• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Dems might name Keith Ellison as DNC Chair

RJKarl said:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...nd-rep-ellison-who-blames-trump-not-dems.html

WOW! This should piss Trump and Bannon off. Putting a progressive Muslim in charge of the Democratic party will make their heads explode.

Whether you like his politics or faith or not, Ellison is a thoughtful, effective leader who saw this populism coming.

Let the games begin.
Click to expand...

He is my rep. in Congress. I don't think anyone views him as incredibly thoughtful or effective. He isn't horrible. But he also isn't amazing. Once you are elected in this district as a Dem. you pretty much have a job for life. He is a pretty likable guy after you are used to him and he has a reputation for sticking to his guns. He can though come across personally as a bit combative. He will not be viewed as a moderate. Putting him in charge is a nod to his passion for get out the vote campaigns more than anything, something that has been openly discussed on the radio here in the Land of 10,000 Lakes. I think the word one commentator said here on the radio was he'd be a "reactive" choice. I think he'll be ok, but he's not an olive branch type. And right now you could argue that is what the Dems need as they seek to mend fences with middle class voters who abandoned the establishment candidacy of Clinton. Now Trump could burn up his elective coalition real quickly and having a combative type might be useful. But if not Ellison can be seen as off putting. Personally I do think he's a likable enough guy, but it isn't a charisma that comes on naturally for him. And he is by no means a "kitchen table" economics type. He's much more about social issues.
 
Thanks, DeacMan. That's good insight.
 
He seems pretty nutty based on his Wikipedia page. He was briefly involved in the Nation of Islam, received donations from CAIR, had repeated small-time campaign finance violations, and once made a comment suggesting that the US was somehow involved in 9/11.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Ellison#Louis_Farrakhan_and_history_with_the_Nation_of_Islam

Right now the Democratic Party is on the ropes and needs to figure out a way to bring in more voters. I do not see how he would attract anyone who does not already vote Democrat.
 
UNCG Deac said:
He seems pretty nutty based on his Wikipedia page. He was briefly involved in the Nation of Islam, received donations from CAIR, had repeated small-time campaign finance violations, and once made a comment suggesting that the US was somehow involved in 9/11.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Ellison#Louis_Farrakhan_and_history_with_the_Nation_of_Islam

Right now the Democratic Party is on the ropes and needs to figure out a way to bring in more voters. I do not see how he would attract anyone who does not already vote Democrat.
Click to expand...

The DNC's problem in this election was low turnout amongst the base and voter suppression efforts in some states. Ellison will do just fine in addressing the former while making some righteous noise regarding the latter. Reaching across the aisle isn't necessarily the problem here. Independents were willing to vote for Trump; I think they'll be willing to vote for a halfway decent Democratic nominee.

Furthermore, Clinton won the popular vote (her lead here appears to be growing, too) and a solid DNC GOTV effort will go a long way for good candidates in 2018 and 2020. It did in 2008.
 
Strickland33 said:
The DNC's problem in this election was low turnout amongst the base and voter suppression efforts in some states. Ellison will do just fine in addressing the former while making some righteous noise regarding the latter. Reaching across the aisle isn't necessarily the problem here. Independents were willing to vote for Trump; I think they'll be willing to vote for a halfway decent Democratic nominee.

Furthermore, Clinton won the popular vote (her lead here appears to be growing, too) and a solid DNC GOTV effort will go a long way for good candidates in 2018 and 2020. It did in 2008.
Click to expand...

No one in the leadership of the Democratic party is viewing winning the popular vote as anything but a very hollow victory. The party leadership gets that she ran up huge majorities on Trump in essentially 3-4 big states and that this means very little nationally. They are looking at a national map where in the vast majority of counties the GOP posted significant net gains vs. the last two elections. They are especially worked up about what has happened at state and local levels across the country since 2009 where they have suffered huge losses to the GOP. The fact the GOP has been a complete hot mess of a party during this time only makes these losses harder to take. Never mind what happened on Tuesday. These are the trends that have them taking a harder look at things.

- The Dems. have lost somewhere between 1,100 - 1,200 State level Senate and Representative positions since 2009. There are 8,000 of these seats more or less nationwide. These are unprecedented losses for either party.

- There are 99 state level legislative chambers in the U.S. After the 2008 election the Dems controlled 62 of them. Prior to the election on Tuesday they held 31. And they then proceeded to lose both state houses in Minnesota and Iowa as well as a body or two in a couple of other states. Seven years ago the Dems controlled about 2/3rds of all the state legislative bodies. Today they control less than 30%.

- When Obama won his first election the Dems held 31 Governor positions. I believe they now hold 17.

- We all know what has happened in Congress since 2009. No need to rehash.

I'm sure the reasons for all of this are really complex.
 
DeacMan said:
No one in the leadership of the Democratic party is viewing winning the popular vote as anything but a very hollow victory. The party leadership gets that she ran up huge majorities on Trump in essentially 3-4 big states and that this means very little nationally. They are looking at a national map where in the vast majority of counties the GOP posted significant net gains vs. the last two elections. They are especially worked up about what has happened at state and local levels across the country since 2009 where they have suffered huge losses to the GOP. The fact the GOP has been a complete hot mess of a party during this time only makes these losses harder to take. Never mind what happened on Tuesday. These are the trends that have them taking a harder look at things.

- The Dems. have lost somewhere between 1,100 - 1,200 State level Senate and Representative positions since 2009. There are 8,000 of these seats more or less nationwide. These are unprecedented losses for either party.

- There are 99 state level legislative chambers in the U.S. After the 2008 election the Dems controlled 62 of them. Prior to the election on Tuesday they held 31. And they then proceeded to lose both state houses in Minnesota and Iowa as well as a body or two in a couple of other states. Seven years ago the Dems controlled about 2/3rds of all the state legislative bodies. Today they control less than 30%.

- When Obama won his first election the Dems held 31 Governor positions. I believe they now hold 17.

- We all know what has happened in Congress since 2009. No need to rehash.

I'm sure the reasons for all of this are really complex.
Click to expand...

Not sure it is complex at all. The Dems have become too liberal for all but the coastal and big city constituencies. The map of the US and most states is red. Obama has pushed most of the country into the GOP's hands. Bill Clinton started that way then moderated when he realized what was happening. Obama never did that. The GOP has problems but as hard as it tried even the GOP could not screw up the gift that is Obama.
 
It appears at this point that there are 3 folks vying for this position - Ellison, Dean and MOM. MOM is the most moderate of the 3, but he'd be horrible. Dean is the safest choice, given that he was okay in that role the last time. Heard him this a.m. on NPR talking about party unity, competing in all states and appealing to working class folks.
 
simosfrostyone said:
Not sure it is complex at all. The Dems have become too liberal for all but the coastal and big city constituencies. The map of the US and most states is red. Obama has pushed most of the country into the GOP's hands. Bill Clinton started that way then moderated when he realized what was happening. Obama never did that. The GOP has problems but as hard as it tried even the GOP could not screw up the gift that is Obama.
Click to expand...

I'm just one voter who leans Red but votes Blue probably 30-40% of the time. I have issues with both parties. But I do think you strike a nerve with me with what you say. It isn't that the party in my case is "too liberal" but rather that I feel they spend way too much energy focusing on social issues that simply have little impact on the vast majority of the populations' day to day lives. And I lean left on most social issues.
 
DeacMan said:
I'm just one voter who leans Red but votes Blue probably 30-40% of the time. I have issues with both parties. But I do think you strike a nerve with me with what you say. It isn't that the party in my case is "too liberal" but rather that I feel they spend way too much energy focusing on social issues that simply have little impact on the vast majority of the populations' day to day lives. And I lean left on most social issues.
Click to expand...

Makes sense. Thanks for sharing that point of view.
 
UNCG Deac said:
He seems pretty nutty based on his Wikipedia page. He was briefly involved in the Nation of Islam, received donations from CAIR, had repeated small-time campaign finance violations, and once made a comment suggesting that the US was somehow involved in 9/11.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Ellison#Louis_Farrakhan_and_history_with_the_Nation_of_Islam

Right now the Democratic Party is on the ropes and needs to figure out a way to bring in more voters. I do not see how he would attract anyone who does not already vote Democrat.
Click to expand...

Quick, and without going to Breitbart, what is wrong with receiving donations from CAIR?

"!SHARIA LAWWWWWWWWWWW!"
 
That's probably correct, and it harms the democrat party but at the same time who else is going to do it? Without the left standing in the way, yes the majority of people (white) wouldn't be very much effected. However without this wasted time on social issues then all the people that say "lean left on most social issues" would have no where to lean because the Republican Party, despite what the majority of people believe,would run through the last 50 years of social progress. It's a pretty good play by the republicans.
 
I have not read the whole thread so it may have been mentioned but I heard one commentator say that one-third of all Democrats in the new House come from New York, California and Massachusetts. I find that pretty astounding.
 
Those three states also make up over 20% of the population.
 
Razorro said:
I have not read the whole thread so it may have been mentioned but I heard one commentator say that one-third of all Democrats in the new House come from New York, California and Massachusetts. I find that pretty astounding.
Click to expand...

Why is it "astounding" that 33% of House Dems come from those states? Those states have 20.5% of all the Members in the House. Thus to have 33% in those states is about right. It means a little 2/3 of the Representatives from those states are Dem.

72% of House Members from TX an GA are Republicans and over 52% of those representing FL are GOP.

Numbers without context have no meaning.
 
DeacMan said:
He is my rep. in Congress. I don't think anyone views him as incredibly thoughtful or effective. He isn't horrible. But he also isn't amazing. Once you are elected in this district as a Dem. you pretty much have a job for life. He is a pretty likable guy after you are used to him and he has a reputation for sticking to his guns. He can though come across personally as a bit combative. He will not be viewed as a moderate. Putting him in charge is a nod to his passion for get out the vote campaigns more than anything, something that has been openly discussed on the radio here in the Land of 10,000 Lakes. I think the word one commentator said here on the radio was he'd be a "reactive" choice. I think he'll be ok, but he's not an olive branch type. And right now you could argue that is what the Dems need as they seek to mend fences with middle class voters who abandoned the establishment candidacy of Clinton. Now Trump could burn up his elective coalition real quickly and having a combative type might be useful. But if not Ellison can be seen as off putting. Personally I do think he's a likable enough guy, but it isn't a charisma that comes on naturally for him. And he is by no means a "kitchen table" economics type. He's much more about social issues.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the quick take. A lot of information here that will cause republican strategists to say, "Go ahead, make my day."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top