Which one are you for? I'll take either. At first I didn't want Ellison to leave MN05, but if he does, and he should if he is DNC chair, we have some excellent replacements lined up, and since MN05 is the most left leaning congressional district in the country, we don't have to worry about it going blue.
BernieDems hate Perez because he supported Clinton, and their vitriol is greater than the hatred of Ellison, who supported Sanders in the primary and then Clinton in the general. But, if we react to BernieDem whinging and temper tantrums, we might as well get out of the game now. These videos show a fair amount of difference to the unity issue, by all of the candidates.
Nobody, including Perez and Ellison, said anything impressive. Ellison is closest to following my plan. Sally Boynton Brown is also close to my plan, but she seems to have been sidelined by being so supportive of #BLM.
Perez, on Meet the Press:
If this breaks down to Clinton wing vs. Sanders wing Democrats (Perez vs. Ellison) will that hurt the party more than it helps? I'm thinking yes, and neither Ellison nor Perez is therefore qualified to be DNC chair. But Perez does address the question, vaguely, in the above video.
From the DNC chair debate, Ellison is at 1:20 and beyond:
Ellison takes credit for Minnesota having two Democratic senators. Yes, Minneapolis (roughly, Ellison's fifth district) made a difference in those races. No, Ellison did not turn a centrist, purple, or red district to a blue one. The Minnesota fifth district is inherently the most liberal congressional district in the country in all of history. A liberal dead cat would beat Jesus the Republican there.
Discussion of Clinton vs Sanders factions at about 3:40 in the above video, starting with Ellison. Ellison gave a good unity line.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
If it's Hillary vs Bernie, then you have to take Ellison. Ridiculous to have the people that handle the debates playing favorites.
Hillary should have been thrown out when she had that media photoop meeting with regular folk in Iowa, and it turns out they were all campaign volunteers. SNL tried to warn you. Make Lorne or Kate McKinnon party chair.
On what basis do you declare MN-05 to be "inherently the most liberal in the country in all of history"? That seems unlikely.
For example, based on the Cook PVI, there is a district in NY that is twice as extreme as MN-05 (it's D+43 as opposed to the Minnesota district's D+22). In fact, MN-05 appears to be tied for the 46th most liberal district, based on PVI.
Different metrics will presumably give different results. Thus I'm curious what basis you have for this.
I don't think MN-05 is the most liberal district *today* let alone *in all of history*.
Should trump have been thrown out when it turned out he paid $50 to actors to turn up at his first appearance for the nomination, "mike"?
"BernieDems hate Perez because he supported Clinton"
So you say, greg. Got any evidence?
Ned W, mainly, I was trolling.
Especially the "in all of history" part!
Wow, I'm told it over and over. I imagine if you look at the YouTube comments on that video (I haven't, won't) you'll see it there.
The Democratic Party needs to rethink its philosophies, reform its members and make peace with the millions of people (who used to be Democratic voters) it has either disenfranchised or disillusioned. It seems to me that a modern neoliberal Democrat who has backed the "McGovern-Carter-Clinton Wing" for the last 30-40 years is not easily going to fulfill that requirements.
The party mainliners in the top echelons have been bought and there's no way to get them un-bought unless you remove money from politics.
Look what happened to Bernie: because his promise would remove the cash cow for the media, the media really didn't give a shit about him, since his winning would mean a cut in their profits.
And so few knew he even existed as a serious candidate, and all most knew is he was "unelectable" because the media said so.
Greg, well, I don't really know how you can cite "I've been told it by youtubers" is really anything other than an ass-pull, greg.
All I know is there was some corruption charges and the Republicans wanted him out. I've seen almost nothing from democrats, even those who wanted Bernie in, otherwise.
re: BernieDems hate Perez because he supported Clinton, and their vitriol is greater than the hatred of Ellison, who supported Sanders in the primary and then Clinton in the general. But, if we react to BernieDem whinging and temper tantrums, we might as well get out of the game now.
I'm one of the Sanders Democrats you mentioned and you've misrepresented us -- a little crudely too, I must add. It's not so much that we're partisans for Bernie throwing a bitter tantrum towards Perez because he backed Clinton. It's about a very real concern for the failing Democratic party and a need for a new direction
. A lot of my peers and myself included are committed to having a true labor party in the United States. One where we feel like our participation is wanted and valued. If the will is there, it'd be great to make that the Democratic party, but frankly the outlook is a little grim.
Which is disappointing to me, but to each their own. No tantrums here. I'll just join a party that I share a vision with. I think a lot of peers are in the same boat.
James, good for you. I share that concern for the failing Democratic party. The mistake you are making is that this concern comes mainly from the purest Bernie supporters ... those who supported him during the primary, THEN after he lost that, continued to support him rather than Clinton.
One thing you should know, though, is that I'm in Minnesota, where there is no Democratic Party. We have something that acts as the Democratic Party, that caucuses with the party in DC, but it is not. This is the party Ellison is in, and it is explicitly a Labor party. So, you should move here!
Wow, the rules I would put in would have knocked out Trump as well. A VP of Common Sense as Bill Simmons suggests for team owners, would for political parties throw out Clinton and Trump.
https://theintercept.com/2017/02/24/key-question-about-dnc-race-why-did… They chose Perez because he does not represent the left wing, the ones that scare the hell out of the neoliberals like Clinton, Obama etc, and money, big money - specifically Haim Saban's , the single buiggest contributor the the Democratic Party and rabid Ellison hater, money. This decision may possibly be a fatal decision for the Democratic Party.
"I’m one of the Sanders Democrats you mentioned and you’ve misrepresented us — a little crudely too, I must add"
It seems to be Greg's pet peeve, hating Bernie or "bernie bros".
Possibly he bought into the "all bernie supporters are misogynists". But when Hilary ran against Obama, there were people who voted for Hilary because Obama was a black man. Does that mean Clinton supporters were racists?
If Greg had been deciding via the same method, he'd say "Yes".
But because he's one of them, and isn't himself a racist, he'd refuse and be REALLY offended at the charge.
So I accept that in potentia there were voters for bernie that did so because he wasn't a woman, but he would have to accept that there were clinton voters who voted for her because she was white.
And some, this time, voted for clinton because she wasn't a man.
Misandry in the clinton group? Hell yes.
Clinton voters misandrists? Hell no.
"after he lost that, continued to support him rather than Clinton."
But that doesn't say that they did that for any reason that you ascribe to them, greg.
There were voters for Jeb that didn't support trump AND DID NOT VOTE FOR HIM, still supporting Jeb. Was that because they were shitbags who hated Trump and HAD TO just knuckle under and pretend that they accepted Trump because he was running for their party?
Would you be berating them for not voting Trump because it was Trump and not Jeb or Christy or any of the others?
Hell no.
Because you don't support Trump.
But since you DO support Hillary, you want to insist that everyone who doesn't think she would make a good president should just STFU and vote for her anyway.
Hell, look what happened less than two weeks after Trump got in: Muslims praying in a US airport ***and being cheered on by other, non muslim, Americans***.
Look what's happened with the press. No longer are they just parroting the party line, they're actually checking up on the statements and NOT just accepting the bollocks.
Because the heaps of bullshit coming from trump are so big they just can't be swallowed.
Clinton's BS would have been choked down and BAU continued. And fewer and fewer voters, of which the most motivated will vote.
And, since the democrats are chasing the moderate right wingers, only the batshit rightwing will have a voter turnout, and they will decide the outcome of any election.
Which is 100% what happened this time.
It's not the bernie voters, it's 20+ years of bollocks disenfranchising the left in the USA while both parties court the rightwing.
> No longer are they just parroting the party line, they’re actually checking up on the statements and NOT just accepting the bollocks.
One blogger was telling people Trump is horrible and vote for Hillary, writing if she does a bad job you can vote her out. My response was how would you know if she did a bad job? If the independent video hadn't surfaced, the official story would still be that she was exhausted on 9/11. Even after the video they were reporting that she 'stumbled'.
Watching the media become watchdogs again is refreshing. Will be interesting to see what Fox News does. Other media stood by them when Obama tried to kick them out of the White House. Will they respond in kind, or do they wish to be Pravda(OK, maybe both)?
"One blogger was telling people Trump is horrible and vote for Hillary"
More than one. And as many or more were whining the other way, meaning your complaint here is 100% reflected onto trump supporters too.
Did you ever try your technique and rhetoric on the trump supporters like yourself who did it? 'course not, because your complaint is as partisan as you yourself are.
And when you're here lapping up the "fake news" bullshit from the trump Ministry of Truth, you really have no ground to whine about "without these videos", since you're already accepting that Hilary is better than Trump, because she hasn't ever used the "It's fake news" and banning of media outlets that your Orange Leader has used in less than one month of office.
"My response was how would you know if she did a bad job? If the independent video hadn’t surfaced, the official story would still be that she was exhausted on 9/11"
Holy fuck, how stupid a debunked conspiracy theory pusher are you?
And the story from Shrub is that he was reading a kids' book.
Mind you, according to "history" (IOW fake history), Trump was listening to all the Muslims in NYC cheering at the 11/9 incident as it took place. It's just, like with his yuge crowds everywhere, nobody else saw it, not even mechanical cameras, since they only show "fake news".
Why did the DNC require a photo ID to vote for the Chairman of their party? Haven't they been telling everyone that's racist?
Oh, were they using photo IDs to prevent voting?
I must have missed that somehow...
Odd. the DNC isn't synonymous with the USA.
Maybe "mike" here can fill me in on when the USA went 100% Democratic owned.
"I must have missed that somehow"
We must have also missed the fact that voting in the national election is open to all but voting for DNC chairman is done by people on a particular committee.
Or, possibly, we didn't miss those points, but it is simply that mikeN is one of the combinations of amazingly stupid and monumentally dishonest the modern right idolizes.
>voting in the national election is open to all
No it's not.