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

[justfollowingtheelections]

I think that when the dust settles, and the Bernie wing calms down and takes a good long look at Tom Perez, they will quickly realize they didn't fare too badly, that he is a man very much on their side. 

Give me a break.


This is who Perez really is.  A disgusting man who will say any lie in the world. 

[jojoju1998]

I think that when the dust settles, and the Bernie wing calms down and takes a good long look at Tom Perez, they will quickly realize they didn't fare too badly, that he is a man very much on their side. 

Give me a break.


This is who Perez really is.  A disgusting man who will say any lie in the world. 

You are not a Democrat so I have no Idea why you would be so invested in Tom Perez.....

[Frodo]

I think that when the dust settles, and the Bernie wing calms down and takes a good long look at Tom Perez, they will quickly realize they didn't fare too badly, that he is a man very much on their side. 

Give me a break.


This is who Perez really is.  A disgusting man who will say any lie in the world. 

Oh, so now we're using fake news that not even Vox or the Huffington Post ran with?

[Roronoa D. Law]

Perez is boring and not controversial he can say Trump should be impeach and nobody would care. The Bernie wing lost again so they can't say the Democrat is moving far to the left. The majority black states still vote first in primary so no insurgent candidate will gain traction even if its Warren. Obamas gone, Clintons gone, Democrats control basically nothing. 2020 is the first election were Republican will have no scapegoat and there is no face of the Democrat Party. I guess they run against BLM in the meantime when people are tired of hearing fake news?

[henster]

I mean seriously who is basing their vote for Ds based on the DNC chair? They raise money & organize they are not the leader of the party & most voters have no idea who they are.

[Hindsight was 2020]

At this f**king rate their won't be a dem party in 2020.

[jojoju1998]

At this f**king rate their won't be a dem party in 2020.

There will....

I think there will be alot of Party Fighting though.

[Hindsight was 2020]

At this f**king rate their won't be a dem party in 2020.

There will....

I think there will be alot of Party Fighting though.

I know jfc why did Obama have to get involved an just let Keith be the chair

[jojoju1998]

At this f**king rate their won't be a dem party in 2020.

There will....

I think there will be alot of Party Fighting though.

I know jfc why did Obama have to get involved an just let Keith be the chair

That I do not have the Answer to. Clinton Supporters were divided between Ellison and Perez.....

Frankly, I was pulling for Pete Buttigieg.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

At this f**king rate their won't be a dem party in 2020.

There will....

I think there will be alot of Party Fighting though.

I know jfc why did Obama have to get involved an just let Keith be the chair

Obama appointed Tim Kaine and DWS, so it's obvious that helping the party is not an attribute that Obama looks for in DNC chairs.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

At this f**king rate their won't be a dem party in 2020.

A nearly two century old party is going to die because of who their main fundraiser is! Oh wow that's quite a bold prediction. Based on this logic Tom Perez's victory is the single most important political event since at least the Civil War.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I mean seriously who is basing their vote for Ds based on the DNC chair? They raise money & organize they are not the leader of the party & most voters have no idea who they are.

The problem is that you're thinking like a normal person, not an Atlas poster.

[Maxwell]

were people actually expecting Ellison to win? I thought his performance was beyond impressive.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

were people actually expecting Ellison to win? I thought his performance was beyond impressive.

Same.

[Hindsight was 2020]

At this f**king rate their won't be a dem party in 2020.

A nearly two century old party is going to die because of who their main fundraiser is! Oh wow that's quite a bold prediction. Based on this logic Tom Perez's victory is the single most important political event since at least the Civil War.

I was mainly being sarcastic

[Beet]

This country has been going steadily down the drain since 2000. Every few years it just gets worse and worse. The right wing goes more and more berzerk, and the left makes the dumb move at every turn.

[Del Tachi]

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

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This country has been going steadily down the drain since 2000. Every few years it just gets worse and worse. The right wing goes more and more berzerk, and the left makes the dumb move at every turn.

The left has no power and you're still blaming them? Sad!

[Beet]

This country has been going steadily down the drain since 2000. Every few years it just gets worse and worse. The right wing goes more and more berzerk, and the left makes the dumb move at every turn.

The left has no power and you're still blaming them? Sad!

The "left" in this case being the "Democratic" party. I was on your side in this one. That being said, 39 of these people supported Bernie in the primaries, 200 supported the Bernie-endorsed candidate over the Obama-endorsed one today.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This country has been going steadily down the drain since 2000. Every few years it just gets worse and worse. The right wing goes more and more berzerk, and the left makes the dumb move at every turn.

The left has no power and you're still blaming them? Sad!

The "left" in this case being the "Democratic" party. I was on your side in this one. That being said, 39 of these people supported Bernie in the primaries, 200 supported the Bernie-endorsed candidate over the Obama-endorsed one today.

Yeah, well, even getting a majority of the Hillary primary endorsing Senators (who endorsed in the DNC chair race), including Senate Leaders Schumer and Reid isn't enough to overcome Obama, Biden, and the Clintons.

[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).

[○∙◄☻¥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?

[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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[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.