Tom Perez is the new DNC Chair

[Wells]

Trade, employment, education, manufacturing, economy, upholding the law and illegal immigration is not identity politics though.

Yeah, Trump definitely didn't spend a ton of time playing specifically to disaffected white people.

[GreenJesus]

huh, never heard of this dude. eh he's a liberal, probably isn't important.

[breadisfunny]

Just because Obama got away with TPP, which is massively unpopular with the country, doesn't mean Perez will.

it creates a vulnerability for every Democrat running in 2018. They already had enough problems because of Nancy Pelosi, someone with an approval rating of 24%. Perez will only make things worse.

The Democrats really should have picked someone with NO baggage and no controversy.



Undeniable. I'm thinking more Tim Ryan would have been a good choice.

more importantly they needed to pick someone with charisma and appeal to younger voters....they didn't. they did what the republicans did in 2012 and acted tone deaf the entire time.

- - - Updated - - -

I would not be shocked if they rolled out Hillary again.

and they can watch as the rust belt states shift even harder to the right. wisconsin has been doing that for the last 8 years or so.

[Delana]

Because that image is basically hate speech, that wildly misinterprets its source data to slander a faith group. It was created by some random dude on /r/atheism, and it's not phrasing the questions in the same way, and ignoring other questions (like how many Muslims want Sharia law to be the law of the land, but ONLY want it to apply to Muslims in doing so).

The original source is fine, this graphic is wildly misleading. It ignores the major geopolitical divides the original study underscores, demonstrating that the issues in question are largely not Islamic, but regional.

Quoting dishonest hate propaganda isn't really a way to come off as asking reasonable questions.

I'll eat my crow where it's due. I read through the poll results. They aren't pretty, but viewed in their entirety they aren't as bad as the image I posted would indicate. I think the image is probably factually correct but ultimately somewhat deceptive.

I don't particularly expect enlightened views from people living in the extreme poverty and failed states relevant to the migrant crisis. In 2 generations embedded in Germany or the US or what have you, in reasonable population densities, I'm sure the numbers would look quite a bit better. Such is the nature of humans. I bolded 2 generations because it is the intrinsic time constant of this sort of thing. It's the same reason why the US occupation of Iraq didn't birth a flourishing democracy in a handful of years. 2 generations.

I get and respect the Left's altruism in this. I understand what they're trying to do. But such a project comes with a huge amount of social stress that is by and large not paid by the Angela Merkel's of the world. It's paid by the little guy. The risk is paid by the little guy. And there is some very non trivial amount of risk here.

The little guy, by and large, accepts such things up to a point. The tipping point is when the unthinkable happens, and then instead of receiving sympathy, protection, and justice from their government, they are instead told that questioning the wisdom of taking these refugees is racist or hate speech. When the Left's response to worry on the Right is to tell right that they are the ones that need cleansed. The Left, in their altruism, has thus shown, in no uncertain terms, that they value the migrants over the Right in their countries. The American Left, for one, loves EVERYONE, and hates the American Right.

At the end of the day, democracies are built on a mutual trust between the two (or more, I guess) sides. That at the end of the day we are one people. Let's call this trust the Covenant of Democracy. It is a pact to strive towards mutual defense, mutual economic prosperity, self determination, etc. Ultimately, it is an implicit pledge to serve the collective future of your nation, not just the future of your own side. (I think there's also an implicit understanding that you will defend your sovereignty, that is, continue trying to be an independent nation, but I guess that's debatable now with the EU/Brexit divide).

I'm actually quite unsure how to keep such a covenant intact through the present situation. One side wants to cede sovereignty to the EU and similar entities. One side wants to bring in migrants from wherever, and as many as want to come! The other side gives few fucks about the migrants and wants to stay independent nation states. I don't see much middle ground.

[schwarzkopf]

Not often that Trump sums it up perfectly but :

[Wells]

Trump would have said the same thing if it was Ellison. He's a mediocre troll, that's it.

[Lucrece]

Prefer Perez over Ellison. The more centrist, the better. The push towards making Democrats the de facto socialist party is what's alienating the rest of the country.

[Wells]

Prefer Perez over Ellison. The more centrist, the better. The push towards making Democrats the de facto socialist party is what's alienating the rest of the country.

Hate to tell you, but Perez isn't a centrist either.

[Skroe]

Not often that Trump sums it up perfectly but :

Yeah this is a crap troll. The head of America's center-left party is now a Latino, at a time Trump is assaulting minorities, latinos in particular. Pussy's on the right bitch and moan about identity politics because they don't like to fight on unlevel playing fields, but they're actually a thing, and the Democrat's selection of a latino helps them in a rapidly browning country.

I'm not even a fan of Perez's politics such that I know them, but that doesn't change the fact that this was easily the right move for Democrats.

The worst thing they could have done was find their very own Jeremy Corbyn. Ellison is dangerously close to that. Democrats will only win back the house and senate in coming cycles by appealing to center-left, center-right and centrist voters that voted for Obama that they lost to Trump. Getting the base riled up and turned out has been a losing strategy for the Republicans (one that Trump managed to reverse), a losing strategy for the British Labour Party. It would have been a losing strategy for Democrats too.

The base can never be counted upon, on their own, to win elections, especially in the United States.

[Deleted]

Not often that Trump sums it up perfectly but :

Why? We all know what will happen during mid term elections, big shift towards the democrats, with a republican impeached president as a result.

[schwarzkopf]

I'm not even a fan of Perez's politics such that I know them, but that doesn't change the fact that this was easily the right move for Democrats.

Not really, it doesn't address the issue that got the idiot Trump elected in the first place.

[Deleted]

more importantly they needed to pick someone with charisma and appeal to younger voters....they didn't. they did what the republicans did in 2012 and acted tone deaf the entire time.

- - - Updated - - -



and they can watch as the rust belt states shift even harder to the right. wisconsin has been doing that for the last 8 years or so.

Don't think after the disaster of Trump not living up to any of his promises and potentially wrecking the country is going to keep any credibility to the republicans. Very likely Trump will end up shattering the entire GOP and will make sure it will take decades before that train-wreck will be forgiven by the republican voters which voted for Trump.

[schwarzkopf]

Why? We all know what will happen during mid term elections, big shift towards the democrats, with a republican impeached president as a result.

Only if there is a fundamental change in the Democratic Party... which seems unlikely if they don't change their behaviour.

Having a dude who will focus on increasing the number of letters in LGBTQIA more and more each month isn't going to really help the real world issues that got us here.

[Deleted]

Not really, it doesn't address the issue that got the idiot Trump elected in the first place.

Trump getting elected wasn't really the problem of the DNC but it was more so Hillary's mistake for not appealing to the angry white workers across the USA. If she had championed for them in a similar way that Trump did, she would probably won, because it's the only demographic where Trump did better than her.

[NihilSustinet]

rip progress

[schwarzkopf]

Trump getting elected wasn't really the problem of the DNC

Of course it was ... DNC rigged their process against the perfect person to counter Trump. Not saying Bernie would have been any good as president, but he wouldn't have been a dangerous president.

[Deleted]

Only if there is a fundamental change in the Democratic Party... which seems unlikely if they don't change their behaviour.

Having a dude who will focus on increasing the number of letters in LGBTQIA more and more each month isn't going to really help the real world issues that got us here.

I don't see what needs to be changed about the DNC, even the RNC and pretty much every other political party in the world works the same way as the DNC does, the difference is they protect their e-mails better. If the e-mails of the DNC didn't get leaked, there would have been literally 0 need for a change in the platform. It's only because of the e-mails that there's this perception about a needed change within the DNC.

[scrangos]

I cant really trust Perez to be unbiased in parimaries.... also theres the issue of him winning due to the same voters being consulants/lobbists and they were protecting their personal income in form of comissions within the contracts given out with DNC money. This strategy of concentrating the money on the national DNC instead of the state parties that are starving is what has the democrats failing to win within states.

[NihilSustinet]

The head of America's center-right party is now a Latino, at a time Trump is assaulting minorities,

FTFY
/10char

[Skroe]

Not really, it doesn't address the issue that got the idiot Trump elected in the first place.

Well the meta-issue is that Barack Obama's administration looted and plundered the Democratic bench for all the talent they could find, that as they exited, unlike Bill Clinton's tenure, the post-Obama Democratic Party has years of infrastructure laying to do. I've written about this before in this forum, but a key reason that the Tea Party rose to power in the Republican Party is that Bush did the same thing that Obama did, but the failure of his Presdiency and the financial crisis pushed a lot of center-right next gen leaders out of public service, seemingly for good.

One attraction of the potential Hillary Administration would have been that the Clintons have made an entire career out of MAKING careers of people (which by the way, is a big reason so many were loyal to her in 2016 in the DNC), so from the political side, she would have to do that again whereas Obama largely deconstructed the party.

So the core issue starts at the lowest level... building party infrastructure to win State and Local elections and position the Democratic Party to fix their district disadvantages for 2022. A kind of philosophical struggle between liberals and centrists.... between the Hillary wing and the Sanders wing... is not the kind of thing they can afford with how their party looks downballot, or the country can afford, with Trump seemingly intent on blowing up large portions of the state.