Tom Perez is the new DNC Chair

[alexw]

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.

It won't. His policy proposals are utterly dumb in economic terms. They might sound great to the uneducated but macro-economics doesn't work like Mr retiree balancing their checkbook.

[Xeones]

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

Perez liked the TPP? Even Hillary came out against it as a last ditch effort to earn votes.

- - - Updated - - -

It won't. His policy proposals are utterly dumb in economic terms. They might sound great to the uneducated but macro-economics doesn't work like Mr retiree balancing their checkbook.

But isn't requiring two regulations be removed for every new one better than just getting rid of all the "bad" ones and not making new "bad" ones?

[Slybak]

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.

He ran arguably the most effective Labor Department in a half century. His nomination to the post was held up for months because various business lobbies, particularly finance, hates his guts and that hate has only grown (Perez is responsible for the fiduciary rule for financial advisors). Labor unions basically split between him and Ellison, and Ellison got most of his union endorsements before Perez jumped in the race. The AFL, for instance, initially backed Ellison when Perez wasn't on the ballot, but many of its constituent unions jumped to Perez.

To call him a "corporatist" is an admission of not knowing what the word means.

[Wells]

Perez liked the TPP? Even Hillary came out against it as a last ditch effort to earn votes.

- - - Updated - - -



But isn't requiring two regulations be removed for every new one better than just getting rid of all the "bad" ones and not making new "bad" ones?

He supported it.

- - - Updated - - -

He ran arguably the most effective Labor Department in a half century. His nomination to the post was held up for months because various business lobbies, particularly finance, hates his guts and that hate has only grown (Perez is responsible for the fiduciary rule for financial advisors). Labor unions basically split between him and Ellison, and Ellison got most of his union endorsements before Perez jumped in the race. The AFL, for instance, initially backed Ellison when Perez wasn't on the ballot, but many of its constituent unions jumped to Perez.

To call him a "corporatist" is an admission of not knowing what the word means.

Supports a $15 dollar minimum wage and has openly argued that the Democrats didn't focus on the upper midwest enough.

[Slybak]

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

He was a cabinet secretary of the President who proposed it. The Cossacks work for the Tsar.

[Delana]

2018 will be an anti-Trump election for democrats. Internal party politics won't matter a jot. 2020 will depend on who democrats put as their candidate.

In neither case is Pelosi relevant.

2018 is a lost cause for the DNC on the national level. Because the senators that are up in 2018 were voted in with Obama's re-election in 2012, there's way more democratic seats up than republican seats. There are 50 republican locks http://www.270towin.com/2018-senate-election/. That said, I doubt the RNC gains a fillibuster proof majority, so ultimately there's really not much to be lost or gained for the DNC.

The prospect that they get enough turnout to flip the house given the Republican gerrymander is hard to fathom as well. Democrats just don't vote in midterms in general.

I can tell them how to win because nobody will ever listen to me anyway.:

The real prize is the state congresses in 2020 for the gerrymander. They should use all their money to build the individual state parties and get back in touch with the issues the nation is facing as a whole. Give the state parties leeway to experiment with ideas to tackle the individual issues of their state. This gives them an opportunity to find themselves as a party, find a platform that works in a post Brexit/2016 world, and recapture the gerrymander. Not to mention just having the state house control is a valuable asset in terms of constitutional amendments and the like, which the Left obviously covets.

The RNC is going to be distracted with the national stage, and the GOP establishment and Trump will have their hands full with each other. That fact is their opening. If they buy into their own propaganda of Trump being a threat to the Republic, and distract themselves from the real war, they're sure to lose. The powers that be should know Trump is ideologically in no way beyond the pale in terms of American political thought.

[Slybak]

Supports a $15 dollar minimum wage and has openly argued that the Democrats didn't focus on the upper midwest enough.

But does he really MEAN it?!

[Skroe]

Are independents by nature centrists?

In this country most are, yes. This is a center right country.




21% of Independents identify as Liberal


33% of Indepenents identify as Conservative


41% of Independents identify as Moderate

Furthermore look at the 2nd and the 4th graphs above. 44% of Democrats identify as Liberals, but 36% of them identify as moderate.

This country experiments periodically with left politics. It has fallen flat on it's face for decades. Bill Clinton, New Deal Democrats, the Third Way, and Obama's 2008 shift to the center did not happen by accident. It happened because Democrats got sick of losing in a country that does not numerically have enough people in it to get someone like Bernie Sanders elected.

But hey, if Democrats want to learn that lesson the hard way one more time, go right ahead.

I mean it's not like we have a demagogue with his finger on the nuclear trigger who seems to be intentionally depopulating the Federal Government. We got time for Democrats to indulge themselves on an expedition to the left, because nothing bad will happen while they do it, amrite?

[Sunseeker]

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.

BDS is an honest and fair movement, but an impossible one. It's been less than a month and look at how fast the Trump camp has flipped on their previous Israel issues. I don't like that we are Israel's bitch, but we have worse "friends". As far as Clinton connections go, Clinton is the devil I know. When I go out to support a Democrat, if they profess to be a follower/friend/supporter/ally/frenemy/supplicant of Clinton then I know what sort of politics I'm buying, and quite frankly I'd be surprised to find any Democrat of any import who isn't a Clinton-friend.

In any case, he seems like a good Democrat who people can look at and say "Yes, that is a Democrat."

[Wells]

Skroe, Clinton's administration was explicit denial of left wing policy. That's the origins of Democratic Third Way politics.

[alexw]

But isn't requiring two regulations be removed for every new one better than just getting rid of all the "bad" ones and not making new "bad" ones?

Here's the thing. A world that is increasing in complexity requires increasing numbers of regulations to govern that increase in complexity. So over the last two decades the internet has provided a massive economic boost, but its required bookfuls of new regulations to govern it. Renewables are becoming a thing and they will need the same. So will driverless cars when they go mainstream. So will all the other big advances of society.

Thus if this policy of Trump's is kept in place long enough it will cause economic growth to grind to a halt. Rather than speeding up economic growth it will slow it and finally stop it.

As I said Trumps policies sound great to the uneducated.......

[Wells]

BDS is an honest and fair movement, but an impossible one. It's been less than a month and look at how fast the Trump camp has flipped on their previous Israel issues. I don't like that we are Israel's bitch, but we have worse "friends". As far as Clinton connections go, Clinton is the devil I know. When I go out to support a Democrat, if they profess to be a follower/friend/supporter/ally/frenemy/supplicant of Clinton then I know what sort of politics I'm buying, and quite frankly I'd be surprised to find any Democrat of any import who isn't a Clinton-friend.

In any case, he seems like a good Democrat who people can look at and say "Yes, that is a Democrat."

Yeah I'm not displeased by him. The minutia of DNC policy doesn't matter without a solid plan for winning.

[Sunseeker]

Yeah I'm not displeased by him. The minutia of DNC policy doesn't matter without a solid plan for winning.

Indeed. Besides, the only real question is what their trade policy will look like, that's the only area of Trump's presidency that will have any impact on the Democratic platform. Every other element of their platform will essentially be "This is the complete opposite of everything Trump supported."

[Skroe]

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.

As discussed in another thread, after redistricting in 2020 (that won't take effect until 2022 to be clear, so it is still under the current map for the 2020 election), historic Democratic bastions will lose electoral votes and congressional districts, while the South and West of the country gain them.



Another potential outcome


Long term, this is very good news for Democrats due to Demographic trends. They could potentially flip Texas, as has been discussed for years, but also Georgia (where they are getting competitive) and perhaps more reliably Florida and North Carolina

Short and Medium term though? It's very challenging for Democrats. The 2024 election for example, or 2022 midterms could present the kind of situation where Texas hasn't "gone blue" enough yet to really be a Swing state effectively, but all those seats in the Rust belt, Illinois and New York will have gone south and been taken by Republicans.

I look at this map, and I think trying to appeal to liberals is delusional. Democrats need to appeal to center-left, centrists and center-right Americans. If Trump's Republican Party is going to be the exclusionary party of White Nationalism, then Democrats should be the Big Tent party. They'll win in an enduring fashion in the long term. It won't be the first time one of the two parties goes for a narrow voter base after all, and it never works out more than few cycles.

[Stacyrect]

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.

Luck had nothing to do with him winning. Their are scores of good examples to point to why he won. Every negative prediction, poll, and assertion thus far has been astro turfed by the Trump machine. If Trump keeps to his word and is aggressive about his campaign promises and America is thus more successful because of them, it will resound far greater then anything the left can conjure.

[ro9ue]

Jesus FUCKING christ democrats... get it together. Have you learned NOTHING from Trump? You need a centrist-left person at the DNC helm who isn't going to dive into identity politics head fucking first. Now we're going to have Trump for eight fucking years guaranteed.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Ouch, I feel sorry for you democrats. I really hoped for someone better suited than someone who've been part of the whole Clintonian crash.

[Delana]

It won't. His policy proposals are utterly dumb in economic terms. They might sound great to the uneducated but macro-economics doesn't work like Mr retiree balancing their checkbook.

Macroeconomics is usually formulated in terms of looking for a global optimum. The Trump epiphany is that he doesn't necessarily give a damn what happens to the rest of the world's economies. He's going to play it America first. I suppose you can disagree with this on philosophical grounds, or that this is somehow detrimental to America's interests long term.

What I think is indisputable is that the American worker has taken the fallout of free trade on the chin. Both the Bernie wing of the DNC and Trump agrees on this point. It's self apparent to anyone who saw the Rust Belt in the early 90s compared to now.

You're welcome to propose an alternative solution, but if the DNC does not, the Rust belt will be red in 2020 too. At LEAST speak to the extant problems instead of just telling the American worker that macroeconomics is too complicated for his pretty little head to understand, and that he's fucked.

[Wells]

Jesus FUCKING christ democrats... get it together. Have you learned NOTHING from Trump? You need a centrist-left person at the DNC helm who isn't going to dive into identity politics head fucking first. Now we're going to have Trump for eight fucking years guaranteed.

Lol Perez is center left.

[Stacyrect]

It won't. His policy proposals are utterly dumb in economic terms. They might sound great to the uneducated but macro-economics doesn't work like Mr retiree balancing their checkbook.

Maybe so, we shall definitely see.