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

[publicunofficial]

I think the most important thing is to have Democrats challenging Republicans in every race nationwide.  No race should go unopposed.  And if it means running conservative Democrats in conservative districts... well, we can hash that out when we win congress and assign committee seats and leadership.

Are conservative Democrats even that better at winning? No Democrat got elected Senator in a Trump state this year. Bayh was supposed to be some god of Indiana politics and went down. Two Trump states have pretty liberal senators: Brown and Baldwin. And just for fun, check out the ideology of the last 2 Democratic Senators from Idaho. They were two of the most liberal Senators ever.

What the heck has happened to this country... The polarization breaks my heart

My one sole hope for the Trump presidency is that we see the return of Freudenthal-esque flukey Democratic wins in red territory.

[publicunofficial]

I am more concerned who will be leading the DSCC, DCCC & DGA because they are the ones who are actually recruiting candidates for these races.

Van Hollen is apparently the favorite to head the DSCC, as he has experience as DCCC chair for two cycles ('08 and '10). No idea on the other two offices.

[publicunofficial]

David, you're freaking insane.

[publicunofficial]

Yeah, Ellison's willingness to resign his seat removes my only real objection to his candidacy.

Listened to an interview with Ellison the other day where he advocated, among other things, creating a Democratic version of ALEC. Very, very good idea.

[publicunofficial]

So Dems throw out a woman whose only reason for keeping her was identity politics, to hire an anti-Israel 9/11 Truther. Great work guys. Really.

You're like a child who tells a bad joke over and over again until someone finally laughs.

[publicunofficial]

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.

[publicunofficial]

I think a lot of people think DNC Chair makes you King of the Democrats. Not how it works.

[publicunofficial]

I'm hoping that Ellison wins, not because I feel particularly strongly about him, but because I fear a progressive revolt if they feel like the establishment pulls the rug out from under them again. So long as Ellison is competent for the job, I couldn't care less, I just hope the party leaders don't try and pick fights where they don't need to.

Pretty much my feelings. I like Perez, but he'd do nothing to ease tensions between the factions of the Democratic Party. Unless it's Ellison or Buttigieg, people are going to claim the DNC hasn't learned anything.

[publicunofficial]

I'm hoping that Ellison wins, not because I feel particularly strongly about him, but because I fear a progressive revolt if they feel like the establishment pulls the rug out from under them again. So long as Ellison is competent for the job, I couldn't care less, I just hope the party leaders don't try and pick fights where they don't need to.

Pretty much my feelings. I like Perez, but he'd do nothing to ease tensions between the factions of the Democratic Party. Unless it's Ellison or Buttigieg, people are going to claim the DNC hasn't learned anything.

Buttigieg isn't really that good, but at least he's not an epic HP like Perez.

He'll please enough people to smooth things over, that's good enough.

[publicunofficial]

Ellison's lapsing on various issues (Lobbyist access to the DNC, Iowa's status in the primaries, ect.) has no doubt made die-hard Bernie supporters less enthusiastic about his candidacy than they were before. He's still their favorite, but Buttigieg is probably a close enough second at this point that there won't be complete and total outrage and allegations of conspiracy if he's chosen. That's my thinking anyway.

[publicunofficial]

It's a critical time in the party because it's a critical time for the party to re-arrange. Obviously we aren't going to shake everyone out of the party but the fact is when something doesn't work you figure out what's wrong and you change it.

Yes, I can agree with that. Quite frankly, I'm sick of corporate friendly Democrats myself. Such friendly policy has gotten us nowhere but to a point where income inequality is suffocating and corporate culture has evolved into a cancer on our society. Clinton was probably the last presidential candidate of that old mold I will lend a hand to. She campaigned on what was essentially an extension of Obama in many regards, and I think Obama fell well short of what was needed. We need at least one party in this country who will take on a system that is intent on cannibalizing itself & society for short-term gain. Personally, I expect the next Democratic president to begin a wave of trust busting where necessary, and to refocus the party's goals on effectively limiting the concentration of corporate power.

That being said, some of the things being said by fellow liberals (not necessarily on this board) do scare me - various comments that appear to hold a "I'm sick of this and we will not give up an inch this time" vibe. Hell, Shadows on here has been openly advocating purging any non-liberal from the party (which would destroy it). You can see other troubling behavior from places like Daily Kos, where front page posts openly advocate obstructing everything and anything, no matter what, because Trump is this and that, etc etc. That kind of behavior in general is toxic and will have undesirable side effects on our party.

I see parallels to what is happening with conservatives, and I don't want us having some purity war between ourselves. This is how it starts. We lose one or more important elections, a rising force different from the old guard finally gets the upper hand, and after years of decrying the flawed ways of the old guard, various groups set out to get rid of them, except maybe they don't all have the same idea of what is unacceptable and inevitably you begin getting this narrow ideological vision with no room for anything else, because others blame "that" as the problem. Let it go on long enough and that behavior becomes entrenched among various factions.

Anyway, yes, I advocate new leadership, new strategy and a more liberal direction just like others, but I don't want us to develop bad habits in the process - habits I already see popping up more and more. We still need moderates and in some places, somewhat conservative Democrats, to remain viable across the country.

I agree with you in that the party needs Blue Dogs and moderates to be viable. However, there is a very widely held feeling that progressives are represented nowhere in the current party leadership. The closest thing is Nancy Pelosi, who is a solid progressive but comes off as very out of touch with the common voter.

The only Dems in Congress I fully believe should be primaried out of office are Feinstein, Carper, and Menendez (for non-ideological reasons) Hopefully both retire this cycle so it doesn't come to that.

[publicunofficial]

A lot of Bernie's excitement didn't come from him being a progressive. It came because he was actually proposing new ideas. Bold ideas. That's the main thing lacking at the top of the Democratic Party, boldness.

Schumer + Pelosi are fairly liberal, but they're not out to change the world. They're not visionaries, or idealists. That's often a good thing for leaders to have, but the consequence is that the base feels like their leaders don't really care about the ideas they say they support. There's no sense of urgency.

[publicunofficial]

A lot of Bernie's excitement didn't come from him being a progressive. It came because he was actually proposing new ideas. Bold ideas. That's the main thing lacking at the top of the Democratic Party, boldness.

Schumer + Pelosi are fairly liberal, but they're not out to change the world. They're not visionaries, or idealists. That's often a good thing for leaders to have, but the consequence is that the base feels like their leaders don't really care about the ideas they say they support. There's no sense of urgency.

Exactly. And that's a big deal. The US needs new ideas. The world needs new ideas. The recipes of the past just haven't been working for the mass of the people.

Precisely. The moderate position, of both parties, is usually the status quo. When only the radical left/right are actually creating new proposals, of course people will gravitate to them.

The left largely wants a national health service, legal marijuana and an end to the drug war, a de-escalation of America's role as "world policeman", stronger protections for unionized labor, and a near complete overhaul of America's education system top-to-bottom. Now find me a Democrat in office outside of Madison City Councilman who's a strong advocate for all of those things. That's the left's problem.

[publicunofficial]

THEY'VE LEARNED NOTHING

THIS ISN'T A MATH PROBLEM YOU MINDLESS TECHNOCRATS

That interview made me hate Maloney so much. He's clearly of the mindset that the Dems should cut their losses in rural America and become a minorities + wealthy urbanites party.

[publicunofficial]

I haven't read anything about Trump this week that's infuriated me as much as that paragraph.

Every critique of the Democratic establishment is made flesh in Sean Patrick Maloney.

[publicunofficial]

I haven't read anything about Trump this week that's infuriated me as much as that paragraph.

Then you have your priorities seriously out of wack.

Are you serious? These people are the only thing we have stopping us from all the terrible madness Trump is proposing, and their way of mobilizing people against the terrible sycophants in power is more math problems.

The outrage you're expressing reminds me of the outrage about Pelosi saying this country is capitalist. Much to do about nothing.

Do you recall that Obama had an advanced data operation in his two presidential campaigns? It paid off in spades. I mean the way that guy said it was dumb, but you have to use some elements of data when targeting districts.

If Trump's policies make you mad, you should be equally outraged at Democrat messaging and strategy that allows Trump and his supporters to win.

[publicunofficial]

On the topic of how awful Dem leadership is, here's a choice quote from Pelosi today:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"We stand for nothing and have no ideology, unlike those crazies who keep beating us in elections."

[publicunofficial]

Interesting CNN piece on the arguments Dems are having regarding the 2016 autopsy and the party going forward:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[publicunofficial]

Dem leadership sucks, part XVII:

[publicunofficial]

If Perez is nominated for DNC chair, it's pretty obvious that any real change in the Democratic Party is going to have to come up from the bottom-up, not starting at the national level.

This is honestly sad, though. Instead of realizing where the real energy is and trying to capture that, the DNC would rather sink their heels in further and clutch on to the same ideas that have failed them the last 20 years.

Quoting for future reference. If Ellison is the chair, Ds will suffer. Call me stupid if you want, but I really don't see how putting a anti-Semitic 9-11 truther as party leader is going to do any good. And that's what Ellison is, whether you want to believe it or not.

Oh I will.

[publicunofficial]

I'm still mad about the "Perez will appeal to centrists!" argument. Who gives a crap? When Republicans selected Reince Priebus, did they think about what moderates and liberals would think or did they go for whoever they thought would do the best job?

Also, being close to the center politically has NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW LIKABLE YOU ARE. Dem leadership really needs to gets this through their head. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was relatively centrist and everybody on all sides of the political spectrum hated her. A charismatic and likable idealist will beat a bland and unlikable centrist every time, unless the electorate is made up of Democratic Party insiders.

[publicunofficial]

As others have said, most of the issue isn't with Perez himself. It's that many Democrats in power want him simply because they don't want Ellison. I don't think he'd be a disaster at all, but I think it would signify that the "corporate" wing of the Democratic Party is still the one that gets to call the shots and get their choice of candidate.

This. I have no problem with Perez and political positions are mostly irrelevant for DNC Chair. It's the fact that Perez is very clearly the candidate favored by the people holding the Democrats back.

[publicunofficial]

I support Ellison, but screw the hacks, I think Perez would do a fine job too, as long as the Bernie bros don't throw a hissy fit and refuse to turn out to vote in the midterms just because they couldn't get their way.

Can we please stop calling them "BernieBros" and call them what they actually are, "supporters"? It's honestly so disrespectful to hear this from fellow Democrats who talk all they want about "party unity" yet jump at the opportunity to ridicule the left.

In my case, it's less ridicule, and more frustration towards those who would rather allow the Republicans stay in power just because they aren't willing to give an inch on policy and on representation to the centrist wing.  As I said, I do hope Ellison wins, but I think it's equally important that those on the left realize that we have to be unified if we don't want the country to be shaped in the image of Trump and his base.  

Beyond that, I think Perez deserves a chance if he wins.  He's evidently a competent and open-minded person, and I think he could be a positive contribution to the party.

There's a difference between "we need to be unified" and "we need to present an entirely centrist vision of our party". Right now it feels like the only power progressives have is the voting base and not any of the institutions.

[publicunofficial]

The AP has a whip count of:

Perez: 205
Ellison: 153
Harrison: 27
Boynton-Brown: 10
Buttigieg: 8

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/eb51ce519f9c430fbf5bff5a42b441ca/dnc-race-remains-tight-energized-democrats-combat-trump

If true, Boynton-Brown being ahead of Buttigieg justifies burning the DNC to the ground.

[publicunofficial]

While I agree it's disappointing that it looks like Ellison or Buttigieg won't win, I think people are overrating the actual power the DNC head has.

Why now, does everyone care about a position that has meant very little in the past? Why place more meaning into this then there needs to be? Everyone is just going to end up being disappointed when the essences of the party establishment chooses the establishment candidate. If the Sanders wing is the future, they will take over the party in due time anyway.

Ask yourself this: If you were happy with DWS as DNC chair, and wanted her policies to continue, who would you be supporting?