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

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

A question:

How many actual DNC members have endorsed Ellison? He's rolling out a ton of endorsements (including my favorite Indianapolis city counselor, oddly) but very, very few of them will actually cast a vote in February if I interpret the rules correctly.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Just gonna drop these here:
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.755032

http://jstreet.org/press-releases/continuing-attacks-congressman-ellison-seek-silence-legitimate-positions-israel/#.WENTg7IrLZY


Now if we can stop hyperventilating about Ellison's "Antisemitism":

Does anyone have a count of how many votes he's actually publicly locked down?

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

With this, I remain a believer in the concept of the Jewish, Israeli state, but it should've been socialist, actual egalitarian socialism (mapam), and Israel wouldn't be as such segregated and discriminatory to the Palestinian People.

(Ignoring the normal, ugly, Israel vs Palestinians arguments in this thread)

I understand your point of view as a Socialist, but Mapam was at times a low point for Israeli democracy (though the current government is trying really hard to compete). Their almost absolute power harmed the freedom of speech and created a nest of corruption and discrimination towards Jewish immigrants from Muslim countries. In the end, their slight authoritainism sewed the seeds of some characteristics of current Israeli society that I dislike, like the sanctifying of the army and anything related to it, the corrupt primaries in the major parties, that are controlled by special interest groups, and some generally corrupt and disfunctional systems (like the Broadcasting Authority and the main labour unions).

They were the only one's that had Palestinian members, had a policy for co-existence, and didn't support the expulsion of Palestinian from their lands, causing the problems they had, a lot of which Mapai did or didn't support. I believe if Mapam had been elected, Israel and Palestine would've been a been a better place, though more soviet-orientated it would have been. I really don't understand how a party that only once got second place had absolute control

Ellison is a poor choice. He would alienate pro-Israel voters and white working class voters (especially suburban and rural voters).

What portion of voters do you think can name the chair of the DNC and the RNC? Of that portion, what portion do you think will change their party allegiance over an appointment to it?

The primary qualifications for a D/RNC chair are A) raising money B) (re)structuring the party and distributing resources and C) raising money. The optics of who that person is are, at best, one news story when they're elected and one when they leave. No one else outside of the Beltway/Political Nerddom will care. 

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

No, a moderate like me would not vote for Waserman-Schultz. I think someone far more centrist would be a good choice to appeal to rural and suburban voters.

Well you're in luck, since a pillar of Keith's platform is to expand party capacity outside of the cities, and to make the party rural friendly!

Seriously. Who Keith is or what he believes does not, I repeat does not have any bearing on his work as chair, or how his election will serve the Democratic party. He wants to re-organize it on populist grounds, and orient it towards picking up people in rural areas, cities, and the burbs who do not vote or do not vote Democrat.

Obama is more moderate than Ellison. I don't think Ellison is necessarily anti-semitic, but the ADL opposes him being picked. I don't rember the ADL opposing Obama's candidacy for President. I think someone more moderate would be a better choice. There isn't really a party that favorably views moderates like me.

Obama did not run as a centrist. He ran in 2008 promising to re-negotiate NAFTA and to stop sending our soldiers to die in bad wars. He ran as a lefty whose message was "Hope" and "Change" for Pete's sake. He ran in 2012 saying that he had saved the auto industry and that his opponent was Mr. Potter from It's a Wonderful Life in the flesh.

The way forward is not moderates like DWS certainly, and that is the only kind of Democrat that the modern Democratic party currently has on offer.

But again, Ellison's ideology is not the point of his candidacy for DNC chair. Ideally, he would be elected and never appear in a headline outside of Rollcall ever again. He is promising to re-shape the party to talk to people who have been left out of the elitist governing of the US for the past 20 years, and to talk to them more effectively (from a technical perspective). If you feel left out of the Democratic party because it doesn't care about you, and you aren't a rich suburbanite in upper management of a large corporation, Keith is your guy.

Also, J Street has emphatically stated that he's not an anti-semite, FWIW.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Does anyone in this thread understand that the DNC chair has virtually no influence over policy and that the vast majority of voters don't even know who holds the position much less vote based on it?

Yes, yes I do.

That said, of course, the DNC Chair is (informally) a pretty powerful figure in determining the ethos, direction, and balance of power with in the party. It would be a significant notch in the belt of the Bernie/Warren wing if we were to bring the chairship in.

Having an anti-Semitic DNC chair gives the Republicans a pretty effective attack line, especially when called out on their race-baiting.

It's pretty clear at this point that he's not so much anti-semitic as an inflection point in the right/left conflict between various Jewish groups in DC/the broader world. At this point I've read as many defenses of his pro-Semitism as I have hit pieces.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Ellison is a smug, overconfident extreme elitist. That's a good reflection of present day Democratic party. A mirror image of Republicans: as French Bourbons of 19th century they "forgot nothing and learned nothing". If 2016 (after 2010 and 2014) didn't taught Democrats anything - they are, probably, as hopeless as Republicans are..

Which of his statements make you think that he's a smug elitist?

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

More behavoir. He doesn't want to recognize (though Minnesota gave ample examples this year) that Democratic party is not only minorities and well-to-do social liberals. Minnesota seems limited to Minneapolis and St. Paul to him. A man, who seems to relish isolated life in well-equipped "ivory tower" of his, and is utterly unable to expand the Democratic "big tent" or return voters, who defected to Trump this year . On the contrary - he seems to care about "ultraprogressives" like himself only.. I don't even speak about possible problems with Jewish Democrats (one of last white groups still mostly loyal to party) under his leadership and past statements, bordering on direct antisemitism.

Uhh, he's a Congressman from MSP. Which Congresspeople do you know that go outside of their district routinely?

Also, have you been to MSP recently? While it's a very nice metro, it isn't exactly an ivory tower full of rich limousine liberals.

Here's a direct quote from his platform:
"We must energize Democratic activists across the country and give them the tools to build the Party from the bottom up. Beyond a 50-state strategy, we need a 3,143-county strategy. DNC members are on the front lines in these states and counties, and we must harness your experience and give you a meaningful voice as we set the direction for the Party. In a DNC Chair, you need a partner and an advocate who will ensure you have the resources you need to win.
We must also reclaim our history as the Party that stands with working people."

Also, not to mention, while I think we need to convince some portion of Trump voters to come back into the fold the *FAR* bigger problem was that Clinton simply didn't motivate working class voters that already liked Dems to come out and vote. By the numbers, Clinton lost *WAY * more working class votes to staying at home than Trump gained over Romney this cycle.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Yeah, keep that cynical use of identity politics going. Despite the fact Ellison wrote a paper on Farrakhan twenty years ago, let's dump an actual chance at rebuilding the Democratic Party and go with "safe choice" Tom "progressive who gets things done" Perez.

So your idea is to tell Jews that we shouldn't worry about anti-Semitism and that if we do then it's just "identity politics?"  Pathetic.

You are in a setting in which most of us care about opposing antisemitism but also don't believe that there is any credible evidence that Keith Ellison is an antisemite. There's an easy way to resolve this: Show us that Keith Ellison has done antisemitic things.

Instead, you are taking a claim that ought to be treated seriously and treating it as the equivalent of a playground taunt. It is  wrong, it disgusts me, and I know that you can do better than that.

You know, I have to say, I read some more about this and it looks like most of the stuff Ellison said was in 1989 or 1990.  I still think that Perez is a better pick, but I'm much less invested in this race now.  Mea Culpa

Weren't you a #NeverHillary Democrat in the campaign? I can't imagine why anyone who isn't a Hillary hack would think Perez is a genuinely good choice (as opposed to the lesser evil).

I came around a week or two before the RNC, actually.  I really don't like Hillary, but she was far better than Trump.  And that's exactly how I see Perez: the lesser of two evils.  Neither would be a good Chairman IMO, but I think Perez is at least a better choice from the fundraising perspective which is a key part of the job (DNC chairs have little influence over party policy positions).  I'd rather Ellison stay in the House and try to move up in leadership, it seems like a much better fit.

Why do you think Perez is a better choice for fundraising? As far as I can tell, he's only raised $200,000 in his entire political career.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

It's so irritating seeing the Bernie fanatics sh**t all over Perez because he doesn't fulfill every requirement on their ideological litmus test. Just because Perez doesn't share all your views doesn't mean that he's a CLINTONISTA SHILL GLOBALIST BIG MONEY PUPPET

That's an idiotic comment and you know it.  The opposition to Perez has little to do with ideological litmus tests.

Then what does it have to do with?

For me it's a very clear cut factional struggle within the party.

Ellison is My Guy, and Perez is backed by The Other Guys. The Other Guys have been screwing up the party for 20 years.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

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.

If you look at a spectrum... Progressives are the furthest away from the majority of the country (as are the far right)... so it is a bit natural that neither of these 2 sides is ever going to get everything they want. But sometimes I feel like progressives want all or nothing (or think a politician should support all of their positions... or they are a total sell out).

Don't get me wrong- I agree with many if not most of the Progressive policy stances... But I consider myself more moderate sometimes... almost solely because I'm not willing to demonize a Dem politician who has a more moderate stance on a few issues.

If you look at policy polling numbers, you'll find that this is patently untrue. When presented with policy options from a living wage to Medicare for all, vast majorities of the population support the progressive option.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

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.

If you look at a spectrum... Progressives are the furthest away from the majority of the country (as are the far right)... so it is a bit natural that neither of these 2 sides is ever going to get everything they want. But sometimes I feel like progressives want all or nothing (or think a politician should support all of their positions... or they are a total sell out).

Don't get me wrong- I agree with many if not most of the Progressive policy stances... But I consider myself more moderate sometimes... almost solely because I'm not willing to demonize a Dem politician who has a more moderate stance on a few issues.

If you look at policy polling numbers, you'll find that this is patently untrue. When presented with policy options from a living wage to Medicare for all, vast majorities of the population support the progressive option.

I think that's definitely true among Dems (which is why I said Progressives and Moderates agree on 80% of policy).  I don't trust numbers that attribute many republican with similar views... Most Republicans I've every know... Don't like Hillary's views- But thought Bernie's policies were a total joke (of course this is likely more so the case in the South East)

The polls are not of Democrats. They are nationwide, general population polls.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

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 (meaning the prog/populist wing) are going to have to end the Democratic careers of the other side if we ever want the Democratic Party to succeed.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

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 Buttgieg be better?  Sure.  Alas, you can't always get what you want

Sure. But being magnanimous every time we lose is what's kept us at the bottom of the pecking order  since what, Bradley challenged Gore?

I liked to think there was a chance that the DNC would have learned the error of its ways after November. As little faith as I had in them to begin with, it really would be better for everyone concerned if the Bernie win didn't have to fight its way, inch by inch, county by county, into control. It would be better for everyone if the establishment would agree to work with the Bernie wing, and take its demands seriously. But then in response to a portion of the establishment getting a clue, they decided to put up a candidate whose qualifications appear to be raising 200k in his political career, his policy portfolio, and his loyalty to the outgoing President. It would have been really nice for cooperation to work.

I mean, it's great that he's not DWS. But I don't want the Establishment picking a candidate amenable to both sides from a policy perspective - I want our faction to have a turn at the wheel.  

As for Indies who have no faith in the party like Arch... I frankly can't blame them. I know that the Democratic party is the only electoral option, but damn. We have a unique talent at shooting ourselves in the foot.  

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

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 mean, everyone is saying they're going to give money to the states. Because the states are the electorate. Once he's in office...? Who knows.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

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

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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?

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.

I know.

Indeed, the point is that the two parties have a stranglehold on American democracy.

So which one are we going to pick?