Why do so many here greatly overestimate the power of DNC Chairman?

[Antonio the Sixth]

If you don't understand the importance of symbols you don't understand what politics is. Period.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is not about the DNC Chair. It's never been about the DNC Chair.

What?  That is literally the only thing this is about...well...that and the fact that some folks are having a temper-tantrum because Teh EVILstablishmentz is mean   Apparently being a "progressive" these days means believing Donald Trump >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Perez

Symbols matter in politics. Denying that means being utterly deluded. If the hacks that control the Democratic party aren't even willing to make a concession on this, that means they have decided they're going keep f**king over the base in every way possible for the years to come. They haven't learned a thing from 2016. That's the problem.

Explain how because they've actually been pretty fervent in opposing Trump so far.

Posturing about T***p isn't what will make Democrats win in 2020. To do that, they'll need to actually show that they understand the angers and care about the needs of the growing majority of Americans who get nothing out of the current economic system. They seem completely uninterested in that because it's more convenient to be the part of the upper middle-class who don't like T***p because he's uncool or something.

And the DNC Chair has nothing to do with any of that! It's basically a position that simply organizes fundraisers and does quick interviews on news shows.

Dean's 50-State strategy allowed Democrats to win supermajorities in 2008. DWS' disaster of a leadership contributed to record losses at every every level. Clearly it matters at least a bit.

But again, the main point isn't the DNC chair itself, it's the SIGNAL it gives. Why nobody seems to understand that?

I liked Dean, but it's absurd to pretend that George W. Bush wasn't a hundred times as influential as he was in the Democrats' gains.

As for the "signal", the vast majority of voters don't even know who the DNC chair is, much less vote based on it. Hilariously you're doing the exact inverse of bedwetters like Malcolm X who thought Keith Ellison was going to scare away hordes of voters.

[Oakvale]

This is not about the DNC Chair. It's never been about the DNC Chair.

What?  That is literally the only thing this is about...well...that and the fact that some folks are having a temper-tantrum because Teh EVILstablishmentz is mean  Apparently being a "progressive" these days means believing Donald Trump >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Perez

Symbols matter in politics. Denying that means being utterly deluded. If the hacks that control the Democratic party aren't even willing to make a concession on this, that means they have decided they're going keep f**king over the base in every way possible for the years to come. They haven't learned a thing from 2016. That's the problem.

Explain how because they've actually been pretty fervent in opposing Trump so far.

Posturing about T***p isn't what will make Democrats win in 2020. To do that, they'll need to actually show that they understand the angers and care about the needs of the growing majority of Americans who get nothing out of the current economic system. They seem completely uninterested in that because it's more convenient to be the part of the upper middle-class who don't like T***p because he's uncool or something.

And the DNC Chair has nothing to do with any of that! It's basically a position that simply organizes fundraisers and does quick interviews on news shows.

Dean's 50-State strategy allowed Democrats to win supermajorities in 2008. DWS' disaster of a leadership contributed to record losses at every every level. Clearly it matters at least a bit.

But again, the main point isn't the DNC chair itself, it's the SIGNAL it gives. Why nobody seems to understand that?

The premise of HOWARD DEAN as an electoral genius is blatant nonsense and one of the most annoying Atlas myths. Democrats won all manner of seats in 2006 (and '08) because the incumbent administration was as popular as ebola among the electorate, not because Howard Dean had people hold signs at a farm in Idaho or whatever. In comparison, I have a hunch it was not legendary strategist Michael Steele's inspired leadership that lead to sweeping GOP gains in 2010.

I would make an exception for the simple fact that you need to recruit candidates in tough seats in the first place to allow for circumstances to provide such a wave but both Perez and Ellison campaigned on doing exactly that, so...

If you want to hyperventilate over semiotics that's your own business. Unhealthy and probably unhelpful, though.

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

If you don't understand the importance of symbols you don't understand what politics is. Period.

You are heavily overreacting to this. Symbols mean different things to different people. Most people don't care who the DNC Chairman is. You're basically whining that you didn't get your way. You have to compromise and accept that your party won't pander to you exclusively. The minority base of the democratic party isn't too interested in sanders.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

For the record as you all know, I live in Ellison's district. I have been talking around a bit lately about the possible special election that would occur if he resigned and won. I met a grand total of one person who even knew that he was considering resigning. There was a few "oh yeah I heard about how he's running for that office or whatever" type remarks but that's it. And these are not apolitical bystanders either, they're the same people mostly who are flooding my Facebook feed with anti-Trump stuff. My mom had no clue about him or what the DNC chair does, and she's voted in every election since she was eligible.

The "signal" sent was pretty weak in people who heard it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

And honestly if you do want to talk about "signals", how about the fact that Ellison was given a leadership role as well in an absolutely unprecedented move?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And honestly if you do want to talk about "signals", how about the fact that Ellison was given a leadership role as well in an absolutely unprecedented move?

Gabbard and Rybak had leadership roles too, but couldn't stop DWS from rigging the primary.

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

And honestly if you do want to talk about "signals", how about the fact that Ellison was given a leadership role as well in an absolutely unprecedented move?

Gabbard and Rybak had leadership roles too, but couldn't stop DWS from rigging the primary.

It's hard to stop someone from doing something that they aren't doing.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And honestly if you do want to talk about "signals", how about the fact that Ellison was given a leadership role as well in an absolutely unprecedented move?

Gabbard and Rybak had leadership roles too, but couldn't stop DWS from rigging the primary.

It's hard to stop someone from doing something that they aren't doing.

Denying isn't helping.

[Antonio the Sixth]

And honestly if you do want to talk about "signals", how about the fact that Ellison was given a leadership role as well in an absolutely unprecedented move?

Gabbard and Rybak had leadership roles too, but couldn't stop DWS from rigging the primary.

It's hard to stop someone from doing something that they aren't doing.

Like stopping you from making a well-argued, articulate post?

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

And honestly if you do want to talk about "signals", how about the fact that Ellison was given a leadership role as well in an absolutely unprecedented move?

Gabbard and Rybak had leadership roles too, but couldn't stop DWS from rigging the primary.

It's hard to stop someone from doing something that they aren't doing.

Like stopping you from making a well-argued, articulate post?

Lol. Is someone butt-hurt or something?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

And honestly if you do want to talk about "signals", how about the fact that Ellison was given a leadership role as well in an absolutely unprecedented move?

Gabbard and Rybak had leadership roles too, but couldn't stop DWS from rigging the primary.

It's hard to stop someone from doing something that they aren't doing.

Like stopping you from making a well-argued, articulate post?

Come on do you seriously agree with this loon who thinks Ohio 2004 was stolen that the primary was "rigged"?

I mean OK there was some background stuff that boosted Hillary in New York. Yeah that's a state she was sure in trouble of losing.

Name a state that would've voted for Sanders had it not have been for vote fraud or this "rigging".

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And honestly if you do want to talk about "signals", how about the fact that Ellison was given a leadership role as well in an absolutely unprecedented move?

Gabbard and Rybak had leadership roles too, but couldn't stop DWS from rigging the primary.

It's hard to stop someone from doing something that they aren't doing.

Like stopping you from making a well-argued, articulate post?

Come on do you seriously agree with this loon who thinks Ohio 2004 was stolen that the primary was "rigged"?

I mean OK there was some background stuff that boosted Hillary in New York. Yeah that's a state she was sure in trouble of losing.

Name a state that would've voted for Sanders had it not have been for vote fraud or this "rigging".

F**k off, fake Bernie supporter.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

And honestly if you do want to talk about "signals", how about the fact that Ellison was given a leadership role as well in an absolutely unprecedented move?

Gabbard and Rybak had leadership roles too, but couldn't stop DWS from rigging the primary.

It's hard to stop someone from doing something that they aren't doing.

Like stopping you from making a well-argued, articulate post?

Come on do you seriously agree with this loon who thinks Ohio 2004 was stolen that the primary was "rigged"?

I mean OK there was some background stuff that boosted Hillary in New York. Yeah that's a state she was sure in trouble of losing.

Name a state that would've voted for Sanders had it not have been for vote fraud or this "rigging".

F**k off, fake Bernie supporter.

How exactly is someone who voted for Sanders and served as a delegate of his to the district convention a "fake" supporter?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Also I find it amusing that jfern is basically the only person on Atlas who thinks that DWS has a single competent bone in her body.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No, it wasn't rigged per se, and contrary to other posters here (mostly Hillbots, actually) I'm not even minimally interested in relitigating the 2016 primary. But if you seriously think that DWS acted impartially during that primary, you are truly deluded.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And honestly if you do want to talk about "signals", how about the fact that Ellison was given a leadership role as well in an absolutely unprecedented move?

Gabbard and Rybak had leadership roles too, but couldn't stop DWS from rigging the primary.

It's hard to stop someone from doing something that they aren't doing.

Like stopping you from making a well-argued, articulate post?

Come on do you seriously agree with this loon who thinks Ohio 2004 was stolen that the primary was "rigged"?

I mean OK there was some background stuff that boosted Hillary in New York. Yeah that's a state she was sure in trouble of losing.

Name a state that would've voted for Sanders had it not have been for vote fraud or this "rigging".

F**k off, fake Bernie supporter.

How exactly is someone who voted for Sanders and served as a delegate of his to the district convention a "fake" supporter?

Anyone who thinks it was fine that the debates started about 6 months later in 2016 than 2008, and had had only around 30% as many, and the first debate was after the deadline to change parties in NY is a fake Bernie supporter. Not to mention all the other rigging that the DNC did.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No, it wasn't rigged, and contrary to other posters here (mostly Hillbots, actually) I'm not even minimally interested in relitigating the 2016 primary. But if you seriously think that DWS acted impartially during that primary, you are truly deluded.

of course I'm not. but I also don't think that she has the intelligence or competance to rig a school board election, much less a presidential primary.

And maybe you aren't interested in relitigating that primary (and I never said you were), but your new BFF here certainly is...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

And honestly if you do want to talk about "signals", how about the fact that Ellison was given a leadership role as well in an absolutely unprecedented move?

Gabbard and Rybak had leadership roles too, but couldn't stop DWS from rigging the primary.

It's hard to stop someone from doing something that they aren't doing.

Like stopping you from making a well-argued, articulate post?

Come on do you seriously agree with this loon who thinks Ohio 2004 was stolen that the primary was "rigged"?

I mean OK there was some background stuff that boosted Hillary in New York. Yeah that's a state she was sure in trouble of losing.

Name a state that would've voted for Sanders had it not have been for vote fraud or this "rigging".

F**k off, fake Bernie supporter.

How exactly is someone who voted for Sanders and served as a delegate of his to the district convention a "fake" supporter?

Anyone who thinks it was fine that the debates started about 6 months later in 2016 than 2008, and had had only around 30% as many, and the first debate was after the deadline to change parties in NY is a fake Bernie supporter. Not to mention all the other rigging that the DNC did.

I do not believe that was fine. I believe that it did not change the result of the primary, or even just the primary in New York.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And honestly if you do want to talk about "signals", how about the fact that Ellison was given a leadership role as well in an absolutely unprecedented move?

Gabbard and Rybak had leadership roles too, but couldn't stop DWS from rigging the primary.

It's hard to stop someone from doing something that they aren't doing.

Like stopping you from making a well-argued, articulate post?

Come on do you seriously agree with this loon who thinks Ohio 2004 was stolen that the primary was "rigged"?

I mean OK there was some background stuff that boosted Hillary in New York. Yeah that's a state she was sure in trouble of losing.

Name a state that would've voted for Sanders had it not have been for vote fraud or this "rigging".

F**k off, fake Bernie supporter.

How exactly is someone who voted for Sanders and served as a delegate of his to the district convention a "fake" supporter?

Anyone who thinks it was fine that the debates started about 6 months later in 2016 than 2008, and had had only around 30% as many, and the first debate was after the deadline to change parties in NY is a fake Bernie supporter. Not to mention all the other rigging that the DNC did.

I do not believe that was fine. I believe that it did not change the result of the primary, or even just the primary in New York.

It was obviously to help Hillary. In 2008, when she was behind, she asked for and got many more debates. There are always more debates when Hillary wants them, but not when she doesn't want them. Plus there was that bullsh**t of only DNC sanctioned debates being allowed this time.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

And honestly if you do want to talk about "signals", how about the fact that Ellison was given a leadership role as well in an absolutely unprecedented move?

Gabbard and Rybak had leadership roles too, but couldn't stop DWS from rigging the primary.

It's hard to stop someone from doing something that they aren't doing.

Like stopping you from making a well-argued, articulate post?

Come on do you seriously agree with this loon who thinks Ohio 2004 was stolen that the primary was "rigged"?

I mean OK there was some background stuff that boosted Hillary in New York. Yeah that's a state she was sure in trouble of losing.

Name a state that would've voted for Sanders had it not have been for vote fraud or this "rigging".

F**k off, fake Bernie supporter.

How exactly is someone who voted for Sanders and served as a delegate of his to the district convention a "fake" supporter?

Anyone who thinks it was fine that the debates started about 6 months later in 2016 than 2008, and had had only around 30% as many, and the first debate was after the deadline to change parties in NY is a fake Bernie supporter. Not to mention all the other rigging that the DNC did.

I do not believe that was fine. I believe that it did not change the result of the primary, or even just the primary in New York.

It was obviously to help Hillary. In 2008, when she was behind, she asked for and got many more debates. There are always more debates when Hillary wants them, but not when she doesn't want them.

OK so are you saying the debate schedule is the only reason why Hillary won New York and her victory in New York is the only reason she won the nomination? Because that's a BOLD claim.

I can support Sanders and still believe that Hillary would've easily won the nomination had it not have been for some meaningless and incompetent meddling from one of the dumbest and most incompetent women in politics.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And honestly if you do want to talk about "signals", how about the fact that Ellison was given a leadership role as well in an absolutely unprecedented move?

Gabbard and Rybak had leadership roles too, but couldn't stop DWS from rigging the primary.

It's hard to stop someone from doing something that they aren't doing.

Like stopping you from making a well-argued, articulate post?

Come on do you seriously agree with this loon who thinks Ohio 2004 was stolen that the primary was "rigged"?

I mean OK there was some background stuff that boosted Hillary in New York. Yeah that's a state she was sure in trouble of losing.

Name a state that would've voted for Sanders had it not have been for vote fraud or this "rigging".

F**k off, fake Bernie supporter.

How exactly is someone who voted for Sanders and served as a delegate of his to the district convention a "fake" supporter?

Anyone who thinks it was fine that the debates started about 6 months later in 2016 than 2008, and had had only around 30% as many, and the first debate was after the deadline to change parties in NY is a fake Bernie supporter. Not to mention all the other rigging that the DNC did.

I do not believe that was fine. I believe that it did not change the result of the primary, or even just the primary in New York.

It was obviously to help Hillary. In 2008, when she was behind, she asked for and got many more debates. There are always more debates when Hillary wants them, but not when she doesn't want them.

OK so are you saying the debate schedule is the only reason why Hillary won New York and her victory in New York is the only reason she won the nomination? Because that's a BOLD claim.

I can support Sanders and still believe that Hillary would've easily won the nomination had it not have been for some meaningless and incompetent meddling from one of the dumbest and most incompetent women in politics.

Bernie was ignored for months because there were no debates. It could have made a huge difference. If NY allowed independents to vote rather than having to change registration 6 months before, Bernie might have won it. The exit poll had him losing by only 4 and he lost by 16, which is definitely a sign of a discrepancy from how people wanted to vote and how their votes were counted.

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

And honestly if you do want to talk about "signals", how about the fact that Ellison was given a leadership role as well in an absolutely unprecedented move?

Gabbard and Rybak had leadership roles too, but couldn't stop DWS from rigging the primary.

It's hard to stop someone from doing something that they aren't doing.

Like stopping you from making a well-argued, articulate post?

Come on do you seriously agree with this loon who thinks Ohio 2004 was stolen that the primary was "rigged"?

I mean OK there was some background stuff that boosted Hillary in New York. Yeah that's a state she was sure in trouble of losing.

Name a state that would've voted for Sanders had it not have been for vote fraud or this "rigging".

F**k off, fake Bernie supporter.

How exactly is someone who voted for Sanders and served as a delegate of his to the district convention a "fake" supporter?

Anyone who thinks it was fine that the debates started about 6 months later in 2016 than 2008, and had had only around 30% as many, and the first debate was after the deadline to change parties in NY is a fake Bernie supporter. Not to mention all the other rigging that the DNC did.

I do not believe that was fine. I believe that it did not change the result of the primary, or even just the primary in New York.

It was obviously to help Hillary. In 2008, when she was behind, she asked for and got many more debates. There are always more debates when Hillary wants them, but not when she doesn't want them.

OK so are you saying the debate schedule is the only reason why Hillary won New York and her victory in New York is the only reason she won the nomination? Because that's a BOLD claim.

I can support Sanders and still believe that Hillary would've easily won the nomination had it not have been for some meaningless and incompetent meddling from one of the dumbest and most incompetent women in politics.

Bernie was ignored for months because there were no debates. It could have made a huge difference. If NY allowed independents to vote rather than having to change registration 6 months before, Bernie might have won it. The exit poll had him losing by only 4 and he lost by 16, which is definitely a sign of a discrepancy from how people wanted to vote and how their votes were counted.

Exit polls are reliable now?

[Illiniwek]

It matters for having the right direction of the party at the state and local level. DNC Chair won't help win presidencies, but he could set the tone for getting back state houses, and that success will trickle up.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And honestly if you do want to talk about "signals", how about the fact that Ellison was given a leadership role as well in an absolutely unprecedented move?

Gabbard and Rybak had leadership roles too, but couldn't stop DWS from rigging the primary.

It's hard to stop someone from doing something that they aren't doing.

Like stopping you from making a well-argued, articulate post?

Come on do you seriously agree with this loon who thinks Ohio 2004 was stolen that the primary was "rigged"?

I mean OK there was some background stuff that boosted Hillary in New York. Yeah that's a state she was sure in trouble of losing.

Name a state that would've voted for Sanders had it not have been for vote fraud or this "rigging".

F**k off, fake Bernie supporter.

How exactly is someone who voted for Sanders and served as a delegate of his to the district convention a "fake" supporter?

Anyone who thinks it was fine that the debates started about 6 months later in 2016 than 2008, and had had only around 30% as many, and the first debate was after the deadline to change parties in NY is a fake Bernie supporter. Not to mention all the other rigging that the DNC did.

I do not believe that was fine. I believe that it did not change the result of the primary, or even just the primary in New York.

It was obviously to help Hillary. In 2008, when she was behind, she asked for and got many more debates. There are always more debates when Hillary wants them, but not when she doesn't want them.

OK so are you saying the debate schedule is the only reason why Hillary won New York and her victory in New York is the only reason she won the nomination? Because that's a BOLD claim.

I can support Sanders and still believe that Hillary would've easily won the nomination had it not have been for some meaningless and incompetent meddling from one of the dumbest and most incompetent women in politics.

Bernie was ignored for months because there were no debates. It could have made a huge difference. If NY allowed independents to vote rather than having to change registration 6 months before, Bernie might have won it. The exit poll had him losing by only 4 and he lost by 16, which is definitely a sign of a discrepancy from how people wanted to vote and how their votes were counted.

Exit polls are reliable now?

Something is up when there's a 12 point discrepancy, whether it was people unable to vote because of NY's bullsh**t rule on having to register 6 months before, all the people whose registration were purged, or any possible problems with counting the vote.