Support NeoGAF

[royalan]

its a start, we need to thin out the crowd of corporate lobbyists.

But the relative lack of criticism against Ellison as chairman concerns me.. How much control does DNC chair even have? Do the corperatist forces in the party feel like they can control what Ellison does?

What? That's not really how this works. The party is not going to openly criticize itself. After losing an election the LAST thing they're going to do is openly fight among themselves.

But make no mistake, every "DNC Chair needs to be full time" comment you hear from party leaders is as blatant a jab at Ellison as you're going to get.

 

[dakini]

I just hope Ellison can do this full time and energize the party, otherwise the Dems are in for another slaughter come 2018.

 

[boiled goose]

Yay purity tests

It is not a purity test.

The corrupting influence of money in politics is the single biggest issue in my opinion. This has been my same position for over 10 years now.

It affects every other issue.

Justice Reform (private prisons)
Foreign Policy and war (military industrial complex)
Net Neutrality
Science Funding, Education, social services (first things cut to make way for special interest tax breaks and subsidies)
Climate change (energy industry)
War on drugs
Financial Regulation
etc.
etc.
etc.

It even affects your ability to beat Republicans. Raise 40 percent of the money. Basically get paid to lose while not being able to turn around and point the finger at blatant corruption

 

[guek]

I'll only support Ellison if he gives up his seat and commits full time.


*reads through thread*

oh god, can we please stop with the passive aggressive Hillary loyalists still sucking their thumbs that their candidate lost. The party is going through major change, we all have to accept that.

 

[royalan]

It is not a purity test.

The corrupting influence of money in politics is the single biggest issue in my opinion. This has been my same position for over 10 years now.

It affects every other issue.

Justice Reform (private prisons)
Foreign Policy and war (military industrial complex)
Net Neutrality
Science Funding, Education, social services (first things cut to make way for special interest tax breaks and subsidies)
Climate change (energy industry)
War on drugs
Financial Regulation
etc.
etc.
etc.

This has nothing to do with your last post, which WAS advocating for purity tests.

 

[Suikoguy]

I'll only support Ellison if he gives up his seat and commits full time.


*reads through thread*

oh god, can we please stop with the passive aggressive Hillary loyalists still sucking their thumbs that their candidate lost. The party is going through major change, we all have to accept that.

Oh yeah, it's the Hillary people that are the problem, when BernieBros are telling others to "Fuck Off".

fuck off, even dean was for single-payer healthcare until he started taking money from pharmaceutical companies

obama compromising for the insurance companies was the first warning sign that his entire time in office would be nothing but wishy-washy centrist apologia

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

You know what I mean. I am talking about corporate lobbyists. Although truthfully, I believe lobbying should be completely illegal in all forms.

No, I don't. When corporations lobby in favor of something like gay marriage, is that bad? What about a company like Tesla which lobbies for cleaner energy? What about when Google lobbied against SOPA / PIPA?

As for your suggestion that all lobbying should be completely illegal, I recommend you read the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. And also think about how anything would get done in this country because no one would have any idea what people want.

 

[kirblar]

fuck off, even dean was for single-payer healthcare until he started taking money from pharmaceutical companies

obama compromising for the insurance companies was the first warning sign that his entire time in office would be nothing but wishy-washy centrist apologia

You don't think that Dean's home state attempting single-payer and running away from it like it's a zombie-plagued corpse after it proved unworkable had anything to do with it? http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/single-payer-vermont-113711

The idea that it's more likely that Dean was bribed than it was that Dean changed his mind here is ridiculous.

Why advocate for a public option and then sign on to help the people who don't want it then? He had multiple avenues open and he chooses one that contradicts his previously stated believes. I don't think you can blame me for thinking it's hypocritical of him to do.

Please feel free to list these, and explain why they would be better than single payer or a public option.

I'm seeing him speaking out in favor of single-payer in 2009. In 2011, Vermont started its failed attempt that ended in 2014.

 

[royalan]

I'll only support Ellison if he gives up his seat and commits full time.


*reads through thread*

oh god, can we please stop with the passive aggressive Hillary loyalists still sucking their thumbs that their candidate lost. The party is going through major change, we all have to accept that.

Can you not?

Nobody is talking about Hillary Clinton, except you.

 

[Kthulhu]

Yay purity tests

So you're okay with Trump's Secretary of Education lobbying for charter schools, or the head of the FCC being a former lobbyist for the cable industry? Or are "purity tests" only a bad thing when it's the Democrats?

 

[ErasureAcer]

I just hope Ellison can do this full time and energize the party, otherwise the Dems are in for another slaughter come 2018.

They are already up for a slaughter. They're going to lose at least 3 Senate seats most likely(MT, ND, IN) and pick up maybe Nevada? More are on the table too to be picked off MO, WI, FL, PA, MI, VA.

If you think Democrats will have more than 45 from their current 48...you're living in a fantasy regardless of what the new chair does.

 

[guek]

Can you not?

Nobody is talking about Hillary Clinton, except you.

Factually false, stop this dumb shit

 

[The Technomancer]

So you're okay with Trump's Secretary of Education lobbying for charter schools, or the head of the FCC being a former lobbyist for the cable industry? Or are "purity tests" only a bad thing when it's the Democrats?

Opposing someone who supports things you're against and opposing someone who supports things you also support but just not quite in the right way aren't the same thing?

 

[ginger ninja]

Well, good luck finding all these new candidates that have not been touched by politics, corporate money and have a straight record on all liberal issues from a to z.

Once again, the thing above all else that matters is a person who can win and is not just getting a position because the establishment shills want him in.

 

[aeolist]

You don't think that Dean's home state attempting single-payer and running away from it like it's a zombie-plagued corpse after it proved unworkable had anything to do with it? http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/single-payer-vermont-113711

The idea that it's more likely that Dean was bribed than it was that Dean changed his mind here is ridiculous.

any individual state implementing single payer is unworkable since they do not have the ability to control costs, which would be an inherent part of a nation-wide system. i don't know how many times i have to say this in how many threads before you'll get this through your head.

from the article you posted:

Vermont's public failure is especially frustrating to single-payer advocates because, they note, the Shumlin framework, which had gotten approval of the state legislature minus that key financing element, wasn't really a true single-payer plan. Notably, large businesses that operate in multiple states would have been exempt. And it was unclear whether or how enrollees in federal plans like Medicare and TRICARE could be integrated into the state's plan.

Those exemptions cut into the funding base while adding administrative complexity, eliminating one of the potential cost-saving elements of single-payer: simplicity.

“There are some practical problems in the idea of state-based policy,” Coates said, acknowledging the huge federal role in financing and regulating health care.

🤔🤔🤔

 

[phanphare]

BernieBros

oh good, we're still throwing this term around

/s

 

[royalan]

any individual state implementing single payer is unworkable since they do not have the ability to control costs, which would be an inherent part of a nation-wide system. i don't know how many times i have to say this in how many threads before you'll get this through your head.

from the article you posted:

🤔🤔🤔

This is mostly true.

However, this does not prove your assertion that Dean, having once been a proponent of single-payer, to the point of advocating it in his own state, changed his mind because he was essentially bribed.

There's a logic leap there.

 

[aeolist]

I'm seeing him speaking out in favor of single-payer in 2009. In 2011, Vermont started its failed attempt that ended in 2014.

they never actually passed or implemented a single payer system. they tried for a while and abandoned that effort in 2014. you're trying to insinuate that they had it and then abandoned it because it didn't work, which is a lie.

 

[VendettaRed07]

I'm not happy about this


I don't want to hear "consideration" from Ellison. If he doesn't resign his seat he can fuck right off. No more people using this position to elevate themselves in the party

This has to be done right. Future of the party and this country is going to be riding on how he performs here. And I'm not willing to take a risk on an unproven guy who isn't even willing to put the work in. I don't give a shit about "new" ideas. I care about getting the job done. If he's really up for it dean and others need to be on his ass 24/7 about just how important this is

 

[Odrion]

darn I guess, he had a good track record. well, who else is running against keith ellison for it?

 

[BotoxAgent]

Dean is not wrong

 

[Kthulhu]

No, I don't. When corporations lobby in favor of something like gay marriage, is that bad? What about a company like Tesla which lobbies for cleaner energy? What about when Google lobbied against SOPA / PIPA?

As for your suggestion that all lobbying should be completely illegal, I recommend you read the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. And also think about how anything would get done in this country because no one would have any idea what people want.

What about all of the corporations that lobbied against those thing? The benefit isn't worth the risk. We don't live in an oligarchy, it isn't a corporation's decision on how the country is run.

You don't think that Dean's home state attempting single-payer and running away from it like it's a zombie-plagued corpse after it proved unworkable had anything to do with it? http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/single-payer-vermont-113711

The idea that it's more likely that Dean was bribed than it was that Dean changed his mind here is ridiculous.

I'm seeing him speaking out in favor of single-payer in 2009. In 2011, Vermont started its failed attempt that ended in 2014.

Plenty of countries all over the world have extremely successful single payer systems. There is no reason we cannot have one here.

Opposing someone who supports things you're against and opposing someone who supports things you also support but just not quite in the right way aren't the same thing?

A for profit healthcare system something I'm completely against. If he was lobbying in support of a public option (which isn't what I prefer, but it's better than what we've got) then I wouldn't say shit.

 

[aeolist]

This is mostly true.

However, this does not prove your assertion that Dean, having once been a proponent of single-payer, to the point of attempting it in his own state, changed his mind because he was essentially bribed.

There's a logic leap there.

i never said that. it may be true, but my main point is that lobbyists and rich business types are the last people who should be running for leadership positions in the democratic party, for appearances sake if nothing else. the aftermath of the failed clinton campaign should be a clear signal that the left-wing base wants people in charge with unimpeachable motives and character.

 

[guek]

I do not know what Dean's role was as a big pharma rep

And I don't believe lobbying is universally bad, just ridiculously out of control in US politics

But it's hard to implicitly trust any representative of big pharmaceuticals tbh. That wouldn't have disqualified Dean for me but it does give me an excuse to bitch about the pharmaceutical industry. Cuz fuck them. Fuck the health insurance industry too.

 

[Good Job Bob]

They are already up for a slaughter. They're going to lose at least 3 Senate seats most likely(MT, ND, IN) and pick up maybe Nevada? More are on the table too to be picked off MO, WI, FL, PA, MI, VA.

If you think Democrats will have more than 45 from their current 48...you're living in a fantasy regardless of what the new chair does.

It's obviously a tough map for the Senate, so the big focus will be on governorships and the House.

Minimize the damage in Senate. Pick up a healthy number of governorships (with a particular focus on Rust Belt governorships). Try and gain a majority in the Houe.

 

[kirblar]

they never actually passed or implemented a single payer system. they tried for a while and abandoned that effort in 2014. you're trying to insinuate that they had it and then abandoned it because it didn't work, which is a lie.

They abandoned because it was not feasible. I'm not trying to insinuate a damn thing, a VERY liberal hard D state tried to do it and failed to figure out a way to make it work because the math didn't work.

But of course it's easier to just call me a liar, just like Dean is suddenly taking bribes.

 

[royalan]

i never said that. it may be true, but my main point is that lobbyists and rich business types are the last people who should be running for leadership positions in the democratic party, for appearances sake if nothing else. the aftermath of the failed clinton campaign should be a clear signal that the left-wing base wants people in charge with unimpeachable motives and character.

I agree, but I don't think this is a fair summation of Dean, who is, and who has always been, a fierce and proven advocate for leftist policies and progressivism. Howard Dean created the party that swept Obama and Democrats into Washington in 08.

Pointing to this one thing and using it to discount Howard Dean and everything he's stood for is just not something I can rock with.

Just look at Trump's cabinet picks if you want to see what ACTUAL crooked lobbying looks like.

 

[guek]

They abandoned because it was not feasible. I'm not trying to insinuate a damn thing, a VERY liberal hard D state tried to do it and failed to figure out a way to make it work because the math didn't work.

But of course it's easier to just call me a liar, just like Dean is suddenly taking bribes.

How convenient of you to ignore exactly why

 

[kirblar]

How convenient of you to ignore exactly why

Yes, ridiculous tax hikes. That's a very valid reason.

 

[TyrantII]

Ideology has very, VERY little to do with this position.

You want someone who's pragmatic, not ideological.

Further, like Dean said, who can raise shit tons of money.

Staffing offices in every state and helping funding in every state is not cheap. Yada yada big money, but you can't run a 50 state strategy without bringing in big bucks through a variety of means.

 

[VendettaRed07]

They are already up for a slaughter. They're going to lose at least 3 Senate seats most likely(MT, ND, IN) and pick up maybe Nevada? More are on the table too to be picked off MO, WI, FL, PA, MI, VA.

If you think Democrats will have more than 45 from their current 48...you're living in a fantasy regardless of what the new chair does.

Republicans never think like this

Any mid term during a dem presidency they go for it. If the map looked like that for them in reverse they'd figure out a way. They held and made ridiculous gains under obama

They won 64 house seats in 2010. We need 21. If that's impossible or too much to ask this party may as well give up and go the fuck home.

 

[kirblar]

Republicans never think like this

Any mid term during a dem presidency they go for it. If the map looked like that for them in reverse they'd figure out a way. They held and made ridiculous gains under obama

They won 64 house seats in 2010. We need 21. If that's impossible or too much to ask this party may as well give up and go the fuck home.

....we're only 21 down?

Good god, that's nothing. (in a reactive wave election)

 

[Nikodemos]

Further, like Dean said, who can raise shit tons of money.

Staffing offices in every state and helping funding in every state is not cheap. Yada yada big money, but you can't run a 50 state strategy without bringing in big bucks through a variety of means.

And, ironically, the 50-state strategy Dems absolutely, desperately need in order to ensure 2018 doesn't end up as a predictable bloodbath, is one where you have to make a whole lot more promises to various purse-holders than the concentratory strategy adopted by Obama post 2009.

 

[Odrion]

Oh yeah, it's the Hillary people that are the problem, when BernieBros are telling others to "Fuck Off".

you called bernie supporters "lazy fucks" yesterday, don't pretend your tone is any better

 

[KO Traveling Hobo]

Dunno how I feel about this. In general, I am in favor of shaking up the democratic party, but the 50 state strategy was good shit, and he's absolutely right that it needs to be a full time commitment.

 

[VendettaRed07]

....we're only 21 down?

Good god, that's nothing. (in a reactive wave election)

We gained 9 seats in a general election we lost.

If Paul Ryan tries to fuck with Medicare and we can't even gain back the house the democrat party should just dissolve

I have zero doubts Dean would be able to come up with a plan to win back the house. That's why giving it to an unproven candidate who may not even do it full time is infruriating.

 

[TyrantII]

fuck off, even dean was for single-payer healthcare until he started taking money from pharmaceutical companies

obama compromising for the insurance companies was the first warning sign that his entire time in office would be nothing but wishy-washy centrist apologia

Fuck off right back at you.

This is a wierd fan fiction rewrite of what went down. Not a single Republican voted for the ACA, and it only passed in reconciliation after concessions were made to get Manchin and Lieberman on board (who were DINOs in any real sense).

Two men and the GOP almost scuttled what little was passed.

Some mistakes were made. I do think Obama lost some leverage trying to court Snowe, but all in all it was a hell of a fight to get the ACA passed at all.

This shit ain't easy. As Obama said, don't Boo. Vote. People don't, so you get what you don't vote for.

 

[Nikodemos]

Republicans never think like this

Any mid term during a dem presidency they go for it. If the map looked like that for them in reverse they'd figure out a way. They held and made ridiculous gains under obama

They won 64 house seats in 2010. We need 21. If that's impossible or too much to ask this party may as well give up and go the fuck home.

Republicans win by promising anything to everyone. And they know two years later is a general election year, so the promise slate gets wiped clean, for new promises to be made.

Basically, they're consummate political whores and bait&switch artists.

 

[thehypocrite]

This.

His platform assuaged my fears somewhat, but I was left really unimpressed by his Keepin it 1600 interview.

I don't need the DNC chair to be hip and personable. Save that for the people running for office. I need the DNC chair to be a wonk who knows how to acquire and allocate funds, and pick winners.

Be a wonk? What does that even mean? Mook, Podesta, Hillary?

 

[kirblar]

Be a wonk? What does that even mean? Mook, Podesta, Hillary?

Be someone who's good at their job. They're not a hype man.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Be a wonk? What does that even mean? Mook, Podesta, Hillary?

As in know your shit....

Hillary being a wonk isn't why she lost.

 

[thehypocrite]

Be someone who's good at their job. They're not a hype man.

As in know your shit....

Hillary being a wonk isn't why she lost.

I think he knows how to win elections. I dislike the term wonk because too me it generates images of people full of hubris.

 

[Intheflorsh]

Dean also said the fight to be the next chairman can not develop into a proxy war between supporters of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

*reads thread*

Too late Dean.

 

[geestack]

personally hoping tom perez is picked, he has a very strong relationship with labor unions and would be an awesome face for the dnc. he's also very progressive

 

[tuxfool]

I think he knows how to win elections. I dislike the term wonk because too me it generates images of people full of hubris.

wonk
wɒŋk

noun: wonk; plural noun: wonks
1.
NORTH AMERICAN informal/derogatory

a studious or hard-working person.
"any kid with an interest in science was a wonk"
a person who takes an excessive interest in minor details of political policy.
"he is a policy wonk in tune with a younger generation of voters"

2.
Nautical slang
an incompetent or inexperienced sailor, especially a naval cadet.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I think he knows how to win elections. I dislike the term wonk because too me it generates images of people full of hubris.

Not win elections it's about knowing and caring about policy, laws, what exists, what is needed.

It's not hubris it's knowledge

Your feelings are not reality.

 

[thehypocrite]

Not win elections it's about knowing and caring about policy, laws, what exists, what is needed.

It's not hubris it's knowledge

Your feelings are not reality.

Thanks for letting me know that my experience isn't real. Much appreciated Mr. Wonk.

 

[Odrion]

So there's a Q&A session being done with the people running for the chair.

Ray Buckley is suggesting the most radical things such as: Midterm conventions, the 8 under officers being able to overrule the DNC Chair by vote, is open to a co-chair. One to do the nuts and bolts and one to be the face and push the policy.

 

[Nikodemos]

*reads thread*

Too late Dean.

This is why I consider primary elections to be a bad idea on the left of the political spectrum. Lefties love fratricidal bullshit involving their pet causes, sometimes going all the way to self-sabotage. The right has no compunctions about falling in line with the proclaimed victor: he won, therefore he's obviously the best of the bunch. Their love of paternalism (what has been termed the "Strict Father" mindset) makes them easily compliant.

If you absolutely have to hold them, stagger them so they happen at least a year before general elections. Give some time to salve those battered egos.

 

[royalan]

I think he knows how to win elections. I dislike the term wonk because too me it generates images of people full of hubris.

Well that's you. "Wonk" existed as a term before this election.

Wonks don't always make great candidates for office, but they're great at running the behind-the-scenes machinery because a wonk, by definition, is someone who knows what the hell they're doing and cares about the process and details.

The party needs young, fresh faces. Charismatic leaders and hype men, yes. But I want a DNC chair whose face is going to buried in graphs and excel spreadsheets producing results.