The Next DNC Chair: TOM PEREZ WINS, makes Ellison deputy chair

[Shadows]

Disgusting. First Schumer (architect of the failed idea to trade working class whites for suburban Republicans) get's leadership

Long-term, those suburban + white college grad voters are a better catch, and likely necessary for future Democratic downballot strength. White college educated voters are more reliable voters. The better idea would be to try and make inroads with these groups but also get ourselves back to where we were with WWCs in at least 2012-ish.

But, I guess to be fair, Clinton really wasn't the right candidate to do this imo. Something like what happened was bound to happen with her and all the problems she brings to the table.

Get this third way scum out of here.

Is he Third Way? How so?

Bernie needs to lay off Trump until after the inauguration and focus on cleaning house.

If we all want Bernie to get deeply involved in cleaning up the Democratic Party, and if he himself wants to, then he should actually become a Democrat instead of making it a point to stay as an Independent, because afaik he still is. At least to me, it's an important symbolic issue that such a man who wants to shape internal party politics actually be a member of this party.

While the former maybe true (white college educated), it won't solve the problem of the Electoral college. There is significant chance there is even more polarization of White Working Class away from the Dems if this is the route they take. That may mean the Presidency if out of bounds for a generation. Also what about rural counties? You can't win the Senate or the House without doing well in the Rural counties & this doubling down on sub-urban people seems to be a losing strategy to him. Republicans will take a large share of wealthy people just because of their low tax, low regulation & policies to appeal to wealthy people - Democrats can't outflank them there on the long term.

I agree with you on the Bernie thing. He can't be an independent & try to reform the Dem Party. He has to be a Dem. He said that he will see out his term as an independent as that is how he was elected - Which is IMO okay. A Keith Ellison appointment will surely be a very positive message to Bernie & his supporters.

In 2018 he is standing for Senate & if he really wants to be a long-term Dem leader, then he needs to stand in the 2018 election as a Democrat. And 2018 election is not a long time away - He can agitate for 1 year or more but then has to make a decision if he wants to be a leader within the Dems!

[Shadows]

@TomPerez
It's not enough to be progressive—We need a progressive who gets things done.

Same BS propaganda with personal slander that HRC did - Another establishment hack - Same old, same old !

[Virginiá]

agree with you on the Bernie thing. He can't be an independent & try to reform the Dem Party. He has to be a Dem. He said that he will see out his term as an independent as that is how he was elected - Which is IMO okay. A Keith Ellison appointment will surely be a very positive message to Bernie & his supporters.

That's a fair point. That's good enough for me if that is his reasoning.

Regarding WWCs, Democrats shouldn't really cede any group but given that the white electorate (or electorate overall really for that matter) is becoming better and better educated, increasing support among white college grads will pay off long-term, especially as educated white Millennials age. If we do end up losing some rustbelt states, we should be able to make it up with equivalent sunbelt states within the next decade. I'm not really convinced it has to be either/or, though.

[Shadows]

agree with you on the Bernie thing. He can't be an independent & try to reform the Dem Party. He has to be a Dem. He said that he will see out his term as an independent as that is how he was elected - Which is IMO okay. A Keith Ellison appointment will surely be a very positive message to Bernie & his supporters.

That's a fair point. That's good enough for me if that is his reasoning.

Regarding WWCs, Democrats shouldn't really cede any group but given that the white electorate (or electorate overall really for that matter) is becoming better and better educated, increasing support among white college grads will pay off long-term, especially as educated white Millennials age. If we do end up losing some rustbelt states, we should be able to make it up with equivalent sunbelt states within the next decade. I'm not really convinced it has to be either/or, though.

The white vote in sunbelt is extremely polarized as of now. I don't see any major gains coming through in the next decade or so (maybe GA or AZ with a flawed candidate like Trump). There is also the possibility of losing MN, NH, ME which will be very hard to make up even with wins in GA, AZ. Turnout is also gonna be key, if Trump gets his base to come in record numbers, a win won't be easy.

Many very rich educated people will naturally go the GOP due to the tax/entitlement ideology. There will ofcourse be some third party defection (Look at the Independent numbers among young people) & everyone won't become partisan as they age.

You can also add to the fact that college is incredibly expensive & a tepid economy is only going to disincentive higher education.

A lot of people came to vote to keep Trump out. If he proves to be somewhat sane, the electorate won't be as polarized & with the GOP behind him, he will do better among suburban folks. Maybe on the long term this is a viable strategy, but on the short term Electoral College wise it is difficult without the Rust Belt.

[RaphaelDLG]

I'm not sure if sounding like Hillary Clinton is a good move for Perez.

Tom Perez ‏@TomPerez  3h3 hours ago
It's not enough to be progressive—We need a progressive who gets things done.

Personally I never liked this slogan because it seemed to imply the natural state of a progressive is someone that doesn't do anything.

Hahaha no, it's not.  The case for Perez over Ellison that is currently being made is totally vacuous.

If Perez and the Obama camp want to make a good faith argument, they should talk about why Perez's strategy is superior to Ellison's for bringing the Democrats back into the promised land long-term.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'm not sure if sounding like Hillary Clinton is a good move for Perez.

Tom Perez ‏@TomPerez  3h3 hours ago
It's not enough to be progressive—We need a progressive who gets things done.

Personally I never liked this slogan because it seemed to imply the natural state of a progressive is someone that doesn't do anything.

Hahaha no, it's not.  The case for Perez over Ellison that is currently being made is totally vacuous.

If Perez and the Obama camp want to make a good faith argument, they should talk about why Perez's strategy is superior to Ellison's for bringing the Democrats back into the promised land long-term.

Kind of hard to make any comparisons, considering Ellison doesn't seem to even have a strategy. 

[RaphaelDLG]

I'm not sure if sounding like Hillary Clinton is a good move for Perez.

Tom Perez ‏@TomPerez  3h3 hours ago
It's not enough to be progressive—We need a progressive who gets things done.

Personally I never liked this slogan because it seemed to imply the natural state of a progressive is someone that doesn't do anything.

Hahaha no, it's not.  The case for Perez over Ellison that is currently being made is totally vacuous.

If Perez and the Obama camp want to make a good faith argument, they should talk about why Perez's strategy is superior to Ellison's for bringing the Democrats back into the promised land long-term.

Kind of hard to make any comparisons, considering Ellison doesn't seem to even have a strategy. 

TBF, both have been pretty, maybe unacceptably vague, but Ellison said 50 state strategy/having an unabashed aggressive message+policy programme that goes after working class voters even if its at the expense of large corporate donors.  Perez said he too believes in a 50 state strategy.

The point is that there isn't that much to recommend Perez over Ellison, other than the Obama camp likes him better, which should be a red flag.  I guess if you're a pro-settlement hardliner, that's a reason to avoid Ellison.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'm not sure if sounding like Hillary Clinton is a good move for Perez.

Tom Perez ‏@TomPerez  3h3 hours ago
It's not enough to be progressive—We need a progressive who gets things done.

Personally I never liked this slogan because it seemed to imply the natural state of a progressive is someone that doesn't do anything.

Hahaha no, it's not.  The case for Perez over Ellison that is currently being made is totally vacuous.

If Perez and the Obama camp want to make a good faith argument, they should talk about why Perez's strategy is superior to Ellison's for bringing the Democrats back into the promised land long-term.

Kind of hard to make any comparisons, considering Ellison doesn't seem to even have a strategy. 

TBF, both have been pretty, maybe unacceptably vague, but Ellison said 50 state strategy/having an unabashed aggressive message+policy programme that goes after working class voters even if its at the expense of large corporate donors.  Perez said he too believes in a 50 state strategy.

The point is that there isn't that much to recommend Perez over Ellison, other than the Obama camp likes him better, which should be a red flag.  I guess if you're a pro-settlement hardliner, that's a reason to avoid Ellison.

I don't think the DNC should be chaired by a man with ties to an anti-Semitic hategroup and a history of defending a shameless racist and anti-Semite who has repeatedly praised Adolf Hitler as "a great man" (once going so far to say that he'd be proud to be referred to as "the black Hitler").  If that somehow makes me a pro-settlement hardliner, so be it.  Either Ellison is himself an anti-Semite or he's an idiot for not being able to tell that Farrakhan is one.  Funny how Ellison magically saw the error of his ways the moment he decided to run for a House seat; I call BS on his so-called change of heart concerning the Nation of Islam.

[Chief Justice Keef]

A few weeks ago I thought Ellison would win the chairmanship pretty easily, but now I'm starting to feel a little less optimistic. I could totally see the DNC go "well, we want a progressive vision, but not too progressive" and end up picking Perez. Not to mention that the smear campaign against Ellison by some of the right-wing media outlets might cause DNC members to back off if they think he'll be too "controversial".

Honestly, it's perplexing when Matthew Yglesias of all people is making the most sense:
http://www.vox.com/2017/1/3/14084382/keith-ellison-dnc-chair

For anybody supporting Perez, why is his strategy the best? Because Ellison is an "antisemite"? What is he going to do for the working-class vote that Ellison can't do? As far as I'm concerned, Perez is only running for his own political future (aka MD Governor), and that's just screwed up considering we need actual leadership at the DNC who care about the party's future, not some Clinton-lite who's already saying things like "It's not just about being a progressive - I'm a progressive who gets things done!".

(Also, it's kinda hilarious seeing right-wingers get giddy about the idea of Ellison as DNC chair because "he's a Muslim, lol" when he's thinking about reviving the 50-state strategy that basically crushed them in 2006. So keep up the hubris, Republicans. It worked well for us this time around.)

[OneJ]

I'm a little late to this party I see.

Anyways, I now think that it is within the Democrats' best interests to vote for Ellison as the next chair.

I think many of you would like this article from Vox: Democrats would be smart to embrace Ellison

Democrats need to build on to the party and not lose core coalitions like Millennials and it sends a bold message to send a Black Muslim like Ellison to be a leader during Trump's tenure as president.

The country is already polarized. Dems, don't polarize your own party.

Anyways, are there any new news on Keith Ellison endorsements?

[Shadows]

In a new video interview with The Huffington Post, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) pledged to ban contributions from lobbyists to the Democratic Party if he’s elected as its next chairman.

“Yeah, I would,” Ellison told HuffPost when asked about banning lobbyist donations. “I think it’s important that people feel that the party is their party … There is a pragmatic, perhaps too pragmatic step that you can say, ‘We’ll just take whatever money from whatever source in whatever amount.’ But once you do that, I think you cross a line where people do not feel that the party is really theirs.”

President Barack Obama banned lobbyist contributions to the Democratic National Committee after winning the 2008 election, but the then DNC Chair, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) quietly lifted the ban during Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential run. In a December interview with HuffPost, Ellison’s chief rival for Wasserman Schultz’s successor, Labor Secretary Thomas Perez, refused to rule out lobbyist donations.

“I think we have to have everything on the table,” Perez said. “We have to have a conversation where we bring in all the stakeholders and say, ‘What is the vision of the Democratic Party?’”

Lobbyists contribute only a small fraction of the money raised by the Democratic Party. And while they do grease the gears in Washington, D.C., they’re paid to do the bidding of other big donors ― CEOs, private equity bigwigs and other well-heeled operators who few politicians are willing to blacklist from the donor rolls.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'm a little late to this party I see.

Anyways, I now think that it is within the Democrats' best interests to vote for Ellison as the next chair.

I think many of you would like this article from Vox: Democrats would be smart to embrace Ellison

Democrats need to build on to the party and not lose core coalitions like Millennials and it sends a bold message to send a Black Muslim like Ellison to be a leader during Trump's tenure as president.

The country is already polarized. Dems, don't polarize your own party.

Anyways, are there any new news on Keith Ellison endorsements?

The problem is that Ellison is anti-Semite.

[The Other Castro]

I'm a little late to this party I see.

Anyways, I now think that it is within the Democrats' best interests to vote for Ellison as the next chair.

I think many of you would like this article from Vox: Democrats would be smart to embrace Ellison

Democrats need to build on to the party and not lose core coalitions like Millennials and it sends a bold message to send a Black Muslim like Ellison to be a leader during Trump's tenure as president.

The country is already polarized. Dems, don't polarize your own party.

Anyways, are there any new news on Keith Ellison endorsements?

The problem is that Ellison is anti-Semite.

[Chief Justice Keef]

I'm a little late to this party I see.

Anyways, I now think that it is within the Democrats' best interests to vote for Ellison as the next chair.

I think many of you would like this article from Vox: Democrats would be smart to embrace Ellison

Democrats need to build on to the party and not lose core coalitions like Millennials and it sends a bold message to send a Black Muslim like Ellison to be a leader during Trump's tenure as president.

The country is already polarized. Dems, don't polarize your own party.

Anyways, are there any new news on Keith Ellison endorsements?

The problem is that Ellison is anti-Semite.

Yeah, keep that cynical use of identity politics going. Despite the fact Ellison wrote a paper on Farrakhan twenty years ago, let's dump an actual chance at rebuilding the Democratic Party and go with "safe choice" Tom "progressive who gets things done" Perez.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'm a little late to this party I see.

Anyways, I now think that it is within the Democrats' best interests to vote for Ellison as the next chair.

I think many of you would like this article from Vox: Democrats would be smart to embrace Ellison

Democrats need to build on to the party and not lose core coalitions like Millennials and it sends a bold message to send a Black Muslim like Ellison to be a leader during Trump's tenure as president.

The country is already polarized. Dems, don't polarize your own party.

Anyways, are there any new news on Keith Ellison endorsements?

The problem is that Ellison is anti-Semite.

Yeah, keep that cynical use of identity politics going. Despite the fact Ellison wrote a paper on Farrakhan twenty years ago, let's dump an actual chance at rebuilding the Democratic Party and go with "safe choice" Tom "progressive who gets things done" Perez.

So your idea is to tell Jews that we shouldn't worry about anti-Semitism and that if we do then it's just "identity politics?"  Pathetic.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm a little late to this party I see.

Anyways, I now think that it is within the Democrats' best interests to vote for Ellison as the next chair.

I think many of you would like this article from Vox: Democrats would be smart to embrace Ellison

Democrats need to build on to the party and not lose core coalitions like Millennials and it sends a bold message to send a Black Muslim like Ellison to be a leader during Trump's tenure as president.

The country is already polarized. Dems, don't polarize your own party.

Anyways, are there any new news on Keith Ellison endorsements?

The problem is that Ellison is anti-Semite.

Yeah, keep that cynical use of identity politics going. Despite the fact Ellison wrote a paper on Farrakhan twenty years ago, let's dump an actual chance at rebuilding the Democratic Party and go with "safe choice" Tom "progressive who gets things done" Perez.

So your idea is to tell Jews that we shouldn't worry about anti-Semitism and that if we do then it's just "identity politics?"  Pathetic.

Perez told the Hillary campaign to demonize Bernie supporters for all being supposedly racist and sexist white males. So he's the king of this horrid identity politics. And the idea that an anti-semite endorsed Bernie and got endorsed by Bernie and Schumer is beyond stupid.

[Horus]

I'm a little late to this party I see.

Anyways, I now think that it is within the Democrats' best interests to vote for Ellison as the next chair.

I think many of you would like this article from Vox: Democrats would be smart to embrace Ellison

Democrats need to build on to the party and not lose core coalitions like Millennials and it sends a bold message to send a Black Muslim like Ellison to be a leader during Trump's tenure as president.

The country is already polarized. Dems, don't polarize your own party.

Anyways, are there any new news on Keith Ellison endorsements?

The problem is that Ellison is anti-Semite.

Yeah, keep that cynical use of identity politics going. Despite the fact Ellison wrote a paper on Farrakhan twenty years ago, let's dump an actual chance at rebuilding the Democratic Party and go with "safe choice" Tom "progressive who gets things done" Perez.

So your idea is to tell Jews that we shouldn't worry about anti-Semitism and that if we do then it's just "identity politics?"  Pathetic.

Kindly stop speaking for all Jews. Thank you.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

I'm a little late to this party I see.

Anyways, I now think that it is within the Democrats' best interests to vote for Ellison as the next chair.

I think many of you would like this article from Vox: Democrats would be smart to embrace Ellison

Democrats need to build on to the party and not lose core coalitions like Millennials and it sends a bold message to send a Black Muslim like Ellison to be a leader during Trump's tenure as president.

The country is already polarized. Dems, don't polarize your own party.

Anyways, are there any new news on Keith Ellison endorsements?

The problem is that Ellison is anti-Semite.

Yeah, keep that cynical use of identity politics going. Despite the fact Ellison wrote a paper on Farrakhan twenty years ago, let's dump an actual chance at rebuilding the Democratic Party and go with "safe choice" Tom "progressive who gets things done" Perez.

So your idea is to tell Jews that we shouldn't worry about anti-Semitism and that if we do then it's just "identity politics?"  Pathetic.

Kindly stop speaking for all Jews. Thank you.

He's not speaking for all Jews, he's speaking for all Jews concerned about the growing anti-semitism on the left.

If you don't count yourself among that number, you're free to back Ellison.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Can anyone provide actual evidence than Ellison is anti-semitic? I'm not saying it's false - I don't know much about him - but it's f**king tedious when these labels are thrown around as if they were self-evident without the necessary context.

[Chief Justice Keef]

Can anyone provide actual evidence than Ellison is anti-semitic? I'm not saying it's false - I don't know much about him - but it's f**king tedious when these labels are thrown around as if they were self-evident without the necessary context.

It's been reported that Ellison was involved with the Nation of Islam in the 1990s, and he defended Louis Farrakhan during that time against criticism of radical black leaders. But there's no evidence he's ever written anything that would constitute as anti-semitic.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a smear campaign. His actions in Congress certainly don't reflect the beliefs of the Nation of Islam, and he's publicly denounced the organization. The only notable people/groups who have accused Ellison of anti-semitism are the Anti-Defamation League (which is essentially a hackish group that advocates for Israeli policy) and Haim Saban (a mega-donor for the Democratic Party who says his greatest concern is to "protect Israel"). It's just cynical identity politics based on assumptions in my book.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Yeah, keep that cynical use of identity politics going. Despite the fact Ellison wrote a paper on Farrakhan twenty years ago, let's dump an actual chance at rebuilding the Democratic Party and go with "safe choice" Tom "progressive who gets things done" Perez.

So your idea is to tell Jews that we shouldn't worry about anti-Semitism and that if we do then it's just "identity politics?"  Pathetic.

You are in a setting in which most of us care about opposing antisemitism but also don't believe that there is any credible evidence that Keith Ellison is an antisemite. There's an easy way to resolve this: Show us that Keith Ellison has done antisemitic things.

Instead, you are taking a claim that ought to be treated seriously and treating it as the equivalent of a playground taunt. It is  wrong, it disgusts me, and I know that you can do better than that.

Plenty of people have explained what we find anti-semitic about Ellison - the fact that he seems to believe Israel has some special power over US foreign policy, the fact that he had associations with Louis Farrakhan and sponsored a talk by a rabid anti-semite years ago, and the fact that he voted in favor of letting Israeli Jews be killed by Hamas rocket fire.

What continues to be asked is "Where's the evidence of anti-semitism that personally passes muster for me?", and I really can't help there.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Instead, you are taking a claim that ought to be treated seriously and treating it as the equivalent of a playground taunt. It is  wrong, it disgusts me, and I know that you can do better than that.

It's similar to how back during the primary it was asserted that Sanders and associates were all racist misogynists etc. although at least it's riffing off guilt by association rather than pure fantasy.

[The Other Castro]

Pete Buttigieg had considered a run, then stopped short. But today he officially enters the race.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://petefordnc.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/us/pete-buttigieg-democratic-national-committee-chairman-race.html?_r=0

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Yeah, keep that cynical use of identity politics going. Despite the fact Ellison wrote a paper on Farrakhan twenty years ago, let's dump an actual chance at rebuilding the Democratic Party and go with "safe choice" Tom "progressive who gets things done" Perez.

So your idea is to tell Jews that we shouldn't worry about anti-Semitism and that if we do then it's just "identity politics?"  Pathetic.

You are in a setting in which most of us care about opposing antisemitism but also don't believe that there is any credible evidence that Keith Ellison is an antisemite. There's an easy way to resolve this: Show us that Keith Ellison has done antisemitic things.

Instead, you are taking a claim that ought to be treated seriously and treating it as the equivalent of a playground taunt. It is  wrong, it disgusts me, and I know that you can do better than that.

I am on lunch break, but when I get home from work today, I'll post what I can find.  There's nothing wrong with asking for evidence of Ellison's anti-Semitism, although you could've done it without the little playground taunt lecture.  I can only speak for myself, but I wouldn't use the term casually.  I'd like nothing more than to take another look at the evidence out there and be able to conclude I was mistaken (in which case I'll be the first to admit it) because it'd be a bit of a relief (conditions are such that there is a serious danger of a sharp, bipartisan rise in "politically acceptable" anti-Semitism in the U.S.).  Anyway, I'll get back to you later today.

[The Other Castro]

Josh Earnest says Obama will not endorse a candidate.