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

[Virginiá]

I don't really know enough about Ellison or Dean to know who's really the best choice. But the DNC chair is an administrative role, not someone who has to directly appeal to voters.

That's true, but they also need to earn back some credibility here. This election has been a stain on the DNC, and it seems Dean is not viewed so well anymore. The last thing the party should be doing is installing a lobbyist as the chair.

[Virginiá]

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 already posted this in this thread.

Also, why exactly do you think identity politics is the reason (putting aside those 2 dumb things you just said)?

[Virginiá]

Tom Perez would be a very strong DNC Chair. He pushed O'Malley to victory in 2006, by a margin almost 5% greater than was thought likely.

Selfishly I'd like to see Perez challenge Hogan, but he would also be a very good DNC Chair.

Very much agreed!

I do like Ellison for chair, but at the same time, I don't want the next chair to have any personal problems or history that would make them the focus of the media. They need to be bland and boring. Anything else just gives conservatives something to attack us on. Whoever the next chair also needs to be able to form a competent and effective strategy for 2018 and beyond, so I suppose that is really the most important goal here.

I hope my party doesn't screw this up too. It's time they understand that the old way of doing things is finished.

[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.

[Virginiá]

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

Yes, you are right, but I wasn't trying to imply that the chair should no matter what. I meant someone should in response to a couple posts of his that have deemphasized the importance of fundraising for the party. It shouldn't be the only major goal by any means, nor should the party adopt policy visions of donors when they go against what is best for America and what the party stands for, but raising lots of money for downballot races / GOTV operations is still very much necessary. A diminished effect of money on a presidential race is one thing, but it doesn't speak the same way to races further down the ticket where money is more effective, particularly for candidates with low name recognition. It's like an assault rifle - just because it can't do anything to a tank does not mean it's not useful at all. It still works on the smaller/weaker/less-armored targets.

[Virginiá]

Watch this, and if you still support Perez after watching it, you're no progressive:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ByXdb_E6FM

What a pathetic, stupid, little man.

He serves at the pleasure of the President. And the President supports TPP. Get over it

I was going to post something similar, but scrolled up and saw yours (though I suppose I'd have been a bit more diplomatic). Perez and other cabinet officials are not free to do whatever they want. Just because Perez, as part of his official duties, defends Obama's initiatives does not mean he believes in them or would propose/support them if he had a say. It's like the job of a public defender. You may not like/believe/support the people you are defending, but you are there to do a job and not push your own agenda.

I don't support TPP, but I find it unfair to hold it against Perez. If he comes out for it post-admin, then that is a different story. If we want to make progress on liberal ideas, we can't go throwing people under the bus for things like this.

[Virginiá]

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.

[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.

[Virginiá]

I think Democrats/liberals would be wise to avoid the same issues that have plagued the GOP. You need to be able to compromise, and not expect everything to come together exactly as you want it all at the same time. Sometimes incremental progress is really all you can realistically get, and sometimes you can move faster. I'm not sure if this is possible if we are advocating purging everyone who dissents on more than a few issues.

I'm curious to see how the party deals with all of this over the next 4 years. This seems like a pretty critical time for the party and American politics in general.

[Virginiá]

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.

[Virginiá]

...

THEY'VE LEARNED NOTHING

THIS ISN'T A MATH PROBLEM YOU MINDLESS TECHNOCRATS

It still comes down to a question of where limited resources would be best used. I think it would be important to know which of these rural / working class districts that we have gone down hill in would be actually winnable with the right candidates & right amount of engagement/resources. There are some districts where we might be able to get our support up a little bit in, but are more or less out of reach in most elections, and we shouldn't be dumping as much money/time into those places as D+ / emerging suburban GOP-held districts that we have a much better shot.

If we decide to broaden our outreach significantly, which I think we should within means, we still need to prioritize certain districts above others.

[Virginiá]

Why is Buttigieg suddenly in vogue? What happened with Ellison?

[Virginiá]

Look, I have nothing against Perez but its just annoying as f to see forces in our party just aligned behind one person just because a small group of people said so. We need new influences in the party and just relying on the same old playbook is gonna cost us, its already costing big time.  

Will they for sure though? I see wide acknowledgement that the party needs to focus more on building up support in rural areas along with more of a focus on organizing and connecting with voters, so I think it's disingenuous to say there will be no change in strategy.

From what I can tell the assumption is that because certain actors from the wing of the party we want to move past are backing Perez, then the thinking is by default that he will make sure nothing changes, which I think is bogus, but ok. Perez isn't some neoliberal hack - at least give him a chance if he wins.

[Virginiá]

Perez supports TPP, so of course he's a neoliberal hack.

Not that I don't support Ellison anyway, but I really do hope he wins because if he doesn't, people like you are never going to let it go. We could get a huge wave in 2018, take back the House and a dozen Governors offices, and you'd still be here saying "would have been bigger with Ellison."

[Virginiá]

Listen I like Perez but choosing him over Keith will be a f**king disater. The party needs unity and the Bernie eing will bolt if Keith loses to someone who supports Tpp

This is more of an activist issue anyway. Voters do not care about this stuff, and even the ones that do will probably come around by election time. The Democratic Party will remain for the foreseeable future the best option for basically anyone on the left to turn their visions into public policy. In our election system, it would be much easier to change the party than to work outside of it. In this case it may take more than one presidential election loss to make a lot of progress in party reform, though.

In the end, if the public turns against Trump and Republicans by 2018, Democrats will likely make significant gains under the stewardship of either of these guys.

Anyway, I hate this kind of intra-party squabbling, so I am just going to check back here when a decision is close to being made.

[Virginiá]

Yes, picking Perez is an insult to the progressive wing, and yes, they have a right to be mad about it. However, it's not like Perez is some Third Way hack. Looking at his own ideology and ideas for the party suggest a decent amount of overlap with Ellison. I think it would unfair to say his strategy be a failure right off the bat. At least reserve ultimate judgement for 2018 and 2020.

That being said, parties are not changed overnight. The Bernie wing has made good progress so far. People who have a hold on the party right now aren't going to be inclined to just hand it over without a fight, but at this point I think it's clear that the old guard is on its way out. The next 4 years should be a relatively productive time if the energy we are seeing is directed appropriately. A bad idea would be for progressives to get upset at losing this spot this time and reviving the typical, time-tested quixotic liberal ideas of a new party or otherwise working against the Democratic Party rather than from within, where actual progress can and is being made.

[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.

[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.

[Virginiá]

I feel like the Bernie wing of the Democratic party has been fighting tooth and nail every step of the way just to have a voice at the table. It's as if the "old guard" of the DNC is resisting us every step of the way, while at the same time screaming in our faces to "suck it up and stay in line!" Why does the establishment need a symbolic victory?

That's how it goes. They aren't just going to hand over control without a fight. They would rather ride the party into the ground then just step aside, especially considering that some of them believe the progressive wing will drag the party too far to the left and make it unappealing in more moderate/conservative areas we need to do better in. Admittedly, I can't say I blame them - the number of purists who think liberals can win everywhere is either growing in the party and/or becoming much louder.

Point is, if the bernie wing wants to take over, it is going to have to fight for it.