Tom Perez is the new DNC Chair

[CostinR]

In no way was this a disaster. You can't frame something with fiction, especially, again, when his job will be organizing, fundraising and managing. The center-left party picked a guy who could appeal more broadly, than the activists candidate.

I know you got this weird fetish for Trump because you think it's a return to Reaganism (it's actually it's utter rejection, but that's another thread). But you're doing a piss poor job covering for him. The thing that Democrats needs to do to win going forward is Third-Way centrism. Perez is closer to that, with other benefits for the Party, than Ellison. It's an easy net win.

Want to see where the exact opposite gets you Costin? Jeremy Corbyn, British Labour Party. It doesn't work. The Democrats narrowly avoided a disaster.

I am WELL aware of that. Which is why I've stressed in this thread multiple times that Ellison would have been a terrible choice, a far worse choice then Perez ever would be.

But Perez is still a bad choice. He certainly is an experienced manager given what he did as Labor Secretary but he's got a spotlight on him which you generally don't want on a DNC chair: Howard Dean and Reince Priebus didn't have a spotlight on them.

As for my personal stance on Trump: The only real bone I ever had in this entire affair was which candidate would provide the best shot at a sensical foreign policy. Trump was the guy on the Republican field...and the on Democratic side...a radical isolationist vs the woman who was the deciding vote on Libya and the person who helped draw that idiotic red line on Syria.

Sanders and Clinton were both bad choices. The Dems should have ran someone like Biden who I would have supported in a heartbeat over Trump.

After Trump got McMaster, Tillerson, Kelly and Mattis I could give less of a damn if he was impeached today and Pence took over. He achieved everything I had ever hoped he would achieve: He put smart, technocratic realists in charge of national security.

When they beat Trump - and they will - it started today because they made the RIGHT choice in not letting the base dictate the course of the party when there isn't numerically enough of the left and hard left in this country to win nationally.

Perez's next job will be the find the anti-Trump or anti-Pence for 2020.

Joe Biden will easily beat Trump in 2020 provided he's healthy enough...outside of that I think that whoever runs against Trump in 2020 will face the same issues that Romney faced: A radical base that's pushing crazy candidates with no chances in hell of winning and that drag the moderates down with them.

That person is somewhere out there. Ignore anybody who says Cory Booker. That won't be a thing.

You want to bet on that? Booker is clearly determined to run, not that he'll win mind you but he'll certainly do enough to make it annoying for everyone else.

[hrugner]

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.

Pretty much. DNC chair is a clerical and organizational position. You need someone comfortable with dealing with the DNC bodies in various states, they should be familiar with modern polling trends(which were in disarray during this last election), and someone capable at budget outreach and strategy. The position isn't usually politically charged but the last DNC chair decided to politicize it with some bullshit antics while also failing in several of their duties. So long as they are capable, their personal politics shouldn't matter.

[Wells]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...10917568200705



Hahaha

Dude still hasn't figured out how to act like a president.

- - - Updated - - -

After Trump got McMaster, Tillerson, Kelly and Mattis I could give less of a damn if he was impeached today and Pence took over. He achieved everything I had ever hoped he would achieve: He put smart, technocratic realists in charge of national security.

Must concern you greatly that Bannon is writing EO's and not consulting them then.

[CostinR]

Must concern you greatly that Bannon is writing EO's and not consulting them then.

The EO on the Travel Ban was signed by Trump right next to Mattis.

It's not the EO that was the problem, the text is fairly reasonable, it's the implementation that was pushed on DHS by those in the White House.

To put it simply: I don't expect this shit to fly from McMaster.

[schwarzkopf]

Bernie couldn't win of Hillary,

Bernie could have won against Hilllary... that's my point, and would have had a better change against Trump PURELY because of the 4 states that Trump won the election with.

[Skroe]

As for my personal stance on Trump: The only real bone I ever had in this entire affair was which candidate would provide the best shot at a sensical foreign policy. Trump was the guy on the Republican field...and the on Democratic side...a radical isolationist vs the woman who was the deciding vote on Libya and the person who helped draw that idiotic red line on Syria.

Ever hear Clinton and Robert Gate's position on Libya? No. Well here it is.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001...26704261420430

ates Says Libya Not Vital National Interest
By JON HILSENRATH
Updated March 27, 2011 1:11 p.m. ET
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Libya's civil conflict wasn't a vital national interest of the United States, even as he and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sought to defend U.S. military action there.

"I don't think it's a vital interest of the United States, but we clearly have an interest there," Mr. Gates said in an appearance on the NBC News program, "Meet the Press" as part of a round of appearances on Sunday morning talk shows.

Appearing with Mr. Gates, Ms. Clinton defended the U.S. role in Libya, which included ground strikes that helped to arrest the march of government forces against Libyan rebels. She said that NATO forces had stood by U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and the U.S. now had a duty to work with allies such as the U.K. and France, which were urging action in Libya.

Mr. Gates said he couldn't be sure if the U.S. would complete its mission in Libya before the end of the year, saying, "I don't think anybody knows that." But he and Ms. Clinton sought to emphasize the progress that the U.S. had already made there.

"We have prevented the large-scale slaughter that was beginning to take place, has taken place in some places," Mr. Gates said. He and Ms. Clinton added that the main U.S. role of establishing a no-fly-zone had already been accomplished and that the U.S. had begun handing control of international military operations in Libya over to NATO. Mr. Gates said planning had begun in the Pentagon for a reduced U.S. role.

As for the Syria red line, that was in September 2013. Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State ended in February 2013, upon confirmation of her successor John Kerry.

The red line was the fault of Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes and White House chief of staff Denis McDonough. Leon Panetta, who when Obama laid the red line in 2012, had no idea he was going to say it.

Trump lied at a debate about her being involved in it. And she countered that she was gone. She offered some advice in a phone call and in a visit, but was both more hawkish and more concerned about Russia's intentions than Obama and his staff were. .

Get your facts straight.

And isolationism is never a sensible foreign policy for a superpower. Superpowers never have the privilege of being able to define where their broad interests begin and end. That's what makes the US different than Brazil. If the US ever upended it's regional security commitments, borders will change and people will die. I'd think with you being in Romania, you would be especially keen to appreciate that fact. When Donald Trump threatens the US's guarantee towards NATO, keep in mind, he is threatening to pull the rug out of the security framework that keeps you and your family from falling under Russian thralldom once again.

- - - Updated - - -

Bernie could have won against Hilllary... that's my point, and would have had a better change against Trump PURELY because of the 4 states that Trump won the election with.

You really think Democratic "Socialist" Bernie Sanders would have done better in central PA or increasingly red Wisconsin (the land of Scott Walker) than Hillary? Trump would have painted him as a communist, and pickup-truck America would have rejected him just as hard as Hillary. I voted for Hillary. Would I have voted for Sander? Probably yes, to stop Trump. But it would have been a much more painful vote than center-left Hillary Clinton. Many center-right Americans would not have done that.

What Democrats needed this year is what they didn't have: a Bill Clinton. The wonkish very Washington Hillary and "the old commie" Raging Sanders (being toungue in cheek here) were both poorly equipped to counter Trump.

Joe Biden probably would have done better than them both.

[schwarzkopf]

You really think Democratic "Socialist" Bernie Sanders would have done better in central PA or increasingly red Wisconsin (the land of Scott Walker) than Hillary? Trump would have painted him as a communist, and pickup-truck America would have rejected him just as hard as Hillary.

Know that he would have, because those states were rejecting establishment not rejecting democrat.

[Blobfish]

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.

And Lots more Trumpy posts on MMO-Gen OT guaranteed

NOooooooooooooo

[Skroe]

Know that he would have, because those states were rejecting establishment not rejecting democrat.

I lived in PA for years. I spent a lot of time in rural PA around areas like Altoona.

I have a very hard time believing Coal Country would see Sanders as someone they could support. I think this is wishful thinking.

[Felfaadaern Darkterror]

I was happy that Perez immediately asked that Ellison be named deputy chair. As Ellison said, "We don't have the luxury of leaving this room not united."

[CostinR]

Ever hear Clinton and Robert Gate's position on Libya? No. Well here it is.

Gates said a lot indeed. Behind closed doors he was highly skeptical of the matter, as were Biden and Tom Donilon.

Here:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...-room-20111013

As for the Syria red line, that was in September 2013. Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State ended in February 2013, upon confirmation of her successor John Kerry.

The red line was the fault of Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes and White House chief of staff Denis McDonough. Leon Panetta, who when Obama laid the red line in 2012, had no idea he was going to say it.

Trump lied at a debate about her being involved in it. And she countered that she was gone. She offered some advice in a phone call and in a visit, but was both more hawkish and more concerned about Russia's intentions than Obama and his staff were. .

Get your facts straight.

Oh really?

When I say Red Line I mean drawing it in the first place: That was the idiotic decision that she played a role in.

Here's politifact:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-sand-comment/

If you're talking about enforcing it, then no she didn't do that, but my view is that drawing it in the first place was a very stupid idea. Even worse then not enforcing it...enforcing it would have been a disaster, even bigger then what Obama did.

Trump using the chance to attack Clinton over the international humiliation the US suffered over not following on that red line? Amusing but another matter.

And isolationism is never a sensible foreign policy for a superpower. Superpowers never have the privilege of being able to define where their broad interests begin and end. That's what makes the US different than Brazil. If the US ever upended it's regional security commitments, borders will change and people will die. I'd think with you being in Romania, you would be especially keen to appreciate that fact. When Donald Trump threatens the US's guarantee towards NATO, keep in mind, he is threatening to pull the rug out of the security framework that keeps you and your family from falling under Russian thralldom once again.

I am NOT advocating for US isolationism nor do I believe Trump is an isolationist.

What did Trump really say on the subject of NATO? He specifically said that if they didn't get their shit together and spend 2% on defense that they should be doing that he'll withdraw US protection for those countries.

You may take issue with saying that to US allies. I don't. Trump's words on NATO have forced everyone here in Europe to stop screwing around on defense spending and actually do what they're supposed to and for the first time in my life Romania is spending 2% of it's GDP on defense.

I am EXTREMELY happy with the effect Trump has had on NATO. Because countries screwing around on this issue of military spending has undermined our security against Russia. In particular Germany really needed a thick boot to the head after what they did: Refusing to increase military defense spending when they've got a budget surplus.

Bernie Sanders is an isolationist. Trump is a diplomatic hawk who isn't afraid to speak his mind, that's precisely the kind of person NATO needs right now. If Trump actually does anything to undermine Europe's security I'll be the first to speak out on that. If he threatens to actually start a stupid war I'll go a crusade against him.

But so far he's done us a lot of favors: He forced both Russia and Ukraine to stop their shooting war when it flared up and threatened to explode in the largest ground war Europe has seen in decades: I am not Russian fanboy, but I sure as fuck don't want a war of that scale on my door.

[Bushtuckrman]

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

Well disaffected white people do make up the majority of those who consider trade, employment, education, manufacturing, economy, upholding the law and illegal immigration as important issues. Other races do too but obviously whites are the majority in America. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. He didn't play to whites, he played to American citizens.

[Wells]

Well disaffected white people do make up the majority of those who consider trade, employment, education, manufacturing, economy, upholding the law and illegal immigration as important issues. Other races do too but obviously whites are the majority in America. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here

Not sure how you could be confused. Trump used identity politics to appeal to disaffected white populations. That doesn't mean its the sum total of his campaign, but you can hardly claim that its something only Democrats do.

[Gestopft]

Not sure how you could be confused. Trump used identity politics to appeal to disaffected white populations. That doesn't mean its the sum total of his campaign, but you can hardly claim that its something only Democrats do.

Oh, come on, you know the rules: it's only identity politics when Democrats do it. Like judicial activism.

[Wells]

Oh, come on, you know the rules: it's only identity politics when Democrats do it. Like judicial activism.

At the end of the day I think "identity politics" for these people just means anything talking about those kinds of people.

[Kryos]

Democrats learned nothing. Bernie definitely needs to start a new progressive social democratic party and make the DNC suffer the same faith the Whig Party had.

[Bushtuckrman]

Not sure how you could be confused. Trump used identity politics to appeal to disaffected white populations. That doesn't mean its the sum total of his campaign, but you can hardly claim that its something only Democrats do.

No it pretty much is the sum of his campaign besides maternity leave, wanting medical marijuana to become nationalized, stopping human trafficking and taking government control away from special interests and the globalist elites.

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

[Zoranon]

Democrats learned nothing. Bernie definitely needs to start a new progressive social democratic party and make the DNC suffer the same faith the Whig Party had.

Yeah I am so surprised they did not follow the oh so promising lead of the UK Labour party which elected a hard left leader...

[Wells]

No it pretty much is the sum of his campaign besides maternity leave, wanting medical marijuana to become nationalized, stopping human trafficking and taking government control away from special interests and the globalist elites.

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

A campaign is more than its planks.

[Slybak]

Actually, Republicans have consistently won by appealing to their base and going harder to the right. Democrats have consistently shifted to the middle, and I think that's hurt them because shifting to the middle waters down their message. Hillary in particular had this problem.

The argument that the Democratic Party is, in general, to the right of where it was 10, 20, 30, or 40 years ago is comically nonsensical. The only issue upon which the party is measurably more conservative than prior generations is in its commitment to public education; and even there there are significant divisions within both the party leadership and rank-and-file, and it hasn't been a major issue upon which national or even state-wide electoral contests (neither primary nor general) have hinged. To believe that the Democratic Party has moved to the right requires believing that Robert Byrd was more liberal than Chuck Schumer, or that Nancy Pelosi represents a conservative backlash against the unbridled leftism of Tip O'Neill.

Clinton in particular has been subjected to this pernicious myth with scant evidence, and when she publicly campaigns on some of the most liberal stances in party history she is, of course, rebuked for "not really meaning it." That the dumb faction of the left insists on playing this idiotic game of "heads I win, tails you lose" is why very few people in the actual party apparatus takes them seriously.