Democrats' DNC Chair Poll

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

Perez.

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

This is the wing of the party that focused on losing issues like abortion and whining about muh diversity**

No, they didn't. Clinton spent her time basically attacking trump as abhorrent (and she did say things about policy, which the media never bothered to cover because hyper-focusing on her attacks on trump and emails was better for ratings), and it likely would have worked if it wasn't for the FBI letter and its convenient release date. Plus, abortion isn't a losing issue, its what makes pro-choice voters choose democrats, but it isn't a good thing to base a campaign entirely around, as you only need to say a certain amount about it to energize the base and after that it really doesn't do much but make you seem like a joke.

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

This is the wing of the party that focused on losing issues like abortion and whining about muh diversity**

No, they didn't. Clinton spent her time basically attacking trump as abhorrent (and she did say things about policy, which the media never bothered to cover because hyper-focusing on her attacks on trump and emails was better for ratings), and it likely would have worked if it wasn't for the FBI letter and its convenient release date. Plus, abortion isn't a losing issue, its what makes pro-choice voters choose democrats, but it isn't a good thing to base a campaign entirely around, as you only need to say a certain amount about it to energize the base and after that it really doesn't do much but make you seem like a joke.

Clinton didn't focus on the bread and butter issues, or was perceived to not focus on them. This is all that matters. You disagree on what losing issues she was perceived to focus on. All issues that aren't bread and butter are losing issues. If I live in a midwestern town that's been shrinking in population for nearly half a century I'd want the Democratic nominee to focus on true economic issues that cater to the working poor and restore employment and make having families economically viable again, not fighting for abortion which is a vehicle to further reduce the population and irrelevant pearl clutching on how her opponent is a big fat meanie pants. Otherwise I might be persuaded to vote for the guy who actually visited PA factory towns and actually gave a speech in front of a wall of recycled cans. That latter part was my favorite part of the Trump campaign and the Democrats will keep losing if they don't compete on this front.

Ellison's not perfect, I'm sure there's a lot not to like about him, but what I'm seeing here is a proxy battle of Sanders vs. Clinton, and Clinton lost to Donald Trump. All I'm seeing from Perez is that he's supported by the driftwood within the party and he uses Clinton campaign slogans.

Non bread-and-butter issues can very much be winning (gay marriage for Rs until public opinion turned, immigration, etc.). The fact is, when it comes to evaluating candidates, perception of the candidates group, proxy wars, etc. should be completely ignored. What matters is who is better suited to actually do the role. Picking someone because they endorsed bernie flies in the face of this truth. This also applies to bernie himself. A blind ideologue who appeals to populist sympathies and doesn't appear to actually understand the issues or real solutions (his plans add an ungodly 17 trillion to the deficit) shouldn't have a chance at the presidency. Voting based on someone appearing to talk to the people has a danger of breaking that fact(see trump).

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

The one who isn't anti-Semitic. But the counterargument is obviously that the Democratic Party is going to be an anti-Semitic dumpster fire anyway, so they might as well be honest about it -- and I guess that's a reasonable point of view too. Ellison/Warren 2020 imo.

Hating israel's government =/= antisemitism.

I question those who link the actions of the israeli government and people of Jewish descent together in a way that a criticism of one is equal to an attack on the other.

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

I question those who link the actions of the israeli government and people of Jewish descent together in a way that a criticism of one is equal to an attack on the other.

This is like saying "I support segregation but I really really like black people"

By that "logic", all Jews would be responsible for any bad thing the state of israel does. Which is absurd.