Bernie Sanders wants Keith Ellison to run the DNC


#1

Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2016/11/11/bernie-sanders-wants-keith-ell.html


#2

I mentioned elsewhere, but the alternative is big pharma lobbyist, Howard Dean,who’s been sharing an employer with Newt Gingrich.


#3

Yeah, Dean vs. Ellison is going to be one of those “did you learn your lesson or not?” moments for the DNC. I cannot see any fathomable reason to go with Dean unless you want to repeat the same mistakes that gave us President Trump. He’s been a political hanger-on for years, which is exactly the wrong kind of leader right now.


#4

Dean had his day. The new DNC needs someone spotless.

Though I like Ellison, and he’s done some good; he’s very attentive to his MN companies, Best Buy and Target, and their demands for an internet tax. Not a public interest, just a corporate one.

I don’t know that he’s as spotless as the DNC needs. At this point, I’ve written off the “win at any cost” corrupt DNC. It’s not what I signed up for.

Unless there is a brutal and bloody headhunt in the internal ranks, it’s not going to improve. It’s time to go “high”, like M. Obama said. If not, it might as well be time to “get high” and say fuck it. Have at.

Zach rules, though.


#5

Exactly. Like the UK Labour Party, the Democratic Party needs to remember that it is actually supposed to be a left-wing alternative, and not basically the same as its opponent besides being more socially progressive.


#6

Dean did win the 2006 midterms for the Democrats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean#50-state_strategy

That’s why people are excited about Dean’s candidacy. Let’s face it-- not everything in elections is about ideology. Some of it is structural.
Take Gerrymandering for instance. The Republicans control many more statehouses and governorships than do the Democrats. They’re able to redraw district boundaries as they please-- and make it harder for traditional democratic constituents to exercise their vote.

After Scalia died, there was a short interval in which some of these discriminatory practices were viewed with skepticism by the court. There was a short interval in which Abortion restrictions were viewed with similar skepticism. I had hopes that this sort of skepticism-- this active investigation into motivations, instead of the blind acceptance of fig leafs, would be the new norm. But not now. Perhaps not for some decades.


#7

Bernie will be back in 2020, thank Dog.


#8

I’d be hesitant to make them answer to a purity test. Impossible standards of moral rectitude are for the puritanical to obsess over. What’s more important for me right now are the end goals, and Ellison’s (Progrssivism!) look better than Dean’s (A return to the '90’s?).

He should be able to continue his good work even if he’s not in charge of the ship. Same applies to Ellison, but a black Catholic who converted to Islam and who is from Minnesota is going to bring more new ideas and transformation than Howard Dean (who arguably just rode the post-Dubbya backlash wave in 2006)


#9

We can’t have this. We just saw what happens. Its as idiotic as Labour trying to hark back to Blair.


#10

I hope the DNC takes some time to decide exactly what the lessons are. Most of my circle is pretty sure that the lesson is that Sanders should have been the nominee. The people I know who spend more time around Trump voters are the ones with some doubts on that score. The main lesson I draw though, is that charisma matters. The Kerrys, Gores, and Hillary Clintons don’t turn out infrequent voters. I know that sentiment leans toward making candidate selection less insider-centric than it is now, but I’m not sure that more insider direction wouldn’t help, provided that the focus is strongly on the most viable candidate for the general election.

Although I had pretty serious jitters going into election day, I’m still processing this and may well be drastically off in what I’ve just said. I suspect the DNC types may be even more in shock, which is why I’m hoping that they pick someone who’s effective at processing the lessons. Anyone know enough about Ellison’s leadership style to say anything on this?


#11

Should have gone with O’Malley? :wink:

Actually, now that I google him:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/11/11/martin-omalley-becomes-potential-third-candidate-for-dnc-chairman/

I think this is why people are immediately jumping on Booker for next time (and also because the Democrats have lost so many elections they simply don’t have many other options).

He seems to be personally charismatic and popular amongst those familiar with him (like @SteampunkBanana?) - that could overcome the fact that he sounds like a bit of a centrist (hell, so was Obama, and we’d have taken him back like a shot given the alternatives).


#12

My name in a sentence next to Cory Booker? Be still my heart!

I’m honestly not sure he’s charismatic enough to bridge the gap, as it’s a big leap from Newark to, say, Fargo, and he’s much more of a “put your head down and work” kind of guy, but I’ll vote for him in damn near any election.


#13

Pick Al Franken as running mate.


#14

Booker’s personally impressive and has that running-into-a-burning-building thing, but my impression was that, if you thought Clinton was insufficiently tied to the corporate establishment, Booker’s your man. In fairness, that’s partly for the understandable reason that he was trying to bring investment to Newark.

I could hardly remember O’Malley except for his band. Not a good sign in my view. :slight_smile:

ETA: Maybe we should all be feeling the Chafe. Remember Lincoln Chafee?


#15

The place for insiders is where they’ve been in the Republican party since Dubbya: orchestrating things behind the scenes.

He’s got a podcast, if you want to check out what he cares about:
http://wethepodcast.podomatic.com/

It’s mostly interviews with local workin’ folks as a launching point for talking about some injustice.


#16

Arf.

It already has “potential” (everyone you can think of, and others) and “declined” (Michelle Obama) candidates listed.


#17

Fuck it. Kanye 2020.


#18

There is an argument to push establishment to rank and file and the coasts, and push anti-establishment candidates forward as new leaders. As much as excitement is fun a big part of the problem with Trump is that he knows absolutely nothing about writing legislation and those “coastal elites” that are under fire by the good people do. Well crafted legislation kept as clean as possible is not something any individual party can touch without touching the constitution.

Fact is Obamacare can only partially go away no matter what Trump’s GOP does and things like education is very hard to touch because of Eisenhewer. The most at risk programs are the inroads made for immigrants and minorities after a several decade dry spell in meaningful progress, and those are a big part of the GOP’s current message.

Not being lock and step is one of the best aspects of the Democrats even if it means you get Bush Jr and Trump. If there was a way to create the Democrats as a coalition of ideals and push for improving voter participation and offering variety in candidates I would love it.

Unfortunately it does leave the ridiculously unison GOP to contend with.


#19

Yeah, exactly. If a guy like Ellison isn’t good enough for you, because he lives in the real world, then you are never going to find the guy. There are no spotless politicians, period. Never will be. You need someone who a) understands what needs to change and b) has some ability to get it done. Dean understood the organizational problems, but I’d rather have someone like Ellison at the top. He’d clearly represent a break from the DWS era. And if Ellison can’t make a go of it, then it may be that the DNC is truly unreformable.


#20

Trade one megalomaniacal egomaniac for another one? Nah, I’ll pass.