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 March 10 2017 22:55 farvacola wrote: I'm going to continue to hope that Perez does his part in helping the party move away from Pelosi-style Democratic politics and I'll judge his chairmanship accordingly.
Hope in one hand, crap in the other and see which one fills up first.
But seriously, they both (Perez and Ellison) said they would step in and try to prevent challengers to the establishment. The Democratic party wants to see how much more unpopular than Trump and the Republican party they can get it seems.
Can you clarify this? Is it that they both said they support super delegates or something?
On March 11 2017 06:37 Plansix wrote: I have not seen that. Do you have an article that covers it?
Apparently the corporate media missed it lol.
Here's Ellison:
It's okay though, because he won't do it publicly...
For Perez you have to read between the lines a bit more, he used the DWS line, but it ignores the DNC has already taken a side in the Claire McCaskill race.
GH, I get that you don’t like Claire McCaskill. I’m not wild about her either, in anyway. But she also isn't my senator. The problem with attacking them in the primary is that you might end up with a Joe Lieberman situation. That case was a progressive group trying to torpedo Joe’s run for senate and it blew up in the Democrat’s face. They lost the seat and Joe was in office for 6 more years and fucking hated the party. It also hurt the state party because it seemed like outside groups outside the state tried to influence the election, which did not help them.
We can’t replace DNC playing king maker with progressives going after state elections in the primaries. That is just another version of king maker.
On March 11 2017 07:04 Plansix wrote: GH, I get that you don’t like Claire McCaskill. I’m not wild about her either, in anyway. But she also isn't my senator. The problem with attacking them in the primary is that you might end up with a Joe Lieberman situation. That case was a progressive group trying to torpedo Joe’s run for senate and it blew up in the Democrat’s face. They lost the seat and Joe was in office for 6 more years and fucking hated the party. It also hurt the state party because it seemed like outside groups outside the state tried to influence the election, which did not help them.
We can’t replace DNC playing king maker with progressives going after state elections in the primaries. That is just another version of king maker.
Okay, so we're not arguing whether it's their strategy or not, that's settled then?
Claire won by 15%, Bernie and Hillary split votes in that state evenly, nothing about having a progressive challenger means Democrats lose.
Outside groups are all over every election, pretty sure you're in the camp that says we can't unilaterally disarm anyway soooo...
How in the hell is not rebuffing progressive challengers anything like picking your favorite and standing behind them? That's not "another version of king maker" at all.
As long as the progressive candidate represents the state and not some outside interest that wants to see Claire McCaskill removed because she doesn’t line up with progressive values. But if a Bernie style candidate makes it, great. As long as they don’t make it on the back of Bernie saying he support their run.
On March 11 2017 07:25 Plansix wrote: As long as the progressive candidate represents the state and not some outside interest that wants to see Claire McCaskill removed because she doesn’t line up with progressive values. But if a Bernie style candidate makes it, great. As long as they don’t make it on the back of Bernie saying he support their run.
But that's not the path the DNC is choosing, which is my point. They'll discourage the challenger in private, use DNC fundraising apparatus for their preferred candidate, then tell us it was "fair and unbiased" and Democratic party loyalists will say "of course it was fair!".
I see. So the DNC isn’t allowed to assert influence and talk about matters in private. But Bernie and the progressives can do it and support someone’s run, both publicly and privately. There is nothing prohibiting the progressive win from funding a candidate either.
It sounds like you want to be able to back a candidate of your choosing and then call the DNC a cheater when they do the same thing. You want to run in their primary, back who you want and then prohibit them from picking who they want. And then if you win, you want the DNC’s support in the full election.
Just run as a third party and cut act. That is what you really want.
On March 11 2017 07:38 Plansix wrote: I see. So the DNC isn’t allowed to assert influence and talk about matters in private. But Bernie and the progressives can do it and support someone’s run, both publicly and privately. There is nothing prohibiting the progressive win from funding a candidate either.
It sounds like you want to be able to back a candidate of your choosing and then call the DNC a cheater when they do the same thing. You want to run in their primary, back who you want and then prohibit them from picking who they want. And then if you win, you want the DNC’s support in the full election.
Just run as a third party and cut act. That is what you really want.
Having a hard time following what you're trying to say.
I can back whoever I want, I'm not the DNC and am not, by charter, required to be neutral? So I don't track the comparison at all.
Presuming the :"you" actually meant "progressives" again, they are not bound by a charter to be neutral.
If the DNC wants to pick candidates and not use primaries to do so they should just change the charter, which would likely lead to that new party. But they want their cake and to eat it too. They want to be able to pick their candidates, then use primaries as fundraising tools, not to choose a candidate.
And yeah, the DNC should probably back the person who wins a Democratic primary, but AFTER they win, not before. If for some reason they can't in good conscious support the winner, they should explain why.
The problem is the DNC is masquerading around like they are neutral when everyone knows they aren't. Then they get all pissy when you point out we still know it's them behind the mask. Or just insist that the mask is really their face.
On March 11 2017 07:25 Plansix wrote: As long as the progressive candidate represents the state and not some outside interest that wants to see Claire McCaskill removed because she doesn’t line up with progressive values. But if a Bernie style candidate makes it, great. As long as they don’t make it on the back of Bernie saying he support their run.
But that's not the path the DNC is choosing, which is my point. They'll discourage the challenger in private, use DNC fundraising apparatus for their preferred candidate, then tell us it was "fair and unbiased" and Democratic party loyalists will say "of course it was fair!".
Why shouldn't Bernie support their run?
I think you're missing a bit of the point of forming a coalition to begin with. The entire idea of forming a political party is to surrender a couple of your ideal circumstances in favor of getting some of them.
What do you see as the purpose of a political party? Why even form a political party to begin with?
On March 11 2017 07:25 Plansix wrote: As long as the progressive candidate represents the state and not some outside interest that wants to see Claire McCaskill removed because she doesn’t line up with progressive values. But if a Bernie style candidate makes it, great. As long as they don’t make it on the back of Bernie saying he support their run.
But that's not the path the DNC is choosing, which is my point. They'll discourage the challenger in private, use DNC fundraising apparatus for their preferred candidate, then tell us it was "fair and unbiased" and Democratic party loyalists will say "of course it was fair!".
Why shouldn't Bernie support their run?
I think you're missing a bit of the point of forming a coalition to begin with. The entire idea of forming a political party is to surrender a couple of your ideal circumstances in favor of getting some of them.
What do you see as the purpose of a political party? Why even form a political party to begin with?
I mean I agree with the general premise, but I think part of that process is having an open and fair choice between which faction is giving what and getting what.
By picking favorites and giving them advantages, one is interfering with that choice. Like I said, just change the charter if that's what they want. But they don't get to have it both ways.
Personally, I would prefer people just run as third parties and cut the bullshit. Or the democrats just close their primaries off and cut the bullshit. This whole planning to challenge an incumbent in a primary and then expect the party to remain neutral thing is just an impossible farce on both sides.
Challenging incumbents has always been an uphill battle. Getting support from the local party to do it is also a tough sell, since it is made up of people who help the incumbent win the last time around.
On March 11 2017 08:03 Plansix wrote: Personally, I would prefer people just run as third parties and cut the bullshit. Or the democrats just close their primaries off and cut the bullshit. This whole planning to challenge an incumbent in a primary and then expect the party to remain neutral thing is just an impossible farce on both sides.
Challenging incumbents has always been an uphill battle. Getting support from the local party to do it is also a tough sell, since it is made up of people who help the incumbent win the last time around.
See, that's not so hard. Just stop the bullshit. Though plenty of progressives are lifelong Democrats who think the party left them, not the other way around. So while I would appreciate the honesty that would come from Democrats closing off their party to candidates they don't like (progressives), it's a piss poor long term political strategy.
On March 11 2017 08:03 Plansix wrote: Personally, I would prefer people just run as third parties and cut the bullshit. Or the democrats just close their primaries off and cut the bullshit. This whole planning to challenge an incumbent in a primary and then expect the party to remain neutral thing is just an impossible farce on both sides.
Challenging incumbents has always been an uphill battle. Getting support from the local party to do it is also a tough sell, since it is made up of people who help the incumbent win the last time around.
Sounds like the DNC needs their own version of the Tea Party. Most recent example is Dave Brat taking down former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. I'm not a fan of the GOP much, but this is one area they sound a lot better than the Dems on.
The problem with the Tea party is that they are do nothing elected reps that refuse to compromise on anything. People like Ted Cruz are hated by the rest of their party. It is a problematic dynamic.
Plenty of progressives have gotten elected across the county, so I don't see that as a problem. But targeting sitting Senators because they are not progressive enough with a hard primary challenge creates a toxic environment that has long term repercussions. Challenging incumbents has the problem that the party in the state makes up their administration, so it is always an uphill battle. That might be a bit unfair, but it is reality. And those fights get nasty, especially if the challenger claims the process is rigged. And the incumbent can run as an independent and fuck the entire process up.
If the progressives want their agenda taken seriously, go after open seats and republicans. Stop targeting members members of the party they want to join. It does not breed good will. Pick the fights worth fighting.
On March 11 2017 08:03 Plansix wrote: Personally, I would prefer people just run as third parties and cut the bullshit. Or the democrats just close their primaries off and cut the bullshit. This whole planning to challenge an incumbent in a primary and then expect the party to remain neutral thing is just an impossible farce on both sides.
Challenging incumbents has always been an uphill battle. Getting support from the local party to do it is also a tough sell, since it is made up of people who help the incumbent win the last time around.
Sounds like the DNC needs their own version of the Tea Party. Most recent example is Dave Brat taking down former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. I'm not a fan of the GOP much, but this is one area they sound a lot better than the Dems on.
of course that strategy can backfire ah la 2012 when the Dems took a senate seat nobody expected them to take because a tea party candidate got a surprise win in the primary.
On March 11 2017 08:21 Plansix wrote: The problem with the Tea party is that they are do nothing elected reps that refuse to compromise on anything. People like Ted Cruz are hated by the rest of their party. It is a problematic dynamic.
Plenty of progressives have gotten elected across the county, so I don't see that as a problem. But targeting sitting Senators because they are not progressive enough with a hard primary challenge creates a toxic environment that has long term repercussions. Challenging incumbents has the problem that the party in the state makes up their administration, so it is always an uphill battle. That might be a bit unfair, but it is reality. And those fights get nasty, especially if the challenger claims the process is rigged. And the incumbent can run as an independent and fuck the entire process up.
If the progressives want their agenda taken seriously, go after open seats and republicans. Stop targeting members members of the party they want to join. It does not breed good will. Pick the fights worth fighting.
I feel like what you're saying has shifted, it seemed you started skeptical that Democrats were trying to prevent primary challengers, then you thought they should and progressives should start a third party, now it sounds like you want them to be Democrats still, just not stand up to the worst Democrats, instead only try to win seats Democrats think unwinnable?
On March 11 2017 08:21 Plansix wrote: The problem with the Tea party is that they are do nothing elected reps that refuse to compromise on anything. People like Ted Cruz are hated by the rest of their party. It is a problematic dynamic.
Plenty of progressives have gotten elected across the county, so I don't see that as a problem. But targeting sitting Senators because they are not progressive enough with a hard primary challenge creates a toxic environment that has long term repercussions. Challenging incumbents has the problem that the party in the state makes up their administration, so it is always an uphill battle. That might be a bit unfair, but it is reality. And those fights get nasty, especially if the challenger claims the process is rigged. And the incumbent can run as an independent and fuck the entire process up.
If the progressives want their agenda taken seriously, go after open seats and republicans. Stop targeting members members of the party they want to join. It does not breed good will. Pick the fights worth fighting.
I feel like what you're saying has shifted, it seemed you started skeptical that Democrats were trying to prevent primary challengers, then you thought they should and progressives should start a third party, now it sounds like you want them to be Democrats still, just not stand up to the worst Democrats, instead only try to win seats Democrats think unwinnable?
As I understand it, what Plansix is saying is "choose one of the following":
(1) Play nice, don't make a stink about rigging, and try to change the Democrats from within (2) Start a new party (3) If one must run as a Democrat with a non-party-line agenda, at least run for a position where you're not actively dislodging a party-line Democrat, with significant risk of neither left-wing candidate being elected
Try to pick up the sloppy seconds, the races where you have little chance of winning, just to make things better for party loyalists. And if the party doesn't want you to win then don't tattle.
On March 11 2017 09:02 LegalLord wrote: Try to pick up the sloppy seconds, the races where you have little chance of winning, just to make things better for party loyalists. And if the party doesn't want you to win then don't tattle.
That's a biased way to put it. To bias things the other way, I could say "it is unsurprising that a hostile takeover attempt is met with hostility".
EPT
