So far it's just the opinions of some (far from all) people, a mix of randoms on Twitter and some lefty thought-leaders (such as the Bruenig piece linked ITT).

This seems like a reasonable reaction! (Except for the part about Perez not representing a leftward shift from DWS...)

Perez is obviously a leftward shift, but the symbolism of his faction stepping into what was supposed to be a near-uncontested election doesn't bode well.

This is what I'm trying to understand. Why was this supposed to be a walkover for Ellison? Was there a backroom deal somewhere that awarded him the chair in exchange for some concessions to the moderate wing? From what I've read, it seems more to be the case that the left looked like they were going to score a procedural win by putting forward a strong nominee with a lot of establishment support, but then some establishment figures decided they could do better and put forward a different candidate who ended up winning. If my interpretation is correct, I understand being disappointed that the plan didn't work out and that you don't have the chair you wanted, but it doesn't explain the sense of entitlement ("supposed to be" uncontested). That's what I don't get.

The rumors are that Democrats were running a kind of gross negative campaign centered around Nation of Islam ties and accusations of anti-Semitism. This is pretty low for an internal party affair with pretty low stakes.

It isn't about whether it was supposed to be an easy win, it's about the fact that it was. There appeared to be an agreement among establishment Dems post-election that the Bernie angle had some serious merit, and that his faction was going to have serious influence moving forward.

Like, you can call it entitlement, but it's more like "we should have more power because you have demonstrably failed."

Alternately, I guess, leftists decided a Hispanic civil rights lawyer who got the fiduciary rule passed was a corporatist choice who is bad for minority outreach based solely on the fact that Hillary Clinton likes him.

Disagree with this leftward shift. Perez himself is lefty, sure, but the coalition that chose him isn't. He was chosen because he is more lefty, not out of some concession, but as a political ploy to neuter Ellison. In any case, as gets repeated a lot the DNC chair isn't in charge of ideology, that happens through the marketplace of ideas, but is involved with the rules and the money, specifically where it comes from and where it goes. Those are the two things the establishment didn't want to lose.

It's not about Perez, it's about why the establishment felt the need to recruit a candidate and contest the seat at all. There was no need to deliver a symbolic victory to the center right now, but people worked damn hard to give them one.

And fundraising is a big deal. Ellison and Perez raised a lot of money for this campaign. Ellison raised 98% of it from donations of $200 or less. He promised to shift party fund raising to small donors.

That's a lot more threatening to big donors than a vague description of how far left someone is.

But isn't the argument that the victory wasn't actually symbolic -- but instead pragmatic?

My read is that huehue is in fact correct: the establishment fielding an out-and-out center-right Democrat to oppose Ellison would inspire widespread predictable outrage and ultimately fail. Perez gives the left the symbolic feels -- he wasn't drastically different from Ellison on style -- while maintaining the control of the old elites. Admittedly, the 'control' we're talking about is not a hammerlock on the party's agenda or ideological messaging but instead a more pragmatic set of controls over money and resources.

Seems like the center-right wing made a bargain: sure, have a lefty so long he's the kind of guy we perceive as more amenable to our interests.

Perez seems like more of an Obama than Clinton person. And Obama did make noises about party-building as a post-presidential project.

https://twitter.com/imillhiser/statu...85810145619968

It is intriguing that the relatively minor differences between Perez and Ellison manifest in a a torrent of in-fighting and soul-searching.

If GOPers failed to elect the ideal right-winger to the RNC they would blame the combined forces of the global Soros Jew conspiracy and ISIS and pledge to lynch a liberal as blood restitution for the universes' crimes against white people. One subtle benefit of the being the party of paranoid lunatics is that even their intra-party conflicts get chalked up to the nefarious work of degenerate liberals.

This seems to be more of a personal beef between Obama and Bernie. And I do understand Obama, COMMUNITY ORGANIZER IN CHIEF, scoffing at the Bernie crowd blaming him for the deterioration of the D party at the state and local levels. Obama was busy running the country, not his fault that us progressives abandoned doing the hard work in red states so that we could sip lattes among like minded folks. Now Obama, GOAT ORGANIZER, wants to get back to work and show us how its done.

I remember a few months ago when people on the left were saying the exact opposite of this.

Funny how times change.

.

It's just a little disappointing to be reminded that the democratic party isn't a labor party and doesn't really represent the working class. Feels like we got marlo'd.

What is the exact opposite of that?

LOL "labor" as a political force in the US was marginalized a generation ago. The only economic battle left is consumer goods industries vs. resource extraction industries.

Uncontested elections are bad! We need more competition for Hillary, it'll help out in the end!

lol just so tone deaf. great.

definitely had nothing to do with her being literally one of the worst general candidates of all time. she lost to TRUMP of all people. lol. probably the most qualified candidate of all time for the presidency who blew it to a guy who starred a reality tv show, had decades worth of racist sentiments in his past, and had a video leak about grabbing women by the pussy because he was famous so that's ok they let him do it. that's who she lost to.

keep carrying that water though.

Let's stop with this "most qualified" **** once and for all. If a record of government service is what counts for qualifications then both Bush the Elder and Nixon had more impressive resumes, and that's off the top of my drunken mind.

secretary of state is what tips it for me over those 2, given what the president's duties entail.

Nixon's state department opened relations with China. Clinton's state department got us the Arab Spring.

I would say elder bush was probably the best of the last four republican presidents

Not sure of the point here