Tom Perez is the new DNC Chair

[Theodarzna]

Some of you folks are out of your fucking mind. It's like you haven't learned the lesson of Trump or the Tea Party.

Let's be very clear the sequence of events of how Trump won.

(1) John McCain runs for President in 2008. John McCain loses. John McCain gets blamed for not being conservative enough.
(2) Tea Party rises in 2010. Republicans sweep control over the house. Party Purity tests become a more normalized thing. Doctrinaire adherence to the ideas is expected.
(3) Mitt Romney overcomes a very conservative field in 2012. Loses still. Gets blamed for not being conservative enough. Republicans say "the only way we can win is if we mobilize the base".
(4) Trump runs for President against the Party Purity All-Star team. And beats them handily despite straying wildly off party doctrine.
(5) Trump wins against Hillary by flipping Obama voters and getting first time independents.
(Endpoint) President Trump says, a week ago at his Press conference, the policy of his administration is "fair trade, not free trade", which is anti-Conservative.

So Democrats... liberals... are you paying the hell attention? Party purity does not work in a country where independents and centrist voters hugely out number liberals and conservatives. Our politics may be polarized but the bulk of the nation is politically flexible.

This shift-left crap some of you are pushing: let's be clear what it is that you're doing. You're trying to opportunistically shove an agenda down the throat of a party not because you think it can win, but because you want your ideals reflected. That is now how coalitions work at all. And it certainly won't work in a country that, as you can see above, just gave a very straightforward example of how doctrinaire politics fails in the face of third-way flexibility.

Are independents by nature centrists?

[Xyonai]

This collective Seppuku is interesting considering 6+ months ago everyone predicted the GOP to be at deaths door. What a reversal of fates the world has brought.

And I'll honestly admit that I was one of those people. Between their collective childishness, the Financial ceiling crisis, their aggressive contrarian push against popular social issues and nominating Trump (of all fuckin' people) I had assumed that conservatives were going to suffer some kind of ideological civil war when they ended up losing the 2016 election (I think Skroe predicted/hoped for something similar, actually).

But, instead voter apathy and an astoundingly narrow margin of victory has emboldened these people and made them feel vindicated in their behavior. Which, like the Democrats apparent 'Apathy', might end up working against them if they push their slim victory too hard in the other direction.

[alexw]

Trump certainly isn't going to be leaving them wanting for ammo

Trump has already burned the republican party down to the ground for the 2018 election. His approval rating among democrats is low single digits (~5%) and just breaks the thirties among moderates. Its only republicans he does well with.

Of course he could turn it around but Trump is Trump. He didn't change in the year leading up to the election and he isn't going to change now. Nor is he going to change over the next 2 years. Its going to continue to be the same shit show.

[Stacyrect]

Even if Trump himself gets voted out, redistricting might keep them hanging on like a weed if they can Gerrymander any harder than they already are.

Unless Trump does some real stupid shit or gets caught doing really shady shit, people will vote him back in. If the left continues to pander to progressive insanity, it's a sealed deal on that.

However, their is a very good possibility we could see major conservative upsets depending on GOP willingness to deal with Trump. It's already been noted on the right that Trump is going through his campaign promises like a steam roller and GOP has been literally picking their nose doing nothing. They have all the power to get whatever they want done and if not enough gets done, heads are going to roll. They won't have to worry about Gerrymandering.

[Wells]

Unless Trump does some real stupid shit or gets caught doing really shady shit, people will vote him back in. If the left continues to pander to progressive insanity, it's a sealed deal on that.

However, their is a very good possibility we could see major conservative upsets depending on GOP willingness to deal with Trump. It's already been noted on the right that Trump is going through his campaign promises like a steam roller and GOP has been literally picking their nose doing nothing. They have all the power to get whatever they want done and if not enough gets done, heads are going to roll. They won't have to worry about Gerrymandering.

What Democratic plank polls worse than Trump? So many people package their personal opinion as sober analysis.

[Bushtuckrman]

Will the left ever stop losing? After this I say no and that's the best thing for the western world.

They will triple down on their tried and failed identity politics while calling anyone who disagrees a racist bigot. The majority do not give 3 shits about it because we are too busy worrying about important things like economy, employment, education and the well being of our communities.

With Trump carrying out everything he has promised, there is no way he won't win 2020. One thing I do like is his vow to end human trafficking atleast in America. I don't think its been touched on by the media (they have a habit of deleting articles about it) but since Trump has been in office, 1500 child sex ring operators have been arrested and hundreds of children rescued. I got a feeling over the next few years something very big will happen in regards to the elite pedo ring that you briefly hear about every few years.


[Infracted]

[Xyonai]

Trump has already burned the republican party down to the ground for the 2018 election. His approval rating among democrats is low single digits (~5%) and just breaks the thirties among moderates. Its only republicans he does well with.

Of course he could turn it around but Trump is Trump. He didn't change in the year leading up to the election and he isn't going to change now. Nor is he going to change over the next 2 years. Its going to continue to be the same shit show.

In before 'You guys said Trump wouldn't win before!' to say I'm a bit in agreement here. Campaign Trump got through with an Outsider and Anti-establishment persona (not saying it's correct, but people who only read headlines thought as much), but Incumbent Trump will need to fight against whatever scandals and policies he's managed to (or failed to) implement this time around and may end up being a burden among the independents and centrists. Coupled with his abysmally low approval ratings (For only being 40 days in office, yikes) and his already narrow margin of victory (A fact that I will not stress enough), his chances of reelection look Slim, but we're still three years away and a lot can change.

[Wells]

Will the left ever stop losing? After this I say no and that's the best thing for the western world.

They will triple down on their tried and failed identity politics while calling anyone who disagrees a racist bigot. The majority do not give 3 shits about it because we are too busy worrying about important things like economy, employment, education and the well being of our communities.

Hard to look at Trump's victory and claim identity politics don't work.

[Theodarzna]

And I'll honestly admit that I was one of those people. Between their collective childishness, the Financial ceiling crisis, their aggressive contrarian push against popular social issues and nominating Trump (of all fuckin' people) I had assumed that conservatives were going to suffer some kind of ideological civil war when they ended up losing the 2016 election (I think Skroe predicted/hoped for something similar, actually).

But, instead voter apathy and an astoundingly narrow margin of victory has emboldened these people and made them feel vindicated in their behavior. Which, like the Democrats apparent 'Apathy', might end up working against them if they push their slim victory too hard in the other direction.

Its admittedly a fair thing to have predicted. The GOP ran a reckless crusade against President Obama, a complete, single minded campaign of scorched earth destruction. By most metrics the GOP deserved to be punished for that, even if half of Obama's failures were his own fault, at least half the credit should go to the GOP who were absolutely insulted at his mere presence in the White House. But Obama did make many mistakes and his leadership over all didn't do many favors for the Democratic Party which went from ascendant to in ruins by the time he left office.

Democrats have a huge problem. Their voters are largely in a few states that they don't need help winning, and there is a vast sea of territory they need to win in before 2020 and the great redistricting begins. The GOP might yet face a reckoning eventually, but the Democrats will be in ruins when it happens and likely fail to seize that moment.

[Slybak]

So Democrats... liberals... are you paying the hell attention? Party purity does not work in a country where independents and centrist voters hugely out number liberals and conservatives. Our politics may be polarized but the bulk of the nation is politically flexible.

This shift-left crap some of you are pushing: let's be clear what it is that you're doing. You're trying to opportunistically shove an agenda down the throat of a party not because you think it can win, but because you want your ideals reflected. That is now how coalitions work at all. And it certainly won't work in a country that, as you can see above, just gave a very straightforward example of how doctrinaire politics fails in the face of third-way flexibility.

This is like some Pundit's Fallacy version of Inception.

The 2016 election was decided by about 40,000 votes spread across three states. That is what experts call "a recipe for causal overdetermination." The left of the party will blame less-left, the less-left will blame the left, Brooklyn and Oakland based gentrifiers will blame a poor message for working class people in Kenosha that they've never met, voting rights activists will blame voter suppression, Hillbots will blame Berniestans, Berniestans will blame Hillbots, Democrats will blame Green Party voters, ad infinitum.

And they're all right, because the margin of loss was small enough so that each factor contributed. Thus the goal for Democrats, both as individuals and as constituent groups of the party, is to focus on what they care about, not dictate to everyone else what they should care about out of some asinine attempt to confuse their own first-order preferences for what is most expedient for the party as a whole. You want the party to focus more on voters in central PA? Then hike your ass over to Harrisburg and get to fucking work.

[alexw]

This collective Seppuku is interesting considering 6+ months ago everyone predicted the GOP to be at deaths door. What a reversal of fates the world has brought.

No noone said that. It was predicted they'd lose pretty badly but that certainly is not the same as being on deaths door. However over the long term republicans DO have a terminal case of bigotry, xenophobia, racism, and 1950's nostalgia.

The country has and is changing. The majority don't want gays to be discriminated against. They don't want people who are of different races, colors, or creeds to be discriminated against. They want a less plutocratic economic policy. And the numbers who want all these things is steadily growing as old regressive republicans die off and get replaced by younger democrat inclined voters.

Think of it this way. Every 4 years the chance of a democratic victory rises 3% (or something like that) and a republican one falls 3%. It doesn't mean republicans can't win, but it does mean it becomes increasingly harder. Eventually they'll have little no chance at all. That's the path we are on. You can see how this trend affected the 2016 election, for all the cries by right wingers about how great Trump's victory was it was barely a win at all in terms of vote numbers. Thus even now when republicans win they can only do it by the slimmest of margins. If this past election had been held with the 2020 electorate we would all be saying "hello Miss President (Clinton)" rather than "hello Mr president (Trump)". That's the effect these demographic changes are having.

[NED funded]

So after reading a little bit more there doesn't really seem much of a diference aside from some symbolic difference, mainly a sanders backed candidate.

[Theodarzna]

In before 'You guys said Trump wouldn't win before!' to say I'm a bit in agreement here. Campaign Trump got through with an Outsider and Anti-establishment persona (not saying it's correct, but people who only read headlines thought as much), but Incumbent Trump will need to fight against whatever scandals and policies he's managed to (or failed to) implement this time around and may end up being a burden among the independents and centrists. Coupled with his abysmally low approval ratings (For only being 40 days in office, yikes) and his already narrow margin of victory (A fact that I will not stress enough), his chances of reelection look Slim, but we're still three years away and a lot can change.

After his victory with only 1% odds of winning the hour of voting starting, I really put zero credence in electoral success odds anymore.

2020 might be his end, but it will depend on what the Democrats put up against him and if they have managed to do anything to regain that Blue Wall they used to own.

[Stacyrect]

Tom Perez is pushing for getting the Democrats to communicate more with suburban and rural voters, which is good. But...

I've really come to the conclusion over the past 6 months or so that by far the highest priority for voters seems to be the economy and money in their pocket. That seems to trump (no pun intended) literally every other issue. I am betting the Demos partially picked Perez to appeal to Hispanic voters, but I'm not sure that will help in itself. Small sample size, but Hispanics I know almost entirely voted for Trump despite all of the wall/deportation policy talk just because they thought he'd be better for the economy. In normal times people would lose their minds over restricting press, bashing the mainstream press, the Russia scandal, any one of dozens of obnoxious/sexist/racist things Trump has said, backtracking on transgender protections, evicting the Native Americans protesting the DAPL and going ahead with it, being anti-environment, etc...and it all seems to not matter. I don't know what that says about Americans and our values today, and I'm not saying more money is a bad thing, but I am surprised how much the economy is so far and away #1 that all other issues seem to be irrelevant when people are pushed to make a stance. There are people that don't follow that philosophy and they are vocal, but from everything I've seen they are the minority.

So Perez and the DNC will have their hands full and to a large degree their future will be dealt to them imo. I don't see the makeup of Congress or even the White House changing in 2018/2020 if the economy and jobs are going well. On the flip side, if Trump's diplomatic flubs and protectionism slow the economy, Democrats should have some easy wins.

Pretty much this. If Trumpanomics is successful, people are making more money, have better jobs and mobility, have a better quality of life, it's GG. The only person who can defeat Trump at this juncture is Trump himself.

[Theodarzna]

Pretty much this. If Trumpanomics is successful, people are making more money, have better jobs and mobility, have a better quality of life, it's GG. The only person who can defeat Trump at this juncture is Trump himself.

If that happens then Trump is the luckiest individual to have ever landed into the White House. His entire campaign and string of victories has been a lot of very lucky roles of the die.

[Xeones]

I had hoped democrats would open their eyes and step away from the horrific performance of 2016. But they seemed to have not paid proper due to Bernies endorsement of Ellison.

I don't know the particular politics of Perez, but I just have this sinking feeling this vote was a sign that democrats have refused to step back from corporatism.

Democrats may not be able to flip control of the senate in 2018, but if they don't change incumbents might find themselves facing challenges from the left.

[Sunseeker]

I'm not intimately familiar with Tom Perez but he seems like a pretty standard democrat. Never held any positions powerful enough to set any specific agendas or make any particular waves.

[Xyonai]

If that happens then Trump is the luckiest individual to have ever landed into the White House. His entire campaign and string of victories has been a lot of very lucky roles of the die.

It's like playing D&D with someone whose character has abysmally shitty stats, but somehow keeps rolling 20s anyway.

[Wells]

I'm not intimately familiar with Tom Perez but he seems like a pretty standard democrat. Never held any positions powerful enough to set any specific agendas or make any particular waves.

He trends a bit more pro-labor than the party as a whole. Leftists aren't crazy about him because of his connection to Clinton (though who isn't in the DNC) and he's spoken strongly against BDS.

[Theodarzna]

I had hoped democrats would open their eyes and step away from the horrific performance of 2016. But they seemed to have not paid proper due to Bernies endorsement of Ellison.

I don't know the particular politics of Perez, but I just have this sinking feeling this vote was a sign that democrats have refused to step back from corporatism.

Democrats may not be able to flip control of the senate in 2018, but if they don't change incumbents might find themselves facing challenges from the left.

Well he did love the TPP till the bitter end, if that is an indication of what the DNC is heading into. Maybe?

- - - Updated - - -

It's like playing D&D with someone whose character has abysmally shitty stats, but somehow keeps rolling 20s anyway.

Right? Its like someone making a Wizard with 10 intelligence and yet somehow is killing dragons with a freaking stick and prestidigitation.