ChrisWeigant.com

Will Perez Be Effective?

[ Posted Monday, February 27th, 2017 – 18:50 UTC ]

The Democratic National Committee met this weekend and elected as its new chairman Tom Perez, who narrowly beat out Keith Ellison on the second round of voting. It was the most contentious race for party chair seen in decades, so the first challenge Perez is going to face is whether he can quickly achieve any sort of party unity before the big push for the midterm elections gets underway. He's got his work cut out for him, but the bigger question is whether he'll be an effective party leader for the Democrats, and whether he can reverse the slide in the party's relative strength both nationwide and at the state and local level.

This is a lot to ask of anyone. Normally, party chairs are (somewhat mockingly) called "fundraisers-in-chief," since a big part of their job is keeping the party's campaign chest full, by convincing the big donors to keep the money flowing in. But these are not normal times, and that's before even considering the Trump effect. Even if a run-of-the-mill Republican were in the Oval Office right now, Democrats would still have no real visible leader. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are the closest thing to party leaders the Democrats have, but they don't exactly personify where the energy is in the party right now. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren clearly lead one wing of the Democratic Party, but they can't realistically be called the outright leaders of the entire party either. All of this puts much more weight on the shoulders of the D.N.C. chair, elevating the position to more prominence than just being the best at shaking down big donors on a regular basis.

The first question that Perez will face is whether the narrative of "the Sanders wing of the party versus the establishment" was overblown during the D.N.C. chair race. The media loved the storyline, but it remains to be seen whether this accurately reflected the reality or not. Ellison was a big Bernie supporter during last year's primaries, and Perez was seen as being hand-picked by the Obama/Clinton wing of the party. But that's really an oversimplification to begin with, because the establishment itself has always had some division between supporters of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Putting that aside, the immediate questions are: Was Ellison's loss really that big a loss for Sanders supporters? Will the anti-Trump activist energy that is currently spreading like wildfire across America be so disgusted with the rejection of Ellison that they spurn the party organization and apparatus? Sanders supporters were disappointed in the 2016 primaries, and they were disappointed this weekend as well. Does this lead to total disillusionment with the Democratic Party, which would mean an exodus of the most fervent of the people now protesting Trump? Or will their abhorrence of all things Trump convince them to work with the party anyway? All good questions that Tom Perez is going to have to address very soon, one way or another.

Ideologically, Ellison and Perez were pretty close. There wasn't a whole lot of daylight between them, except on one big issue. Perez, being a member of Obama's cabinet at the time, supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Ellison was against the T.P.P. from the beginning. Other than that, their policy disagreements were few and far between. It was more a question of a difference in emphasis, rather than ideology. Accepting Perez over Ellison isn't quite the same magnitude as the difference Sanders supporters faced between their candidate and Hillary Clinton (Sanders and Clinton had a much wider gap between their agendas than Perez and Ellison do, to put this another way). Perez calls himself a proud progressive, and has some solid history to back that claim up. Will this be enough to convince Ellison supporters to eventually accept him and allow for party unity to return? We'll see. The answer will probably become apparent within a few months, one way or the other.

It has to be admitted that part of the problem of party unity (and party effectiveness) for Democrats was caused in large part by Barack Obama. When Obama entered office, he morphed the campaign apparatus which got him elected into its own entity, "Organizing For America." Many Democratic insiders have complained that this parallel organization diverted a lot of money that normally would have gone through the coffers of the Democratic Party, leaving them with fewer resources to contest elections, especially at the state level. O.F.A. had its own agenda, entirely separate from the Democratic Party apparatus, which was to support Obama's policy positions and legislation.

I don't completely buy this argument, I should mention. Some donations might have been diverted away from the D.N.C., but that is part of a long-term trend both parties have seen happen in the past few decades. Online advocacy and fundraising (and the Citizens United decision) have opened the floodgates to political groups to raise money outside of the normal party structure, which has weakened as a direct result. Obama didn't change this entire dynamic, he merely attempted to use it to support what he wanted to get done. Even if O.F.A. hadn't ever existed, however, the trend would still have caught up to the Democrats. If you want to make a political donation to support some cause or another, with the click of a mouse you can now direct that money to the group you think will do the most to advance it. And fewer and fewer donors (small and big) see the need for the middleman of the party apparatus.

Even having said all of that, the D.N.C. would have had problems even if Obama's O.F.A. had never existed. The Democratic Party, from all accounts, has been moving steadily away from Howard Dean's "50-state strategy" for a while now, which has starved the state party organizations of funding. This has had a devastating effect down the ballot, losing hundreds of seats in statehouses, governors' mansions, and other offices at the state and local levels. This is the biggest challenge Perez will face -- reversing this trend. Both Perez and Ellison (and most of the other candidates for the job) spoke of reviving Dean's 50-state strategy during the contest for the D.N.C. chair, meaning the party insiders are now fully aware that this is the most important problem to tackle. The party must shift from being most concerned with winning presidential elections by exclusively focusing on swing and battleground states to a broad approach towards rebuilding their power in the states and individual House districts.

Interestingly, Barack Obama has indicated that his goals now align perfectly with the party's goal of rebuilding at the state level. Obama has chosen for his first post-presidency project the goal of not only winning back state legislature seats and governor's offices, but doing so with a clear objective in mind -- not getting trounced by Republicans in the congressional redistricting which will take place after the 2020 census. Reversing the blatant GOP gerrymandering which took place after the 2010 electoral rout should indeed be a key goal for Democrats right now, because it could mean control of the House of Representatives for the next whole decade. Republicans drew the lines to benefit their party last time around, and they were wildly successful at it. Democrats are hoping to do the same, and if both Obama and the D.N.C. are working for the same goal, it should hopefully mean that the donor divide between Obama's organization and the party itself won't matter as much. If they're both working to achieve the same goal, it can only help, in other words.

But Tom Perez still has his work cut out for him, that's for sure. In the short term, he's got to do everything he can to unify the party. He's also got to figure out how to use the grassroots energy out there to the party's advantage. This does not mean trying to co-opt the organic anti-Trump resistance, but rather to convince the protesters that the Democrats share the same goals. If he is successful at avoiding a backlash from the Sanders/Ellison base and truly does allow them room at the table, then he'll have already been more successful than the last two D.N.C. leaders in restoring party unity. Naming Ellison to a symbolic party position was a step in this direction, similar to Clinton allowing Bernie Sanders to influence the party's platform document last year. Whether this will be enough remains to be seen, however.

Beyond immediate party unity is the long-term work Perez has to accomplish. To rebuild the party in (as Perez puts it) "every ZIP code in America," he will have to convince good candidates to run for state offices and then materially support them during their campaigns. He's got to generate some excitement in the Democratic base by choosing candidates who inspire the crowds. Beyond these nuts-and-bolts changes, Perez also has to rededicate the Democratic Party to its historic roots -- helping the little guy on Main Street live a better life. Democrats are going to have to make the case that Trump's election was nothing short of a con job of monumental proportions -- a swindle perpetrated on voters that cannot deliver on any of its promises to help the working class. Republican ideology simply will not allow Trump much in the way of relief for the demographics Trump convinced to vote for him. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell aren't going to let Trump deliver on his promises, plain and simple. So Democrats have to make the case that their agenda actually helps people and that both Trump and the Republicans are fighting against things that help. The minimum wage is a good place to start, to state the obvious. When the minimum wage rises, it has a trickle-up effect on most other wages, which would effectively give working people a raise they've been due for a very long time now.

Still, "Elect us, we're not Republicans" is not going to cut it. "Elect us, we hate Trump" is also not going to do the job. "Elect us because this is what we're fighting for" is the only route with any real chance of success. Also, "Why are Republicans always against such good ideas?" might help, as well.

The Democratic Party is at the lowest point since, roughly, the 1920s. It is in desperate need of revitalization. Bernie Sanders proved that there plenty of excitement does exist out there for progressive ideas, and that donations aren't a problem -- when your agenda matches with regular people's needs. Both Perez and Ellison seemed to understand that, to some degree. Now that Perez will be leading the Democratic Party, we'll see how effective a messenger he can be. His first challenge will be an attempt to heal the wounds of party division and work to achieve some sort of party unity that clearly addresses the concerns of Democrats outside of the big donor class. Perez doesn't have the luxury of merely being the party's fundraiser-in-chief. That is not what is needed right now, to state the glaringly obvious. Democrats need a complete overhaul of the party's priorities if the party is going to have any chance of gaining back some of what was lost in the past eight years. These are all daunting tasks, and I personally hope Tom Perez proves up to this challenge. If he manages to successfully achieve these goals, though, he has the opportunity to be the most effective and strongest party chair in a long time.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

71 Comments on “Will Perez Be Effective?”

  1. [1] 
    michale wrote:

    You hit the nail on the head, CW...

    The ONLY tool that the Left has is "WE HATE TRUMP"!!!

    What's the Left going to do about getting Americans back to work??

    "WE HATE TRUMP"!!!

    What's the Left going to do about the death spiral that is TrainWreckCare??

    "WE HATE TRUMP"!!!

    What is the Left going to do about our crumbling infrastructure???

    "WE HATE TRUMP"!!!

    What is the Left going to do about the plummeting morale in our military???

    "WE HATE TRUMP"!!!

    It's like talking to a VERY boring parrot who only has ONE line...

    "WE HATE TRUMP"!!!

    Until Democrats actually have any positive plan to make America great again, they have no moral authority to condemn the President, who is at least making an effort..

  2. [2] 
    michale wrote:

    Until Democrats actually have any positive plan to make America great again, they have no moral authority to condemn the President, who is at least making an effort..

    I mean, honestly.. Lets look at the facts..

    Democrats were more worried about what bathroom a gender confused person would use and less worried about whether Americans have jobs..

    And THAT is exactly why the Democrat Party has been shellacked in the last 4 elections...

  3. [3] 
    John M wrote:

    The same could be said about Republicans and the Right:

    The ONLY tool that the Right has is "CUT TAXES FOR THE RICH"!!!

    What's the Right going to do about getting Americans back to work??

    "CUT TAXES FOR THE RICH"!!!

    What's the Right going to do about saving Obamacare and insuring that all Americans have health care??

    "CUT TAXES FOR THE RICH"!!!

    What is the Right going to do about our crumbling infrastructure???

    "CUT TAXES FOR THE RICH"!!!

    What is the Right going to do about our bloated military spending???

    "CUT TAXES FOR THE RICH"!!!

    It's like talking to a VERY boring parrot who only has ONE line...

    "CUT TAXES FOR THE RICH"!!!

  4. [4] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Democrats were more worried about what bathroom a gender confused person would use and less worried about whether Americans have jobs.."

    Actually, you have that ass backwards. Bathrooms weren't even an issue, until Republicans made it an issue. They were the ones who started passing legislation in the first place, a solution in search of a problem where none existed before. It was only AFTER that happened that Democrats felt a need to respond to a minority that was under perceived attack where it wasn't before to this same degree.

  5. [5] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Until Democrats actually have any positive plan to make America great again, they have no moral authority to condemn the President, who is at least making an effort.."

    My take on that is that Trump is the perfect carnival sideshow barker, the ultimate showman: "Come see the mermaid and the dog faced boy!" Translation: "I will cute taxes, raise military spending, lower the deficit, eliminate Obamacare, insure that every American has health care, and spend one trillion dollars on infrastructure, all at the same time!!!" "Now for my next trick..."

    As P.T. Barnum said "There's a sucker born every minute!"

  6. [6] 
    michale wrote:

    The same could be said about Republicans and the Right:

    You're right.

    The Republicans are as locked into Party ideology and dogma as the Democrats are..

    You will get no argument from me on that point..

    I am glad we can agree.. :D

    Actually, you have that ass backwards. Bathrooms weren't even an issue, until Republicans made it an issue. They were the ones who started passing legislation in the first place, a solution in search of a problem where none existed before. It was only AFTER that happened that Democrats felt a need to respond to a minority that was under perceived attack where it wasn't before to this same degree.

    Cite????

    My take on that is that Trump is the perfect carnival sideshow barker, the ultimate showman: "Come see the mermaid and the dog faced boy!" Translation: "I will cute taxes, raise military spending, lower the deficit, eliminate Obamacare, insure that every American has health care, and spend one trillion dollars on infrastructure, all at the same time!!!" "Now for my next trick..."

    That is simply Party ideology, bigotry and hatred speaking, not logic and facts..

    The logic and facts show that President Trump has been a success in practically all endeavors..

    A "carnival barker" would not have been the business success that the President has been, unless his business was carnival barking..

    The "ultimate showman" would NOT have beat 17 well-rounded, intelligent and well-funded candidates for the GOP nomination...

    A PT Barnum would NOT have been able to beat THE biggest, meanest and most well-funded political juggernaut in the history of the planet..

    As I have said and NO ONE can refute..

    We have the facts... And we have ya'all's Party ideology, bigotry and hatred...

    Which carries more weight??

    :D

  7. [7] 
    michale wrote:

    Further, what does that say about YOUR candidate if a "carnival barker", an "ultimate showman", a PT Barnum was able to totally and completely devastate her??

    Seems to me that it says that YOUR candidate was complete and utter kaa-kaa if she lost to the person you believe President Trump is...

    Think about it...

  8. [8] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (1)-
    Even though I consider myself an Independent I had to register as a Democrat to vote for Bernie in the primaries and I haven't changed back yet.
    So technically the Democrats do have a positive plan to make America great again, it's called Voucher Vendetta.

  9. [9] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    neilm (5)-
    P.T. Barnum never said that. Just use it as an old saying without the incorrect reference to P.T. Barnum.

  10. [10] 
    michale wrote:

    So technically the Democrats do have a positive plan to make America great again, it's called Voucher Vendetta.

    I will amend it to say that *A* Democrat has a positive plan to make America great again...

    I will even go so far as to say that there is more than one Democrat who has a positive plan..

    Unfortunately for ya'all, AND for this country, the ones with the positive plans are NOT the ones in charge...

  11. [11] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    Double thanks. One for being positive about VV and one for listing me as *A* Democrat.
    I don't think I've ever made the *A* list before.
    "Unfortunately... the ones with positive plans are NOT the ones in charge."
    Could not have said it better myself, though it hasn't stopped me from trying.
    Resist and persist.

  12. [12] 
    John M wrote:

    michale wrote:

    "Cite????"

    If you want just one example of the history of bathroom legislation, you might try http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/05/timeline-bathroom-wars.

    I am sure you can find many others.

  13. [13] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "The logic and facts show that President Trump has been a success in practically all endeavors.."

    EXCEPT, Trump is NOT a success in business. ALL his businesses have FAILED and GONE BANKRUPT.

    What he IS successful at is self promotion, and licensing his name to other people's projects, without actually creating anything himself.

    He is the Paris Hilton and the Kim Kardashian of the business world. He is only famous for being famous, not for actually accomplishing or building anything of substance on his own.

  14. [14] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Seems to me that it says that YOUR candidate was complete and utter kaa-kaa if she lost to the person you believe President Trump is..."

    She WASN'T MY candidate. Remember? I supported Bernie Sanders. So you can go right ahead and insult Hillary Clinton all you want. That just gives us something else we can agree upon. :-)

  15. [15] 
    michale wrote:

    legislation, you might try http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/05/timeline-bathroom-wars.

    Mother Jones???

    Shirley, you jest... :D

    She WASN'T MY candidate. Remember? I supported Bernie Sanders. So you can go right ahead and insult Hillary Clinton all you want. That just gives us something else we can agree upon.

    Touche, my friend.. Touche :D

    EXCEPT, Trump is NOT a success in business. ALL his businesses have FAILED and GONE BANKRUPT.

    Now THAT is utter felgercarb and I won't even bother asking for a cite because I know you made it up.. :D

    What he IS successful at is self promotion, and licensing his name to other people's projects, without actually creating anything himself.

    ANd WHY is he successful at that??

    Because, in the business community, his name MEANS something...

    He is the Paris Hilton and the Kim Kardashian of the business world.

    Really?? He has a sex tape out there???

    eeeeewwwwwwwww There's a mental image I could have done without... :D

    He is only famous for being famous, not for actually accomplishing or building anything of substance on his own.

    And, yet... He is President Of The United States...

    So, as I have said, on the one hand we have your biased interpretation..... And on the other hand, we have the facts....

  16. [16] 
    michale wrote:

    He is only famous for being famous, not for actually accomplishing or building anything of substance on his own.

    And, yet... He is President Of The United States...

    AND he beat someone that, allegedly has accomplished a great deal.. Allegedly was the most qualified candidate in the history of candidates..

    So, like I say..

    On the ONE hand, we have your animosity-fueled bias...

    On the OTHER hand, we have the facts and reality...

  17. [17] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Shirley, you jest... :D"

    oh no, I never have a Shirley Temple this early in the morning. :-D

    "Now THAT is utter felgercarb and I won't even bother asking for a cite because I know you made it up.. :D"

    Hmmm, let's see: airlines, steaks, vodka, casinos, board game, website, magazine, university, clothing line, fragrance line, mortgage company, etc. ALL failures.

    "Really?? He has a sex tape out there???

    eeeeewwwwwwwww There's a mental image I could have done without... :D"

    Well, he did make that appearance in a soft porn video for Playboy, fully clothed thank god! I guess he had to do something after Home Alone 2. :-D

    "And, yet... He is President Of The United States..."

    Yes, our curse and burden for the next two years. :-D

  18. [18] 
    John M wrote:

    michale wrote:

    "Shirley, you jest... :D"

    Oh no, I never jest with a Shirley Temple this early in the morning. :-D

    "Now THAT is utter felgercarb and I won't even bother asking for a cite because I know you made it up.. :D"

    Hmm let's see: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/.../donald-trumps-13-biggest-business-failures-20160314

    "Really?? He has a sex tape out there???

    eeeeewwwwwwwww There's a mental image I could have done without... :D"

    He did make that appearance in a soft porn video for Playboy, fully clothed thank god! I guess he had to redeem his reputation somehow after Home Alone 2. :-D

    "And, yet... He is President Of The United States..."

    Our burden and cross to bear for the next two years. :-D

  19. [19] 
    michale wrote:

    Hmm let's see: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/.../donald-trumps-13-biggest-business-failures-20160314

    OOPS! We can't find
    what you're looking for.

    Return to the Homepage

    I would also suspect ANYTHING factual or reliable from Rolling Stone Magazine

    Our burden and cross to bear for the next two years. :-D

    +6

    I'll lay down a wager right here and now that President Trump will be re-elected in a near landslide election...

  20. [20] 
    John M wrote:

    "OOPS! We can't find
    what you're looking for.

    Return to the Homepage"

    GREMLINS!!! Whenever I try to post a list of all of Trump's business failures, it disappears into the ether! If ONLY his ability at stopping White House leaks were as good! :-)

  21. [21] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "eeeeewwwwwwwww There's a mental image I could have done without... :D"

    I can just imagine the scene now.

    Nurse: "He has ingested a large quantity of poison. Quick! get me the ipecac!"

    Doctor: "No, get the Trump porno tape instead! It's much quicker and more effective!" :-D

  22. [22] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    +6

    Oh good. So you also agree with me that Trump won't last. That makes 3 things we agree upon now. Otherwise you would have written

    +8

    Since Trump hasn't even completed ONE year yet. :-D

  23. [23] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey gang

    Here's a little reminder of some facts that even the New Yorker thinks people should keep in mind.

    https://theintercept.com/2017/02/28/the-new-yorkers-big-cover-story-reveals-five-uncomfortable-truths-about-u-s-and-russia/

    The comparison between Obama and Clinton on Russia in the article is similar to the comparison between the Obama and Clinton dominated DNC policy about corporate money and lobbyists.

    The Clinton cadre keeps claiming that adopting Bernie's policies moves the Democratic party too far to the left, yet both the Russia policy and the new (last year) DNC corporate money/lobbyists policy has actually moved Dem policies even further to the right than what even Wall Street coddling, military interventionist Obama supported.

    In other words, those who supported the candidate that lost to Trump are pushing Dem policies to the right of Obama despite losing all credibility through their monumental failure...
    ... all while whining about the left.

    I must have missed the "not right wing enough" conclusion in post election autopsies.

    A

  24. [24] 
    altohone wrote:

    Listen
    delayed response to comment 98 FTP

    "The argument doesn't fall apart, as Bernie did not win! Saying that both candidates raised and spent the same amounts means little."

    Your argument was in favor of taking Big Money by claiming "this cycle can't be broken by politicians refusing money".

    Since Bernie raised as much money as Hillary, money can't have been the deciding factor in Bernie's loss.
    Bernie not winning doesn't prove your argument in favor of taking Big Money in any way, shape or form.

    In any case, since nobody was "refusing money", it is still a straw man argument.

    The debate is about who they raise the money from, not whether or not they raise money.

    As for the DNC putting a boatload of thumbs on the scale for Hillary not influencing the outcome of the Dem primary, that requires a serious delusion.
    It was done to help Hillary.
    If they didn't think it was going to help Hillary, they wouldn't have done it.
    Claiming that it didn't help Hillary doesn't make sense when that was the motivation.

    "Hillary won by a fairly large margin"

    No.
    Actually, Hillary won the primaries roughly 54 to 46.
    A 5% swing from Hillary to Bernie would have changed the outcome.
    Only 1 out of 20 voters.

    A

  25. [25] 
    altohone wrote:
  26. [26] 
    michale wrote:

    Oh good. So you also agree with me that Trump won't last. That makes 3 things we agree upon now. Otherwise you would have written

    Nope, I was adding +6 to your 2 to make it 8.... :D

  27. [27] 
    michale wrote:

    From Altohone's link....

    Myth #7: Write-off the white working class

    The path to victory no longer depends on white working class voters and their declining unions. While white working people won’t be ignored entirely, U.S. demographics are trending to people of color. Besides, there’s an inherent nationalistic/racist streak that runs through white working people that makes them prone to Trumpism.

    Arguably, this is the most pernicious myth. The white working class is far from monolithic. To use the term as a blanket phrase (as liberal columnist Paul Krugman does regularly. see here) is just plain wrong.

    While some white working people are indeed anti-immigrant and prone to racism, most are not. In fact millions of these voters supported Obama twice, voted for Bernie in the primaries and then voted for Trump out of sheer frustration. Those Obama-to-Sanders-to-Trump voters are why Hillary lost so much of the Rust Belt (see here.)

    Word......

    That's the problem the Democrats have. They want to demonize and attack Trump voters, not realizing that those Trump voters were, in fact, OBAMA voters 4 and 8 years ago...

    If the Democrats can't come to grips with this reality, they will never be a majority or never see the inside of the White House again...

    EVER....

  28. [28] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    "party chairs are (somewhat mockingly) called "fundraisers-in-chief," since a big part of their job is keeping the party's campaign chest full, by convincing the big donors to keep the money flowing in."

    Actually, that is not in the job description.
    That is the job description that Big Money defending Democrats want it to be.

    Raising money, yes.
    Limiting it to who they raise it from (big donors), no.

    "Ideologically, Ellison and Perez were pretty close. There wasn't a whole lot of daylight between them, except on one big issue."

    The TPP was not the only big difference.
    Perez was directly involved in coddling Wall Street banksters and defending the control of Big Money over the party.
    Ellison is hardly a progressive purist on the issue, but he had spoken more forcefully on it.

    There should also be some mention of the "insufficiently pro-Israel" smear campaign against Ellison (despite the evidence).

    "It has to be admitted that part of the problem of party unity (and party effectiveness) for Democrats was caused in large part by Barack Obama."

    Yes.
    Absolutely.
    But Obama "starving the DNC" is NOT the main part of the problem.
    Obama's Wall Street coddling economic policies and his support for DNC chairs who defend them were the problem.

    On building the party and gerrymandering-
    "if both Obama and the D.N.C. are working for the same goal, it should hopefully mean that the donor divide between Obama's organization and the party itself won't matter as much. If they're both working to achieve the same goal, it can only help, in other words."

    No actually.
    If Obama clings to the failed policies that helped cause those electoral losses (catering policies to Big Money), having him work on tactics to revive the party may actually be harmful and counterproductive.

    On Perez-
    "He's got to generate some excitement in the Democratic base by choosing candidates who inspire the crowds"

    The DNC has been choosing Big Money defending "moderate to conservative Dems" as a means of trying to win over "centrists" while actively working against progressives... which is where the enthusiasm of the base actually is.
    In Democratic primaries, the DNC has been choosing to support the wrong candidates, and actively working against the correct ones.
    If Perez maintains that approach, he can't "inspire the crowds".

    "Bernie Sanders proved that there plenty of excitement does exist out there for progressive ideas, and that donations aren't a problem -- when your agenda matches with regular people's needs."

    Yes.
    Exactly.
    That last sentence is the key.

    I hope you continue to write columns that focus or at least mention that key element.

    A

  29. [29] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    nypoet- carry over from FTP (129)-
    Your argument that there is no point about discussing if VV could work because it won't start of with the 25 million that could make it successful is bullshit. It is merely an excuse for you to avoid the issue at hand.
    You have tried to explain your point but have continually failed. And I have explained why you failed.
    Once again, no movement has ever started out at peak participation. They all started small and grew to the point where they were effective.
    You said in FTP comment 110 that I couldn't get 20% national participation because I couldn't even get 20% of this website. Fair point.
    "Let's find out."
    Jerry Callo
    -My Cousin Vinny

    Let's see what answers we get to the following survey of commenters. Let see where we are to judge how VV is progressing and if it is possible for it to progress. Please try to answer with a yes or a no. If you feel a question can't be answered with a yes or no please explain why. If you answer no to any questions feel free to elaborate with an explanation unless you don't have the balls to back your answer.

    1. If VV achieved 20% participation in 2018 COULD it result in 10-50 small contribution congressional candidates (Senate included) elected in 2018 ?
    my answer: Yes.
    2. If VV achieved 20% participation in 2018 WOULD it result in 10-50 small contribution congressional candidates elected in 2018 ?
    my answer: Yes.
    3. Will VV achieve 20% national participation in 2018 ?
    my answer: Maybe. I would really like to say yes but there are so many people that are too afraid to even try to beat Big Money that there may not be enough people left in this country with a can do attitude. Maybe the slogan should be "YES, WE CAN" though that would be a hard sell because that last time it was used it turned out the person using it didn't really mean it.
    4. If VV does achieve 20% national participation in 2018 (without your participation) and 10-50 small contribution candidates are elected in 2018 COULD this result in more people participating in 2020?
    my answer: Yes. (though it would obviously be WITH my participation)
    5. If VV does achieve 20% national participation in 2018 (without your participation) and 10-50 small contribution candidates are elected in 2018 WOULD this result in more people participating in 2020?
    my answer: Yes, same as 4.
    6. WILL it?
    my answer: Maybe.same as 3.
    7. If VV does achieve 20& national participation in 2018 (without your participation) and 10-50 small contribution candidates are elected in 2018 will YOU participate in VV for congressional elections in 2020 ? (Citizens can commit to only small contribution candidates for Congress and the Senate while still voting for Big Money candidates for President if they want to try this approach incrementally.)
    my answer: Yes. same as 4.
    8. If two or three candidates had otherwise equally suitable qualifications and an equal chance to win in your congressional district and one was a small contribution candidate, would you vote for the small contribution candidate ?
    my answer: yes.

  30. [30] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey

    A little context for a Matt Stoller article courtesy of Jimmy Dore

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R6O-AdvzTM

    A

  31. [31] 
    michale wrote:

    Newly-elected Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Tom Perez compared the administration of President Donald Trump to the Jim Crow era and the “mid-19th century” at the Latino Political Power Summit on Tuesday.
    http://ntknetwork.com/tom-perez-compares-trump-to-jim-crow-and-know-nothings/

    What this jackass doesn't realize is that, if Jim Crow were actually a real person, he would be a Democrat....

    It's the ultimate in stoopidity for Perez to harken to the days of Jim Crow and the KKK because this inevitably reminds everyone that Jim Crow and the KKK were the constructs of Democrats...

    Moron....

  32. [32] 
    dsws wrote:

    Will the anti-Trump activist energy that is currently spreading like wildfire across America be so disgusted with the rejection of Ellison that they spurn the party organization and apparatus?

    My guess is no: protest organizers will keep doing their own things, for reasons having nothing to do with Ellison.

  33. [33] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey Liz

    I didn't sell it very hard, but you'll love the link in 29 to Jimmy Dore on YouTube.

    He's a big Geithner fan too.

    A

  34. [34] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Your argument that there is no point about discussing if VV could work because it won't start of with the 25 million

    i made no such argument. my argument is that there's no point discussing something on a national scale until it's been tried and proven successful on a smaller scale. assuming something isn't the case until there is empirical evidence to support it is called the scientific method.

    so, first knock on some doors for a local election and see if the voucher idea works. if so, great. if not, ask yourself why not. maybe people would rather choose what candidate to donate to or vote for on their own, irrespective of whether or not there's money behind the candidate? i have no idea. what i do know is you've been selling this idea for years, and how many people so far are motivated by it? i think it's widely acknowledged that 20% nationwide is absurd, but if you had a few thousand to show, i'd take notice.

    JL

  35. [35] 
    michale wrote:

    “Almost all the Democrats voted to censure Joe Wilson,” said former Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who spent Monday afternoon stopping by to see old colleagues in the Capitol. “I don’t see how anybody who voted to censure Joe Wilson would now turn around and do it themselves.”
    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-speech-congress-2017-obama-comparison-235500

    Yea.. Cuz that would be hypocritical...

    And Democrats would NEVER do anything hypocritical.. :^/

  36. [36] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [30]

    It's the ultimate in stoopidity for Perez to harken to the days of Jim Crow and the KKK because this inevitably reminds everyone that Jim Crow and the KKK were the constructs of Democrats...

    "Everyone"? It appears you may be confusing "everyone" with today's right-wing political troglodytes attempting deflection. The Trump administration includes those who give voice to white supremacists and the contemporary KKK while the Republican Party is fast becoming the largest white identity organization in the United States today, and no amount of desperate denial via deflection to a historical reference that makes Democrats of the mid 1800s look bad is going to change the reality of the 21st century GOP.

  37. [37] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    nypoet-
    You are right you didn't make that exact claim. I kind of lumped you in with someone else a bit. But you did say it was putting the cart before the horse, etc. in FTP comment 129 that is kind of in the same ballpark.
    And you did issue the challenge that I couldn't even get 20% of the website. It looks like you may be right about that as I haven't even got anyone to participate in my survey yet(?).
    And I provided three examples of where parts of VV have been tried separately on a smaller scale with success. The Tea Party taking on the establishment candidates in the primaries, Bernie raising a competitive amount of money through small contributions and the many internet campaigns that have moved the public discourse in amounts of time previously thought impossible. (Like the Women's March- one woman to huge and multiple demonstrations in just two months.)
    So you're saying the Women's March should have been done locally on a small scale first ? Didn't that actually start as a march on Washington and then expand to smaller local marches ? And all in two months. Impossible.
    And trying things out to see if they work is the scientific method.
    What was it Edison said about the 2000 attempts he made before getting the light bulb to work ?
    "I found 2000 ways not to make a light bulb."
    When there was no empirical evidence, he created it.
    Maybe VV is not attempt number 2001 for getting the Big Money out of politics. But as I said above there is some empirical evidence that it can work, so I think now would be a good time to find out.
    Over forty years of voting for Big Money Democrats has created irrefutable and overwhelming evidence that it will not get the Big Money out of politics. The scientific method demands that voting for Big Money Democrats is a strategy that should be abandoned. Better late than never.
    And you would be hard pressed to find any issue, progressive or not, that is not adversely affected by Big Money in politics. So winning some small battles while losing the bigger battles and the majority of battles and the more important battles does not override the overall failure of voting for Big Money Democrats.

  38. [38] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Pretty sure the Edison quote was from a movie (maybe Tommorowland?) Sure hope it's true after correcting Neil on P.T. Barnum.

  39. [39] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris [37]

    Pretty sure the Edison quote was from a movie (maybe Tommorowland?) Sure hope it's true after correcting Neil on P.T. Barnum.

    Ben tells Riley about the Edison quote in National Treasure... the Library of Congress scene.

    The "sucker" quote is by David Hannum, a rival of P.T. Barnum. Hannum was speaking of the people lined up to see Barnum's fake Cardiff giant, a copy of Hannum's "real" Cardiff giant that also turned out to be a fake. In 1869, Hannum and his business partners were making a handsome profit touring and had thousands of people lining up to see their Cardiff giant, supposedly a petrified man. Barnum made a giant of his own and declared it the true Cardiff giant. When people lined up to see Barnum's knockoff, Hannum (who at this point didn't know that he himself had bought a fake) declared about Barnum's patrons, "There’s a sucker born every minute."

  40. [40] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale (and others) -

    OK, now you've got me thinking.

    What would have happened if PT Barnum had run for president? And won?

    Man, THERE's an alternate universe someone should write a sci-fi movie about! I'm just sayin'...

    :-)

    -CW

  41. [41] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Don Harris [9] -

    But he DID have a sign saying "This way to the egress..." didn't he?

    Heh.

    And who was it that said, when PTB (or whomever) was quoted: "And one born to take him."? Historical footnote I'm too lazy to look up at the moment...

    Oh, here's another one:

    It seems like PTB but was probably HL Mencken, but the one I like to quote more than the "born every minute" is:

    No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

    Heh. Gotta love pithy quotes from the past...

    :-)

    -CW

  42. [42] 
    michale wrote:

    "Everyone"?

    Yer right.. I should have qualified that..

    I should have said, "Everyone who is not enslaved by Party dogma and everyone who has more than than two brain cells to rub together."

    Better?? :D

    The Trump administration includes those who give voice to white supremacists and the contemporary KKK while the Republican Party is fast becoming the largest white identity organization in the United States today, and no amount of desperate denial via deflection to a historical reference that makes Democrats of the mid 1800s look bad is going to change the reality of the 21st century GOP.

    Yaaawwwnnnnn

    I understand.. Ya have no logical or rational argument so you have to play the race card...

    's awright... We patriotic Americans played the Trump card... :D

  43. [43] 
    michale wrote:

    What would have happened if PT Barnum had run for president? And won?

    Ever see MAN OF THE YEAR with Robin Williams?? :D

  44. [44] 
    michale wrote:

    The Trump administration includes those who give voice to white supremacists and the contemporary KKK

    As opposed to the Obama administration who gave voice to black supremacists and the contemporary KKK???

    You didn't seem to have a problem with it then, eh???

  45. [45] 
    michale wrote:

    to a historical reference that makes Democrats of the mid 1800s

    Ahhhh, but this is the new and improved reality..

    The position taken in the past is the current position in the present..

    So, President Trump's action is a muslim ban. Always was a muslim ban, always will be a muslim ban..

    The Democrat Party is the Party of the KKK.. Always has been the Party of the KKK, always WILL be the Party of the KKK...

    This is yer reality now... :D

  46. [46] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    Thanks. I knew it sounded too good to be real.

  47. [47] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW (39)-
    I think we are finding out right now.
    (40)-
    Thanks for explaining why VV is having so much trouble gaining traction.
    But comment 9 is right next to comment 8 so maybe I'm getting closer.

  48. [48] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (42)-
    Horrible example.
    Robin Williams character was a decent human being. Trump is not in any way a descent human being. It is even doubtful he is a human being.
    Maybe we should start a Birther-type movement to demand a DNA test to find out what he actually is.

  49. [49] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Not again.
    It should be "Trump is in no way a decent human being."
    He is actually in EVERY way a descent human being.
    (Yeah, I know I just admitted he is human, as distressing as that prospect may be.)

  50. [50] 
    michale wrote:

    Robin Williams character was a decent human being. Trump is not in any way a descent human being. It is even doubtful he is a human being.

    We weren't talking about President Trump..

    We were talking about PT Barnum...

    Irregardless of that, your opinion of Trump is just that.. A biased opinion...

  51. [51] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    True- but what's the difference ?

  52. [52] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [43]

    As opposed to the Obama administration who gave voice to black supremacists and the contemporary KKK???

    We weren't talking about President Obama; we were talking about the Trump administration. :) Does the deflection never end in the bubble? Besides, who in the Obama administration was the equivalent of the Breitbart twins of Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller?

    You didn't seem to have a problem with it then, eh???

    Making up BS about others says more about you than it does about them, eh? LOL :D

  53. [53] 
    michale wrote:

    We weren't talking about President Obama; we were talking about the Trump administration. :)

    No, we are talking about how you blame the Trump Administration for something that you give Obama a pass for..

    Therefore, logic dictates that you don't really care about the issue you are proselytizing about, you just want to attack the man you hate..

    THAT's what we're talking about..

    Making up BS about others says more about you than it does about them, eh? LOL :D

    If I were making up BS, then you would have a point.

    But I am not, so you don't..

    But, as always, I am more than willing to be proven wrong...

    Provide me with a comment you made that castigated the Obama administration for giving voice to black supremacists...

    If you can do that, I will gladly concede that I was wrong...

    I'll be waiting right here.. I will ALWAYS be right here.. :D

  54. [54] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [41]

    I understand.. Ya have no logical or rational argument so you have to play the race card...

    So in your "mind," a mere response to your post at [30] wherein you state that "Jim Crow and the KKK were the constructs of Democrats" is having to "play the race card." You didn't think that one through, eh? LOL :)

    's awright... We patriotic Americans played the Trump card... :D

    Bend over patriot because "played" is exactly what happened. Donald Trump is a master of manipulation. He's toying with people's fears to acquire power, money, adulation. He's an opportunist who preys on the little guy who can't afford to sue him when he stiffs them on contracts. He doesn't care about the truth, his tool is confirmation bias... how your "brain" tricks you into thinking you're the reasonable one, regardless of actual reality and provable facts. As he has done his entire adult life, Trump is merely a gilded con man playing suckers for fools.

  55. [55] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [52]

    No, we are talking about how you blame the Trump Administration for something that you give Obama a pass for..

    I will take this as a "no" answer to my question about the deflection never ending in the bubble. Additionally, you haven't answered my question regarding "who in the Obama administration was the equivalent of the Breitbart twins of Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller." No surprise there. LOL

    Therefore, logic dictates that you don't really care about the issue you are proselytizing about, you just want to attack the man you hate..

    THAT's what we're talking about..

    Perhaps you are projecting here, but we were talking about the Trump administration and his giving a voice to today's KKK via Bannon and Miller, and you deflected to talking about the Obama administration and talking about me. It's what you always do. You deflect to your standard BS whereby you make up stuff about people you don't know and then assign positions or emotions to people whom you know little to nothing about. It's obvious why you do it; it is so much easier than discussing issues... just label someone and dismiss them.

    The problem is, you really have no idea what you're talking about when you label someone you don't know. I don't "hate" anybody. Hate would require passion... for instance, the type of passion that Trump uses to exploit people's fears about others, and that's where Bannon and Miller come in. I'm not one of those whose passion can be exploited because I don't hate or fear others... not even Trump. I have, however, been known to have pity for people. LOL :)

  56. [56] 
    michale wrote:

    So in your "mind," a mere response to your post at [30] wherein you state that "Jim Crow and the KKK were the constructs of Democrats" is having to "play the race card." You didn't think that one through, eh? LOL :)

    Actually, I did think it through..

    Your attempt to accuse the Republicans of racism amounts to playing the race card..

    Yer new hero, Perez, invoking Jim Crow ALSO constitutes playing the race card..

    So, I'm good.. Thanx for asking, though.. :D

    Bend over patriot because "played" is exactly what happened. Donald Trump is a master of manipulation. He's toying with people's fears to acquire power, money, adulation. He's an opportunist who preys on the little guy who can't afford to sue him when he stiffs them on contracts. He doesn't care about the truth, his tool is confirmation bias... how your "brain" tricks you into thinking you're the reasonable one, regardless of actual reality and provable facts. As he has done his entire adult life, Trump is merely a gilded con man playing suckers for fools.

    Yaaawwwwnnnnnn

    Sour grapes look good on you.. How you enjoying yer daily crow intake??? :D hehehehe

    I will take this as a "no" answer to my question about the deflection never ending in the bubble.

    It's deflection that you refuse to ever address my points.. :D

    Perhaps you are projecting here, but we were talking about the Trump administration and his giving a voice to today's KKK via Bannon and Miller, and you deflected to talking about the Obama administration and talking about me. It's what you always do. You deflect to your standard BS whereby you make up stuff about people you don't know and then assign positions or emotions to people whom you know little to nothing about. It's obvious why you do it; it is so much easier than discussing issues... just label someone and dismiss them.

    You are describing EXACTLY what you always attempt to do.. And when that fails, as it ALWAYS does, you always run away and hide.. :D

    The problem is, you really have no idea what you're talking about when you label someone you don't know.

    Says the girl who TOTALLY scroo'ed the pooch in the last election..

    Who called it???

    The guy you accuse of having "no idea"...

    Sorry, sugar..

    The facts clearly show who has no idea and who is always dead on ballz accurate.. :D

    I know, I know.. You can't address the facts so you just ignore them.. :D

  57. [57] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Who called it???

    The guy you accuse of having "no idea"...

    the guy wearing the "hillary is my hero" t-shirt?

    ;)

    JL

  58. [58] 
    michale wrote:

    the guy wearing the "hillary is my hero" t-shirt?

    ;)

    hehehehe Yea, YOU have bragging rights...

    So does David...

    Other than that..... :D

  59. [59] 
    michale wrote:

    the guy wearing the "hillary is my hero" t-shirt?

    ;)

    But yea... The guy wearing the "hillary is my hero" t-shirt is the guy that called it...

    :D

    So, saying that THAT guy has "no idea" what he is talking about is a bald-faced lie...

  60. [60] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    yes, you do have your moments.

    @CW,

    you were right the second time, it was mencken.

    as for the prediction game, i knew it was too close to call. i thought hillary would squeak by, but that's the electoral college for you. trump's midwest strategy paid off for him, and finally listening to ms. conway and showing a little self control is what i think put him over the top. i hope to god his desire to be seen as successful overcomes his ego again on important policy matters, as it did in the election. conway seems to be the only voice of reason the president will actually listen to, so for all our sake i hope she stays in the picture.

    JL

  61. [61] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [55]

    Your attempt to accuse the Republicans of racism amounts to playing the race card..

    Oh, snowflake, that ship had sailed a long time ago, and it's not an attempt nor anything I had anything at all to do with. It's called the "southern strategy," and it's not remotely a secret. You can listen to conservative aide and lobbyist Lee Atwater who invented it actually define the strategy in his own words if you care to venture out of your safe spaces and learn something. LOL :)

    https://www.thenation.com/article/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/

    You know Lee Atwater? He became a senior partner at the lobbying firm Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly the day after Reagan won reelection and his services were no longer needed. Lee Atwater... Paul Manafort... Roger Stone.

    Anyhoo... I responded to your post about Democrats being the party of the KKK and said that today's GOP gives a voice to white supremacists and that no amount of deflection to the origins of the KKK in the mid 1800s changes that fact. If the facts are too much for you to handle, you are free to live in your alternate reality and occupy your safe spaces. There's no amount of deflection to a discussion of Obama or me that is going change the facts either.

    And you still haven't answered my question about who in the Obama administration could be compared to Bannon and Miller. Who was I supposed to have denounced in the Obama administration that compared to Bannon and Miller? Did Obama make the Reverend Wright a member of his administration? Was there someone else?

    Speaking of Reverend Wright, I wonder if anyone besides me noticed how PT was getting perilously close to sounding like the Reverend Wright? When Trump compared Putin's reputation for extrajudicial killings with that of the United States' saying, "There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers. What, you think our country is so innocent?"

    Yer new hero, Perez, invoking Jim Crow ALSO constitutes playing the race card..

    Try to stay focused on the conversation versus your made up BS about me. Your deflection to me is pathetic at this point.

    So, I'm good.. Thanx for asking, though.. :D

    Sorry, but I didn't really ask. LOL

    Sour grapes look good on you.. How you enjoying yer daily crow intake??? :D hehehehe

    More deflection and talking about me. LOL

    You are describing EXACTLY what you always attempt to do.. And when that fails, as it ALWAYS does, you always run away and hide.. :D

    More deflection and talking about me (as if you actually have any idea what I do). LOL

    Says the girl who TOTALLY scroo'ed the pooch in the last election..

    More deflection and talking about me. LOL

    Who called it???

    Who can't get over it and deflects to it over and over ad nauseam as if it proves every issue? Deflecting every issue into a discussion about the election is one of your "safe spaces." :)

    The guy you accuse of having "no idea"...

    I said you have "no idea" about me, and putting words in my mouth and making up BS is deflecting from discussing issues, as is your "election deflection"... your "safe spaces." LOL

    Sorry, sugar..

    Yes, I know you're sorry. You have my pity. LOL

    The facts clearly show who has no idea and who is always dead on ballz accurate.. :D

    You needn't keep reiterating that your "ballz" are perfectly dead. It's redundant, and you already have my pity. :)

  62. [62] 
    michale wrote:

    Oh, snowflake, that ship had sailed a long time ago, and it's not an attempt nor anything I had anything at all to do with. It's called the "southern strategy," and it's not remotely a secret. You can listen to conservative aide and lobbyist Lee Atwater who invented it actually define the strategy in his own words if you care to venture out of your safe spaces and learn something. LOL :)

    OK, so now we're back to what happened in the distant past is applicable today..

    OK, so since you want to go back to the past, then the FACT is that the Democrat Party is the racist Party and the Party of the KKK..

    Try to stay focused on the conversation versus your made up BS about me. Your deflection to me is pathetic at this point.

    The conversation WAS about Perez, sugar.... :D

    You needn't keep reiterating that your "ballz" are perfectly dead.

    Wow.. You NOW want to talk about my testicles and you accuse ME of deflection!???

    Just.... WOW....

  63. [63] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    @michale,

    yes, you do have your moments.

    Yes I do... :D

    And the ONLY reason we have to hear about them so often is because those enslaved by Party ideology keep insisting over and over again that those moments don't exist...

    If they would quit calling into question the FACT that I have been right about so many things of late, I wouldn't have to keep pointing out how full of kaa-kaa they are..

    In other words, people around here (present company excepted, of course :D ) should quit trying to tell Howard he WASN'T in space and Howard will quit boring us with his 'I Was In Space' stories... :D

  64. [64] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    howard? space? i'm afraid you lost me there. i count one thing you were right about - admittedly the election was an extremely big thing. i'm unaware of any other recent instances of your guesses proving accurate.

    @kick,

    inciting racists and sexists was definitely something that occurred in the trump campaign, but i would argue that (unlike nixon or reagan, for example) it wasn't particularly instrumental in the outcome. donald's midwest strategy was economic, and one of the main reasons it was effective is that the impact of obama's recovery never reached many areas of the country.

    if people in those places were faring better economically, their votes wouldn't have been there for the taking. if hillary had given them substantial cause for economic optimism, their votes wouldn't have been borne of desperation. essentially, it was a case of "who are you going to believe, me or your bank account?"

    i happen to agree with you that the modern republicans seem to have embraced 1950's style bigotry. however, talk of racism, founded or not, is just a distraction from the economic issues that democratic leadership is loath to face. what clinton, perez, obama and the rest need to deal with is the fact that globalist economics is deeply unpopular with grassroots on both sides of the aisle.

    massive tariffs would be a mistake, but the need to rethink deals like nafta and tpp was an area where donald was right and hillary didn't seem to care one way or the other. i voted for hillary because i still thought she'd have made an infinitely better president. however, even in my own liberal circles there were questions about her globalist, corporate allegiances. those same questions will continue to be asked of democrats until they demonstrate something different.

    JL

    "I come from a state that raises corn and cotton and cockleburs and Democrats, and frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I am from Missouri. You have got to show me."
    ~willard duncan vandiver

  65. [65] 
    michale wrote:

    howard? space? i'm afraid you lost me there.

    Not a TBBT fan, I take it.. :D

    i count one thing you were right about - admittedly the election was an extremely big thing. i'm unaware of any other recent instances of your guesses proving accurate.

    The election was a year long series of things that I was right about..

    Every time something happened and ya'all predicted Trump is toast, I would say that was wrong and provide facts to back up WHY it was wrong..

    And I turned out to be right each and every time..

    As for current events??

    Every TRUMP IS TOAST prediction made SINCE the President was elected I again pointed out that it was wrong and AGAIN, I turned out to be right each and every time.. :D

    Except for the FLYNN dismissal. I was wrong about that..

    inciting racists and sexists was definitely something that occurred in the trump campaign, but i would argue that (unlike nixon or reagan, for example) it wasn't particularly instrumental in the outcome. donald's midwest strategy was economic, and one of the main reasons it was effective is that the impact of obama's recovery never reached many areas of the country.

    if people in those places were faring better economically, their votes wouldn't have been there for the taking. if hillary had given them substantial cause for economic optimism, their votes wouldn't have been borne of desperation. essentially, it was a case of "who are you going to believe, me or your bank account?"

    i happen to agree with you that the modern republicans seem to have embraced 1950's style bigotry. however, talk of racism, founded or not, is just a distraction from the economic issues that democratic leadership is loath to face. what clinton, perez, obama and the rest need to deal with is the fact that globalist economics is deeply unpopular with grassroots on both sides of the aisle.

    Yep, yep, yep, yep....

    But Perez and the rest of the Democrat Party refuse to face that simple fact...

    And they are whistling all the way to permanent Minority Party status...

  66. [66] 
    michale wrote:

    howard? space? i'm afraid you lost me there.

    Not a TBBT fan, I take it.. :D

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkIEuyEsVgY

    You should watch it. It's hilarious...

    As my sons told me, "No self-respecting Trek geek would NOT watch TBBT"

    :D

  67. [67] 
    michale wrote:

    Well, come to think of it
    Kid, honestly I can go on and on
    I can explain every natural phenomenon
    The tide, the grass, the ground, oh
    That was Maui just messing around
    I killed an eel
    I buried its guts
    Sprouted a tree, now you got coconuts
    What's the lesson
    What is the take-away
    Don't mess with Maui when he's on the break-away

    -YOU'RE WELCOME, Dwayne Johnson

    :D

  68. [68] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Not a TBBT fan, I take it.. :D

    nope. perhaps this will help:

    http://i.imgur.com/51UIcHg.jpg

    JL

  69. [69] 
    michale wrote:

    hehehehe

    Now THAT's funny... :D

  70. [70] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [61]

    Anything, anything, anything to avoid discussing the issues.

    Snowflake plays the race card on Perez and the Democrats by invoking the KKK of the mid 1800s but then squeals like a pig when someone brings up the fact that no amount of deflection to the history of white supremacy in America is going to change the fact that the Trump administration gives a voice to the "white nationalists" (or whatever they're calling themselves) in this day and age.

    Then we have the standard deflection to whining about Obama and (Michale's words) "black supremacists" and how I didn't denounce them, and I'm still waiting for that name, any name, of a single person that Obama appointed that fits that description... anyone that rivals the Breitbart twins of Bannon and Miller.

    Crawling into that safe space is so much easier than discussing the issues, snowflake. LOL :)

  71. [71] 
    Kick wrote:

    nypoet22 [63]

    Refreshing to see someone actually discuss the issues! As I have said myself, anyone blaming anyone not named Clinton for the 2016 election loss is missing the forest for the trees.

Comments for this article are closed.