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

[Shadows]

I am sorry, but TPP would have been a disaster, it is on a scale where it is multiple times the scale of NAFTA & would have destroyed the li'l manufacturing that is well. I have substantial material on NAFTA analyzing it, I would definitely inform how TPP is bad - But that is irrelevant now.

If Dems want to take back the rust belt, they need someone in tune with workers, the working class & union folks - Not some1 who supports TPP.

Secondly you can't have a sit in your desk & call donor DNC Chair like DWS. That is what led the Dem party to utter destruction. If the DNC doesn't go beyond just fund-raising & reform, then it will become like the Whigs.

There is a need to align with unions throughout the country & lock that base. Not just that the party has to be open itself to more young people. Go in a small county meeting n stuff in a red state, it is a sad story, a couple of old persons trying to keep the party alive with limited infra. Ellison talked about a County level strategy. He talked about Marijuana, Minimum Wage winning across the country in ballot initiatives & what Dems learn from that.

I think Dems have to be a grass-roots, country wide, activist Chair with focus on bringing more young people & expanding the party with a county level strategy. And the key target as Ellison mentions should be state elections as those are key!

[The Other Castro]

Sally Boynton Brown, executive director of the Idaho Democratic Party, is entering the race for DNC Chair.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/sally-boynton-brown-dnc-chair-232740

[America Needs R'hllor]

Sally Boynton Brown, executive director of the Idaho Democratic Party, is entering the race for DNC Chair.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/sally-boynton-brown-dnc-chair-232740

Seems ridiculous. One thing is that the Idaho Democratic party seems incompetent, so she has no achievements to speak of, and the other thing is what she said- "the last thing we need is an ideological conversation". This is stupid. Would she prefer a conversation based on personal insults (like the elections) instead?

[Gass3268]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I used to be a member of that union. Sad that they're not endorsing Ellison, but they don't get my money anymore so

[JoshPA]

Dems will lose in 2018 calling right now.

[The Other Castro]

Dems will lose in 2018 calling right now.

Lose...what?

[Mr. Smith]

Dems will lose in 2018 calling right now.

Lose...what?

midterms in general?

[ApatheticAustrian]

dems will lose the senate anyway and not winning the house.

most important question.....GOVERNEURS.

[The Other Castro]

Well, it gets to be more of a matter of opinion on what counts as winning during midterms. Like, I would consider R+1 in the Senate a win for Democrats.

[Chief Justice Keef]

Perez vs. Ellison is a very hard choice for me. I like them both.

I guess it will come down to who I think has the best strategy for the party. I don't care about political leanings, that's not the DNC's role, and if Ellison tries to make it about that I would probably support Perez.

I have to disagree on your vision of the DNC's "role". I think Ellison is the only one in the race for the chairmanship that actually has a vision for a policy agenda, and I think it's better that the Democrats envision the DNC chair as less of a fundraising, behind-the-scenes role than a "face-of-the-party" role. Nothing against Perez, I think he's a great Secretary who's got a decent career ahead of him, but I frankly don't see a new vision for the party that the Democrats desperately need, and I'd much rather he run for Maryland Governor in 2018 or 2022 than he waste his time as DNC Chair.

[Gass3268]

Prez picked up the endorsements of the United Farm Workers and the Firefightets Union. Looks like labor will be divided in the race.

[Frodo]

Dems will lose in 2018 calling right now.

Lose...what?

Good question -we are so far down the hole, it is hard to think what else we have left to lose, apart from our remaining rural seats in Minnesota. 

[Dr. Arch]

Dems will lose in 2018 calling right now.

Lose...what?

Good question -we are so far down the hole, it is hard to think what else we have left to lose, apart from our remaining rural seats in Minnesota. 

You forget about the last senate seat in WI, a seat in MI, WV, ND, MO, MT seats. Beyond that, the last seat in FL.

For governors: MN, CT.

There's ample room to keep falling if the party doesn't get its DAMN CRAP TOGETHER, and White Supremacists take over the GOP in full. We have already seen that their voters are willing to let it happen.

[Maxwell]

Being divided as all HELL didn't hurt the GOP in 2010.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Perez vs. Ellison is a very hard choice for me. I like them both.

I guess it will come down to who I think has the best strategy for the party. I don't care about political leanings, that's not the DNC's role, and if Ellison tries to make it about that I would probably support Perez.

I have to disagree on your vision of the DNC's "role". I think Ellison is the only one in the race for the chairmanship that actually has a vision for a policy agenda, and I think it's better that the Democrats envision the DNC chair as less of a fundraising, behind-the-scenes role than a "face-of-the-party" role. Nothing against Perez, I think he's a great Secretary who's got a decent career ahead of him, but I frankly don't see a new vision for the party that the Democrats desperately need, and I'd much rather he run for Maryland Governor in 2018 or 2022 than he waste his time as DNC Chair.

But... that's literally what the DNC Chair's job is. Congressional Democrats are supposed to focus on policy.

[Shadows]

Perez vs. Ellison is a very hard choice for me. I like them both.

I guess it will come down to who I think has the best strategy for the party. I don't care about political leanings, that's not the DNC's role, and if Ellison tries to make it about that I would probably support Perez.

I have to disagree on your vision of the DNC's "role". I think Ellison is the only one in the race for the chairmanship that actually has a vision for a policy agenda, and I think it's better that the Democrats envision the DNC chair as less of a fundraising, behind-the-scenes role than a "face-of-the-party" role. Nothing against Perez, I think he's a great Secretary who's got a decent career ahead of him, but I frankly don't see a new vision for the party that the Democrats desperately need, and I'd much rather he run for Maryland Governor in 2018 or 2022 than he waste his time as DNC Chair.

But... that's literally what the DNC Chair's job is. Congressional Democrats are supposed to focus on policy.

NO It is not. That is what Debbie was - A terrific fundraiser. And Clinton outraised & outspend Trump too.

And what did it do - Jack sh**. This kind of experiment has been tried & has failed big. It is time to move on from this archaic thinking!

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Perez vs. Ellison is a very hard choice for me. I like them both.

I guess it will come down to who I think has the best strategy for the party. I don't care about political leanings, that's not the DNC's role, and if Ellison tries to make it about that I would probably support Perez.

I have to disagree on your vision of the DNC's "role". I think Ellison is the only one in the race for the chairmanship that actually has a vision for a policy agenda, and I think it's better that the Democrats envision the DNC chair as less of a fundraising, behind-the-scenes role than a "face-of-the-party" role. Nothing against Perez, I think he's a great Secretary who's got a decent career ahead of him, but I frankly don't see a new vision for the party that the Democrats desperately need, and I'd much rather he run for Maryland Governor in 2018 or 2022 than he waste his time as DNC Chair.

But... that's literally what the DNC Chair's job is. Congressional Democrats are supposed to focus on policy.

NO It is not. That is what Debbie was - A terrific fundraiser. And Clinton outraised & outspend Trump too.

And what did it do - Jack sh**. This kind of experiment has been tried & has failed big. It is time to move on from this archaic thinking!

It's not archaic thinking, it's the literal job description. The job of the DNC Chair is to focus on fundraising and building the party apparatus. It's mechanics, not "vision".

[Chief Justice Keef]

Perez vs. Ellison is a very hard choice for me. I like them both.

I guess it will come down to who I think has the best strategy for the party. I don't care about political leanings, that's not the DNC's role, and if Ellison tries to make it about that I would probably support Perez.

I have to disagree on your vision of the DNC's "role". I think Ellison is the only one in the race for the chairmanship that actually has a vision for a policy agenda, and I think it's better that the Democrats envision the DNC chair as less of a fundraising, behind-the-scenes role than a "face-of-the-party" role. Nothing against Perez, I think he's a great Secretary who's got a decent career ahead of him, but I frankly don't see a new vision for the party that the Democrats desperately need, and I'd much rather he run for Maryland Governor in 2018 or 2022 than he waste his time as DNC Chair.

But... that's literally what the DNC Chair's job is. Congressional Democrats are supposed to focus on policy.

NO It is not. That is what Debbie was - A terrific fundraiser. And Clinton outraised & outspend Trump too.

And what did it do - Jack sh**. This kind of experiment has been tried & has failed big. It is time to move on from this archaic thinking!

It's not archaic thinking, it's the literal job description. The job of the DNC Chair is to focus on fundraising and building the party apparatus. It's mechanics, not "vision".

If that's the case, then the role needs to be changed. Fundraising and reaching out to the donor class shouldn't be the goal of the Democratic Party. That's why people don't trust the DNC, because they come off as corporate weirdos who do whatever their donors want. That's basically what DWS was anyways. They should be focused on outreach to coalitions and guiding the direction of the party, not just behind-the-scenes work.

[Shadows]

Perez vs. Ellison is a very hard choice for me. I like them both.

I guess it will come down to who I think has the best strategy for the party. I don't care about political leanings, that's not the DNC's role, and if Ellison tries to make it about that I would probably support Perez.

I have to disagree on your vision of the DNC's "role". I think Ellison is the only one in the race for the chairmanship that actually has a vision for a policy agenda, and I think it's better that the Democrats envision the DNC chair as less of a fundraising, behind-the-scenes role than a "face-of-the-party" role. Nothing against Perez, I think he's a great Secretary who's got a decent career ahead of him, but I frankly don't see a new vision for the party that the Democrats desperately need, and I'd much rather he run for Maryland Governor in 2018 or 2022 than he waste his time as DNC Chair.

But... that's literally what the DNC Chair's job is. Congressional Democrats are supposed to focus on policy.

NO It is not. That is what Debbie was - A terrific fundraiser. And Clinton outraised & outspend Trump too.

And what did it do - Jack sh**. This kind of experiment has been tried & has failed big. It is time to move on from this archaic thinking!

It's not archaic thinking, it's the literal job description. The job of the DNC Chair is to focus on fundraising and building the party apparatus. It's mechanics, not "vision".

Do you have any proof or link of that being the job description? Because what you are saying is Flat out wrong.The truth is that isn't & has never been the role of the DNC Chair. Anyways if you go to the Website, you will read that the job of DNC is to fight for progress & help elect Democrats at state, local & national levels (which include a range of operations from fundraising to advocacy groups to long term strategy which is absolutely key in a non Democrat presidency)

Historically a party chair has had various roles some of which include a long term strategy for growth (Dean's 50 state strategy), fundraising & management, co-ordination with local, state & national organization including Labor groups where need be, co-ordination with think-tanks, co-ordinating with political advocacy groups, co-ordination with media including digital media to boost presence.

As this election has clearly proven inorder to win elections up & down the ticket & to fight for progress, fundraising is not the only solution (Hillary wasted 1.2B $)

[Shadows]

Perez vs. Ellison is a very hard choice for me. I like them both.

I guess it will come down to who I think has the best strategy for the party. I don't care about political leanings, that's not the DNC's role, and if Ellison tries to make it about that I would probably support Perez.

I have to disagree on your vision of the DNC's "role". I think Ellison is the only one in the race for the chairmanship that actually has a vision for a policy agenda, and I think it's better that the Democrats envision the DNC chair as less of a fundraising, behind-the-scenes role than a "face-of-the-party" role. Nothing against Perez, I think he's a great Secretary who's got a decent career ahead of him, but I frankly don't see a new vision for the party that the Democrats desperately need, and I'd much rather he run for Maryland Governor in 2018 or 2022 than he waste his time as DNC Chair.

But... that's literally what the DNC Chair's job is. Congressional Democrats are supposed to focus on policy.

NO It is not. That is what Debbie was - A terrific fundraiser. And Clinton outraised & outspend Trump too.

And what did it do - Jack sh**. This kind of experiment has been tried & has failed big. It is time to move on from this archaic thinking!

It's not archaic thinking, it's the literal job description. The job of the DNC Chair is to focus on fundraising and building the party apparatus. It's mechanics, not "vision".

If that's the case, then the role needs to be changed. Fundraising and reaching out to the donor class shouldn't be the goal of the Democratic Party. That's why people don't trust the DNC, because they come off as corporate weirdos who do whatever their donors want. That's basically what DWS was anyways. They should be focused on outreach to coalitions and guiding the direction of the party, not just behind-the-scenes work.

That isn't. Not what Dean did when he was Chair - That is not the job in non-Democrat presidency years. And certainly very different from what the website says about the role of DNC about fighting for progress & creating an economy for everyone & helping elect Democrats up & down the ticket including state & local levels.

People have to go beyond this obsessions that fundraising is the ultimate objective

[Virginiá]

That isn't. Not what Dean did when he was Chair - That is not the job in non-Democrat presidency years. And certainly very different from what the website says about the role of DNC about fighting for progress & creating an economy for everyone & helping elect Democrats up & down the ticket including state & local levels.

People have to go beyond this obsessions that fundraising is the ultimate objective

Part of what you keep saying there (for the description) is boilerplate stuff for people who feel the need to actually read a description on the party website. For instance, the DNC isn't really "fighting for progress & creating an economy for everyone" - they help elect the people who do that.

You're right that the DNC Chair shouldn't be spending so much time fundraising, but someone needs to raise money for the party. Small-donor networks can't raise the kind of constant money a party needs. They've tried it for committees before and it doesn't work. People like Bernie during an election year give the people someone to rally around and the desire to donate to. No one gets fired up by national or state committees. Until Democrats manage to get campaign finance reform in a big way, there are compromises that will need to be made. The party shouldn't be like they are now, but the purists need to back off a little bit and get it through their heads that major legal reform is needed before a donor purge is even remotely acceptable.

Hillary did waste a lot of money, but money is always much more easily wasted in presidential races. Aside from her poor strategy, presidential candidates are usually already very well-known, but particularly Hillary/Trump. All that money can't change opinions people have formed over many, many years. Compare to downballot politicians - state legislators, gubernatorial candidates, House Reps - money can make a big difference when no one knows who you are. This much has been known for a while now. This is where party cash is needed, and even Ellison understands that.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There's ample room to keep falling if the party doesn't get its DAMN CRAP TOGETHER, and White Supremacists take over the GOP in full. We have already seen that their voters are willing to let it happen.

If the Democrats think the reason they lost was White Supremacists, then they will lose badly in 2018.  What happened this year was a combination of two toxic candidates and voters deciding that rather than worrying about which candidate was more toxic, they'd vote for the candidate that represented change.

[Dr. Arch]

There's ample room to keep falling if the party doesn't get its DAMN CRAP TOGETHER, and White Supremacists take over the GOP in full. We have already seen that their voters are willing to let it happen.

If the Democrats think the reason they lost was White Supremacists, then they will lose badly in 2018.  What happened this year was a combination of two toxic candidates and voters deciding that rather than worrying about which candidate was more toxic, they'd vote for the candidate that represented change.

No. They lost for their own reasons, but the White Supremacists are a problem of the Republican party, and they don't seem to be putting up enough resistance.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

That isn't. Not what Dean did when he was Chair - That is not the job in non-Democrat presidency years. And certainly very different from what the website says about the role of DNC about fighting for progress & creating an economy for everyone & helping elect Democrats up & down the ticket including state & local levels.

People have to go beyond this obsessions that fundraising is the ultimate objective

Part of what you keep saying there (for the description) is boilerplate stuff for people who feel the need to actually read a description on the party website. For instance, the DNC isn't really "fighting for progress & creating an economy for everyone" - they help elect the people who do that.

You're right that the DNC Chair shouldn't be spending so much time fundraising, but someone needs to raise money for the party. Small-donor networks can't raise the kind of constant money a party needs. They've tried it for committees before and it doesn't work. People like Bernie during an election year give the people someone to rally around and the desire to donate to. No one gets fired up by national or state committees. Until Democrats manage to get campaign finance reform in a big way, there are compromises that will need to be made. The party shouldn't be like they are now, but the purists need to back off a little bit and get it through their heads that major legal reform is needed before a donor purge is even remotely acceptable.

Hillary did waste a lot of money, but money is always much more easily wasted in presidential races. Aside from her poor strategy, presidential candidates are usually already very well-known, but particularly Hillary/Trump. All that money can't change opinions people have formed over many, many years. Compare to downballot politicians - state legislators, gubernatorial candidates, House Reps - money can make a big difference when no one knows who you are. This much has been known for a while now. This is where party cash is needed, and even Ellison understands that.

Lots of non-profits have a head of fundraising who isn't the head of the organization.