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

[I’m not Stu]

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).

[I’m not Stu]

a populist would alienate working-class voters?

this seems like a strange concept for me.

once again: those people voted for effing BARACK hussein OBAMA.

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.

[I’m not Stu]

a populist would alienate working-class voters?

this seems like a strange concept for me.

once again: those people voted for effing BARACK hussein OBAMA.

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.

oh, i am pretty much concernced about the kind of anti-zionism on the left which often ignores faults in other states and/or in the actions of israel's enemies.

but...to paraphrase:

would a moderate have voted for wasserman-schultz? especially since this job includes tainting your soul.

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.

[I’m not Stu]

I would really like a moderate to be chairperson. That would be great for me. A moderate is more likely to appeal to voters in the solidly GOP state legislative districts where I live in California.

[I’m not Stu]

a populist would alienate working-class voters?

this seems like a strange concept for me.

once again: those people voted for effing BARACK hussein OBAMA.

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.

oh, i am pretty much concernced about the kind of anti-zionism on the left which often ignores faults in other states and/or in the actions of israel's enemies.

but...to paraphrase:

would a moderate have voted for wasserman-schultz? especially since this job includes tainting your soul.

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.

This isn't 1996 my guy. Wishy washy centrism isn't a good course for the Democrats politically if they want to win back rural voters. The Democratic Party needs to become a full on working-class party if it wants to compete in places like Pennsylvania and Michigan. Clintonite neoliberalism will only further damage the Democratic Party in rural areas.

Where I live in suburban California, the GOP dominates. Where I live is home to several white collar businesspeople. Anti-ACA, pro-gun, pro-business, conservative Democrats would at least be more competitive in my community, and would be more appealing to social moderates. Centrists like me don't have a home in any party.

[I’m not Stu]

[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.

This isn't 1996 my guy. Wishy washy centrism isn't a good course for the Democrats politically if they want to win back rural voters. The Democratic Party needs to become a full on working-class party if it wants to compete in places like Pennsylvania and Michigan. Clintonite neoliberalism will only further damage the Democratic Party in rural areas.

Where I live in suburban California, the GOP dominates. Where I live is home to several white collar businesspeople. Anti-ACA, pro-gun, pro-business, conservative Democrats would at least be more competitive in my community, and would be more appealing to social moderates. Centrists like me don't have a home in any party.

Are you a moderate or a centrist? No they are not the same thing, so make up your mind dude!

And honestly, having somebody like you complain about underrepresentation is quite ridiculous when you realize that neither the economic or cultural elites of both parties accept people like the man in my sig.

Look at my signature. I'm a center-right moderate libertarian.

[I’m not Stu]

[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.

This isn't 1996 my guy. Wishy washy centrism isn't a good course for the Democrats politically if they want to win back rural voters. The Democratic Party needs to become a full on working-class party if it wants to compete in places like Pennsylvania and Michigan. Clintonite neoliberalism will only further damage the Democratic Party in rural areas.

Where I live in suburban California, the GOP dominates. Where I live is home to several white collar businesspeople. Anti-ACA, pro-gun, pro-business, conservative Democrats would at least be more competitive in my community, and would be more appealing to social moderates. Centrists like me don't have a home in any party.

Are you a moderate or a centrist? No they are not the same thing, so make up your mind dude!

And honestly, having somebody like you complain about underrepresentation is quite ridiculous when you realize that neither the economic or cultural elites of both parties accept people like the man in my sig.

Look at my signature. I'm a center-right moderate libertarian.

Fycking hell, you're a republican, you support a flat tax, oppose ACA, and support thatcherite economics. What in that speels social justice and social equality to you.

I support same-sex marriage, ending the war on drugs, legalizing marijuana, criminal justice reform, raising the minimum wage, and I'm also pro-choice.

[I’m not Stu]

I think the party needs a much bigger tent to satisfy establishment, progressive, centrist neoliberal, and centrist populist voters. Expanding to include both moderate neoliberal and moderate populist voters would give centrists a home.