New DNC chair

[Anonymous]

they need keith

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I would love to see Ellison get the position and glad to see that Schumer is supporting him.

Jeff -- a little off topic but what do you know about how Trump and Schumer get along

I can't tell you specifically anymore, but I lived in NYC and had a friend who's family was very well connected to NY politics. At that time, Schemer and Trump got a long VERY well. But no surprise for two reasons. Schemer gets along with everyone (he's a very nice personable guy) and everyone loved Trump.

Now? Who knows. Their relationship was one of political and practical convenience as much as anything, so if that value disintegrated . . . .

Schumer does not get along with real progressives. We know what he is and who he is.

If democrats learned anything from this election, then Schumer should not even be involved in the decision. We need to clean house of schumer and clintons. Schumer abandoned workers for special interests a long time ago. He will lead democrats down the same path. Goldman Sachs and elite donors.

That statement is a blatant lie. In fact, during the Senate Judiciary markup of S. 744 Sen. Schumer struck a deal with Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) that eliminated the few protections for American workers written into the bill. The Schumer-Hatch deal limited the number of employers required to attest that they have not displaced U.S. workers. Additionally, the deal nearly tripled the H-1B cap to 200,000—the very program used by Disney to replace Mr. Perrero and several hundred of his very qualified American peers

Wow. Thanks, Schumk Schumer-Hatch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know Mark Dayton left a bad aftertaste last time he was in Washington, but is very popular in the Upper Midwest.

he threw obama under the bus on O-care months before.

MN was barely held by HRC.

no way.

old white guy? seriously? That's the optics you want to send out?

If they have to be white, it has to be a bona fide progressive under the age of 50

Because race and gender are the best way to select a candidate? Paying attention to the fact the party has lost every major contest that didn't have Obama on the ticket since 2008 (and even then he brought in no-one on his coat-tails) might be a prescription for success, but I suppose no-one will consider merit.

Just amazing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Chuck Schumer - talented politician, intelligent, can lead. It is impossible for a Republican to be elected Senator in NY so if he resigns, his spot stays with the party.

Didn't Schumer hang with The Weiner guy?

[Anonymous]

they ought to give DWS the job back.

[Anonymous]

Now that Keith Ellison's hat is officially in the ring, what about the valid argument that the Chair's job is a full time one?

If so many of you are against the idea of a person over 50, why do you cling to Bernie so?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, if you are going to win the midwestern electoral votes, you will need to find someone who can work with them.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-election-came-down-to-107330-votes-in-pennsylvania-wisconsin-and-michigan/article/2005323

But in 2012, black voters made up 13 percent of the electorate; in 2016, they comprised just 10 percent of the electorate.

In terms of raw votes, that means roughly 130,000 fewer African-Americans voted in Pennsylvania in 2016 than voted in 2012. If those voters had shown up on Tuesday, that alone would've been enough for Clinton to hold Pennsylvania by a razor-thin margin.

Michigan and PA flip if black turnout was same as 2012.

if same as 2008, pa, michigan, and wisc all stay blue.

two things - 2020 nominee cannot be a non-black. and neither can dnc chair.

Stop blaming black voters, blame HRC and the DNC. In 2008 Obama got 3,276,363 votes in PA. HRC only got 2,841,280. That's over 400,00 voters who didn't like Hillary. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact she is a white, women. She wasn't an exciting, charismatic candidate that people wanted to support.

black people have more natural swag.

who do you think will make it through a dem primary (which runs through the south) - booker or warren?

I want to create the optimal conditions to maximize black turnout. and that means having a candidate they can connect with.

I was hoping for a candidate with ideas and positions, as opposed to swag. Obviously my expectations are too cerebral.

The bolded part above is stupid, not to say racist.

Do folks really believe sh*t like that is going to fly other than in the ghetto or the bubble?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, if you are going to win the midwestern electoral votes, you will need to find someone who can work with them.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-election-came-down-to-107330-votes-in-pennsylvania-wisconsin-and-michigan/article/2005323

But in 2012, black voters made up 13 percent of the electorate; in 2016, they comprised just 10 percent of the electorate.

In terms of raw votes, that means roughly 130,000 fewer African-Americans voted in Pennsylvania in 2016 than voted in 2012. If those voters had shown up on Tuesday, that alone would've been enough for Clinton to hold Pennsylvania by a razor-thin margin.

Michigan and PA flip if black turnout was same as 2012.

if same as 2008, pa, michigan, and wisc all stay blue.

two things - 2020 nominee cannot be a non-black. and neither can dnc chair.

Stop blaming black voters, blame HRC and the DNC. In 2008 Obama got 3,276,363 votes in PA. HRC only got 2,841,280. That's over 400,00 voters who didn't like Hillary. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact she is a white, women. She wasn't an exciting, charismatic candidate that people wanted to support.

black people have more natural swag.

who do you think will make it through a dem primary (which runs through the south) - booker or warren?

I want to create the optimal conditions to maximize black turnout. and that means having a candidate they can connect with.

Black person here. Pray tell, what is this "natural swag" you speak of?

[Anonymous]

I think Kanye West or JayZ would make the perfect DNC chair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Kanye West or JayZ would make the perfect DNC chair.

Hillary should support either one.

[Anonymous]

I am a lifelong Dem. sick to my stomach about Trump. But having Ellison chair the DNC is idiotic. There are still way more moderates in this party than extreme leftists. Never mind the rest if the country - by their embrace if Trump and Bannon, do people in their right minds actually think a black Muslim far-left congressman from MN is the answer? Whatever. If that's what you want, have at it. I'm not getting behind that and like Kaepernick, I guess I'll take a knee and let the crazies on both sides fight it out.

[Anonymous]

They're getting dumber by the hour.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They're getting dumber by the hour.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, if you are going to win the midwestern electoral votes, you will need to find someone who can work with them.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-election-came-down-to-107330-votes-in-pennsylvania-wisconsin-and-michigan/article/2005323

But in 2012, black voters made up 13 percent of the electorate; in 2016, they comprised just 10 percent of the electorate.

In terms of raw votes, that means roughly 130,000 fewer African-Americans voted in Pennsylvania in 2016 than voted in 2012. If those voters had shown up on Tuesday, that alone would've been enough for Clinton to hold Pennsylvania by a razor-thin margin.

Michigan and PA flip if black turnout was same as 2012.

if same as 2008, pa, michigan, and wisc all stay blue.

two things - 2020 nominee cannot be a non-black. and neither can dnc chair.

Stop blaming black voters, blame HRC and the DNC. In 2008 Obama got 3,276,363 votes in PA. HRC only got 2,841,280. That's over 400,00 voters who didn't like Hillary. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact she is a white, women. She wasn't an exciting, charismatic candidate that people wanted to support.

black people have more natural swag.

who do you think will make it through a dem primary (which runs through the south) - booker or warren?

I want to create the optimal conditions to maximize black turnout. and that means having a candidate they can connect with.

Black person here. Pray tell, what is this "natural swag" you speak of?

Anyone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a lifelong Dem. sick to my stomach about Trump. But having Ellison chair the DNC is idiotic. There are still way more moderates in this party than extreme leftists. Never mind the rest if the country - by their embrace if Trump and Bannon, do people in their right minds actually think a black Muslim far-left congressman from MN is the answer? Whatever. If that's what you want, have at it. I'm not getting behind that and like Kaepernick, I guess I'll take a knee and let the crazies on both sides fight it out.

For now there are more moderates, but that will not be for long. These same moderates are already jumping at the chance to work with Trump.