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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Not Ellison, it is a full time job and he has much work to do in Congress.

What is it that congress people do that makes it so hard for him to be DNC chief? They don't write bills and they don't debate bills. They have staff answer mail and so forth. From what I can tell, many of them just fund raise with the high profile one's also taking on the TV circuit. The one part I don't get is how they vote so often. I think many of them miss votes, especially procedural. I half wonder if they can have others vote for them in the house. Otherwise, the DNC chair seems perfectly fine for a high profile congress-person who has a stranglehold on their seat.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please enlighten us. I view him as a mainstream Democrat.

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00001093

Top 5 Contributors, 1989 - 2016

Contributor Total Indivs PACs
Goldman Sachs $576,490 $536,490 $40,000
Citigroup Inc $513,966 $480,150 $33,816
Paul, Weiss et al $447,200 $447,200 $0
JPMorgan Chase & Co $383,550 $307,050 $76,500
Credit Suisse Group $361,594 $312,925 $48,669

Thank you for the link. People here should take a quick look at Puppet Schumer's list of major donors. Something is definitely wrong there.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please enlighten us. I view him as a mainstream Democrat.

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00001093

Top 5 Contributors, 1989 - 2016

Contributor Total Indivs PACs
Goldman Sachs $576,490 $536,490 $40,000
Citigroup Inc $513,966 $480,150 $33,816
Paul, Weiss et al $447,200 $447,200 $0
JPMorgan Chase & Co $383,550 $307,050 $76,500
Credit Suisse Group $361,594 $312,925 $48,669

Please enough with the purity tests. You can just go back to your third party, Schumer has a liberal legislative record and that is what matters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ellison may have a place at the table, but as a Muslim must not be at the head of it. That would be political suicide.

This.

What? DNC religious bigotry? Shame!

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.

Please enlighten us. I view him as a mainstream Democrat.

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00001093

Top 5 Contributors, 1989 - 2016

Contributor Total Indivs PACs
Goldman Sachs $576,490 $536,490 $40,000
Citigroup Inc $513,966 $480,150 $33,816
Paul, Weiss et al $447,200 $447,200 $0
JPMorgan Chase & Co $383,550 $307,050 $76,500
Credit Suisse Group $361,594 $312,925 $48,669

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

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.

Jessie Jackson Jr - I don't think he's doing much since he got out of prison, so he should have plenty of time

Anonymous wrote:Ellison may have a place at the table, but as a Muslim must not be at the head of it. That would be political suicide.

This.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do Beyoncé, Jay-Z, Madoona. And Miley Cyrus, among others have to say? They seem to be the DNC's "go to" team for political questions.

True.

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.

Please enlighten us. I view him as a mainstream Democrat.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do Beyoncé, Jay-Z, Madoona. And Miley Cyrus, among others have to say? They seem to be the DNC's "go to" team for political questions.

For sure, the last three would be deeply offended[i][u] by anything raunchy, overtly sexual, profane, or blatantly sexist and demeaning to women. Hence, they could never support Trump.

Anonymous wrote:What do Beyoncé, Jay-Z, Madoona. And Miley Cyrus, among others have to say? They seem to be the DNC's "go to" team for political questions.