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

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

In reality,  believing that "oh white people are so racist they would FREAK OUT if a black guy was leader" would be proof the Democrats have learnt the wrong lesson from 2016.

Yeah, especially since many of these people, as I keep saying, voted for Obama twice.

I don't think Ellison would necessarily be the best option but I don't think he'd be a particularly bad option either.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Great, encouraging sign for Jews, the single group that trended most Democratic in the 2016 election. It would be truly shameful if Ellison won this, turning the Democratic Party into the next UK Labour where anti-Jewish sentiments are actively being promoted by the leadership. Just what we need in these times of uncertainty. Of course, an anti-Jewish turn in the Democratic Party was to be expected given the developments on college campuses, but if Hillary Clinton had been elected, the process could at least have been slowed down.

Both are deplorable, but I'd prefer Bannon over Ellison and it's not even close.

Okay, I'll bite: what has Ellison ever said that can construed as "anti-Semitic"?

I'm wondering this too. I generally understand and respect David's perspective on Jewish issues, even when I disagree with it, but I'm scratching my head here.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Jesus ing Christ, people.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

Fortunately, there are more swingable working people than there are swingable guys with briefcases hustling someplace.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

But...it was a benefit to the Republican Party to go far-right.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Berniecrats in this thread:

"Wah, wah, the candidate I liked more 'cause muh tone and symbols lost the fundraising and electoral strategizing role to someone I don't like cause muh neolibrals."

GMAFB

Electoral strategizing is, in fact, the main thing that there's reason to believe Perez will be non-trivially worse at.