New DNC Chair – Perez
Same old same old. What a bunch of bullshit. Democrats are in love with losing.
Connect
Connect with us on the following social media platforms.
Same old same old. What a bunch of bullshit. Democrats are in love with losing.
Connect with us on the following social media platforms.
Republucans might have been upset if we picked Ellison.
Although class move from Perez to pick Ellison as Deputy Chair.
Obama fired Howard Dean and hired Tim Kaine: Lost House.
Obama hired Debbe Wasserman-Schulz: Lost Senate
Debbe Wasserman-Schulz resigns in disgrace, replaced by Clinton lackey Donna Brazille: Lost Presidency and Supreme Court Justice
Obama and the Clintons panic at having a real Progressive as DNC Chair. Ask Perez to run.
Perez wins: Lost country
We are so fucked.
@ Disappointed: Great analysis !!!
Perez owes thanks to Joe Biden, who endorsed him this month.
Ellison would have been a fun pick…
The Hillary Wing of the party remains in control. The ones with all the money.
This level of inclusiveness is what we need to beat the morally-corrupt Republicans. Perez and Ellison together are the only way to win this!
I would have definetly preferred Ellison, but I don’t think Perez will do a bad job at all. He surely is absolutely much better than Kane or Debbie WS.
The bigger deal here is that Ellison was pushed into the race by the Party, which left no one to challenge Pelosi. If anyone could have taken her out it would have been Ellison.
At the very least he has been exposed to many more dems, giving him a platform to run off of in the coming years.
Cinque-Both sides of the Hillary/Bernie divide can and did raise huge sums of money. Hillary in large contributions from her moneybags corporate supporters, and Bernie from the grassroots.
The D’s are not yet ready to stop sucking at the corporate teat. Until they do, they will remain co-opted and under the thumb of the moneyed overlords. Meaning, they’ll be D’s in name only.
The Dems lose the presidency to a transparent buffoon and both houses of Congress when they were set to regain the Senate and yet they choose again a member of the establishment cadre as their leader. Proof that maintaining power within the party is far more important to them than the welfare of the nation.
Remember the Tea Party lesson: Our shows of numbers are aimed at the Democrats as well as the Republicans. Politicians who figure this out first and get in front of the march — Hansen’s rhetoric showed signs of this, she’s a bright woman — are the ones who will emerge as the party leaders.
@Tom Kline: You know what the problem with fleecing poor people is? Pretty soon they run out of money.
Oh, and Tom, you’ll be interested in this: Someone I know who lives in Republican Pat Meehan’s sprawling Pennsylvania District 7, a former Delaware Republican, has decided to run against Meehan as a Democrat.
There is a grassroots movement out there and it’s being led by women, many of whom were previously uninvolved or involved at the stuffing-envelopes level. The Republicans, banking on the fact that Elizabeth Warren does not poll well, are trying to elevate her as the face of the party. This has a better-than-usual chance of backfiring on them.
Forget the DNC. They said it all when they refused to reject corporate money. The people will have to lead on this one.
If you wanted to know why Democrats lose so bad, this is it. Every Democrat has to pass a fucking purity test like we’re a party of ideological hacks like the Libertarians or the Greens. Get over it, the Democrats are big tent party. The Republicans showed how a big tent party operates when they rallied around a moron for president and got him elected. Sorry the DNC chair, whose roll is basically a cheerleader, doesn’t meet your purity test.
Yeah, opening the party to represent ordinary Americans instead of representing cultural and financial elites is a “purity” test. Lol. What an obvious establishment hack.
Thanks for making my point!
Anonlib, how do you make the case that you are the party of working men and women when your most important constituency continues to be Wall Street?
I’m honestly asking.
Anonlib, the Republicans have a much stronger purity hurdle than Democrats have ever had, and they win more than Democrats.
The purity argument is nonsense. It is what keeps Democrats as wishy-washy try-to-please-everybody floor mops.
For Democrats, purity should start by showing pure revulsion and rejection of Republicans. Treat them as the evil empire. No more nicey-nice or assuming good faith.
Deciding whether to accept corporate PAC money is not a “purity test.” It’s a priority test.
I look at it like this. Ellison had tons of momentum after the general election. Then the pezzonovante of the party hand picked and stood up another candidate in Perez. Why would this be done, do you think? What did the party big shots have against Ellison? Why actively find someone to challenge him?
The answer to this question is the answer to the question.
While I’m disappointed, I think Perez could well be a good chairman. Here’s a comprehensive article that describes the race:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/02/26/why-did-keith-ellison-lose-the-dnc-race/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_pp-dnc-515pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.95fc8a746ffa
This is the reason I’m suspicious:
https://newrepublic.com/article/140847/case-tom-perez-makes-no-sense
But it is what it is. I’m not a Democrat anyway. This is one reason why.
I am disgusted by the pious calls for Democrats to unify around Perez. You can bet that if Ellison had won, those same people would be on the fainting couch over disarray and schism in the party.
The way for progressives to deal with Perez is to make him irrelevant.
The party is incapable of leadership. It’s up to the people. The party eventually will catch up or be replaced by something more responsive to people than corporations.
Jason wrote:
Are you kidding? Republicans wanted Mr Ellison to win! A black, Muslim candidate with an anti-Semitic background would have been just perfect, costing the Democrats money from Jewish donors — a big part of the DNC — and more votes from the midwest.
Alby wrote:
I’d point out here that Hillary Clinton outspent Donald Trump almost two-to-one. Part of her problem was poor decision-taking on the part of her campaign managers as to how to spend the money.
Mr Vanella asked:
For the same reason that Republicans hoped Mr Ellison would win: because the party bigwigs believed that Mr Ellison would cost them donations and votes.
Yeah, that’s it. Poor decision making about how to spend money. Not a lack of a populist message or appeal. Not a lack of a grass roots effort or a candidate that consistently polled high for distrust. It was merely a spending priorties problem. Wall Street insider think.
The democratic party never learns a lesson. The old guard Dean, Brazile etc…kept Bernie and progressives on the margin. They really believe that Clinton won the popular vote therefore they have done nothing wrong…so just keep on going. The old guard are political hacks who love that corporate money. They hated that Bernie proved you don’t need corporate bucks to win…so the DNC just marginalized again the progressives…they do so at there own peril. Bernie had 55,000 votes in Delaware there is a strong progressive movement here, so why haven’t the progressives joined together and take on the corporate dems?
Jason, its been two or three decades since you guys have been the party of working men and women. You guys have become the party of socialist and freeloaders. And, until you understand and believe that your party and election success will continue to shrink!
If I thought you meant to include bankers and financiers amoung the freeloaders, then I’d allow that you might have a point. A poorly made, intellectually lazy point.
Knowing that you are far too dumb to have made that connection though, I’ll simply ignore you.
Dana – It’s been my experience that most of the things people “believe” are based on either bad evidence or none at all. Or it’s very convenient (i.e. lucrative) to believe what you actually know to be false.
Also, Jason’s correct. Rubes like Rusty have absolutely no idea that the real “takers” are the ones trying to distract you with the idea that poor people and “socialists” are the biggest threat.
Part of me feels sorry for people like Rusty because they have absolutely no idea what’s going on around them. It must be very scary and confusing.