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

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I know it's exactly an unimportant office but the meltdown some are having over an office that has virtually nothing to do with platforms or setting policy and not even that much to do with electoral strategy is bizarre. It's like acting like the State Comptroller is a mighty all powerful dominant official in a state.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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

Then why does it equal 100% guaranteed set in stone Trump reelection like so many hot takes are claiming?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

They rigged the primary against the candidate you claimed to have supported.

You are giving WAY too much credit to someone as objectively incompetant as DWS.

Also do you have any actual proof of vote fraud in the primary?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

...so zero evidence of vote fraud. Figures.

and I'm so sure that if New York were an open primary Hillary would've lost the nomination (or even just New York. )

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

...so zero evidence of vote fraud. Figures.

and I'm so sure that if New York were an open primary Hillary would've lost the nomination (or even just New York. )

I didn't say voter fraud, but there were certainly a number of voting issues, including in NY state. But neoliberals like you don't give a sh**t.

I VOTED FOR SANDERS YOU DENSE F[INKS].

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

...so zero evidence of vote fraud. Figures.

and I'm so sure that if New York were an open primary Hillary would've lost the nomination (or even just New York. )

I didn't say voter fraud, but there were certainly a number of voting issues, including in NY state. But neoliberals like you don't give a sh**t.

I VOTED FOR SANDERS YOU DENSE F[INKS].

But you're otherwise all neoliberal all the time.

Name a policy position of mine that is. Voting for Bernie's endorsed candidate in the general election instead of some crazy old bat who thinks wi-fi is damaging your brain is not such one.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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".

[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.

[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.

[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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is Bernie being ignored:



New York was always obviously a demographic nightmare for Bernie, plus Hillary's "home state" (sort of) too. It would be absurd to ever think he could win it. But his margin of defeat in delegates there wouldn't have made a dent in Hillary's nationwide delegate margin. Might I also note that the DNC does not control New York's party registration laws.

[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.

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.

Or maybe exit polls just really suck.

It's kind of a moot point anyway, New York's laws regarding voter registration are not set by the DNC.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

OK so fine so having the debate after the party registration deadline in one state (once again, not set by the DNC) is ridiculous. But that does not mean that it swung that state, much less the entire election.

This is sounding a lot like Trump's case for how he would've won the popular vote had it not have been for fraud.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

1) The DNC Chair is not the Boss of the Party. But it's not nothing.

2) Actually symbols *do * matter quite a lot. And whether y'all think it's childish or not there are a lot of pissed off people that need to feel included in the party.
    2a) And if it's a bureaucratic position related to raising money and electing people, Ellison was flat out the only damned candidate in the field. Perez has raised a truly pathetic amount of money over the course of his political career and has only run a statewide tertiary ticket campaign. Once.  
 
3) The DNC did not rig the primaries. Full stop. We lost NY (and a bunch of other states) because it (they) was (were) a closed primary. And that clerk coincidentally purged like what, a billion votes from Brooklyn? And because the Sanders campaign was worse than the Clinton campaign.

1) So why not give Perez a chance instead of just demonizing him out the gate considering he had almost the same platform as Ellison? If he's as pathetic as DWS, then by all means go all in on the trashing, but what's happening now before he's done anything is actually kind of disgusting.

2) You have as much chance at getting me to ever care about symbolism as you will getting me to care about preserving my family's ethnic heritage, culture and traditions. Actually at one of my former jobs for a cell carrier, I became notorious for being 100% results focused, and not caring about the customers' circumstances or what led to the current situation, but only caring about how to resolve it and nothing more. And it worked. Because none of that bullsh!t mattered, only pure numbers, pure results.

2a) This is an actually valid criticism, so why are we just hearing it now instead of just frothing at the mouth "RAR RAR NEOLIBERALISM CORPORATISM!" nonsense and flat out admitting this whole thing is entirely about a childish desire to "flip the middle finger to the establishment" and nothing more?

3) There aren't a billion voters in Brooklyn. Or even in the entire US. And it's pretty easy to see that any purged votes in Brooklyn would not benefit Sanders. But yeah, common sense on New York and in general.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Party chairs have much more influence when there's no President from the same party.

So Michael Steele was an influential powerhouse? And Reince Priebus?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm sorry, but anyone who ignores working people and claims that they aren't a part of the Democratic coalition is not a liberal and certainly isn't a progressive. Looking forward to the slow death of corporatism.

When did Tom Perez ever do that.