Democratic (Party) Direction

Perez would be the most liberal head of the party in decades if not ever had Ellison not come along

I can't get over that Obama and co. ran him specifically to counter Ellison, followed by Perez's claims that he wants "Ellison to be the face of the party." Well, gee, I can think of one way that could have happened.

The DNC chair is not normally the face of the party.

DLC is no longer around I thought?

We're not fucked because of Perez. We're fucked because people "can't get over" Perez as if he was a former Dubya appointee or some such nonsense

"Obama and co." Jesus Christ on the fucking cross do you read what you write?

What America needs right now is for people to stand strong against that corrupt, two-faced, incompetent, narcissistic, bigoted, hateful "Obama and co."

OTM :http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/02/the-assassination-of-keith-ellison-by-the-neoliberal-coward-tom-perez

And hey yeah DLC closed up shop in 2011, god googling that was hard

you mean the ppl who left Yam all those unconstitutional toys, right

Did the DLC? Wow, fuck those guys.

The problem is not Perez, the problem is the reasons Perez was pushed into the race. This is not really typical, Obama and some other democrats really, really didn't want Ellison to be chair, because there's no other reasonable explanation. Even a lot of the mainstream of the party was backing Ellison - Schumer, teacher's union pres Randi Weingarten, etc. He's a better organizer, has more election experience, is more charismatic, etc. If the argument for Perez is "he's just as progressive," okay, why did we need a second "just as progressive" candidate?

I mean I can basically live with Perez as DNC chair. I think he's a huge improvement over DWS, and his at least ostensible desire to involve Ellison via the new "deputy" position is a good sign. But I think the process that led to Perez entering the race is not a good sign, and if there were really good reasons to not want Ellison as chair I'd certainly like to hear what they are.

I agree with everything you wrote, prefer Ellison, don't ultimately care so long as the chair's progressive.

The matter is not the position but what the machinations portend for the future. The Clinton-Obama-Biden-Debbie people are not going quietly, and they need to gogogo.

ie what manalive said

i gave up 32 years ago btw

(when the Dems weren't nearly the whorehouse they are now)

― Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Monday, March 6, 2017 3:10 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

gettin' the vibe itt that morbs doesn't like the dem party

thx tombot for being like... a voice of reason

"Liking" any party owned by b/millionmaires is not a good move. They are there to be used when we can use 'em.

they need to gogogo

Victory through subtraction!

Always instructive to remember that the most successful liberal president ever was a plutocrat.

I just wish the Democrats had a rich sponsor to drive wedges into the Republicans like the Koch-funded "Learn Liberty" is doing here to the Democrats:
http://https%3A//image.ibb.co/mwb0WF/learnliberty.jpg

https://image.ibb.co/mwb0WF/learnliberty.jpg

Rather anomalous, wouldn't you say? xxp

Insofar as all successful politicians bow to their constituencies, not really.

(He's unique for other obvious reasons tho)

wait do you mean FDR or LBJ

both sure loved their dough!

FDR. LBJ was a different kind of plutocrat ie not born into it

Born to money gave FDR a freedom that plutocrats don't have; that's why I don't count FDR as one.

that's an interesting interpretation. I know it's pointless to argue w the good doctor, but the reason I brought FDR and his roots up (and LBJ is relevant here too) is because he's emblematic of why a politician should not be judged on background, personal wealth, connections/associations, or even prior actions and positions because those don't really indicate anything conclusive about how useful they will be in achieving certain goals.

ie Perez being pushed by ppl leftists don't like doesn't reflect anything meaningful

I was talking about the Dem puppetmasters mostly -- you know, the actually source of their 'philosophy' -- if you read carefully (tho given the post-WH Clinton Hustle, I suppose that fine couple may qualify now)

one of the shrewder FDR bios is called Traitor to His Class.

Nelson Rockefeller was similar. That kind of noblesse oblige is dead.

yeah I've read that (on your recommendation!) and it is good - altho it did leave me with no real sense of *why* he became so committed to so many leftist policies. I can't help but conclude that - similar to Caro re: LBJ - it was the result of some mixture of deep, but often obscured, personal conviction + political expediency.

when asked once what he believed in, he said, "I am a Christian and a Democrat."

I'm guess getting wracked by polio had something to do with an appreciation of vulnerability

*guessing

https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/839508779737706497

Fav/Unfav (Suffolk)

Pence 47/35%
Trump 45/47
GOP 37/48
Media 37/50
Dem Party 36/52
Hillary 35/55
Congress 26/52

fun

lol @ Pence being more popular than Trump

can someone put that number in front of the Donald ie on Fox n Friends

and respondents hate Dems more

nobody likes losers

Trump 45/47

given everything that has happened, everything he has done, and the pure absence of hope for anything good to happen in the future, that favorability is a fucking triumph for trump

and respondents hate Dems more

this is the most telling number in this poll imo (inasmuch as polls tell us anything)

that favorability is a fucking triumph for trump

low bar. most presidents have a honeymoon period w net positive approval ratings. he has not.

have get

low bar. most presidents have a honeymoon period w net positive approval ratings. he has not.

Comparing his ratings to the historical trends for new presidents is a natural thing to do. it's probably the right thing to do. but here's my hot take: he's not a normal president. take a step back and consider how deeply terrible he is on every single dimension. remember a year ago when you were saying he could never win the republican primary because his ceiling of support was 25% (of republican voters)? that seemed like a very reasonable position at the time, given that he's a complete disaster and can hardly make it through a single week without committing a fuckup that would be THE headline gaffe for any other president in the history of the united states. it's unbelievable that he won the primary, it's unbelievable that he won the election by losing by 3 million votes, and it's unbelievable that 45% of people think he's doing an ok job. to me, to be doing that well while doing such a terrible job is a fucking triumph and must be an inspiration to everyone born into immense wealth that has an interest in exploiting everyone around them for financial gain.

or in other words, do you believe that his favorability trend will follow the traditional path: he's at his peak now (mid-40s), and then as disappointments pile up and people get sick of seeing his face all the time, it'll drop by 20 or so, ending with an undulating mid-20s or so? maybe that's right. but i think that's what everyone has expected for him since his candicacy was announced - waiting for the inevitable fall. it must be coming, right, after the next wave of disappointments? but i think there's also a possibility that 40-45% of america will like trump no matter what he does. the "no matter what" has already happened, repeatedly, unmistakably, an onslaught of complete stupidity and incompetence thrown at us every day, every week, for months, we're coming up on almost two fucking YEARS since he made an ass out of himself during the announcement of his candidacy. so i'm not holding my breath waiting for his support to collapse after this sweet ass honeymoon we're all on comes to a close. if/when the Greatest Healthcare Plan of 2017 falls on its face, i'm gonna bet trump isn't going to take any heat for it. his approval will dip 7 points, but then he'll make another critically-acclaimed speech where he exploits a dead soldier for political gain and he'll be right back at 44%

but i think there's also a possibility that 40-45% of america will like trump no matter what he does.

this is demonstrably true at this point. I have no idea if it will hold. Voters tend to treat ppl in office different than candidates but yes traditional rulebook is v much out the window w this guy, no argument there.