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

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Just came to post this.

At first I thought Ellison would win hands down; but looks like Perez has it sealed. (feel free to quote this next week) As always internal elections are actually more interesting to see who's backing who- Dean/Rendell backing Buttigieg for example

If Perez wins this, I'll be genuinely infuriated. I will never register as a Democrat if their administration continues with these stupid games.

If you guys (stuanch Ellison supporters) want to be treated like grown ups, you're gonna have to start acting the part.  You're so emotionally invested in a largely meaningless race between very similar candidates that you're threatening to throw a pointless temper-tantrum if your generic progressive Democrat loses to another generic progressive Democrat.  Parties don't change overnight and change comes from the bottom up (we're already seeing some early signs).  I don't mean to single you out, Arch.  You're generally a decent enough poster, but posts like the one you just made give Berniecrats a bad name.

Parties don't change overnight, but they also don't change by playing nice.

I view Ellison v Perez as how willing the Establishment is to play ball. This isn't about policies (with the exception of shilling for TPP out of loyalty to Pres. Obama, Perez is Okay) it's purely factional.

If Ellison loses, it means that we're going to have to end the Democratic careers of the other side if we ever want the Democratic Party to succeed.

I want to see the Sanders-wing prevail too; I consider myself part of it  However, the path to victory is taking over state parties and running strong progressive candidates in local/city races in places like Boston, Cleveland, Chicago, NYC, etc, etc.  The city machines need to be taken away from the third way hacks and corporate shills first.  Until we do that, we're getting waaaaay ahead of ourselves.  Sometimes it is okay to compromise too and Perez really is a lot better than a McAulliffe-type or a DWS-level idiot.  Would Dean or Buttigieg be better?  Sure.  Alas, you can't always get what you want

The thing is that Perez ran specifically because the consulting firms that are the main recipients of donations to the DNC, don't want to lose their access to all that money.  As someone else said earlier, Perez will make sure all the money will remain in the Washington bubble and the Nebraska or the Utah Democratic party will remain broke and unable to compete with Republicans (because who cares about winning elections, right?).  Electing Perez, a guy who pretty much is responsible for slandering a beloved figure on the left like Bernie Sanders during the primaries, and has shown no intention of making the party more inclusive, is like shooting yourself in the head.  But the DNC members who will vote for him don't give a sh*t as long as they have access to power.
If there's something that's bothering Berniecrats is the corruption in the Democratic Party, and I don't understand why some people who are not on our side don't see this.  Maybe they're getting paid by Brock?  Who knows...

Actually.... Perez was in Utah a couple of days ago and specifically said he'd send more money and would fund campaign training for Utah Democrats. And he specifically covered gerrymandering in an interview as well.

I hope you're not so naive to believe that.  Unless of course you haven't been paying attention to how the party has operated under the leadership of Obama and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

Umm...Obama and DWS hated each other.

[Virginiá]

Losing over 1,000 seats is good politics?

Alright, look. I'm not getting involved in the other argument but I only want to say that this "losing 1,000 seats" thing does a disservice to Obama/Democrats as a whole, and I feel obligated to point this out when I see it. It entertains the notion that we could have kept all/most of those seats in the first place, which wasn't really possible. We were fresh off of 2 waves in a row, won the presidency with the most liberal candidate since LBJ and early enough into a recession for Republicans to obstruct and then blame us for the slow recovery. We were always going to lose a ton of what we gained in those waves. What we had after 2 waves was not our new baseline. That was like a sugar high. The fact that the collapse happened during a redistricting year hurt us going forward.

Further, the realignment of the South to Republicans was a slow moving glacier for decades at the state/local level, and Obama accelerated that bigly. I mean no one can rightly say we could have held onto legislatures in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, and so on if we just did x, y or z. It's a miracle we even had those going into 2010.

Looking at the political landscape now - yes, we are in a deeper hole, but comparing it to what we had in 2004 (before the two huge waves), it does not look as remarkably different than if you compare it to 2009 - the height of our power in this generation.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Losing over 1,000 seats is good politics?

Alright, look. I'm not getting involved in the other argument but I only want to say that this "losing 1,000 seats" thing does a disservice to Obama/Democrats as a whole, and I feel obligated to point this out when I see it. It entertains the notion that we could have kept all/most of those seats in the first place, which wasn't really possible. We were fresh off of 2 waves in a row, won the presidency with the most liberal candidate since LBJ and early enough into a recession for Republicans to obstruct and then blame us for the slow recovery. We were always going to lose a ton of what we gained in those waves. What we had after 2 waves was not our new baseline. That was like a sugar high. The fact that the collapse happened during a redistricting year hurt us going forward.

Further, the realignment of the South to Republicans was a slow moving glacier for decades at the state/local level, and Obama accelerated that bigly. I mean no one can rightly say we could have held onto legislatures in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, and so on if we just did x, y or z. It's a miracle we even had those going into 2010.

Looking at the political landscape now - yes, we are in a deeper hole, but comparing it to what we had in 2004 (before the two huge waves), it does not look as remarkably different than if you compare it to 2009 - the height of our power in this generation.

This is true but that doesn't change the fact that the "establishment" wing blew this election I mean it's Donald f'ing Trump who in late October was caught on video describing sexual assault he committed an won. Going forward we need to take back the house in 2018 in order to put some leash on this cr*p an we need the Bernie/grassroots energy in order to do that and Keith was the better man for the job. An there is nothing that I would love more than for Perez to prove me wrong an put some type of midterm coalition of combing the grassroots Bernie wing angry with Hillary's big money donor class/old school conservative big money who are horrified of Trump's anti-intellectualism but I would be more comfortable with going with what feels like a better route in Keith

[justfollowingtheelections]

Just came to post this.

At first I thought Ellison would win hands down; but looks like Perez has it sealed. (feel free to quote this next week) As always internal elections are actually more interesting to see who's backing who- Dean/Rendell backing Buttigieg for example

If Perez wins this, I'll be genuinely infuriated. I will never register as a Democrat if their administration continues with these stupid games.

If you guys (stuanch Ellison supporters) want to be treated like grown ups, you're gonna have to start acting the part.  You're so emotionally invested in a largely meaningless race between very similar candidates that you're threatening to throw a pointless temper-tantrum if your generic progressive Democrat loses to another generic progressive Democrat.  Parties don't change overnight and change comes from the bottom up (we're already seeing some early signs).  I don't mean to single you out, Arch.  You're generally a decent enough poster, but posts like the one you just made give Berniecrats a bad name.

Parties don't change overnight, but they also don't change by playing nice.

I view Ellison v Perez as how willing the Establishment is to play ball. This isn't about policies (with the exception of shilling for TPP out of loyalty to Pres. Obama, Perez is Okay) it's purely factional.

If Ellison loses, it means that we're going to have to end the Democratic careers of the other side if we ever want the Democratic Party to succeed.

I want to see the Sanders-wing prevail too; I consider myself part of it  However, the path to victory is taking over state parties and running strong progressive candidates in local/city races in places like Boston, Cleveland, Chicago, NYC, etc, etc.  The city machines need to be taken away from the third way hacks and corporate shills first.  Until we do that, we're getting waaaaay ahead of ourselves.  Sometimes it is okay to compromise too and Perez really is a lot better than a McAulliffe-type or a DWS-level idiot.  Would Dean or Buttigieg be better?  Sure.  Alas, you can't always get what you want

The thing is that Perez ran specifically because the consulting firms that are the main recipients of donations to the DNC, don't want to lose their access to all that money.  As someone else said earlier, Perez will make sure all the money will remain in the Washington bubble and the Nebraska or the Utah Democratic party will remain broke and unable to compete with Republicans (because who cares about winning elections, right?).  Electing Perez, a guy who pretty much is responsible for slandering a beloved figure on the left like Bernie Sanders during the primaries, and has shown no intention of making the party more inclusive, is like shooting yourself in the head.  But the DNC members who will vote for him don't give a sh*t as long as they have access to power.
If there's something that's bothering Berniecrats is the corruption in the Democratic Party, and I don't understand why some people who are not on our side don't see this.  Maybe they're getting paid by Brock?  Who knows...

Actually.... Perez was in Utah a couple of days ago and specifically said he'd send more money and would fund campaign training for Utah Democrats. And he specifically covered gerrymandering in an interview as well.

I hope you're not so naive to believe that.  Unless of course you haven't been paying attention to how the party has operated under the leadership of Obama and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

Umm...Obama and DWS hated each other.

But he appointed her and allowed her to run the party to the ground.

[Gass3268]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Hindsight was 2020]

A lot of sympathetic Democrats are assuming that Bernie's support was just a matter of out-promising Clinton on things like single-payer healthcare and tuition-free college, and that if the party were just willing to promise more "free stuff" that they'd have no problem winning a wide majority of his voters. I think that is a grave mistake.

The Sanders platform was fundamentally one of empowerment. He ran on transparency, honesty, and decency in government - on holding public officials responsible to the people whom they represent, regardless of background, wealth, or status. A Perez victory isn't consistent with the party taking that message seriously. When party insiders call him a "progressive," what usually seems to be meant is that he's willing to call for just enough spending and entitlements to buy off certain groups of voters. Maybe I'm wrong, but that doesn't seem like a sustainable strategy for the party.

I will be fair to Perez an point out he is very pro-union/worker rights so he isn't some "phony progressive"

[justfollowingtheelections]

Losing over 1,000 seats is good politics?

Alright, look. I'm not getting involved in the other argument but I only want to say that this "losing 1,000 seats" thing does a disservice to Obama/Democrats as a whole, and I feel obligated to point this out when I see it. It entertains the notion that we could have kept all/most of those seats in the first place, which wasn't really possible. We were fresh off of 2 waves in a row, won the presidency with the most liberal candidate since LBJ and early enough into a recession for Republicans to obstruct and then blame us for the slow recovery. We were always going to lose a ton of what we gained in those waves. What we had after 2 waves was not our new baseline. That was like a sugar high. The fact that the collapse happened during a redistricting year hurt us going forward.

Further, the realignment of the South to Republicans was a slow moving glacier for decades at the state/local level, and Obama accelerated that bigly. I mean no one can rightly say we could have held onto legislatures in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, and so on if we just did x, y or z. It's a miracle we even had those going into 2010.

Looking at the political landscape now - yes, we are in a deeper hole, but comparing it to what we had in 2004 (before the two huge waves), it does not look as remarkably different than if you compare it to 2009 - the height of our power in this generation.

I don't disagree.  But the fact remains that the party has done a lousy job at state level elections in the last 8 years.

[justfollowingtheelections]

A lot of sympathetic Democrats are assuming that Bernie's support was just a matter of out-promising Clinton on things like single-payer healthcare and tuition-free college, and that if the party were just willing to promise more "free stuff" that they'd have no problem winning a wide majority of his voters. I think that is a grave mistake.

The Sanders platform was fundamentally one of empowerment. He ran on transparency, honesty, and decency in government - on holding public officials responsible to the people whom they represent, regardless of background, wealth, or status. A Perez victory isn't consistent with the party taking that message seriously. When party insiders call him a "progressive," what usually seems to be meant is that he's willing to call for just enough spending and entitlements to buy off certain groups of voters. Maybe I'm wrong, but that doesn't seem like a sustainable strategy for the party.

I will be fair to Perez an point out he is very pro-union/worker rights so he isn't some "phony progressive"

Except when he supported the TPP, which most trade unions opposed.

[Hindsight was 2020]

A lot of sympathetic Democrats are assuming that Bernie's support was just a matter of out-promising Clinton on things like single-payer healthcare and tuition-free college, and that if the party were just willing to promise more "free stuff" that they'd have no problem winning a wide majority of his voters. I think that is a grave mistake.

The Sanders platform was fundamentally one of empowerment. He ran on transparency, honesty, and decency in government - on holding public officials responsible to the people whom they represent, regardless of background, wealth, or status. A Perez victory isn't consistent with the party taking that message seriously. When party insiders call him a "progressive," what usually seems to be meant is that he's willing to call for just enough spending and entitlements to buy off certain groups of voters. Maybe I'm wrong, but that doesn't seem like a sustainable strategy for the party.

I will be fair to Perez an point out he is very pro-union/worker rights so he isn't some "phony progressive"

Except when he supported the TPP, which most trade unions opposed.

That is true which is my biggest fear

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Losing over 1,000 seats is good politics?

Alright, look. I'm not getting involved in the other argument but I only want to say that this "losing 1,000 seats" thing does a disservice to Obama/Democrats as a whole, and I feel obligated to point this out when I see it. It entertains the notion that we could have kept all/most of those seats in the first place, which wasn't really possible. We were fresh off of 2 waves in a row, won the presidency with the most liberal candidate since LBJ and early enough into a recession for Republicans to obstruct and then blame us for the slow recovery. We were always going to lose a ton of what we gained in those waves. What we had after 2 waves was not our new baseline. That was like a sugar high. The fact that the collapse happened during a redistricting year hurt us going forward.

Further, the realignment of the South to Republicans was a slow moving glacier for decades at the state/local level, and Obama accelerated that bigly. I mean no one can rightly say we could have held onto legislatures in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, and so on if we just did x, y or z. It's a miracle we even had those going into 2010.

Looking at the political landscape now - yes, we are in a deeper hole, but comparing it to what we had in 2004 (before the two huge waves), it does not look as remarkably different than if you compare it to 2009 - the height of our power in this generation.

This is true. To a point.

But the simple fact is, just as it was a miracle that state leg yellow-dogs hung on as long as they did, it's absolutely *bonkers * that the Party decided to start starving local parties so that we would have no replacement for the solid south when it finally fell. Lyndon Johnson said that we'd lost the south for a generation in 1964. The DNC (by your reasoning) had no backup plan for when we finally did in 2010.

Plus, we've actually lost a *ton * of ground from 2004. Let's just look at trifectas (and in the case of NE, dual-fectas). According to this wikipedia article the GOP had 12 trifectas in 2004, we had 8.

As of now the GOP now has 25, more than double what they had in 2004, and we have six.

Something clearly has happened, and it isn't just a course correction.

[Chief Justice Keef]

I think regardless of whether Perez or Ellison become DNC chair, you're going to see the Democratic Party being pulled to the left by former Bernie supporters, progressives and activists. What I'm seeing in states like California is absolutely encouraging. They are out-organizing everyone else within the party structure, and regardless of whatever the consultants and lobbyists in the Washington bubble have in mind for the party, soon they're going to have to answer to far more progressive state parties.

Speaking of which, if Ellison remains in the House if he loses this race, I absolutely support him for House Minority Leader in 2018.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

I think regardless of whether Perez or Ellison become DNC chair, you're going to see the Democratic Party being pulled to the left by former Bernie supporters, progressives and activists. What I'm seeing in states like California is absolutely encouraging. They are out-organizing everyone else within the party structure, and regardless of whatever the consultants and lobbyists in the Washington bubble have in mind for the party, soon they're going to have to answer to far more progressive state parties.

Speaking of which, if Ellison remains in the House if he loses this race, I absolutely support him for House Minority Leader in 2018.

Basically this ^

CA is one thing, but I'm floored and inspired by NE.

I'm trying to go out there this summer to help with the war-effort.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Democrats would rather lose to Republicans then nominate a progressive who will change the party. Money is more important to them then policy.

[OneJ]

What's up with everybody getting all "Look like Perez will pull it off, smh" attitude? Ellison still holds the edge in more recent "counts" than Perez.

Plus, just because Obama is getting a little involved doesn't mean anything. Remember last year when he did all that campaigning for Hillary (and she still ended up losing). Yeah. Don't be so cynical all of a sudden.

[Ronnie]

What's up with everybody getting all "Look like Perez will pull it off, smh" attitude? Ellison still holds the edge in more recent "counts" than Perez.

Plus, just because Obama is getting a little involved doesn't mean anything. Remember last year when he did all that campaigning for Hillary (and she still ended up losing). Yeah. Don't be so cynical all of a sudden.

It's because Harrison was seen as a kingmaker, and he endorsed Perez.

[Hindsight was 2020]

What's up with everybody getting all "Look like Perez will pull it off, smh" attitude? Ellison still holds the edge in more recent "counts" than Perez.

Plus, just because Obama is getting a little involved doesn't mean anything. Remember last year when he did all that campaigning for Hillary (and she still ended up losing). Yeah. Don't be so cynical all of a sudden.

MSNBC is reporting there sources say Perez hit the mark

[ApatheticAustrian]

would be kind of shocking for me, if ellison wouldn't pull this off,....he was showered with big-shot endorsements for several weeks.

personally i couldn't care less if perez or ellison wins, since i am not totally sure which would be the right approach for the future regarding the biggest big-tent.

[RogueBeaver]

Jarrett making calls for Perez.

[Virginiá]

But the simple fact is, just as it was a miracle that state leg yellow-dogs hung on as long as they did, it's absolutely *bonkers * that the Party decided to start starving local parties so that we would have no replacement for the solid south when it finally fell. Lyndon Johnson said that we'd lost the south for a generation in 1964. The DNC (by your reasoning) had no backup plan for when we finally did in 2010.

That's true. I don't disagree that things need to change. The 1,000-seat thing just triggers me, especially because reporters always use it as a talking point to act like the Democratic Party was always supposed to have that many seats and thus make our fall look much more dramatic. Chris Cillizza makes an article with the same chart showing the collapse in power like every 2 weeks. They almost never explain to readers why it happened (or they give a completely wrong explanation)

But I agree with you on the party. Leadership has put us on a bad course for years now, starving local parties and acting like all they need to do is pay consultants big money and wait for demographics to carry them to victory. It's very annoying, and it doesn't help that Obama cared so little that he kept someone he hated, DWS, in as chair for 4 extra years just because he didn't want to deal with her not leaving without a fuss (or in essence he cared more about his image than the party). This is the thing though - we have a new way of thinking, with an ascendent wing that doesn't want to sell out to corporate interests battling an entrenched leadership composed of people who have spent years doing that, married to strategies that they believe will win if they keep trying over and over again. They won't let go easy, and so I try to tell people that if we can't win this fight, we keep trying until we do win. I think progressives have made a lot of progress so far, and I don't want people thinking this DNC thing is the "last straw" when more work is to be done.

As for 2004 - you're right, unified control is a lot higher for Republicans. We aren't doing too bad with Governorships in comparison to the 90s/early 2000s, but our implosion in the South/midwest/rural America has really hurt us in legislatures.

[GoTfan]

If the Democrats pick Perez, they can say goodbye to the Bernie wing. THose people won't be voting Democrat for a long time.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

If the Democrats pick Perez, they can say goodbye to the Bernie wing. THose people won't be voting Democrat for a long time.

Who are we going to be voting for, then?

[ApatheticAustrian]

If the Democrats pick Perez, they can say goodbye to the Bernie wing. THose people won't be voting Democrat for a long time.

Who are we going to be voting for, then?

the green party.

better live in a country ruled by pot-hating, private-prison-complex-enhancing, health-care-destroying, trans-mocking EPA-slayers than in one governed by the center-left, i guess.

[GoTfan]

If the Democrats pick Perez, they can say goodbye to the Bernie wing. THose people won't be voting Democrat for a long time.

Who are we going to be voting for, then?

the green party.

better live in a country ruled by pot-hating, private-prison-complex-enhancing, health-care-destroying, trans-mocking EPA-slayers than in one governed by the center-left, i guess.

Well if the corporatists refuse to learn their lesson, then they should keep losing. Maybe one day their bubble will be popped and they'll realise that without progressives, they're going to keep losing.

[ApatheticAustrian]

Well if the corporatists refuse to learn their lesson, then they should keep losing.

"the corporatists" aren't losing, WE are all losing and the major reason the republicans didn't lose this time is, that they didn't care anymore for ideological hegemony.

[GoTfan]

Well if the corporatists refuse to learn their lesson, then they should keep losing.

"the corporatists" aren't losing, WE are all losing and the major reason the republicans didn't lose this time is, that they didn't care anymore for ideological hegemony.

Perhaps so, but someone needs to pop their centrist THird Way "muh electability" bubble sometime. Maybe when they get deserted by the left they'll understand that.

Or they could go further down the centrist path and become the centre-right party while the Republicans become the right wing party. My point being, Democrats don't want to be left leaning because that stops them from getting cushy lobbying jobs after.

I wouldn't have voted for Clinton if I was American. I was prepared to be pragmatic . . . then came the DNC day 1 leaks, and all bets were off.