DNC Chair Tom Perez...

[Larry Gude]

...all you need to know is that he's Obama's guy and, if you are a Democrat, this is not good news based on the simple results of 8 years of his leadership.

THIS is what you SHOULD have been working on instead of incessant whining about losing the last election; how to win the next one. The establishment power brokers that have been defeating you win again.

 

[SamSpade]

...all you need to know is that he's Obama's guy and, if you are a Democrat, this is not good news based on the simple results of 8 years of his leadership.

THIS is what you SHOULD have been working on instead of incessant whining about losing the last election; how to win the next one. The establishment power brokers that have been defeating you win again.

You know, I've only been following this story a little for the last month or so, and even as recently as this Friday, I read any number of articles promoting alternatives to Ellison. And not one of them mentioned Perez. I guess it surprised me.

 

[Larry Gude]

You know, I've only been following this story a little for the last month or so, and even as recently as this Friday, I read any number of articles promoting alternatives to Ellison. And not one of them mentioned Perez. I guess it surprised me.

I wish I'd wrote it at the time so I could take credit but I didn't.

A month or so ago, as this battle was heading towards us and I got to know a few of the players, I predicted, to myself, Perez would win because NO ONE was paying any attention and Perez is Obama's guy and when no one is paying attention, whomever has the innate power, in this case Obama, is gonna get their way. The press didn't see enough of a story to get involved and help any of the other candidates by having public attention directed to it. So, is that because there was no story? No story as to whom would be the working boss of overseeing the direction of the other major political party, adrift, bleeding to death, virtually wiped out?

Obviously, Trump hysteria provided a hell of a smoke screen. In any event, if you're a D, this is a real, practical fail unless you take the position that despite 8 years of work to judge Obama is suddenly going to understand it was his affirmative action image that gave him power; not his work. This should be seen as a disaster for the Democratic party rank and file; the establishment wins again.

 

[SamSpade]

I wish I'd wrote it at the time so I could take credit but I didn't.

A month or so ago, as this battle was heading towards us and I got to know a few of the players, I predicted, to myself, Perez would win because NO ONE was paying any attention and Perez is Obama's guy and when no one is paying attention, whomever has the innate power, in this case Obama, is gonna get their way. The press didn't see enough of a story to get involved and help any of the other candidates by having public attention directed to it. So, is that because there was no story? No story as to whom would be the working boss of overseeing the direction of the other major political party, adrift, bleeding to death, virtually wiped out?

Obviously, Trump hysteria provided a hell of a smoke screen. In any event, if you're a D, this is a real, practical fail unless you take the position that despite 8 years of work to judge Obama is suddenly going to understand it was his affirmative action image that gave him power; not his work. This should be seen as a disaster for the Democratic party rank and file; the establishment wins again.

The news is trying to downplay this since he offered the number two job to Ellison.

I don't know what will happen to the Democratic Party. There's no room for moderates or conservatives. Believe it or not, I've always been a member of the Democratic Party, although I'm also much more conservative than most of the Democrats I know. Comes from having joined in the 70's.

I might finally just quit altogether and make it official.

But it seems that while visibly the party is going further left, it doesn't represent the voice of the majority of the party. Both major parties have the largest portion of their party - in the middle.
That should surprise no one.

 

[Larry Gude]

The news is trying to downplay this since he offered the number two job to Ellison.

I don't know what will happen to the Democratic Party. There's no room for moderates or conservatives. Believe it or not, I've always been a member of the Democratic Party, although I'm also much more conservative than most of the Democrats I know. Comes from having joined in the 70's.

I might finally just quit altogether and make it official.

But it seems that while visibly the party is going further left, it doesn't represent the voice of the majority of the party. Both major parties have the largest portion of their party - in the middle.
That should surprise no one.

I believe it. You said so YEARS ago, your party affiliation.

Obama's losses wiped out all the moderates, all the people who had to appeal to at least some Republicans. This concentrates and intensifies positions. Behind the scenes this has made way for folks like Perez in many of the function, non glamorous positions, the people who do the work. So, the party is just lopsided, really bad. And, honestly, NOW is the time for someone to come in and say:

"The Republicans are insane; they elected Donald Trump, so, that's no good. The Democrats are all messed up, losing everything for 8 years under Obama and Clinton." ...and go from there. The GOP struggled to come to grips with Dubbya's enormous list of deep failures and, while being handed wins by Obama and the D's, never staked anything out moving forward. The party drifted back into power and, because there are no principles, because it didn't do anything more than get out of the way, that left the door wide open for Trump.

The D's have the same problem; no one will state the emperor has no cloths on. No one will speak truth to the Obama power. So, will they start to win seats back just because of Trump? I doubt it because he is NOT what they paint him as. Once he starts getting big bucks spent on infrastructure, isn't executing people in the streets, IS helping the economy, the argument goes away. There WAS argument against Obama; the ACA.

So, my guess is that when there are no real gains in '18, maybe that's when people start to push Obama out?

 

[SamSpade]

So, my guess is that when there are no real gains in '18, maybe that's when people start to push Obama out?

I wish I could find the article - I read it from clicking sidebar links again and again - but it was a fairly reasoned and fleshed out strategy for Democrats to win and I really couldn't believe the premise.

The gist of it was - go after very low information voters. The writer went on to mention just how large a portion of voters couldn't name either VP candidate running last election. A huge portion. Oddly enough, it was intended in earnest. Go whip up support among people whose political attention barely goes past the headlines.

(Of course, I can hear TJ characterizing all the right that way - for people on this board - but the low information voter doesn't go to rallies, doesn't know the name of their representative, couldn't even TELL you what the DNC is, name a single SCOTUS justice - ever - much less the one being considered, or for that matter find their nation on a world map. Low information isn't someone who disagrees with you.)

I don't see the Democratic Party making progress pushing out the establishment. Their best candidates are Warren (who won't appeal to independents or anyone on the right) and Sanders, who will be too old. They will need to find a candidate who is NOT far left, and no one can grab the spotlight at present.

Strangely enough - they might have to go back to Hillary. And Perez makes that more likely.

 

[vraiblonde]

So, my guess is that when there are no real gains in '18, maybe that's when people start to push Obama out?

Let me point out that Hillary Clinton is about as divisive as a politician gets, and not only did they not push her out, they gave her a presidential nomination.

According to my travels around the internet and my interactions with friends who are progs, the Dem party will always - like, always - have faithful acolytes who believe they can do no wrong, and even if they do it's justified in the WAR!! with their mortal enemy, "the Republicans".

And it's not like the GOP doesn't have crazy zealots on their own side, but currently the Republicans are in power all the way across the board and it's the Dems who need to figure out how to make up lost ground. So can they do that by ratcheting up the rhetoric and accusations? Or will they have to buckle down and actually do some work for The People to get their position back?

Did they really think starting race and gender wars was a good strategy? Because my observation is that it turned a lot of people off. If it weren't for the monolithic press cheering them and blasting their opposition, propping them up with the public, I firmly believe the Democrat party would be done for. They might have finally overplayed their hand.

 

[vraiblonde]

I don't see the Democratic Party making progress pushing out the establishment. Their best candidates are Warren (who won't appeal to independents or anyone on the right) and Sanders, who will be too old. They will need to find a candidate who is NOT far left, and no one can grab the spotlight at present.

Strangely enough - they might have to go back to Hillary. And Perez makes that more likely.

Dems usually tap new blood - Republicans are the ones who have a list of ascension and stick to it (which is why Trump has pissed them off so much - not only did he jump the line, he ripped their little list up and tossed it in their faces like confetti.). I thought Martin O'Malley was the perfect candidate for 2016. I know that nomination was promised to Hillary long ago, but O'Malley had the looks and charisma to pull it off, and they shoved him aside. Just like in 2008 when they shoved shoo-in Evan Bayh aside for the woman and the black guy. It appears they're more interested in making statements than winning elections.

The Dems need to cool their progbot mission creep. Now is the time for them to get back to their liberal roots because the country has softened on a lot of the social positions we used to have a cow about, and we would be more willing to listen to traditional liberal values. What we *don't* want is special privs for certain ethnic groups, terrorists, and LGBT. Obama was so heavy handed with that that he turned people away.

I know nothing about Tom Perez, but if he's anything like the previous DNC chairs it's just going to be more of the same crap.

 

[Hijinx]

I don't know anything about Perez. My head is still buzzing that the Democrats ever gave thought to putting a Muslim at the head of their party.
Now Perez who Larry says is an Obama guy and Ellison as number 2, and I say WTH is wrong with these people.

Then they have actual thoughts of running Hillary again?
Good Gawd. Insanity.

 

[Grumpy]

Then they have actual thoughts of running Hillary again?

That is not going to happen, the woman is sick, as with her prez campaign, the less live performances, the better. She should have been at this chairman election, but chose to mail in a prepared video speech. I doubt she will be around for the 2020 election.

 

[Larry Gude]

Strangely enough - they might have to go back to Hillary. And Perez makes that more likely.

We disagree here. If anything, Perez is a blocking move to keep the Clinton's at bay. The Obama's and Clinton's do NOT like one another. Putting her at Sec State was a 'keep your enemies closer' move. And his support for her was not one ounce more than required for appearances sake. This is about Obama, I think. Completely. He KNOWS he did little, has little to show for 8 years and that time can't be kind to him. So, he has power left and he either uses it or loses it. And the other power players are either Clinton loyalists or afraid of both the Clinton's and the Obama's.

That's what I think.

 

[tommyjo]

In any event, if you're a D, this is a real, practical fail unless you take the position that despite 8 years of work to judge Obama is suddenly going to understand it was his affirmative action image that gave him power; not his work. This should be seen as a disaster for the Democratic party rank and file; the establishment wins again.

A correct assessment. The choice of Perez and the re-up on Pelosi are just horrible choices. Interesting how none of you mention his ties to MD. Perez was the obvious front runner the moment he announced. He was also the obviously wrong choice from the moment he announced.

According to my travels around the internet and my interactions with friends who are progs, the Dem party will always - like, always - have faithful acolytes who believe they can do no wrong, and even if they do it's justified in the WAR!! with their mortal enemy, "the Republicans".

And it's not like the GOP doesn't have crazy zealots on their own side, but currently the Republicans are in power all the way across the board and it's the Dems who need to figure out how to make up lost ground. So can they do that by ratcheting up the rhetoric and accusations? Or will they have to buckle down and actually do some work for The People to get their position back?

This is just more of the standard stupidity and ignorance. You really need to read something other than far right wing propaganda sites.

I don't know anything about Perez. My head is still buzzing that the Democrats ever gave thought to putting a Muslim at the head of their party.

"I don't know anything"...this should be carved on your tombstone...

"My head is still buzzing that the Democrats ever gave thought to putting a Muslim at the head of their party"...why do you constantly wish to put your bigotry on display for the world to see? It's 2017...not 1517.

 

[PsyOps]

We disagree here. If anything, Perez is a blocking move to keep the Clinton's at bay. The Obama's and Clinton's do NOT like one another. Putting her at Sec State was a 'keep your enemies closer' move. And his support for her was not one ounce more than required for appearances sake. This is about Obama, I think. Completely. He KNOWS he did little, has little to show for 8 years and that time can't be kind to him. So, he has power left and he either uses it or loses it. And the other power players are either Clinton loyalists or afraid of both the Clinton's and the Obama's.

That's what I think.

I don't have the first clue who is propping up whom, but reports are spouting that Perez was pushed out there by both Hillary and Obama. It came across to me a show of power by the establishment, for the same reason Sanders lost.

 

[Larry Gude]

I don't have the first clue who is propping up whom, but reports are spouting that Perez was pushed out there by both Hillary and Obama. It came across to me a show of power by the establishment, for the same reason Sanders lost.

Now that's interesting, if this is a joint selection by Team C and Team O.

 

[Larry Gude]

A correct assessment. The choice of Perez and the re-up on Pelosi are just horrible choices. Interesting how none of you mention his ties to MD. .

I skipped that because he's not from here, didn't go to school here and has ZEDRO ties to here other than the 1,000's of other people who are here as company people, ie, solely because they work for, in, and off of the federal gummint.

 

[Hijinx]

A correct assessment. The choice of Perez and the re-up on Pelosi are just horrible choices. Interesting how none of you mention his ties to MD. Perez was the obvious front runner the moment he announced. He was also the obviously wrong choice from the moment he announced.



This is just more of the standard stupidity and ignorance. You really need to read something other than far right wing propaganda sites.



"I don't know anything"...this should be carved on your tombstone...

"My head is still buzzing that the Democrats ever gave thought to putting a Muslim at the head of their party"...why do you constantly wish to put your bigotry on display for the world to see? It's 2017...not 1517.

If it bothers you put me on ignore and stop stalking me.

Dingbat

 

[PsyOps]

Now that's interesting, if this is a joint selection by Team C and Team O.

Only to maintain and exploit the power of the establishment within the dem party.

 

[GURPS]

...why do you constantly wish to put your bigotry on display for the world to see? It's 2017...not 1517.

Islam is a Totalitarian Political Structure NOT a race .....

 

[Gilligan]

Poor deranged TJ....

 

[Larry Gude]

Only to maintain and exploit the power of the establishment within the dem party.

Right but I ain't seeing it. There's not enough power to go around right now. Ellison wasn't a Clinton guy.