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

[ApatheticAustrian]

well, since you are an australian and i am an austrian, this debate is highly academical anyway, but i am pretty sure, democrats can combine a warren-wing approach for the economy with their other goals without freaking out their new sub-urban voters. i would just argue, that the more progressive wing of the party shouldn't try to actively alienate the other wings...this has hold back the republicans for several cycles now and it only works with a party which has decided to run on an anti-system, anti-media, anti-"education" platform.

otherwise..... if you have been an avowed bernie voter and think the DNC has played foul, you can ofc make your choice connected to those relevations but....

1) if bernie himself thinks defeating trump was more important, i think he would be the highest authority on that question.

2) i would hate to think, someone would have wanted to "play" me to reach their own goals.

[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?

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.

Yeah, but we won't have our own people in power at literally only step in that process.

[Holmes]

Oh my god, it's just a fu.cking chairman.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Oh my god, it's just a fu.cking chairman.

And the establishment won't even let us have that!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Oh my god, it's just a fu.cking chairman.

And the establishment won't even let us have that!

And Ellison is bending over backwards for the Hillary people anyways.

[Ronnie]

Oh my god, it's just a fu.cking chairman.

And the establishment won't even let us have that!

Well, they can't stop the Sanders wing from taking over state parties, which they have already started doing.  They also won't necessarily be able to stop Sanders Dems from winning congressional primaries in 2018, or maybe even the presidential primary in 2020.  They can put their thumb on the scale all they want, but in the end, it's the people who decide the important races in this country.  The Republican establishment learned that the hard way in 2016.  I think Sanders Dems need to think about the long game and the bigger picture, if capturing the party is their eventual goal.

[Fusionmunster]

We can't get rid of big money in politics until there is a liberal majority in the supreme court. Most candidates can't compete in presidential elections entirely based on individual donations and self-funding. Because these dem candidates can't rely on individual donations, they turn to big money donors in order to compete. The left then gets mad at them for being "corporatists" and don't vote. Dems loose and can't nominate liberal supreme court justices. There's no winning.       

[ApatheticAustrian]

i obviously don't have any quarrels if the sanders people are able to win most votes anyway.

i just would really really hate of groups are targeting middle-of-the-road center-democrats for purity.

[ApatheticAustrian]

We can't get rid of big money in politics until there is a liberal majority in the supreme court. M

yeah...and the republicans did understand that and held their noses.

especially funny if you think, that most big liberal donors wanted to decrease their own influence and the little guys questioned the purity.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Oh my god, it's just a fu.cking chairman.

And the establishment won't even let us have that!

Well, they can't stop the Sanders wing from taking over state parties, which they have already started doing.  They also won't necessarily be able to stop Sanders Dems from winning congressional primaries in 2018, or maybe even the presidential primary in 2020.  They can put their thumb on the scale all they want, but in the end, it's the people who decide the important races in this country.  The Republican establishment learned that the hard way in 2016.  I think Sanders Dems need to think about the long game and the bigger picture, if capturing the party is their eventual goal.

I really don't get your point. I can be angry at this BS and play the long game at the same time.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

We can't get rid of big money in politics until there is a liberal majority in the supreme court. Most candidates can't compete in presidential elections entirely based on individual donations and self-funding. Because these dem candidates can't rely on individual donations, they turn to big money donors in order to compete. The left then gets mad at them for being "corporatists" and don't vote. Dems loose and can't nominate liberal supreme court justices. There's no winning.       

Hillary spent twice as much as Trump and lost. It wasn't the money, it was the candidate.

[ApatheticAustrian]

Hillary spent twice as much as Trump and lost. It wasn't the money, it was the candidate.

in a presidential race - and in some years, agreed....under the assumption, the money was spent in an intelligent way.

[Ronnie]

Oh my god, it's just a fu.cking chairman.

And the establishment won't even let us have that!

Well, they can't stop the Sanders wing from taking over state parties, which they have already started doing.  They also won't necessarily be able to stop Sanders Dems from winning congressional primaries in 2018, or maybe even the presidential primary in 2020.  They can put their thumb on the scale all they want, but in the end, it's the people who decide the important races in this country.  The Republican establishment learned that the hard way in 2016.  I think Sanders Dems need to think about the long game and the bigger picture, if capturing the party is their eventual goal.

I really don't get your point. I can be at this BS and play the long game at the same time.

I'm saying that the result of this race should not discourage Sanders Democrats because it's pretty meaningless in the larger scheme of things.  The DNC does not influence the direction of policy; state, federal, and local elections do.  If the Sanders wing wants more power, they should focus on those races.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Oh my god, it's just a fu.cking chairman.

And the establishment won't even let us have that!

Well, they can't stop the Sanders wing from taking over state parties, which they have already started doing.  They also won't necessarily be able to stop Sanders Dems from winning congressional primaries in 2018, or maybe even the presidential primary in 2020.  They can put their thumb on the scale all they want, but in the end, it's the people who decide the important races in this country.  The Republican establishment learned that the hard way in 2016.  I think Sanders Dems need to think about the long game and the bigger picture, if capturing the party is their eventual goal.

I really don't get your point. I can be at this BS and play the long game at the same time.

I'm saying that the result of this race should not discourage Sanders Democrats because it's pretty meaningless in the larger scheme of things.  The DNC does not influence the direction of policy; state, federal, and local elections do.  If the Sanders wing wants more power, they should focus on those races.

And trust me, plenty are.

But the fact that the establishment is seemingly so unwilling to listen to the base is nothing if not discouraging.

[Ronnie]

Oh my god, it's just a fu.cking chairman.

And the establishment won't even let us have that!

Well, they can't stop the Sanders wing from taking over state parties, which they have already started doing.  They also won't necessarily be able to stop Sanders Dems from winning congressional primaries in 2018, or maybe even the presidential primary in 2020.  They can put their thumb on the scale all they want, but in the end, it's the people who decide the important races in this country.  The Republican establishment learned that the hard way in 2016.  I think Sanders Dems need to think about the long game and the bigger picture, if capturing the party is their eventual goal.

I really don't get your point. I can be at this BS and play the long game at the same time.

I'm saying that the result of this race should not discourage Sanders Democrats because it's pretty meaningless in the larger scheme of things.  The DNC does not influence the direction of policy; state, federal, and local elections do.  If the Sanders wing wants more power, they should focus on those races.

And trust me, plenty are.

But the fact that the establishment is seemingly so unwilling to listen to the base is nothing if not discouraging.

Think of it this way: the Republican establishment didn't listen to the Republican base, and party still dominates every level of government.  Eventually, the Democratic establishment will fall in line with their voters, if moving left is the direction their voters want to go.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I love all these people that are like

 "well, there's really no difference between Ellison and Perez so what's the big deal?" or "this isn't even that important a position so what'st he big deal?"

I dunno.. but it is a big deal to me and apparently it isn't to you.. so how about you just give up and let Ellison have it!  No big deal, right?

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Oh my god, it's just a fu.cking chairman.

And the establishment won't even let us have that!

Well, they can't stop the Sanders wing from taking over state parties, which they have already started doing.  They also won't necessarily be able to stop Sanders Dems from winning congressional primaries in 2018, or maybe even the presidential primary in 2020.  They can put their thumb on the scale all they want, but in the end, it's the people who decide the important races in this country.  The Republican establishment learned that the hard way in 2016.  I think Sanders Dems need to think about the long game and the bigger picture, if capturing the party is their eventual goal.

I really don't get your point. I can be at this BS and play the long game at the same time.

I'm saying that the result of this race should not discourage Sanders Democrats because it's pretty meaningless in the larger scheme of things.  The DNC does not influence the direction of policy; state, federal, and local elections do.  If the Sanders wing wants more power, they should focus on those races.

And trust me, plenty are.

But the fact that the establishment is seemingly so unwilling to listen to the base is nothing if not discouraging.

Think of it this way: the Republican establishment didn't listen to the Republican base, and party still dominates every level of government.  Eventually, the Democratic establishment will fall in line with their voters, if moving left is the direction their voters want to go.

That won't happen by itself, as I said above.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Had no idea Jehmu Greene was running. I like her, seems like one of the nicest talking heads on cable.

[Ronnie]

I love all these people that are like

 "well, there's really no difference between Ellison and Perez so what's the big deal?" or "this isn't even that important a position so what'st he big deal?"

I dunno.. but it is a big deal to me and apparently it isn't to you.. so how about you just give up and let Ellison have it!  No big deal, right?

And that's exactly why I hoped Ellison would win.  But that prospect looks grim, so we have to move on and focus on other, more important things.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Oh my god, it's just a fu.cking chairman.

And the establishment won't even let us have that!

Well, they can't stop the Sanders wing from taking over state parties, which they have already started doing.  They also won't necessarily be able to stop Sanders Dems from winning congressional primaries in 2018, or maybe even the presidential primary in 2020.  They can put their thumb on the scale all they want, but in the end, it's the people who decide the important races in this country.  The Republican establishment learned that the hard way in 2016.  I think Sanders Dems need to think about the long game and the bigger picture, if capturing the party is their eventual goal.

I really don't get your point. I can be at this BS and play the long game at the same time.

I'm saying that the result of this race should not discourage Sanders Democrats because it's pretty meaningless in the larger scheme of things.  The DNC does not influence the direction of policy; state, federal, and local elections do.  If the Sanders wing wants more power, they should focus on those races.

And trust me, plenty are.

But the fact that the establishment is seemingly so unwilling to listen to the base is nothing if not discouraging.

Think of it this way: the Republican establishment didn't listen to the Republican base, and party still dominates every level of government.  Eventually, the Democratic establishment will fall in line with their voters, if moving left is the direction their voters want to go.

The Republican establishment, in the final analysis, had more in common with what their base wanted than what the opposition party wanted. I am skeptical the same will be true of the Democratic establishment.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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?

A lot won't be voting, and others will write someone in or vote 3rd party. And some Bernie people got so pissed at Hillary that they even voted Trump.

[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?

A lot won't be voting, and others will write someone in or vote 3rd party. And some Bernie people got so pissed at Hillary that they even voted Trump.

I'm aware of that. I had trouble (though I bit the bullet and ended up doing so) marking Clinton on my ballot.

But then we, like everyone else who throws their vote away, will be irrelevant to any political discussion going forward.

[Fusionmunster]

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?

A lot won't be voting, and others will write someone in or vote 3rd party. And some Bernie people got so pissed at Hillary that they even voted Trump.

I dont think alot will care come November.

[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?

the green party.

The Greens last cycle were literally not on the ballot for 499.884 of the 500.000 odd electoral offices in the United States. There was no candidate, so you could not vote for them.

Next option?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

The Greens last cycle were literally not on the ballot for 499.884 of the 500.000 odd electoral offices in the United States. There was no candidate, so you could not vote for them.

Next option?

Yeah, sometimes it's for lack of interest, or sometimes because they make it very hard for someone else to run. Oklahoma is definitely in the latter category, Johnson last year was the first 3rd party on the ballot for President there in a few elections.