Democrats pick Tom Perez as DNC Chair

Winston said:

The Green Party is not allowed in the debates. Even though a vast majority of American want them there. The Green Party doesn't have any exposure. They're marginalized, disenfranchised, and ostracized. They get arrested for showing up at the debate. They also don't get federal funding. I voted for the Greens this year. In part because I was hoping the enthusiasm from Bernie's campaign would push the Greens over the 5% Federal funding threshold. Unfortunately, that did not happen for them. I also subscribe to the idea that if the Greens want to be taken seriously they need to win local elections, mayorships, and build from the ground up.

My belief is that if Democrats want to win elections, specifically the midterms the Democrats need to exorcise corporatism from themselves. Their base, specifically the millenial generation is an informational generation. They can make a meme from opensecrets.org exposing Corey Booker's skeletons in the closet in 2 minutes, and poof! It's off traveling to the far reaching corners of the country. The millenials are just now becoming the age of maturity where you start to care about politics. They have kids now, mortgages, some have massive amounts of student debt. Some have really, really, really, bad jobs. And they're supposed to go along with neoliberals that have delivered us depression era income inequality. The millenial generation is the first generation on par to do worse than their parents. What swung the election for Obama? Millenials and African Americans.. why didn't they come out for Clinton? Obama never delivered on hope and change, and Clinton didn't have a message other than I'm not that other guy.

In my view, the ONLY thing a Democrat needs is a message of income inequality compounded by campaign finance reform. Single-payer, debt free college, criminal justice reform, transforming our energy system, cut defense and end war, these are all important, to an overall progressive platform. But, from what I observed in this past election, what wins election is economic security. Trump won this election by telling the rust belt he'd give them their jobs back, when he can't because he can't fight the free market and automation. Democrats are in a position to capitalize on Trump's bombast, lack of experience, and lack of intelligence. But, they must run progressives, who at a base level support overturning citizen's united, breaking up the banks, raising the minimum wage, Bernie's economic package. This may be noticeable change, which people are reluctant to embrace, but it is necessary if our middle class and democracy are to survive the onslaught from some of the greediest capitalists the world has ever known.

Click to expand...

You miss the point completely as like far too many you focus on the Presidency and not the Congress. You want the country that is predominantly center right to mover far to the left. The left cannot win Congressional elections so how are you going to win a national one? Your movement begins at the bottom not the top and the left has failed miserably in that regard.


Such disdain for capitalism leading to the question of why? How has capitalism hurt you and your family? You have freedom to be the best you can be due to capitalism. Please tell me how any rich person or those greedy capitalists prevented you from joining them? You seem to want equal outcome instead of equal opportunity

SouthernDemocrat said:

1. Clinton ran a campaign that was further to the left policy wise than any other Democrat in my lifetime. On virtually every issue, she ran solidly liberal. She lost because of all the political baggage she had due to being in politics for 30 years. Saying Clinton did not run far enough to the left is like when right wingers claim Romney did not run far enough to the right back in 2012 when in fact he ran as a doctrinaire conservative.

2. There is no fighting globalization. It is our reality.

3. The Democrats are probably not going to do well in the midterms. The map looks terrible for them in the senate. Where they need to focus in the next couple of years is picking up governorships so they can have a check on GOP gerrymandering of congressional and statehouse seats.

Click to expand...

1. They created that platform after all the controversy surrounding DWS, the DNC, Clinton, and the primaries. I understand you think she won millions more votes fair in square. But, she did not. They cheated for her. In my opinion the DNC's first order of business is to defeat whatever represents worker's interests. This election it was Bernie Sanders. Then if they lose to a republican, oh well, their donors can live with that. But, they can't live with workers getting more benefits or less of a tax burden.

2. Yeah, automation is another concern. We're on par to lose 5 million manufacturing jobs to automation by 2020. How do you see this playing out? What happens when trucker is not a viable career choice in this country? How many times have companies proven that profits matter more than people. The government is going to have to act. Whether that's an education program or jobs program, something's gotta give. I think it's glorious that technology has moved us to a post-blue collar world. If we can find a way to cooperate, it should be a good thing for everyone.

3. Yeah, the map is not favorable to Democrats. They also need to undo a lot of gerry-mandering before anything can change.

Winston said:

1. They created that platform after all the controversy surrounding DWS, the DNC, Clinton, and the primaries.

Click to expand...

Let's assume your chronology is correct. Didn't you just say "she should've offered olive branches to progressives"?

The most progressive platform of a Dem nominee in a half century is exactly that.

Greenbeard said:

Let's assume your chronology is correct. Didn't you just say "she should've offered olive branches to progressives"?

The most progressive platform of a Dem nominee in a half century is exactly that.

Click to expand...

I liked Clinton's college plan. I made up my mind about her long before the primaries. But, I'm miserably, insufferably, disgustingly liberal. When I was in HS I idolized Mikhail Bakunin. I wanted to live in a classless society. So, I mean there's that to consider. I'm an outsider to most American political thought. For the longest time, I never felt represented. I liked Nader and Kucinich. Obama 08. I mean who didn't love Obama then? Besides maybe HRC.

Here's the problem. The platform isn't congruent with the DNC and the Clinton campaign. No one trusted them anymore because they were liars. It'd be like if you caught your wife cheating and she denied it to the day but, promised to make you eggs in the morning.

SouthernDemocrat said:

Well that might explain why neither of those parties can win the presidency, but it sure doesn't explain why they can't even so much as win a small town city council seat.

Click to expand...

Actually, they've won smaller municipal level seats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_the_United_States#Office_holders

The rust belt flipped due to depressed Democratic turnout - much of the Obama coalition didn't show up because they didn't have a rock star candidate like they did the previous two presidential elections. Trump won with a lower percentage of the vote than Romney lost with 4 years earlier.

Click to expand...

Yes, and what on earth do you think caused that depressed Democratic turn out? Why the rust belt specifically? Every effect has its cause.

I agree that Trump's lack of popularity makes for an unconvincing mandate, and in fact that was one of my points: left populism would have defeated his right populism, but in the end, he was perceived to be more for the working class, while Clinton's campaign largely ran on the usual bull**** smokescreen of negative ads and social justice to cover for her lack of commitment to economic justice because it's unpopular with the donors.

They didn't squander 2 years. They actually had the most legislatively productive 2 years since the LBJ years. Look at what they walked into, the biggest financial crisis since The Great Depression. They passed the ACA, Dodd Frank, Lilly Ledbetter, 2009 Stimulus Act, 2010 Stimulus Act, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act..... This all resulted in a huge right wing freak out where they swept the House in 2010 and the liberals didn't show up to vote.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you mentioned the ACA as I thought you would, because it actually was one of the most embarrassing non-developments of that time, with Democrats actually voting against it (on behalf of those vested interests mentioned earlier) and impeding its progress, thus leading to the half-baked mess we have today.

As for the stimulus legislation, again, Dems had all the power and capacity to see that justice was done in the financial sector, that needed regulatory reform would be passed, that Main Street would be helped rather than Wall Street reaping virtually all the benefits, and with the exception of again half-baked solutions on the regulatory aside, did none of these things. Remember Occupy Wallstreet? Foreshadowing, and justified outrage. Yes, it came a year after the 2010 Senate flip, but they sure as hell weren't protesting merely that one year window.

People get frustrated when there is a deadlocked government and you get someone like Trump. People also get angry when government tries to do too much - see the 2010 elections. Unless we are in a crisis like the Great Depression, Great Recession, or in the wake of a presidential assassination (LBJ years), incrementalism is the only politically palatable way of doing anything.

Click to expand...

2010 is actually a case where the government didn't do enough on behalf of the people as detailed above. Further, it wasn't deadlocked government that was being protested against, it was clearly and unambiguously Hillary's style of politics, and what she chose to emphasize. Trump had a **** mandate and Hillary won the popular vote, but the turn outs, the states she did lose, and third party growth say it all. Again, Bernie's ideas were phenomenally popular; the voter support for them was there, even if the top down implementation would be difficult due to vested interests.

My point on corporatism is that no one likes it unless it benefits the company or industry they are in. That is why we will always have it.

Click to expand...

We'll always have it because the idiotic Buckley v Valeo and Citizens United rulings say we always will have it by conflating of private money in public office with freedom of speech, and sheltering it with the First Amendment. Have you been paying attention at all? It's not mere pork barreling with industries important to a politician's state that's the real problem here, it's the hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in donations and private lobbying annually, and the way that's constitutionally protected.

Surrealistik said:

Actually, they've won smaller municipal level seats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_the_United_States#Office_holders

Click to expand...

Oh OK, they hold .0000001% of municipal offices. Making real progress....

Yes, and what on earth do you think caused that depressed Democratic turn out? Why the rust belt specifically? Every effect has its cause.

I agree that Trump's lack of popularity makes for an unconvincing mandate, and in fact that was one of my points: left populism would have defeated his right populism, but in the end, he was perceived to be more for the working class, while Clinton's campaign largely ran on the usual bull**** smokescreen of negative ads and social justice to cover for her lack of commitment to economic justice because it's unpopular with the donors.

Click to expand...

Clinton lost because she 30 years worth of political baggage, had a foreign power doing everything they could to keep her from being elected, and just wasn't an appealing candidate.

Just the same, had her husband been able to run again, he almost certainly would have won. Had Biden ran, he almost certainly would have won against Trump. Had Obama been able to run again he would destroyed Trump electorally. If hardcore liberalism doesn't win at the state and local level in the rust belt, why would you think it would win at the national level there?

I'm glad you mentioned the ACA as I thought you would, because it actually was one of the most embarrassing non-developments of that time, with Democrats actually voting against it (on behalf of those vested interests mentioned earlier) and impeding its progress, thus leading to the half-baked mess we have today.

Remember Occupy Wallstreet? Foreshadowing, and justified outrage. Yes, it came a year after the 2010 Senate flip, but they sure as hell weren't protesting merely that one year window.

Click to expand...

1. Yes I remember Occupy Wallstreet. It was a bunch of liberals bitching as some grand catharsis on their part and never convincing anyone outside of their echo chamber of the merits of their cause.....a cause that you would be hard pressed to pin down to any one thing anyway.

2. When Democrats are in the majority in the Senate and the House, they don't just represent relatively liberal urban areas, they also have members that represent much more moderate suburban areas as well some moderate to conservative smaller cities. Because of that, you have to build a consensus that requires big progressive bills to be watered down enough to where the constituents for representatives of more moderate to center right areas do not just openly revolt against their congressman.

continued....

2010 is actually a case where the government didn't do enough on behalf of the people as detailed above. Further, it wasn't deadlocked government that was being protested against, it was clearly and unambiguously Hillary's style of politics, and what she chose to emphasize. Trump had a **** mandate and Hillary won the popular vote, but the turn outs, the states she did lose, and third party growth say it all. Again, Bernie's ideas were phenomenally popular; the voter support for them was there, even if the top down implementation would be difficult due to vested interests.

Click to expand...

I remember when I was a kid during the 1988 election. It was the first election I can remember paying attention to at all. Dukakis ran as a doctrinaire liberal. He was running over 20 points a head of Bush Sr in the polls all through the Summer. Then his liberalism that polled so well fell victim to a barrage of negative ads. When it was all said and done, he lost by a landslide.


For my entire life, liberal ideas have usually polled much better than conservative ones. This has led many idealistic liberals to think the country is a center left country. Yet every time those big liberal ideas get subjected to debate and negative ads, the electorate freaks out. This is why hardcore liberals never win the presidency outside of a time of crisis. FDR won in the wake of the Great Depression. LBJ won in the wake of the Kennedy Assassination. Those are the only two hardcore liberal presidents we have had in anyone's lifetime that is alive today. If most of the electorate was wanting liberal populism, then the Green Party would be winning state and local offices right and left, yet they don't. The most popular governors in the country have not been the most liberal ones or the most conservative, they have been the most moderate. For example, right now the two most popular governors in the country are both Republicans, Larry Hogan of Maryland, and Charlie Baker of Massachusetts. Those are both liberal states, yet their moderate Republican governors are the most popular in the nation. Prior to this year, the most popular governor was Mike Beebe, the previous governor of Arkansas, a moderate Democrat. That ought to tell you something. The most popular president in terms of approval ratings since FDR was Clinton, a moderate Democrat.


If Democrats want to start winning again they have to go back to Howard Dean's 50 state strategy, get some new talent, and get some new ideas.

SouthernDemocrat said:

Oh OK, they hold .0000001% of municipal offices. Making real progress....

Click to expand...

Yes, because they're a tiny, underfunded, marginal and stigmatized voice in US politics paralyzed by fear of the spoiler effect with glaring infrastructure deficits (that are still relevant even at the municipal level, albeit less so); we've been over this. That said, I'm glad you can admit that you're wrong.

Clinton lost because she 30 years worth of political baggage, had a foreign power doing everything they could to keep her from being elected, and just wasn't an appealing candidate...

Click to expand...

If you honestly don't believe that her message and campaigning had nothing substantial to do with her defeat, and weren't at least as responsible, there's no getting through to you. While I agree given how close things were and how uncharismatic she was that virtually any other candidate, Bernie included, would have won, her message, and lackthereof was undoubtedly a major contributor to her defeat. Similar messaging was likewise responsible for the defeat of Dems down ballot.

Further when has hardcore liberalism been tried at the state level with anywhere near enough resources and exposure to be a contender (aside from Bernie of course)? It actually does succeed at the municipal level, but again, there is a litany of earlier described problems facing independent or third party progressivism which has exactly nothing to do with policy.

1. Yes I remember Occupy Wallstreet. It was a bunch of liberals bitching as some grand catharsis on their part and never convincing anyone outside of their echo chamber of the merits of their cause.....a cause that you would be hard pressed to pin down to any one thing anyway.

2. When Democrats are in the majority in the Senate and the House, they don't just represent relatively liberal urban areas...

Click to expand...

1. Except a clear common denominator was the treatment of Wall Street after they wrecked havoc on the economy with Bill and Bush' indispensable assistance, and it included more than liberals.

2. Outside of some concerns with abortion, internal opposition to ACA during 2008-10 had nothing to do with constituents. Constituents certainly had no love for bills that gave Wall Street virtually all of the benefits of the stimulus packages. Playing to the right and to the donors killed Democrats in 2010; that should have been the first real wake up call. Obama and his crew were voted in to pass meaningful reforms and changes in the wake of one of the greatest economic crisis' in US history, and failed utterly to do so barring maybe Dodd Frank depending on who you ask.

SouthernDemocrat said:

I remember when I was a kid during the 1988 election. It was the first election I can remember paying attention to at all....

Click to expand...

Again totally different context and background. Dukakis isn't Bernie, the zeitgeist isn't the same, nor is the political climate; not remotely comparable, and there isn't exactly a lot of effective ammunition that can be used against Bernie (I sure would love to see the contents of that nonsense GOP folio Clintonites keep talking about; I suspect it is pages full of copypasted screaming about Bernie being a dirty rat communist). Especially notable is the fact that when your candidate has a much lower comparative favourability rating as Trump did vs Bernie, negative ads become even more dangerous and liable to backfire.

For my entire life, liberal ideas have usually polled much better than conservative ones...


If Democrats want to start winning again they have to go back to Howard Dean's 50 state strategy, get some new talent, and get some new ideas.

Click to expand...

2007-8 was a crisis that in many ways is still ongoing for the middle class and poor. Hell, for the first time in the 20th and 21st century since the Great Depression and WW2, life expectancies have materially declined. Meanwhile, living standards worsen and economic inequality increases. Trump wouldn't have had a chance, even against someone as unpopular as Clinton (in fact he was less so), if things weren't so terrible and desperate for the typical person despite the top down macro looking alright superficially.

Again, the centre is being displaced to the right and left; you are observing exactly what I have stated earlier. The Green Party mention is an irrelevant red herring for reasons likewise already mentioned. Further, FDR is considered one of the greatest if not the greatest president of all time (struggling with only Lincoln for the top spot), and even if moderates are successful at the state level in a political climate specific to that region, that doesn't mean they're winners at the federal.

Winston said:

Perez is eloquent. I'll give him that. DWS had problems because she is a bad liar. As long as Perez understands a couple things [then he] can do wonders for the party if he understands these 2 points.

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand; he was installed into this position precisely because he understands neither of those two points. Bare in mind that David Weigel, who was the only person other than TYT's Nomiki Konst who actually followed the DNC chair race, signaled that the primary reason that the Perez was chosen was because he was going to give more money to the DNC and agreed to keep the corporate money faucets on.

I'm not sure, maybe Ellison can do some outreach.

Click to expand...

That's precisely the point. These are positions --like Sanders and Warren in the "Senate leadership" positions-- that are made up from whole clothe by the actual Democratic leadership, and were specifically designed to be positions with no real power, while keeping these people as the "face" of the Democratic party.

I don't think Warren, Sanders, or Ellison should be doing that. The party has made themselves perfectly clear: They will not cede anything more than a half-hearted, purely-symbolic victory, let alone a position within the party that holds even nominal power.

Risky Thicket said:

The Democratic Party is as worthless as tits on a bull.

Click to expand...

The supreme irony here is that the Democratic party leadership thinks that they've "won."

Winston said:

Unfortunately, every indication that the Democrats are sane, rational people not stuck inside the beltway echo chamber is fading fast. Honestly, I assert this to be 100% true. The Democrats would have rather lost with HRC than won with Bernie Sanders.

Click to expand...

It's just self-evident.

Greenbeard said:

Tom Perez is a progressive.

Click to expand...

A progressive, sure, because Hillary was also a "progressive." That somewhat misses the point, however.

SouthernDemocrat said:

I remember when I was a kid during the 1988 election. It was the first election I can remember paying attention to at all. Dukakis ran as a doctrinaire liberal. He was running over 20 points a head of Bush Sr in the polls all through the Summer. Then his liberalism that polled so well fell victim to a barrage of negative ads. When it was all said and done, he lost by a landslide.

Click to expand...

It's true that Mondale and Dukakis were bashed over the rocks, but the extremely "moderate" candidates Gore, Kerry, and Hillary Clinton also got crushed due to the electoral college. (Beyond that, one would be extremely naive not to note how the population trends since then have made 1988 and 2008 and beyond extremely different elections.)

For my entire life, liberal ideas have usually polled much better than conservative ones. This has led many idealistic liberals to think the country is a center left country. Yet every time those big liberal ideas get subjected to debate and negative ads, the electorate freaks out. This is why hardcore liberals never win the presidency outside of a time of crisis.

Click to expand...

This doesn't really explain LBJ's Great Society, but it's true that historically Republicans have been extremely effective at smear campaigns and fear tactics. A big part of the problem here is that the US media itself belongs to that faction of "extreme moderates" (Left on some social issues, center-to-hard Right on economics --and adamant about these positions). So when the media should correct the record, it never does since the media pundits themselves tend not to like those economically left-wing policies. (Not terribly surprising though, I suppose, since almost all of them are millionaires.)

If Democrats want to start winning again they have to go back to Howard Dean's 50 state strategy, get some new talent, and get some new ideas.

Click to expand...

There's a bizarre irony in you stating this right after booing the Sanders/Warren wing of the party. It's amusing because, like you, the DNC seems to be clinging to this notion that they can have both new energy/new ideas, and crush the Sanders/Warren wing of the party. They are correct that will fundamentally create new energy, but that will be energy dedicated to crucifying the DNC leadership right alongside Trump.

The inescapable reality of the Democratic party faces itself with, regardless of the widespread denial over it, is that they spent 40 years destroying the old coalitions that once made up, but refuse to create long-lasting new coalitions. At this point, they've functionally lost the union worker vote; the moderate voters are either dead, no longer moderate, or else refuse to show up and vote. The two main areas where Democrats can clearly make up ground is Millennials and people of color; the percentages of these groups are good but they aren't being inspired in large numbers to show up to the polls. And pulling this **** with Tom Perez and voting down lobbyist bans are the kinds of things that will prevent course-corrections for 2018 and 2020. Since at least one of the two of the most central groups for the Democratic party's success are basically being told to go **** off, the 2018 primaries are definitely going to be at best a very complicated situation.

FieldTheorist said:

This doesn't really explain LBJ's Great Society, but it's true that historically Republicans have been extremely effective at smear campaigns and fear tactics.

Click to expand...

The 89th Congress was surely among the greatest in American history. Do you think the Dems were rewarded in the '66 midterms? (They were not.)

Greenbeard said:

The 89th Congress was surely among the greatest in American history. Do you think the Dems were rewarded in the '66 midterms? (They were not.)

Click to expand...

This is a bizarre, non-sequitur response given that I was responding to someone saying that bold, progressive agendas only come at moments of crisis in the US. (The Great Society did not come from a moment of crisis, which was my only point.) But to your statement, it's not like it's a mystery why the Democrats ran into immediate problems in 1966; of course, it had nothing to do with Americans reacting to Left-wing economic policies and everything to do with the racist reaction within the Democratic party to the Civil Rights Act.

Sahil Habibi said:

With Ellison losing and Tom Perez winning, surely there is some bright spot for Sanders supporters to be able to find hope and motivation for the next election with the Democratic Party?

However, unfortunately, that is quite simply not the case. There were zero Sanders progressive wing representatives elected in the Democratic Party. The Chair, two Vice Chairs, and the Chair Of CEVP were all part of the Obama administration. The Secretary and Finance Chair were an Obama/Hillary Delegate and a Superdelegate. The third Vice Chair was re-elected for her post served during the Debbie Wasserman Schultz-led Democratic Party. The Treasurer may be worst of all, being, overtly and frankly, an investment banker.

Click to expand...

DNC Elected Zero Representatives From Sanders Wing | The Progressive Army


And it just keeps getting worse; pretty unbelievable, that they would work to exclude Bernie's picks so completely, offering progressives nothing save Ellison's fictional, ornamental post.

The hole gets deeper still; beyond pitiful.

SouthernDemocrat said:

I remember when I was a kid during the 1988 election. It was the first election I can remember paying attention to at all. Dukakis ran as a doctrinaire liberal. He was running over 20 points a head of Bush Sr in the polls all through the Summer. Then his liberalism that polled so well fell victim to a barrage of negative ads. When it was all said and done, he lost by a landslide.


For my entire life, liberal ideas have usually polled much better than conservative ones. This has led many idealistic liberals to think the country is a center left country. Yet every time those big liberal ideas get subjected to debate and negative ads, the electorate freaks out. This is why hardcore liberals never win the presidency outside of a time of crisis. FDR won in the wake of the Great Depression. LBJ won in the wake of the Kennedy Assassination. Those are the only two hardcore liberal presidents we have had in anyone's lifetime that is alive today. If most of the electorate was wanting liberal populism, then the Green Party would be winning state and local offices right and left, yet they don't. The most popular governors in the country have not been the most liberal ones or the most conservative, they have been the most moderate. For example, right now the two most popular governors in the country are both Republicans, Larry Hogan of Maryland, and Charlie Baker of Massachusetts. Those are both liberal states, yet their moderate Republican governors are the most popular in the nation. Prior to this year, the most popular governor was Mike Beebe, the previous governor of Arkansas, a moderate Democrat. That ought to tell you something. The most popular president in terms of approval ratings since FDR was Clinton, a moderate Democrat.


If Democrats want to start winning again they have to go back to Howard Dean's 50 state strategy, get some new talent, and get some new ideas.

Click to expand...

Liberal ideas are "pie in the sky" ideas. As soon as some basic questions like "who's gonna pay for it" happen, those pie in the sky ideas shrivel like a raisin in the sun. Free college! A chicken in every pot! A home and a car for everyone even illegal immigrants! All of your healthcare needs met!

reinoe said:

Liberal ideas are "pie in the sky" ideas. As soon as some basic questions like "who's gonna pay for it" happen, those pie in the sky ideas shrivel like a raisin in the sun. Free college! A chicken in every pot! A home and a car for everyone even illegal immigrants! All of your healthcare needs met!

Click to expand...

As opposed to "tax cuts pay for themselves", "trickle down economics", or the notion that the reason why healthcare is so expensive is the "government is involved in it".