Keith Ellison:

[JHan]

"We don't have the luxury to walk out of this room divided."

A good result with Perez heading and Ellison as deputy.

Now we move forward.

[murielm99]

1. Amen.

I think I am going to trash any thread here with whining about the outcome of this election. We need unity now more than ever.

More importantly, we need Democrats to run in every Congressional race in 2018. No more of this "No Candidate Filed" shit.

[Squinch]

2. Good for him!

[democratisphere]

3. Thank you for your very wise words!

Let's get to it together!

[KittyWampus]

4. But there seems to be a few trying really hard to keep up the schtick here on DU.

Not falling for it.

[JHan]

5. some folks always gotta fuss about something

[WePurrsevere]

6. He's absolutely correct. Having the two of them working together as a team...

I think has great potential to really benefit the party and gives me a bit more hope about our future.

[Fearless]

7. And the vote allowing corporate money??

#fail

[JHan]

8. what are you on about?

[Fearless]

9. The party voted to allow super PAC money.

[JHan]

10. ...

[Fearless]

13. You support citizens united, heard.

[JHan]

22. No, you ain't "heard" nothing except whatever assumptions you got going on in your head..

but I'll let you cook.

[tblue37]

25. No, she supports not bringing a pool noodle to a gun fight. nt

[JHan]

30. thanks, and you're right..

My view is that until we get big money out of politics by reversing Citizen's United (.. and FEC vs McClutcheon) this is a non-issue for the moment - and to do that we have get justices on the supreme court who understand how these decisions imperiled our politics.

It's sad that the Supreme Court has become so politicized that such decisions fall so strongly along ideological lines.

[Motownman78]

52. We had a chance to get rid of Citizen's United

But too many people voted Third Party or stayed home. As Obama said "Elections have consequences".

[SylviaD]

60. Exactly. nt

[JHan]

68. +++++++++

Yup.

In my view, elections aren't about conscience but consequences.

[gopiscrap]

109. Welcome to DU

[yardwork]

115. Thank you.

[msanthrope]

118. You seem concerned. Please feel free to air more of your concerns, and enjoy your stay. nt

[Ligyron]

120. I have to believe it was way more of "stayed home" than voted third party.

If the 40% stayed home figure is correct then we have a great opportunity once Dump's policies light a fire under their asses.

[Demsrule86]

12. There is 100 thousand coming against Sherrod Brown

in Ohio...we need to be able to counter that. Thus we need money. Now I don't like United but it is the law and we can not starve our candidates...we need to win so I say...they had no choice. Especially heading into an off year election when giving is lower usually.

[Fearless]

14. By taking the moral low ground

And accepting anti democratic money. Right. Sure.

[Demsrule86]

18. Or we could just not take the money and watch our people lose

but of course we be taking the high road to hell. I hope one day to see United done away with...but you can't ignore reality.

[ciaobaby]

34. and yet......

The last DNC chair thought the solution lay in mega-wealthy donors and half-hearted solutions. She raised a tremendous amount of money - and cost her party over 1000 seats nationwide...

[KittyWampus]

48. since we have a new DNC chair your comment is meaningless.

[ciaobaby]

54. as is yours

[BannonsLiver]

92. At least her comment is current

You're still fighting the last war. Poorly I might add.

[stevenleser]

49. Correlation does not imply causation. You need to spend more time looking into

the actual reasons why things occur.

[ciaobaby]

61. Why do things occur - enlighten me.

our history is a never-ending repetition of the same mistakes. One can learn from history only if one knows oneself, and can readily admit to one’s errors while ignoring whatever justification upon which they were based.

[stevenleser]

85. Each issue is different, but one thing is certain, correlation does not imply causation.

That's why you need to look more carefully into why things occur.

It also helps if you don't always assume things that necessarily agree with your worldview.

[Demsrule86]

84. That is not really true...she was a terrible fund raiser and starved the states...

Money alone won't give us a victory, but the lack of money will hand us losses. Personally, I want to see Sherrod Brown survive.

[Demsrule86]

121. I don't agree with that ...and she sent the money to the national pols...

starved the states...you want to see what happens when you don't have money...look at the states. We hold 18 governorships and 1/3 of states legislatures. This is why even though we disagree with United, we must not refuse donations that help our candidates win...once United is gone, then we have a level playing field ...until then...we need to live in the real world...the other side is getting huge donations to take our people out.

[cannabis_flower]

126. Bernie didn't lose because...

he ran out of money. There were other factors - he started too late. He had a lack of early name recognition. I'm sure his age was a factor with some, socialism was a factor with others but the issue was never lack of money.

[Demsrule86]

154. Bernie is unique...a very talented politician.

He also ran during a presidential election year...I doubt many could duplicate his success with money in an off year or any year really. We live in the age of United...and I for one don't want to lose...we need money...especially in 18...it makes a big difference...there will be 100 million minimum coming against Sherrod Brown in Ohio...we could lose that seat without proper financing. Look at the Delaware seat...flooded with money and attention and we won by 20 points...doubled the expected vote in a special election...have to live in the real world...we must repeal united but first we have to win elections.

[truebluegreen]

152. Clinton took the money and lost.

She raised 1.2 BILLION. Can't ignore that reality either.

[Demsrule86]

155. Money doesn't guarantee anything...it just gives you a fighting chance.

[ciaobaby]

29. Agreed.

This group will never allow even the discussion of this. I tried to bring it up and got the boot.

[JHan]

33. what you did was source an article from the conservative online blog Townhall...

... and they should be the last ones pointing the finger at Democrats where super pacs are concerned.

And if their headline is your take away from what happened today I don't know what to tell you.

[ciaobaby]

35. facts are facts regardless where they came from

I did not post anything that was not true. Just that I am concerned with DNC decisions, is that a crime?

The last DNC chair thought the solution lay in mega-wealthy donors and half-hearted solutions. She raised a tremendous amount of money - and cost her party over 1000 seats nationwide...

but the DNC thinks we should go down the same road at a time we desperately need new and young leadership. IMO

[JHan]

36. Spin is Spin, and I care where it comes from..

And this is my view on the matter:http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8709202

If you want to dredge up the past, my thread is not the place to do it.

[ciaobaby]

37. So it's "dredging up the past" to consider past failures and how to prevent them

again - corporate money is no guarantee we can win anything : The last DNC chair thought the solution lay in mega-wealthy donors and half-hearted solutions. She raised a tremendous amount of money - and cost her party over 1000 seats nationwide...

I don't know how the strategy will change but would very much like to see big changes.

[JudyM]

39. We need a plan. We could live with that. Let's see what Perez does, maybe he will start shifting

things a bit.

[ciaobaby]

40. Hope you are right.

[JHan]

44. "Corporatist" "Shill" "Big money"..

... that's what so many screamed last year and it helped give us fascism.

Every backward decision made by the Supreme Court favoring "big money" in politics - from Hobby Lobby, to Citizens United to FEC vs McClutcheon, was made possible by Republican appointees to the court.

Democrats are in favor of campaign finance reform, Democrats want to overturn Citizen's United. To make demands require that we are in a position to make those demands reality - we are not because we are weak.

This is a game, and we play to win. I am not about to let Idealism dissuade me from the grim reality we face. So if you want to mull over a blog post from Conservativesphere about our DNC chair, feel free, but don't expect me to join you.

[mopinko]

63. your concern is not a crime, but it is

a tell.

[BlueCaliDem]

82. Yep. A pretty crystal clear tell. eom

[radical noodle]

102. Taking contributions for the party from the mega-wealthy

doesn't necessarily add up to the reason those seats were lost, nor is there any reason to believe it.

I think it's fair to say almost all Dems would like to get Citizens United overturned, but until it is we need to live in the real world. There are also mega-wealthy donors who are liberals and Democrats.

[Demsrule86]

122. Wrong...we are not supposed to use right wing sites against fellow Democrats.

And the fact you think you found 'truth' there sends a message.

[LanternWaste]

156. What do you think the immediate and practical result of refusing money would be to the Democratic pa

What do you think the immediate and practical result (rather than the emotional and ethical reponse) of refusing money would be to the Democratic party?

[Bradical79]

17. Not sure what you mean

Last edited Sun Feb 26, 2017, 01:43 PM - Edit history (1)

You can't "disallow" Superpacs. They exist independently. As we saw with Sanders' campaign, he said he wouldn't rely on Superpacs, but it didn't really matter. Superpacs were set up to support him anyway.

Edit: nevermind, I just saw the vote. Now I know what you were talking about. I didn't know Superpacs could give directly to a political party.

[joshcryer]

51. Which was banned from 2009 until 2016.

Down ticket races were on their own.

[joshcryer]

50. You mean money Obama banned from '09 until '16?

The money that Republicans used to great effect to reverse Dean's 50 state strategy?

[Demsrule86]

123. We lost everything during those years...did you ever think banning the money

hurt us? I do think so.

[NurseJackie]

11. Way to go Keith! Class! Thank you!

Happy to see that he's totally above the angry lecturing finger-wagging perpetual-victim emoprog sore-loser back-handed passive-aggressive behavior that I'm seeing on twitter and elsewhere.

OMG! His supporters could take a lesson from him and try to adjust their tone to be more like Keith.

Be like Keith. Be calm, steady, professional, adult, optimistic, unifying and forward-looking.

All this talk about being "thrown under the bus" or "stomped on" or being "flipped off" really doesn't help.

[Ken Burch]

20. You couldn't be magnanimous even NOW?

In 2018 and 2020, we need the passionate, energetic support of those who worked in both major primary campaigns and the other primary campaigns as well.

In the name of victory...can you please just stop with this for awhile?

Can you at least try to be positive and inclusive and welcoming?

[NurseJackie]

47. Hoo boy!

In the name of victory...can you please just stop with this for awhile?

Stop what? You're very vague. How have I offended you now, Ken?

In 2018 and 2020, we need the passionate, energetic support of those who worked in both major primary campaigns and the other primary campaigns as well.

Exactly, so instead of scolding me for some imagined insult or slight, I think you'd be better trying to change the attitude of those who are still in attack mode and who are (still, again, yet again) using this as an opportunity to suggest our party is corrupt and that Perez is undeserving and incompetent. They're having a temper tantrum and insulting Perez and the party. Fuck that!

Can you at least try to be positive and inclusive and welcoming?

I am being positive and inclusive and welcoming. I'm rejecting and being EXCLUSIVE of the type of behavior that's divisive and that drags our party down. We don't need around here. This is about much more than the "hurt feelings" of a handful of "disappointed" watchers.

What kind of response do you recommend in order to pacify those who are perpetually unhappy? When my children were younger they'd have temper tantrums and I would NEVER reward them by giving in. To do so would only encourage MORE of the bad behavior. So why on EARTH do you think I'd want to coddle those who are having a temper tantrum today?

Politics is for adults. Not children.

Come on! Let's get busy! We've got work to do!

[Ken Burch]

94. How about this:

"This contest is over. Tom and Keith call us to work together in unity. As such we should treat each other with respect and seek common ground. I wish everyone on both sides of this discussion well".

[NurseJackie]

97. If you have Bernie's email address, you should forward that to him.

[brutus smith]

119. You tried Ken,

But some people always have to have the last word.

[NastyRiffraff]

62. What exactly upsets you so about her post?

That Keith Ellison has more class than many of his supporters and they should take a cue from him?

That there are passive-aggressive whiners on Twitter and DU? That's true.

If you're upset that Keith lost, fine. But don't shit on someone's post because you're having a sad.

[Gothmog]

75. He wants to remake the democratic party into the image of sanders

Sanders platform was not that popular with voters but we are still supposed to agree to remake the party into the image of sanders platform

[Ken Burch]

142. It was solely Bernie as an individual voters had problems with

His proposals, especially single-payer healthcare(he would have defended the ACA from repeal until single-payer could be put in place)and free public college, were and are popular.

Bernie lost the primary and I accept that-the party didn't reject his ideas and it harms nothing to keep working for those ideas.

[Gothmog]

71. The passion is not coming from people pushing sanders failed platform but from people against trump

I was a host for a state party training session for candidates running for local office. It was a long day but I kept myself amused on my ipad on twitter. I was so happy that Perez won.

The crowd was all people running for local office and people with Community Action Network and Indivisible. Every one in the room was thrilled at Perez winning.

I do not think that there will be any drop off in enthusiasm due to Perez winning and having a Latino as DNC chair actually made some of the local candidate very happy.

[Ken Burch]

96. It serves no good purpose for you to keep treating the Sanders movement with contempt and derision.

I have made it clear many, many times that I accept that your candidate prevailed in the primaries and the vast majority of Sanders people worked hard for her in the fall.

In many respects, Bernie's positions won the argument, and many of them are supported by former Clinton supporters now.

It does this party no good for you to keep treating the Sanders phenomenon as though it wasn't real and achieved nothing.

The Sanders v. Clinton rivalry is over now and you need to just accept that and stop acting as if you are the party and nobody else is.

We're all in this together and we're all working hard for the future.

BTW, I congratulated Perez for his victory.

[Cha]

146. Tell that to BS.. What she said is true.. he should take a cue from Keith

Link to tweet

Tom and Keith are United to lead our Party forward.. the one that goes on tv to throw out insulting buzzwords at Dems is the one who needs to take your post to heart.

[NurseJackie]

153. That was a great tweet from Keith. #BeLikeKeith

#BeLikeKeith

[Cha]

161. #BeLikeKeith

[Gothmog]

185. I have met and like Keith Ellison

I bought a table at a fundraiser where Ellison was the speaker. He is a nice man. I like the concept of BelikeKeith

[Gothmog]

73. I agree with your analysis

[JustAnotherGen]

77. Amen be like Keith

We have NJ and VA on deck this year - no time for nonsense. Just win!

[compsports]

116. Exactly

No time for petty BS with the upcoming 2017 VA and NJ elections.

[guillaumeb]

202. If only that class had been echoed in your response.

Let the past go. Relax and let it go.

[Crunchy Frog]

203. Of all the posts on this thread, I can't believe this one got alerted on.

[NurseJackie]

205. I know! Right? I would have hated to have missed that!

[guillaumeb]

207. But apparently unsuccessfully.

In spite of the admonition to not refight the primaries, it is obvious that some on both sides insist on doing just that.

In my view, by choosing Perez and Ellison as the faces of the DNC, the activists who make up the DNC have sent a message that all factions must work together if the Democrats are to regain power. That message, in my view, has not been internalized by some at DU.

[NurseJackie]

204. Ha!! :-D

Let the past go. Relax and let it go.

So you go back FIVE DAYS IN THE PAST looking for an old post of mine to get snarky and lecture me about how I should leave things "in the past"? Heeeee! OMG! You're funny!



That's freakin' hysterical!!!

[Gothmog]

206. LOL

[Rex]

15. He's right, time is short. nt

nt

[ismnotwasm]

16. K&R

(From work even)

[Ken Burch]

19. And with that, Keith proved that the suspicion and distrust directed his way was out of line.

Tom and Keith acted as grown-ups in this.

[Mars and Minerva]

23. It wasn't Keith or Tom that I was worried about. nt

[JHan]

38. I love Keith and respect Tom .. so it's a win win for me.

[NurseJackie]

83. Wrong. The distrust wasn't toward Keith. It was never about Keith the Man...

... it was about Keith the Proxy. I think it's more fair to characterize any resistance toward Keith as an attempt to avoid how his supporters would try to "spin" his possible victory. It really had nothing to do with his character or abilities.

The Susan Sarandons (and others) of the world would mistakenly believe that it should be interpreted as a "sign" that the Democratic party needs to be remade in the image of someone who isn't even a member of the party.

Be honest now, this isn't very far-fetched, now, is it? In fact, in many ways, this is very similar to the way that many are, even now, trying to spin his loss as "proof" that our party is "corrupt" (and other such nonsense).

At this late hour, Ken, my best advice to you is to try to be more like Keith.

If his most ardent supporters wanted Keith to win (Keith the Man, I mean) then they'd have absolutely no problems in taking their cues from him.

Be like Keith. Keith would like that.

[George II]

86. Very well put, NurseJackie, thank you. I loved Keith's comments after the vote was announced....

....he will be an excellent Deputy Chairman, and the two of them together could very well be dubbed the "Dynamic Duo".

[brer cat]

91. Well said, NJ! nt

[Ken Burch]

101. I did that by congratulating Tom.

Keith isn't giving up on fighting for his principles.

You need to be more like Tom-he isn't sniping at anyone and he isn't treating Sanders supporters like they're the enemy.

And the Sanders movement is not a cult...it's a legitimate and honorable political grouping like anything else in this party.

BTW...I don't defend Susan Sarandon's choice in the fall, so don't associate me with her.

[NurseJackie]

104. That's not all you did, Ken.

101. I did that by congratulating Tom.

That's not all you did ... you acted as if this was only about Keith the man, when you know it was about Keith the proxy. You acted as if there was NO other reason in the world that anyone could be opposed to Keith... pretending to be oblivious to everything that was going on around you. Come on, Ken. You're smarter than that. I know it. (And I'm smarter than you think I am. Don't play me for the fool.)

Keith isn't giving up on fighting for his principles.

Which would those be, and how do they differ from the man who was elected to be the party chair? (To hear you describe it, you're clearly implying that Keith is the "only one fighting" or the "only one with principles" and you're making the less than subtle innuendo that others (like Perez?) have no principles, or that they've compromised their principles.

You need to be more like Tom-he isn't sniping at anyone and he isn't treating Sanders supporters like they're the enemy.

I'm not the one jockeying for position and trying to manipulate others into conceding ground to a so-called "movement" that's already been soundly rejected.

And the Sanders movement is not a cult...

Weird choice of words. I wouldn't know about that.

...it's a legitimate and honorable political grouping like anything else in this party.

Which party? The DEMOCRATIC party? Since when?

BTW...I don't defend Susan Sarandon's choice in the fall, so don't associate me with her.

You don't have to defend her to be tainted by her. "Birds of a feather" and all that. People are known by the company they keep, intentional or not. That's just the way things to. It's not fair, but it's true.

[Ken Burch]

106. I'm not tainted by her and I'm not birds of a feather with her.

I supported Hillary in the fall. That proves I'm not in league with Ms. Sarandon.

[NurseJackie]

112. You're changing the subject and muddying the waters, Ken.

I supported Hillary in the fall.

Aw, gee. That's nice. But who said you didn't? In fact, who said anything about Hillary at all? Not me. (Perhaps it was you?) I thought we were talking about the DNC chair election. That is what we're talking about, right?

That proves I'm not in league with Ms. Sarandon.

Good grief, Ken. Who said anything about you being "in league" with anyone? Not me. (Perhaps it was you?) Look at you! Always trying to change the subject!

Now I know that you're easily offended when people are blunt with you. But sometimes, the truth hurts and you'll just have to accept it for what it is. Telling you the truth isn't "talking down" to you. Being blunt is not "disrespecting" you. You'll just have to face the fact that Sarandon's support of Keith sullied him. Yes, It did. There are no two ways about it. There's just not a "nice" way to say it. She amplified the distrust that had already been created by other non-party members who wanted Keith's victory to be some sort of proxy victory for party control.

I'm not tainted by her and I'm not birds of a feather with her.

Perhaps not you personally, but there are other she has caused damage in other ways. People are judged by the company they keep, by the politicians they support, and even by the (so-called) celebs who support those politicians.

Politicians are always "disavowing" support from embarrassing "celebs" or other notorious characters. Why? Because it ruins their reputation and calls their character into question. It's the same with the Sarandon Effect. The damage has been done. Sigh. What can ya do? Oh well. Just learn a lesson an move on.

Not everything is about you personally, Ken. The faux outrage at every little thing is tiresome. Quit inventing trouble where none exists, and you'll likely be a happier person.

So... anyway... now that that's cleared up. Do you care to apologize for insinuating that Perez has no principles or that he's compromised his principles? (Or did you think I'd forgotten?)

Be like Keith, Ken ... be like Keith.

Go, Democrats!

[Gothmog]

87. I tend to agree with the WP analysis

Sanders and Warren are losers here https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/25/winners-and-losers-from-the-democratic-national-committee-chairmans-race/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.0fce48046285

Losers
* Sens. Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren: The two most prominent voices of liberals in Washington made a show of force with very early endorsements of Ellison. The goal was to end the race before it started, discouraging other serious candidates from running. Didn't work. Not only did Perez get into the race but he won it. That sequence of events should raise real questions about just how much swat the Sanders/Warren wing of the party has. This was Ellison's race to win. He didn't.

I like Ellison but I resented the concept that we had to accept the take over the party by the sanders wing. Elliison is a good man but things like the endorsement of Ellison by Susan Sarandon may have hurt him

[NurseJackie]

89. That's absolutely correct ...

I like Ellison but I resented the concept that we had to accept the take over the party by the sanders wing. Elliison is a good many but things like the endorsement of Ellison by Susan Sarandon may have hurt him

People are catching on to her. People distrust her and question her motives. Anything she touches is now tainted and suspect. Smart politicians would be wise avoid her.

[fleabiscuit]

93. Sarandon is a first class bigot. nt

[NurseJackie]

90. Follow Up ...

... I forgot to add. The WP's analysis was brutal. They didn't hold back. It was honest.

That sequence of events should raise real questions about just how much swat the Sanders/Warren wing of the party has.

Based on the examples of emotional outbursts and lashing out we've seen on Twitter (and elsewhere) today... I imagine that those people too are coming to the same realization.

Frankly, that's the only explanation (not excuse) for the way that Sanders lashed out at Perez today with his backhanded and passive aggressive advice. As if he was an incompetent child who didn't deserve the position. Not what I'd expect from someone who wants to be the "senior statesman" who shapes policy within the party and who guides the Democratic party. He owes Perez an apology. He should have tried to be more like Keith.

[Gothmog]

186. Agreed, this takeover attempt by the Sanders faction failed

I am glad that Ellison and Perez are working together

[Ken Burch]

98. It wasn't a take over and Bernie's not a diabolical cult leader.

All it would have meant would be a switch to grassroots fundraising and a greater connection to social movements, rather than an exclusive focus on electoral victory.

Nobody in the Clinton coalition would have lost anything if the result had gone the other way.

P.S., Please tell me you don't feel the same way about Warren that you do about Bernie. Warren has done nothing to deserve that from you and nothing but good would come from her seeking the nomination.

The only chance we'll have in 2020 will be with some sort of firebrand outsider...no bland Beltway type and no one who was a previous major candidate will be electable. Only someone from a new generation will have a chance.

[NurseJackie]

113. I never really got the impression that "grassroots funding" was one of Keith's issues.

Did I overlook something or are you conflating something from one of the other candidates?

Nobody in the Clinton coalition would have lost anything if the result had gone the other way.

Who is saying such a thing? What makes you feel that way? You say the most outrageous things as if they're true, but you offer no proof other than saying them in an "off-the-cuff" manner (suggesting that no proof is needed). So... please elaborate and tell us more about this so-called "Clinton Coalition". I wasn't aware that there's still such a thing within our party. The primaries are over, Ken. They're OVER.

And, if a "Clinton Coalition" actually exists ... why should we just blindly accept that its "members" feel that they would have "lost" anything. You're making these statements without proof or consensus. You're being unnecessarily dismissive and unnecessarily confrontational.

Look, I know you're hurting and you're disappointed, but you're just going to have to get over this and stop treating everyone who supported Perez as if we're the enemy. We're not the enemy.

Warren has done nothing to deserve that from you and nothing but good would come from her seeking the nomination.

OMG! WTF does that even mean? Warren's done nothing to deserve what from Gothmog? What exactly did Gothmog do to attack Warren? Please explain.

So you're in a huff, because Gothmog agrees with an opinion writer? Defending Warren from an attack that never happened? Good grief!

The only chance we'll have in 2020 will be with some sort of firebrand outsider

Such as the "outsider" Bernie or the "outsider" Warren?

Only someone from a new generation will have a chance.

Oh, "new generation" ... I guess that's definitely Bernie. Right?

[Ken Burch]

128. Keith wanted the party to stop using corporate funding

He'd probably have brought in the type of funding model Bernie's campaign used...a model that was very effective on any fundraising metric.

And the claim that Bernie was trying to "Take over", was based on the claim that, if Keith had somehow won, everyone who supported Hillary over Bernie would somehow have been made powerless. Thanks for admitting that that wouldn't have happened and that it's not possible for any one person to run this party as their, her, or his personal fief.

I said I don't think Bernie or Hillary should run again. You know perfectly well I was expressing my actual views when I said that.

Bernie will be 79 in 2020...he's not going to run again. Just trust that already.

Can you explain why you're now expressing such cynicism towards Elizabeth Warren? You're implying that she's just another establishment insider, simply by virtue of the fact that she's won two terms in the Senate. You sound as if you're transferring your feelings about Bernie to her. If I've got that wrong, where are you actually going with this?

[NurseJackie]

129. Ugh. This is so tiresome.

Keith wanted the party to stop using corporate funding

I can't find anything that confirms that. I remember there was one also-rand candidate who wanted to ban "corporate funding" ... but if this was a centerpiece of Keith's campaign, he certainly failed as far as I'm concerned.

And the claim that Bernie was trying to "Take over", was based on the claim that, if Keith had somehow won, everyone who supported Hillary over Bernie would somehow have been made powerless.

I do not agree that anyone ever actually made that claim. The broader point is that an Ellison victory would be viewed as a victory-by-proxy and a continuation of the primary (and all the things that that entails... which has been endlessly discussed already.) Sarandon's endorsement of him didn't help either.

Thanks for admitting that that wouldn't have happened and that it's not possible for any one person to run this party as their, her, or his personal fief.

In order for me to "admit" something, I'd first have had to DENY it or made some other claim to the contrary. I've done neither. Please stop with the word games, Ken. You'll never win a "gotcha" word-game against me. I'm smarter than you think I am.

I said I don't think Bernie or Hillary should run again. You know perfectly well I was expressing my actual views when I said that.

No that's not what you said. When you get emotional and unnecessarily angry, your writing is not very clear at all, Ken.

Bernie will be 79 in 2020...he's not going to run again. Just trust that already.

It was a goddamn joke, Ken. I know exactly how old he is and how old he'll be. Jesus fuck! Lighten up! Of course he's not going to run again. I doubt he'll even run for Senate again but you never can tell. Still, I doubt it.

Can you explain why you're now expressing such cynicism towards Elizabeth Warren?

What cynicism? I have no idea what you're talking about? You'll have to be more specific than that.

You're implying that she's just another establishment insider, simply by virtue of the fact that she's won two terms in the Senate.

Well... she's a two-term senator... she's on the inside. That seems to be the very definition of what an insider is. (Bernie's an insider too. Do you deny that? Or do you want to play word games? Remember ... I'm smarter than you think I am.)

You sound as if you're transferring your feelings about Bernie to her. If I've got that wrong, where are you actually going with this?

I'm afraid I have no explanation for the things you imagine to be true. You're pretty much on your own when it comes to making sense of things that come from your own brain. I must admit, I'm at a complete loss.

[Ken Burch]

130. I don't accept that you're an insider simply because you've been in office for awhile.

Ron Dellums, one of my political heroes, was in Congress for decades and once chaired the Armed Services Committee. He was never an insider.

Wayne Morse, the legendary antiwar Democrat from my childhood home in Oregon, was a senator for 24 years. He was never an insider.

Neither was William Proxmire.

Neither are John Lewis, Maxine Waters, Al Franken, Tammy Baldwin or Sherrod Brown.

To be an insider, you need to see the status quo as something we're always going to be stuck with. You have to have given up on any notion of real change or of any significant political realignment for the better in the forseeable future.

Doesn't mean you're a monster, just means felt it necessary to shelve a lot of your dreams and perhaps your clarity of vision.

None of that applies to Warren.

[NurseJackie]

131. Well...

I don't accept that you're an insider simply because you've been in office for awhile.

... we have reached an impasse.

[Ken Burch]

132. And I'm not sure why it seems to be so important to you to label every possible candidate an insider

Why is that such a big thing for you?

[NurseJackie]

133. You're projecting.

[BainsBane]

158. Ellison said he would put the issue to a vote in the DNC

Jehmu Green was the only one who ran on rejecting corporate funding.

Don't you think Bernie's refusal to turn over his donor list upended the argument that the DNC should use the celebrity politician model of funding?

The Poltico article refutes your claim that it wasn't an effort by Bernie to assert control. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/sanders-revolution-resists-dnc-loss-235404

[Ken Burch]

159. The main reason for the "takeover" argument

Is that some are still obsessed, even though Bernie will never be a presidential candidate again, with perpetuating the idea that Bernie was and is fighting for a party that puts white men above everyone else. And that he's some sort of social democratic puppet master.

The demographic base of his primary support was accidental-his campaign and his supporters were never running AGAINST the groups that favored Hillary.

It's enough to say they just didn't communicate well enough with them, and as a result Bernie lost the nomination.

I accept that and I've always accepted that. We're past that.

There's no longer any reason to see things in Sanders v. Obama or Sanders v. Hillary terms, or Sanders supporters v. Hillary/Obama supporters terms.

All that would have happened had Keith prevailed was that the party would have increased its emphasis on fighting economic injustice(while continuing to center social injustice), would have connected more directly to activist politics, and would be a party run more from below than above. Those changes would actually have INCREASED the say of women, LGBTQ people, and people of color within the party. They would commit us to policies that would improve the lives of people in ALL of those groups.

The fact that Keith wanted corporate funding put up to a vote simply means he's committed to internal party democracy. It doesn't mean he didn't personally want the party to move away from corporate funding.

Bernie is just one man. He's not capable of singlehandedly controlling the Democratic Party even if he had wanted to, and Keith is his OWN man, as Tom recognized in offering him a kind of partnership.

At some point, you're going to have to accept that the war is over in this party.

Sanders people and Clinton/Obama people are NOT enemies.

[Gothmog]

134. Sanders revolution resists DNC loss

It was an attempted takeover. How do you explain sanders unleashing some nasty attacks against anyone who did not support Ellison http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/sanders-revolution-resists-dnc-loss-235404

ATLANTA — Sen. Bernie Sanders and his supporters went hard after anyone who wouldn't back Keith Ellison in the run-up to the Democratic National Committee chair election.

On Wednesday, Sanders phoned Jaime Harrison, the South Carolina Democratic chairman, who was on the verge of dropping out of the race, and made a heavy pitch for him to endorse Ellison as a transformational moment for the party.

The next day, when Harrison threw his support to former Labor Secretary Tom Perez instead, Ellison supporters worked off talking points and attacked Harrison as a corporate lobbyist insider who’d struck a crooked deal that didn’t pass their purity test.

New York Rep. Gregory Meeks had his own showdowns with the Sanders-inspired coalition. One of the few sitting members of Congress who had a vote in the DNC election here Saturday, Meeks was repeatedly threatened by supporters of Ellison and Sanders with a primary challenge if he backed anyone else.

These attacks were attempts to take over the party. The attacks on Harrison and Meeks are not the sign of someone who is friendly with the party.

[Ken Burch]

135. It was simply an expression of frustration about the way Keith was treated.

About the tactics used.

The campaign for Tom should JUST have been a campaign FOR Tom.

I wouldn't have said what Bernie said, for the record.

If Keith had won, he would have reached out to Tom and to those who supported Tom with the exact same degree of magnanimity that Tom showed to Keith. Their both personally decent stand-up folks.

An Ellison leadership victory would have been about uniting the progressive forces...ending the artificially created divide between "social justice" and "economic justice" supporters(two groups that, in reality, agree with each other about 95% of the time), and about augmenting the crucial social justice focus with an economic justice focus designed to turn the working and kept-from-working poor of all ages from nonvoters into voters. This can be done quite easily, and without betraying or abandoning anyone or anything.

It would not have been about disempowering or excluding any current Democratic voting blocs.

Hopefully, Tom and Keith will work together for the changes we need. Preserving the status quo in the party is not an option.

[Gothmog]

136. Why did Keith Ellison lose the DNC race?

A different WP analysis is very interesting and I agree with this part of the analysis https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/02/26/why-did-keith-ellison-lose-the-dnc-race/?utm_term=.ddf92ce89da9

DNC members were not ready to reject the Obama legacy. The basic critique of Bruenig et al is right: The leadership of the Democratic Party, nationally and in most states, has resisted acknowledging the failures of the Obama years. Brazile opened the first of the party's four “future forums” by telling Democrats that the DNC “failed you” in 2016 and “got cocky about our invincible blue wall.”

But for Brazile and other Democrats, the death blows to the party's 2016 campaign were struck by Russian hacking and by FBI Director James B. Comey. They have little time for the activists who say that the Democratic primary between Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and Hillary Clinton was “rigged” — the “evidence,” the establishment wing says, comes from emails hacked from the DNC and the Clinton campaign and released at damaging times to divide the party. (This is separate from the issue of then-DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz scheduling only a few, late party presidential debates, which even Perez criticized. When he stumbled and appeared to say that the primary had been “rigged,” he explained that he was talking only about the debates.)

The DNC, composed of leaders from 57 state and territorial parties and scores of at-large members, roiled with frustrations over how the Obama-era party had lost. But the left's critique of the Obama years — that it had pursued neoliberal policies and left running room for populists such as Donald Trump — is not yet accepted across the party.

It was notable when Ellison was endorsed by AFSCME, AFL-CIO and AFT leaders because their unions had endorsed Clinton while disagreeing with her on trade policy. But to more DNC members, the party was losing for a more prosaic reason — a lack of local investment. To the Obama administration veterans who backed Perez, and urged him into the race, Ellison and Sanders had criticized their policies without achieving anything of their own. They easily won over DNC members who agreed; they added votes from party activists who simply needed more money and support.

“The president himself has said we need to do more to rebuild the Democratic Party infrastructure,” Perez told the Huffington Post last year, referring to Obama.

Instead of focusing on attacking Obama policies, the better course is to rebuild the party and I believe that Perez is the better man for this job. The focus needs to be on rebuilding the party from the ground up and right now the Indivisible and other groups are fueling this more than the Sanders wing. At the last county democratic executive committee, there were three groups who spoke. The Indivisible group had 100+ at their first meeting and another group that used to be Pants Suits Nation has 900+ face book followers. The Our Revolution person talked about manifestos (nine times in two minutes) and said that they had almost a dozen people active. Things may change but the energy on the ground is not being driven in Texas by the Our Revolution people in my part of the state.

I am very glad that Perez won and I think that he is in a better position to rebuild the party from the ground up.

[Ken Burch]

138. You're assuming that Keith was CALLING for the party to reject the Obama legacy.

Keith's campaign and the Sanders movement are not about saying that everything Obama did was evil.

It's that we need to both recapture the original sense of possibility we all felt on Election Night, 2008, BEFORE the Obama movement was told to go away by the party insiders and before transformation was replaced by transactions and by the willingness to concede control of the debate to the right.

To me, the Sanders phenomenon is about reviving what was lost, what should never have been lost...it's about honoring the intent of the Obama movement and the Obama coalition.

It's not rejection to say we need something new.

We all want to rebuild, but we can only rebuild by embracing change.

It's about a fusion of the best of the old and the best of the new.

BTW...if you're quoting a piece blaming Comey and the Russians for the 2016 result, you pretty much have to admit Bernie and his supporters weren't to blame.

[Gothmog]

139. Read the article-Sanders was making this argument on behalf of Ellison

Under the law there are can be more than one factor causing an event. Just because Russia and Comey played a role does not negate the role that Stein and Sanders played

[Ken Burch]

140. Bernie himself is blameless.

He refused to take up Stein's offer to let him stand on the Green ballot line. He endorsed Hillary and campaigned for her. He's not responsible for everything anyone who purported to be one of his supporters did.

And as to the convention...even with the protests(I disapprove of the booing of John Lewis and of the way they treated your daughter-neither thing should have happened), we left Philly with a huge lead in the polls. We were strengthened by the week and by the addition of Sanders proposals to the platform.

If the fall campaign had FOCUSED on the platform, rather than wasting hours of hours of ad time on the useless strategy of calling Trump a scumbag(yes, he WAS a scumbag, but the voters didn't CARE...even the moderate Republican housewives from the 'burbs that the emphasis on calling out Drumpf were supposed to attract) the Comey intervention would not have mattered. High turnout would have assured us of victory.

She talked about the platform in the speeches, but the speeches didn't matter because they usually didn't get covered. The ads mattered.

If our ads had focused solely on the platform, we'd have won.

If they'd done that AND the ads had also said "no TPP" and "we stand with Standing Rock", we'd have won in a landslide.

I say this as someone who wanted the Clinton-Kaine ticket to win as much as you did. I say this as someone who thinks the nonvoters should have voted anyway. And I say it as someone who realizes that the only way to turn nonvoters INTO voters is to campaign FOR, rather than just AGAINST.

Now, we have to make some changes if we are to win, if we are to defend the people the Clinton campaign claimed it was focused on defending(and which both campaigns actually cared about defending with equal passion).

None of those changes would harm any Democratic voting bloc.

[Gothmog]

141. I strongly disagree with your analysis and conclusions but you are getting off track

The key issue is not this but the fact that the DNC did the right thing and selected Tom. As noted above, the party rejected the claims made by the sanders wing and the party made a good choice here. I am not going to rehash the primary on this board but I am glad that the party elected Tom Perez as chair.

[BainsBane]

143. "No Standing Rock"

Last edited Tue Feb 28, 2017, 05:07 AM - Edit history (1)

Would have won 70 millions votes? That's what you think those lunchbox voters in the rust belt whose lives and votes are more valuable than the millions disenfranchised voters of color that so-called progressives can't bother to mention? The coveted GOP white male voted with the Klan, but some TV ads--because all people care about, according to you, is television ads--proclaiming opposition to standing rock would have sealed the deal. All those people excited to see brown people rounded up just needed to see a TV ad proclaiming solidarity for Standing Rock.

Have you ever talked to a voter in your life? Have you ever gone canvassing? Made phone calls?
Because I have, and not one person ever mentioned Standing Rock, and I live in fucking Minnesota!

That has got to be the most out-of-it piece of Monday morning quarterbacking I have ever seen. If you're such a brilliant political strategist, how come none of your candidates ever win elections?

It truly is astounding to see people who profess to be on the left advocate sinking hundreds of millions of dollars into corporate media coffers. We saw a campaign run exactly that way last year, with record- breaking amounts spent on advertising and very little on organizing. In that case, the person was able to rake in a good ten million in commissions for ad placement. What's your excuse?

[Gothmog]

157. Great post-real life is very different from amusing posts on an internet board

I like living in the real world and I am working in the real world. The real world that I am seeing is very different from the post you are referencing

[Ken Burch]

160. To clarify my intent...I was talking about two DIFFERENT constituencies in that post. My bad.

"No TPP" would have made it much harder for Trump to peel off lunch box voters. Take that out, and he didn't have enough to win them over. Racial resentment by itself would not have flipped that many of them.

"We Stand With Standing Rock" would have flipped the third-party left our way. It would have said to them "things really have changed and the Dems are listening again".



Our party's strategy with both groups was simply to demand their votes. The "You HAVE to vote for us" strategy has been used with next to no let-up since 1980 or so. I agree that all these people should have just voted for us, but the electoral results since 1980 prove that that doesn't work.

The presidential elections we've won in this century(2008 and 2012) were based on saying "here's why you SHOULD vote for us...we NEED your votes".

What I'm saying is we COULD have run a campaign like that this fall, with the campaign ads focusing on the platform and those two fairly small changes(changes that wouldn't have harmed anyone in the Obama/Clinton coalition) and probably won.

[BainsBane]

163. When are you going to figure out people don't vote based on policy?

There is actual data from the election that you have avoided like the plague because it doesn't suit your agenda.
Trump voters had a variety of views on trade, on healthcare, on every issue EXCEPT RACE. Surveys of Trump voters demonstrate that the one thing they agree with is that white people have it rough in America and people of color have too many advantages. That you imagine TV ads would change that is ridiculous. I seriously doubt most Americans even know what TPP is. Why do you suppose Trump always talked about NAFTA rather than TPP?

Those third party fascists hate Hillary and the Democrats with a passion. They continue to defend Trump. They celebrate the destruction of they country. They cheer the immigration raids and Muslim ban. You can read their ramblings anytime at raftucker/Putin troll underground (JPR). That you think those assholes would have suddenly decided that policy mattered more than their hatred for Clinton if only they'd seen an ad on Standing Rock is stunningly disconnected from reality.

TV ads aren't a campaign, yet you think that is all that matters. People don't even watch TV ads anymore. Candidates who focus overwhelmingly on TV don't win. You know who NEVER runs ads? Keith Ellison, and he says it's because they are worthless. Instead, he focuses on voter turnout. Turnout is the one thing you could actually help with, except for some reason you prefer to pretend you're some media consultant, when you clearly haven't got the skill.

Quit using the word "we." You didn't run a campaign. You are not the Clinton campaign. I don't know that you even volunteered. You don't seem to have ever spoken to actual voters. If you want to look at what can be done better, start with yourself. What can YOU do to turn out voters? But you won't do that becuase you rather sit from the sidelines and make absurd claims about what would win, when you have no fucking clue, as your track record demonstrates clearly. Your advice on what constitutes a winning campaign sucks. The results speak for themselves. Your candidates ALL lose, and then you blame the ones who win for not acting like the losers.

[Ken Burch]

164. You have no reason to respond with hostility.

by WE, I meant Democrats. I also meant you and I, because there's not really that much we disagree about and there's no reason for any bad blood between us.

And I did work for Hillary in the fall. I volunteered for three months at the Democratic office in Olympia(I could even get someone to vouch for me if it's that important to you), phoning people, block-walking, putting together handouts, whatever was needed.. I wanted her to win as much as you did. I grieve the result as much as you do. Why do you still refuse to believe that?

I spoke to actual voters all the time. Over and over again, the people I spoke with, in person, on the phone and on line, mentioned trade. They also said they thought Hillary was more likely to get us into war than Trump(I fought like hell to persuade them otherwise, but I didn't have a hell of a lot to work with. People vote on the issues that affect them. Trade affects them. Yes Trump said NAFTA, but he also said TPP and trade deals in general, and he pledged to kill TPP. His doing that is the only non-psychotic thing the man is ever likely to do as president.

Of course we need to speak out against racism and all forms of institutional bigotry, and LOUDLY-but that isn't the only issue and speaking out racism by itself, important as it is, can't ever turn this year's defeat into victory in future victory.

If we assume we only lost because of racism or irrational hatred of Hillary, it's over for us forever. There's no way for us, based on that assumption, to ever increase our support, to ever increase turnout, and to ever win another election. There simply won't ever be any significant increase in the numbers of voters any group in our current demographics, no matter what. We need to turn nonvoters into voters, and that means finding some way of connecting with the poor and the alienated-not racists, not Hillary-haters(Hillary will never run again, so nobody's feelings about her are going to matter anymore), not zealots, but people whose votes we SHOULD be receing yet don't manage to somehow.

As to tv ads...of course they aren't an entire campaign...but they are important-especially if the press aren't covering our candidates' speeches, as often happened with Hillary. Ads are one way to connect with people. Would you at least agree that it was a mistake to focus the vast majority of the Clinton-Kaine ads on calling out Trump as a scumbag?

BTW, I'm part of the Knock Every Door group, which is devoted to turning out voters. Most of the work I did in the fall campaign was about voter turnout. I care about turnout as much as you do and work to cause it as much as you do.

ALL I'm saying is we can't increase turnout WITHOUT actually proposing ideas to help people, which are what policies are.

If policies didn't matter, we wouldn't bother drafting a platform.

It's not possible to increase turnout simply by focusing on the ground game for the SAKE of the ground game OR simply by shouting "we're against bigotry".

There's no non-policy way to connect with people.

I'm just trying to get us elected in 2018 and 2020.

It's impossible to do that by running a "bring back the Obama years" campaign.

Democrats have never regained power after any defeat by promising to return to the past.

[Gothmog]

166. I live in the real world and have actually worked on campaigns

The real world is very very different from an internet board and in the real world things like platforms do not matter that much. Go work on a real campaign and get some real world experience

[Ken Burch]

172. I've worked on real world campaigns for forty years now.

I've block-walked and canvassed. I've put mass mailings together. I've phone-banked. I've participated in caucuses where the state I lived in had ALWAYS had caucuses(I personally prefer primaries), and in primaries where there were primaries.

You have never had any call to accuse me of not living in the real world. You have no call to personally disparage me at all.

If platforms didn't matter:

The South wouldn't have walked out of the 1948 convention just because a MILD civil rights plank was added.

LBJ wouldn't have MADE the Dems lose in 1968 just to keep the party's platform on record in supporting continued involvement in Vietnam.

In 1972, there would not have been bitter fights over whether abortion or gay rights were mentioned in the platform(contrary to popular belief, neither were).

In 1980, there would not have been wrangling between the Carter and Kennedy campaigns over economic justice language.

In 1984, Gerry Ferraro, as platform committed chair, would not have tried to take official endorsement of the ERA OUT of the platform(even though she knew that wouldn't have gained us any votes anywhere) and the Mondale campaign wouldn't have resisted most of the anti-nuclear platform language that was proposed.

In 1988, the Dukakis campaign wouldn't have blocked most of the language Jesse Jackson wanted in the platform.

In 1992, Bill Clinton wouldn't have pushed the platform massively to the right.

In 2004, John Kerry wouldn't have refused to allow anti-Iraq War language in the platform

If platforms didn't matter, the nominee would let the party put whatever language in that it wanted.

Nothing matters MORE than the platform.

If the platform doesn't matter, what the hell does?

Voters elect candidates to do things.

[BainsBane]

167. If we assume we only lost because of racism or irrational hatred of Hillary,

Only if one accepts that Republicans have the right to disenfranchise people of color and insist a few thousand white voters in the rust belt matter more.

Data matters. Any proclamations about the election that don't draw on data are worthless. What you wish to be the case isn't evidence of voting behavior.

You heard about trade: Did they specifically mention TPP? How about Standing Rock? Because your comment was TV ads saying "no TPP" and "no Standing Rock" would have changed the outcome. Trade and jobs are not the same as saying "no TPP."
Olympia, WA? That state went for Clinton pretty handily even without your magical advertising advice.

[Ken Burch]

169. I agree with you that we need to fight voter disenfranchisement.

Nothing I said there equates to minimizing the importance of that.

Everyone on the left side of the political spectrum is committed to ending voter suppression, all equally committed.

Re-enfranchising people of color isn't enough. We don't get enough additional votes with just that.

And trade deals affect working-class people of all races...there was lower voter turnout among working-class voters of all races. That lower turnout(not ALL of which was due to voter suppression).

Why is it so important to you to deny that TPP made a difference?

The only people who would have benefited from TPP are white male billionaires.

It had nothing in it at all that was good for people of color OR LGBTQ people or women.

[BainsBane]

197. My point isn't that trade and the economy didn't make a difference

It was that I am doubtful most people know what TPP is. I dispute your idea that Clinton would have won if only she'd devoted more money to corporate media advertising on the slogans you referenced. You insist those two slogans would have changed the outcome of the election. It's incumbent on you to provide proof. Of course you have none. Moreover you're not interesting in learning what data exists. What matters is what you WANT to believe, nothing else.

If everyone is so concerned about voter disenfranchisement, why do they never talk about it? Why was there such opposition to Tom Perez by so-called progressives when that is what he highlighted? Why has their been so much focus on white male Trump voters to the exclusion of massive disenfranchisement? What people focus on reveals their priorities. The numbers of disenfranchised voters are FAR, FAR greater than the tens of thousands of white male voters in the midwest your crowd insist was the key to the election. You have to know the numbers of disenfranchised voters of color far exceed the 50-80k advantage in Trump's vote in the rust belt. Yet you were among those insisting we had to focus on those voters to win again. Why? Because Bernie said so.

Also, if you are going to focus on those rust belt voters, that requires listening to them. You think you can run ads that contradict their concerns (No Standing Rock, which is really no pipeline) and they aren't going to notice? You can focus on banning fracking and workers in that industry won't notice their jobs are on the chopping block? Is it really worth a resurgence in coal--the dirtiest energy that exists--because fracking is the cause du jour? It would be nice if people cared about a comprehensive energy policy to wean the country off fossil fuels, but that was roundly denounced by so-called progressives who decided all that mattered was punishing frackers.

Your comments on TPP are what you say about everything you don't like and don't bother to learn much about. It is precisely what you said for years about Clinton and not too far off what you said about Perez. I don't claim to know a great deal about the details of TPP, but I know enough not to take your word for it.

[Ken Burch]

199. There was no difference between Tom and Keith on voter disenfranchisement.

It goes without saying Keith would have placed the exact same emphasis on the issue, and I don't need to remind you of why.

And those who preferred Keith(not all of whom were Sanders supporters...Chuck Schumer endorsed the guy early and backed him 'til the end) were not opposed to Tom because of his voter disenfranchisement position. It was other issues.

Voter disenfranchisement was going to be top of the list no matter who won the chairmanship. There's no disagreement and no debate on that.

But just re-enfranchising voters is not enough.

We can't ever run the exact same campaign we ran in 2016 again.

We can't win by saying "vote to go back to the years between 2008 and 2016"/

We need to make sure to offer a program that speaks to people's needs enough to get them to go to the polls.

And when the party campaigns, it needs to focus the campaign ON that program. Ads aren't the only part of a campaign, but they are a major part of it. And our ads this fall were a disaster and a disservice to the Clinton-Kaine ticket.

Why did the ads and the speeches keep focusing on calling out Trump on sexism and general jerkitude(which he did deserve to be called out on, obvlously) when the polling the campaign had showed that that emphasis wasn't gaining us votes and when voters kept saying that they didn't CARE about Trump's personal sleaziness? The party's proposals were all popular, and all I'm saying is that if the campaign had focused mainly on making a positive case for our ticket and our ideas, that would have made the difference. It's what I've said for years: We need to campaign FOR(as President Obama did)rather than just against. And like him, we need to ask people for their votes, not just demand them.

I'll deal with your other points here:

TPP was the subject of organizing efforts across the country. The AFL-CIO prioritized killing the deal. We should have run ads in heavy rotation in the Upper Midwest emphasizing that, if elected, we would stop that deal and that we'd offer a new strategy to revive the Rust Belt.


Trump hit the trade issue over and over and over again. If he didn't say TPP(he did publicly vow to kill it, for the record) in every speech, it was obviously what the he meant.

That agreement was thrown in my face over and over and over again in the conversations, in person and online, that I had, in "the real world".

Even if you don't believe TPP itself was widely known, the damage done by NAFTA and GATT before it, damage disproportionately affecting working people and the poor of all races and in much of the world, is common knowledge and is burned into the memory of working-class communities of all colors everywhere, and you could walk into any union hall or any working-class bar and hear people talking about it.

Standing Rock was a huge issue with activists all over the country. Working against that was just as important to antiracist work(the pipeline is an attack on the physical survival of one of the most vulnerable groups of indigenous people in the country. People were freezing in the North Dakota fall and winter over that. You couldn't run ads on that IN the Upper Midwest...you'd target them to college towns where we needed to get volunteers and break down the Stein vote(we could have held her to half of what she took, and that, by itself, would have flipped Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania(look at the returns and you'll see what I'm saying).

Even without formally saying "we stand with Standing Rock", we could have done something to reach out to that struggle...we could have sent warm clothing or tents out to them(in the spirit of President Kennedy sending out hot coffee to antinuclear demonstrators outside the White House during his administration). Things like that do a lot to open people to us. as a party.

And I'm not going to post again for the rest of the day, please know this about me:

Nothing I post is part of a "strategy" or of some sort of plot to make Bernie into a global emperor or anything. This is just what I stand for on my own. And I do it all to help us, in some small way, to get to a better place. If you don't agree with me...fine. But could you please stop acting like I can't be trusted or as if I have a hidden agenda? I don't. What you see is all there is.

[NurseJackie]

168. Oh, please! BainsBane wasn't being hostile. It was being direct and blunt and not mincing words.

Accusing someone of being "hostile" (when they haven't actually been) appears to be a tactic that's intended to convince the reader that the other person's valid points should be dismissed. Using the word "hostile" is a subtle way to characterize someone as being irrational. It implies that the other person cannot think clearly and has resorted to hostility over rational thought and logical arguments.

That's absolute hogwash! It's complete nonsense... and you know it! Changing the subject to someone else's imagined "bad behavior" is a distraction and a sign of weakness or desperation that I usually see from someone who knows they're losing the argument.


#BeLikeKeith

[Ken Burch]

171. There was nothing in my post to be "blunt" about.

I wasn't attacking anybody or doing anything harmful.

That poster acts as if everything I say is part of some sort of plot...as if it's all an attack on her and those she fights for. None of what I posted there was an attack on anyone. It was just a respectful call for change.

It's time to admit the war is over. We aren't Sanders people or Clinton people now...we're just people and we all have a right to be here.

[NurseJackie]

175. Well, Ken...

Ken Burch 171. There was nothing in my post to be "blunt" about.

That statement makes no sense. Bainsbane was direct and blunt. I know you don't resent strong women, so I'm wondering what your problem is with her.

I wasn't attacking anybody or doing anything harmful.

Irrelevant. Unnecessary distraction. Nobody said you were.

That poster acts as if everything I say is part of some sort of plot...

No she doesn't. Why would you accuse her of that? I know you're not paranoid, but the things you're saying leave you open to suspicion and ridicule. You should probably choose your words and retorts a little more carefully. Actually, I had to chuckle because it kind of reminded me of that old saying "you're not paranoid if people really are out to get you" ... right?

as if it's all an attack on her and those she fights for.

Are you projecting? I hope not. I can assure you that Bainsbane is confident enough and intelligent enough to not have such feelings of inferiority or paranoia or victimhood.

None of what I posted there was an attack on anyone.

Again... who said that it was? Nobody. Nobody said that. That's twice now (in this message) that you've used that distraction technique. You do that a lot. It's annoying. Some friendly advice: you need to stop.

Here's what happened: Someone disagreed with you and challenged you. In response, you get all huffy and pretend that they are over-reacting... that they are somehow "disrespecting" you... and that they're treating you as if you're the attacker (when in reality, you're just the "victim", right?)

You're changing the subject, pretending to be victimized, and in so doing, you avoid having to address (or even acknowledge) the valid points that someone else made. And you also avoid having to answer to the valid criticisms. People aren't as clueless as you imagine them to be, Ken, and they're catching on to you. (It's not just me.)

It was just a respectful call for change.

No, it was a tactical maneuver. A repetitive one, a tiresome one. It's old and predicable. It's not as effective as you may imagine. (Frankly, I didn't notice anything particularly "respectful" in your post/s. As per usual, it was a bit on the preachy side and having none of the deference that you apparently demand from others. One would think that if such things were truthfully so important to you, then you'd give them in return... to set a good example as it were. But you don't... and that's fine... we're all adults here. But the fact that you don't makes your sorrowful "hurt feelings" claim ring a bit hollow.

It's time to admit the war is over. We aren't Sanders people or Clinton people now...

Ahh... that's another predicable passive-aggressive defense. I didn't say anything about "Sanders vs Clinton" in this subthread. Did Bainsbane? Did anyone other than you? If so... well... shame on them. If not, shame on you.

So, okay... we're all one-big-happy-family (united-against-Trump) and this means what, exactly? That because of our common enemy, you are now immune from criticism or having your worldview challenged? How convenient for you (if it were true, but it's not).

...we're just people and we all have a right to be here.

You like that one, don't you? You use it a lot. It's the verbal equivalent of a pro-sports player faking an injury... just for the automatic time-out... so the s/he can catch their breath, rest and regroup. It's obvious and it's ineffective.

The old "I have a right to be here" retort is one that suggests (falsely) that someone has told you don't have a right to be here. But, alas, that would be untrue... because nobody has said such a thing to you.

Anyway... I hope you have a wonderful week. You're the greatest! I like you a whole lot!

[center]
#BeLikeKeith

[/center]

[Ken Burch]

176. Nothing I said was a tactical maneuver

And I AM like Keith...Being like Keith doesn't mean giving up speaking out for change. It means being positive, and I'm nothing BUT positive.

[NurseJackie]

179. Oh dear!

Ken Burch 176. Nothing I said was a tactical maneuver

Yes it was. Even this weak denial is a tactical and distracting move.

And I AM like Keith...

No... I don't believe so.

Being like Keith doesn't mean giving up speaking out for change.

Who said that it did? Seriously... WHO SAID THAT? Show me, RIGHT NOW, where anyone said that? --- You can't, because NOBODY said that. This is (yet again) just an imaginative distraction that has nothing to do with anything ... but allows you to pretend to be shackled or victimized.

It means being positive, and I'm nothing BUT positive.

Really? I don't think so. I'm pretty sure that "positive" isn't a word that would immediately pop into someone's mind. Maybe "confident" would be a better alternative. "Passionate" might work as well. In fact, I guess I have to admit that I kind of admire how you really don't care how you come across to others. Not caring what people think is definitely a sign of being "confident" so that definitely applies.



So, anyway, have a nice sunny day.


#BeLikeKeith

[Ken Burch]

191. I spend as much time fighting Trump as you do.

Nothing I'm saying does harm or has the potential to do harm.

[NurseJackie]

193. That really depends on how you define the word "harm", doesn't it? Based on ...

... your absolute and total misunderstanding of what the word "attack" means it wouldn't be very prudent of me to either agree or disagree with you with regard to your most recent non sequitur.

Nothing I'm saying does harm or has the potential to do harm.

It would also depend on whom (or what cause) you think is (or isn't) being harmed. And it would depend on whether the person listening to you (or reading your words) decided to take action (or do nothing in particular) because of something you wrote which happened to be completely inaccurate or short-sighted.

So I'm assuming that you were able to process everything else I previously wrote and that you took them to heart. I arrive at this conclusion because you've got nothing specific to say about them, and you have (thankfully) not accused me of trying to chase you away, or "silence" you, or other such emotional "victim" statements.

We simply disagree on a great many issues and when you're wrong about something (or when you have a misunderstanding or misguided notion) then it's important for me (and others) to correct your incorrect statements, or to bring some some reality and common sense to the thread.

For many of the topics that you desire to appear as an expert, sadly, it's easy to see that you exhibit a bit of tunnel-vision. Often, this is to the exclusion of all other data and information that's readily available. Also, it seems that you're unable to adjust or accept new information whenever things change. You may see it as being your own personal "resoluteness" but in reality, it's more like an inability to adapt to fluid circumstances, and it is a weakness. The narrow and almost obsessive focus on a very limited range of topics is what I believe is why some have characterized it as not being a part of the "real world" or being "unrealistic".

191. I spend as much time fighting Trump as you do.

Are you kidding me? What the fuck does this even MEAN? It's unclear to me how you believe that you're able to make such a statement with any sense of accuracy or authority. How would you know, one way or the other? Are you stalking me in real life?

So... of course you aren't stalking me. You live much too far away. But here, once again, is a perfect example of how you're prone to say things (or type things) without thinking them through. It's very reactionary and even without so much a proof-reading, you hastily click the "Post my reply" button with very little regard to what you've actually said, or the potential consequences. (Let alone whether or not your message or your point is being made.)

Symptoms of this would include excessively editing messages (beyond correcting spelling, punctuation, or formatting) or having to completely delete one's own OP when it becomes obvious that it's hopeless taken a turn for the worse. I think you can relate to that, can't you?

Anyway... I'm sure you're a good guy for the most part. Perhaps you're just misunderstood because of your passion and haste. That would help to explain why it is you apparently rub people the wrong way. My advice to you would be to slow down and think. Maybe wait a few hours before replying to someone. Or compose your message offline, print it, read it on paper (instead of on screen) and see if you still feel the same way one hour later. If not, make changes, and then cut and paste your reply.

If you'd done something like that with your most recent reply, maybe you'd have realized how (unintentionally) creepy-stalker it comes off sounding.

Have a lovely rest of your day. Peace and blessings to you.


#BeLikeKeith

[Gothmog]

184. Great post

[NurseJackie]

195. Thanks!

[BainsBane]

187. No, that poster doesn't act as if everything you say is part of some plot

Of that it's a personal attack on me. I believe I was quite clear that I thought your political insights were anything but insightful.

It was just a respectful call for change.

It's time to admit the war is over. We aren't Sanders people or Clinton people now.

What you argued was that Perez' candidacy was somehow illegitimate. If the war is over, stop fighting it. Quit insisting that everything is an attack on progressives, and the only legitimate change involves Bernie's pick for DNC chair or his view of the election. You claim it's not about "Sanders people or Clinton people" but your arguments show otherwise. Ellison has said the DNC election wasn't rigged. He is going around with Perez calling for unity. You could quit complaining about the outcome, how "progressives" (actually Bernie) were robbed of their rightful dominion over the party. The fact is what you claim to to want and what you spend your time arguing about are diametrically opposed.

[Ken Burch]

189. I accepted that Perez has won. Nothing I said in the post you just responded to was about Perez.

If I didn't accept that I wouldn't have started a thread in the Sanders group asking people there to give him a chance now that he's won and I wouldn't have started a thread in GD congratulating Tom for his victory.

I like him as a person.

My issue was not with him as a person, it was simply with people supporting him to stop somebody or something else. Nothing needed to be stopped.

And we're past the DNC chair vote now.

I support unity. I also continue to speak out for the principles I support. Those aren't diametrically opposed things.

There's no hidden agenda in anything I post.

[Gothmog]

165. The Platform never really matters in a race

People who think that the platform matters have never worked in a real campaign

[Ken Burch]

170. You are not the official arbiter of reality.

And if the platform didn't matter, the Clinton-Kaine people wouldn't have insisted on leaving enough ambiguity in the trade plank to make it possible for HRC to back the TPP after all.

If TPP didn't matter, Trump wouldn't have made killing the deal one of his first acts in office.

Why are you so obsessed with trying to discredit people on a personal level? A decent human being focuses her or his argument on the actual points the other person makes in an argument. If you disagree with what I or someone else calls for, fine. That doesn't give you leave to try to prove people who disagree with you shouldn't even be listened to and aren't qualified to say anything. Personal attack is what Republicans do.

[Gothmog]

173. I live in the real world and have actually worked on campaigns

The real world is very different from an internet board. You can post all you want but do not expect anyone to take your posts seriously unless you show some understanding of the real world. I have been volunteering for a long time and the running joke that it only took my 15 or so years of hard work to be elected as a delegate to the National Convention. There is a lady from another district who was complaining that it took her 25 years to make it.

A week from night we have a meeting of the governing group of my county's Indivisible group. There was an initial meeting last week that had over 100 people at it. Have you been to a meeting on an Indivisible group yet??? It is not hard to find a group near you. https://www.indivisibleguide.com/groups-nav Why don't you attend one and ask if the platform mattered? At the last meeting that I attended, a dozen or more people were very worried about losing their health care if the ACA is gutted by trump but not one person talked about single payer.

I like working in the real world. Come visit.

[Ken Burch]

177. I've worked on campaigns for decades. I've worked on ground game for decades

I've blocked-walked(all door-to-door canvassing is "block-walking", and all of it is just as hard as what you think block-walking is). I've phone-banked. I've put handouts together and worked on mass mailings. I've attended state conventions in primary AND caucus states.

Being in the real world doesn't have to mean believing winning elections is NOTHING but "ground game".

It doesn't have to mean believing that Democrats can ONLY win by running as a anti-left centrists(Every Democrat who has lost a statewide race in Texas for the past twenty years ran as a bland centrist....THAT's the real world down there).

It doesn't have to mean reducing politics to nothing but increments and checking dreams at the door.

And it doesn't have to mean believing that fighting to save the ACA requires a person to forever give up on fighting for single-payer.

Everyone who supports single-payer is active in the fight to save the ACA.

What is it about what I post that so frightens you? The only explanation for your obsession with trying to discredit and silence me is that you're afraid that people are listening to what I say. Nothing I've called for would cost the party votes.

[JHan]

174. and you never asked yourself what Trump's trade narrative was based on?

it was offensive because it was based on xenophobia which was connected to race which was connected to whiteness which goes back to the original point Bainsbane raised: That race issues were the only consistent issue among most Trump voters ( I can give latitude to the usual banal "change" voters who rattle on about change without ever thinking what "change" actually means)

And I'm not reaching here at all:

Trump's stupid trade narrative summed up in a nutshell ""we've been letting china and mexico walk all over us. We're not winning anymore!!" yes , I'm sure Mexico and China and the rest of the world have been laughing at America, amazed at how America allows everyone to take advantage of her, yes I'm sure The impetus or the animus behind Trump's rhetoric was resentment.

It's amazes me that people who have lived most of their lives after WW2 have a problem with a globalised economy in which FTA's have played a vital role in lifting people out of poverty. Why fuss now? Why fuss about two trade deals involving non-white peoples ( Mexico and the Pacific Rim) when America has been the main beneficiary of trade agreements since the formation of GATT.

Far right populism based on xenophobic rhetoric found kinship with naive populism on the left : It was a clusterfuck I'm happy clinton/kaine didn't indulge for votes.

Trump "killing" the deal was PR but also because he's selling protectionism, but it will also ultimately hurt us in the end, and already Mexico is picking up on it and making threats.

And to throw a wench in these anti-trade narratives - In US, Record-High 72% See Foreign Trade as Opportunity

[Ken Burch]

178. It was largely based on people losing jobs in the Upper Midwest.

Yes, Trump used this cynically, yes, there was xenophobia...but if the Upper Midwest had been prosperous, if those states had had full-employment economies run on New Deal values, the xenophobia would never have taken root and Trump would never have gained votes on this. Hate and fear always grow in times of want and recession.

BTW, a lot of people of color opposed TPP(look at the economic justice section of THIS document, for example: https://policy.m4bl.org/platform/) . A lot of Mexicans see NAFTA as a tragedy for their country.

It's not as simple as "white folks against NAFTA/GATT/TPP-POC for NAFTA/GATT/POC".

We can have global trade without things like tribunals in which corporations can get laws passed by elected governments thrown out...tribunals that have no representatives from communities of color, or labor, or environmental groups.

There was no way to get things like that added to TPP, because Congress agreed to a "fast track&quot take it or leave it)vote. Had that passed, TPP would have been in place forever and any changes to it would have been impossible.

We can do better trade policy than that. It doesn't have to be a race to the bottom, and it doesn't have to drive anyone's wages down.

Let's do trade deals from the bottom up...not the top down. On human terms, not corporate terms. Is that asking so much?

[JHan]

180. That's not because of Trade, but automation

Folks need to get this right.

Manufacturing jobs lost over the span of decades are never coming back. They began to wane in the 70's due to improved technologies and job loss is now accelerated because of automation.

Stubbornness, due to ideology, or just a refusal to face reality is why stupid policy gets implemented.

What DID not help was a management culture which sprouted up in the 80's ( especially) which prioritized short term profit over sustained wealth creation, an approach that led to degradation of the commons in some places. All those profits earned from globalisation should have been pumped back into regions most affected - they weren't.

And those tribunals have ALWAYS existed.

[Ken Burch]

190. It was trade AND automation.

We can have a trade policy that gets us into world markets without forcing wages down and without pitting workers against each other.

Yes, the tribunals have existed in other agreements, but they've always been biased against the working and non-working poor, against the labor movement, against people of color. Those tribunals are biased towards giving corporations the rulings they want.

And they are unreformable. There's no way to ever change them to include POC, worker, and environmentalist representation.

What is so terrible about saying "slow down...let's do this right. let's have trade pacts that don't privilege profit over people"?

How is that threatening to anyone?

[JHan]

198. tbh I don't want to make this about this singular issue because it's a side track..

You already know my views on this.

Every market model has winners and losers, there's nothing new about this.

Politifact did a great analysis of competing arguments on the exact number of jobs lost to NAFTA - just to draw an example . EPI claimed the deal about 851,000 jobs . However research by other groups claimed otherwise including a Congressional bipartisan report which concluded that the effects claimed by EPI, and other critics, were overstated: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/07/bernie-s/sanders-overshoots-nafta-job-losses/

Regardless of how you feel about NAFTA, none of the estimations in that link, even by NAFTA's harshest critics, match the impact of technology on job loss. Between 2000-2010 alone, there was a loss of 5.6 million jobs due to technological advancements, according to Center for Business and Economic Research, Ball State University.

Each one of these links below spell it out, including cost benefit analyses, of the impact of automation on the auto industry and how even 3D printing could revolutionise and affect employment in small - medium businesses:

How Robots Will Redefine Competitiveness

The Truth About Trade, What Critics Get Wrong About the Global Economy

The Future of Employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation?

U.S manufacturing is alive and well but not creating jobs

Of course I want trade deals to be better, with fair labor and environment standards, but the TPP tried to include that and was demonized because the fuss was those provisions ( which, I admit, could have gone even further) couldn't be enforced. What this critique misses is that any country in an agreement seeks to adhere to all provisions than risk defying them - the delicious irony is that critics using this enforcement argument about the TPP also claimed out of the other side of their mouths, and without a shred of awareness, that no trade deal should trump domestic laws .

Now that the TPP is dead, Vietnam and Japan ,and the other pacific rim countries involved in the TPP deal, are looking to China - the next logical big player after the U.S - for a similar deal. However those same labor and environment provisions in the TPP will be absent from whatever agreement they make with China because China doesn't care about such things.

*Slow clap*

And this move will lock American business completely out of the Asia Market - I don't need to spell out the effects on of this back home.

Ruining and tearing up existing agreements, or imposing tariffs to punish trade partners or scapegoating trade agreements for problems caused by national policy or poor choices made at state or federal level is just wrong.

But back to Keith Ellison - the artful smears of Perez as "establishment" , the false dichotomy of progressives and "establishment" continues to be harmful when the point is about party structure and stability vs anarchy and disorder. Keith participated, played the rules, got his endorsements, so did Perez , and Perez won. If Progressives who supported Keith, and despised Perez, really believed in what they claimed, they'd have supported Jehmu Greene - the only candidate who promised she'd get rid of super delegates and caucuses and push grass roots activism ( which everyone agreed on anyway)

All of this talk about "listening to the progressive wing" is nonsensical - Tom and Keith are aware of the issues, and attempts by those on the outside who used the DNC chair vote as a proxy fight to dust up a feud or cause mayhem because their guy didn't win is beyond disgusting.

[Ken Burch]

200. I accept Perez' victory and support the guy.

And I like Jehmu Greene.

[BainsBane]

196. We aren't going to get a better trade policy now

the election ensured it.

[Ken Burch]

209. I don't disagree with you about the consequences of the result

I didn't want Trump to win any more than you did.

I wanted our nominee to win as much as you did.

The only real points of disagreement we have regarding the fall campaign are on campaign tactics.

The suggestions I made, during the campaign and after, were simply about trying to increase our vote totals. They were never about saying things for the SAKE of saying things and they were never about disrespecting the nominee or anyone who supported her. They were pragmatic.

Given that the tactics that were used didn't elect our nominee and didn't give us control of either house of Congress, what is the point of trying to stop people from questioning those tactics?

Why shouldn't we discuss what did and didn't work?

[NurseJackie]

182. Oh, good lord!

170. You are not the official arbiter of reality.

Has he ever claimed such a power? This is a strawman. If he had made such a claim then you'd be correct in refuting it. But, YOU are the one who set up that strawman to be knocked over.

And look at that! Strawman pieces all OVER the place! What a great job you did! I'm impressed! Points for you!

Why are you so obsessed with trying to discredit people on a personal level?

The better question would be "why do you take everything personally?" or "why are you so easily offended?" when the reality is that someone simply challenged you or disagreed with you. Why are you attacking? Gothmog has the right to be here as much as anyone else.

A decent human being focuses her or his argument on the actual points the other person makes in an argument.

Now you're insulting Gothmog by saying that he's NOT a decent human being. That's a personal attack.

That doesn't give you leave to try to prove people who disagree with you shouldn't even be listened to and aren't qualified to say anything.

Where did he do that? Go on, show us .... where?

Personal attack is what Republicans do.

So, this is a backhanded way of accusing Gothmog of being a Republican. How charming. Apparently making "personal attacks" isn't limited only to Republicans.


Have a lovely day! Be happy! Smile! Always look on the bright side. Tomorrow is another day! Every cloud has a silver lining! Chin up!


#BeLikeKeith

[Gothmog]

188. After you have worked on some campaigns in the real world, things look differently

The real world is very different from an internet board.

[Ken Burch]

192. I've worked on real campaigns for forty years.

Being in the real world doesn't always mean being cynical and defeatist.

There's no way to win elections WITHOUT having a strong platform.

No one gets elected on ground game alone.

Obama won on HIS platform and his ability to persuade voters he was for change.

He couldn't have won on Bill Clinton or Al Gore's platforms.

[Gothmog]

194. Again, after you have worked on some campaigns in the real world you will have a different viewpoint

Have you found a meeting of an Indivisible group near you? Go attend one of these meetings and tell them your theories.

[BainsBane]

149. Ellison was treated badly

But not by Perez supporters. He was treated badly by those who used him to advance a craven power play that had nothing to do with Ellison. Keith tried to stop some of that stuff, but they wouldn't listen because it was never about him. Of course you justify it. You didn't even know Ellison's name and were running around this site accusing Perez of being just Like DWS because he dared to run against Bernie's guy, that is when you weren't insisting anyone who didn't back him was an Islamophobe. Your take your lead from the top in smearing the character of a man who spent his life fighting for workers rights and voters rights. Anyone can do a search of your dozens of threads on the subject to see what you have called him and how little you bothered to learn about Ellison. Ellison ran on uniting the party, not just progressives. Only posts like yours as well as statements and actions by Sanders undercut that message repeatedly.

The difference between Ellison and Perez is not ideological. There is nothing antiprogressive about Perez. The key difference is that Ellison supported Bernie in the primary. Bernie wouldn't have endorsed him otherwise. There was no principled progressive stand in that contest. The one candidate who ran on getting rid of corporate money was Jehmu Green, but Bernie nor any of his supporters backed her. Bernie clearly had other interests at play.

The irony of your insisting Perez's candidacy should have been just about him while Ellison was cravenly used in a power play is the same double standard that we have seen for two years now. When people start playing the kind of craven power politics that article describes, they need to accept the consequences. The fact is they failed, despite Ellison's many strengths, because the campaign surrounding him used threats and intimidation that turned off DNC voters, just as similar tactics turned off voters last year. Now we see why Bernie has never built coalitions.

You have no moral high ground here. You defend the worst of the worst through appeals to entitlement. The behavior described in that article is unprincipled and incompetent, and the result is a well-justified loss. Keith Ellison deserved better.

The masks are falling, and we are seeing people and political forces for what they have always been. I look forward to the financial disclosures that are due in June so that more of the picture is filled in.

The other thing that article showed is where Bernie's priorities lie and for what purposes he is willing to mobilize his supporters.

[NurseJackie]

181. Thanks for posting this. These are ideas and observations that have been swirling in my brain ...

... but I lacked the ability to organize them into a single thought and cohesive message that was easy to follow and easy to understand.

[brer cat]

183. +1000 nt

[BainsBane]

144. Very revealing piece

The treatment of Harrison shows that allegations of corporate hack are cynically wielded as weapons in a personal power play entirely unrelated to any issue. It exposes politics at its most craven and unprincipled.

[ck4829]

150. +1, Alan Dershowitz shown what a petty little man he was when he injected his rhetoric into this

With his whole little "I'm not going to be a Democrat anymore if Keith Ellison wins" and now he acts like we're blessed to have his presence of this torture-lover with his racist screeds against Black Lives Matter and defense of Bannon.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028417534
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028329478

[Kimchijeon]

21. Any scrap of optimism I will take it

Too bad, but oh well. The more influence he can have to make change, the better.

[Ken Burch]

24. If Tom lets it be a partnership, we can recover.

n/t.

[Gothmog]

79. I have heard that Tom and Keith are friends and the deputy move was in the works no matter who won

I am Team Tom and there are numerous posts from Tom that he and Keith are personal friends. A friend at the DNC told me that the deputy chairman plan was in place no matter who won. This may explain why the votes broke all Perez way on the second ballot

I am very glad that Tom won.

[NurseJackie]

114. But Perez is the one in charge, right? Deputy chair is not a "co-chair" with equal powers and ...

... de-facto veto powers, right?

[George II]

88. You seem to be working on the assumption that Tom Perez cannot make change.

[BainsBane]

26. Ellison was always better than the crap surrounding his nomination

Last edited Sat Feb 25, 2017, 08:12 PM - Edit history (1)

I believe if the Bernie people had allowed Ellison to run on his own merits rather than using him for a power play, he might have won.

[ciaobaby]

41. will every thing always go back to blaming "Bernies People"?

[BainsBane]

42. There are some lessons that can be learned

Threats are not an effective way to promote a candidate. It tends to have the opposite reaction in people. Now, if you want to see your candidates lose, don't take the lesson. Your choice.

We heard all sorts of finger pointing after the GE, with the stated purpose of winning in the future. Those people ought to be open to improving as well.

[ciaobaby]

43. OKAY - point taken.

But we also need to learn that corporate money does not equal a win.The last DNC chair thought the solution lay in mega-wealthy donors. She raised a tremendous amount of money - and cost her party over 1000 seats nationwide...

[BainsBane]

45. Ellison didn't run on taking corporate money out of the DNC

Jehmu Green was the only candidate who took that position. Yet she wasn't the preferred candidate because Bernie didn't endorse her. So let's not even pretend that was a determinative factor.

[ciaobaby]

46. no - I think you are missing my point.

The DNC voted to continue to take corporate lobbyists $$$. I am strongly against that but find most people on this site think that it is necessary. My point was that we lost 1000 seats all while using corporate dollars. It sends the wrong message and pushes many away.

[BainsBane]

58. You're talking about campaign contributions

And that law has been set by SCOTUS. That doesn't relate to DNC Chair.

I think campaign finance is an enormously important issue, but we have seen the issue of reform of the law abandoned in favor of judgments about personal actions, all because one celebrity politician was able to raise unprecedented amounts of money from individual contributors. The issue is a systemic one, and it needs to be treated as such. Obviously the GE represented a major setback for that because Trump will not follow through on the reforms that Hillary proposed, but even among many progressives the issue of reform was dropped for attacks directed at individual politicians rather than reforming the system. That has set the issue back. As long as people make the issue small, and use it as a means of sloganeering rather than focusing on policy, they further the status quo of campaign fundraising.

[JHan]

65. you summed it up far more eloquently than I could express, thanks.

[Ken Burch]

208. Bernie was never a celebrity politician

The support he received was solely because people trusted the guy and were inspired by what he's fought for in Congress and what he said on the stump.

I get it that you don't like him, but why is it so important to you to reduce his campaign to ego?

And why are you still campaigning against the guy when he will never run for president again and there's no harm in his simply working to get the party to support the ideas his supporters(and many Clinton supporters as well)agree with.

It's not as if there was no good reason for Bernie to run.

HRC would have been a excellent president, but she was never our only hope in electoral terms.

BTW...you talk about not making the campaign issue small...how do we make the issue BIG while still taking corporate money?



It's not possible to organize for a cause while being cool with the party being neutral on the cause.

[BainsBane]

99. As for the DNC taking corporate money

They did so because they had no other way to finance the convention. You might recall a certain segment considered the DNC the enemy. That didn't help fundraising.

Campaign financing, however, is subject to federal laws, not DNC rules. You're treating the two as if they were the same and talking like you think the DNC chair controls those laws. That isn't the case.

[BainsBane]

100. DNC fundraising totals

75 million by July 2016. That's about 1/3 of what Bernie raised by that point. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee

[stevenleser]

53. Boom! nt

[shenmue]

95. Do you have to repeat the same phrase?

It's getting to be spam.

[joshcryer]

55. Same with Sanders, tbh.

It's not the man, it's the little around them having very poor ideas zone and wanting power without actual solutions.

[NCTraveler]

64. I have stated similar.

BoBers are toxic.

[Gothmog]

76. I have met and like Keith Ellison

Keith is a very nice man and I like him personally. However, I am glad that Perez won

[ProudProgressiveNow]

27. K&R nt

[hrmjustin]

28. Ellison is a class act.

We have two great men leading our party.

[Cha]

74. And, so is Tom Perez

[Gothmog]

80. They are both nice people

I have met both. I like Ellison and was a sponsor at a fund raiser that he was the host of. He is a very nice person but I am glad that Team Tom won.

[BeyondGeography]

31. Love it

[Lotusflower70]

32. Ah yeah!

That's what I am talking about. The epitome of class. Time to get to work and heal the divide. So proud to have Keith as my representative.

[ananda]

56. Agree. Good result!

Now we need to get cracking and win some damm elections
next term!

[pansypoo53219]

57. i liked both. favored perez at the top tho. this is a win win.new blood.

[metroins]

70. I agree

I am typically a very moderate Democrat but after the election loss, I've been wanting new blood to freshen things up.

I think Perez's experience at the top with Ellisons charisma will do good things.

This is a win win.

[metroins]

59. I'm glad I saw your post

I was initially upset, but after seeing your post, I feel good.

Thanks!

[JHan]

67. ;)

[fishwax]

66. looking and moving forward

[nini]

69. They're going to be a great team

Ellison can work with Perez and keep kicking butt in Congress.

[Gothmog]

72. Ellison and Perez each like the other and so this is a good result

[still_one]

78. Keith's Democratic and progressive credentials have always been solid, and I

would have been fine with either Ellison or Perez

[Lifelong Protester]

81. Time is short; let's get moving!!

[mvd]

103. If they really voted against Keith because..

He would make the "the party too far to the left," then the members still have not learned. But if Ellison and Perez work together, then that may advance the party anyway. Still waiting to see what the Deputy Chair position is all about.

[LovingA2andMI]

105. There is no such thing....

As a "Deputy Chair" position in the DNC Bylaws. So what is it about? Maybe, nothing at all.

[mvd]

107. Yes it will have to be explained I would think

It was something created to try for unity, and then could be worked out.

[JHan]

108. Keith and Tom have similar views, I really fail to see what the issue is.

This false dichotomy between progressives and the so called "establishment" has to stop.

And the idea of litmus tests in the party has to stop. We have a budding autocrat as President enabled by spineless republicans.

We are the party of Universal principles and justice and no singular person - whether Ellison or Sanders or Perez or whoever- has a monopoly on those principles. They're baked in democratic policies, average day to day democrats believe in these principles and it is this that distinguishes us from the GOP.

Unity is absolutely essential or else we'll continue to surrender to the creeping authoritarianism the GOP nurtured for decades.

[mvd]

110. There are SOME differences. Ellison may..

want to take the corporate money out more. May be more progressive economically. May be more in tune with the grassroots enthusiasm. Perez was not my first choice, but it should be enough that I am giving him a chance. If not symbolic, his gesture to Ellison was a good first step.

[Cha]

147. Exactly, JH.. that "establishment" false accusation is divisive bullshit..

coming from such liars as cenk..

Link to tweet

Then there's Keith..

Link to tweet

Tom and Keith are both progressive.. that just kills certain people who wanted to hi jack and divide the party.

[JHan]

162. Cenk is a rank idiot.

He just needs someone to rave against.

The issue was never progressive vs establishment but party structure vs anarchy.

Some ideologues just love to throw bombs and be politically destructive. Fuck em.

[NurseJackie]

125. Exactly how much power do people think the DNC chair has anyway?

If they really voted against Keith because.. He would make the "the party too far to the left," then the members still have not learned.

Learned what? I always thought it was more of an administrative position and the chair's role was not one of guiding policy or platform building. It's not the chair's job to "move the party", is it?

It's pretty clear that the opposition or resistence to Keith had nothing to do with Keith the man, or Keith the politician. It was, instead, a response to the ugliness and divisiveness of the Sarandon's of the world (and other non-party-members) who thought that selecting Keith would be some sort of victory by proxy.

[NBachers]

111. I've got a great idea: If you like Keith, then pay attention to what he advocates, and do it!

See? There's room for everyone to contribute.

Vent all you want about . . . **whatever** . . . and when you're finished, get up and engage Keith and participate with him.

[BeckyDem]

117. I thought Perez did the right thing, they're both progressive and both sincere.

Working together to win, can't get better than that!

[Stellar]

124. Could've been the other way around, a true liberal. nt

[Cha]

145. They're both true Liberals. We got Lucky with Tom Perez and

Keith Ellison.. who are United and Uniting us as a party.

Link to tweet

[Doreen]

127. Put it simply.

Two different ideas willingly agreeing to work together and combine the ideas to make them work better.

[spanone]

137. K&R...

[cbreezen]

148. This makes me so proud!

[get the red out]

151. Two good people

I like it, now get to work gentlemen.

[AgadorSparticus]

201. GOOD!! EXACTLY AS IT SHOULD BE. United!!!