Thomas Perez becomes Chairman of DNC

Aeroblast · Feb 26, 2017

So... what's your opinion of the new DNC chairman appointee?

Livewire · Feb 26, 2017

"Perez is too establishment for the Bernie Bros cant unite the party blah blah blah"

No, Perez has the chops for the job, and with Ellison as Deputy-Chair, they can hopefully form a united front that can at least try to appeal to both the Clinton/Sanders wings of the party and begin to win at the state level again. Perez, while not quite as far left as Sanders (as an example) is actually pretty progressive and is a nice upgrade over Wasserman-Shultz and Donna Brazile, so I'm fairly happy with the results here, as at the very least, Ellison has a seat at the table.

Esper · Feb 26, 2017

Would have preferred Ellison. Perez asking to have Ellison as vice chair (or whatever it's called) is shrewd, it'll do a lot to help present a unified front, but I don't think it'll necessarily help with the corporate issues that more progressive people want to see addressed within the party, myself included. But that's just my being a sour lemon for not getting things I'd prefer. There's been a lot of progressive takeovers in local parties and I was hoping to see that at the top of the party as well.

Somewhere_ · Feb 28, 2017

The Democrats need to start appealing to Progressives more and they are becoming "City Democrats." They are losing their Rust Belt voters, Progressive voters, and the black vote didnt come out for Hillary. I know these are minorities within the party, but I dont think the Democrats should ignore them like they have been since Obama was elected in 2012.

I get it- the cities are a very important voter base. High density areas are really the only places Hillary won, and they granted her the popular vote, but again, she lost the black, Progressive, and Rust Belt votes.

Now, I may be wrong if cities populations continue to rapidly increase and racial demographics change (especially if many illegal immigrants are granted citizenship Reagan-style post-Trump in a sort of reactionary movement that we already see brewing). In which case, the Republicans need to figure their shit out.

So is Perez a good choice? At least not in the short term.

Kanzler · Mar 3, 2017

Regardless of our opinions on the new Chairman, the Democratic party represents the only viable alternative to the Republicans. They have the responsibility of leading the movement of those who are opposed to the current Republican order.

Sir Codin · Mar 4, 2017

Kanzler said:
Regardless of our opinions on the new Chairman, the Democratic party represents the only viable alternative to the Republicans. They have the responsibility of leading the movement of those who are opposed to the current Republican order.

^Very much this.

I don't give a right shit right now how establishment the new DNC chair is. The issue right now is getting rid of Trump, not draining the Democratic party of center-right globalists. I don't care if it's Hillary again in 2020, anything is better.

The third-party/non-voting Bernie-or-busters need to get a damn grip and just vote to get Trump out of office. Please save your idealistic socialist or libertarian utopia for another time. And at this point, it's 100% official to me....if you don't vote, you have absolutely no right to complain and you need to sit in a corner of a dark room and rethink your life and all the choices you've made that brought you up to this point.

Hands · Mar 7, 2017

CarcharOdin said:
^Very much this.

I don't give a right **** right now how establishment the new DNC chair is. The issue right now is getting rid of Trump, not draining the Democratic party of center-right globalists. I don't care if it's Hillary again in 2020, anything is better.

The third-party/non-voting Bernie-or-busters need to get a damn grip and just vote to get Trump out of office. Please save your idealistic socialist or libertarian utopia for another time. And at this point, it's 100% official to me....if you don't vote, you have absolutely no right to complain and you need to sit in a corner of a dark room and rethink your life and all the choices you've made that brought you up to this point.

What? I mean, what?

You have no right to tell people who to vote for, especially when the candidate is absolute trash and especially when the DNC (Who, like you, have clearly learned nothing from Trump) screw over any candidate who has a platform that doesn't revolve around corporation pay outs

gimmepie · Mar 7, 2017

Hands said:
What? I mean, what?

You have no right to tell people who to vote for, especially when the candidate is absolute trash and especially when the DNC (Who, like you, have clearly learned nothing from Trump) screw over any candidate who has a platform that doesn't revolve around corporation pay outs

Honestly, whilst I wouldn't go to quite the same extreme as Carcharodin, I kind of see his point. As weird as this may be from someone who believes that we should have the right to not vote, this was not the election to not-vote or make a protest vote under some misguided idea that you were making a stand.

Sir Codin · Mar 7, 2017

Hands said:
What? I mean, what?

You have no right to tell people who to vote for, especially when the candidate is absolute trash and especially when the DNC (Who, like you, have clearly learned nothing from Trump) screw over any candidate who has a platform that doesn't revolve around corporation pay outs

What I learned, good sir, from Trump is that voting third-party like I did was an idealistic mistake during an election that was more like a time of crisis and that when the country needed my vote the most, I chose to vote for a candidate who had zero chance of winning instead of Hillary. Honor before reason and all that...I can see now what bollocks it is. I'm not saying somewhere down the road we shouldn't start giving third-parties a chance, I'm the last person who will say we should stick to a two-party system. But in a time when the United States is under the very realistic threat of devolving into a dictatorship if he is left unchecked, it's practical to put dreams of third-parties on hold until we get the demagogue and his Breitbart compatriot out of office.

And of course nobody has the right to tell you who to vote for, but that will never stop anyone from criticizing you for your choice. Better get used to it because that's going to stick around long after Trump is gone.

Hands · Mar 8, 2017

CarcharOdin said:
What I learned, good sir, from Trump is that voting third-party like I did was an idealistic mistake during an election that was more like a time of crisis and that when the country needed my vote the most, I chose to vote for a candidate who had zero chance of winning instead of Hillary. Honor before reason and all that...I can see now what bollocks it is. I'm not saying somewhere down the road we shouldn't start giving third-parties a chance, I'm the last person who will say we should stick to a two-party system. But in a time when the United States is under the very realistic threat of devolving into a dictatorship if he is left unchecked, it's practical to put dreams of third-parties on hold until we get the demagogue and his Breitbart compatriot out of office.

And of course nobody has the right to tell you who to vote for, but that will never stop anyone from criticizing you for your choice. Better get used to it because that's going to stick around long after Trump is gone.

You're living in a fairytale if you think Clinton wouldn't of also signed a bunch of crap for rich companies, appointed a bunch of unqualified people for cash and pushed the world to the brink of war.

Hillary losing, in the long run, will be a gift to the world. Trump is going to damage the GOP very, very badly. And right now, the only big political voice taking him on is Sanders. If we can use Trump to kill off the neocon mess once and for all we'll be laughing.

Sir Codin · Mar 8, 2017

Hands said:
You're living in a fairytale if you think Clinton wouldn't of also signed a bunch of crap for rich companies, appointed a bunch of unqualified people for cash and pushed the world to the brink of war.

Hillary losing, in the long run, will be a gift to the world. Trump is going to damage the GOP very, very badly. And right now, the only big political voice taking him on is Sanders. If we can use Trump to kill off the neocon mess once and for all we'll be laughing.

The problem is that it's obvious the Democrats would rather their own establishment candidate lose than Sanders to win, so the only choice Sanders has left is to organize a third-party of his own in manner not seen since the days of Teddy Roosevelt and even then, Roosevelt lost. There has never been, in the history of our country, a third-party or independent candidate that has won the presidency with the exception of George Washington. So forgive me if I'm skeptical to any possible success a third-party might have at this point.

It might be more practical to force a reform in the Democratic party or, like Livewire suggested, form a coalition of representatives to appeal to the Clinton and Sanders supporting factions of the core voters. Grassroots movements and electing new Senators/Representatives is the best chance the people have at taking back the Democratic party and putting a leash on Trump - necessary, as it appears very few GOP representatives feel inclined to do so themselves.

But of course, come 2020, the most practical solution in my view is to vote against Trump for a candidate who stands an actual chance of winning, which will most likely be a Democrat candidate unless whatever third-party Sander cooks up has a chance at gaining a voter base somewhere in the 50-million range.

Of course we also need to give up the infantile notion that not-voting makes you some kind of rebel or that voting doesn't do anything. The voter turn-out in America is depressing, but I will throw you a bone here in that this election is a blessing in disguise; I see more people than ever becoming aware that you can't just ignore politics. They might even give a third-party more of a chance. So who knows, maybe you are right and I'm wrong and if that's the case, it'll be the happiest mistake I've ever made.

But for now, I'll stick to my skepticism. I preferred Sanders in the race, but unless the core left can convince Democrats to see him as a chance of taking back their seats or we change house in the midterms, the end result is likely to be the same: a center-right neoliberal globalist candidate. I'd still take that over Trump.

If the next Dem candidate is Sanders or someone like him, all the better. If not...eh, better than the current loonie we have farting in the Oval.

Kanzler · Mar 9, 2017

Hands said:
You're living in a fairytale if you think Clinton wouldn't of also signed a bunch of crap for rich companies, appointed a bunch of unqualified people for cash and pushed the world to the brink of war.

Hillary losing, in the long run, will be a gift to the world. Trump is going to damage the GOP very, very badly. And right now, the only big political voice taking him on is Sanders. If we can use Trump to kill off the neocon mess once and for all we'll be laughing.

Clinton wouldn't have made healthcare any worse, nor would she have acted in Syria any differently than what Trump has done so far. Betty DeVos wouldn't be head of the Education department. The head of the EPA wouldn't be a climate change denier.

I'm not too sure how much damage Trump can do to the GOP :S Could you explain a bit more about that?

Hands · Mar 9, 2017

CarcharOdin said:
The problem is that it's obvious the Democrats would rather their own establishment candidate lose than Sanders to win, so the only choice Sanders has left is to organize a third-party of his own in manner not seen since the days of Teddy Roosevelt and even then, Roosevelt lost. There has never been, in the history of our country, a third-party or independent candidate that has won the presidency with the exception of George Washington. So forgive me if I'm skeptical to any possible success a third-party might have at this point.

It might be more practical to force a reform in the Democratic party or, like Livewire suggested, form a coalition of representatives to appeal to the Clinton and Sanders supporting factions of the core voters. Grassroots movements and electing new Senators/Representatives is the best chance the people have at taking back the Democratic party and putting a leash on Trump - necessary, as it appears very few GOP representatives feel inclined to do so themselves.

But of course, come 2020, the most practical solution in my view is to vote against Trump for a candidate who stands an actual chance of winning, which will most likely be a Democrat candidate unless whatever third-party Sander cooks up has a chance at gaining a voter base somewhere in the 50-million range.

Of course we also need to give up the infantile notion that not-voting makes you some kind of rebel or that voting doesn't do anything. The voter turn-out in America is depressing, but I will throw you a bone here in that this election is a blessing in disguise; I see more people than ever becoming aware that you can't just ignore politics. They might even give a third-party more of a chance. So who knows, maybe you are right and I'm wrong and if that's the case, it'll be the happiest mistake I've ever made.

But for now, I'll stick to my skepticism. I preferred Sanders in the race, but unless the core left can convince Democrats to see him as a chance of taking back their seats or we change house in the midterms, the end result is likely to be the same: a center-right neoliberal globalist candidate. I'd still take that over Trump.

If the next Dem candidate is Sanders or someone like him, all the better. If not...eh, better than the current loonie we have farting in the Oval.

There lies the problem. The Dems would rather give Trump 4 more years than risk running someone who'll break up their relationship with the big banks and corporations. The Dems would rather put their interests first again than those of the average Joe. This is why they lost the rust belt, this is why they lost an election no semi competent politician should have ever lost. Perez isn't as bad as Debbie, sure, but he isn't good either.

The non voters aren't going to vote for more of the same crap. Someone like Sanders, or Tulsi, or really anyone on the American left (center for the rest of the western world) would do well simply based on their views and values regarding the workers.

Kanzler said:
Clinton wouldn't have made healthcare any worse, nor would she have acted in Syria any differently than what Trump has done so far. Betty DeVos wouldn't be head of the Education department. The head of the EPA wouldn't be a climate change denier.

I'm not too sure how much damage Trump can do to the GOP :S Could you explain a bit more about that?

Whilst all of those things are true and valid, we'd still see completely inappropriate, bought positions under Clinton. We'd still have seen her allow the pipeline mess to happen, we'd still see big tax breaks for the rich, we'd be at war, or rapidly heading to war, with Russia and we'd still see the poor suffer the most.

Trump is going to damage their image almost beyond repair. Give it a year or two, let him turn America into an Oligarchy like Russia. He'll cost the Repubs. the working class vote for decades to come. Him winning the rust belt is instrumental in showing the workers of America that neither side of the neo-coin is to be trusted.

Kanzler · Mar 9, 2017

Hands said:
Whilst all of those things are true and valid, we'd still see completely inappropriate, bought positions under Clinton. We'd still have seen her allow the pipeline mess to happen, we'd still see big tax breaks for the rich, we'd be at war, or rapidly heading to war, with Russia and we'd still see the poor suffer the most.

Trump is going to damage their image almost beyond repair. Give it a year or two, let him turn America into an Oligarchy like Russia. He'll cost the Repubs. the working class vote for decades to come. Him winning the rust belt is instrumental in showing the workers of America that neither side of the neo-coin is to be trusted.

I'm not really convinced. Obama rejected the pipeline, do you really think Clinton would've turned around and reversed his position? I don't think Clinton could scrounge up tax breaks as immense as the one's Trump has turned out. Not too convinced that there'd be a war or confrontation with Russia as well.

The trouble with turning a country into an oligarchy like Russia is that you might not come back. And what evidence is out there that he's costing the Republicans the working class vote? As much as I would hope for that to be true, I haven't read anything to that effect so far.

On the flip side, to the extent that the Republicans are losing working class support, is Perez and the DNC on the right track to exploiting that?

Hands · Mar 10, 2017

Kanzler said:
I'm not really convinced. Obama rejected the pipeline, do you really think Clinton would've turned around and reversed his position? I don't think Clinton could scrounge up tax breaks as immense as the one's Trump has turned out. Not too convinced that there'd be a war or confrontation with Russia as well.

Clinton is a war hawk, her record shows that. She's expressed desire for war with both Iran and Russia in the past. Her state Dept was routinely involved with smear campaigns and antagonistic actions against the Russians. We'd already be at war with them if she had her way. Both because of her ardent hatred of them and her ardent need to please big businesses who fund her.

The trouble with turning a country into an oligarchy like Russia is that you might not come back. And what evidence is out there that he's costing the Republicans the working class vote? As much as I would hope for that to be true, I haven't read anything to that effect so far.

Give it time, we aren't even a year in yet. What we have seen is AntiFa (who's membership is almost entirely working class) standing up to the far right in a way we've not seen in a while. We're seeing whole town halls, regardless of affiliation, up in arms, we're seeing marches and protests. Slowly, but surely, the workers are uniting.

On the flip side, to the extent that the Republicans are losing working class support, is Perez and the DNC on the right track to exploiting that?

You got me here, Perez is very unlikely to be a unifying force for the working class and the DNC are still heavily distrusted after their crappy treatment of Sanders and disregard for the electorate.

Thomas Perez becomes Chairman of DNC

More options

Aeroblast

Livewire

Esper

Somewhere_

i don't know where

Kanzler

Sir Codin

Guest

Hands

I was saying Boo-urns

gimmepie

Sir Codin

Guest

Hands

I was saying Boo-urns

Sir Codin

Guest

Kanzler

Hands

I was saying Boo-urns

Kanzler

Hands

I was saying Boo-urns