Just in fairness, until we win control of some aspect of government, this thread title should be changed to "The Tragic Death of the Democrat Party"

Sure. The district was +16 in 2012 and +16 yesterday. It's cool to see good turnout for a special election, but it's a particularly politically conscious moment right now that may or may not be predictive of this fall and next year.

The greater tragic death issue here is that a comfortably democratic state has only managed a single seat edge in a state house. If dems were one seat from controlling a South Carolina house the whole world would be on fire.

it really is amazing how this party keeps shooting itself in the foot, over and over. a muslim leading the dnc would not only have been the perfect way to troll trump, but it would have been such a simple yet powerful way to reassure all religious minorities being discriminated nationwide that the democratic party has their back.

electing ellison would have also been the easiest way to coalesce the bernie wing of the party with the added bonus of putting the primary bad blood to rest, perhaps permanently. ellison as chair would have cost the party little, with instant gains in both optics and party loyalty, while bringing with him the reliable grassroots sanders contingent for 2018 and beyond.

however now the party is going to have to waste valuable time working to win back the progressives and leftists and independents it has spurned with this vote. risking further party fracturing to elect a corporate yes-man jellyfish like perez only makes sense in light of the vote to keep taking that sweet, sweet lobbying money. ellison, like bernie, was not on board the money train, so he had to go; or, the democratic party's version of go: participation trophies, aka spurious positions like "outreach chair" and "deputy chair" designed to placate and inveigle supporters into thinking they have a say at the table.

I think Dems do need to get back to the basics, but this approach is dead wrong. The reason things are so messed up now is that both parties have deviated so far from their core philosophies. Republicans are supposed to be anti-big government, and democrats are supposed to be anti-big business. In this election we had a full-on authoritarian "anti-big government" candidate, and an "anti-big business" candidate that was clearly in the pocket of the corporate elite.

Back to basics would be completely disentangling the Democratic Party from big business. The solution is really simple. From here on, the Democratic Party, and every single Democrat running for office will not take a single dollar in campaign contributions from any corporate entity or special interest group. Individual voters only. Put an annual cumulative limit of $1000 in contributions to all candidates or the party itself. No super-pacs or anything like that will be allowed. Everything is completely transparent. This sets up a sort of prisoners dilema where if the Republicans don't follow suit, they will get waffle crushed.

This is probably one of the few good things about having a strict 2-party system. One of the parties can tell all of the money guys to **** off, and they will still have a very high floor in terms of actually getting candidates elected. And once voters see that one party has fully stopped participating in legal political corruption, the ceiling gets pretty damn high.

Maybe the Democratic Party should care less about symbolic acts and more about practical ways to win elections.

(have no opinion on Ellison vs. Perez. i know next to nothing about Perez. I think he was a guest on the Daily Show once or twice)

Edit: in response to locknopair

Maybe, but then there was no reason for the corporate types to run Perez to begin with. It was a calculated and intentional move to wrest control of the party from the left.

Being +16 in a special election held in February is considerably more relevant than being +16 in an election held in a Presidential election year when that state is deep-blue.

which is exactly what I said would happen if ultra-liberals stayed at home and let trump get elected: the moderate wing pushes the party further to the right

Or, since you have no labor union money to fall back on, alienating corporate America when they're the only powerful ally we've got could mean losing full control of America to a fascist, white supremacist Republican state. But if you're willing to take that chance and you think it's worth it for the marginal difference between Tom Perez and Keith Ellison, go for it. I can already tell you what's going to happen, because we tried this experiment way back in the Presidential Election of 2016. The purists voted for Jill Stein or stayed home and now we have a fascist as President.

Why would it surprise or upset anyone that the corporate types would want their guy in charge? Why wouldn't they? The whole point of having an election is to sort out which faction gets to have their guy in the chair in an amicable fashion.

I don't want Ellison. I haven't followed this that closely, but my gut feeling is that he's an Obamaesque bait and switch.

After 30 years of stagnant wages and then the financial crisis, people are very frustrated and angry, and I think the elites on both sides have tacitly agreed to use transgender bathrooms and prejudice as a wedge issue to make sure that all that anger and frustration never gets directed at it's proper target. I don't think Ellison would have done much towards fixing this.

My feeling by and large is that change in the Democratic party is going to come from the bottom up.

They're still going to use race as a wedge issue with Perez. It'll be like that Hispanic judge from Indiana, they'll find that he once shook hands with someone who shook hands with La Raza or whatever.

It's already happening. Ellison wouldn't even gotten a second look 4 years ago. It would have been a contest between two empty suits instead of just one this time.

I have the same comment for the bernie bros as I have for the libertarian and green supporters. Start by getting elected to a meaningful share of local and state positions. Both in public offices and in the Democratic Party. As far as anyone can tell, neither sanders nor ellison is your leader, since not all of you can listen to their advice and get behind the party. sanders isn't even a democrat and he got behind the "establishment" after hemming and hawing. you want to change the party? start by getting involved at the low levels, rather than expecting to win the top chair on day one.

Got to agree with that. Primarying Democrats is the only way to go.

the state senate election went D+2 in 2014.

How do the Democrats collect record amounts of money and lose a record number of seats and yet still not know where the money goes?

Consultants

https://medium.com/theyoungturks/are...480#.eqlux2pkm

The argument could be made that when the left wing led by McGovern took control of the party after the 1968 election the results turned out pretty bad (see 1972 election)

Obama, Hillary and the establishment were just trying to save the party.

From losing?

Definitely not surprising, it's just a statement re: the extent to which the center-right faction of the party does not give a **** about the left, even with regard to appearances. I mean, Schumer initially endorsed Ellison, and there was reason to believe that they were going to acknowledge the relevance of the Bernie wing of the party.

The establishment DEMs don't concede being to the right of anyone. Clinton ran the most progressive campaign in history we are told. Perez is super progressive.

What is the difference between the wings?

Are bankers as fragile as Trumpkins and they need a safe space?

Lol at the red baiting about nationalizing industry earlier itt, but I think the difference in the "wings"of the party comes down to a very few things and has only to do with big donors.

Will a health care policy protect insurance companies?

Will prescription drug prices be protected?

Will the defense budget be protected?

Will commercial banks be allowed to also be investment banks?

Will there be any interference in consolidation of monopolies?

There are people trusted to maintain the status quo in these areas who could push free college, free healthcare, and slavery reparations and they are in the Clinton wing. People can be very centrist in all else and just not trusted in these things and they are extreme leftists.

Isn't Perez well to the left of DWS? I'm genuinely trying to understand why the left feels entitled to have their specific candidate be chair of the DNC just because Bernie (who is, remember, not a Democrat) endorsed him and a lot of Democrats like him. It makes perfect sense that they want Ellison, but it also makes perfect sense that establishment Democrats want Perez instead. Indeed, it seems that Ellison was basically acceptable to everyone and that Perez really ought to be basically acceptable to everyone as well. Perez and Ellison seem to like each other and are urging everyone to be happy with the outcome and move forward.

It's almost like some people are missing a gear of political engagement between "Not the presidential election = I don't care at all" and "ANY COMPROMISE IS A CORPORATIST BETRAYAL OF EVERY PRINCIPLE WE HAVE." That middle gear, which we could label "Advocate strongly for your position, but cheerfully accept a wide range of outcomes," should be the default gear for intraparty elections and primaries, especially when a lot of people on the left are facing an unprecedented threat from Trump's GOP.

Bob,

Who has done what about Perez getting the position that bothers you?

Some people had opinions? Public figures or randoms?

I don't really understand your point. We are disappointed that the party is actively resisting any leftward shift.