Democrats' DNC Chair Poll

[OneJ]

This race has already been described as one that could become another Hill v. Bern fight.

I have to admit, this is not an easy choice to make. Tbh, I haven't done much research on the two. I'll probably do some soon, but in the meantime, I'm interested in your opinions (preferably from Liberals Democratic or not).

So let the polling and discussion begin.

[Maxwell]

I like both, but it's Ellison for me.

[OneJ]

Perez is one of the better Cabinet Secretaries in recent memory and I'd like to see him run for elected office in the future (personally, I think he's one of our best options in 2020), but he doesn't want to be Chair and isn't running out of his own free will; it seems like he was pretty much bullied into it by business interests terrified by Ellison, and it's clear that his campaign for Chair is little more than a proxy by the departing administration to maintain control of the party. Ellison, in addition to being a Massive FF in Congress, has a clear plan to reform the Democratic Party both ideologically and in it's core structure, and having a prominent Muslim political leader is more important than ever in the age of Trump. This really isn't a difficult choice, IMO.

Amazing point.

[America Needs R'hllor]

I prefer Perez, but for the sake of Democrats not imploding a few months into Trump's presidency, Ellison.

[OneJ]

I prefer Perez, but for the sake of Democrats not imploding a few months into Trump's presidency, Ellison.

That's one reason why I think Ellison might be the safer choice.

[PresidentSamTilden]

Definitely lean Ellison...has some energy to him, progressives are excited about him, and he seems focused on rebuilding the party on a local level. I think that's important considering the losses of recent years.

Haven't heard much about or from Perez at all.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Perez.

[Mr. Smith]

Ellison.

[Blue3]

I have major concerns about Ellison, but I choose him. Being progressive and unafraid to make a stand, and being Muslim, are good assets. And this way the Bernie people won't be able to complain about the 2020 primaries.

Perez seems fine, but I hate him being "the Obama administration choice." I love Obama, but I hate that kind of thing. Obama's political choices hurt, and his management of the DNC in the past has been pretty bad. If he stood on his own, Perez would have a better chance than being the stand-in for the Obama administration at this point.

[Beet]

Ellison, because he supported Bernie. We need someone who's seen as not having been party to any alleged tilt by the national committee in the primaries.

[fhtagn]

Ellison.

[Horus]

Ellison, and the smear campaign against him from the Israel lobby is utterly despicable.

[JA]

Ellison.

[I’m not Stu]

Perez. This is a no-brainer for me. Although I'm no fan of Perez, Ellison's views on 9/11 and Israel concern me.

[bagelman]

Ellison is the only option, and the biggest factor in this is that the Bernie crowd is behind him. I don't care why, what's important is that the DNC caters to Sander's followers.

If the DNC selects Perez despite no grassroots support, it will be a symbolic rejects of Bernie Sanders and all his supporters in favor of Clintonite toryism* that just got DONALD TRUMP elected president out of their pathetic incompetence. This is the wing of the party that focused on losing issues like abortion and whining about muh diversity** as opposed to bread and butter issues that are actually relevant day-to-day to people of all races and skin tones like childcare expenses and university expenses and all the other expenses.

As for the Israeli opposition

1. The DNC chair does not have a say in foreign policy. If that was true than Obama's latter years in office would've been different.

2. Stop making accusations without backing them up. I created a poll on here last month back asking if people thought Ellison was anti-semitic. I was concerned about the idea that we'd let an anti-semite be the DNC chair but then nobody gave me concrete evidence of it despite it being as simple as posting a link to a news article.

*doesn't matter if she would've been a good president on economic issues, perception and symbolism is everything.

**the Hispanic vote swung towards Trump. Unbelievable.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

This is the wing of the party that focused on losing issues like abortion and whining about muh diversity**

No, they didn't. Clinton spent her time basically attacking trump as abhorrent (and she did say things about policy, which the media never bothered to cover because hyper-focusing on her attacks on trump and emails was better for ratings), and it likely would have worked if it wasn't for the FBI letter and its convenient release date. Plus, abortion isn't a losing issue, its what makes pro-choice voters choose democrats, but it isn't a good thing to base a campaign entirely around, as you only need to say a certain amount about it to energize the base and after that it really doesn't do much but make you seem like a joke.

[Young Conservative]

Rep. Keith Ellison will destroy the Democratic suburban gains and do little if nothing to help them change their image to appeal to working class whites...Howard dean would've been the most effective chair of those considering running in my opinion.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ellison is the only reasonable choice.

[bagelman]

This is the wing of the party that focused on losing issues like abortion and whining about muh diversity**

No, they didn't. Clinton spent her time basically attacking trump as abhorrent (and she did say things about policy, which the media never bothered to cover because hyper-focusing on her attacks on trump and emails was better for ratings), and it likely would have worked if it wasn't for the FBI letter and its convenient release date. Plus, abortion isn't a losing issue, its what makes pro-choice voters choose democrats, but it isn't a good thing to base a campaign entirely around, as you only need to say a certain amount about it to energize the base and after that it really doesn't do much but make you seem like a joke.

Clinton didn't focus on the bread and butter issues, or was perceived to not focus on them. This is all that matters. You disagree on what losing issues she was perceived to focus on. All issues that aren't bread and butter are losing issues. If I live in a midwestern town that's been shrinking in population for nearly half a century I'd want the Democratic nominee to focus on true economic issues that cater to the working poor and restore employment and make having families economically viable again, not fighting for abortion which is a vehicle to further reduce the population and irrelevant pearl clutching on how her opponent is a big fat meanie pants. Otherwise I might be persuaded to vote for the guy who actually visited PA factory towns and actually gave a speech in front of a wall of recycled cans. That latter part was my favorite part of the Trump campaign and the Democrats will keep losing if they don't compete on this front.

Ellison's not perfect, I'm sure there's a lot not to like about him, but what I'm seeing here is a proxy battle of Sanders vs. Clinton, and Clinton lost to Donald Trump. All I'm seeing from Perez is that he's supported by the driftwood within the party and he uses Clinton campaign slogans.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

This is the wing of the party that focused on losing issues like abortion and whining about muh diversity**

No, they didn't. Clinton spent her time basically attacking trump as abhorrent (and she did say things about policy, which the media never bothered to cover because hyper-focusing on her attacks on trump and emails was better for ratings), and it likely would have worked if it wasn't for the FBI letter and its convenient release date. Plus, abortion isn't a losing issue, its what makes pro-choice voters choose democrats, but it isn't a good thing to base a campaign entirely around, as you only need to say a certain amount about it to energize the base and after that it really doesn't do much but make you seem like a joke.

Clinton didn't focus on the bread and butter issues, or was perceived to not focus on them. This is all that matters. You disagree on what losing issues she was perceived to focus on. All issues that aren't bread and butter are losing issues. If I live in a midwestern town that's been shrinking in population for nearly half a century I'd want the Democratic nominee to focus on true economic issues that cater to the working poor and restore employment and make having families economically viable again, not fighting for abortion which is a vehicle to further reduce the population and irrelevant pearl clutching on how her opponent is a big fat meanie pants. Otherwise I might be persuaded to vote for the guy who actually visited PA factory towns and actually gave a speech in front of a wall of recycled cans. That latter part was my favorite part of the Trump campaign and the Democrats will keep losing if they don't compete on this front.

Ellison's not perfect, I'm sure there's a lot not to like about him, but what I'm seeing here is a proxy battle of Sanders vs. Clinton, and Clinton lost to Donald Trump. All I'm seeing from Perez is that he's supported by the driftwood within the party and he uses Clinton campaign slogans.

Non bread-and-butter issues can very much be winning (gay marriage for Rs until public opinion turned, immigration, etc.). The fact is, when it comes to evaluating candidates, perception of the candidates group, proxy wars, etc. should be completely ignored. What matters is who is better suited to actually do the role. Picking someone because they endorsed bernie flies in the face of this truth. This also applies to bernie himself. A blind ideologue who appeals to populist sympathies and doesn't appear to actually understand the issues or real solutions (his plans add an ungodly 17 trillion to the deficit) shouldn't have a chance at the presidency. Voting based on someone appearing to talk to the people has a danger of breaking that fact(see trump).

[Shadows]

This is the wing of the party that focused on losing issues like abortion and whining about muh diversity**

No, they didn't. Clinton spent her time basically attacking trump as abhorrent (and she did say things about policy, which the media never bothered to cover because hyper-focusing on her attacks on trump and emails was better for ratings), and it likely would have worked if it wasn't for the FBI letter and its convenient release date. Plus, abortion isn't a losing issue, its what makes pro-choice voters choose democrats, but it isn't a good thing to base a campaign entirely around, as you only need to say a certain amount about it to energize the base and after that it really doesn't do much but make you seem like a joke.

Clinton didn't focus on the bread and butter issues, or was perceived to not focus on them. This is all that matters. You disagree on what losing issues she was perceived to focus on. All issues that aren't bread and butter are losing issues. If I live in a midwestern town that's been shrinking in population for nearly half a century I'd want the Democratic nominee to focus on true economic issues that cater to the working poor and restore employment and make having families economically viable again, not fighting for abortion which is a vehicle to further reduce the population and irrelevant pearl clutching on how her opponent is a big fat meanie pants. Otherwise I might be persuaded to vote for the guy who actually visited PA factory towns and actually gave a speech in front of a wall of recycled cans. That latter part was my favorite part of the Trump campaign and the Democrats will keep losing if they don't compete on this front.

Ellison's not perfect, I'm sure there's a lot not to like about him, but what I'm seeing here is a proxy battle of Sanders vs. Clinton, and Clinton lost to Donald Trump. All I'm seeing from Perez is that he's supported by the driftwood within the party and he uses Clinton campaign slogans.

Non bread-and-butter issues can very much be winning (gay marriage for Rs until public opinion turned, immigration, etc.). The fact is, when it comes to evaluating candidates, perception of the candidates group, proxy wars, etc. should be completely ignored. What matters is who is better suited to actually do the role. Picking someone because they endorsed bernie flies in the face of this truth. This also applies to bernie himself. A blind ideologue who appeals to populist sympathies and doesn't appear to actually understand the issues or real solutions (his plans add an ungodly 17 trillion to the deficit) shouldn't have a chance at the presidency. Voting based on someone appearing to talk to the people has a danger of breaking that fact(see trump).

I supported Bernie primarily because from a macro-economic sense he made the most sense - The best & most detailed plans. I love economics.

But in general you are wrong, his would decreased the deficit significantly as tax revenue would be higher than costs of the program. I was disgusted with some of the Republican ideas from a pure macro-economic perspective!

Areas like single payer are massively more cost effective than private system!

[DavidB.]

The one who isn't anti-Semitic. But the counterargument is obviously that the Democratic Party is going to be an anti-Semitic dumpster fire anyway, so they might as well be honest about it -- and I guess that's a reasonable point of view too. Ellison/Warren 2020 imo.

[The Other Castro]

If these are the only two options with a chance of winning, which appears likely, then the choice is an easy one: Keith Ellison.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

The one who isn't anti-Semitic. But the counterargument is obviously that the Democratic Party is going to be an anti-Semitic dumpster fire anyway, so they might as well be honest about it -- and I guess that's a reasonable point of view too. Ellison/Warren 2020 imo.

Hating israel's government =/= antisemitism.

I question those who link the actions of the israeli government and people of Jewish descent together in a way that a criticism of one is equal to an attack on the other.

[VPH]

Considering what I have heard from friends in the party about his commitment to outreach, Ellison.