Home / General / Ellison or Perez?

Ellison or Perez?

Comments
/
/
/
1027 Views

hqdefault

Above: Idiotic bullshit

I have stated several times that the DNC race is an overheated attempt to relitigate the primary at great damage to the party. It barely matters who the head of the DNC is. The idea that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was the greatest enemy to democracy since Benito Mussolini was so ridiculously out of proportion to what was actually going on that it should have led everyone involved to rethink their lives. However, in the end, as much as I absolutely think Tom Perez is a wonderful leader and the greatest Secretary of Labor since Frances Perkins, I have to support Keith Ellison for this role. That’s for two reasons. First, I’m uncomfortable with the people who have gotten behind Perez, in particular remnant conservative elements who seem to think that a Muslim as DNC chair would turn off voters. No. That’s a failure of leadership and Islamophobic. Second, the energy is behind Ellison. He represents a more leftist future for that party that I feel will energize voters. But again, maybe it doesn’t matter because both candidates are great and both are avoiding following New York Times stories about white men voting Republican as policy preferences. Steve Phillips:

If progressive whites are defecting because they are uninspired by Democrats, moving further to the right will only deepen their disillusionment. But if the next D.N.C. chairman can win them back, the country’s demographic trends will tilt the field in Democrats’ favor. As Mrs. Clinton’s popular vote margin showed, there is still a new American majority made up of a meaningful minority of whites and an overwhelming majority of minorities. Not only is there little evidence that Democrats can do significantly better with those white working-class voters who are susceptible to messages laced with racism and sexism, but that sector of the electorate will continue to shrink in the coming years. Nearly half of all Democratic votes (46 percent) were not white in 2016, and over the next four years, 10 million more people of color will be added to the population, as compared with just 1.5 million whites.

Keith Ellison, a D.N.C. chairman candidate, has a proven record of engaging core Democratic voters rather than chasing the elusive conservative whites, and the party would be in good hands under his stewardship. (Thomas E. Perez, the former labor secretary, has less electoral history, but his reliance on political superstars such as the strategist Emmy Ruiz, who delivered victories for Democrats in Nevada and Colorado, is encouraging.)

Whoever prevails as chairman must resist the pressure to follow an uninformed and ill-fated quest for winning over conservative white working-class voters in the Midwest. The solution for Democrats is not to chase Trump defectors. The path to victory involves reinspiring those whites who drifted to third-party candidates and then focusing on the ample opportunities in the Southwest and the South.

Mrs. Clinton came closer to winning Texas than she did Iowa. She fared better in Arizona, Georgia and Florida than she did in the traditional battleground state of Ohio. The electoral action for Democrats may have once been in the Rust Belt, but it’s now moving west and south.

Either candidate will pursue these voters as the base of the future. So in the end, I’m good either way. And you should be too.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Gwen

    As I said before the last Superb Owl, “for the love of god just get it over with.”

  • Abbey Bartlet

    That fucking article.

    • Murc

      … is it not to your liking? I would think you’d love the prescriptions in it, especially this:

      The solution for Democrats is not to chase Trump defectors. The path to victory involves reinspiring those whites who drifted to third-party candidates and then focusing on the ample opportunities in the Southwest and the South.

      This seems to match up to your preferred strategy going forward nicely, as does this:

      If Democrats had stemmed the defections of white voters to the Libertarian or Green Parties, they would have won Michigan and Wisconsin, and had they also inspired African-Americans in Pennsylvania, Mrs. Clinton would be president.

      Or have I misinterpreted your stand on this issue? You have always been solidly against trying to win back Trump defectors, which I had interpreted to mean you instead favored a strategy of increasing turnout among those who stayed home or defected to a third party.

      • I think the consensus among many, if not most liberals is that the Trump supporters are either unreachable, or the compromise needed to win over the few that are winnable is untenable and would lose more liberals than Trumpers gained.

        • DamnYankees

          This, partly. But I think a lot of liberals, even if they accept that a portion of Trump voters are reachable, don’t see any evidence that TRUE SOCIALISM is the answer. These people are not secret Bolsheviks who would have voted for Hillary is she went all out for single payer.

          • Agreed. I was/am a Bernie supporter, but also believe that Clinton in her leftward configuration was about as progressive a workable coalition as we’re going to get. And I was quite fine with that, as were 3 million other voters. I would have kept pushing from the left to keep Clinton where she was, but would have been satisfied with most of her policy proposals.

        • Murc

          This isn’t clearly the consensus at all.

        • ploeg

          Trump’s approval ratings suggest a growing sense of regret among Trump voters. Whether this translates into support for the opposition remains to be seen. I might have seen enough to pass judgment on the Trump Administration, but I’m sure that others are inclined to give Trump a little more time before jumping ship.

          I grant that there are voters out there who would think that Republican governance was not refuted by 9/11, Iraq, Katrina, and the 2008 recession, but things aren’t going to get any better for these people.

          • Trump’s approval ratings suggest a growing sense of regret among Trump voters. Whether this translates into support for the opposition remains to be seen.

            If it translates into an opposition, it will be expressed as support for Mike Pence for 2020. These people will never vote Democrat, no matter how more miserable their lives get.

            • Murc

              Many of them voted Democrat in 2008 and 2012. Why are you making the assumption that they’ll never, ever come back?

              • I don’t see another ‘Obama’ on the horizon. I could be wrong, but then these people who voted for Obama also turned round and handed the House back to the Republicans 2 years later, followed up by handing the Senate back to them. So I don’t they were so much enamored with the Democrats as they were with Obama.

                • efgoldman

                  turned round and handed the House back to the Republicans 2 years later, followed up by handing the Senate back to them.

                  No, they really didn’t. In both elections, Republiklowns turned out as they always do in midterms, and Democrats didn’t, as they always don’t.

                • Aaron Morrow

                  In the past three mid-terms, the party not in the White House turned out as they usually do in midterms, and the party in the White House didn’t, as they usually don’t.

                  … and my version only covers 2006, 2010 and 2014, as the president’s party gained seats in 2002 and 1998.

                • Phil Perspective

                  Or, you know, Obama could have stopped deporting people in numbers that would have made C- Augustus jealous. Maybe that’s why the Hispanic vote dropped. Or stop wanting for the demographic fairy and start proposing policies that will drastically improve people’s lives.

              • FlipYrWhig

                Do we know that “many” people are flipping back and forth between parties like this? ISTM that people are more likely to flip back and forth between voting and not voting, and when they do vote, voting for the same party every time they bother. Maybe “occasional voter” or “sporadic voter” would be more apropos than “swing voter,” although sporadic voters could be a decisive and hence colloquially “swing” demographic.

                • jam

                  This. Marginally-available Democratic votes are much more likely held by occasional voters than by Trump-voters.

                  It’s much more feasible to win elections by encouraging Democratic voters to show up and encouraging Republican voters to stay home.

                • xq

                  People aren’t flipping back and forth for the most part. There’s been a steady decline in uneducated white support for the Democratic party, a trend only broken by the very favorable conditions of 2008.

                  That said, it’s fairly likely that 2020 will be another year of favorable conditions.

                • witlesschum

                  Yeah, I’m skeptical of the many. Sure, some people, but here in Michigan at least, there were a lot of deplorables coming out of the woodwork to register and vote for Trump. Rural white areas that I know specifically about having higher voter participation than in 2012 and Trump doing much better than Mitt Romney in those areas suggests to me there were a fair number nobody then Trump voters.

                  To me, this suggests the way for the Dems to win Michigan in the future is turnout-based.

              • jam

                I don’t think that is in evidence at all.

                No part of the differences between 2012 and 2016 (or 2008 vs 2016) results could not be explained by slightly different populations voting.

                If slightly more Democrats stayed home in 2016 (vs. 2012) and slightly more Republicans showed up to vote in 2016, that would explain things just as well as significant numbers of Obama voters voting for Trump instead.

                • xq

                  The available evidence is strongly in favor of the proposition that there were substantial numbers of Obama-Trump voters rather than that the observed swings among uneducated whites was driven by turnout.

                  See: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html

                • DrDick

                  I think that this is the really key here. The people we need to motivate and appeal to are the Democratic leaning voters who frequently stay home or vote third party. They were a big part of Obama’s coalition. There really are not many actual “swing voters”.

                • FlipYrWhig

                  The people we need to motivate and appeal to are the Democratic leaning voters who frequently stay home or vote third party. They were a big part of Obama’s coalition.

                  And of course one thing that was much discussed at the time of the Obama campaigns was whether this group was Obama-specific or a durable part of liberal and/or Democratic politics. The evidence so far suggests it’s Obama-specific, which is troubling. (Counterevidence: Terry McAuliffe in Virginia, who IIRC won with a very Obama-ish electorate.)

                • The Lorax

                  The definition of “deportation” was changed to include those turned around at the border. That’s why Obama’s numbers were so high.

              • SNF

                A few of them did. But those voters are overhyped.

                The bigger story is former Obama voters going third party or not voting, mixed with some non-voters turning out specifically to vote for Trump.

          • Ronan

            Isnt That mostly explained by democratic and independent hostility ? His favourability ratings among republicans is still quite high afaik?

            • so-in-so

              The question is if people who see him unfavorable stop IDing as GOP as a result.

              • los

                My informal Twitter impression is that very very [1] few self-labeling “Ex GOP” are really Ex-GOP. Majority are disgruntled nevertrump gop (Rubio, Cruz, McMullin)

                _____
                1. believe me, very very believe me (because I have the best Very Very)

          • los

            ploeg says:

            Trump’s approval ratings suggest a growing sense of regret among Trump voters

            Ratings and “analysis” that I’ve seen show increased disapproval among nonthugs, but steady rethug approval.

            My hypothesis of cause:

            .
            1. Altcuckstablishment thugs are too stupid to do other than obey, thus steadily approve.

            .
            2. But the “smarter” cuckstablishment thugs happily recognize that GOPe (McTurtle et al) is legislatively perpetrating traditional GOP thuggery (including at state level), whether that legislation is trumpcuckservatively correct or not. Thus cuckstab thugs also maintain approval.

            2. b. There appears only one tiny sliver of exception to steady Trump popularity among rethugs, This sliver is cuckstab business that rely on captive labor. This sliver of cuckstab thugs is being steamrolled by Bannon’s hysterical deportation circus. The CSM (Cuck Stream Media) of course silences this tiny sliver of dissent, so I’ve read of this sliver only in noncuck media.

            • humanoid.panda

              I think I get the drift of your comment, but it would be nice if one didn’t need a dictionary of internet slang to decipher it..

          • los

            Also as I have read, there was no “Obama 2008; Trump 2016”.

            Rather:
            1. Some Trump 2016 voters had sat out 2008 and 2012.[a]
            2. Some Obama 2008, 2012 sat out 2016.
            3. Thus “Obama 2008; Trump 2016” appears true in aggregate, but false regarding individual voters.

            ______________
            a. Very plausibly: GWB 2000, 2004 voters were demoralized in 2008, but then relathered for Trump 2016 by Breitbart, et al CSM.

            ploeg says:

            Republican governance was not refuted by 9/11, Iraq, Katrina, and the 2008 recession

            I’d say that the GWB voters rebounded (de-refuted) in 2016, fueled by the CSM.

      • Abbey Bartlet

        The words “black” or “African American” appeared three times in the article. “White”? 26 times.

        Black women, followed by black men, are the most reliably Democratic demographic. When they turn out, they vote for us. Period. It seems to me the best use of our resources would be getting black turnout back to Obama levels, or better. Yet other than briefly noting the 130,000(!) black voters in Pennsylvania who stayed home, it focuses entirely on white voters and how we need *them*. Where is the article on why those black voters sat it out? Did enough of them in the razor-close states of Michigan and Wisconsin?

        For every 100 white voters who go to the polls, around 40 of them will vote for us. For every 100 black voters who go to the polls, nearly 90 of them will vote for us. I know who I’d rather focus on.

        I’ll get to my other issue with the article in a bit.

        • FlipYrWhig

          Really good point.

          I have a hypothesis about this, but it’s based on even less than anecdata. My hypothesis is that Michelle Alexander’s _New Jim Crow_ book, and the arguments therein, took a serious toll on support for Hillary Clinton among younger voting-age people of color and their “woke” white allies. It’s based on an impression of a climate among college students, so, like I said, it comes with a Brobdingnagian grain of salt.

          But to get a hold of this factor, if it _is_ a factor, I, or someone better on such things than I am, would have to assess the degree to which we’re measuring a spike in support for Barack Obama, followed by a regression to the mean, or a trough in support for Hillary Clinton, followed by a rebound, or some of both.

          • Abbey Bartlet

            That tracks with my impression as well.

            And no amount of their mothers who actually lived through the 80s and 90s telling them to vote for HRC was going to change their minds, because old people just don’t know what they’re talking about.

            • FlipYrWhig

              Sigh.

              • humanoid.panda

                Another sigh-inducing proposition: it’s totally plausible that that Af.-Am. voting rates under Obama were a one-off, trigerred by a uniquely inspiring candidate. Af. Am. turnout rates in 2016 weren’t particularly bad by historical proportions, and Trump won just about as many Af. Am. votes as Bush.

                • FlipYrWhig

                  Yeah, I wrote something similar above.

                • los

                  Only a well-written survey could distinguish 2008 inspiration by “it’s the economy stupid” from 2008 inspiration by Obama candidacy.
                  The cuckstream media pushes a “liberals are reverse racists” cause for Obama’s 2008 win, but the 2006 (through 2009) crash suggests that “economy stupid” was biggest 2008 voter motivation.

                  Obama 2012 reelection may have been due to incumbent effect, combined with (stubbornly) improving economy.

          • Phil Perspective

            You know what would also help? For Democrats to stop deporting people.

            • Spider-Dan

              The idea that there is a significant cohort of Democratic voters (in the Rust Belt, no less) who 1) cared enough about deportation to be substantially disappointed by Obama and 2) were not ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED by the prospect of President Trump’s deportation plans is, shall we say, difficult to reconcile.

              • witlesschum

                Here in the Rust Belt, not that I’m aware of, though Michigan turned on 9,000 votes so there might that many Hispanic votes to be gotten in the state.

                But if Hispanics voted like black people, wouldn’t the Dems win Texas?

                • I think it’s more that their registration percentages there are way down. If the whole population of Texas voted, Republicans would lose the state in a landslide. (And FWIW their margin of victory in 2016 there was not as high as it usually was, IIRC, so this is already happening somewhat.)

        • MyNameIsZweig

          Yeah, excellent point, and completely unsurprising to see the NYT flogging that line.

        • Murc

          The words “black” or “African American” appeared three times in the article. “White”? 26 times.

          Gosh! In an article about why we shouldn’t chase white conservatives, and which sets itself out as a deliberate rebuttal to the people advocating chasing after Trump voters, they talked about white people a lot! How egregious!

          It seems to me the best use of our resources would be getting black turnout back to Obama levels, or better.

          This is a pipe dream. It would literally take a second Obama. I see no evidence that black people who sat out Donald frickin’ Trump are somehow more gettable than white people who sat him out are. Except perhaps in the sense that Trump is going to kick the shit out of them more, which is something we can take advantage of but cannot actually control.

          For every 100 white voters who go to the polls, around 40 of them will vote for us. For every 100 black voters who go to the polls, nearly 90 of them will vote for us. I know who I’d rather focus on.

          Politics have a law of diminishing returns. When a demographic group is voting 90% for you, you have maxed out. You can try and increase turnout, of course, and we should and need to, but you also start looking around seeing where else you can draw from.

          You need to do both.

          • humanoid.panda

            This thread really brought to my mind the immortal clip from the Wire.

            Some people want it to be one way: that we don’t have to engage with any icky people and win elections on the obvious superiority of our coalition.

            But it’s the other way: to get to a point where we have control over all both branches and presidency, we need a slice of people who voted Trump, or at least have them stay home.

            This doesn’t mean we have to beg them for their votes, or cater to them. But at the very least, the party needs to show up, and try talk up the things we have in common with the softest (stupid, not evil) Trump supporters.

            • Rob in CT

              Yeah, squeaking out a win in a Presidential election really isn’t good enough. It would’ve been preferable to what just happened, of course, but we have to plan to do better than that.

            • efgoldman

              the party needs to show up, and try talk up the things we have in common with the softest (stupid, not evil) Trump supporters.

              And some day, our media will help educate voters by actually flogging issues and policies. Unfortunately I won’t live to see it, but maybe my three year old granddaughter will.

              • los

                Training three year old toddlers to flog is never too soon. Kids are more precocious than grandparents believe!
                (Bowling Green! Never Remember! Always Forget!)

                /Never Always!!

            • AMK

              It should not be hard for Democratic pols to say “trade agreements=bad” and pretend to be angry. Worked for Trump.

          • DrDick

            There is also the demographic reality that whites are still a majority (75% of the electorate) in this country and we need a significant percentage of them to win elections. I actually agree that we should not spend a lot of time chasing Trump voters, but that is not the same as not reaching out to white working class voters. The ones we should target are the ones who sit it out or vote third party. They are reachable, as Obama showed.

          • los

            Murc says:

            diminishing returns. When a demographic group is voting 90% for you, you have maxed out.

            … unless (for same cost), gaining 1% of the 90:10% group earns more actual votes than gaining 4% of a 20:80% group earns.
            (% values fabricated only to expose the need for realworld estimates.)

            • Right. The thing is that, while minorities vote disproportionately for Democrats, their turnout as a percentage of their population is lower than that of old, angry white people. Presumably there are a lot of untapped voters among them who would most likely vote for Democrats.

              (It’s also not mentioned that often that Jews are also one of the most reliably Democratic voting constituencies, but IIRC, our turnout is closer to the average among whites, so there probably aren’t as many untapped voters among us.)

        • TroubleMaker13

          Did you know that the writer, Steve Phillips, is a black man and author of a book called Brown is the New White: How the Demographic Revolution Has Created a New American Majority:

          Despite the abundant evidence from Obama’s victories proving that the U.S. population has fundamentally changed, many progressives and Democrats continue to waste millions of dollars chasing white swing voters. Explosive population growth of people of color in America over the past fifty years has laid the foundation for a New American Majority consisting of progressive people of color (23 percent of all eligible voters) and progressive whites (28 percent of all eligible voters). These two groups make up 51 percent of all eligible voters in America right now, and that majority is growing larger every day. Failing to properly appreciate this reality, progressives are at risk of missing this moment in history—and losing.

        • Spider-Dan

          I think you are significantly underestimating the impact of GOP state governments on voter suppression.

          I think it’s less that black Obama voters stopped caring and more that additional roadblocks were put in place to stop them.

          • los

            I also suspect that was the largest factor.

        • los

          Abbey Bartlet says:

          Where is the article on why those black voters sat it out

          And what % loss from 2008 or 2012.
          And how many more cuckservatively incorrect voters were disenfranchised by 2016 GOP electoral crimes vs by 2008, 2012 GOP electoral crimes.

  • Crusty

    I saw a promo on CNN for a televised debate between them with the tagline “who will lead the democratic party,” or something like that.

    It made me cringe just a little bit. I don’t think its a good idea. This is a behind the scenes position (usually) and I don’t like the idea that CNN is anointing these guys the leaders of the democratic party. The leaders of the Democratic party are Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, etc. This is the type of inside baseball stuff that allows whackadoodles to claim that there’s a swamp of sorts that needs to be drained. I dunno, not a big deal, but it left a bad taste in my mouth, mainly because its just stupid, kinda like how the NBA lottery is elevated to something almost as big as the draft itself.

    • Frequently Confused

      The leaders of the Democratic party are Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, etc.

      I’m sorry, no. Bernie Sanders is not a leader of the Democratic Party. He may be leader of the left, or of liberalism, but he is not a leader of the Democratic Party. He’s not a member of the party by HIS choice.

      • Abbey Bartlet

        Thank you.

      • Murc

        He’s a member of the caucus and is often being sent out as the face of the Democratic position. I’ve seen him sent to give the Democratic pushback against Republicans three, four times in the last month.

        How is that anything other than a leadership role?

        • Frequently Confused

          As I said, he may be a leader of the left, or of liberalism. He is not a leader of the party. And that is by HIS decision. He is the one who declines to be a Democrat. The party is not forcing him to be an independent. It is entirely his choice.

          • Murc

            As I said, he may be a leader of the left, or of liberalism. He is not a leader of the party.

            Again: if the Democrats are sending him out to make their case for them, and giving him strong in the Senate, how is that not being a party leader?

            • Frequently Confused

              The party isn’t sending him out. The caucus may or may not be, I’m not actually privy to the decision making process there. The Senate caucus isn’t the party. The party is a collective group of all Democrats in the country. And Bernie has CHOSEN not to be one of them. Just as I have chosen.

              • Murc

                The Senate caucus isn’t the party.

                By this logic, I can equally claim that Chuck Schumer isn’t a party leader, and whoever wins the DNC election won’t be a party leader either. Because they weren’t chosen collectively by all Democrats in the country either.

            • Does he raise money for democratic candidates? Does he support democratic candidates for president? (Spoiler: no). Does he represent the democratic party more than cosmetically on a few issues?

              • Murc

                Does he raise money for democratic candidates? Does he support democratic candidates for president? (Spoiler: no).

                … wow. This is one of the most naked lies I’ve ever seen from you, Aimai. Because the answer to both those questions is, of course, yes. It’s not even a controversial yes, its a definitive yes.

                Does he represent the democratic party more than cosmetically on a few issues?

                40% of the party sure as hell thought so, including an overwhelming number of 18-30 year olds within it, otherwise known as “the future of the party.”

                • Abbey Bartlet

                  including an overwhelming number of 18-30 year olds within it, otherwise known as “the future of the party.”

                  It's a well-known fact that the person you think is best suited to be president at 25 is the same person you think is best suited to be president at 29 or 33.

                • Murc

                  There is, in fact, substantial evidence that peoples politics don’t actually change much after they initially “set” late in adolescence, Abbey. Sometimes people will change tribes (see: John Cole, Reagan Democrats, etc.), but that doesn’t happen often and it takes awhile.

                  But even if I concede this point, which I don’t, it doesn’t actually undercut my rebuttal to Aimai in any way.

                • FlipYrWhig

                  But, as I’m sure you and I have discussed one-on-one before, we really don’t know the extent to which Bernie Sanders support was based on ideology vs. on anti-Hillary Clinton sentiment. I think you dinged my theory that Joe Biden would have been just as popular to that crowd as Bernie Sanders. I still think it’s true. I think it had everything to do with regarding Hillary Clinton as a particular bete noire and grabbing on any weapon readily to hand to fight her off, not with a liberal-populist-democratic-socialist wishlist. I expect you to disagree.

                • Ronan

                  “There is, in fact, substantial evidence that peoples politics don’t actually change much after they initially “set” late in adolescence, Abbey. ”

                  This was my initial thought when I read Abbeys comment, but it’s party affiliation rather than political opinions, I think ?(This isn’t to say I agree with abbeys implication that sanders voters will grow out of it, but there’s a distinction between party id, and these kinds of political/policy/candidate preferences, setting in early, I think.

                • Murc

                  But, as I’m sure you and I have discussed one-on-one before, we really don’t know the extent to which Bernie Sanders support was based on ideology vs. on anti-Hillary Clinton sentiment.

                  We both don’t and can’t know this. I think the case that this is so is deeply weak.

                  I mean. I’m not saying that 0% of Sanders support wasn’t due to some pretty grotesque anti-Hillary misogyny bullshit. Clearly some of it was, in the same way that some of Obama’s support in 2008 was anti-Hillary misogynist bullshit and some of Hillary’s support was because we still got way to many racists all up in here.

                  But making the argument that a meaningfully large number of Sanders voters didn’t care about or support his ideology, they just wanted anyone but Hillary, is, I think, an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. And I remain unconvinced.

                • FlipYrWhig

                  As with Trump rally-goers vs. Trump voters, I am sure that Sanders rally-goers include a lot of ideological diehards, but that Sanders voters include a lot of people who just plain don’t like or trust Hillary Clinton, sometimes on the basis of issues (war, crime), but often on the basis of reputation.

                  My wife _does not like_ Hillary Clinton. Didn’t like her in 2008; became a huge Obama fan almost immediately. Didn’t like her in 2016, voted Sanders in the primary, voted Clinton in the general, says she doesn’t have any regrets about any of those votes. I don’t think she and I have any meaningful differences of opinion about war, peace, policy, or the welfare state. I think there are a lot of people like that, AND a lot of people well to the right of both of us who think of Clinton as corrupt and inauthentic. And the Sanders boomlet capitalized on all of that.

                  That said, we’re 25 years out from college, so maybe the dynamic was different for different populations, but not as far as I could see, judging by my college-aged Facebook friends.

                • Brien Jackson

                  “But making the argument that a meaningfully large number of Sanders voters didn’t care about or support his ideology, they just wanted anyone but Hillary, is, I think, an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. And I remain unconvinced.”

                  IIRC, Clinton ended up getting nearly exactly the amount of the vote she was pulling in early cycle generic polls. Which is basically to say that Sanders more or less consolidated X group of his “legit” supporters and Y “anybody but Clinton supporters” into roughly the same camp that was supporting Bernie/O’Malley/Biden/Other in early polls.

                • FlipYrWhig

                  @ Brien, I hadn’t looked at the numbers but that strikes me as entirely what I’d expect to see.

              • Major Rager

                I must have hallucinated all those emails I’ve gotten begging his supporters to contribute to Democratic candidates, him being the Clinton campaign’s surrogate in Wisconsin, his literal endorsement of Clinton during the general, and the totality of his policy positions. Assuming I’ve suffered a severe head injury that caused me to imagine all those things, you are entirely correct.

            • Abbey Bartlet

              FYI, I’ve been meaning to mention this: I ran a poll on twitter last week, asking if people who are, ahem, less than fond of Bernie would like him more if he joined the party. It only got 43 votes (slow day? I expected more), but here are the results:

              40% Yes, a little.
              12% Yes, quite a bit.
              02% Yes, a lot.
              46% No.

              • DrDick

                As someone who has taught social science research methods, let me just say that “poll” is worse than useless.

                • Abbey Bartlet

                  As someone who has taken it, let me just say no one asked you.

                • humanoid.panda

                  We all, are, justifiably, consider Slothrop etc. trolls, mostly because the only thing they want to do is argue about primary. I think that Abbey is approaching that point too.

                • Abbey Bartlet

                  We all, are, justifiably, consider Slothrop etc. trolls, mostly because the only thing they want to do is argue about primary. I think that Abbey is approaching that point too.

                  I did not start this thread–I in fact purposely did not mention Bernie’s lack of Democraticness.

                  That poll was in response to a specific conversation Murc and I and a couple of other people had had. Normally if I put up a poll on twitter it gets a couple hundred responses; I assumed that one would too. I figured I might as well share the results anyway, despite it obviously not being scientific (which…I didn’t claim it was?). It’s not like anecdata is never tossed out on this weblog, frequently accompanied by the firm insistence that the poster is absolutely correct.

                  In any case, I have no idea if the results would be the same if you polled everyone who hates Bernie Sanders, but Murc seemed vaguely skeptical that anyone other than me took offense at Sanders’s refusal to join the party; here is evidence that at least two dozen other people feel that way.

                  Also, too: Bite me.

                • Murc

                  We all, are, justifiably, consider Slothrop etc. trolls, mostly because the only thing they want to do is argue about primary. I think that Abbey is approaching that point too.

                  This is not why some people consider Slothrop a troll (I don’t, but I use the actual definition of trolling, not the near-useless “a cantankerous asshole I don’t like” definition) and its grotesquely unfair to Abbey.

                  I’ve gone head-to-head with Abbey over contentious issues and will again, but she has a long posting history both as Abbey Bartlet and as Bartlet for Gallifrey. She is no troll. The worst thing you can say about her is that she’s wrong about a bunch of stuff.

                  but Murc seemed vaguely skeptical that anyone other than me took offense at Sanders’s refusal to join the party;

                  I am keenly aware that a number of people take active offense at this.

                • Abbey Bartlet

                  Thank you, Murc. Same to you.

                  I am keenly aware that a number of people take active offense at this.

                  Ah, I misread or misunderstood you then. Apologies.

                • Snuff curry

                  Abbey Bartlet makes constructive, thoughtful commentary in good faith here on a daily basis. Don’t you dare you lump her in with trolls.

              • ColBatGuano

                You could get the same results on a poll asking if people wanted to see super-intelligent polar bears as their new rulers.

                • rhino

                  Compared to what we have now?

                  Let me get back to you.

                  (Yo! N_B? Yeah, you busy for the next 8 years? Want a job? Comes with a big white colonial mansion and your own jet…)

                • Hogan

                  Better them than the Magisterium, amirite?

              • TVTray

                Science!

        • CrunchyFrog

          He’s from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. The wing that was beaten into hiding by the ascendant DLC in the wake of the 1988 loss and is only recently coming out from hiding again. Obama’s leftward shift from his centrist cabinet in 2009 (with 3 GOP nominees, and headed up by Rahm) to how he finished his presidency illustrates the recent trend. If this continues Bernie will be able to join the party proudly in the next few years.

          • Abbey Bartlet

            f this continues Bernie will be able to join the party proudly in the next few years.

            Statistically, he won’t be able to join the party at all in the next few years.

            • Murc

              This is why I am not flogging Bernie 2020, yes. It is probably why BERNIE isn’t flogging Bernie 2020.

              I am trying like hell to not be ageist here, but he really will be too old then. Frankly, so will Clinton; otherwise I wouldn’t mind seeing her get another bite at the apple. Running 2020 as a do-over wouldn’t necessarily be the worst thing in the world.

              • DrDick

                As someone who just turned 65, I rather agree with this.

                • efgoldman

                  As someone who just turned 65, I rather agree with this.

                  As someone who’s going to turn 72 in June, I don’t want either of them to get within the same galaxy of running again. Age is one reason.

          • FlipYrWhig

            1988’s top contenders were Dukakis (technocrat liberal), Gore (technocrat conservative), and Jackson (intersectional liberal). None of those are a good match for Sanders. Sanders is SDS/Eugene McCarthy ’68. 50 years in exile is a lot for a “wing.”

          • efgoldman

            He’s from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.

            No, goddamnit. He’s not from any wing of the Democratic party; he’s from the Bernie wing of the independent non-party. He chose his own path.

          • Redwood Rhiadra

            No, he’s not. He’s from the Socialist Wing of the Hard Left.

            The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party is folks like John Lewis, Sherrod Brown, and Keith Ellison, and Nancy Pelosi.

            • rhino

              I find it amusing that anyone would call Pelosi anything but center, maybe center right.

              Then I realize that you guys have an overton window shoved so far sideways it’s on a cute stand beside the house.

              • Snuff curry

                I agree in the sense that Sanders being “hard left” is laughable.

                • Right. He’s a pretty mainstream FDR liberal, maybe a social democrat at furthest left. I’ve never understood why he insisted on calling himself a socialist in a country that hates socialism. I don’t really understand Vermont politics that well, I guess.

      • +1,000 to Frequently Confused

      • Phil Perspective

        Yet 44%, or so, of the primary voters are buying what he’s selling. That you don’t want to deal with that is just one reason among many that the party is in such shape it is.

      • witlesschum

        Sanders is a better Democrat than a lot who join the party and has been for years. This dog won’t hunt, as one of the later group was known for saying.

      • TVTray

        Most Dems would probably disagree!

    • DamnYankees

      The leaders of the Democratic party are Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, etc.

      Bernie Sanders is literally not even a member of this party.

      • RonC

        Technically no, but in reality he is.

        • tsam

          I guess the Democrats have a Right-To-Work law too.

          • NBarnes

            +1

        • Frequently Confused

          No, he really isn’t. He has chosen not to be. That is a conscious choice he has made. You can think he is, but he isn’t. He doesn’t want to be. Quit trying to force Bernie to be what you want him to be. Don’t project. Let Bernie be Bernie.

          • Murc

            Missing: actual evidence.

            Just repeating “He’s not!” over and over again isn’t actually a case. If the Democrats are deploying him in leadership and advocacy roles, that makes him a Democratic leader and advocate regardless of what label is hung on him. I care about substance, not style.

            (I do kinda wish Sanders cared a bit more about that, as he seems really committed to his explicitly independent label despite not actually doing anything meaningful with it. I can only assume it’s a combination of nostalgia and a weird sense of loyalty.)

            • It is an ambigous situation because he is a leading member of the Democratic caucus without actually being a member of the Democratic Party.

              That is due to a long-standing informal arrangement that, as far as I can tell, is to their mutual benefit and thus to the benefit of Democratic and left of center politics in this country generally.

              This is one case where demands for absolute black and white clarity (“is he a Democratic leader or isn’t he?”) aren’t particularly helpful.

              • DamnYankees

                It’s not clear how this arrangement really benefits Dems. I’m sure they’d rather he retire so a Democrat can win the Senate seat.

                • UserGoogol

                  The Democratic Party is just the mechanism by which the left-of-center is organized electorally in the United States. Sanders is left-of-center. So their interests are as aligned as any other member of the big tent that is the Democratic Party, even though Sanders refuses to put a D after his name.

                • Well, if it didn’t they could decide not to have him in caucus. They could even run a Democratic candidate against him if they thought it would do them any good. Of course it wouldn’t, because Sanders is popular in Vermont. Sure, ideally they’d prefer an actual Democrat in there, but then maybe they ideally would prefer a more reliably liberal senator in West Virginia. You make alliances to make the best of what you’ve got. It’s hard to understand why some people seem to find that concept hard to grasp.

            • Frequently Confused

              Murc,
              If Bernie wanted to be a Democrat, he’d be one. It’s really not a difficult thing to do. HE does NOT want to be a Democrat. Quit trying to force him to be one.

            • Davebo

              that makes him a Democratic leader and advocate regardless of what label is hung on him

              To the extent he has a label it’s clearly Independent and it wasn’t hung on him, he chose it.

              That said, he is a member of the Senate Democratic leadership team so it’s hard to claim he’s not a leader.

              • Frequently Confused

                So is Manchin.

                Actually if I’m reading it correctly, more than half of the Democrats in the senate are part of the leadership team. Who do you have to piss off to be left out?

                • Aaron Morrow

                  There’s 10 or 11 members of the Senate Democratic Leadership. (Some lists do not count Von Hollen, Chair of the Campaign Committee, but the official list does.

                  At less than 25%, it’s more elite than the NFL playoffs.

                  So is Manchin.

                  As a coalition party, the Democrats will and probably should have some leaders who are not that liberal, but more liberal than any Republican.

            • jam

              regardless of what label is hung on him

              How hard did you work to hide the subject of that clause?

              Side question: Who decides whether or not Sanders is a Democrat? Is there a secret process and ballot? Does he need the permission of other Democrats to become one? Must he swear a blood oath?

              Is there anybody on the planet who could join Sanders to the Democratic Party?

              • Abbey Bartlet

                He says “I’m a Democrat.” He doesn’t decline the nomination of the Vermont Democratic Party. He runs with a (D) next to his name. It’s really not very complicated.

              • rea

                Like with anyone else, the way he becomes a Democrat is, he says, “I’m a Democrat.”

              • Murc

                Side question: Who decides whether or not Sanders is a Democrat?

                … Sanders?

                I don’t understand this reply. Sanders formal party membership status is in no way in question, by me or anyone.

                • jam

                  If you’re going to use an awkward phrase like “regardless of what label is hung on him”, then it really does help to be clear about who has chosen to hang/not hang that label.

                  The answer obviously is Sanders himself.

                  That fact is what makes the claim “he’s not!” substantial.

            • efgoldman

              Just repeating “He’s not!” over and over again isn’t actually a case.

              Changing his registration back to independent as soon as he could, sort of makes the case, no? He’s represented a state that had gone reliably blue (yes, I know about the governor – similar to MA) and has elected another Democratic senator for decades. There’s no political, financial or social reason why he shouldn’t have declared as a Democrat, run as a Democrat, or stayed a Democrat. He didn’t. On purpose. For no damned reason except ego.

              He’s not going to run for president again. He certainly won’t get to do it as a Dem, no matter who’s running the DNC. As is said about athletes, nobody beats father time.

              • Phil Perspective

                There’s no political, financial or social reason why he shouldn’t have declared as a Democrat, run as a Democrat, or stayed a Democrat. He didn’t. On purpose. For no damned reason except ego.

                Have you even read why he changed back? Or know why he didn’t register as a Democrat way back when?

                • efgoldman

                  Or know why he didn’t register as a Democrat way back when?

                  Makes no difference. He registered his senate candidacy as an independent BEFORE LAST NOVEMBER’S ELECTION EVEN HAPPENED.
                  Anyway, that makes our argument for us. He wants to be an independent? Fine, his choice. Last year he finally decided that the party had moved far enough in his direction that he could run for president under the banner. Fine. At the earliest possible opportunity, once it was clear he wasn’t going to win, he registered for senate re-election as an independent. Nobody kicked him out. His seat is safe either way. All it requires is checking a box and signing his name. I’ve managed to do it, and I’m not even running for anything. What is so terrible about it that he can’t allow the stink on him?

                  Fuck him and fuck you.

                • EliHawk

                  Or know why he didn’t register as a Democrat way back when?

                  Because he was a prick who tried to Nader Leahy in ’74, and almost accomplished that feet? While the former was actually changing the country, he ran campaign after campaign on the Vermont equivalent of “Connecticut for Lieberman” until he could climb up the greasy poll to federal office.

  • I will never forget the absolutely horrendous torrent of personal, sexist, and hysterical abuse that DWS took to run the DNC. It was unbelievable. And the exact same people–useless, fringe, would be savvy political consumers, will go after either Perez or Ellison five seconds after they need a new scapegoat. Its inevitable.

    • Murc

      And the exact same people–useless, fringe, would be savvy political consumers, will go after either Perez or Ellison five seconds after they need a new scapegoat. Its inevitable.

      It only kinda is. DWS took a lot of undeserved shit, but she also took a lot of deserved shit, on account of she legitimately was bad in many ways.

      Ellison or Perez will certainly be gone after by people who have built up an imaginary version of what they are in their heads as opposed to what they actually are, but that’s true of anyone. If either does a better job than DWS, though, they’ll take much much much less shit overall, in the same way that Howard Dean was generally thought well of.

      • It only kinda is. DWS took a lot of undeserved shit, but she also took a lot of deserved shit, on account of she legitimately was bad in many ways.

        Yes, I have to believe that either would be far more competent than DWS.

        • DrDick

          Yep.

          • humanoid.panda

            As far as I understand, if there is one thing that united all wings of the Democratic party in 2016, its total contempt of DWS.

      • CrunchyFrog

        Ellison or Perez will certainly be gone after by people who have built up an imaginary version of what they are in their heads as opposed to what they actually are, but that’s true of anyone.

        It’s true. In 1990, when Arkansas was still seen as a ultra-safe Democratic state, Rush Limbaugh heaped praise on Bill Clinton for his conservative initiatives there and as part of the Dem governor’s conference. When he became the candidate in 1992 Limbaugh decided he was the most extreme lefty liberal on the planet and condemned him for it.

        IOW, no matter what they think of you now, once you are in a position to be attacked they will turn you into the Hitler-of-the-moment.

    • Abbey Bartlet

      You forgot antisemitic.

      • I didn’t forget it. I didn’t feel like having that fight here. I just knew the large number of DWS haters who still can’t stop themselves from demonizing her would start frothing at the mouth over my calling that out. Because the main undercurrent of most of the DWS criticism is that the bitch had it coming for one reason or another. Its…oddly similar to a lot of the criticism of HRC.

        • Dilan Esper

          This sort of thing basically says that any criticism of a woman in any position of power is sexist.

          Her critics had very specific grievances about DWS. You can think they were BS, or not, but none of them had anything to do with her gender. “You rigged the primary” is not gendered. “You scheduled the debates when nobody was watching” is not gendered. “You are too close to financiers whom the party should be distancing itself from” is not gendered.

          Seriously, if you want women to advance in the Democratic Party– and I do– it does not help the cause to accuse everyone who ever opposes any specific woman’s actions as being sexist. Put another way, the cause of women in the Democratic Party needs to be far broader than the cause of electing Hillary Clinton to the Presidency.

          I want to see a Presidential primary in my lifetime where half the viable candidates are women. That’s not a goal Debbie Wasserman Schultz or Hillary Rodham Clinton ever shared.

          • Abbey Bartlet

            Raise your hand if you think Dilan can identify sexism better than Aimai.

            • Brien Jackson

              I’m….not sure how wrong he is in the big picture.? There were a lot of sexist shit said in criticism of her, but I don’t know that criticism of her was sexist in origination.

          • Rob in CT

            I want to see a Presidential primary in my lifetime where half the viable candidates are women. That’s not a goal Debbie Wasserman Schultz or Hillary Rodham Clinton ever shared.

            … what?

            • Abbey Bartlet

              No one knows.

            • I want to see a Presidential primary in my lifetime where half the viable candidates are women.

              You just did or are you saying Chaffee or O’Malley were viable.

              • EliHawk

                Given what we found out about Edwards’ zipper, you also saw that 9 years ago.

          • sibusisodan

            You can think they were BS, or not, but none of them had anything to do with her gender.

            Hey, and if we enumerate each complaint individually and separately, without considering whether, say, a man would have received the same type of complaints, in the same volume, with the same stridency, we never have to consider whether there are ways she was treated unfairly because of her gender!

            Win!

            • humanoid.panda

              I think both statements can be true

              * DWS was a terrible DNC chair.
              * Some of the attacks she received were sexist.

              Amazing, isn’t it!

            • Dilan Esper

              Hey, and if we enumerate each complaint individually and separately, without considering whether, say, a man would have received the same type of complaints, in the same volume, with the same stridency, we never have to consider whether there are ways she was treated unfairly because of her gender!

              I mean, someone would have to lay out the proof about stridency, volume, etc.

              Because it seems to me “you’re rigging the primary”, “you are too close to the financiers”, etc., is exactly the sort of thing that any party chair that represents the centrist wing of the party is going to get, male or female.

              Or do you think Sanders voters would have been just fine with a male party chair doing the stuff that they believe that DWS did?

          • nemdam

            Well this is a big ball of nonsense.

            *By your standard, if a criticism or series of criticisms doesn’t specifically mention someone’s gender, then it can’t be sexist. This is like saying calling a black person a thug isn’t racist.
            *The idea that the cause of women in the Democratic Party doesn’t go beyond electing Hillary seems, well, rather sexist.
            *The idea that DWS or Hillary don’t want a Democratic presidential primary with half women is pulled straight out of your ass. In fact, by your logic, isn’t their goal to create a primary 100% female i.e. a primary where only Hillary runs?

            • Dilan Esper

              DWS wanted a Democratic Primary where Hillary was the only female candidate and won it. Isn’t that rather obvious?

              • FlipYrWhig

                Um, no? What do you think, DWS muscled out Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand?

              • nemdam

                Cites omitted of course.

                Ya know, maybe it’s possible that everyone thought Hillary was a good candidate and no one thought they could beat Hillary and concluded it was foolish to run?

          • Snuff curry

            That’s not a goal Debbie Wasserman Schultz or Hillary Rodham Clinton ever shared.

            Horse fucking shit

        • nemdam

          Let's face it. When you set a limited debate schedule because that's all everyone will agree to and have the audacity to defend yourself when a candidate for the primary you are running is strongly implying you are a corrupt sellout who's rigging the process, you are basically Don Corleone, and you have it coming.

          • FlipYrWhig

            DWS rigged the primary by putting debates on nights when it was hard to watch Hillary Clinton win them.

            • nemdam

              That was always my favorite part. Hillary always did well at the debates! They probably helped her more than Bernie. Yet, somehow it was still rigged.

              • EliHawk

                My favorite part is Sanders literally had TWO HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS to spend on paid media that made sure everyone had heard of him. The guy who desperately needed debates for free media was O’Malley, who was broke. When he was shouting for more debates in Summer/Fall 2015, the Sanders camp stiffed him, then had the gall to start bitching about it once he was gone.

              • TVTray

                Then DWS was trying to rig it to help Bernie?

    • efgoldman

      And the exact same people–useless, fringe, would be savvy political consumers, will go after either Perez or Ellison five seconds after they need a new scapegoat. Its inevitable.

      DWS was not the right leader for the DNC because she supported two of her Florida congressbuddies who are right-wing, anti-choice,. screw the poor revanchists, for re-election.
      They’re her friends? OK, she didn’t have to actively campaign or raise money against them; the right thing to do was keep completely hands off those races.

      • DrDick

        Right and she also routinely backed more conservative candidates in state primaries around the country, which is what I do not like.

        • Brien Jackson

          [Cites omitted]

        • FlipYrWhig

          She did? I don’t remember anyone contending that before. But I DO remember that being said frequently about the last whipping boy of the liberal blogosphere, Rahm Emanuel.

          ETA: Are you thinking of Grayson vs. Murphy?

          • DrDick

            At this point I do not remember the specifics, but it was something that frequently came up during congressional primaries.

            • Brien Jackson

              If the DNC was taking the highly unusual step of supporting non-incumbents in primary races, it wouldn’t be difficult to Google.

              • jim, some guy in iowa

                well, no, that isnt what DrDick was saying- his take is that W-S had a tendency to prefer more conservative (or, I suppose she’d say “safer”) candidates in open primaries

    • Phil Perspective

      I will never forget the absolutely horrendous torrent of personal, sexist, and hysterical abuse that DWS took to run the DNC.

      Do you know anything about DWS? She’s very bad. Also, she protected her Florida GOP buddies at the expense of possible Democratic seats in the House.

      And the exact same people–useless, fringe, would be savvy political consumers, will go after either Perez or Ellison five seconds after they need a new scapegoat. Its inevitable.

      LOL!! It already started re: Ellison and it came from the DWS wing of the party. Or did you not see Haim Saban’s evil, bigoted statements? The same Haim Saban who was Clinton’s biggest SuperPAC donor.

    • wengler

      You know I could care less about this election, but fuck DWS. She was fucking terrible. She made the Democratic primary invisible, she prioritized saving her own seat over running the party, and she put her thumb on the scale of a Democratic primary that Clinton would likely have won easily anyways.

      She was exactly the sort of person that you shouldn’t have as DNC chair and I challenge anyone to say otherwise.

      • Brien Jackson

        “Democratic primary invisible,”

        The CLinton-Sanders debates did YUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE ratings.

        • EliHawk

          And collectively involved FOUR HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS IN CAMPAIGN SPENDING that mostly ended up on TV.

  • xq

    The assumption of the linked article appears to be that 100% of Johnson voters were former Democrats who can be attracted back by Democrats being more progressive. That seems wildly implausible.

    • tsam

      I don’t know a lot about it, but knowing who Gary Johnson was (based on stated positions when he wasn’t so stoned he could actually speak) another Republican who digs weed and doesn’t like wars. That doesn’t make him much of an attraction to people who identify as Democrats, I don’t think.

      • xq

        Well, a lot of the pre-election polling did indicate that Johnson was taking more from Clinton than Trump. But not by much, and I’m not sure how that played out exactly in MI, WI and PA.

        The even bigger problem though is the totally unsupported assumption that a Johnson vote signals a desire for a more progressive Democratic Party. Philips conflates Stein and Johnson by calling them “third and fourth party candidates” without noting that Johnson did much better than Stein.

        • Rob in CT

          I’d guess is was close to even, at least in some places.

          The even bigger problem though is the totally unsupported assumption that a Johnson vote signals a desire for a more progressive Democratic Party.

          Yeah, it seems more likely to me that a Johnson vote will typically match best with “ugh, these 2 candidates SUCK” than a specific ideology. Some Johnson voters could be liberal-friendly types upset about the War on Terror dragging on and freaking out about Hillary’s interventionist impulses (plus, pot yay!). Others were likely Republicans who actually did find Trump a bridge too far. And of course actual libertarians.

          • nixnutz

            I have one friend who voted for Johnson and he’s definitely libertarian/borderline Objectivist and would normally vote Republican. I expected there would be a lot more Republicans who couldn’t stomach Trump but I imagine Johnson did better with actual libertarians than he/they have in most other contests.

            • Rob in CT

              I’m personally aware of 2 Johnson voters. One, a friend, is a long-time Republican who could not vote Trump.

              The other is “Just Dropping By.”

      • Abbey Bartlet

        Anecdotally, young white guys who were fine with Obama and loved Bernie but couldn’t handle Hillary for some mysterious reason seemed to like Gary a lot.

        • Rob in CT

          There’s that too…

        • FlipYrWhig

          Yeppers. Like tsam said, More Weed, Less War. I don’t think there was much thought beyond that. And as for that platform drawing from some critical mass of Republicans, well, see under Paul, comma Rand, comma as total nonfactor.

          • Abbey Bartlet

            And more penis.

            • TVTray

              Where??

    • jam

      I don’t see any reason to think the number is 100%. If the number is even 20% of Libertarians and Greens — and they could be convinced to vote for the Democratic candidate again — then that would be enough to win Wisconsin, Michigan. The total would have to be about 40% to win Pennsylvania.

      What I’ve observed is that 3rd party voters are primarily driven by bothsides-ism (in South Park terms, Shit Sandwich vs. Giant Douche) and oftentimes 3rd party candidates explicitly use that language in their appeals.

      Effectively countering “bothsides” rhetoric would help Democratic candidates, even if less than 100% of 3rd party voters are not gettable.

      • xq

        I don’t think your personal observations are very relevant. The people we interact with are simply not representative.

        Sure, it’s possible a more progressive Democratic party (progressive in what way? The article doesn’t say) could attract more Johnson voters, but what actual evidence do we have for that? Phillips gives none whatsoever. It’s classic pundit’s fallacy.

        If Stein had gotten Johnson-level support the argument would be stronger.

        • jam

          None of that responds to the simple fact that the article does not assume that 100% of 3rd party voters could be attracted by a more progressive Democratic Party.

          A net margin of 20% (e.g. a 60/40 split) of 3rd/4th party voters would have won Wisconsin and Michigan. A net gain of 40% would have won Pennsylvania (e.g. 30/70 split).

          • xq

            Phillips starts by saying that white Obama-voter defections to third party candidates are a bigger problem than white Obama-voter defections to Trump. As evidence, he then compares the gains third-party candidates made in 2016 relative to 2012 with the gains Trump made relative to Romney. But this doesn’t actually demonstrate his claim, because some of the third party gains came from Republicans.

            Sure, he doesn’t need to literally assume that 100% of third party gains came from Obama voters in order for his claim to be correct. I exaggerated. But it’s not a sensible way of looking at the data.

      • fledermaus

        I think another problem is people assuming that the 30-35% of eligible voters who do not vote for president are the same people election to election. These intermittent voters will show up if they are inspired by some specific politician or will stay home if demoralized by their previous vote not working out as they hoped (Bush voters in 2008 and Obama voters in 2016)

  • DamnYankees

    I guess I don’t find the “energy” argument for Ellison – or the leftist wing of the party – all that compelling, because I’m struggling to find a meaningful way to distinguish “energy” from “success” which doesn’t make them look bad.

    This was the argument for Bernie and his wing of the party in 2016. And those people, when nominated, generally got creamed, or at the very least failed to outperform their more moderate cousins. I’m not really aware of any evidence that the Bernie wing of the party, in any location, outperformed a more mainstream Democrat. Like, if Feingold had outrun Hillary, or if Teachout had done so, or if McGinty had lagged way behind her – then sure, I see the argument. But where’s the evidence?

    I worry that the Bernie wing is getting too caught up in its own insular excitement, and sort of failed to notice they aren’t winning elections. Energy doesn’t do all that much if it doesn’t translate.

    • RonC

      Well the Democratic party has certainly been successful as a whole up to this point, by following the more conservative middle of the road ground made so popular by Obama and Clinton(both of them).

      • Given the loss of most state governments, both sides of Congress, the presidency, and soon the Supreme Court, I can only take that as snark.

        • Murc

          You mean, the position the Republicans were in in 2008? Yeah, that was really the harbinger of irrelevance and destruction for them, wasn’t it?

          • And who will be our ‘Obama’ in 2020, come to save us?

            • Murc

              Dunno. That primary is three and a half years away.

              • humanoid.panda

                And who will be our ‘Obama’ in 2020, come to save us?

                No one. We are doomed, because all our leaders are weaklings. And if we find someone who can win, the will be thrown to prison by the FBI. And if they somehow win, Trump won’t vacate White House. And if somehow Trump is defeated, and vacates white house, its only matter of time before the rich use killer robots to kill us all.

                Seriously, I simply don’t get the psychic need of some people to wallow in despair.

            • Phil Perspective

              Matt Damon? Ben Affleck? It certainly won’t be Cuomo or Hickenlooper.

              • Alec Baldwin doing Trump. At the first debate the real Trump will take a swing at Alec.

          • CrunchyFrog

            The GOP was still in charge in most states in 2008. The setback was only at the national level.

            • Scott Lemieux

              This is not correct. Dems controlled both houses of 27 state legislatures in 2008, Republicans 14.

              • Murc

                And this ratio is even more lopsided when you consider people instead of states.

                There’s a lot of focus on pure number of statehouses. That’s not… a completely irrelevant number, but it also isn’t super compelling by itself because what matters most, in my opinion, is number of people.

                Like, which would you rather have: the California statehouse and lege, or the statehouse and lege of Idaho, Montana, both Dakotas, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico?

                I would pick the former, every time. Because people actually LIVE in California.

                • humanoid.panda

                  In a rational world, yeah. In a world in which the Senate and gerrymandering exist, I’d have to go with Idaho et al…

                • Murc

                  I said nothing of Senate seats, tho. Obviously, if you offered me the choice between California’s senate seats and those of multiple other states, I would pick the multiple other states.

                • humanoid.panda

                  Right, but the point is that control of state legislatures gives you a bench team and organization that’s useful in acquiring Senate seats.

                • witlesschum

                  State legislatures mostly draw House districts.

                • Right, but they also give you a nice pool of people to run for national House races and, later, Senate seats. People’s political careers have got to start somewhere and it’s a rare person with the political talent to run successfully for Senate without prior political experience at lower offices.

      • TVTray

        Donald Trump is president!

    • FlipYrWhig

      Don’t forget Jason Kander, the Democrat who exceeded expectations most — not a Bernie Sanders type at all.

      • FlipYrWhig

        Oh, and Roy Cooper, too.

      • Abbey Bartlet

        If Kander had won, the “Bernie Sanders wing” would already be demanding we primary him.

        • nemdam

          Nah, they would retroactively claim him as their own as evidence of how much better their wing of the party can win elections.

          Don’t forget, the purity left is about purity and not specific issues. They claim freaking Tulsi Gabbard as one of their own.

          • Brien Jackson

            Gabbard vociferously supported Bernie though, because she’s the same kind of asshole they are, so that’s different.

            • nemdam

              True. They care about purity and loyalty. Whatever it is, it’s not issues they are concerned about.

            • Abbey Bartlet

              She really is remarkably terrible, as is her father. Shit, even Paste doesn’t like her.

              • Rob in CT

                I read that and really wasn’t impressed by it (neither am I particularly impressed by Gabbard). There’s a more recent piece just drooling over how great she is, which is equally unimpressive.

                Paste seems kind of shitty.

                • Abbey Bartlet

                  Paste is kind of shitty. I was just shocked to see them criticizing her.

                • TVTray

                  It’s not for you, old man!

                • Rob in CT

                  It’s not for you, old man!

                  No, based on those two shitty articles (one anti-Gabbard, one pro-Gabbard), it is not.

                  I can’t imagine what Bernie Sanders, many decades my senior, would think of it.

          • FlipYrWhig

            Before Bernie Sanders the same group, or at least a group with substantial overlap, ret-conned generic functionary Bill Halter into being a populist progressive too.

            • Brien Jackson

              Oh God. That primary remains the best example that these people are just totally useless to the task of actually functioning politics.

        • efc

          Your power of ESP is so finely honed. You can tell what will happen even when it hasn’t happened!

    • Brien Jackson

      Yeah, “energy” here seems to me a standing for “people who are most concerned with getting the deference they feel entitled to in intraparty issues.” Remember all of the “energy” behind Ellison on the platform committee? Helluva lot of good that did!

      • TVTray

        Looking forward to Perez being your new governor, Brien!

  • tsam

    When is this fucking thing going to be over? We don’t have time to fuck around with this shit. 2018 is NEXT YEAR.

    Either of these guys would do just fucking fine. Can we be done with this shit now?

    • Exactly.

    • Murc

      When is this fucking thing going to be over?

      The DNC chair election date is easily discovered after about five seconds on google.

      The process has not been excessively long. Taking three months after the election to decide on a moderately important role within the party apparatus isn’t nuts. If the election had been in December the same people moaning about how long this is taking would have moaned about how having a hurried election during the holiday season didn’t give people enough time to have input and make their cases.

      • tsam

        I know. I’m just worried about this getting contentious and leaving scores to settle afterward.

        • Murc

          In six months the amount of people who still care, regardless of who wins, will be very, very small. (And honestly it is already pretty small. DNC chair election is about as inside baseball as it gets.)

      • efgoldman

        The process has not been excessively long.

        The point isn’t the calendar. It never was. As Erik has wasted his time and pixels saying in two? three? threads, IT’S RELITIGATING THE FUCKING PRIMARY OVER AND OVER.
        I almost wish one of them – I don’t care which – would concede and drop out.

      • Brien Jackson

        And in a normal election cycle, most of this work is “talk to lots of state party officials all over the country” and stuff like that, which takes time.

  • Murc

    I’ve said it before and will again: I mostly support Ellison purely on the basis of him checking the appropriate affinity boxes. He’s a Muslim POC (I really like that he’s a Muslim, I want to see him get all up in the Islamaphobes face about it) and he’s a labor rabble-rouser from the rust belt.

    If Perez were obviously a better choice in terms of competence, skill, and experience that wouldn’t matter, but they’re so closely matched in that regard that I went to affinity stuff for the tiebreaker. Perez also has a good story, but I think Ellisons is better.

    • Woodrowfan

      I like Perez the same way. I like his record on Labor, and I think he’ll help further connect Hispanic voters to the Democrats. But I’d be very happy with Ellison as well….. (and watching the Islamophobes’ heads blow up is a bonus!)

  • Gator90

    Ellison. Not only does he seem like a good dude, but I hear Alan Dershowitz has threatened to leave the party if Ellison is chosen. Win-win!

    • Murc

      I’d forgotten that! Bonus!

      • Rob in CT

        This is one of those “um, dude, the Party left you. It doesn’t miss you.”

        • Scott Lemieux

          The party will gladly pay his cab fare to the airport.

          • efgoldman

            The party will gladly pay his cab fare to the airport.

            He’ll probably call an Uber

    • anonymous

      If Ellison heads the DNC, don’t think that only Dershowitz will leave.

      There are a lot of Jews who share his profile as a liberal when it comes to domestic affairs but is hardline Likudnik and Israel-first. They will leave with Dershowitz as well.

      • Abbey Bartlet

        They already left.

        • Aaron Morrow

          Yes, there is no polling that shows a significant percentage of Jewish Democrats who are liberal when it comes to domestic affairs but are hardline Likudnik and Israel-first.

          I guess it depends how many Jews are “a lot” for anonymous.

          • Murc

            There also aren’t actually a lot of Jews.

            I mean. This in no way delegitimizes their political preferences or rights. But there’s, what, six million Jews in the country in total? The number of them who regard Ellison as a reason to bolt the Democratic Party might not even be enough to fill a modern NFL stadium.

    • Davebo

      Wait, I though Dershowitz was a member of the Likud party? Which as we all know is THE National Liberal Party.

  • They should just run it together. Its quite possibly too big a job for one person. Also: to the extent that there are two wings to the party, we might as well let both of them have representation.

    • I think this is a good idea in theory although I’m not sure the party constitution would allow it. If not, perhaps some informal sort of collaboration between the two?

    • Murc

      I’m not opposed to this in theory, but I’d like to see formal organizational re-jiggering since a major problem with shared authority is that there’s a real possibility for deadlock. Someone needs to have the veto power.

      • Brien Jackson

        That’s not really how a functional DNC gets run anyway. If you’re having votes that are that deadlocked you’ve already got massive problems.

        The best idea I’ve seen yet came from Brett last week, which was to have Ellison working on organizing while Perez focuses on legal fights over Reublican voter suppression laws.

  • That (“losing” Dershovitz) is the best argument for Ellison, who would either be giving up his seat in Congress or doing his own DWS-like balancing act.

    Perez at least isn’t running for something, and (judging by the way the locals were talking the last time this thread ran) running for the political role previously filled by Martin O’Malley and Spiro Agnew isn’t exactly a good fit.

    Get a full-time Chair and see what can be done.

    • Rob in CT

      Ellison has said he’ll resign if he wins DNC chair, so the part-time thing isn’t an issue.

      • Warren Terra

        Yes, but on the other hand part-timing it would be fine, and Ellison leaving Congress doesn’t make sense.

        • Rob in CT

          I don’t know enough about the job to know if that’s so.

        • efgoldman

          Ellison leaving Congress doesn’t make sense.

          It’s a reliably Dem district, no?

          • Warren Terra

            I’m not saying we’d lose the seat. I’m saying we’d lose Ellison in Congress, and I suspect there’s no political career after DNC head.

            • EliHawk

              Right. I wouldn’t really wager money on him winning statewide in Minnesota anyway, but he wouldn’t have the chance: Franken and Klobuchar aren’t going anywhere, and the Governorship is coming open in 2018 while he’d (presumably) be stuck at DNC chair, so that’s locked down for possibly 8 yrs. The only real ‘Next Job’ out there for him would be middling Cabinet Secretary.

      • Brien Jackson

        Incidentally, this is probably the biggest strike against Ellison in my book. I’m just skeptical of someone who thinks the DNC chair job is *that* important.

        • TVTray

          Yeah, he’s little *too* enthusiastic, if you know what I mean.

  • Rob in CT

    Yeah, I too am mildly in the Ellison camp. Make it so and move on, I say.

  • SNF

    Both candidates are ideologically similar. But it’d be healthier for the party for Ellison to get the nod. If he’s the DNC chair, it might lessen some of the infighting, and help get Bernie supporters more involved in the party.

    Perez should run for governor or something instead. We need more solid candidates for governor races.

    • Warren Terra

      help get Bernie supporters more involved in the party.

      The more I see of Bernie’s more fervent, if not to say perfervid, supporters, the more I question whether (1) it’s possible for them actually to get involved in constructive enterprise, and (2) whether we should want them.

      • SNF

        We want to avoid alienating his more reasonable supporters. And even having a few unreasonable ones voting Democratic would be better than the alternative.

        I mean, this isn’t really a hill to die on. If both candidates are fine, but one of them will do more to keep the party unified, we should go with the unifying candidate.

        I haven’t seen much of a reason to dislike Ellison for the job.

        • nemdam

          The crazies will never be satisfied and just cause problems. They will turn on Ellison in 5 minutes if he’s elected. I actually worry that electing Ellison will do more to divide the party since it will embolden the crazies. The non-crazies will be satisfied with Perez since his stances are almost identical to Ellison.

          This isn’t an endorsement of Perez. I’m merely pointing out that electing Ellison to appease crazy Bernie supporters is a fool’s errand.

          • FlipYrWhig

            Putting a healthy supply of Berniecrats on the Democratic platform committee led to (a) a pretty solid platform document, (b) a whole lot of very loud caterwauling about every compromise they had to suffer unfairly and a bunch of embarrassing behavior at the convention. If the point was to placate, alas, they proved implacable.

            • EliHawk

              Especially since so much of Sanders’ MO in party fights is to rile them up to try and wring concessions out of people. Like with the platform fight. All he does is keep poisoning the well to justify his truculence, with the result that the well gets more and more fetid.

    • Brien Jackson

      I’m not saying don’t support Ellison, but don’t do it for this reason. Again, remember that these people BITCHED endlessly about the party platform exactly up until the point Ellison got a prominent role on the committee and the party adopted a lot of Sanders’ campaign proposals. You’ve either never heard a word about it since then, or the same people just act like it literally never happened.

      • FlipYrWhig

        Oh, they remember it — as perfidy and betrayal, natch. I watched Susan Sarandon and Josh what’s-his-face share Legends Of Platform Committee Backstabbing And Something Something Fracking on Chris Hayes’s show last week.

  • sleepyirv

    The frustrating thing is that the DNC chair being a purely organizing position with around 400 voters to worry about, all competitive races are likely severely weakened the winner. Perez and Ellison aren’t promising policies, they’re making some sort of transactional pledges to these people. And some of these party leaders aren’t worth spit. Propping up useless local bigwigs is the exact wrong thing to do right now, and might be the only way to get their votes.

  • RonC

    I’m not sure I understand the insistence here that Perez wasn’t chosen by the establishment to run against Ellison. It is pretty clear that he was and it was in response to some big money people deciding that Ellison wasn’t their cup of tea.

    I mean Perez may be liberal enough and competent enough to do a good job, but in reality the fight was started by the establish wing of the Democratic Party who clearly want him instead of Ellison, for whatever reason. So the usual rage here against those on the left again seems a little misplaced.

    • Murc

      I would be a lot more sympathetic to this viewpoint if Schumer hadn’t come out early and hard for Ellison and never wavered once.

      When D-Wall Street is on one guys side, it is hard to claim that his opponent is the clear establishment favorite.

      That notwithstanding, Ellison is of course also part of the Democratic establishment.

      • SNF

        Right, but Obama’s people seem to have pushed Perez to run.

        That was probably a mistake.

        • Murc

          I keep hearing this, and it baffles me as to why.

          It’s like. What’s the rationale there? If Perez wants to run, fine. Great. I believe leadership positions like this should be contested by all interested parties!

          But who looks at Ellison, decides he’s unacceptable, and goes out of their way to recruit… a dude who is super similar? What’s the logic there?

          • wjts

            But THEY didn’t recruit an ideologically indistinguishable candidate with a strong progressive record on civil rights and labor policy. They recruited history’s second-most neoliberal shill who doesn’t believe any of things he says or does.

          • Brien Jackson

            I think there was a report in Politico basically to the effect that Obama really doesn’t like Ellison/Sanders.

          • TVTray

            I suspect it might be Politics, Murc!

    • FlipYrWhig

      Does Perez have to be the candidate of THE ESTABLISHMENT, or can he just be another candidate? Because it doesn’t really hold up to position the candidate supported by Chuck Schumer as anathema to THE ESTABLISHMENT.

      Bernie Sanders didn’t like the idea of Hillary Clinton getting too easily to the finish line without having to hash out certain issues he found important, so he got into the race. Why can’t that be Perez’s motivation too? Or, if that seems too idealistic and it’s important to you to read Perez as the stalking horse for some kind of faction, what if the point was to renew the play to reach out to Latino/a/x voters, as was apparently successful in places like Georgia, Texas, and Arizona–more successful than the democratic-socialist attempts of, say, Zephyr Teachout? Would that also be a problem?

      I think THE ESTABLISHMENT is doing far too much work on the left these days, along with “deep state.”

      • nemdam

        And one wonders why this race has devolved into relitigating of the primaries.

        Look, everyone knows Chuck Schumer is a radical firebrand who will shake up the establishment. See, he only raises money from Wall Street because he has to, not because he wants to. In fact, because he is in with Wall Street, that just means he will be a more effective revolutionary because he will be better at manipulating the system!

    • wjts

      I’m not sure I understand the insistence here that Perez wasn’t chosen by the establishment to run against Ellison.

      Partly because that seems to deny Perez any agency. I expect he’s running in large part because:

      1. He’s out of work at the moment and

      2. would like to continue working in politics and

      3. thinks he would be good at being the DNC chair which is

      4. a job for relatively senior party member that is currently open.

      • Damn, that’s Alex Jones level crazy talk.

        • efgoldman

          that’s Alex Jones level crazy talk.

          Alex' crazier brother.

          • wjts

            Also, Perez is a Moon Man and his campaign for DNC chair is the first step in his plan to destroy the Earth by using static electricity to induce increased volcanic activity, after which he will enslave our womenfolk for breeding purposes. I will post a 340-slide PowerPoint presentation explaining this later this evening.

            • I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

              • TVTray

                +1 for the intarwebz!

      • gccolby

        As far as I can tell, this is the first time the crazy idea that Perez is running because he’s interested in the job has been floated around here. Hopefully because it’s bloody obvious, but given all the suggestion from some quarters that he’s running as a proxy for The Anti-Bernie establishment, it really needed to be put out there.

        It’s certainly possible he was encouraged by people who feel like they have a score to settle, but that reflects more on them than on Perez. I don’t know his personality, but it’s plausible he could prefer to be more of inside player than to run for public office, in which case DNC chair is a really obvious way to stay involved in Democratic politics that isn’t, say, running for a governorship he may feel he has little chance of winning. Or maybe it’s a totally different reason, point is you can come up with any number of reasons Perez is running for DNC chair that have to do with him being a grown-ass man who makes his own decisions about the direction he wants to take his political career.

    • nemdam

      The lesson to be learned from this race is that we should clear the field for one candidate. I heard this was popular from the wing of the party that Ellison supposedly represents.

  • Warren Terra

    The “energy” may be behind Ellison, but a lot of that “energy” is idiots. Nothing against Ellison, and I don’t really care which one gets the job, but I am so fncking sick of dumbassery by people who worship a ridiculous, false version of Bernie Sanders as a heavenly messenger and who constantly repeat the most ridiculous nonsense. Ellison isn’t to blame for these asshats, but he sure is getting tarnished by association with them.

    • Major Rager

      How exactly is he “tarnished” at this point in time? I’m speaking of the world outside your mind here. In whose eyes is he “tarnished?”

      • Warren Terra

        Srsly?

        Outside of a few places, most of what I see about the DNC chair race is nonsense from bitter pro-Sanders nutballs. If the ravings of idiots were your main window into one candidate’s qualifications, wouldn’t that taint your view of that candidate?

        • nemdam

          +1

          If the purity left didn’t attach onto Ellison as their candidate, we would barely be talking about this race. It only became a thing because the purity left made it a thing.

          • Brien Jackson

            Right, and I’m getting tired of the BothSidesDoItism that even Erik of all fucking people has been implicitly engaging in.

          • TVTray

            It only became a thing because Perez entered the race!

        • TVTray

          Warren do you think you have your fat finger on the pulse of America?

  • Tancred

    The DNC chair should go to whoever has the best plan for winning elections. I am not sure why this has become an ideological battle when it should be about who can best perform the grunt work of increasing turnout and building organizations, especially at the state and local level.

    If the Democrats are going with a 50-state strategy they need to be flexible enough to know that what might work in California may not work in Alabama. Also, I don’t like the suggestion that we should write off parts of the country such as the Rust Belt. This kind of thinking is what got us into this mess in the first place.

    Democrats need to contest as many elections in as many jurisdictions as possible. Even if you lose at least you get your “brand” out there and develop some organizational presence and hopefully attract some young people to be your future candidates.

    I know resources are limited and this is perhaps where ideology does make a difference (inspiring people to become active and donate) but it eventually all comes down to getting out there and grinding away. Too many people these days don’t want to do any grunt work on campaigns because it is boring compared to getting into Twitter wars I guess.

    • sleepyirv

      The “problem” is that literally every candidate for the position is running on this platform. There’s no way to distinguish them if you want to vote purely on who has a plan.

      • Phil Perspective

        Except:

        I am not sure why this has become an ideological battle when it should be about who can best perform the grunt work of increasing turnout and building organizations, especially at the state and local level.

        Ellison has the record of doing exactly that. Perez doesn’t.

        • Brien Jackson

          Perez has a record of fighting for voting rights in court. All of the organizing in the world won’t help you if Republican governments won’t let those people vote at all!

          Moreover, the idea that the DNC chair is involved in 99.9% of this work in the first place is ridiculous.

          • TVTray

            I mostly want Ellison to win so Perez can be your governor, Brien!

        • EliHawk

          Ellison has the record of doing exactly that. Perez doesn’t.

          Yeah, Ellison doesn’t, actually. He increased turnout when redistricting increased the number of people in his district. That’s some great organizing.

  • JdLaverty

    I really hope this gets done and over with before it does more damage to either the party or the two candidates. I’m personally rather partial to Perez (for no other reason than he’s one of my favorite democrats alive and of the two he’s closer to labor, which should be the future of the party) but Ellison’s a great guy too. That’s what makes the nastiness so depressing; we’re extraordinarily lucky that these two are the main contenders for the chair.

    • Rob in CT

      we’re extraordinarily lucky that these two are the main contenders for the chair.

      I felt that way about the Presidential primaries a year ago, too. Sigh.

    • Phil Perspective

      I’m personally rather partial to Perez (for no other reason than he’s one of my favorite democrats alive and of the two he’s closer to labor, ….

      Just because he was Labor Secretary? Yeah, real close when he chose career over principle.

      • What?

        • wjts

          If he really believed in labor, he’d have gone down t’ pit as lad rather than grow up to be Secretary of Labor.

      • efgoldman

        Yeah, real close when he chose career over principle.

        What principle was that, Phil? The principle wherein he tried to implement (or re-implement) progressive labor policies with a totally obstructionist opposition congress, a senate that refused even to confirm the president’s NLRB appointees, and a SCOTUS that nuked the whole concept of recess appointments? Those principles? Tell us, Phil.

        Oh wait. He. Didn’t. Even. Try. Right?

        Jesus H Christ you’re a tiresome whiner. Why don’t you run for something – alderman, town council, school board, state legislature, something – and then come back and tell all the rest of us how we’re politicking RRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNGGGGG!!!!!1!!1!!

        • efgoldman

          Phil? You out there. Phil? I mean, you made a statement, you might like to try and support it, and suggest something constructive, as opposed to leftier-than-thou trolling.

          Phil?

          Phiillll

          Phiiiiillllllll???

          • efgoldman

            Phhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllll

      • Christ, this has to be one of the most ridiculous comments ever posted to LGM.

  • NeonTrotsky

    lol at all the sanders bashing in the comments

    • Murc

      Not productive, dude.

    • Warren Terra

      I haven’t read all of the comments, but didn’t notice any bashing of Sanders. I have seen, and myself perpetrated, some bashing of a certain subset of his supporters that are more enthusiastic and rather less hinged than the rest. I tend to feel those people deserve a little verbal bashing.

      • humanoid.panda

        There was plenty “he is not a Democrat” bs upthread.

        • Murc

          Ehhhhn.

          I mean. It is true. He is not a Democrat.

          That’s uncontroversial. What deserved pushback were the folks claiming that not being a formal member of the party meant he had nothing at all to do with said party and couldn’t possibly fulfill any role within it, which clearly is ludicrous.

          • Abbey Bartlet

            ISTR me and…someone (DamnYankees?) writing rather long explanations of why him being in the party matters. Perhaps you could respond to our specific points?

        • Warren Terra

          He literally is not a member of the party. The section of the comments you refer to doesn’t disparage any aspect of his positions, his record, or his personality. It just notes that he is not a Democrat. Which he isn’t.

          • Murc

            The section of the comments you refer to doesn’t disparage any aspect of his positions, his record, or his personality.

            Well this just ain’t so, Warren. Plenty of people in that subthread pounding on his personality and disparaging his positions.

            • humanoid.panda

              I think if X says that Sanders is among the leadership cadres of the Democratic party, which is self-obviously true, and Y pipes in to say that Sanders is not a Democrat, Y has something in mind more than technicalities.

              • Warren Terra

                I have no idea what “among the leadership cadres” means. Do you?

            • Warren Terra

              I read the subthread starting here. Almost 20 comments, none of them attacking him.

              A bit upthread of that there’s one comment by Aimai overstating the case against Sander’s Achilles-in-his-tent act of last fall.

              There may be more elsewhere, but it’s not a major theme.

            • TVTray

              Someone called him a prick!

  • humanoid.panda

    Here is an unpopular opinion: the candidate with the best plan for Fort-Knox level cyber-security upgrade for every Democratic electronic device, plus can raise decent chunk of money and be ok on TV has my voice. If Mark Cuban was running for the job, I’d take him.

    • humanoid.panda

      I mean, I jest but seriously: its kinda amazing that after the party was eviscerated by cyber-warfare, no one is even making attempt to talk about the issue as something the party needs to address.

      • Warren Terra

        Is it accurate to blame the hacking? The stolen emails were utterly banal, and I’d challenge you to find anything in the stolen emails that anyone actually cares about. It was the breathless and brainless reporting on them and the mainstream media’s cooperation in a campaign of hype and deliberate misinterpretation that made the hacking important. The hacking was an excuse – are we sure that absent the hacking some other excuse to attack the Democrats wouldn’t have been found, and served just as well?

        • humanoid.panda

          First off, leaving aside the specific harm (and I think it really did help the 3rd party/stay at home vote), the leaks also exposed donor information, shed light on inner working and thinking of the party, and, for all we know, stole a lot of sensitive information that didn’t become public. There is also the question of next time: what if in 2020, the Russians hack and destroy the Democratic voeert data system?

  • Mutombo

    “It barely matters who the head of the DNC is.” Um, what? Party infighting for months and almost 200 comments on this post about something that barely matters. Dark days for Democrats.

    • John F

      “It barely matters who the head of the DNC is.”

      I think it matters, I also think that I have no idea who would actually be better.

  • John F

    Many of them voted Democrat in 2008 and 2012. Why are you making the assumption that they’ll never, ever come back?

    Obama 2012: 65,915,795
    HRC 2016: 65,853,625

    Trump 2016: 62,985,106
    Romney 2012: 60,933,504

    Despite the narrative there simply was no large scale movement of 2008/2012 Obama voters towards Trump.

    Trump won a fluke electoral college win because the “Swing” states had a higher concentration of whites w/o college degrees than other states- and that demo rather than switching from Obama to Trump switched from staying at home to getting out and voting Trump.

    US demographic movement is still ugly for the GOP*, the main thing to do is to fight voter suppression:
    1. stop the laws from passing
    2. court challenges when they do pass
    3. when 1 & 2 fail, try to help get people registered/ keep people registered anyway- maybe we need an organization or three dedicated to helping people get required IDs/ proof of residency, etc. – if 1 & 2 and we have hurdles to jump through, jump through them.

    * The average GOP voter is older and whiter than the average Dem voter, the cohort that went for Trump big time was born 1952-1966, that cohort voted just as heavily for Bush in 2004.

    • xq

      I’m not sure what you think posting the voting totals proves exactly.

      Yes, there was a large-scale movement of 2008/2012 Obama voters towards Trump (evidence presented here: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html). There is no evidence that Trump brought lots of new voters to the polls (and that’s a good thing!).

      • TVTray

        Buddy, did you see those two vote totals? Obama and Clinton got the same voters.

      • John F

        Yes, there was a large-scale movement of 2008/2012 Obama voters towards Trump

        No, there really wasn’t, despite what people keep saying, the truth is:

        1. Clinton got as many votes as Obama did in 2012
        2. Trump got more than Romney (but still less than Clinton)
        3. Gary Johnson got more votes than 2012
        4. Ms. Green Party Candidate got more votes than 2012.

        There is a narrative that people want to push that a specific group of Obama voters switched to Trump en masse (because Dems no longer care about the working class, because they treated Bernie poorly because…etc.), the trouble with the explanations is that THE GREAT SWITCH SIMPLY DID NOT HAPPEN, had it happened Orangina would have won the popular vote, he didn’t, the American people did not elect him, the effing Electoral College did.

        Oh sure there were scattered individuals who voted for Obama and Trump, just as there are scattered individuals who voted for Romney in 2012 and Clinton in 2016- that always happens.

        What didn’t happen- typically when an incumbent party loses the narrative is in fact that some/enough voters switched to make that happen- a tin of folks who voted for Bush I in 1988 did not vote for him in 1992, they voted for Clinton or Perot.

        Many folks who voted for Dubya in 2004 voted Obama in 2008- the default when an incumbent party loses is to assume they lost (net) votes to the other party- BUT THAT’S NOT WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016 (not to any degree), HRC matched Obama’s 2012 totals, she won the popular vote by over two million.

        People are reading too much into Trump’s “appeal”- his win was a statistical fluke.

        • xq

          Did you read the link I posted?

          Obviously, “large-scale”or “en masse” is a matter of perspective. The vast majority of voters are strong partisans who always vote for the same party for president. But if you’re trying to explain the swings in uneducated whites, very large swings in some counties in the decisive states, that’s not a turnout story, it’s an Obama-Trump voter story.

          None of your points are at all responsive to the evidence presented in the article I linked.

          You’ve still given no evidence whatsoever for your claim that “that demo rather than switching from Obama to Trump switched from staying at home to getting out and voting Trump.” Like I said, there is no evidence that Trump brought lots of new voters to the polls.

          Edit: You know the US population increased since 2012 right?

  • Brien Jackson

    Ya know, if we’re gonna have threads like this once a week, can we at least have them on honest terms? There is no FIGHT over the DNC chair. Even amongst semi-prominent Twitter lefties who really dislike Bernie, I see basically universal for affinity for Ellison. As far as I’m aware, the universe of people who have publicly staked out vociferously anti-Ellison positions is limited to Haim Saban and Alan Dershowitz. On the other hand, Zephyr Teachout tweeted that electing one of the most progressive cabinet members of the past 50 years would literally destroy the Democratic coalition.

    This is entirely a one-way fight, being waged by the same assholes who are always above all else concerned with the idea that they’re the only legitimate voices within the Democratic coalition, and that they’re entitled to get their way literally 100% of the time.

    • EliHawk

      This is entirely a one-way fight, being waged by the same assholes who are always above all else concerned with the idea that they’re the only legitimate voices within the Democratic coalition, and that they’re entitled to get their way literally 100% of the time.

      Right. Though that behavior makes me really, really, dislike them, and call their leader an egotistical prick because he behaves like an egotistical prick. Which I guess means #BothSides now. Ellison’s fine (though I back Perez, in part to keep him in Congress): Sanders is the worst thing to happen to his candidacy by a country mile though. He positioned himself as a consensus choice right after the election by getting Sanders and Schumer, but Perez and the Obama people had other ideas, and so he’s never really answered that. So instead of his consensus positioning, he has Sanders and his lefty backers going around shouting for him and slandering Perez, which can’t help him with a party hierarchy that, after 8 yrs, is mostly Obama people.

      • TVTray

        Bernie is very popular! I bet Ellison is very happy to have Bernie in his corner. He did endorse him after all!

    • TVTray

      The only reason there is a fight is because Perez entered the race! He should focus on his upcoming Maryland gubernatorial campaign.

      • Brien Jackson

        What are the odds this guy’s IP is Russian?

        • TVTray

          Do you disagree Brien that the only reason there is a fight right now is Perez decided to enter?

          • Rob in CT

            It’s true that if the field was clear for Ellison there wouldn’t be much of a debate, as I doubt that Indiana mayor guy would get much traction (though he locked down the coveted Martin O’Malley endorsement!).

            I thought field-clearing was the worst thing ever? I guess that’s just sooo 2016. We old guys sometimes have trouble keeping up, you know.

            More seriously: I hope Ellison wins and all this gets put to bed.

  • NickFlynn

    I think both Perez and Ellison are fine candidates for a job that is not nearly as important as some people seem to think it is.

    That being said, I am #TeamTom primarily because of the Berners’ embrace of Ellison. These people are, to put it bluntly, fucking assholes and the sooner they are gone from the Democratic Party, the better. It’s really that simple.

    Standard disclaimer applies – when I say Berners, I am referring to the small angry group of #DemExit bro-gressives who can’t stop ranting about neo-liberals, not the vast majority of Sanders’ supporters who are, I assume, good people.

    • NickFlynn

      As an illustration of my point, please note that some of the Berners’ have actually already turned on Ellison for the terrible crime of having dinner with Perez (breathless reported by the (not-so)useful idiots at the Young Turks.) These people aren’t going to be of any use whatsoever in building a more successful Democratic Party. They can take their neo-Stalinist bullshit to the Green Party where it belongs.

      If Perez wins, Ellison stays in Congress. If Ellison wins, hopefully Perez runs for Governor of Maryland. There’s upside whichever this turns out, in my opinion.

      • Brien Jackson

        The Young Turks have already set up the new Accountability Now group that will put a bunch of money in Cenk’s pockets, er, elect JUSTICE DEMOCRATS!!!!

        So of course they’d flip the fuck out that Ellison and Perez had a meeting and agreed that they’re going to work together for the good of the party no matter who gets the chair job!

    • TVTray

      We are going to be the Dem party bud! Just need you old folks to die off.

      • Abbey Bartlet

        I’m 28.

        • TVTray

          You’re highly unusual, then. Especially being a young woman, as most supported Sanders.

          • Gregor Sansa

            Troll.

          • Abbey Bartlet

            I’m not *highly* unusual, bro.

            • TVTray

              You are! It was incredibly lopsided for our age cohort.

              • Abbey Bartlet

                Do you have data on how women my age voted? I don’t.

      • Rob in CT

        This is a really stupid attitude. Not that the Party doesn’t need youth – it does! But a whole lot of unpaid, un-thanked labor gets done by retirees. A bunch more gets down by middle-aged people with jobs, kids, etc., but who still make the time to do it. You CAN show up at meetings and shit on them if you like, but that’s not going to help anything.

        The funny thing will be if you actually DO stick around and you actually DO become The Establishment and then some asshole shows up believing they invented politics and tells you to hurry up and die already so they can do everything better.

        • Brien Jackson

          Not even “a whole lot.” The VAST majority of actual in the streets on the ground work gets done by people over 50, and roughly 2/3 at least is done by women over 50.

          • Rob in CT

            Yes, I understated it.

      • NickFlynn

        Great plan, so why don’t you go play somewhere for the next 25 years and then come back when we’re gone.

        • Gregor Sansa

          Troll.

          • NickFlynn

            Hole.

        • los

          go play somewhere for the next 25 years

          in a middle of a freeway!
          in a uranium mining tailings flash flood!
          in a star supernova!
          shoved face-first into NotMyPresident Bannon’s left armpit! (25 Drosophila years, if you’re lucky)

          /apologies to feint-hardened snowflakes, but I stand strong for freedom of speechies

      • Gregor Sansa

        Troll.

      • los

        TVTray says:

        Just need you old folks to die off

        That won’t work. Sniper kitten will be fending of the walking pepes, leavng only the labradoodle to babysit the kids, during the antifa punchnazi war.

        • los

          (fending off)

    • los

      NickFlynn says:

      vast majority of Sanders’ supporters who are, I assume, good people

      Thanks, even if i’m personally only a semi-vast majority.     :-)
      I also haven’t self-deported myself.     :-)

      BTW, if the GOP hadn’t “successfully” stolen this election, there would be nothing left of the 2016 PUMAs. The 2008 PUMAs faded fast.

  • Gregor Sansa

    Can anyone who wants to make this into a proxy battle please go fuck yourself?

    The party desperately needs the energy of youth, even if many of them are assholes. It should not be picking unnecessary fights with the WWC, even if many of them are assholes. I support Ellison for the same reasons as the OP, but I’d take Perez in a heartbeat if it would mean stopping the fucking mutual trolling.

    Which faction of Democrats are ascendent is not being decided here. In fact, whatever energy you devote to this battle on that basis is a net negative for your faction and for the Democrats as a whole. It’s an important battle and I’m happy to fight it but save it for when we’re talking policy or messaging or SOMETHING real, not just picking between two candidates who are both HUGELY BETTER than DWS.

    • los

      Gregor Sansa says:

      needs the energy of youth,

      at least a higher % of middle-aged in House of Reps and in state legs.

      even if many of them are assholes

      only if they assholefecate at only rethugs.

    • Brien Jackson

      mutual trolling.

      Lol

      • los

        dibs on the trolllove pr0n site name.

  • Brien Jackson

    Christ WTF does it take to get a troll banned these days?

    • TVTray

      Mods?! MODS?!

    • los

      bring back the guillotines, just like the old days!

    • JMV Pyro

      The LGM Pie Filter let’s you take matters into your own hands.

It is main inner container footer text