Home / General / And Now, We Can Move Onto Elections Involving Real Power

And Now, We Can Move Onto Elections Involving Real Power

Comments
/
/
/
419 Views

Tom Perez, an excellent Labor Secretary and head of the Civil Rights Division from the left of the party, will be DNC Chair. Keith Ellison, an excellent and influential member of the House from the left of the party, will be Deputy Chair, and as a bonus will get to remain in Congress. This is good, and is an illustration of the extent to which the party has moved to the left over the past 20 years. Of course, Ellison as Chair would also have been an excellent outcome. Either way, ignoring people who wanted to use a contest for a procedural position as a means of re-litigating the primaries and hence had a felt need to smear the candidate they believed to be a Hillary/Bernie proxy is sound practice.

…and they say Wikileaks never breaks important news!

Wait until the emails revealing that Bernie Sanders secretly supported Hillary Clinton for president are revealed!

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Brien Jackson

    And since it’s pretty clear that the winner was going to appoint the loser Deputy Director either way and have probably arranged to have areas of work slit between them…everyone who freaks out about it is just an even bigger asshole!

    • wjts

      Perez may have appointed Ellison as Deputy Director, but he doesn’t mean it. You can just tell.

      • Scott Lemieux

        All his actions as Labor Secretary were part of a neoliberal long game.

        • wjts

          He issued all of his ostensibly liberal orders and rules while rolling his eyes and making exaggerated jack-off motions.

          • Harry Hardrada

            Also he didn’t prosecute the banksters while he was in charge of the Civil Rights Division at the DOJ.

            • Warren Terra

              It’s worse than that: he has a life-long record of not federally prosecuting bankers, dating back even to when he was a small child!

          • Also, he had his fingers crossed behind his back when he issued them (yes, while making the exaggerated jerk-off motions; don’t ask how), so they don’t really count.

          • Speaking of “liberal”, I’ve noticed a lot of people dropping the “neo” recently and just denouncing “liberals” as opposed to “progressives”. Guess it’s just radical leftist chic.

            • Redwood Rhiadra

              Most of the people doing that aren’t really progressives either, since they also denounce “identity politics,” which are an important aspect of progressivism. They’re socialists.

            • Chris Mealy

              Those people can go fuck themselves. I mean, I follow a ton of them on Twitter, subscribe to Jacobin, and just looked into joining DSA, but complaining about liberals is fucking insane. If you believe at all that socialism has a future in America it’s going to because a ton of everyday liberals got radicalized. Being sanctimonious assholes and using obscure cliquey jargon is going to get us nowhere.

              • As a socialist/anarchist, this shit pisses me off to no end. You’re not going to get allies in overthrowing capitalism/the state by pissing off liberals, while if you radicalise right-wingers you’re probably not going to get the results you’d like. The fact that a lot of these people are actively hostile to victims of easily quantifiable forms of oppression is probably even worse. You can’t claim to be standing up for the oppressed if you spend all your time punching down.

      • The Lorax

        People who think Perez is a neoliberal shill have no idea what the fuck they’re talking about.

        Of course, if your political consciousness began in the Summer of 2015, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

        • urd

          People who think Perez is a neoliberal shill have no idea what the fuck they’re talking about.

          And people who think this is good for the party also have no idea what the fuck they’re talking about.

          • Sentient AI from the Future

            No puppet! No puppet! You're the puppet!

        • DrDick

          Truly.

  • So why exactly did people freak out about this for so long? Oh right, because they wanted to relitigate the primary.

    I thought the ideal outcome would’ve been to have them share the chairmanship, but this works almost as well. And it looks like this way we can keep Ellison in Congress, which is also a net good, so this might actually be even better.

    • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

      because they wanted to relitigate the primary.

      Much easier than doing something about the current mess our country is in, too.

    • TVTray

      *Perez entered the race after Ellison*

      • Spider-Dan

        *Bernie entered the race after Hi-

        Sorry, having a hard time finishing over the “TRUMP!” chants.

        • TVTray

          But Sanders and Clinton were pushing different policies! Perez and Ellison are ideologically indistinguishable, Danny! Try to focus.

          • And of course, there are no other reasons for there to be a competitive race for an essentially administrative position that does not set the ideological orientation of the party.

            • TVTray

              Paul what would you guess is the average income of the DNC voters?

              • I don’t know the answer to that question but I can make an educated guess as to the relevance of that question to the issue at hand.

                Zero.

      • Perez was expecting a cabinet post but then things went terribly orange and he needed a job.

        • TVTray

          And heard the DNC was hiring!

  • shah8

    Call me suspicious, but I was always disturbed that I was invited to care about a race between two people who didn’t have anything distinct to say about why they were better than the other, for what is a working, technocratic post that I don’t really have much business being involved in choosing anyways.

    • CrunchyFrog

      No one would have cared about it if it weren’t for DWS – the (hopefully) last in a line of Rahmbot Lieberdems from the era when the DLC-types owned the party. Of course, Perez isn’t DWS or Rahm or Clinton by a long shot, but the folks who were so disappointed by the primary result can’t grasp that there is a football field of difference between him and the DLCers.

      • Warren Terra

        I’ve never heard anything appealing or impressive about Wasserman-Schultz, but let’s not kid ourselves: she was demonized beyond recognition with little obvious justification – far beyond what can be attributed to her being less than inspiring – and it’s hard to avoid the suspicion that some of that was because she’s Jewish.

        • Also, a woman.

          A lot of the criticism of her definitely made (and makes) me uncomfortable. She was clearly an example of the Peter Principle, and I don’t know why she lasted as long in the position as she did, but some of the stuff people said about her was… not okay.

          • vic rattlehead

            She was clearly well above her level of competence but yeah the visceral hatred and nastiness directed towards her was way over the top.

          • JMP

            Yeah, while there were a lot of good reason to have issues with Wasserman-Schultz’s work heading the DNC, many of the attacks on her were so heavily misogynist that is was kind of hard to separate the legitimate criticisms from the sexist ones.

          • Redwood Rhiadra

            Hell, a lot of the criticism I heard from leftists about her was them blaming her for losing 2010. When she *wasn’t* the DNC Chair.

            It’s like blaming Obama for Hurricane Katrina.

          • rhino

            So, I have no difficulty believing this was true, but I cannot recall any attacks one her that were sexist or anti-semetic in nature.

            Just a lot of bitching that she was incompetent and corruptly in the tank for HRC and the ‘establishment dems’. Some of that was from the Bernie side, but far from all of it.

            I do recall someone saying she was doing everything she could to tip the scales for HRC because HRC was a fellow woman… That hardly seems like mysigyny though.

            Like I said, I have no difficulty believing it, but I wouldn’t mind some links or background to this if anyone has any.

            My overall view of DWS is a party insider who did her best to place her thumb on Clinton’s side of the scales, who wasn’t very good at her job, and who likely was a small part of why HRC eventually lost. But that view is not an especially informed one in terms of actual data or understanding of the systems she functioned in.

            Honestly, the problem with the nomination process doesn’t seem to be with the process of selecting from the candidates. It seems to be a problem of finding viable candidates in the first place. Why was there only a single serious candidate for the nomination?

            I’m not interested in relitigating the primaries, but I sure as fuck think something is wrong with the primary process and the party itself, because there should have been more choices than an unelectable socialist running a campaign to raise awareness on left issues, and someone the republican party has spent decades turning into a fucking demon from hell. Yet nobody wanted to run. Nobody.

            Why?

            • I don’t really recall any attacks on her that were overtly antisemitic or misogynistic, but the fact that she got attacked far more vitriolically than Kaine despite the fact that neither of them were exactly successful at running the DNC seems like a bit of a tell. Similarly, many of the attacks on Clinton from faux-leftists weren’t overtly misogynistic, but Obama never received attacks nearly as vitriolic despite the fact that his positions on the great majority of political issues are also not particularly distinct from hers, and Clinton ran in 2016 to Obama’s left. In some cases, what people actually say isn’t a tell; it’s more what they don’t say. It’s certainly possible there are other motives than antisemitism or misogyny for some of these attacks, but I’m at a loss for what it is.

              As for why so few people ran in 2016, it’s pretty clearly because Clinton was the obvious frontrunner and few people felt they were more qualified for the position than her – probably because they genuinely weren’t. It’s just a shame that, apparently, qualifications matter a lot less than we thought they did.

              • Abbey Bartlet

                I don’t really recall any attacks on her that were overtly antisemitic or misogynistic

                There were some pretty heavy dog whistles about her being neurotic, among other things.

                • Ah, yes, good point. That does seem to be often applied to Jews in particular, much how you almost never hear men called “hysterical”.

        • Phil Perspective

          LOL!! And Ellison was demonized by the Democratic Party’s biggest funder because he’s a Muslim. It seems a lot of party bigwigs are okay with racism as long as it’s directed at the right group.

          • Warren Terra

            I literally do not know who “the Democratic Party’s biggest funder” is, nor what they might have said about Ellison’s faith.

            Byond your attempt at tu quoque, what is there in my comment that you actually disagree with?

            • urd
              • JMP

                It’s always very weird seeing the name of someone primarily famous for creating Power Rangers and other kids’ shows getting named in political discussions.

          • But who did George Soros support?

        • Captain Oblivious

          DWS was —

          (a) in bed with the payday loan business;

          (b) complicit in making sure her Republican “friends” in south Florida Congressional districts never faced serious challenges, even after she became DNC chair.

          Either of those by itself deserves a kick out the damned door.

          • ForkyMcSpoon

            (c) she snuck into Bernie Sanders’s house one time and took a dump and then didn’t flush.

            • tsam

              How did this get in the bad column?

          • Origami Isopod

            You are not contradicting anything Warren is saying.

        • Chris Mealy

          She was a big Clinton surrogate in 2008 and made a bad first impression. It’s not just the Sanders crowd that didn’t like her, old Obama partisans weren’t crazy about her either.

        • DAS

          As a Jew, I found some of DWS’s actions disturbing for the same reason I find the behavior of right wing nationalists in Israel disturbing: it’s bad enough that anti-semites accuse us of running an apartheid state or of having dual loyalties, but those in Israel turning Israel into an apartheid state and DWS placing loyalty to Republican “friends” and payday loan interests above doing her job and what’s best for the country just allows anti-semites to claim they are right.

          Interestingly, many right wing Jews (and no doubt DWS if she’s had too many drinks) will tell you “anti-semites will think we’re greedy, disloyal, etc. anyway, so we might as well be greedy, disloyal, etc., whenever it benefits us” or even “screw the goyim, they hate us anyway (but at least the evangelicals support Israel)”.

      • Harkov311

        Exactly. Some people, it would seem, have a hard time understanding that “endorse” does not mean “agree with on all matters of importance now and forever.”

      • efgoldman

        No one would have cared about it if it weren’t for DWS

        But
        She
        Was
        Already
        Long
        Gone

        Some people need to learn (but won’t) to take yes for an answer.

    • kped

      And…who will have no impact on the mid-terms, as those are handled by different groups mostly.

      Like…this wasn’t an important race. At all. And given the political makeup of both candidates, it was even less important. But it allowed that re-litigation to occur, so it was hyped up to comical proportions.

      • TVTray

        The only reason there was a re-litigation of the primary is because of Perez!

        • Spider-Dan

          If you would stop stubbornly refusing to give in, there wouldn't be any more conflict!

          Consider that it is possible to have a race on the left without the candidate you prefer less necessarily being a Neoliberal Shill.

          • TVTray

            Slow down Dan! I think your delicate fingers are missing the keys. The two candidates are basically the same (right?). So why not just let Ellison have it then? Why start this big fight over nothing?

            • Spider-Dan

              I don’t know if “both choices are the same, therefore you should let me win” is as convincing an argument as you think it is.

              But more to the point: Ellison has an important job in Congress that he would have to resign to take this one. Perez does not. Regardless of whether you think Ellison’s seat is a gimme, what if he is replaced by a Neoliberal Shill?

              People keep saying that this is “relitigating the primary,” but it’s actually relitigating the VP pick (Warren vs. whoever). It’s openly acknowledged by all sides that the available choices will make NO ACTUAL DIFFERENCE IN POLICY (either because of the impotence of VP office, or the lack of differences between the DNC chair candidates), but the Berniemen demand that we sacrifice an incumbent office to prove fealty to the New Left.

              I’m tired of this notion that even with Trump and the GOP rampaging over our government, if we don’t give Bernie the best seat at the State of the Union then all of this is for naught because the Berniemen will take it as a personal affront and refuse to vote (again). It’s like they see the entirety of politics independent from policy, as purely dominance/submission theater.

              • Brien Jackson

                It’s like they see the entirety of politics independent from policy, as purely dominance/submission theater.

                We’ve got a winner!

                • Origami Isopod

                  Gives you a clue as to why so many of them are eager to suck up to Trump and coddle his voters.

                • Little Chak

                  Yep. We too have authoritarians who refuse any compromise and can’t deal with the idea of shared governance.

                • Origami Isopod

                  And who get extremely upset when politics doesn’t focus entirely on the needs of white men.

                • Brien Jackson

                  This is the same lingering shit that’s been going on since 2009. Some people in the “netroots” really thought they were gonna be the left’s Rush Limbaugh circa 2003-05, and when it turned out that Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi were more popular than Jane Hamsher and Matt Stoller and no one gave a fuck what they thought they flipped the fuck out. This is the same fight on basically the same terms: The Bernouts just think they’re more equal than everyone else.

    • shah8

      450+ comments on this.

      Mostly filled with noise. I am actually a little dumbfounded.

      **goes back to admiring Remy Ma’s shETHER**

  • Davis

    I was actually hoping that Perez would be available to run for governor of Maryland. We need to get rid of Hogan.

    • NJC

      I don’t understand the thinking behind the “Perez for Governor” talk, other than Perez is a MD resident and a semi-celebrity among political-junkies. His electoral experience, thus far, is a term as a county council member and a run for state AG from which he was disqualified. The race against Hogan is likely going to be a challenging one. Shouldn’t Dems find someone to run with a better record of campaigning; for instance, winning at least one tough race?

      • Murc

        Such as?

        The question wasn’t “Would Perez have made an ideal candidate?” It was “Who better?”

        • The main thing that makes me sceptical of the idea that he should run is that we don’t have much evidence of how good a campaigner he is. If he were clearly gifted at that, then I’d agree that not having him run would be a disappointment. He certainly is fantastic on policy and immensely qualified and I can’t think of anyone who would currently be a better governor for the good state of MD, but he’d have to, you know, win. If there’s clear evidence that he could do that, then I’d regard this as a major loss. That said, I don’t know that much about MD politics, so I don’t know what the Democratic bench for the state looks like, and whether there is anyone better.

          • NJC

            I’d go further and say that running for Attorney General and getting disqualified is not confidence-producing. Nor was Perez’s recent claim that the Dem Primary was rigged against Sander’s, followed by an awkward disavowal of his previous statement. Maybe running for office isn’t Perez’s strong suit. There’s no shame in that–most people aren’t good politicians–but it would be bad if he gets rushed through the gubernatorial primary and then flames out in the general election against Hogan.

        • NJC

          I don’t follow Maryland politics, so I’m unfamiliar with state legislators, mayors, former-members of Congress, etc. I just think that there’s a rashness in promoting Perez for a run.

          I’m not looking for an ideal candidate, just one with some relevant experience. Frances Perkins was an even better Labor Secretary than Perez, but that doesn’t mean should have subsequently run for governor of New York.

        • Brien Jackson

          Just in terms of viability?

          Brian Frosh, Peter Franchot, Sarbannes, Rupersberger, Kevin Kamanitz…

          • vic rattlehead

            Isn’t Sarbanes a little too old? Or is it his kid?

          • sharonT

            Got any women on that list?

            • Brien Jackson

              Donna Edwards might have had a shot if she hadn’t flamed out spectacularly.

            • LF

              I’d love for Heather Mizeur to give it another shot.

  • Murc

    I would be a lot more ticked off if Perez hadn’t immediately appointed Ellison his deputy. Perez is a smart man.

    I’ve got nothing against Perez but the more I learned about the people who recruited and urged him to run the angrier I got, because my understanding is that a bunch of Obama people looked at Ellison, decided “this guy represents a wing of the party we fucking hate, how can we slap him down” and set out to recruit a candidate whose affinities were more to their liking. Those guys I don’t like.

    But Perez himself? Has been super classy throughout this whole thing, and he deserves credit for getting in late and still pulling it out, which is real hard in any kind of political contest. His resume for the job is basically impeccable, his personal story is both compelling to Democrats and can really get in the face of the fascists… those are all good things.

    And really, this is the DNC chair election. Is it important? Sure, the position has real power, authority, and influence. But it is the most inside of inside baseball. In a year most people will have forgotten about it unless Perez is either exceptionally bad at his job (DWS) or especially good at it (Howard Dean.)

    • Hercules Mulligan

      I was busy typing a super long post, and yours is more polite, but I endorse it.

      • The Lorax

        I don’t think there’s any reason to think that Obama et al. don’t like the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. And there’s certainly no reason to think that this was some sort of message to that wing.

        • CrunchyFrog

          Depends on whether “et al” includes his first Chief of Staff and his first cabinet – in that group there are many right-of-center corrupt Democrats who love hippie punching.

          But Obama got better.

        • Brett

          If you want to get really cynical about it, the Obama Administration is ending, and that means a lot of his top people are doing what top-level Democrats usually do after leaving office: move on to lucrative lobbying firm and corporate lobbying/PR gigs. Being able to say you still got direct connections with the people in charge of the party is valuable for that, and I bet it would be less valuable if Ellison was in charge than if Perez is.

          Plus, it wouldn’t be the first time the DNC acted to preserve the status quo. Remember when Dean came in and organized the “50-state strategy” from 2004-2009, and then Kaine came in and they were like “that Dean stuff was great – now let’s go write back to doing it like we used to do it before him when we were losing seats”?

        • Abbey Bartlet

          I don’t think there’s any reason to think that Obama et al. don’t like the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

          That’s a hell of an implication there.

    • Brien Jackson

      I mean, Bernie Sanders is a guy who argued someone should primary Obama in 2012 and in 2014 did a profile piece where he singularly diminished the validity and effectiveness of the entire Obama coalition and dismissed the accomplishments of 2009-10. Then he went and ran a straight u demagogic campaign that barely bothered to remain attached to reality because he’s a funny looking/sounding old white guy who can get away with that shit.

      If you were Obama or a member of his inner-team, you’d hate that guy too.

      • Joe_JP

        an a straight u demagogic campaign that barely bothered to remain attached to reality because he’s a funny looking/sounding old white guy who can get away with that shit.

        So, you have some negative feelings about Sanders, I gather.

      • benjoya

        well, as long as you’re not re-litigating the primary

        • Brien Jackson

          …I supported Ellison if I had to pick one.

          • jeer9

            Too funny.

            • Brien Jackson

              /wank

              • jeer9

                Area Man (and Clinton die-hard) who’s been spoiling (and trolling) for a fight with lefties over DNC chair election, when called on his transparent attempt to re-litigate the primary, sheepishly declares his support for lefties’ preferred candidate had he been given a vote.

                • Brien Jackson

                  Yeah dude, that’s why I’ve been saying that Ellison is great, I would have liked him fine, and I was hoping they’d come up with some form of co-chair arrangement.

                  Just because I have no use for Bernouts and would prefer they get bent doesn’t mean I’ve got anything against Ellison.

                • jeer9

                  Weird how all the Sanders/lefty hatred drowned out your advocacy of Ellison.

                  You might want to work on that, dude.

                • Hogan

                  Perhaps because the discussions of Ellison hardly ever turned out to be about Ellison.

      • lawtalkingguy

        On one hand I think this whole re-litigating 2016 primary is a bad idea. On the other hand one thing that I’ve noticed almost no one wants to talk about is how anti-Obama Sanders actually ran his campaign. Its a great stroke of luck for him that he was running against HRC and not someone else because then it would be harder to hide.

        • The Lorax

          It was more anti-HRC. All the young people who started following politics when Bernie announced were convinced she was somewhre to the right of Mitt Romney economically.

          • lawtalkingguy

            I dont think so, the attacks on the ACA and on Wall Street regulation and on the vague ‘its not good enough’ all came before she ran for President. People like Greenwald, Tracey, the Young Turks and so on had like 5 years of anti-Obama material churned out by the time HRC announced. It just molded well on top of her because of all the right wing things out there as well.

            • Hob

              I definitely knew a lot of super-anti-Clinton people last year who had always been more or less pro-Obama… but a lot of their arguments for why Clinton was so terrible, if you started talking through them seriously and asking for clarification, boiled down to something that was equally true of Obama (and, usually, of every other politician who had ever held office in the executive branch). And when pressed on that point, they would often conclude that maybe that just meant Obama was pretty bad too; after all, if he’d been so great, why haven’t all of our problems already been solved, so that the Republicans would have nothing to run on?

              • nemdam

                It’s why during the brief moment the Democratic primary was semi-competitive, Hillary just hugged Obama. It’s all she needed to show the silliness of Bernie’s attacks. He attacked her for doing the same stuff Obama did.

      • Abbey Bartlet

        I mean, Bernie Sanders is a guy who argued someone should primary Obama in 2012 and in 2014 did a profile piece where he singularly diminished the validity and effectiveness of the entire Obama coalition and dismissed the accomplishments of 2009-10. Then he went and ran a straight u demagogic campaign that barely bothered to remain attached to reality because he’s a funny looking/sounding old white guy who can get away with that shit.

        And when given the unprecedented opportunity to put people on the platform committee picked people who were openly hostile to Obama.

    • kped

      I’d argue that Dean wasn’t even especially “good” at his job. He came in during the height of Bush’s unpopularity (or is that depths of his unpopularity…), and his reputation is due to the democratic wave that happened because of that. Then in 2008, Bush was even more unpopular, and even more Republicans were kicked out of office.

      I’m sure I’m somewhat selling him short, but a lot of this is out of their hands (does the DNC even recruit at the congressional and Senate level? Isn’t that the DCCC?)

      • Peterr

        That was the battle that was fought between Dean and Rahm in 2005. Dean won that battle, putting energy and money into recruiting candidates across the board, where Rahm (then head of the DCCC) grumbled about him wasting resources.

        Dean’s strategy won the House, and Rahm claimed the credit – even for races he distanced himself from.

        • Brien Jackson

          LOL, what battle? Rahm was the head of the DCCC, with his own war chest independent of Dean. And as far as candidate recruitment goes, there’s no straight narrative on this. When people want to credit the big wins they pin it on Dean, when they want to bitch about the Blue Dogs in 2008-09 they blame it on Rahm.

          • Peterr

            This battle.

            As far as effectiveness of Dean’s approach, Governing.com did a rather dispassionate analysis of the effect of the 50 state strategy back in 2013:

            . . . Before we crunch the numbers, we should note that the patterns below can’t be linked exclusively to Dean’s 50-state project. After all, the Democrats experienced two of their strongest election cycles during that time. They benefited from a strong congressional tailwind in 2006 and a winning presidential candidacy in 2008. Meanwhile, the numbers began to turn negative during the midterm election of 2010, a Republican rout.

            That said, the patterns are suggestive. In the 20 states we looked at — those that have voted solidly Republican in recent presidential races — Democratic candidates chalked up modest successes, despite the difficult political terrain. Then, after the project stopped, Democratic success rates cratered.

            Details at the link.

            • Brien Jackson

              That’s…not much of a battle even as it’s recorded. So Rahm thought Dean’s strategy was a waste of DNC resurces. It doesn’t change that he had his own resources at the DCCC to manage to his liking.

              As for the block quoted part, you could have stopped it at the part where they admitted it was near impossible to isolate the effect.

    • Warren Terra

      a bunch of Obama people looked at Ellison, decided “this guy represents a wing of the party we fucking hate, how can we slap him down”

      I’d say instead that Ellison was empowered by a group of people that’s easy to fncking hate … not that he represents them.

      Don’t forget, Ellison is a respected mainstream Democrat who had Chuck Schumer’s blessing. He doesn’t really embody the cadre of Sanders-dead-ender assholes who so fervently insisted he was the only acceptable choice. I by no means apply that label to the majority of supporters of either Sanders or Ellison, but they were out there, loudly, and I really question whether their support was a net plus for Ellison.

      • efc

        Perez runs at the behest of virulent Islamophobes but it’s Ellison (the guy who purposefully reached out across the DNC to unite the party) who is empowered by people who are easy to hate. For a race which was apparently so “meaningless” a lot of Perez (actually, really more anti_Ellison. Perez was just the stand in) people are pretty focused on how everyone on the other side is so hateable.

        • Warren Terra

          Perez runs at the behest of virulent Islamophobes

          I heard it was space vampires that ordered him into the race.

          • TVTray

            Hi Warren! Do you think dealing with Islamophobia in US politics is as important as dealing with space vampires? Not sure what the joke is here. Help me out.

            • Warren Terra

              Some of the opposition to Ellison was Islamophobia. More may have been second-order Islamophobia, people who have no problem with Islam but fear that others will have a problem with it, and would prefer to avoid that complication.

              But: to allege that Perez entered the race because Islamophobes told him to do it, and to insinuate that Islamophobia was the driving force behind his campaign and ultimate success, is beyond demeaning to Perez and to every decent person who supported him – heck, to every decent person who didn’t oppose him.

              Hence my crack about his campaign actually reflecting the machinations of yet a different, less emotionally charged shadowy cabal.

              • efc

                Of course. It was Perez’s life long crusade to be indistinguishable from Keith Ellison which drove him to challenge Keith Ellison for DNC chair.

                Tom Perez isn’t as Islamophobe. He was just the tool of Islamophobes. Or maybe you have a different explanation for how right after complaints about Keith Ellison’s bow tie wearing past Tom Perez entered the race running on, as has been said time and time again, a platform indistinguishable from Ellison. Usually people don’t run against someone they completely agree with.

                I suppose it was possible Islamophobia has nothing to do with it. The run was probably mostly about trying to make sure anyone associated with Sanders didn’t become the chair of the party. Hating anyone associated with Sanders and Islamophobia just happened to use each other for their own ends in this particular situation.

                It does seem to make you uncomfortable, the close association of Islamophobia. Hence the “joke” and self righteous indignation.

                • Usually people don’t run against someone they completely agree with.

                  All sorts of things could motivate person A. to run against a person B. that A. “completely agree[s] with”—e.g., personal ambition, or a belief (correct or not) that B. wouldn’t be as effective as A. at achieving their agreed goals. I’ve known people (in microlocal elections at a town level) that fit both of those scenarios. Do you have any numbers (or numberlike things) to substantiate your word “usually”? Because if all you’ve got against my anecdotes is your intuition, pbbht.

                • Warren Terra

                  Among other reasons Tom Perez might have for entering the race: he was unexpectedly out of a job (unlike Ellison), and he (clearly) had a fair shot at winning.

                  And then there’s this:

                  It does seem to make you uncomfortable, the close association of Islamophobia.

                  Imagine that. You suggest everyone whose preferences differ from yours is at best the tool of Islamophobes, and then they bridle at being slandered as bigots you proclaim that their discomfort proves their guilt. Well, fnck you too.

        • Have you read some of the commenters who have been virulently attacking Perez in the comment section here? Maybe they’re not representative of the Internet as a whole, but they’re some of the most tedious, insufferable commenters this site currently has, and rarely bother engaging in good faith.

          Maybe some of the people pushing Perez to run had impure motives, but I don’t see a good case that Perez’ motives themselves were anything less than noble. The fact that he immediately appointed Ellison as his deputy makes it extremely difficult for me to care about the race one way or the other, and I’m still having a difficult time comprehending why anyone else does. I would’ve been most satisfied with having them serve as joint chairs, but this way both of them still get a large amount of influence on the direction and organisation of the party, and Ellison also keeps his seat in Congress, where he’s been a visible and constructive voice for the party, so this might actually be better in the long run.

          Most of the commenters here who are most vocally upset by this result had also spent the entire primary viciously attacking Clinton, which makes me wonder whether they’re even Democrats. Again, this place admittedly may not be representative of the Internet as a whole, but I’m not seeing how this makes any policy or organisational differences from what would have resulted if Ellison had won the race and made Perez his deputy, or if they’d both shared the chair. The only thing this affects is optics, and I can’t imagine more than a tiny sliver of the electorate cares about inside baseball over a position few of them have even heard of.

          • Murc

            Most of the commenters here who are most vocally upset by this result had also spent the entire primary viciously attacking Clinton, which makes me wonder whether they’re even Democrats.


            I
            spent the entire primary going after Clinton, and if you’re implying this somehow makes my membership in the Democratic Party suspect, I would cordially invite you to go fuck yourself.

            • Er, sorry, I meant general there. I think I rephrased my wording and forgot to rephrase all of it.

              • Murc

                Fair enough! I withdraw my invitation.

        • Harkov311

          Perez runs at the behest of virulent Islamophobes

          I guess I missed the part where Perez actually did or said anything Islamophobic.

      • lawtalkingguy

        Yes, this is another humorous angle on all of this. Schummer endorses Ellison but Perez is the neo-liberal shill.
        Bernie deadenders are generally a bad thing for the party, so if *this* of all things causes them to fuck off and go join the Greens or the alt right then thats another + for Perez winning.

    • DrDick

      While I was a strong Sanders supporter and am not very fond of Clinton, though I voted for her, I have always said I would be delighted with either of them and now we have both of them This is double plus good!

  • malraux

    Well, time to post a bunch of articles from usuncut or jacobin about the evils of neoliberalism and the democrats

    • TVTray

      You guys lost to Donald Trump! You’re terrible!

      • Dr. Waffle

        You guys can’t even win a primary! You’re terrible!

        • D.N. Nation

          HRC = Falcons in SB LI
          Bernie = Packers in the NFCCG

          • TVTray

            I’m glad you guys are enjoying yourselves! Meanwhile my children will live in a blasted wasteland surviving on sticks and insects thanks to your incompetence!

            • Dr. Waffle

              Maybe next time the left should back someone who can win a primary. Talk about incompetence.

              • I still haven’t had explained to me in what universe Ellison qualifies as part of “the left”, but Perez doesn’t. Or why. I don’t expect to, either, because most of the commentary surrounding this race was about optics and Democratic party meta-politics, not actual policy differences.

                I also haven’t had it explained to me how Ellison being made deputy immediately after the election means that “the left” has been snubbed. Seems to me that both of them will have significant input on the direction of the party.

                But then, I’m not a faux-leftist purity troll, so I guess these things will remain forever incomprehensible to me.

                • TVTray

                  It could be possible that you don’t have that much of an imagination, Cassy!

                • As I thought: You have nothing constructive to offer, just invective. If you were actually interested in improving things, you might deign to come down from high upon the mountaintop and offer a constructive critique with specific policy and strategy suggestions. You haven’t done that. All you do is whine about how you’re so persecuted by the mean Democrats and insult anyone who doesn’t agree with you, despite walking into the room of a party that’s been going on for hundreds of years and demanding the reins of power be handed over to you. That’s not how politics works. People who have been active members of a party and have contributed to its standing are given a say in how it is run. You have contributed nothing, and as long as you continue completely avoiding to present a single specific constructive bit of input, you will continue being taken exactly as seriously as you are here. You don’t just get handed power; you have to work for it. You haven’t done a single bit of work, nor do you seem to wish to. It’s readily apparent that you’d rather argue with people than help take constructive steps to improve the country.

                  Anyway, onto the pie filter with you. Someone else can feel free to inform us if TVTray ever says something worth reading, I suppose.

                • It could be possible that you don’t have that much of an imagination, Cassy!

                  And that’s where “vaguely annoying and trollish” flips over into “creepy and harassing”, if you ask me.

                • Origami Isopod

                  And that’s where “vaguely annoying and trollish” flips over into “creepy and harassing”, if you ask me.

                  Shades of a certain sockpuppeting troll and “Hill.” Except even more condescending, because of the diminutive suffix and the fact that TV Tray is addressing CL directly.

                • Yes, that was certainly a tell. There’s also the matter of the condescension coming from someone who, judging from their comment history here, appears to have begun paying attention to politics long after I got my bachelor’s degree in political science, but that’s another point entirely.

                • TVTray

                  This is literally the first time I’ve talked to this person.

                • Hogan

                  This is literally the first time I’ve talked to this person.

                  And you . . . think that’s a defense?

                • Yeah, “I don’t know this person I just made a condescending and vaguely misogynistic reply to” is not actually a defence against the charges of condescension and misogyny.

                  (The biggest irony here, of course, is that I am of nonbinary gender identity and have never presented as female, but I enjoy using a name of ambiguous gender on the Internets because it frequently draws out the misogyny from asshats such as the above.)

              • Spider-Dan

                You’re forgetting that the Clintons controlled all the levers of power in the Democratic Party. There’s no way anyone could ever surmount that institutional mountain, regardless of which party they belonged to, countries they honeymooned in, or left-wing Central American juntas they supported.

                No one could possibly beat Hillary in a Democratic primary; certainly not on policy, or by building an early lead in caucus states. The quality of the candidate doesn’t matter, only the Rigged System.

                • TVTray

                  Super odd thing about this blog is that the Republicans are always up to the most arcane, cryptic politics, collaborating with foreigners, etc. but Dem party politics aren’t any more complicated than a middle-school student council. No power here!

                • Spider-Dan

                  Oh, they are complicated.

                  But Bernie got blown out in the primary because he was a bad candidate, not because of party politics. He lost by too many millions of votes to play the Rigged System card.

                • TVTray

                  He was a great candidate! He vastly outperformed expectations! He wasn’t good enough though. He should have started earlier and done more outreach to POC communities in the South. We’ll make sure to be ready next time around!

                • Spider-Dan

                  No, Bernie was a terrible candidate. His policy platform was very good, but he was an extremely bad candidate, which is part of why he lost.

                  His 2016 performance represents the absolute peak of his competitiveness; Hillary barely attacked him at all (in an attempt to avoid embittering his supporters), the press never treated him seriously, the GOP was running ads FOR him, and, oh yeah, the whole leaked e-mails thing. And all these tailwinds still combined to result in a several-million vote loss.

                  Bernie would have been absolutely incinerated by the press – not to mention the GOP – had he made it to the general. During the primary, everything Bernie said from ~1970-1990 (e.g. “we should nationalize the phone and utility industries”) would have been on the table, and that would have easily sunk him. Hillary didn’t mention any of it.

                  There is an argument to be made that Trump proves that doesn’t matter and you can get elected anyway, but in that sense Trump also proves that Alex Jones could win.

                • pseudalicious

                  DON’T GIVE ALEX JONES IDEAS.

              • urd

                As opposed to backing someone who lost the general election to a joke named Drumpf?

                Yeah, that makes sense…

                • Dr. Waffle

                  BERNIE WOULD HAVE WON . . . if only he hadn’t lost

                • urd

                  BERNIE WOULD HAVE WON . . . if only he hadn’t lost

                  You meant just like Clinton? Oh wait you’re right. There is a difference. Sanders lost to a deeply entrenched, high profile, career politician. While she lost to…Drumpf who is a racist, misogynist, failed businessman and a two-bit reality tv hack.

                  I stand corrected.

                • UserGoogol

                  I’d say the lesson of Trump winning is that candidate quality really doesn’t matter all that much. Saying it implies Clinton ran a bad campaign runs into the problem that Trump ran a worse campaign.

            • D.N. Nation

              I didn’t enjoy Bernie losing in the primary, FWIW

          • brewmn

            Please leave my Packers out of this. I’m already dealing with a president Trump.

      • Glad you’re admitting we’re not on the same side.

  • Hercules Mulligan

    It’s incredibly naive and a little insulting to act as though the only people who are upset right now are tantrum-throwers who will leave the party.

    It is possible to be angry that the Obama team openly shopped around for someone to run against Ellison even as Ellison was uniting the party – and still say “okay, well, I hope Perez does a good job.”

    It is possible to be angry at the incredibly Islamophobic campaign that some waged against Ellison, down to the wire, with the AJC emailing individual voting members last night with threats (not to mention Dershowitz, though I hope to god he didn’t have any sway) – and still say “what’s our next task?”

    It is possible to be angry that the smallest, insignificant, symbolic gesture towards young voters and to Muslims was rejected by the Democratic Party – and still stay and try to improve it.

    I don’t know a single Ellison supporter who is leaving the party in a huff. And all the Ellison supporters I know are glad that, if not Keith, Perez is in charge. But by god, you wanted young people to get engaged in off-year elections. And now they are. They have the right to be upset when they believe their party has missed an easy opportunity to win goodwill from all wings.

    It’s bad that people tried to use the race as an excuse to relitigate the primary. Ellison’s backers didn’t start that.

    Now, what’s our next task? (Finding a candidate for MD gov should be high on the list)

    • Brien Jackson

      “It’s bad that people tried to use the race as an excuse to relitigate the primary. Ellison’s backers didn’t start that.”

      I mean, this is bullshit. Pretty clearly Haim Saban and Alan Dershowitz aren’t meaningful barometers of the Democratic Party at all, and beyond that were are all of these Perez supporters who supposedly demonized Ellison in the manner/on the level that Jacobin, The Intercept, etc. savaged Perez?

      • urd

        The fact that Haim Saban can throw a fuck-ton of money around has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome, I’m sure.

        A major step backwards. This hurts the party and ensures they continue the slow bleed of support.

        • Brien Jackson

          Haim Saban is a one-issue guy who the administration consistently went against on that one issue. Effective!

          • urd
            • Brien Jackson

              What’s that got to do with Obama’s Israel policy?

              • urd

                Wasn’t responding to that. I was responding to your statement:

                Pretty clearly Haim Saban and Alan Dershowitz aren’t meaningful barometers of the Democratic Party

                Anyone who gives as much money as he did to the DNC is going to have an effect on the outlook of the party, regardless of Obama’s position.

                And exactly what has Obama have to be proud about on this issue?

                http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.662588

                • Brien Jackson

                  Haim Saban declares himself a one issue voter, can’t get the Democratic President to adopt his preferences on that one issue. Super effective!!!

                • Origami Isopod

                  Is Saban about to become to the purity left what Soros is to the batshit right?

            • JMP

              When you’re backing a point with a quote from a worthless right-wing shill like Glenn Greenwald, that kind of looks like an admission that the point is wrong.

        • vic rattlehead

          “JEEEWWWW! JEEEEWWWWW! JEW JEW JEW!”

          • Origami Isopod

            Oh, it wasn’t just me who heard that dogwhistle?

            I’d never even heard of this guy before tonight (IDGAF about Power Rangers). I’m not the biggest political wonk around, okay, but I’m a little surprised at the focus on him. I have a feeling that if you searched his name on Twitter you’d find an awful lot of cartoons straight out of Der Sturmer — and a lot of them being reblogged by Bernouts.

            • Q.E.Dumbass

              fucking irony dude

              (also used to watch Power Rangers up until middle school)

            • TVTray

              He gives tons of money to Democrats! Do you honestly think money doesn’t talk?

        • I think Schumer’s support may have dragged down Ellison’s vote or maybe it helped. Biden’s endorsement may have been the game changer but who knows. Who got the Stein vote?

      • Pretty clearly Haim Saban and Alan Dershowitz aren’t meaningful barometers

        Now, wait a minute. I know nothing about Haim Saban, but a lot about Alan Dershowitz becomes much, much more understandable if he’s filled to the brim with mercury.

      • efc

        “Pretty clearly Haim Saban and Alan Dershowitz aren’t meaningful barometers of the Democratic Party at all”

        Except for being the biggest Democratic Party donor why would anyone listen to Haim Saban? He doesn’t even run a small circulation quarterly socialist magazine.

      • Phil Perspective

        I mean, this is bullshit. Pretty clearly Haim Saban and Alan Dershowitz aren’t meaningful barometers of the Democratic Party at all, ….

        LOL!! This shows you know jack shit the Democratic Party. Haim Saban was the biggest donor to Hillary’s SuperPAC. To the tune of more than $5 million. He contributed $7 million to the cost of building the DNC’s current HQ. Saban certainly is a barometer of the Democratic Party elite. I could go on but I think I’ve embarrassed you enough already.

        • I could go on but I think I’ve embarrassed youmyself enough already.

          ftfy

    • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

      an easy opportunity to win goodwill from all wings.

      ALL WINGS?? I don’t think you’d find general agreement that Perez ran for the position only as Obama’s surrogate, which is what it seems to me you’re arguing.

      • Hercules Mulligan

        The easy opportunity to win goodwill was to elect a candidate with support from all wings. Perez is a great guy, but he didn’t have the same breadth of support.

        • lawtalkingguy

          the Bernie wing have a perennial veto on all nominees or else theyll take their ball and go home but because people like Matt Yglasias and Schummer endorsed Ellison precisely for that reason no one else gets the same veto.

          • Brien Jackson

            Right. And the “Bernie wing” fucked themselves over in that regard with the supposed battle over the DNC platform last summer.

          • TVTray

            That’s politics!

          • efc

            Except Haim Saban.

    • vic rattlehead

      Your first sentence is incredibly annoying. “People who disagree with me = naive.” Okay.

      I’m glad it wasn’t some bland white guy who won over Perez. Another person of color with impeccable credentials and virtually indistinguishable views, at least for the purposes of the position.

      • Hercules Mulligan

        The naïveté refers not to supporting Ellison but to acting as though the only people invested in today’s votes are purity ponies. I could have worded much of this better, sorry.

        • vic rattlehead

          Thanks for clarifying. I got a little angrier than I should have.

          • Hercules Mulligan

            Hey, no worries. I’m not as good at quickly writing long posts as I was when I was younger.

        • efgoldman

          to acting as though the only people invested in today’s votes are purity ponies.

          I think most Democrats weren’t “invested” in either candidate, and would have been fine with either. So, yes, most of those with a genuine emotional investment are Wilmerbots and purity ponies.

    • Hob

      “Upset” is one thing. The kind of shit I’m seeing all over the place online today– including from friends who I know are well-intentioned non-idiots– is another thing. Democrats shot themselves in the foot! Democrats betrayed us! Goddamn Democrats, what were you thinking?! None of the kind of nuance you’re talking about. I don’t think these people will all literally leave the party, but they are talking as if this is so terrible that maybe they should.

  • Dennis Orphen

    It’s difficult to get an army of paid internet sock puppet agent provacateurs to not be such when their total comment$ x piecerate depends on it.

  • Rusty SpikeFist

    from the left of the party

    Fuck off.

    The Democratic Party confirmed today that they are still absolute garbage. And so are you.

    • Dr. Waffle

      “THE DEMOCRATS ARE TRASH FOR REASONS I CAN’T QUITE ARTICULATE!!!”

      • Gregor Sansa

        Pie filter stuff Add Remove

        Rusty SpikeFist

      • TVTray

        They’re trash because they lost to Donald Trump! That’s deeply embarrassing!

        • Dr. Waffle

          And yet the “left-wing” alternatives fared even worse. Hmmm . . .

          • TVTray

            Whatcha talking about, Doc?

            • Dr. Waffle

              Bernie couldn’t even win the primary. Jill Stein couldn’t even outpoll Gary Johnson. Zephyr Teachout and Russ Feingold lost. The ColoradoCare ballot initiative failed.

              • urd

                I love your strawmen.

                Bernie Sanders – yes, lost a primary that was hardly fair and neutral.

                Jill Stien – left-wing, really? Insane perhaps. Not left wing.

                Zephyr Teachout – didn’t she lose because the DNC failed to support her?

                And while I agree with you on Russ Feingold and the ColoradoCare ballot, I see you conveniently failed to mention this: marijuana laws passed in 8 out of 9 states in which they were on the ballot.

                And here is a list of a few more:
                http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/amidst-terror-some-good-things-actually-happened-last-night

                • Bernie Sanders – yes, lost a primary that was hardly fair and neutral.

                  We’re supposed to shut up about how the general was unfair unless ABSOLUTE PROOF is presented to his satisfaction but urd reserves the right to complain that the primary was unfair because reasons. No hypocrisy there, nosiree!

                • urd

                  We’re supposed to shut up about how the general was unfair unless ABSOLUTE PROOF

                  Well since people aren’t doing this I see no reason I should be quiet. When this actually happens, I’ll shut up as well.

                • Dr. Waffle

                  Bernie – lost by 4 million votes. It wasn’t even close.

                  Jill Stein – No True Scotsman alert!

                  Zephyr Teachout – I don’t think God Himself could have helped her overcome a 9-point deficit.

                  Oh wow, marijuana laws! True evidence of the latent socialist tendencies of the average American voter!

                • Well since people aren’t doing this I see no reason I should be quiet. When this actually happens, I’ll shut up as well.

                  So, does this mean you now withdraw the demand that people stop talking about the Russian influence in the election?

                • TVTray

                  Hey Doc, what do you think is more popular, the Obamacare exchanges or Medicare? 401k’s or Social Security? This country demands socialism!

                • sk7326

                  It’s as if there was not a candidate who could overcome a severe deficit in superdelegates and beat Hillary anyway. Obama of course, would be very surprised to know this.

              • TVTray

                Yes, I was disappointed Bernie didn’t run a better campaign. Next time we’ll do better!

                Nobody cares about Jill Stein.

                Zephyr Teachout and Russ Feingold lost because the candidate at the top of the ticket was a terrible politician.

                • Dr. Waffle

                  Hmmm that didn’t seem to affect Roy Cooper or Maggie Hassan.

                • TVTray

                  It probably did! Those races were pretty tight.

                • ForkyMcSpoon

                  Teachout lost by too much for the top of the ticket to save her.

                  Point is that these people ought to have outperformed Clinton if your claims were true. Cooper outperformed her despite being less left-wing. Hassan did about the same despite being less left-wing. Jason Kander and Evan Bayh outperformed her by a large margin despite not being to her left. It was not impossible to outperform her.

                  That Feingold would’ve won had Clinton won by a 5+ pt margin doesn’t change the fact that he wasn’t good enough to outperform her even a little bit. He only would’ve needed to do 1 or 2% better than her to win. He didn’t manage that.

                • Hogan

                  Next time we’ll do better!

                  HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                  “We.”

  • Joe_JP

    OTOH:

    Patrick ThorntonVerified account
    ‏@pwthornton

    DNC chair race is a window into why GOP has presidency, both houses and most governorships.

    Have my doubts. But, Barack Obama and christine teigen do follow him, so he can’t be totally off base about things.

    • vic rattlehead

      Barack Obama follows over 600,000 people on twitter.

      • Joe_JP

        Christine has barely 4000 follows, but she’s busy with modeling, drinking and her baby. So it’s a wash.

    • JBC31187

      The GOP wins because ostensibly-left assholes can’t be bothered to do the bare minimum. I voted once for Sanders, I voted once for Clinton. I trust Ellison, I trust Perez. This whole argument is fucking insane.

      • Right. I also volunteered for and donated to Clinton, while others ostensibly to the left spent the whole election cycle trashing her. I’m far to the left of most of the people who were too pure to recognise that Duverger’s Law applies to countries with first-past-the-post voting systems, but I’m also enough of a pragmatist to recognise that the shitgibbon’s election isn’t going to cause the fall of capitalism and the state, so I did my part to keep things from getting worse. The fact that evidently, a large number of people still haven’t learned their lesson would be highly discouraging, but I honestly suspect a lot of them are paid trolls, and we may actually better off with those people not even pretending to be Democrats, anyway, because they clearly aren’t.

        At any rate, those of us who actually want to resist fascism can move on to more concrete steps to doing so, while the purity trolls can keep ranting about a largely symbolic position (particularly since Perez immediately appointed Ellison as his deputy) and not actually accomplish anything. I’m OK with this. It’s just making everyone’s true colours more apparent.

        • Murc

          DNC chair is not really a symbolic position in any way, shape, or form. You’re just straight wrong about that.

          • Well, OK, I’ll agree that a particularly noteworthy head of the DNC can have a major influence for better (Dean) or for worse (Schultz). I worded myself sloppily there. However, the race itself was largely symbolic, because the two leading candidates were saying basically the same things and as far as I can tell didn’t really have any particular experience that would clearly make one vastly more qualified than the other. If we could run an accurate simulation of a universe where one held the chairmanship and then the other, then we might be able to observe factors that, in retrospect, made one a clearly better choice – but we don’t have that information right now, so the race itself was largely symbolic.

            • Brien Jackson

              FWIW, Howard Dean’s importance is MASSIVELY overstated.

      • The Lorax

        Amen. And Ellison stays in Congress. Which is a huge win.

        • urd

          How?

          While I agree he is a good person to have in Congress, it’s not like him leaving now gives the GOP a majority.

          He could have done more good as DNC chair.

          • Brien Jackson

            He could have done more good as DNC chair.

            Shit like this probably cost Ellison a vote or two, honestly.

            • urd

              And your evidence of this is?

          • vic rattlehead

            I forgot that Perez banished Ellison from the Democratic Party. Would’ve been cool if Perez had appointed him his deputy or something. Oh well.

            • urd

              Would’ve been cool if Perez had appointed him his deputy or something.

              Please; this is a pathetic gesture done in an attempt to show how united the party will be going forward.

              Sometimes I wonder if you are paid by the DNC…

              • Please; this is a pathetic gesture done in an attempt to show how united the party will be going forward.

                It’s only “pathetic” to you because you prefer divisive gestures to unifying ones.

                Sometimes I wonder if you are paid by the DNC…

                Sometimes I wonder where these sweet jobs are, getting greenbacks galore to post my opinions online, or being a “paid protester” of the right-winger’s feverish imagination. If only it were true.

                • TVTray

                  The divisive gesture was Perez entering the race at all.

                • The divisive gesture was Perez entering the race at all.

                  Really, we should just dispense with elections altogether. They just divide people.

                • urd

                  It’s only “pathetic” to you because you prefer divisive gestures to unifying ones.

                  This wasn’t a unifying gesture. A unifying gesture would have been for Perez not to run in the first place.

                  Sometimes I wonder where these sweet jobs are

                  Hate to break it to you, but these jobs exist. Just do a simple google search. Not sure they actually pay well, but that is another matter.

                • urd

                  Really, we should just dispense with elections altogether. They just divide people.

                  When they are done simply to oppose another candidate and not for any real reason, then yes, maybe we should.

                • When they are done simply to oppose another candidate and not for any real reason, then yes, maybe we should.

                  Thinking you could do a better job than your opponent is not a real reason, I suppose.

                  No more elections! All hail the acclaimed leader in perpetuity! Unity through deference!

                • Hate to break it to you, but these jobs exist. Just do a simple google search. Not sure they actually pay well, but that is another matter

                  Hate to break it to you, but sometimes people say you’re full of shit for no pay whatsoever, just as people protest Trump and the Republicans for no pay, Shocking, I know.

                • urd

                  Thinking you could do a better job than your opponent is not a real reason, I suppose.

                  Funny he had no stated interest until Ellison ran…

                  So I’d call bullshit on this “reason”.

                • urd

                  Hate to break it to you, but sometimes people say you’re full of shit for no pay whatsoever

                  You do realize this does nothing to disprove my original statement, right? That people do this for free has no bearing on the fact that such jobs exist.

                • You do realize this does nothing to disprove my original statement, right? That people do this for free has no bearing on the fact that such jobs exist.

                  I remind you that your “original statement” implied that vic rattlehead was only saying what he was saying because he was being paid by the DNC.

                  Funny he had no stated interest until Ellison ran…

                  Funny how Sanders didn’t run until Clinton had already made it clear she was running. Clearly the only reason he ran MUST HAVE BEEN to trash Clinton’s chances, amirite? That is the only reason people EVER compete in elections! Urd has spoken!

                • Abbey Bartlet

                  The divisive gesture was Perez entering the race at all.

                  When they are done simply to oppose another candidate and not for any real reason, then yes, maybe we should.

                  Congratulations on arguing that Bernie Sanders should have puttered around in Vermont last year, I guess.

                • TVTray

                  Elections where the voters aren’t representative of the wider population aren’t too impressive!

              • Origami Isopod

                Sometimes I wonder if you are paid by the DNC…

                And there’s another likeness between Bernouts and wingnuts. It’s projection all the way down.

                • TVTray

                  Folks on this blog are accuse leftists of working for Putin!

                • Elections where the voters aren’t representative of the wider population aren’t too impressive!

                  The relevance of this is extremely unclear.

                  Folks on this blog are accuse leftists of working for Putin!

                  Which leftists are you referring to? Please provide examples of such accusations being made.

        • TVTray

          Right where he belongs!

      • efgoldman

        ostensibly-left assholes can’t be bothered to do the bare minimum

        Like actually get off their privileged asses and vote. .

        • TVTray

          It’s actually relatively poor people who don’t vote.

          • Abbey Bartlet

            Privilege has numerous dimensions.

            • Origami Isopod

              Manarchists don’t recognize any dimensions thereof they themselves will never be on.

              • TVTray

                Hi Origami! What’s your yearly income, approximately?

            • TVTray

              And it’s actually minorities who tend to be poor! Excellent work!

          • Are you claiming that only poor people don’t vote?

  • urd

    Well, the democrats just fucked themselves.

    Hope they get used to being the third party in a two party system.

    Idiots.

    • Dr. Waffle

      Jesus fucking Christ. Do you actually believe the average voter gives a flying fuck about who runs the DNC?

      • urd

        The average voter is not the important issue here.

        The democrats need to seriously re-energize their party. This is not going to come from the average voter but from those who, for whatever reason, pay attention to things like this.

        Today, a lot of them just got told to fuck off.

        • Gregor Sansa

          Pie filter stuff Add Remove

          urd

          This is a more borderline case than Rusty above, but … oh well.

          • urd

            And of course, you felt the need to post about it.

          • This is a more borderline case than Rusty above, but … oh well.

            Nah, it’s not. I wish Firefox ran better on my desktop so I could use this consistently, but skipping over posts isn’t that difficult either.

            • urd

              True. I’ve gotten very good at ignoring yours.

              • We can both be satisfied now!

                • Gregor Sansa

                  One advantage of the filter over your technique, though: I literally can’t respond to it anymore.

                • That’s true. I’ve had enough experience to determine that responding directly to certain posters simply isn’t worth the keyboard strokes, and don’t bother anymore, but there’s something to be said for not even being able to read their posts, and thus not being tempted.

          • TVTray

            Poor baby!

          • Origami Isopod

            I just threw both [t]urd and TVT into the filter, and it’s already vastly improving my LGM’ing experience.

            TetanusDick is an asshole but I haven’t gotten thoroughly sick of him yet.

            • It truly does make the place much more readable. Also, I was wrong earlier when I said it wouldn’t work on Chrome; thanks to Tampermonkey, it works on Chrome, too. Now I’ve just got to do something about my mobile experience.

            • Q.E.Dumbass

              Who’s TetanusDick?

        • Well urd, since you are a below average voter I’m not sure why any of this concerns you.

          • urd

            Well gocart mozart, since your discussion skills still seem to be at a five year old level, I’m not sure why you’re even here…

            • efgoldman

              I’m not sure why you’re even here…

              Because, like you, he has the hots for culling the feral cat herd.
              Urd.

            • Nor am I sure why you are here, since we are mere shills for the Democratic Party and you are now called to withdraw your precious energy from the services of The Party:

              Today, a lot of them just got told to fuck off.

              No, but you are certainly welcome to do so. I seriously doubt that your kind of energy would do the Democratic Party the least bit of good.

              • urd

                Nor am I sure why you are here, since we are mere shills for the Democratic Party

                If you say so.

                I seriously doubt that your kind of energy would do the Democratic Party the least bit of good.

                Pot, meet kettle.

                • Very amusing, but you still have not explained what good you think you are doing here, or how your “energy”, or that of those you claim to represent here, would do the least bit of good for the Democratic Party, an entity for which you have expressed nothing but contempt here.

            • No you’re the poopyhead!

        • UserGoogol

          The idea that we need to “energize” voters just seems like Green Lantern bullshit. Whether voters feel energized or not has to do with deep sociological and psychological factors which the formal political party structure can only lightly nudge one way or another.

          Even the people who do care about this sort of thing in general care about quite a lot of other things. People who pay attention to this sort of nitty gritty detail are energized, they’re just not energized on behalf of the Democratic Party, but left-wing politics more generally. As such, there’s going to be quite a lot of events between now and 2018 which influence their opinions on whether they should support Democrats, most of them not coming from the DNC per se. Indeed, blog posts about intraleft disputes will play a pretty big role in shaping their opinions.

          • urd

            The idea that we need to “energize” voters just seems like Green Lantern bullshit.

            Really? What was the state of the democratic party after the primaries in 2008? That primary was far nastier and divisive than the one we just had. Part of the reason Obama was able to do what he did in 2008 was because of an energized group of supporters.

            Remind me again who won the last presidential election?

            The fact that this doesn’t exist now is going to be a serious issue for the party. Despite what you believe.

            • Dr. Waffle

              And everyone knows Barack Obama’s ascent was entirely the product of Terry McAuliffe being the DNC Chairman in 2004.

            • Spider-Dan

              Well, Hillary didn’t base her campaign on the premise that Obama is corrupt and a symbol of everything that is wrong with politics.

              So that’s a difference.

            • Hogan

              Yeah, I don’t remember who was president before Obama either.

        • efgoldman

          That’s OK, we’ll go ferl cat hunting to get our minds off it.
          Poison or BB guns – you choose.

          • urd

            Why not both? And be sure to let me know when you accidentally shoot yourself while trying to coat bb pellets with poison.

            • And if he doesn’t?

              • urd

                One can dream.

                And maybe you can help him.

                • One can dream.

                  Do you often dream of people shooting feral cats?

                  And maybe you can help him.

                  I would, but I am no good with guns or poison. I rely on SUPERHAWK politicians like Hillary Clinton and her minion Perez to allow me to commit violence vicariously, through state sanctioned culling of the feral cat population.

                  Perez’s victory is just the first step to ensuring – by fixing the Democratic primary in 2020- that the next Democratic nominee for President will be tough on feral cats.

                  That is unless Trump endorses your notion of unity and cancels all elections going forward, allowing us to acclaim him every few years as a symbol of ongoing national unity.

                • urd

                  Do you often dream of people shooting feral cats?

                  I sometimes dream that efgoldman, and people like him, hurts himself in the pursuit of killing feral cats.

                  I would, but I am no good with guns or poison.

                  Oh well.

                  Perez’s victory is just the first step to ensuring – by fixing the Democratic primary in 2020- that the next Democratic nominee for President will be tough on feral cats.

                  I’d be more concerned about avoiding Drumpf II or Pence I if I were you with this pick.

                  That is unless Trump endorses your notion of unity and cancels all elections going forward, allowing us to acclaim him every few years as a symbol of ongoing national unity.

                  To be quite honest, the planet is about to do this for us in another few generations.

                • To be quite honest, the planet is about to do this for us in another few generations.

                  Who needs elections when we’re all doomed anyway?

                  Who cares about who’s the DNC chair when humanity will soon be extinct?

                  Makes ya think.

                • urd

                  Who needs elections when we’re all doomed anyway?

                  Who cares about who’s the DNC chair when humanity will soon be extinct?

                  Makes ya think.

                  The Earth is going into hospice care. The things you reference are still useful to keep things going as “comfortably” as possible until the end.

                  I made the reference I did because I feel that the path the DNC, and the democrats, have taken with the election of Perez leads to more subservience to the oligarchs who will continue to accelerate the damage we are doing.

                  If this “Makes ya think” then I feel truly sorry for you.

                • I feel that the path the DNC, and the democrats, have taken with the election of Perez leads to more subservience to the oligarchs who will continue to accelerate the damage we are doing.

                  Which is the same bloody path you’ve always said the Democrats were on, and would no doubt continue to say it was on even if Ellison had won, once it was clear that Ellison had not transformed the party into…whatever it is you think you think you want it to be.

        • Today, a lot of them just got told to fuck off.

          No, but you are certainly welcome to do so. I seriously doubt that your kind of energy would do the Democratic Party the least bit of good.

          • urd

            You’re getting a bit repetitive…

            • In other news, pot calls kettle black.

              • urd

                Aww, you are so original!

                • In this case I assure you the “repetition” was quite inadvertent. I would say “great minds think alike” but an obvious problem arises.

                  Nevertheless, perhaps in some respects we think alike more than either of us would care to admit.

                  Not in the most important aspects, very fortunately.

                • urd

                  Nevertheless, perhaps in some respects we think alike more than either of us would care to admit.

                  Not in the most important aspects, very fortunately.

                  True. I don’t go around patting myself on the back for being clever or superior.

                • Urd, if I am superior to you in any way, it is not cause for pride. Superiority of that sort ought to be a basic minimum for any human being. And frankly, I am sure you can easily attain it as well. It is just that for some reason you get a kick out of being a jerk in this comments section. Sad!

        • The average voter is not the important issue here.

          The sort of people who look for reasons to hate the Democratic Party as a bunch of neoliberal sellouts are the future of the Democratic Party, which they have now irreparably squandered!

          Urd has spoken!

          • urd

            So I guess you will also be taking this matter up with all of the commenters on this thread who say the average voter couldn’t care less about the DNC chair election?

            I’m not going to make up bullshit to avoid upsetting people. If you don’t like the fact that those most likely to be key elements in energizing the party are going to come from people that care about this issue, and not the average voter, then change the way the party operates.

            But I guess it’s easier to attack people like me than actually address that issue….

            • people that care about this issue

              You have not even made it clear what the issue is.

          • TVTray

            How old are you Paul, about?

        • sk7326

          candidates energize or don’t energize bases … the party needs more good ones. It is clear how to judge that.

          THAT is why Perez (or Ellison’s) views – aside from broader optics – simply don’t matter. They both had tactical strengths – Ellison reaching out to voters successfully, Perez running a large organization. Now that there are people who are making this more than that to score some points with their own consciences, I can’t help.

    • McAllen

      What material effect do you think electing Perez will have vs. electing Ellison?

      • urd

        The people that the party most needed right now will be passionless supporters of the party.

        • kped

          Or maybe they’ll get a clue and actually listen to the very left wing Perez and say “gosh, he isn’t the neoliberal shill I thought”.

          But maybe I’m giving them too much credit for critical thought…

          • urd

            very left wing Perez

            What drugs are you on to have this view and can I have some?

          • vic rattlehead

            I don’t think Perez is “very left wing.” For the record though, I don’t think Ellison or even Sanders are. In the context of American politics, sure. But I reject this Fox News framing that Perez is some radical left winger. I mean, it would be great if a left winger could win a national election. But they all seem pretty center left to me. Sanders makes socialists mohth noises but come on.

            • I can’t think of anyone who overall qualifies as “very left wing” involved in national politics. I mean, someone like Noam Chomsky, sure, but he’s an academic and commentator, not a politician.

              By the standards of the country, though, Perez is about as left as you’re going to get among politicians. I certainly haven’t seen about his politics to make his positions clearly distinguishable from those of Ellison or Sanders.

              • vic rattlehead

                I guess what I mean is that calling Perez (or Ellison, for that matter) “very left wing” is a little too Fox News for my tastes.

                • Agreed. It’s not even correct by the standards of American politics. They are solid left-liberals, same as Sanders and Warren.

        • Harkov311

          Perhaps to rephrase: why were these people practically shitting their pants with excitement over one left-liberal, while the election of a slightly different left-liberal is being told to have violent intercourse with oneself?

          I realize that sounds flippant, bit seriously, these are two men with basically identical ideological positions. How does someone get so invested in one over the other.

          • urd

            Because Perez was viewed as a candidate simply put forth for no other reason than to oppose Ellison.

            • Dr. Waffle

              BREAKING NEWS: politician is ambitious and wants to win position he cares about

              • urd

                Except there was no indication he cared until Ellison announced he was running.

                Not really the same thing.

                • Did something happen on November 8, 2016 that may have changed Tom Perez’s career options?

                • Brien Jackson

                  LOL, Ellison formally announced his run a whopping 6 days after the election. Fucking Perez missing the window to decide to run for a contest decided on 2/25, amirite?

                • urd

                  Did something happen on November 8, 2016 that may have changed Tom Perez’s career options?

                  Funny, I don’t remember him saying he had any interest in the job until after Ellison said he wanted it, and even then not until December 15.

                  LOL, Ellison formally announced his run a whopping 6 days after the election. Fucking Perez missing the window to decide to run for a contest decided on 2/25, amirite?

                  Considering some of the arguments I’m seeing here, waiting this long to declare seems a bit…odd.

            • Harkov311

              Again, this assumes that there is some sort of difference in ideology worth caring about between the two men. There is not.

              Again, why is one left-liberal good while another is bad?

              • TVTray

                Somebody thinks they’re difficult enough to push Perez to enter the race!

            • vic rattlehead

              So to be clear- you have nothing to say on the merits. Or do you? What did you think Ellison would bring to the table that Perez isn’t? I mean it, what did you expect Ellison to do as DNC chair that Perez is not going to do? Be specific, and use examples, or kindly shut the fuck up and stop being a leftist poseur.

              • urd

                Speaking to the merits I think Ellison was a far superior candidate. Speaking both in an inspiration and cynical political sense. He was seen as having support of many Sanders’ supporters and left wing democrats. Additionally, he could have sent a clear message on how the democrats feel about the Islamophobia currently being drummed up by Drumpf and the GOP.

                Perez bring neither of these things, and has the baggage of being a hard core Clinton supporter.

                In this moment, the election of the DNC chair is about sending a message, not necessarily about what differences would exist in their plans for the DNC. While I think this is unfortunate, this is the current situation the democratic party finds itself in.

                • Harkov311

                  He was seen as having support of many Sanders’ supporters and left wing democrats.

                  So basically, you’re conceding that the Busters’ love of Ellison was irrational and not really based on what he planned to do versus what Perez wanted to do, but more based on who he was. Thank you. That answers that.

                  Additionally, he could have sent a clear message on how the democrats feel about the Islamophobia currently being drummed up by Drumpf and the GOP.

                  Yeah, the Democrats have been so squishy on Islamophobia lately, you could almost forget that Trump is president

                • Darkrose

                  Additionally, he could have sent a clear message on how the democrats feel about the Islamophobia currently being drummed up by Drumpf and the GOP.

                  This is true. And yet, there is also a message sent about the anti-Latino sentiment being drummed up by Drumpf and the GOP by nominating a guy who is the son of immigrants from the Dominican Republic.

                • Abbey Bartlet

                  Additionally, he could have sent a clear message on how the democrats feel about the Islamophobia currently being drummed up by Drumpf and the GOP.

                  I don’t think it’s unclear how the Democrats feel about that Islamophobia. I do think it’s meaningful for Muslim children to be able to see someone like them in Congress.

            • Really, there should never be elections. That way there would never be any disunity at all. All hail the Acclaimed Maximum Leader!

              • urd

                And completely fails to address my point.

                • Urd, try to keep track. There I was addressing your earlier point that running against Ellison is a “divisive gesture”

                  What is the other point you’re refrring to?

                  In this moment, the election of the DNC chair is about sending a message, not necessarily about what differences would exist in their plans for the DNC.

                  This point is hardly even worth addressing. It reduces politics to pantomime – a series of empty gestures. And again, why are you concerned about the future of the Democratic Party? As far as I can tell, you hate the Democratic Party. Why, then, should those who seek the well-being of the Democratic Party take your advice seriously?

                • urd

                  Urd, try to keep track. There I was addressing your earlier point that running against Ellison is a “divisive gesture”

                  I think you need to keep track. Still fails to address my point, which is worth addressing if you were paying attention.

                  You’re right, I do hate the current democratic party. Those who seek the well being of the current party should definitely not seek my advice. In fact, I see such people as an obstacle to fixing the current situation.

                • Still fails to address my point,

                  whatever it is

                  which is worth addressing if you were paying attention.

                  I doubt it.

      • efgoldman

        What material effect do you think electing Perez will have vs. electing Ellison?

        None whatsoever. In two weeks nobody except purity ponies will care. Can he do the job? Based on his history in the cabinet, absolutely.

  • vic rattlehead

    I’ll just shamelessly copy my comment from the Gorka post:

    I have nothing against Keith Ellison but I am happy Tom Perez won. Especially given his experience on voting rights, which is vitally important now more than ever. Not that DNC chair has remotely the same power as head of the DOJ Civil Rights Division, but the guy knows the score and he has experience with something that the Sessions DOJ is going to come after hard.

    And I think the headlines I’ve seen are pretty stupid (CNN and the Times alerts I got this afternoon). Perez beats liberal Keith Ellison. Blow to the liberal wing of the party? Because Perez isn’t liberal? Ok. We’ve been over this 1001 times here but oy vey.

    • Brien Jackson

      Yeah right. You can tell how serious the Ellison diehards really are by the ZERO WORDS they’ve written considering how central legal challenges to voter suppression laws are going to be to DNC operations next year.

      • Gregor Sansa

        You’re being sarcastic, right?

      • vic rattlehead

        See, e.g.

        Yes yes. Not all Ellison backers. I know Murc would think that’s a vile tweet. But there are a lot out there.

        • Origami Isopod

          I see from that tweetstorm that Jesse Singal and Connor Kilpatrick are about to get wider attention for their transphobia. Good.

          • Co-sign. Just wondering why it’s taken this long, honestly.

            • Origami Isopod

              Singal especially. Kilpatrick deserves equal opprobrium, but he doesn’t have the same soapbox that Singal does.

      • TVTray

        Brien you forgot the sarcasm font here. Snark much?!

  • sleepyirv

    I don’t get it.

    During the primaries, it was clear the Bernie people cared deeply about the Party’s chairman. Some of this was for silly reasons: saying Clinton somehow “stole” the election from Bernie with the help of Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Some of it was for very good reasons: DWS was a Hillary booster. And it was embarrassing how long it took for the Party to remove her.

    So, there was a serious candidate with strong Bernie cred runs for the position. He runs up both moderate and liberal support. He agrees to make DNC chair his fulltime job, removing the biggest criticism against him. All is going well. And then a virtually indistinguishable candidate enters the race with a virtually indistinguishable platform.

    So the left backs one guy, and moderates and other reasonable sorts say they would be happy with either choice. BUT THE OTHER GUY WINS. Instead of just giving the left what they want, an option moderates say they would also be happy with, the other guy pulls off a close victory.

    Coalition management is hard. This might not matter to a lot of people, even among Bernie supporters. But I don’t the reason to mess up a pretty straightforward win-win. How is the Party better off?

    • vic rattlehead

      I’ll let you in on a little secret. It only matters to people who want to find something to gripe about. If not this, it’ll be something else Democrats do. And also fuel for the paranoiacs and conspiracy-minded, people who might as well be Pynchon characters come to life.

      • urd

        Wrong.

        The people who will notice this are exactly the people the democrats need right now. While they may not abandon the party, they will not be enthusiastic and they will not make any extra efforts for the party.

        Remember how powerful that type of energy was during Obama’s first run for president?

        This will have an impact. And not a good one.

        • Urd, why are you pretending to be interested in the well-being of the Democratic Party? It’s not like you’ve ever expressed anything but hatred here for them before.

        • Remember how powerful that type of energy was during Obama’s first run for president?

          Which was totally the result of whoever was the DNC chairman in 2005.

          • urd

            Hardly.

            • I’m glad you agree with me, urd. There is hope for you yet!

            • That’s one for Epic Moments In Self-Ownage if I’ve ever seen one.

      • sleepyirv

        This isn’t a “little secret.” This is a “theory.” A theory you’re willing to bet that Dems won’t lose necessary support in the future for… Tom Perez instead of Keith Ellison?

        Let’s say you’re right. Let’s say the Dems chose Ellison over Perez, but the whiners leave the Party like petulant babies when Democrats changed the drape colors or whatever. What did the Party lose here? Ellison would be a fine leader no matter what.

        I don’t see the purpose of taking a risk for absolutely no reward.

        • vic rattlehead

          There may be some morons out there who will be so upset about the election of a DNC chair virtually indistinguishable from the one they wanted they’ll take their ball and go home. I doubt they’ll be much more than a rounding error, if that.

          Either way, this is stupid to fixate on. Can we stop pretending to be Very Concerned? We have shit to do.

          • sleepyirv

            Hey man, I wish I had your confidence. You understand you COULD be wrong, right? Purely as a question of probability, maybe more than a rounding error cares. That has to be possible, right? And unless you and I have perfect knowledge, we should be playing probabilities where we take the low risk, equal reward guy.

            I’m not fixated. I replied to a thread. Just like you! I am concerned the Democrats did something unreasonable that will harm them down the line. And as such, we should keep this in mind when dealing with Sanders supporters who took this seriously. Maybe instead of calling them whiners, we recognize their reasonable concerns and try to be diplomatic about it.

            • vic rattlehead

              Maybe they made a mistake, sure. I’m not sure how the histrionics help now, since the DNC election is over. Just suggesting that spinning out over it now may not be the most productive use of time.

              • sleepyirv

                How was I being histrionic?

                And I don’t see how spending, I dunno, 20 minutes in some thread on some blog is that big waste of time. I don’t have any gutters to clean or anything.

                • vic rattlehead

                  Not you personally. This just hasn’t been a productive debate in a couple months, i wish it hadn’t dragged on so long.

      • efc

        So it doesn’t matter, but it is also important enough to run a candidate with the only distinguishing feature being he wasn’t the other guy. Totally makes sense.

        Why can’t people just admit they brought in Perez to beat someone associated with the other “faction”? It’s not even that Perez won. It’s all the people here acting like the animosity is completely imagined and Perez ran for a principled reason that is not ever fully articulated.

        • vic rattlehead

          Honestly, what was the real difference between Clinton and Obama in 08, on the merits?

          Anyway, there’s more to a candidate than just views. There’s experience and abilities to execute those views. Or does Perez’s experience as head of the DOJ Civil Rights Division, and experience with voting rights mean nothing in a time when that’s of desperate importance? His ability to work with the people who voted for him and their relationship with them? I mean, I could go on. But the idea that their views are indistinguishable therefore they are indistinguishable is aggressively stupid.

        • Hob

          If it’s not a hugely important difference, then there’s no reason another candidate should not run– at least, if neither one of the candidates is going to devote a lot of effort to tearing down the other one in ways that will ultimately damage the party.

          There are lots of reasons why people run for office. “I totally disagree with the other guy on important matters of principle” and “I want to crush the dreams of everyone who likes the other guy” do not have to be among them.

        • It’s an organizational position, not an ideological one. It’s entirely possible that Perez’s supporters simply thought he would be better suited for the nuts and bolts of the job. I have no idea. I’m not an expert in party politics.

    • Murc

      During the primaries, it was clear the Bernie people cared deeply about the Party’s chairman. Some of this was for silly reasons: saying Clinton somehow “stole” the election from Bernie with the help of Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Some of it was for very good reasons: DWS was a Hillary booster. And it was embarrassing how long it took for the Party to remove her.

      Er. This is incoherent.

      The problem with DWS isn’t that she was a Hillary booster. It’s that she was both very, very bad at her job, and that she was totally okay with the DNC meddling in the primary. Her personal support of Clinton is irrelevant to both those things.

      I kind of agree with the rest of this post, but you sort of severely undercut yourself here with your opening paragraph.

      • sleepyirv

        I don’t see how you’re saying anything different from me. “Hillary booster” is just another way of saying “meddling in the primary.” I assume most people follow the primaries and remember what happened.

    • Gregor Sansa

      I definitely see your point.

      But then again: this is democracy. The people voting were more or less a representative sample of the people who will actually be dealing with Perez day-to-day. They have a right to have a preference of their own.

      Ellison is deputy chair, and gets to keep his seat. I think this is also a win/win.

      • TVTray

        A bunch of people really felt like they lost!

    • ASV

      Possibly because this isn’t just a symbolic position, but somebody who actually has to do a bunch of actual things with and for the actual people who actually voted in this contest? Neither leading candidate made their public campaign about the specifics of how they would run the DNC, but that may have been how they campaigned internally to the electorate. It is much more valuable to have a well-run DNC than to have a small fringe of malcontents feel good for a couple weeks. The idea that ALL THE YOUNG PEOPLE will now stay home in 2018 as a result of this vote is extremely stupid, and seeing it expressed by the likes of Zephyr Teachout, for example, is highly disappointing.

      • sleepyirv

        You and Gregor have a lot of more confidence in DNC voters ability to choose the best candidate. I mean, they have the RIGHT to choose the next leader. I don’t think Ellison should pull a palace coup or something. But that certainly doesn’t mean they have some great knowledge on which of these guys have the better organizational or funding-raising abilities. Frankly, in my personal experience I’ve never been too impress by local party leaders.

        I would venture to guess a lot of these voters made their decision on purely transactional reasons: which guy promised them more. That doesn’t make anyone a great party leader.

        • Gregor Sansa

          I wasn’t saying I think this is necessarily the best outcome. Just that there are potentially-legitimate reasons for it to differ from the thing that placates the most people.

          I think this vote could easily have gone differently if they’d used a better voting system, by the way. For instance, 3-2-1 voting. The three semifinalists, the ones rated “good” by the most, would almost certainly have been Perez, Ellison, and Buttigieg (who wouldn’t have had to drop out). Of those, the two finalists, the ones rated “bad” by the fewest, would have been the nonentity Buttigieg and one of the other two. If you’re actually right and Perez strongly turns off more people than Ellison, that’s where it would have showed up. Then, the winner would be the one voted higher on more ballots; for instance, if the other one was “bad”, either “OK” or “good” would count. I suspect that there are enough people who liked both Perez and Ellison that the winner there would not be Buttigieg.

          So if you’re right, Ellison would have won 3-2-1 voting; and if ASV is right, then it would have been Perez. Either way, a clearer, more democratic result.

          • efgoldman

            Oh, Gregor. Give it a rest.

            • Eh. I mean, yeah, he brings this up every time there’s a discussion of something involving election results, but to be fair, he’s making valid points. FPTP really is an unambiguously horrible of holding elections. We probably should have a better voting system for our next presidential primary, too.

              Compare this to someone like our various trolls who comment a lot more frequently and never actually say anything insightful or relevant, or really even bother engaging in good faith.

              • Brien Jackson

                The Democratic primary doesn’t use FPTP voting.

                • It depends on the state, doesn’t it? I thought the Florida primary did, at least. That said, even if no states use FPTP, the system is so labyrinthine and confusing that I still feel it needs to be simplified to make it more accessible. Though I suppose there is an argument that people who don’t pay attention to politics shouldn’t be voting in Democratic primaries, but I’m not sure how sympathetic I’d be to it.

                • Brien Jackson

                  No, the national rules call for a proportional allocation by Congressional district. And the nominee has to win a full majority of delegates.

                • Oh, right. I honestly don’t even know why I’d forgotten that, with all the discussions of delegate count. I suspect last year’s election was so traumatic that I was trying to forget details.

                  Is the vote count within each district FPTP or is that proportional too?

                • Brien Jackson

                  The delegates are apportioned by district, in proportional terms. So yes, it’s done district by district.

                • Ok, now I remember another reason I’d forgotten all of this – it’s all really confusing. But now that I’ve researched it more, I guess apportioning delegates by how much a given region had voted Democratic makes sense. I still wish it were done in a way that were easier to explain to outsiders, though.

                • Gregor Sansa

                  If the delegates were bound to a specific preference order (vote for X on first ballot, then if they come in last switch to Y for second ballot, etc.), then the whole proportional middle stage would just be a complicated way of doing IRV. But having a 50% threshold and free second ballots allows for some actual deliberation, so it’s better than that. (Not gonna talk about superdelegates here because people talk about them too much anyway; they matter, but way less than people think.)

                • Superdelegates have always been overhyped – they originally pledged to Clinton in 2008, but switched to Obama when it became clear he would win. On the other hand, if Edwards had been the nominee and his scandals had come out after the voting took place, they would’ve saved the party from certain electoral doom. I’m still not exactly certain why this is a bad idea. Overall, they’ve made it pretty clear that they will respect the democratic process unless information comes out that would destroy a nominee.

          • Brien Jackson

            I mean…this is weird. The election required a majority to win it, and on the second ballot Ellison’s vote total stayed exactly the same while Perez cleared the threshold he’d already missed by one vote. I don’t see what the problem here is supposed to be. If Ellison was the second choice of the delegates who voted for other candidates, why didn’t any of them vote for him on the 2nd ballot?

            • Gregor Sansa

              Perez got 49.8% on the first ballot. The second round totals were pretty much pro forma; though they’re not evidence for my story above, they’re very weak as evidence against it. Switching to Perez may have been more about “let’s finish this” than “I prefer Perez over Ellison”.

              I suspect Perez would have won under 3-2-1 voting. But there’s some chance the two systems would not have gotten the same result; and in that case, the plurality result would be unequivocally worse.

              • Brien Jackson

                They were the only two candidates to get votes on the second ballot. It was going to be over either way.

              • rea

                Gregor is to FPTP voting as Cato the Censor was to Carthage (not that it’s a bad thing, necessarily).

                • I agree with him. FPTP (I am far too illiterate in Latin to be able to translate it) delenda est.

        • ASV

          I’m not saying they necessarily chose right, whatever that means (I’ve seen nothing that suggests either of these two would be measurably different from the other). I’m saying that “throw the Bernie people a bone” is not a compelling argument to the people who are casting the ballots.

    • TopsyJane

      Coalition management is hard. This might not matter to a lot of people, even among Bernie supporters. But I don’t the reason to mess up a pretty straightforward win-win.

      Obama and Obama’s people appear to have had real concerns over handing over the party machinery to Sanders’ guy. Obama wanted a safe pair of hands and I guess he didn’t regard Ellison as that safe pair of hands.

      • sleepyirv

        I agree this is a reasonable, even likely, explanation of what happened. I just don’t think it makes sense.

        1) While Ellison is a really liberal guy, by all appearances he seems to be a loyal party solider too (which was shown after the fact by him taking the deputy job). I don’t think he was intentionally be underhanded with Obama.

        2) Ellison also isn’t an idiot. He’s not going to run Bernie Bros. in Alabama or whatever. Obama people will get their money when they run.

        3) The Democratic Party is going to defend Obama’s legacy for mechanical and ideological reasons. There is no way Ellison could stop that even if he wanted to.

    • nixnutz

      So the left backs one guy, and moderates and other reasonable sorts…

      No, double fuck this. The notion that “the left” == people who favored Bernie is and has always been complete and utter fucking bullshit and it needs to stop.

      Sure, a lot of, maybe most, of the left end of the party favored him at least up to May or June, but the group that stayed loyal to him well after he’d lost the primary are median way the fuck to my right. I’m a socialist who thought Bernie was ideologically great but sadly couldn’t get out two sentences without stepping on his dick and insulting a major coalition of the party and the idea that I have to accept Glenn Greenwald and Zaid Jinali–and anybody else with a raging hate-on for Hillary Clinton–as avatars of true leftism… just no.

  • anonymous

    By Perez winning, the Dems dodged a proverbial bullet. Had Ellison won, a lot Jews in FL (pop ~900k) who are Dershowitz types would have gone Repug. Victory or defeat in FL is on a knife’s edge and Ellison could have tipped the balance.

    With loss of Midwest, FL is now must win to make up for it. And Ellison as chair would have made FL harder to win with FL Dershowitz-type Democratic Jews fleeing the party.

    Dems should all breathe a sigh of relief.

    • Murc

      I have severe doubts that there are a significant number of Jewish people who are shit-stupid enough to think “well, I wasn’t going to vote for the fascist anti-semities, but then the Democrats made a MOOSLIM the head of the DNC, so I guess now I have to shake hands with Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka.”

      This is a disgusting impugnment of their character.

      • anonymous

        Even Dershowitz/Haim Saban type Democratic Jews are obviously very uncomfortable with anti-semitism brought upon by Bannon and the “alt-right” that came with along with Trump.

        But they are “Israel-first” and care more about issues like no two states, pro settlements, always veto anti Israel UN resolutions, capital in Jerusalem, rip up Iran deal, etc. etc than Bannon. Also many Dershowitz-types see Muslims as a common enemy and cause.

        If things get bad in the US, they’ll just make Aliyah. Dershowitz-type Jews are Israel-first Jews. They nowhere near are a majority of Jews but are enough to make a difference in FL.

        • I don’t see evidence that there are enough such Jews in Florida to make a difference in all but the closest elections. I live in Sarasota County, not exactly noted for being a hotbed of liberalism, and I don’t know too many people for whom Israel is such an important issue that it overrules the Republican Party’s embrace of antisemitism. In fact, I honestly can only name one person I know who cares that much about Israel at all, and he’s also a fairly recent convert to Judaism so he’s an outlier on several levels. Most of the Jews I know here are quite liberal and, while they may broadly support Israel’s existence and/or have made pilgrimages and such, they aren’t exactly thrilled with the Likud government either and aren’t going to abandon the Democratic Party because the DNC chair said some mildly critical things about Bibi/Likud/etc.

          • vic rattlehead

            Interesting-my mom’s from Sarasota. Been there dozens of times-my grandmother lived in Venice. Beautiful beaches but I always felt out of place…by several decades.

            • Yeah. Everyone I know from like 18-45 feels this way. I’ve gotten used to it, but it’s still kind of weird.

              • vic rattlehead

                And I’m an old soul! Always have been. I’ll let you know if I’m ever down there, but my grandmother passed many years ago and I’ve never had occasion to go back.

                • My condolences, even if belated. And thanks; would be cool to meet up if you’re ever down here again.

                • vic rattlehead

                  We’re talking over a decade but thanks. Heh.

    • As a Florida resident who considers themselves Jewish, is perceived as Jewish by basically everyone they meet, and has a lot of Jewish friends, I’m not convinced that there are enough people who would’ve abandoned the party with Ellison’s election to make a meaningful difference in all but the closest races. It would probably be, like, 1-3% of us, which admittedly was larger than the margin of 2000, but still isn’t that large all things told.

      Still, I could be wrong about this. It just wasn’t a big concern for me.

      • Basically, to put it another way, most of us are far more concerned about the resurgence in overt antisemitism than we are with a largely symbolic party chair, and we’re also smart enough to see that there are only two real games in town. Most of the Florida Jews who would be bothered by this result weren’t Democrats in the first place. Dershowitz is not remotely representative of us, and one of the few downsides I see here is that this outcome isn’t going to get him to stop calling himself a Democrat, which I would have regarded as a positive result.

      • Gregor Sansa

        “Larger than the margin of 2000”. Hah.

        I believe that the Trump win is an utter disaster, but not quite an unmitigated one. The Dems have upped their game. If they can be as effective as the Tea Party — and there is every reason to hope they will be — there will never be another close Presidential election between a Democrat and a Republican that we today would recognize as such. Lower levels are still important, but c’mon, Palm Beach is not at risk.

        • urd

          If they can be as effective as the Tea Party — and there is every reason to hope they will be

          Today’s vote would seem to argue against this hope.

          • The Tea Party organized when the RNC Chair was Michael Steele.

    • urd

      Are you serious?

      With loss of Midwest, FL is now must win to make up for it. And Ellison as chair would have made FL harder to win with FL Dershowitz-type Democratic Jews fleeing the party.

      These people are going to embrace the administration of Bannon? If so, they had no real intention of supporting the democrats in any case.

    • McAllen

      Hey look, it’s Exhibit A of why I was rooting for Ellison.

      • Gregor Sansa

        Word.

      • Nick056

        Yup. This is a brazenly bigoted argument against Ellison, who was about as likely to cost the Dems Florida as he was to win the Dems Michigan. If there’s one ludicrously wrong way to evaluate a DNC Chair, it’s “will he lose or win swing states in 2020 because of his region or identity?”

    • humanoid.panda

      Guys, you do realize that Anonymous, with his “Midwest lost forever” shtick is a troll, right?

      • Unlike some of our other trolls, Anonymous occasionally makes a reasonable point. I’ll agree that on this particular issue, he/she/they are insufferable, though.

        • humanoid.panda

          Does he? I feel the other way around. some of the other trolls make reasonable arguments at time. The only comments I’ve heard from him are “Democrats lost Midwest forever”

          • I’m certain I’ve seen comments from them in threads that had nothing to do with that meme, but I couldn’t tell you what they were now. At any rate, they haven’t moved to my “never bother reading/responding to” list yet. Maybe they’re just not a frequent enough commenter.

            • Or there’s more than one person who posts as “anonymous”.

              • It wouldn’t be the first time that’s been the case with a nym here. That might actually be the explanation. The “Dems are DOOMED in the Midwest! DOOOOMED!!1” shtick definitely got old fast, though.

      • rfm

        His comment comes off as antisemitism masquerading as concern trolling.

    • Brien Jackson

      Shut the fuck up already.

    • Ah, yes, our resident “Democrat” whose advice always seems to be pointing in the direction of the Democrats embracing white nationalism. Get fucked.

  • Todd

    Good news. But I still can’t get around the fact that just 4 months ago I was toying with ‘Attorney General Perez’….’Justice Perez’…

  • Hells Littlest Angel

    The New York Times:

    In a vote that showed the Democratic Party has yet to heal the wounds of last year’s presidential primary, former Labor Secretary Thomas E. Perez beat Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota to become D.N.C. chairman.

    Evidently the only outcome that would be a positive for the party would have been a tie. Fuck you, Times.

    • vic rattlehead

      Once again, Fuck The Fucking New York Times.

    • FTFNYT.

      e: I swear we’re not sock puppets.

    • Warren Terra

      I think we can all agree on the vital need for the New York Times to publish a series of loving portraits of White Appalachian and Midwestern Republican Trump enthusiasts who’ve got opinions on the DNC chair contest.

      • busker type

        Especially some who woulda Considered going dem in 2020, but not with this Perez guy leading the party

        • Warren Terra

          But they voted for Carter in 1976, they’re ready for the party to come back to them!

    • Harkov311

      I mean sure, they could have told the truth (Liberal beats Other Liberal for Chair), but gotta bait those clicks…

      • Exactly. Talk about fake news . . .

    • Gregor Sansa

      Wow. “In a development that showed the Democratic Party has yet to heal the wounds of last year’s presidential primary, Sanders and Clinton retain independent circulatory systems.”

      Only Dr. Frankenstein can heal our wounds! (Or maybe Dr. Finkelstein, or maybe Lillian Lambsbridge. I almost have a great link for Finkelstein too, an algorithm for high-dimensional particle filters by that name, but it’s not yet published.)

    • Nick056

      I mean, I hate the NYT as much as the next person, but … That’s not really wrong. Sure, it focuses on horse race and theater instead of substance and policy impacts. Yes, it conveys a point of view: Ellison would have been a healing pick, and Perez is a more polarizing one. So it’s a fraught lead. But, really: not wrong.

      • Warren Terra

        Every combination of words probably conveys “a point of view”. The question is whether, as in this case, it’s a stupid nonfactual point of view.

      • vic rattlehead

        A puddle deep point of view. All the inane shit that’s fit to print.

        • Nick056

          With respect, you’re pretty clearly pleased Perez won. It’s not surprising you don’t like a lede that suggests Ellison would have been the conciliatory choice, or that loyalties from the primary might have strongly influenced the vote.

          I mean, I’m sure Ellison himself hates this type of framing. But it’s not wrong.

          • vic rattlehead

            I came around on Perez, really. I liked Ellison from the moment he announced and I reconsidered when he tossed his hat in the ring. I never had much sympathy for all the pissing and moaning from supposed leftists. I was a Sanders supporter and I would have been ok with Ellison. But I’m not one of the children spinning out over this.

            • urd

              But I’m not one of the children spinning out over this.

              Actually you are. Your responses have been as heated as any here on this matter.

              Stop trying to call others out for behavior that you are also displaying.

              • This is like saying that calling Trump a liar is “name calling” on a par with calling Elizabeth Warren “Pocahontas”

    • TVTray

      The positive outcome for the party would have been to just let Ellison win!

    • If it had been a tie, it would have been “Democratic Party split down the middle”

  • D.N. Nation

    I was at the healthcare march/rally that passed by the DNC in downtown Atlanta today.

    Me: http://i.imgur.com/FhzEYEo.jpg
    Dems on the right, tourist Hooters on the left: http://i.imgur.com/xP0aFFo.jpg

    When it was announced that Perez had won, a couple people booed, a couple people legitimately cheered, and otherwise it was polite clapping all around. Read into that what you will.

    Preferred Ellison, preferred him by a lot in fact, fine with Perez. Onward. My buddy’s working the Jon Ossoff campaign up in Cobb County; if you’d like to help donate some bucks toward giving the wingnuts their first Trump Era loss: https://tinyurl.com/jt2wosh

  • TVTray

    Ellison 2020 here we come!

    • D.N. Nation

      Sure, works for me. Bet Perez would agree.

      • TVTray

        Glad you’re aboard, D.N.!

        • D.N. Nation

          I mean, as long as y’all want the vote and $ from a neoliberal sellout like myself.

          • TVTray

            Of course! I’m a steel-eyed pragmatist much like Scott. I’m happy with Perez (though a bit worried because many of my peers won’t be so happy). I just think the Dem party is constantly screwing up, and he doesn’t.

    • Murc

      2020 is gonna be a free-for-all, so maybe?

      I mean. Sanders and Clinton will both be too old. So it could be anyone. I’m predicting Gillibrand, Booker, and Cuomo right at the moment, with additional candidates trickling in over the next three years.

      • JasonGWB

        My theory, for what’s it worth, is that Gillibrand’s stock rises as Cuomo’s does. The left wing of the Democratic Party hates Cuomo for understandable reasons and one of the ways to stop his candidacy in it’s tracks is for him to lose his home state. Gillibrand may want to apply for the position of coming first in the NY primary.

        She is also a rather adept politician from what I have seen so far.

        • louislouis

          Does former tobacco lawyer Gillibrand represent “the left”?

      • vic rattlehead

        I would crawl through broken glass to vote for even Cuomo over Trump, but I fear we’d have a serious enthusiasm problem with that sack of crap. I don’t think I’d be able to convincingly canvass or phone bank for him. I mean, I could try, but I’m a horrible actor.

        • Scott Lemieux

          Remember how Joe Lieberman did with a less left-wing Democratic primary? That would be ANdrew Cuomo’s future if he runs. At best. Anyone who thinks he has any chance of beating Gillibrand for the Dem nomination is out of their minds.

      • D.N. Nation

        NY, NJ, NY. Some geographical diversity would be nice.

      • TVTray

        Why not Sherrod Brown?

        • Murc

          I’m not aware that Brown has expressed any interest or signals towards running.

          Brown would make a fine addition to the field. My only concern is that if we pick a Senator I’d like someone easily replaceable by another Democrat.

          • That’s my only reservation about Brown, too. On the other hand, I’ve long wanted Warren or Franken to run, and I suspect that 2020 might be their last chance; after then, they may be too old. That said, I think Franken has confirmed that he is definitely not interested in running for president, as he doesn’t want the level of public scrutiny that would entail.

            • Q.E.Dumbass

              Counterpoint: Donald Trump.

              Also: Al Franken should’ve totally been VP.

      • tsam

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Inslee

        Kinda want to see this guy run. Qualified, pretty liberal. He’ll be 69 in 2020.

        Let’s find out if our dudebros come down on him.

    • busker type

      This is the only thing you’ve said in this whole comment section that I agree with… I would totally vote for Ellison for prez.

      • TVTray

        Glad to hear, comrade!

      • I would too. I’m not entirely sure the country is ready for a Muslim president, but four years of the shitgibbon may change a lot. I have no reservations whatsoever about him or his politics, and suspect he’s a talented enough politician to win the presidency at some point. Whether he can be successful with a bid in 2020 largely depends upon whether the country exceeds my expectations, as it did in 2008, or underperforms them, as it did last year.

        • busker type

          I’m not sure either, but I think that playing it safe has not worked for us, so why not?

        • Davis X. Machina

          The House is a graveyard, even for speakers and majority leaders — Dick Gephardt, eg., of presidential aspirations.

          • To be fair, there hadn’t been a senator who went on to become president for a long while either before Obama. That said, I do wonder whether he should become a governor or a senator before he runs for the presidency, but I don’t know when the next decent opening would be.

    • herewegoagain

      But but but he cant even win the dnc race….

      • TVTray

        Let’s see what actual voters think about him, not the pampered pocket-squared DC-area weirdos in charge of the DNC!

  • JasonGWB

    Between the reactions of the DNC chair race today, the clusterfuck that is Jeremy Corbyn Labour Party and the upcoming elections in France I am almost starting think that the modern western left no longer understands how politics works. Almost. If it wasn’t for the angels at Dogfish Head brewery I have no idea how I would have gotten through this weekend. Thank you Dogfish Head for doing God’s work.

    • Dennis Orphen

      The way politics works at the margin of right now is evolving and changing rapidly, spurred entirely by the electronic digitization of all that was paper. A small minority seems to understand this this better than the majority and is using this advantage against them in malicious ways.

    • Lit3Bolt

      Once you factor in Russian money and influence, it makes a lot more sense.

  • louislouis

    Well I for one am relieved we stopped those communists and their insane demands for free stuff from taking over the party. Now we can start the real work of foaming the runway for a grown up like Cuomo and/or Booker with a sensible program of cutting entitlements or stopping the importation of low price drugs. Tell the losers that their jobs aren’t coming back. Who knows, we might even pull some moderate Republicans from the Philly suburbs in the process. That’ll show em. In any event we definitely won’t lose to a Republican spouting faux populist rhetoric – they’re not any better, people! Besides, look at these unemployment numbers! America is already great!

    • vic rattlehead

      Wow. I mean, my god, even urd acknowledges there’s no real difference between Ellison and Perez on the merits.

      • Yes, urd’s fulminations on the issue are equally nonsensical, but in a different way.

      • louislouis

        I was having some fun. But seriously: if there’s no difference why was Perez pressured to run? admittedly I’m assuming the truth of the reporting that Perez was pressured. So many are saying Perez is the same as Ellison but (again, reporting) why was there so much panic over Ellison heading the DNC? We do know the DNC played a pretty non-neutral role in the last primary, so I’d say speculation is warranted.

        • TVTray

          Perez was out of job after Hillary lost to Donald Trump, and I believe he said he saw the DNC posting on LinkedIn.

        • Brien Jackson

          “But seriously: if there’s no difference why was Perez pressured to run? ”

          I realize that everyone is taking their talking points from Dear Leader Glenn and running out as told…but no one can actually think this is a meaningful point in any way, right?

          • TVTray

            Most people think politicians make decisions because of politics.

            • Abbey Bartlet

              Most people think

              Assumes facts not in evidence.

              • TVTray

                More than they think they make decisions because of policy!

            • “Most people think x’ is not an argument for x. If most people were to think the world is flat, it would not make the world flat.

      • urd

        Not quite what I said:

        In this moment, the election of the DNC chair is about sending a message, not necessarily about what differences would exist in their plans for the DNC.

        Own your bullshit statements – don’t try to push them off on others.

        • vic rattlehead

          Cute, but check the time stamps. You posted that comment well after I posted mine. Dishonest troll.

    • Yeah, Perez as DNC chair will TOTALLY fix the 2020 primary for Cuomo.

      Have you ever been to the planet Earth?

    • Scott Lemieux

      Well I for one am relieved we stopped those communists and their insane demands for free stuff from taking over the party.

      Yes, the Chair and Deputy Chair of the DNC both being ideological indistinguishable left-liberals is certainly compelling evidence that the left has no voice in the Democratic Party.

      Now we can start the real work of foaming the runway for a grown up like Cuomo and/or Booker

      There is a 0% chance that Tom Perez would support Andrew Cuomo and there’s a 0% chance of him being the Dem nominee even if he did.

      with a sensible program of cutting entitlements

      You really don’t have a fucking clue. It was probably a bad idea to stop reading about politics in 1996.

      • TVTray

        Hi Scott! Why do you think Perez decided to enter the race?

        • Scott Lemieux

          He wanted a position of national prominence and it was the best alternative? You’re welcome!

          • busker type

            Pretty good; Needs more conspiracy

          • Brien Jackson

            I mean seriously…if you remove the need for never ending Bernie consiracies this is a super normal move: The guy is a highly regarded prospect with nothing to do at the moment, so parking him at DNC is good for his profile in the interim.

            • Davis X. Machina

              so parking him at DNC is good for his profile in the interim.

              The alternative was a loan to Derby County, or Swindon. To get some first-team action, rather than get shunted off into the reserves.

          • TVTray

            Scott, do you really think this is how politics work? Just a couple of guys cruising the job listings looking for sweet gigs? I’m disappointed!

            Also curious, what’s a more important position, governor of Maryland or DNC leader? Shouldn’t we be worried that we just lost a talented up-and-comer to a mostly useless functionary position?

        • vic rattlehead

          Are you so dumb that you see no reason beyond ideology to support a candidate? I mean, my views are probably pretty indistinguishable from Ellison’s but I’d be laughed out of the race because no way could I do the job.

          Perhaps Perez thought (and the DNC agreed) that he had the more relevant experience. Perhaps they liked him on a personal level. There are a multitude of reasons beyond shadowy conspiracies to prefer one ideologically indistinguishable person over another. I mean, look at someone like Corbyn for fuck’s sake. You might like him ideologically and also think he’s a terrible political operator and impossible to deal with. I’m not saying Ellison is these things but it is aggressively stupid to suggest that since they are ideologically the same there’s no reason to support one over the other. I really mean that. It is so transparently stupid a question to ask that I wonder if you are really engaging in good faith. Because I’m being charitable here-I’m assuming you’re just an asshole and not a dumbshit.

          • louislouis

            I’ve followed the reporting and all of it suggested that Perez was pressured to run because Ellison was too far left and insufficiently deferential to Israel (why that matters I have no idea). If you’ve read a different explanation I’m all ears. But now you’re just playing dumb if you think I’m just making this up. You’re alternate theory is laughable: Ellison has won multiple elections yet a guy who’s never won above the county level is more qualified to run the DNC, the job of which is to win elections? OK.

            • Scott Lemieux

              You’re alternate theory is laughable: Ellison has won multiple elections yet a guy who’s never won above the county level is more qualified to run the DNC, the job of which is to win elections?

              This is incredibly stupid. Is this from Zaid Jilani’s twitter feed or something?

              • louislouis

                Asking why Perez would be a better choice. It’s true lobbyists like him more than Ellison but I’ll need a better answer if you want to suggest all those stories about dem elites hating Ellison were false.

                • Dem elites like noted leftist firebrand Chuck Schumer? Oh, and then there’s that neoliberal shill Tom Perez, who hated Ellison so much that he… made him his deputy?

                  Also, it’s possible, and I’m just spitballing here, but it’s possible that knowing how to manage a winning campaign and actually successfully running for office as a candidate oneself might involve two somewhat different skill sets. Shocking, I know.

                • Brien Jackson

                  THE DNC CHAIR DOESN’T RUN CAMPAIGNS!!!! Trying to centralize races was the exact mistake that the Obama team made after 2008, and exactly what these guys have all been promising to reverse!

                • sk7326

                  The DNC is a large bureaucracy. Imagine if there was a left-liberal who had just come off of a very highly regarded tour at a large bureaucracy.

            • tsam

              Oh good, you’re here. Answer a question I’ve had since I was a kid. Where exactly do we gotta go now?

              • louislouis

                Down

                • tsam

                  Well fuck. That’s anti-climactic.

            • Abbey Bartlet

              Perez was pressured to run

              Poor Tommy just couldn’t say no to the mean neolibs pressuring him to challenge the pure and noble leftist!

      • louislouis

        Oh please. Cuomo is already being hyped as a likely nominee – even on your own blog. Look at the array of horribles he’s supported and tell me he wouldn’t be down for a grand bargain as President. And if you think Perez was pressured to run so that he could be his own man you’re dreaming. He will support Cuomo if and when the donors tell him to.

        • Scott Lemieux

          Cuomo is already being hyped as a likely nominee

          By who? Anyway, they’re obviously wrong.

          Look at the array of horribles he’s supported and tell me he wouldn’t be down for a grand bargain as President.

          Yes, which is why it’s good that he has a 0% chance of being the Dem nominee, and also why Tom Perez will not support him in the primary if he runs.

      • louislouis

        “Indistinguishable” yet apparently even Obama was horrified by Ellison to the point Perez was pressured to run. What does it say that the people who matter DON’T think they’re indistinguishable?

        • Scott Lemieux

          “Horrified?”

          Anyway, yes, the Democratic establishment was in such a panic about Keith Ellison that fucking Chuck Schumer endorsed him, and Ellison was immediately made Perez’s deputy.

          What does it say that the people who matter DON’T think they’re indistinguishable?

          “Ideologically indistinguishable” is not “indistinguishable.” The chair of the DNC has very little role in setting the ideological direction of the party and there are other relevant criteria. Both Ellison and Perez have obvious but different assets, and Obama knows the latter much better.

          • Brien Jackson

            Again, it’s clearly telling that the Bernie diehards scream endlessly about the primary candidate supported ideological qualifications of the DNC chair, but not a word gets said about fighting court battles over voter suppression laws.

          • lawtalkingguy

            hey at least you got this guy to admit Obama is a neo-liberal shill. Usually it takes Greenwald types a while before they are brave enough to do that.

          • Harkov311

            yes, the Democratic establishment was in such a panic about Keith Ellison that fucking Chuck Schumer endorsed him, and Ellison was immediately made Perez’s deputy.

            As it has been said before, so it must be said again: the purity ponies refuse to take yes for an answer.

          • louislouis

            I’d argue that at this point the ideological direction of the Democratic Party is largely set by its Presidential nominee, and the DNC Chair, I think, has some involvement in who that is.

            • What involvement does the DNC chair have in choosing the Presidential nominee? Also, there’s a major election coming up before we’ll have another Presidential nominee — who’s going to set the ideological direction in the interim?

              • louislouis

                It depends. For example in the last primary you had people in the DNC plotting to smear Bernie as a bad Jew. Ostensibly it should be neutral role but control over the nominating process can easily be abused.

                • “Plotting”? A few of them discussed it, but the attack was never used. There has yet to be a single bit of concrete evidence to suggest that anything the DNC did was enough to affect the outcome of a race Clinton won by four million votes.

                • louislouis

                  The point is not that they threw the election one way or another, but that they clearly thought they could influence the outcome. That extends to penalizing Bernie over some bullshit and setting he debate schedule in the manner Clinton preferred. My understanding is that these same people didn’t want Ellison.

                • The idea that the debate schedule actually helped Clinton in any way is risible. Debating is by far one of her strongest skills as a politician, and she knows this. Debates have been one of the few times she has ever consistently had unfiltered access to the media, and she is at her strongest in them. It is not remotely coincidental that her poll numbers rose after every debate. Moreover, several of the debates were on at points when they would prove least helpful to her. The idea that the debate schedule was some kind of conspiracy against her is unsupported by evidence. The debate schedule was a bad idea, but the idea that it was done at Clinton’s behest has never made sense; she lost out just as much as the other candidates did. Unfiltered access to the media is a resource Democrats rarely got during the campaign (while the president-asterisk got billions of dollars’ worth for free). The idea that Clinton would want less of it makes zero sense.

                  The fact that they thought they could influence the primary is irrelevant, because there’s no sign that they ever actually did in any meaningful way. I’m also fairly certain that if the influence of the party insiders against Ellison resulted in his becoming the deputy chairperson rather than the chairperson, it can’t have been terribly consequential, because it’s already pretty clear that Ellison and Perez will be working fairly closely together. If they wanted to use their power to keep him out of a position of influence in the party, then obviously, they failed.

                • louislouis

                  They were proceeding from the assumption that she was already the presumptive nominee and could only lose by debating. I’d also argue that her no fly zone idea was insane and her foreign policy knowledge consists of a bunch of buzzwords and trivia. Oh yeah, and her bizarre statement about Wall Street being the true victim of 9/11. And Kissinger. Jesus. She did seem more polished than Bernie. But that’s it.

                • Brien Jackson

                  Right, the debate conspiracy completely falls aart when you you recognize that Clinton did better than anyone in them, and also had outperformed Obama in them in 2008.

                • That extends to penalizing Bernie over some bullshit

                  “some bullshit” = “exploiting a software bug to download Clinton campaign data without authorization”

                  “penalizing Bernie” = “blocking the Sanders campaign from using the software they exploited for a period of time”

                • louislouis

                  Actually they blocked Sanders’ access to his own data.

                • The data his campaign was storing in the software they shared with the other Democratic candidates, yes. The data each campaign stored with the expectation that their competitors would not have access to the data they collected. An expectation that Sanders’ campaign violated.

                • Abbey Bartlet

                  her foreign policy knowledge consists of a bunch of buzzwords and trivia

                  Go fuck yourself.

                • Origami Isopod

                  Go fuck yourself.

                  Heartily seconded. Not only is that rank misogyny but it’s hilarious coming from an acolyte of Saint Bernie the Infallible, who is about as much of a foreign-policy expert as I am.

              • Scott Lemieux

                It depends. For example in the last primary you had people in the DNC plotting to smear Bernie as a bad Jew.

                So the DNC threw the election to a candidate who won by 4 million votes, through the mechanism of some random nobody proposing a stupid thing nobody else ever considered doing? That’s how the DNC chooses the nominee? (You’re also completely and obviously wrong that the president imposes his or her ideological values on the rest of the party, but anyway.)

                That many people who believe this also believe there’s no possible way of knowing if the director of the FBI repeatedly calling one candidate a crook and generating a wave of negative media coverage could have any effect on the election is even more hilarious.

                • louislouis

                  If you saw my comments above you’d see that I don’t believe the DNC threw the election to Clinton. What I’m saying is that we learned during this primary that, to some extent, the DNC was weaponized in favor of one of the candidates. So when a supporter of that candidate runs for chair of the DNC and the establishment deliberately puts up a candidate to stop him, it’s not crazy that people are suspicious as to why the establishment wants to control an organization that was used against the left in the primary, even if it didn’t change the outcome. Finally, I have never said that Comey had no effect on the election; in fact, I said that the Comey theory is much more persuasive than “Putin hacked the election” because it’s based on data and facts.

                • Scott Lemieux

                  What I’m saying is that we learned during this primary that, to some extent, the DNC was weaponized in favor of one of the candidates.

                  But it just wasn’t. It did nothing to materially affect the race. The fact that the examples of the DNC being “weaponized” literally involve cases where nothing happened should make that obvious.

                  Finally, I have never said that Comey had no effect on the election; in fact, I said that the Comey theory is much more persuasive than “Putin hacked the election” because it’s based on data and facts.

                  You are exempt from this charge, yes.

                • tsam

                  How can you say that when Sanders lost??? The only possible explanation is rigging.

          • louislouis

            And regarding Schumer, I don’t hate him or think he’s the devil. He may recognize that Ellison is best for the job, regardless of any ideological quibbles he may have with him. Assuming he knows Ellison, I’d suspect he doesn’t buy the anti-Semitism charges that others do.

            • Scott Lemieux

              So Schumer is able to prefer a candidate for non-ideological reasons, but Obama isn’t? Fascinating.

              • louislouis

                Well, yes. It’s all about the context. Schumer’s support doesn’t negate Ellison’s being backed by the left. In other words, it’s not as though the Obama faction (going by the reporting here that Obama was involved) said, “Oh shit, Schumer’s on board with Ellison, OK let’s all go home.” It’s more complicated than that.

                • I think you’d find a difficult time finding a definition of “the left” that would include Greenwald and Jilani and exclude the front-pagers of this blog and, well, me. Saying that “the left” universally backed Ellison is simply wrong on the merits. There were plenty of people who are unambiguously leftists and either preferred Perez or didn’t really care.

                  For the record, I am far to the left of Sanders or Ellison, but I also am educated enough in politics and maths to be capable of recognising that my political views aren’t going to be represented in the system without radical change, which isn’t going to come without actively working to influence the more left-leaning of the two parties that are the natural result of our electoral system. And also capable of recognising that inside baseball contests like this are ultimately of little consequence to the ideological direction of the country and fighting over them does little to help our side.

                  What does help is the kind of widespread mobilisation we’ve been seeing in response to the president-asterisk, and since people like you have been offering little commentary on that, I can only assume you’re simply not interested in it. Feel free to keep attacking someone who has an incredibly strong record on labour issues and, crucial to the point, fighting against voter suppression, which is going to be the big issue of the next four years and the main obstacle to Democrats regaining power. Oh, and the guy who just appointed Ellison as his deputy. Can’t forget that either.

                  This contest has certainly drawn out people’s true colours. People who are still more interested in nursing their grievances with the Democratic Party than with fighting the actual fascists who currently occupy the White House are not allies of mine.

                • +1

                • Harkov311

                  People who are still more interested in nursing their grievances with the Democratic Party than with fighting the actual fascists who currently occupy the White House are not allies of mine.

                  but CassandraLeo, the trees are almost all cut down. Soon we'll be able to see the forest!

                • Thom

                  Thanks, CassandraLeo. This whole discussion is incredible. Two candidates who fully embraced the most progressive platform yet adopted by the party, that platform itself a compromise between the Clinton and Sanders campaigns, vied for this position. Both are also well-known progressives, with strong track records. One of them, who many suggested just a few months ago should have been the VP candidate, won, and appointed the other his deputy. It is really hard to see what the problem is.

                • It is really hard to see what the problem is.

                  The problem is, there is no problem, but many people seriously need to find one.

                • After contemplating it some more, I’m pretty sure the problem is that their paymasters in Moscow need to sow discord among the Democratic Party and without lingering bitterness over a position with little influence over the ideology of the Democratic Party, they don’t see an angle by which to do that. I’m not sure it’s the case for this particular troll, but the fact that so many of them follow exactly the same line while contributing literally nothing of substance to any discussion and only even commenting in threads about Democrats’ intra-party conflicts is awfully revealing, as is the fact that none of them ever have anything to say about pop culture, sports, art, music, or their own lives and personal experiences. It certainly looks like someone is feeding them talking points to parrot and they don’t have any original thoughts of their own. I would be entirely unsurprised if in a few years this function could be performed by a bot, and even now I’m not sure these commenting are actually capable of passing a Turing test.

                  On the other hand, that, in itself, does look to me like a problem, because it wastes time people could be spending on more constructive issues rebutting the same tired talking points. This is why I have already stuck several of the trolls on my pie filter, but as long as they’re allowed to continue posting, the problem will also continue. This is why I feel that the community would lose very little if these posters were simply banned, and I honestly feel the same way about basically every left-leaning comment section at this point. Let the paid trolls and useful idiots waste the times of the right-wingers, if they want, but we shouldn’t be wasting our time with this bullshit anymore. And it’s not a violation of “free speech” because a blog is a private community, and the proprietors are free to set their own standards. Wasting everyone’s time with counterproductive fights and not actually contributing any useful substance to discussions seems like a perfectly legitimate banworthy offence to me.

  • searcher

    The part I found hilarious was the attempt to RELITIGATE THE PRIMARY and to continue to FIGHT THE ESTABLISHMENT by picking a dog in the fight THAT ONLY THE ESTABLISHMENT CAN VOTE ON.

    I mean, Jesus, that’s like a whole new level of punishment gluttony.

    • busker type

      One windmill’s as good as another

    • jim, some guy in iowa

      its as if people who spend a lot of time on the internet see it as the modern-day smoke-filled room which chooses the candidates

      • Thom

        In this case the smoke-filled room (no smoke, of course) was televised live.

  • Brien Jackson

    I’m genuinely intrigued by the behavior of Bernie trolls like urd and TvTray, much like I was amused by people during the primary who asserted anyone who didn’t openly loathe Clinton must have been on the campaign’s payroll. I mean…they can’t actually believe they’re helping their cause with this shit, right?

    • TVTray

      Brien on a scale of “It’s Great” to “I Love It” how much do you like sniffing your boss’s farts?

      • Brien Jackson

        Coming from someone who is literally copying Glenn Greenwald talking points. Sad!

        • urd

          As opposed to someone who automatically rejects any Greenwald sourced items.

          Tell me again how that is any better?

          • Do you have any evidence to support your claim that Brien’s rejection of Greenwald’s talking point is “automatic” rather than being based on the merits?

          • Brien Jackson

            Because Greenwald is a Trump supporting anti-Semite. I notice you copied that talking point too!

            • Q.E.Dumbass

              Isn’t Greenwald more Kushner/Miller figure than Brannon, though?

              • Brien Jackson

                I dunno. He’s the one who concocted this theory about how rich international Jew Haim Saban manipulated African-American Barack Obama into getting Perez to run in order to relegate Ellison to merely the role of Deputy-Chair.

                • Q.E.Dumbass

                  The point I was making was that he’s a Jewish guy more or less indifferent to Trump’s anti-Semitism, and perfectly happy to indulge in said framing as a rhetorical weapon.

            • TVTray

              Your last name is Jackson. Probably better not to call a gay Jewish guy an anti-Semite!

        • TVTray

          How excited are you to get back to work next week, Brien?

    • urd

      And you think your attitude helps whatever cause you support?

      Doubtful.

      • I can’t speak for Brien, of course, but my attitude towards trolls is similar to my attitude toward feral cats with one important exception – I have the weapons to hunt trolls. As for the “cause”, if the “cause” is troll-hunting, then I believe my attitude is very good indeed. However, I stand to be corrected on that point by the non-trollish denizens of this comment section.

        • TVTray

          What weapons do you wield, Paul? Are they sharp, and ready for battle?

          • What weapons do you wield, Paul?

            Arguments.

            Are they sharp, and ready for battle?

            Yes and yes. Certainly much more so than any I have seen you wield.

    • The point, of course, isn’t to help their cause in the sense of persuading anyone – surely they must realize how bad they are at it. I think they probably just enjoy the fight for its own sake. No doubt it makes them feel good inside.

      • I’m honestly not convinced they do realise it. Dunning-Kruger is a hell of a drug. That said, I’m also not convinced they care; like you, I suspect they’re mostly just in it because they enjoy arguing with people. Meanwhile, for those of us for whom government policies can be an actual life-or-death matter, there’s a bit more at stake than simple argument.

        • Gregor Sansa

          To be fair, I suspect that at least some of the non-trolls here, people I love and respect and in at least 3 cases am, may not be entirely motivated by productive goals insofar as the amount of time they spend on this blog.

          • Yeah, I’m probably guilty of spending too much time here, too, but I’m also not limiting my civic action to posting angry one-liners on the internet. I suspect that’s all some of our trolls are doing; they certainly haven’t posted anything that suggests that they understand the process of political activism.

    • Lit3Bolt

      Worldwide, the Left became “self-defeating” about the same time the Right was hijacked by Pro-Putin white nationalists.

  • JMV Pyro

    Honestly, some of the hyperbole about this is ridiculous. At least one person on twitter(yeah, I know)has said that Perez winning means the Democratic Party “no longer has a left.”

    This bullshit is just tribal at this point.

  • Davis X. Machina

    Slavery split the Whigs — and killed them off. I’m glad to see something at least as important is going to do the same to the Democrats.

    • jim, some guy in iowa

      I dunno, I doubt the subject gets more than idle chatter when the local dems have their off-year caucus next month

  • Solo Law

    Enrollment has slipped 16 percent in the last seven years from 5,300 students to about 4,400. Losses were mainly in the programs and departments up for elimination. The programs that will be cut enroll just 4 percent of students, the college said. Twelve programs enrolled none.

    [snip]

    Scott Lemieux achieved tenure last year, after six years with the private college. On Friday, he was told his job would be gone in a year.

    “I was perhaps naive, but I was actually surprised when I got the call from the dean this morning,” he said. “Generally, political science is insulated from these types of cuts. And I’m the only one who teaches constitutional law, which attracts our pre-law students. So it’s unusual.”

    Undergraduate history and political science will remain, but the graduate program Lemieux ran was targeted for elimination. And although he was tenured, he had the least seniority in his nine-member department, he said.

    http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Saint-Rose-cuts-23-faculty-jobs-slashes-academic-6692774.php

    So during the 6 years you were at St. Rose, enrollment dropped approx. 16% and your program was unable to attract students, so it got chopped. You take any personal responsibility for that, at all?

    Ever consider that maybe if you are naïve about how your college administration worked, and you and your program’s place in it, that despite your PhD you might be naïve about some other topics as well? Or not?

    Apparently you taught constitutional law. Out of curiosity where did you go to law school? Or did you? Ever been a practicing attorney that had to build a body of admissible relevant evidence and use it and your knowledge of Constitutional law to prevail on the merits of your legal theories and the facts of your case? Or just in the hypothetical realm of academic papers, lectures and blog posts? Out of curiosity did you actually litigate as an attorney if you were one, and what types of clients did you represent and issues did you work on? Care to share the results of any of those cases?

    How many books have you published by comparison to say, Glenn Greenwald, and what awards have they won in the academic context, if any? I mean, Glenn is an open guy and I’m sure if you reached out to him he’d debate you on anything he’s ever written. Not like you appear super busy right now teaching. Why not challenge him openly, I’m sure he’d give you a forum for your views. 50 to 1 says you don’t talk the shit to his face that way you do on this blog.

    So I’m curious, what exactly is your expertise other than running your mouth? Is it not being able to attract students to hear your views in an academic setting, or not understanding why the Democratic party has lost nearly 1000 seats at the state level, and assuming one of the 2 elder liberals on the Supreme Court retires or dies in the next four years–all three branches of the federal government? How about the Senate which can’t be gerrymandered?

    Exactly how many winning political campaigns or elections have you actually worked on in your life Dr. Lemieux, and/or ones where you’ve held a meaningful role in that campaign? I’m guessing zero, but I’d be curious to know since your CV link no longer seems to be available.

    Nevertheless you appear to believe you have the real world authority to pontificate in a very arrogant manner all day every day about why the Democratic party is in the situation it is in electorally, and what it should or should not do going forward and anybody who doesn’t agree with you is portrayed by you and your small clique of commenters at this low readership blog as purity seeking morons (not that you really do, you just like to blame it all on bigotry, misogyny, Comey, the Russians, Bernie Sanders supporters and the all powerful Glenn Greenwald, Fredrick DeBoer and Jacobin magazine).

    Interestingly I notice you never run down Prof. Corey Robin like you do Greenwald and DeBoer even when Prof. Robin seems to hold many of the same positions re: the Democratic party as the latter two do.

    Bottom line apparently, at least in your apparent world view, the Democratic party (Hillary Clinton) can never fail it/her can only be failed by those who owe the her/party their votes based on . . . Lemieux’s reasons.

    Just sayin, I’ll be a little more impressed when you can translate your scholarly opinions into concrete gains in the real legal world or as part of a national campaign. Short of that you just strike me as someone too naïve to know his job and program were on the chopping block, and who likes to hear the sound of his own voice on this blog talking sports, propping up straw man arguments, misrepresenting or misunderstanding another writer’s arguments, all while hunting for another academic sinecure at some small ball college. Not that 67th in your region means much as college rankings are highly overrated as an indicator of the quality of an education, but it is what it is.

    50 to 1 says you delete this comment. Or maybe you let it stay so your clique can swarm in to defend you by calling me a Putin stooge, BernieBro, Greenwald lemming or a troll.

    Gonna make any predictions for how bad the Democratic party is going to lose nationally, and where, in 2018 and 2020? Or is your data driven worldview of how politics and human nature works telling you it’s going to be good times for the Dems in both.

    • Murc

      How many books have you published by comparison to say, Glenn Greenwald, and what awards have they won in the academic context, if any? I mean, Glenn is an open guy and I’m sure if you reached out to him he’d debate you on anything he’s ever written. Not like you appear super busy right now teaching. Why not challenge him openly, I’m sure he’d give you a forum for your views. 50 to 1 says you don’t talk the shit to his face that way you do on this blog.

      You know what’s hilarious about this? Glenn Greenwald has shown up here, on this blog, in the comments, multiple times. And Scott has, in fact, treated him precisely the same way “to his face” as he has otherwise.

      50 to 1 says you delete this comment. Or maybe you let it stay so your clique can swarm in to defend you by calling me a Putin stooge, BernieBro, Greenwald lemming or a troll.

      Well that’s a might nice Catch-22 you’ve set up for Scott there. Real shiny, that Catch-22.

      • Awful nice Gish Gallop you’ve got there. Would be a shame if anything were to… happen to it.

        • Murc

          I especially like when he asks if Scott takes personal responsibility for declining enrollment at St. Rose.

          • Origami Isopod

            Green Lanternism, the academic version.

      • I also love the idea that it might somehow be unreasonable to call someone who shows up on multiple threads to taunt the writers for their perceived lack of professional success a troll. I mean, c’mon. If you’re going to troll, don’t complain about being called a troll.

    • Hogan

      Aww. Tell me, who hurt you?

      • jim, some guy in iowa

        more likely self-inflicted

    • 50 to 1 says you delete this comment. Or maybe you let it stay so your clique can swarm in to defend you by calling me a Putin stooge, BernieBro, Greenwald lemming or a troll.

      “Heads you suck, tails you suck!”

      Interestingly I notice you never run down Prof. Corey Robin like you do Greenwald and DeBoer even when Prof. Robin seems to hold many of the same positions re: the Democratic party as the latter two do.

      Corey Robin actually writes things worth reading. But, frankly, I suspect that the main differences are that Robin has a long-standing comradely relationship with LGM (see), and also he isn’t a preening narcissist douchecanoe like those other winners.

    • Scott Lemieux

      Why not challenge him openly

      You mean, like write blog posts under my own name and liking to his arguments and, when I disagree with his arguments, explain why I disagree with his arguments? As opposed to, say, writing lengthy anonymous comments with literally no content but witless and mostly comically ignorant personal insults? Is that what you mean?

    • Abbey Bartlet

      Apparently you taught constitutional law. Out of curiosity where did you go to law school? Or did you? Ever been a practicing attorney that had to build a body of admissible relevant evidence and use it and your knowledge of Constitutional law to prevail on the merits of your legal theories and the facts of your case? Or just in the hypothetical realm of academic papers, lectures and blog posts? Out of curiosity did you actually litigate as an attorney if you were one, and what types of clients did you represent and issues did you work on? Care to share the results of any of those cases?

      How many books have you published by comparison to say, Glenn Greenwald, and what awards have they won in the academic context, if any?

      May I interest you in a little thing called the internet, which would answer several of those questions?

      And good luck finding any of Lemieux’s students or colleagues who don’t have the deepest respect and admiration for him.

    • sibusisodan

      This would have been amusing as a private email to the front pagers. Leaving your illogical beclownment here in public for us to enjoy is delicious.

      I cannot fathom the kind of person who, two days after a poor attempt to defend Glenn Greenwald, feels the need to do so again on an unrelated thread. Badly.

      The veneer of respectability (“unlike, say, Glenn Greenwald…”) is a nice touch.

      Are you Mona?

    • 50 to 1 says you delete this comment.

      Good God, what a tragedy that would be. We’d be so deprived of your keen insights about how much bigger your hands are than Scott’s.

  • MDrew

    So Perez has run for Montgomery County Council and Maryland AG.

    What is it we think he knows about how to win back legislative seats for Democrats that are also winnable (and have been won most recently) by Republicans?

    • Well, for starters, he knows a lot about fighting voter suppression laws. I don’t know if you’ve taken a look at the attorney general of the country right now, but he’s pretty fond of those.

      Also, the DNC chairperson does not run campaigns, and in any case, his deputy chair is a person called Keith Ellison whom you may have heard of and who does have experience winning House seats.

      • MDrew

        So much WTF.

        • Perez’ qualifications for the position have already been extensively discussed in the comment thread above and I don’t feel like rehashing every last bit of them, and I’m tired of arguments about a position that is not going to affect the ideological direction of the party on any meaningful way, and jumping into a comment section and demonstrating that you haven’t read it is not generally considered good form, and I’m on my phone. Take your pick of explanations.

      • MDrew

        Did your maths tell you this?

    • Scott Lemieux

      “Debbie Wasserman Schultz won elections in a purple state, therefore she would be a great DNC chair.” -KDrew, logically extended

      I think Ellison would have been, like Perez, fine as a DNC chair, but his ability to win House elections in a +22 Democratic district is neither here nor there.

      • MDrew

        Extensive experience contesting elections for federal office is extensive experience contesting and winning elections for federal office is, and lack of it is lack of it. Period. It’s his business; its not Perez’s (yet). I’ve heard Ellison talk in specifics about his plans for how to do it. I haven’t heard anything like that from Perez, but I certainly might have missed it. But whatever it was, it had little to do with what he’s been doing for a job or the last 11 years.

        That said, I too think Perez will be fine, as far as that goes (which is to say, not nearly as good as Ellison from what I can see). But I don’t really know why I think that. And looking at his resume didn’t fix that. That’s what this question is pointed at.

        Debbie Wasserman-Schultz having good credentials for the position was not, in fact, one of the knocks against her, and her problems had nothing to do with lack of competency in the electioneering part of the job. So that’s really neither here nor there. But that doesn’t mean that experience isn’t a plus. Does it not matter that Hillary Clinton was highly qualified for the presidency because Richard Nixon was too?

        So what does Perez bring to be able to help the party win elections? Plenty I’m sure, but I don’t know what it is. Vote protection s great, but it is even less what the DNC “does” than run elections. It’s the wrong platform for it, though I guess he could make it the right one. But then what is he not doing? I guess he’s not doing what Keith Ellison will be doing.

        Which raises the point of all of this: why did he need to win so badly? Voter protection is particular; electoral strategy and support is the basic job of the committee. It’s pretty clear who belongs in which job.

        It doesn’t matter a ton (I guess). It’s just fucked up, is all. There’s no good reason for Perez to have been recruited nor for him to hold the chair given Ellison’s assets other than factional fighting and ideological control. There just isn’t.

        • Gregor Sansa

          Sure, it’s fucked up. But on the list of fucked up things in this world, or in the Democratic party, or even just the history of fucked-up things in the DNC it’s so far down that if you turned that list upside-down it’s not too far from the top. In other words, it seems to me that this is a “glass 10% empty” situation, not meriting 500-comment threads of DOOOM.

        • Brien Jackson

          “Which raises the point of all of this: why did he need to win so badly? Voter protection is particular; electoral strategy and support is the basic job of the committee. It’s pretty clear who belongs in which job.”

          Literally the entire campaign has been about every single fucking candidate promising to have the DNC even less involved in electoral strategy than they already are and decentralize that function down to the states. So of course the people who bitch the loudest don’t have a fucking clue about this.

        • jim, some guy in iowa

          this like saying Babe Ruth would have been a better manager than Casey Stengel because “better player on winning team”. doesn’t always work that way

      • Gregor Sansa

        To be fair, I think that on pure demographics it wouldn’t be a +22 district; in other words, there’s room to believe that Ellison is responsible for some of that +.

  • It was, of course, the establishment centrist wing of the Democratic party – your wing – that relitigated the primary in this fight, just as it was that wing that undertook a hideously ugly smear campaign against Keith Ellison, at the behest of people like Alan Dershowitz. But then you knew that, Scott. It just doesn’t fit your “punch left at all times” ethos.

    • D.N. Nation

      Caddy smelled like trees.

    • Abbey Bartlet

      just as it was that wing that undertook a hideously ugly smear campaign against Keith Ellison, at the behest of people like Alan Dershowitz

      Well, sure, because they were afraid of losing all that sweet, sweet Jew cash.

    • Origami Isopod

      [BONERS]

    • brad

      Why do you bother? No one here is the least bit fooled by your tshirt.

    • Freddie, why this obsessive interest in the internal politics of the Democratic Party? Were you really ever going to support or even soften your hostility to the Democratic Party had Ellison been elected?

      Unlikely. Highly unlikely. I well remember that you did not think Bernie Sanders worth supporting in the primary. So for you to come and speak of the “establishment centrist wing” of the Democratic Party is rich indeed, since that implies the existence of a “non-establishment” or “left” wing of said party. Even if you did acknowledge the existence of such an entity, have you ever expressed any meaningful support for it or for its efforts to move the party, and American politics generally, to the left?

    • msdc

      just as it was that wing that undertook a hideously ugly smear campaign against Keith Ellison, at the behest of people like Alan Dershowitz

      …with only bomb-throwing outsiders like Chuck Schumer to defend him.

      • Scott Lemieux

        In fairness, Alan Dershowitz is far more influential within the Democratic Party than Chick Schumer. Everyone knows this.

        While they were completely irrelevant, Dershowtz’s smears of Ellison were certainly disgusting, just like attempts to smear Perez as a neoliberal. Fortunately, Perez and Ellison know they’re on teh same side and don’t think they were re-litigating the primaries, so they’ll work together fine.

        • Q.E.Dumbass

          “Chick” Schumer?

    • Scott Lemieux

      Why do you spend 30% of your free time commenting at this blog?

    • IM

      a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

  • RonC

    Well now the candidate won who was just as liberal as the other candidate, its just that he was chosen and backed by the Obama/Clinton part of the party who are the really truly liberal part of the party, just as the front pagers here tell us. Now we can all get together under the leadership of the same people who lead the party before and they can lead us to more victories just like we’ve had in the last 4 election cycles. The Democratic party can now get on to what is important: continuing to screw liberals and all those to the left of Grover Cleveland.

    As this blog keeps saying the left must compromise because it has worked so well for us up to this point.

    • jim, some guy in iowa

      so you wanted a coronation for Ellison? I thought in an ideal party every election *should* be contested. Someone (not you) has been going around saying there’s no proof at all a contested primary ever hurt anything

      • TVTray

        This talking point! The DNC voters are not like actual voters! There’s nothing reflective about winning their votes!

        • The DNC voters are not like actual voters!

          Do you mean they are “not, like, actual voters”, or they are unlike “actual voters” in some way? And either way, this is false. A person who casts a vote in an election is a voter in that election, period.

          There’s nothing reflective about winning their votes!

          I don’t even know what this is supposed to mean, let alone its relevance to jim’s point.

    • Well now the candidate won who was just as liberal as the other candidate, its just that he was chosen and backed by the Obama/Clinton part of the party

      1) Chosen by the people who elect the DNC chair
      2) What part of the party does Chuck Schumer reside in?
      3) Is Perez in fact “as liberal as the other candidate” or not?
      4) Sometimes sarcasm is an excellent way of avoiding having to deal with the substance of the arguments you are attacking

      Now we can all get together under the leadership of the same people who lead the party before

      I tell you, there is not a dime’s worth of difference between a DNC chaired by Perez with Ellison assisting and a DNC chaired by Debbie Wasserman-Shultz! Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!

    • As this blog keeps saying the left must compromise because it has worked so well for us up to this point.

      What would work best for the left would be if we developed our powers of persuasion to such an extent that we could convert a majority of the public to our ideas, allowing the left to win elections on its own. Until that glorious day comes, however, the left will be unable to get anything done at all in terms of policy without working with the center and center-left, and that necessarily involves compromises. Sorry if that upsets you.

      • TVTray

        The majority of the public loves Medicare (but hates the Obamacare exchanges)! The majority of the public loves Social Security! The majority of the public supports a job guarantee!

        • Murc

          No, they don’t. Not as much as they love other things, at any rate.

          • Abbey Bartlet

            No, they don’t. Not as much as they love other things, at any rate.

            Like white supremacy?

        • Sure, Medicare and Social Security are popular, but since the current Democratic party supports these programs I am not sure what you think this is proving. Where do you get that a majority support a “job guarantee”?

  • ep11

    As I recall, it was a while back when the Democratic Party graciously allowed Bernie Sanders to run in their primary, even though he was then not a Democrat and, as far as I understand it, is not a Democrat now.

    That turned out to be a good thing, on balance. We felt we were moving the discourse leftward.

    But now “WE” need all the left-of-centers, liberals, progressives, neoliberal shills, tote baggers, and so forth, however you want to brand yourself, because “WE” are now experiencing a Trump/Bannon/Sessions/Pruitt administration, a Republican Congress, and soon an unfavorable Supreme Court.

    I agree with CassandraLeo. The Democratic Party may not be all we would wish it to be, but it is the army we go to war with. The direction to face is forward, not back.

  • PJ

    Halp! I downloaded the Cleek’s pie filter for Firefox and the buttons aren’t showing up! (I have a Mac, and I’ve got Adblocker on, too.)

    • They show up below the reply form. It took awhile for me to find them, too.

It is main inner container footer text