I have to admit I was pretty disappointed by the debate as a whole. It seems everyone was bending over backwards to say the same vague stuff, but there was very little substance to tell the candidates apart.
I thought that Sam Ronan was the only one who took a stand on the issue of past problems, and that Perez was dodging questions like bullets in the Matrix. Ellison seemed OK, but I got the impression he was not nearly the break from the status quo I thought he might be.
I don't know, I felt like I learned very little new information from the debate. I would like to see some better questions put to the candidates, and hear something specific.
I'm telling you, this isn't the big deal you think it is.
The position's weight and responsibilities don't lend itself to a massive swing in the party. The differences between the candidates aren't that huge overall and those differences are going to actually get muted by the position.
Consider this for a moment, without looking it up, name a DNC or RNC chair that went on to be influential AFTER holding the chair position? The list, if there even is one, is going to be really small... unless you're so geeky about politics, you're like a baseball fan who can name 3rd base coaches of multiple teams.
The party chair doesn't set agendas. Namely, because if party members don't follow the party chair, the chair has virtually zero consequences with which to apply pressure. If a congressman doesn't vote for a bill, the party chair essentially has nothing to pressure them with to bring them in line. In fact, the chair is more likely to give into the congressman, because the congressman is the one to actually bring in fundraising checks. The chair coordinates efforts between congressman to maximize that fundraising.
This isn't a fight over who the starting pitcher is. This is a fight over the 3rd base coach.
If we want new leadership for the party, urge your representative to vote for someone other than Pelosi in the house, or Schumer in the senate. Though honestly I'm okay with their bumbling for the time being as whoever holds those jobs right now can't actually do that much other than talk. Let those two take the fall for any democrat failures, let leaders emerge in other venues.
Something that's interesting is that in 23 districts, Republicans won the house seat, but Clinton beat Trump. Democrats only need to win an additional 24 seats to take control of the House. Taking the House in 2018 is a very real possibility, but by then we need a new majority leader/speaker option.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes it is the point. In fact, it's the central thesis on 80% of left leaning posters in this thread. Obama is a republican because he did this one thing. Clinton is a republican because of that one thing. Etc, etc, etc. It's a constant and repeated refrain throughout this thread and liberally leaning discussions.
That is odd, because I can think of at least a dozen different examples of problems people brought up about the Clinton's/Obama, yet you still seem focused on claiming it is one thing, or 100% purity.
Before you accuse others of failing to communicate, you might want to consider that communication is a two way street.
I'm not the one claiming that Democrats are actually Republicans.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't a fight over who the starting pitcher is. This is a fight over the 3rd base coach.
Well, the highest ranking democrat is Chuck Schumer - so if that is where the party is headed, then that is a big problem.
The chair is a symbol of whether the Democrats still have hope. If the position is as meaningless as you say, and the Dems are the party of Schumer, then they need to be replaced ASAP, regardless of who wins the chair.
EDIT:
I'm not the one claiming that Democrats are actually Republicans.
You are correct, the highest ranking member of YOUR party is saying that they should give up on blue collar dem votes in favor of suburban republicans. Also, I never gave them credit for being actual Republicans, just acting like a half-assed version.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, if you find a more progressive party with actual chances of winning state-wide elections in multiple states let me know. I would love to hear about them.
Until then, I'm not waiting for unicorns to appear, I'm going to work with what I've got.
Remember, if you want to change things in this country on a large scale, you need coalitions of people working together that number in the 10's of millions. With that many people, they're not all going to agree with you.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are correct, the highest ranking member of YOUR party is saying that they should give up on blue collar dem votes in favor of suburban republicans. Also, I never gave them credit for being actual Republicans, just acting like a half-assed version.
Suburban Republicans in the Kansas House just voted to expand Medicaid, increase taxes to fund education, and restore tenure for teachers.
Basically...if your not happy with Schumer and Pelosi, you need to primary them out, or primary out enough other candidates that what ever democrat wing you are supporting has enough clout that they can force them to step down from leadership issues.
Right now I lean towards Ellison, but yeah, I am not sure how much it matters as far as who gets the position. They all seem to be arguing for similar tactics as far as moving the dems forward.
You are correct, the highest ranking member of YOUR party is saying that they should give up on blue collar dem votes in favor of suburban republicans. Also, I never gave them credit for being actual Republicans, just acting like a half-assed version.Suburban Republicans in the Kansas House just voted to expand Medicaid, increase taxes to fund education, and restore tenure for teachers.
Yeah but i mean their legislature has been vigorously screwing that up for years now, so does this go anywhere near pre-brownback levels or is it a slow bleed compromise where the midpoint of compromise slowly slides one direction.
I'll just say this, I'm a bit skeptical about the term "Suburban Republicans." It feels like the new "Soccer Mom," and I've gotta say, the first time I heard that one, I realized that the children of Democrats play peewee soccer right next to the children of Republicans. On the same team, even.
Fair, but the same is true of nearly any demographic split. Taking the patterns as absolutes is an error, but so is pretending they don't exist.I'll just say this, I'm a bit skeptical about the term "Suburban Republicans." It feels like the new "Soccer Mom," and I've gotta say, the first time I heard that one, I realized that the children of Democrats play peewee soccer right next to the children of Republicans. On the same team, even.
That's a fair point too, I just think the demographic we need to win in the suburbs is better defined as "Trump voters" than "Republicans," you know?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trump independents even.
Yeah but i mean their legislature has been vigorously screwing that up for years now, so does this go anywhere near pre-brownback levels or is it a slow bleed compromise where the midpoint of compromise slowly slides one direction.You are correct, the highest ranking member of YOUR party is saying that they should give up on blue collar dem votes in favor of suburban republicans. Also, I never gave them credit for being actual Republicans, just acting like a half-assed version.Suburban Republicans in the Kansas House just voted to expand Medicaid, increase taxes to fund education, and restore tenure for teachers.It's that legislature taking a step back from screwing things up. Of course it's not fixing everything. It's a Republican dominated legislature.
It's minority Democrats working with some Republicans to roll back some of the damage.Yes, it's a compromise. It's a compromise much to the left of where things have been in Kansas, but is it sufficiently pure enough? Depends on your standards, I suppose.
They could have refused to cooperate with Republicans, put forward their own idealistic bill and gotten nowhere with it. Would that have been better?
I'm not saying any of that, but losing somewhat slower is still losing ground.
Alternatively, stopping the bleeding is a small, but important, step towards recovery.
|
More and more I find myself missing the 'sanity and competence' of the GWB administration.
I may need to avoid news for four years. Or take up drinking. The stupid is just too pervasive and overpowering.
Up thread, now way up thread, I put forth the idea that all this focusing on Trump will do exactly the opposite of what the Dems et al think.
Now the New York Times published an article explaining why I was right.
I Ignored Trump News for a Week. Here’s What I Learned.
My favorite part:
Mr. Senatori recently added up the coverage value of 1,000 of the world’s best known figures, excluding Mr. Obama and Mr. Trump. The list includes Mrs. Clinton,...
The coverage those 1,000 people garnered last month totaled $721 million. In other words, Mr. Trump gets about $100 million more in coverage than the next 1,000 famous people put together. And he is on track to match or beat his January record in February, according to Mr. Senatori’s preliminary figures.Live and learn people.
Stop talking about him. Things will go better.
Ignore what he is doing, it's not important or anything.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ignore what he is doing, it's not important or anything.Up thread, now way up thread, I put forth the idea that all this focusing on Trump will do exactly the opposite of what the Dems et al think.
Now the New York Times published an article explaining why I was right.
I Ignored Trump News for a Week. Here’s What I Learned.
My favorite part:
Mr. Senatori recently added up the coverage value of 1,000 of the world’s best known figures, excluding Mr. Obama and Mr. Trump. The list includes Mrs. Clinton,...
The coverage those 1,000 people garnered last month totaled $721 million. In other words, Mr. Trump gets about $100 million more in coverage than the next 1,000 famous people put together. And he is on track to match or beat his January record in February, according to Mr. Senatori’s preliminary figures.Live and learn people.
Stop talking about him. Things will go better.
Did you read the article?
Talk about the issues.
Ignore the man-boy.
If you don't he keeps winning.
We can't confront what he's doing if we ignore him, and if we don't confront what he's doing, we've already lost.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
P1"That thing which happened to all those refugees and immigrants was terrible!"
P2"Which thing?"
P1"You know, the thing that person did."
P2"Which person?"
P1"That person I'm not talking about."
P2"You're not making any sense."
P1"I have to ignore him because I'm afraid of giving him power."
P2"Voldemort? Are you talking about a Harry Potter book?"
P1"That thing which happened to all those refugees and immigrants was terrible!"
P2"Which thing?"
P1"You know, the thing that person did."
P2"Which person?"
P1"That person I'm not talking about."
P2"You're not making any sense."
P1"I have to ignore him because I'm afraid of giving him power."
P2"Voldemort? Are you talking about a Harry Potter book?"
LOL! I'm crying right now! Crying!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see the argument that the media should be paying less attention to every random Trump tweet and other bit of trivial distraction, but that's different than ignoring him completely.
Right more focus on policy and less on bathrobes. I called this before the election said it would be like jessie ventura, and while the stage is much grander, the situation is quite similar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Up thread, now way up thread, I put forth the idea that all this focusing on Trump will do exactly the opposite of what the Dems et al think.
Now the New York Times published an article explaining why I was right.
I Ignored Trump News for a Week. Here’s What I Learned.
My favorite part:
Mr. Senatori recently added up the coverage value of 1,000 of the world’s best known figures, excluding Mr. Obama and Mr. Trump. The list includes Mrs. Clinton,...
The coverage those 1,000 people garnered last month totaled $721 million. In other words, Mr. Trump gets about $100 million more in coverage than the next 1,000 famous people put together. And he is on track to match or beat his January record in February, according to Mr. Senatori’s preliminary figures.Live and learn people.
Stop talking about him. Things will go better.
Man with biased opinion finds comfort in bias-confirming opinion piece. News at 11.
I can see the argument that the media should be paying less attention to every random Trump tweet and other bit of trivial distraction, but that's different than ignoring him completely.
This I would agree with. There's so much b+$~@@~+, the tweets, the palace intrigue, and the Conway interviews. Reuter's actually has a pretty good policy for how to deal with Trump.
All in all, there might be a side benefit for the public as media outlets have to make a decision on how much of the fluff to focus on, or actually deliver journalism like they've purported to do for so many years. A few places seem to be slowly going back to their roots and doing actual reporting.
Good article in The Intercept about Ellison Vs Perez.
Key Question About DNC Race: Why Did Obama White House Recruit Perez to Run Against Ellison?
I thought this part was very revealing:
"But there’s an uglier and tawdrier aspect to this. Just over two weeks after Ellison announced, the largest single funder of both the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign — the Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban — launched an incredibly toxic attack on Ellison, designed to signal his veto. “He is clearly an anti-Semite and anti-Israel individual,” pronounced Saban about the African-American Muslim congressman, adding: “Keith Ellison would be a disaster for the relationship between the Jewish community and the Democratic Party.”"
Will the democrats follow the progressive base, or their biggest donor?
|
|
Good article in The Intercept about Ellison Vs Perez.
Key Question About DNC Race: Why Did Obama White House Recruit Perez to Run Against Ellison?I thought this part was very revealing:
"But there’s an uglier and tawdrier aspect to this. Just over two weeks after Ellison announced, the largest single funder of both the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign — the Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban — launched an incredibly toxic attack on Ellison, designed to signal his veto. “He is clearly an anti-Semite and anti-Israel individual,” pronounced Saban about the African-American Muslim congressman, adding: “Keith Ellison would be a disaster for the relationship between the Jewish community and the Democratic Party.”"Will the democrats follow the progressive base, or their biggest donor?
Not surprising Saban said he is a "one issue guy" and so against Ellison he goes.
Watch for updates on The Hill:
DNC chair vote: live coverage
"11:10 a.m.
Democrats voted down a measure that would have reinstituted a ban on corporate lobbyists donating to the DNC. The measure was instituted by former President Barack Obama but quietly lifted by former DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz ahead of Hillary Clinton's presidential run."
That's a misrepresentation of the rule under Obama. It was a ban on all federal lobbyists donations. And you should mention how much a a PAC or lobbyist can actually donate to a candidate. Also, don't forget to talk about how PAC's and lobbyists spent money during the Obama donation-rule.
I'm all for changing how campaigns are funded, but reducing the debate to a couple of buzzwords seems stupid.
Unless you're trying to behave like the NRA of the left.
The tweets are annoying, but in many ways they are distractions from the policy issues and leaks that are actually more significant. I would rather the late night hosts and comedians concentrate on the tweets than the news sites.
Although the tweets DO give you a bit of a sense of what exactly is rattling around in Trump's head.
That's a misrepresentation of the rule under Obama. It was a ban on all federal lobbyists donations. And you should mention how much a a PAC or lobbyist can actually donate to a candidate. Also, don't forget to talk about how PAC's and lobbyists spent money during the Obama donation-rule.
I'm all for changing how campaigns are funded, but reducing the debate to a couple of buzzwords seems stupid.
Unless you're trying to behave like the NRA of the left.
The left could probably use their own NRA, the NRA wins politically.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Although the tweets DO give you a bit of a sense of what exactly is rattling around in Trump's head.
It's the echo chamber of fox news.
what do you mean by pivoting?
Today's Politico article discussing the thread topic. Quote at the end: “The Democratic Party has lost its way. Let’s face it: We’ve been getting our butts kicked in elections. We’ve been losing elections around the country that we should win."
Pretty much. Fox and scarier places - Brietbart and Infowars. Some of the reports leaking out from staff about "how to handle Trump" are scary - Keep him fed with positive news, away from criticism or anything negative, which is hard since he gets bored and like to watch the cable shows.It's the echo chamber of fox news.Although the tweets DO give you a bit of a sense of what exactly is rattling around in Trump's head.
Even some at Fox have been pushing back against Trump.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really think people should focus less on what the Democrats are doing wrong, and more on what's going wrong with the world all over that it's causing this same populist-seeking reaction in so many countries at once. This isn't a solely America thing. Trump is just one more Farage, Le Pen and, in my country, Soini. What is causing the upswell of support for populists all over the developed world. As long as people think it's something that their own party in their own country did wrong, I don't think they'll ever really be able to combat the real causes.
That's a good point, Samy. Thanks!
In the US it seems to be a roughly 80 year cycle taking ~20 years to play out from beginning to end. If this pattern holds, the current cycle started ~2008-2012 when the housing collapse finished its long avalanche (in the US).
There are teetering dominoes wobbling the world over. Venezuela. North Korea. China. Russia. The Middle East. Cuba. The ghastly Syrian civil war with the attendant rise and fall of Daesh.
That all of this remains "in progress" should go without saying.
Things are globally changing in a big way not seen since WW2 and the early years of what would become the Cold War.
Perhaps a convenient way to peg the current cycle to a start date of Dec 2010 with the Arab Spring getting rolling in Tunisia? Populism of a 'different flavor', as it were in that it occurred in geography not necessarily renown for harboring such a sentiment.
Edit: insert facepalm here
Found this 2 minutes ago after the original post above. Zeitgeist ... o.O ... or, something. I dunno.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really think people should focus less on what the Democrats are doing wrong, and more on what's going wrong with the world all over that it's causing this same populist-seeking reaction in so many countries at once. This isn't a solely America thing. Trump is just one more Farage, Le Pen and, in my country, Soini. What is causing the upswell of support for populists all over the developed world. As long as people think it's something that their own party in their own country did wrong, I don't think they'll ever really be able to combat the real causes.
The thing is...figuring out what the democrats can do to regain power is something far far far easier to accomplish than to solve the underlying issues that our causing nationalism to rise to prominence in North America and Europe.
The Syria crisis and it's ripple effect is almost certainly one portion of that. Decline of the middle class, easy access to false information and a lack of ability for people to determine that is another. And certainly, in the USA and probably elsewhere, a bit of a cultural backlash against minority groups, whose plights are much more elevated in the public eye, making it seem like they get special attention/privileges.
I really think people should focus less on what the Democrats are doing wrong, and more on what's going wrong with the world all over that it's causing this same populist-seeking reaction in so many countries at once. This isn't a solely America thing. Trump is just one more Farage, Le Pen and, in my country, Soini. What is causing the upswell of support for populists all over the developed world. As long as people think it's something that their own party in their own country did wrong, I don't think they'll ever really be able to combat the real causes.
It's almost as though global thinking is more helpful than nationalism.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, we're seeing something akin to the early 1930s starting with the rise of fear of 'others', populism/nationalism on the upswing in multiple nations/geopolitical regions, currently without the wrecking ball of a Global Great Depression having been applied?
I really think people should focus less on what the Democrats are doing wrong, and more on what's going wrong with the world all over that it's causing this same populist-seeking reaction in so many countries at once. This isn't a solely America thing. Trump is just one more Farage, Le Pen and, in my country, Soini. What is causing the upswell of support for populists all over the developed world. As long as people think it's something that their own party in their own country did wrong, I don't think they'll ever really be able to combat the real causes.It's almost as though global thinking is more helpful than nationalism.
Global thinking does not seem to have become a functional thing. It might be what emerges in the ashes of the 2030s...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
what do you mean by pivoting?
So at one point Perez was talking about the DNC race being rigged against Bernie. Shortly after, Perez said he 'mispoke" and that no rigging had occurred.
during the DNC ebate Cuomo asked Perez if he thought the race was rigged or not. It went like this;Cuomo: "You said the race was rigged, then took that statement back. Which do you believe is true?"
Perez: Goes on a tangent about the American people wanting transparency from the party.
Cuomo: "Thats fine but I want you to say if the race was rigged or not please? ten seconds..."
Perez: "What we need is transparency..."
Cuomo: /facepalm
|
|
The thing is...figuring out what the democrats can do to regain power is something far far far easier to accomplish than to solve the underlying issues that our causing nationalism to rise to prominence in North America and Europe.
I'm not sure that's a given. I think it's possible that democrats *can't* regain power unless they figure out how to counterargue nationalism.