The State of the Democratic Party Post-2016

[The Serbian Empire]

What about Perez? He is pretty progressive, latino, and doesnt have much baggage.

Trump will sling the birther lines all over again. Wait for the man.

[Great Franconia and Verana]

What about Perez? He is pretty progressive, latino, and doesnt have much baggage.

Trump will sling the birther lines all over again. Wait for the man.

Wouldnt be surprised.
The Fox News headlines about Ellison are already enough to make me vomit.

[Ebliania]

Ellison's getting the position. When Sanders, Warren, and Schumer are backing him there aren't really any other choices.

Trump will sling the birther lines all over again. Wait for the man.

Wouldnt be surprised.
The Fox News headlines about Ellison are already enough to make me vomit.

Fox News makes you vomit? Not as bad as this.

[Bakery Hill]

Ellison's getting the position. When Sanders, Warren, and Schumer are backing him there aren't really any other choices.

Wouldnt be surprised.
The Fox News headlines about Ellison are already enough to make me vomit.

Fox News makes you vomit? Not as bad as this.

Now this is what I call quality journalism.

With his organized racist mobs currently taking to the streets to spread anarchy in opposition of President-elect Donald Trump, the blood-sucking Hungarian ghoul has convened a secret session with infuriated Democrats who are looking for payback against the legitimately elected president.

[The Serbian Empire]

Trump will sling the birther lines all over again. Wait for the man.

Wouldnt be surprised.
The Fox News headlines about Ellison are already enough to make me vomit.

And they'll just make Dean a constant montage of his campaign rave back in 2004.

[Great Franconia and Verana]

Wouldnt be surprised.
The Fox News headlines about Ellison are already enough to make me vomit.

And they'll just make Dean a constant montage of his campaign rave back in 2004.

O'Malley seems as clean as he does boring.

[USS Monitor]

No, we will not win by trying to be watered-down Republicans on social issues. Being seen as such is part of why Clinton lost. And winning a bit more of the working class white vote will do the Democrats less than zero good if it comes at the price of alienating the black, latino, female, and youth vote. That is a road to third party status for the Democrats.

As much as some people may wish it, Trump winning does not mean that the working class white vote is now the only thing that matters. Nor does it mean that the only way to win that vote is by turning on immigrants and minorities and abandoning progressive principles. Abandoning support for free trade will likely do just as well, without alienating voters that the Democrats need or throwing already threatened groups under the bus.

Then you will be in the minority for a VERY long time. The female and youth votes are unreliable on since it depends per generation whether right-wing or left-wing politics are preferred amongst the youth, while women are clearly not too convinced by the Democratic party even with a female candidate. While the white working class voter is definately not the largest group around, they are going to be the key to the White House for atleast the 2020 elections.

Women are generally a majority of the electorate, so no, the female vote is not unreliable. We're not a hivemind, and the hamfisted way Hillary played the gender card was divisive and unhelpful, but that doesn't change the fact that women tend to vote more Democratic than men, and that women vote in large numbers.

You don't have any realistic reason to be complacent like this when Hillary won a majority of the popular vote. There is no reason to think the Republicans' success this year is the start of a long-term domination.

[USS Monitor]

No, we will not win by trying to be watered-down Republicans on social issues. Being seen as such is part of why Clinton lost. And winning a bit more of the working class white vote will do the Democrats less than zero good if it comes at the price of alienating the black, latino, female, and youth vote. That is a road to third party status for the Democrats.

As much as some people may wish it, Trump winning does not mean that the working class white vote is now the only thing that matters. Nor does it mean that the only way to win that vote is by turning on immigrants and minorities and abandoning progressive principles. Abandoning support for free trade will likely do just as well, without alienating voters that the Democrats need or throwing already threatened groups under the bus.

Ellison did make a controversial statement seeming to link 9/11 to the Reichstag Fire but he quickly clarified it saying that he was criticizing how 9/11 was used to limit civil liberties. I expect it to be used against him however.

Sounds like a legitimate point to me, even if he expressed it in an exaggerated way.

[USS Monitor]

What do you think would be polarizing about O'Malley?

The guy just screams East Coast elitism and gun control, not the best choice given the Democrat's demographics problem that cost them the Midwest.

So, basically, he's from Maryland.

I don't think that's an issue for being DNC chair. It would be more relevant if we were picking someone to run for president in 2020. Kind of the same deal as Dean's "establishment" baggage.

[Great Franconia and Verana]

Ellison did make a controversial statement seeming to link 9/11 to the Reichstag Fire but he quickly clarified it saying that he was criticizing how 9/11 was used to limit civil liberties. I expect it to be used against him however.

Sounds like a legitimate point to me, even if he expressed it in an exaggerated way.

The Republicans excel at making legitimate statements appear to be egregious.

[Tsaraine]

careful you'll cut yourself on that edge

also if you're low on tinfoil i'll give you some

Why so much spare tinfoil? Afraid Trump is going to drop an EMP on the radical left? Imagine it'd be hard for rioters to receive payment from Soros if they didn't have their iPhones wrapped up in a homemade Farraday cage.

Oh, because you think Soros' isn't the sugar daddy of the entire DNC. Well, I'd pull the wool from over your eyes but I'd be afraid to catch pinkeye.

*** Boomhaueristan, warned for flamebaiting ***.

~ Tsar the Mod

[USS Monitor]

The guy just screams East Coast elitism and gun control, not the best choice given the Democrat's demographics problem that cost them the Midwest.

I have to echo this. I really feel like gun control hurt the Dems badly in the Midwest. Those states have some strong gun cultures and I imagine more than a few single issue gun voters rallied behind Trump.

I'd like it if they took it down a notch on the gun control stuff. Hillary went way overboard on that, even by Democrat standards. It bothered me even though I'm not a single-issue gun voter at all. I usually don't have much trouble compromising on guns to get someone with good positions on other issues.

They can still be the gun control party if they want; just be less fanatical and purist about it.

[USS Monitor]

Sounds like a legitimate point to me, even if he expressed it in an exaggerated way.

The Republicans excel at making legitimate statements appear to be egregious.

That would matter a lot more if this was about choosing a presidential candidate.

[Parsea]

Howard Dean seems respectable.

[Corrian]

Can we get Howard Deans 50 State Strategy with Keith Elison?

[USS Monitor]

Can we get Howard Deans 50 State Strategy with Keith Elison?

You'd have to ask Ellison what his strategy would be.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Sanders never stated that Clinton was personally corrupt. He stated that she was part of a rigged system, which seems relatively self-evident when one considers our lax campaign finance laws. Also, while Clinton never stated that Obama was part of such a system, she did go after him in other ways. Difference was, he was tested by the attacks, and prevailed.

He repeatedly insinuated as much by implying that there was something questionable about her motives vis-a-vis the paid speeches among other character hits. She wasn't wrong when she said he was making "an artful smear" against her. He also expanded the rigged system argument beyond campaign finance laws to take broad aim at pretty uncontroversial parts of the primary process along the way when it was anything but. A lot of that is just politics, but in a race as close as this one was, it's not unreasonable to argue that it made some kind of difference. I personally think that the overall effect was small, but it was present.

He simply stated that the American people had a right (not a legal one, obviously) to know what was in a series of speeches that she gave to the very organizations that had played a major role in crashing our economy. That's not an unrealistic request. She could have released them, taken a short hit in the polls, then moved on, but instead, she allowed the story to stretch out for months with her refusal to do so, meaning that the voters got to imagine what was in them, instead. As any horror movie director can tell you, what is not seen is often far more frightening than that which is seen. He simply made a point that any rival would have made, and criticized her accordingly. The Clinton camp's inability to effectively respond to a point that they had to know was going to be raised was the cause of her issues, not Bernie asking what was in those speeches to begin with.

Frankly, if she's not able to handle something like that, then the only reason that she even got the popular vote was because her opponent was so thoroughly despised.

[USS Monitor]

Frankly, if she's not able to handle something like that, then the only reason that she even got the popular vote was because her opponent was so thoroughly despised.

I thought that was obvious.

[Great Franconia and Verana]

With Ellison ahead in the DNC race, Schumer just elected Minority Leader, it looks like Pelosi might be in trouble too.

[San Lumen]

I just hope whoever the next DNC chair is adopts a 50 state strategy and works to build the party in every corner of the country.

[Ngelmish]

He repeatedly insinuated as much by implying that there was something questionable about her motives vis-a-vis the paid speeches among other character hits. She wasn't wrong when she said he was making "an artful smear" against her. He also expanded the rigged system argument beyond campaign finance laws to take broad aim at pretty uncontroversial parts of the primary process along the way when it was anything but. A lot of that is just politics, but in a race as close as this one was, it's not unreasonable to argue that it made some kind of difference. I personally think that the overall effect was small, but it was present.

He simply stated that the American people had a right (not a legal one, obviously) to know what was in a series of speeches that she gave to the very organizations that had played a major role in crashing our economy. That's not an unrealistic request. She could have released them, taken a short hit in the polls, then moved on, but instead, she allowed the story to stretch out for months with her refusal to do so, meaning that the voters got to imagine what was in them, instead. As any horror movie director can tell you, what is not seen is often far more frightening than that which is seen. He simply made a point that any rival would have made, and criticized her accordingly. The Clinton camp's inability to effectively respond to a point that they had to know was going to be raised was the cause of her issues, not Bernie asking what was in those speeches to begin with.

Frankly, if she's not able to handle something like that, then the only reason that she even got the popular vote was because her opponent was so thoroughly despised.

Come on. What exactly was he implying when he said that he'd take his record over hers on banks any day of the week and that the people who offered her the paid speeches knew what they were getting when she had already promised specific financial industry reforms (reforms that in some cases went further than his did)? At the least it's an insinuation of dishonesty, and its one that he ratcheted up over the course of the primary, ending by taking disingenuous potshots at the primary process itself. I know you were a partisan for him during the primary and worked for his campaign. I don't believe for a minute that he actually believed she was corrupt. But he didn't just ask her to clarify a position or swipe at her judgement, which is par for the course in campaigns, but kept insinuating that she wasn't being forthcoming in her motives. That's not hard to see, whomever anyone backed in the election, and whether or not the Clinton campaign responded effectively is irrelevant to what he chose to do.

On the chairmanship: So O'Malley has announced that he's not running after all, which all but guarantees that he's looking ahead to 2020. He couldn't do both, and running hard and losing the chairmanship now would probably hurt him in another primary, so he must have either not gotten enough support from party activists he talked to, or, (and my suspicion) gotten enough support to make it clear that he could get some of it back if he runs for president again.

On the gun control conversation: Honesty on gun policy is important. I know anecdotal evidence counts for nothing, but I know a lot of gun-owning midwesterners who don't have a problem with Democrats calling for more stringent gun control so long as it's out in the open.

[The Dragon Realms Empire]

Even if we get a progressive head of the DNC I doubt they will openly embrace socialism so soon even after the Bernie revolution. More realistically, we are going to see a gradual movement to the left as to appeal to the party's more moderate wing. I imagine as America moves further to the left it will eventually adopt socialism as an official ideology, just not quite yet.

Maybe the Democratic Party can evolve to become something like the Communist Party of the Soviet Union or the League of Communists of Yugoslavia. I wonder what form of socialism they would adopt. They may start out with simple democratic socialism before moving on to Marxism. I imagine that they would adopt Trotskyism and Leninism instead of Marxism-Leninism when they get to that point. Bernie Sanders strikes me more as a Trotskyist than a Marxist-Leninist.

If they were, it would likely be a big tent/catch-all for the left like it is now except with larger socialist bases.

Basically the problem with big parties like this; parties within the party.

[The Romulan Republic]

Ellison's getting the position. When Sanders, Warren, and Schumer are backing him there aren't really any other choices.


Fox News makes you vomit? Not as bad as this.

Now this is what I call quality journalism.

With his organized racist mobs currently taking to the streets to spread anarchy in opposition of President-elect Donald Trump, the blood-sucking Hungarian ghoul has convened a secret session with infuriated Democrats who are looking for payback against the legitimately elected president.

Why do I feel like I'm reading the 1930s' German press?

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Now this is what I call quality journalism.

Why do I feel like I'm reading the 1930s' German press?

Because they're just as racist.

[Galloism]

On the gun control conversation: Honesty on gun policy is important. I know anecdotal evidence counts for nothing, but I know a lot of gun-owning midwesterners who don't have a problem with Democrats calling for more stringent gun control so long as it's out in the open.

As someone who basically straddles the border between south/midwest, I think we just enforced the gun control laws we have now and make it where we can study gun violence again we would probably be in good shape.