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

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

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.

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.

Yes, lets choose our big electoral strategist based on muh symbols. What an excellent idea.

People like you really need to learn to not throw a giant tantrum every time some petty thing doesn't go exactly your way.

Also the vast majority of Americans aren't crazy berniecrats who get outraged at this kind of thing. Maybe you should learn to look past your stupid symbols and see the reality that the democratic party has been changing. Hillary was proposing things like a minimum wage well above the poverty line long before saint bernie came to town, while at the same time addressing other issues like renewable energy and curing/alleviating Alzheimer's disease.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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?

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.

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

I'm confused as to how the 2016 election involved Democrats "screwing over the base" or whatever as a premise.

Bernie people think they're the base. They are woefully misinformed.

African-Americans and women are the major base of the party, because they vote for Democrats most consistently. And they voted for Hillary overwhelmingly.

White working class people haven't been the "base" of the party since Reagan if not Nixon. For over a generation it's been African-Americans, Latinos, Jewish people, women and big-city whites. Bernie only did extremely well with one of those demos - and Hillary may have won big-city whites going by her overwhelming victories in NYC, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Los Angeles.

... You're from York or Cumberland county, aren't you?

He's right, though.

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

I'm confused as to how the 2016 election involved Democrats "screwing over the base" or whatever as a premise.

Bernie people think they're the base. They are woefully misinformed.

African-Americans and women are the major base of the party, because they vote for Democrats most consistently. And they voted for Hillary overwhelmingly.

White working class people haven't been the "base" of the party since Reagan if not Nixon. For over a generation it's been African-Americans, Latinos, Jewish people, women and big-city whites. Bernie only did extremely well with one of those demos - and Hillary may have won big-city whites going by her overwhelming victories in NYC, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Los Angeles.

... You're from York or Cumberland county, aren't you?

He's right, though.

Nah, you just agree with him.

You just disagree with him because you can't comprehend not being in the majority.

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

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.

First of all, WWC =/= Working class. I find it tends to refer to a midwestern union worker from an industrial town, which isn't close to even a majority of white people in lower economic status, let alone the working class in general. Clinton won the poor overall, but got crushed among poor whites.

Secondly, who you identify as part of the democratic correlation doesn't decide ones politics, and it says something about yours that pointing out that the base of the democratic party isn't the white working class gets you actively angry(and you describe saying that white members of the working class aren't the democratic base and then listing minorities and big city whites, of which a significant chunk of both are working class, as ignoring the working class in general.)