Is Tom Perez's election as DNC chair good news for Democrats?

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Only to the extent that Keith Ellison's election would have been a disaster for the Democrats.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Bernie's an Independent.  He's not a Democrat.  And he kind of emphasized that after losing to Hillary, did he not?

I think folks here, and particularly the Democrats here, underestimate the disadvantage Bernie takes on by not becoming a Democrat in name, and not just an Independent who's a member of their caucus.  Think about it; what political figure in all of American history had a faction of a party named for him when he wasn't a member of that party?  (I'm talking about Sanders Democrats, not Reagan Democrats, if you get my drift.)  Would an actual member of the DNC have a right to be indignant if Bernie Sanders, a non-Democrat, wished to exert influence over how the Democratic Party actually runs.

Bernie's remaining outside the Democratic Party is what limits the "progressives".  It's a bigger deal than folks think.  I don't think it's too late for Bernie to turn around and declare himself a Democrat for Life, but I think he's emotionally attached to his "Independent" status to the point of not seeing how becoming a Democrat would be an asset to both his own career and the Progressive movement (in terms of influence).

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Bernie's an Independent.  He's not a Democrat.  And he kind of emphasized that after losing to Hillary, did he not?

I think folks here, and particularly the Democrats here, underestimate the disadvantage Bernie takes on by not becoming a Democrat in name, as well as a member of their caucus.  Think about it; what political figure in all of American history had a faction of a party named for him when he wasn't a member of that party?  (I'm talking about Sanders Democrats, not Reagan Democrats, if you get my drift.)  Would an actual member of the DNC have a right to be indignant if Bernie Sanders, a non-Democrat, wished to exert influence over how the Democratic Party actually runs.

Bernie's remaining outside the Democratic Party is what limits the "progressives".  It's a bigger deal than folks think.  I don't think it's too late for Bernie to turn around and declare himself a Democrat for Life, but I think he's emotionally attached to his "Independent" status to the point of not seeing how becoming a Democrat would be an asset to both his own career and the Progressive movement (in terms of influence).

Why would he want to join a party that treated him so poorly?

1.  Because the vast majority of his supporters are members of that party and are vested in that party.

2.  Because he's a member of that party's caucus in the Senate.

3.  Because that's how the game is played if you want to win.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Bernie's an Independent.  He's not a Democrat.  And he kind of emphasized that after losing to Hillary, did he not?

I think folks here, and particularly the Democrats here, underestimate the disadvantage Bernie takes on by not becoming a Democrat in name, as well as a member of their caucus.  Think about it; what political figure in all of American history had a faction of a party named for him when he wasn't a member of that party?  (I'm talking about Sanders Democrats, not Reagan Democrats, if you get my drift.)  Would an actual member of the DNC have a right to be indignant if Bernie Sanders, a non-Democrat, wished to exert influence over how the Democratic Party actually runs.

Bernie's remaining outside the Democratic Party is what limits the "progressives".  It's a bigger deal than folks think.  I don't think it's too late for Bernie to turn around and declare himself a Democrat for Life, but I think he's emotionally attached to his "Independent" status to the point of not seeing how becoming a Democrat would be an asset to both his own career and the Progressive movement (in terms of influence).

Why would he want to join a party that treated him so poorly?

1.  Because the vast majority of his supporters are members of that party and are vested in that party.

2.  Because he's a member of that party's caucus in the Senate.

3.  Because that's how the game is played if you want to win.

1. A lot are DemExiting as we speak.
2. Hes' been a member of the caucus for 26 years, so why change now?
3. They still would have rigged things against him if he was a Democrat. And Vermont doesn't have party registration anyways, so you must just mean according to the US Senate.

Lots of states don't have party registration, but Bernie could opt to run as a Democrat. 

If you're a progressive/liberal, why would you exit the Democratic Party?  Do you not want to win?  It's as silly as conservatives like George Will leaving the GOP to be an "independent".  Why? 

There is no party, other than the Democratic Party, with a chance to elect public officials who agree with Bernie Sanders on issues.  Bernie needs to seriously think about that.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Bernie's an Independent.  He's not a Democrat.  And he kind of emphasized that after losing to Hillary, did he not?

I think folks here, and particularly the Democrats here, underestimate the disadvantage Bernie takes on by not becoming a Democrat in name, as well as a member of their caucus.  Think about it; what political figure in all of American history had a faction of a party named for him when he wasn't a member of that party?  (I'm talking about Sanders Democrats, not Reagan Democrats, if you get my drift.)  Would an actual member of the DNC have a right to be indignant if Bernie Sanders, a non-Democrat, wished to exert influence over how the Democratic Party actually runs.

Bernie's remaining outside the Democratic Party is what limits the "progressives".  It's a bigger deal than folks think.  I don't think it's too late for Bernie to turn around and declare himself a Democrat for Life, but I think he's emotionally attached to his "Independent" status to the point of not seeing how becoming a Democrat would be an asset to both his own career and the Progressive movement (in terms of influence).

Why would he want to join a party that treated him so poorly?

1.  Because the vast majority of his supporters are members of that party and are vested in that party.

2.  Because he's a member of that party's caucus in the Senate.

3.  Because that's how the game is played if you want to win.

1. A lot are DemExiting as we speak.
2. Hes' been a member of the caucus for 26 years, so why change now?
3. They still would have rigged things against him if he was a Democrat. And Vermont doesn't have party registration anyways, so you must just mean according to the US Senate.

Lots of states don't have party registration, but Bernie could opt to run as a Democrat. 

If you're a progressive/liberal, why would you exit the Democratic Party?  Do you not want to win?  It's as silly as conservatives like George Will leaving the GOP to be an "independent".  Why? 

There is no party, other than the Democratic Party, with a chance to elect public officials who agree with Bernie Sanders on issues.  Bernie needs to seriously think about that.

The party is rigging things against progressives. Why be a member of a corrupt neoliberal party that hates your guts. It isn't set in stone that there are only 2 viable parties in a country. We've had changes in the past. Canada had the 1993 elections. The Vermont Progressive party does win some elections.

The reason to be a member of the Democratic Party if you're a progressive is this:  In America, elections are decided on a winner-take-all basis.  In such an environment, folks will automatically gravitate to one candidate or another.  Independents and Third Parties are almost always coopted by the major party it agrees with the most.  That is the nature of a winner-take-all electoral system.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Only to the extent that Keith Ellison's election would have been a disaster for the Democrats.

This hits the nail on the head. I know several of the red avatars on here will disagree, but I truly believe the Democrsts dodged a bullet by electing Perez over Ellison.

Neither one of these guys are the sort of DNC Chair that can focus the party on regaining the working class support that, quite frankly, made the Democratic Party what I grew up expecting it to be.  The difference is that Ellison has an image problem, in part (fairly or unfairly) because he identifies as Muslim.  Ellison would have become a talking point the FOX crowd would be able to use to hammer the Democrats as unpatriotic and irresponsible, with the implication that Ellison, the Muslim, isn't really cheering for America in the struggle against Islamic Terrorists and views letting a few dangerous folks into America as the price "we" need to "pay" to show that we "don't discriminate by religion".  Perez and the whole Democratic crowd don't differ from Ellison one iota, but Ellison's Islamic identification make him a lightning rod for those who want to beat the Democrats over the head with the hammers of "Radical Islamic Terrorism" and "Identity Politics".  It's somewhat unfair to Ellison, but Americans (including a number of Democrats) do have real concern about who we are letting in the country.  Ellison personifies the sentiment of it being more important to "not discriminate" than to "keep America safe" in our immigration policies, and the concerns are more than just theoretical ones nowadays. 

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

I'm not convinced that Ellison was going to make a difference, either, but he had a stronger chance. The "these are both great progressive candidates" narrative was never very convincing. The Democratic Party's problem is not moving leftward or moderating, it's learning to respond to the concerns of a wide enough coalition of people to be competitive at every level of government.

Perez isn't promising any of the reflection or action that would be needed to do that. He's the creature of an Obama-Clinton party that believes that it can get away with almost anything as long as it can buy off enough young voters with gimmicks like "free college" that function just as much as spoils for heavily Democratic administrative castes in sectors like health care and higher education.

This.

If I had to explain the problem in one sentence, I'd borrow the underlined part.