the right ideas and ellison is purely symbolic. but now ellison is the one with his finger on the pulse of america. i don't think anyone said perez MUST be chair. like i said, i'm about 55/45. i'm just pointing out i find it ridiculous that ellison being what you've acknowledged is a largely symbolic chair matters to other people so much that they would abandon what is their best chance to move in the direction of their vision for america. I think you might want to reread what I've said? Why I said "must" is because it's not going to make a significant difference to what the DNC does one way or the other (unless they aren't being honest about their intentions). But it will make a gigantic difference in perception rightly or not. Lamenting that people make choices based off of incomplete information isn't going to make the phenomena go away, this "deal with the hand your dealt' stuff comes right out of Hillary's playbook so I don't quite understand why the same folks are so oppositional to it. deal with the hand you're dealt is called reality. So your hand is millions of people who aren't going to play the game Democrats are trying to play, which will result in them losing until they figure out an alternative plan. Now deal with it. wouldn't that just result in a pivot to the right? That seems to be what Democrats currently think. Unfortunately it will probably take a few primaries and losses for them to figure out that's not the ticket. Truth is that there are a great number of people that dont consider themselves left or right that just want things like universal healthcare, a living wage, more equitable wealth distribution, etc... You can see it even in "the right" where those things get 2-4 out of 10 Republicans to support them. From the traditional view the ~1/2 of our country that doesn't vote leans left so if nothing else but increasing turnout 10-20% would give Democrats more than enough votes to sweep Republicans out. But they want to focus on trying to change the minds of people (with political theater) who already vote and to only pay lip service (or look at them with disdain like some here have alluded to) to those who don't. That's a strategy that led to Trump being elected by a bunch of people who either don't see how disconnected from reality he is or simply don't care.
I don't think it's just what Democrats think, it's what should happen and I don't think what you're imagining is an alternative.
Yes even most people on the right want healthcare to be a thing. But that's not really a point of a "leftish" ideas being popular, it's a thing of something that isn't too extreme (the lack of healthcare) being popular. I'm sure there are equally things that a lot of people on the left will agree on with the right over what the left has to say on that.
I can't really see how Democrats and Republicans shifting even further away from each other would make the average guy who just wants something "normal", whatever that is perceived as the US political world, more likely to vote for one or the other party... but then again that's exactly what's going on right now.
Imo if you go further to the left you gain the Bernie folks but you lose more people in the middle while doing it, hence pivoting to the right.
|
On February 18 2017 02:40 farvacola wrote:
Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't change the fact that the same rule of thumb applies to the logic you're using to justify sole support for Ellison. The movement to bring establishment liberalism up to date doesn't live or die on who becomes DNC chair, though the drama queen routine makes sense given your goals.
That's the problem, I see that, that's not the point. I'll say this as plainly as I can and leave it.
There is no reason Perez has to be the chair to do what he says he wants to do with the party.
There is a reason Ellison has to be the chair to do what he wants to do, because it involves people who have Perez getting the job as a non-starter.
If people who think Perez should get it can tell me what specifically he would do as chair that he couldn't do as vice then it's worth discussing, but if there's nothing that he's intending to do that he couldn't from the vice chair than it's pretty simple math as to why Ellison getting the job is a no-brainer.
On February 18 2017 02:41 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 02:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 18 2017 02:20 Toadesstern wrote:On February 18 2017 02:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 18 2017 02:07 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 18 2017 02:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 18 2017 01:56 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 18 2017 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 18 2017 01:37 kwizach wrote:On February 18 2017 01:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Bruh, I'm not even making a case against Perez as a candidate to do the job. Like I said, he could do the same things as vice chair. What I'm talking about is perception. A lesson you should be intimately familiar with at this point is that perception dictates political reality. It doesn't matter if Perez is better suited for the titled role, there is nothing to be gained by giving him that title, but plenty to lose.
It only serves as an act of dominance. Which I can assure you will have no benefit for the party's chances in 18 or 20. No, the "perception" argument is the one you fall back to once your actual comments against Perez are addressed. Like I said, the idea that electing Perez "serves only as a finger to the progressive wing and basically lays without a rational explanation" is utter rubbish, given Perez' qualities and record, just like your comment that "it's the Obama voters that are thoroughly unimpressed with the former labor secretary's work in the rust belt" -- I'm eagerly waiting to see on what evidence and polls that comment is based on. You're not lamenting the erroneous perceptions of Perez found among some Bernie or Busters, you're actively perpetuating them. If this was only a matter of perception as opposed to what the candidates actually bring to the job, then you should precisely be telling people to change their perception of Perez, seeing as he's a great champion of workers' rights and civil rights. You should also be denouncing Sanders' toxic rhetoric about Perez. Yet you're obviously not doing that, because the reason you're supporting Ellison and not Perez does not boil down to "perception". lol. We disagree. I'm not really supporting Ellison, I think he understands what the Democratic party did wrong better than the people Perez represents, but the job is basically fundraising and being a figurehead. But this term it's perceived as much more than that. I think both Perez and Ellison have significant shortcomings, but that's not what I'm pointing out. I'm pointing out that there's nothing Perez can do as Chair that he can't do from vice-chair and that regardless if I spent every breath I took trying to disabuse people of the perception that he's giving the finger to the progressive wing (whether I agree with it or not) it's not going to change. This argument itself is further evidence of how stupid of a fight this is in the first place. EDIT: Maybe it would make more sense this way, finish this sentence: Perez must be the chair of the Democratic party instead of Ellison because.... now you're contradicting yourself. earlier you said perez has pretty much all the right ideas and ellison is purely symbolic. but now ellison is the one with his finger on the pulse of america. i don't think anyone said perez MUST be chair. like i said, i'm about 55/45. i'm just pointing out i find it ridiculous that ellison being what you've acknowledged is a largely symbolic chair matters to other people so much that they would abandon what is their best chance to move in the direction of their vision for america. I think you might want to reread what I've said? Why I said "must" is because it's not going to make a significant difference to what the DNC does one way or the other (unless they aren't being honest about their intentions). But it will make a gigantic difference in perception rightly or not. Lamenting that people make choices based off of incomplete information isn't going to make the phenomena go away, this "deal with the hand your dealt' stuff comes right out of Hillary's playbook so I don't quite understand why the same folks are so oppositional to it. deal with the hand you're dealt is called reality. So your hand is millions of people who aren't going to play the game Democrats are trying to play, which will result in them losing until they figure out an alternative plan. Now deal with it. wouldn't that just result in a pivot to the right? That seems to be what Democrats currently think. Unfortunately it will probably take a few primaries and losses for them to figure out that's not the ticket. Truth is that there are a great number of people that dont consider themselves left or right that just want things like universal healthcare, a living wage, more equitable wealth distribution, etc... You can see it even in "the right" where those things get 2-4 out of 10 Republicans to support them. From the traditional view the ~1/2 of our country that doesn't vote leans left so if nothing else but increasing turnout 10-20% would give Democrats more than enough votes to sweep Republicans out. But they want to focus on trying to change the minds of people (with political theater) who already vote and to only pay lip service (or look at them with disdain like some here have alluded to) to those who don't. That's a strategy that led to Trump being elected by a bunch of people who either don't see how disconnected from reality he is or simply don't care. I don't think it's just what Democrats think, it's what should happen and I don't think what you're imagining is an alternative. Yes even most people on the right want healthcare to be a thing. But that's not really a point of a "leftish" ideas being popular, it's a thing of something that isn't too extreme (the lack of healthcare) being popular. I'm sure there are equally things that a lot of people on the left will agree on with the right over what the left has to say on that. I can't really see how Democrats and Republicans shifting even further away from each other would make the average guy who just wants something "normal", whatever that is perceived as the US political world, more likely to vote for one or the other party... but then again that's exactly what's going on right now. Imo if you go further to the left you gain the Bernie folks but you lose more people in the middle while doing it, hence pivoting to the right.
What I'm telling you is that the left/right, red/blue, Democrat/Republican dynamic isn't what it looks like. Essentially, people don't break down along the lines we've lazily drawn. So when you say "shifting further away" that's not actually the case. It's a matter of people aligning their political affiliations in ways that don't match their actual preferences. There's another coalition of people who just don't really care about social conservatism, they are more economically liberal, and libertarian in their foreign policy. They don't get there through some strict ideology though, so they don't fit in any party, and they just don't bother to engage (or spread themselves accordingly).
As soon as they think someone is talking to them, they get bent into some weird ideological corner and have to contort themselves in grotesque ways and it generally turns them off completely. All Democrats have to do is convince them they can be their champions and it's in the bag (this isn't even counting the actual leftists in Bernie's camp). Democrats think that means "going to the center" as if it's to their right, but it's not, it's actually to what most would perceive as their left, but is really just not giving so much weight to what the top 1% of wealth holders desire and weighting more evenly the people making under $50-75k in proportion to their population and opinion rather than their turnout for either Republicans or Democrats. .
|
On February 18 2017 02:34 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 02:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Okay so we have one side who thinks it's not very important which one goes through, something like 55-45, and one side who thinks it's very important which one goes through. So since we're equal in this partnership, you're going to account for how important it's for the other side and choose the person who they think is important, right?
Right? It'd be a mistake to let anyone carry the standard for 45 or 55 percent of interested Democrats. GH convincing you that millions of people would consider Perez "forced" on them is him doing good politics more than it is an accurate representation of where folks actually fall on the issue. Either will still provide for the realignment that needs to happen imo.
GH convincing me? You might want to spend some time on progressive internet. There are places where even Ellison is viewed as too much of a corporate democrat, but at least he has a decent amount of the support; literally no one is okay with Perez in these circles.
|
If a strategy for political change relines on reinforcing the frayed edges of a long-outdated bipolar spectrum, it is doomed to fail. Therefore, analogizing the process of change to movement along a narrow line of political ideology is to wave the white flag before the fight has even begun. The idea here is to disrupt status quo attitudes towards how political ideas manifest themselves and seize on the boundary change in pushing through reform. Life being terrible for a lot of people helps that happen, and it's against that combined backdrop that FDR and Lincoln (and JFK, to a lesser extent) stand out as the two "best" presidents the US has ever had imo.
|
hypothesis: we need more politicians who don't really care about the issues or have policy stances of their own. they just want a list of things we want/objectives, and they'll try to satisfy them as best they can. sometimes it feels like policy stances get in the way of getting stuff done.
just a hypothesis of course, not saying I agree with it, just a thought.
|
On February 18 2017 02:47 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 02:34 farvacola wrote:On February 18 2017 02:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Okay so we have one side who thinks it's not very important which one goes through, something like 55-45, and one side who thinks it's very important which one goes through. So since we're equal in this partnership, you're going to account for how important it's for the other side and choose the person who they think is important, right?
Right? It'd be a mistake to let anyone carry the standard for 45 or 55 percent of interested Democrats. GH convincing you that millions of people would consider Perez "forced" on them is him doing good politics more than it is an accurate representation of where folks actually fall on the issue. Either will still provide for the realignment that needs to happen imo. GH convincing me? You might want to spend some time on progressive internet. There are places where even Ellison is viewed as too much of a corporate democrat, but at least he has a decent amount of the support; literally no one is okay with Perez in these circles.
I'm not really interested in hand-wavey attempts at using gesticulating towards particular communities to anchor shorthand characterizations of left, more left, and most left. Yes, there are places where literally everyone thinks like GH, but given my unwillingness to get into the mud of figuring out exactly what proportion of the potentially voting public said places represent, you'll have to forgive me for disagreeing with the idea that obstinacy on the part of an ill-determined sub-constituency should control the outcome of a major party decision.
|
On February 18 2017 02:56 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 02:47 Nebuchad wrote:On February 18 2017 02:34 farvacola wrote:On February 18 2017 02:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Okay so we have one side who thinks it's not very important which one goes through, something like 55-45, and one side who thinks it's very important which one goes through. So since we're equal in this partnership, you're going to account for how important it's for the other side and choose the person who they think is important, right?
Right? It'd be a mistake to let anyone carry the standard for 45 or 55 percent of interested Democrats. GH convincing you that millions of people would consider Perez "forced" on them is him doing good politics more than it is an accurate representation of where folks actually fall on the issue. Either will still provide for the realignment that needs to happen imo. GH convincing me? You might want to spend some time on progressive internet. There are places where even Ellison is viewed as too much of a corporate democrat, but at least he has a decent amount of the support; literally no one is okay with Perez in these circles. I'm not really interested in hand-wavey attempts at using gesticulating towards particular communities to anchor shorthand characterizations of left, more left, and most left. Yes, there are places where literally everyone thinks like GH, but given my unwillingness to get into the mud of figuring out exactly what proportion of the potentially voting public said places represent, you'll have to forgive me for disagreeing with the idea that obstinacy on the part of an ill-determined sub-constituency should control the outcome of a major party decision.
But we've established that the major party is fine with both, so it's not like we're imposing it on you. We are pushing for a choice that you already agree with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
