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

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Jfern is as usual providing as much evidence of vote fraud against progressive as he is of in Ohio in 2004.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Jfern is as usual providing as much evidence of vote fraud against progressive as he is of in Ohio in 2004.

No one cares that I sided with 31 representatives and 1 Senator on some vote 12 years ago.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

[Frodo]

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.

Is everything a conspiracy to you?  It must be stressful having such a suspicious and paranoid mind.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

Is everything a conspiracy to you?  It must be stressful having such a suspicious and paranoid mind.

The party isn't interested in giving any power to progressives, and even made up that chair throwing lie to demonize progressives. The Democratic party has made it clear they are a clear enemy of progressives. And we don't need to be lectured on what is a conspiracy from the establishment that blames Russia for everything.

[Frodo]

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.

Is everything a conspiracy to you?  It must be stressful having such a suspicious and paranoid mind.

The party isn't interested in giving any power to progressives, and even made up that chair throwing lie to demonize progressives. The Democratic party has made it clear they are a clear enemy of progressives. And we don't need to be lectured on what is a conspiracy from the establishment that blames Russia for everything.

Unlike your garbage, my conspiracy theory is backed up by our country's intelligence agencies.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

Is everything a conspiracy to you?  It must be stressful having such a suspicious and paranoid mind.

The party isn't interested in giving any power to progressives, and even made up that chair throwing lie to demonize progressives. The Democratic party has made it clear they are a clear enemy of progressives. And we don't need to be lectured on what is a conspiracy from the establishment that blames Russia for everything.

Unlike your garbage, my conspiracy theory is backed up by our country's intelligence agencies.

Something about Iraq and WMDs.

Even though that's not true and the CIA never claimed that and Bush lied. But it'll be his response, no doubt.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

Is everything a conspiracy to you?  It must be stressful having such a suspicious and paranoid mind.

The party isn't interested in giving any power to progressives, and even made up that chair throwing lie to demonize progressives. The Democratic party has made it clear they are a clear enemy of progressives. And we don't need to be lectured on what is a conspiracy from the establishment that blames Russia for everything.

Unlike your garbage, my conspiracy theory is backed up by our country's intelligence agencies.

Oh yeah, the CIA has always been a truthful proponent of democracy around the world.

/sarcasm

[Frodo]

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.

Is everything a conspiracy to you?  It must be stressful having such a suspicious and paranoid mind.

The party isn't interested in giving any power to progressives, and even made up that chair throwing lie to demonize progressives. The Democratic party has made it clear they are a clear enemy of progressives. And we don't need to be lectured on what is a conspiracy from the establishment that blames Russia for everything.

Unlike your garbage, my conspiracy theory is backed up by our country's intelligence agencies.

Something about Iraq and WMDs.

Even though that's not true and the CIA never claimed that and Bush lied. But it'll be his response, no doubt.

You're probably right -in all the years I've been here, jfern has proven he is as predictable as a clock.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

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.

Is everything a conspiracy to you?  It must be stressful having such a suspicious and paranoid mind.

The party isn't interested in giving any power to progressives, and even made up that chair throwing lie to demonize progressives. The Democratic party has made it clear they are a clear enemy of progressives. And we don't need to be lectured on what is a conspiracy from the establishment that blames Russia for everything.

Unlike your garbage, my conspiracy theory is backed up by our country's intelligence agencies.

Something about Iraq and WMDs.

Even though that's not true and the CIA never claimed that and Bush lied. But it'll be his response, no doubt.

You're probably right -in all the years I've been here, jfern has proven he is as predictable as a clock.

-That's called being principled.

[GLPman]

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.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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. 

[SCNCmod]

Probably better than Ellison... The republican's will have a much harder time vilifying Perez.  (But Buttigieg would've been even harder to vilify)

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

[Confused Democrat]

Perez's election as DNC Chair is just going to speed up the process of the progressive wing taking over the Democratic Party.

[DPKdebator]

Only if you consider pissing off the progressives good. A subreddit probably isn't the best way to provide an example, but /r/sandersforpresident definitely isn't happy about Perez.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Perez's election as DNC Chair is just going to speed up the process of the progressive wing taking over the Democratic Party.

It'd be ironic if the progressive wing having no control over the party sped that up.

[Tartarus Sauce]

DWS is no longer the DNC chair, so ultimately yes.

[Kleine Scheiße]

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

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Probably mildly bad.

Keeping the Obama faction in power is likely going to lead to more money being spent on DC consulting firms and fewer dollars going to state parties and substantive, persuasion oriented field programs. The party will be marginally thinner come 2020 than it would have been under Keith.

Plus, as I brought up endlessly in the days leading up to the election, Perez has raised about $200,000 in his political life. I certainly hope he's a fast on-the-job learner.

That said, the fact that the outgoing President had 200 whole votes against his candidate has got to inflict a little humility on Perez and Co. I'd much rather the "Obama faction"* aligned with the Sanders faction against the Clinton/Bluedog faction within the party since a) that could reasonably be described as a "progressive" coalition and b) the Sanders faction is honestly the future of the party, and I don't just say that as a shameless Bernie hack. I really do wish that they had seen good sense and put us at the head of the coalition, though.

*I say Obama, Clinton and Sanders faction as a shorthand for loose ideological and social groupings of party officials, electeds, activists, and staffers. It's not like Obama, Clinton and Bernie are directly guiding any of this 100% of the time, and indeed the inheritor of the Clinton faction appears to be Schumer/Manchin more than anyone.

[Blackacre]

Plus, as I brought up endlessly in the days leading up to the election, Perez has raised about $200,000 in his political life. I certainly hope he's a fast on-the-job learner.

This is why I think bringing Ellison on as Deputy is significant. Perez and Ellison have a decent personal chemistry, and both invoked similar themes during the race, (build up state/local parties) so I have a hunch that the real reason why Perez was so quick to bring on Ellison was that Perez knows his inexperiences and wants help/input from his friend in those areas.

I could be overly optimistic, but that's exactly what I would do were I in Perez's position

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Plus, as I brought up endlessly in the days leading up to the election, Perez has raised about $200,000 in his political life. I certainly hope he's a fast on-the-job learner.

This is why I think bringing Ellison on as Deputy is significant. Perez and Ellison have a decent personal chemistry, and both invoked similar themes during the race, (build up state/local parties) so I have a hunch that the real reason why Perez was so quick to bring on Ellison was that Perez knows his inexperiences and wants help/input from his friend in those areas.

I could be overly optimistic, but that's exactly what I would do were I in Perez's position

Yeah. I'm a bit more pessimistic, especially since we've still seen no hint at Ellison's portfolio other than "he should be the face of the party!"

Like, and I realize this would be difficult, but if they could have worked out each other's hypothetical portfolio as "deputy"* this would smell a lot better to me.


*this operating off the widespread rumor that each had agreed to make each other the deputy if one won.

[Figueira]

I'm honestly surprised at how many people here are buying the "Perez is an evil establishment neoliberal who will doom the Democratic Party" line.

[Blackacre]

Plus, as I brought up endlessly in the days leading up to the election, Perez has raised about $200,000 in his political life. I certainly hope he's a fast on-the-job learner.

This is why I think bringing Ellison on as Deputy is significant. Perez and Ellison have a decent personal chemistry, and both invoked similar themes during the race, (build up state/local parties) so I have a hunch that the real reason why Perez was so quick to bring on Ellison was that Perez knows his inexperiences and wants help/input from his friend in those areas.

I could be overly optimistic, but that's exactly what I would do were I in Perez's position

Yeah. I'm a bit more pessimistic, especially since we've still seen no hint at Ellison's portfolio other than "he should be the face of the party!"

Like, and I realize this would be difficult, but if they could have worked out each other's hypothetical portfolio as "deputy"* this would smell a lot better to me.


*this operating off the widespread rumor that each had agreed to make each other the deputy if one won.

I'm willing to chalk that up to the idea of bringing the runner-up on as deputy was probably a bit last-minute. But even if Ellison has no official portfolio, he could still be influential. Biden had no official powers as VP and he was a major influence on the Obama presidency, for instance.

I'll be more than willing to eat my optimism if a hear or two passes and Perez is little different from DWS, but I highly doubt that'll happen.