Tom Perez Elected DNC Chair

[metalhead]

No. You do not understand. With all due respect. I was talking about the town hall meetings where they answer questions from the audience. I didn't mean when they directly debate each other. What I am talking about is the stuff where Hillary, O'Malley and Bernie were all in the same room. But not at the same time. They made Bernie go first, then O'Malley, then Hillary. In that same order, every time.

As best as I can tell, they had one event like this. It did run in the order you say, but, um, there was only one of them.

 

[caketastydelish]

No. There was not only one of them. There were several. edit: You can do more thorough digging on your own, but this should get your taste buds rolling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums,_2016

 

[EgonSpengler]

I have to admit, I don't think I'd ever heard of Perez before this. The DNC chair has never really been on my radar. I'm not sure if that says something about the position of DNC chair or about my interest in pure politics.

 

[Sommerswerd]

As best as I can tell, they had one event like this. It did run in the order you say, but, um, there was only one of them.

According to the Wikipedia link ctd gave, there were "Debates" (the things with everyone onstage together) and there were "Forums" in which a candidate comes in alone and speaks/fields questions, then leaves. Then after they leave, another candidate comes on and speaks. I think ctd is saying that by "Town Hall" he is talking about the "Forum" events. There were 3 such events that included Hillary, O'Malley and Sanders. The last one was the Des Moines Register event metalhead mentioned on Jan 25, 2016. The other two were before that, on Jan 11, 2016 and Nov 5, 2015. I think what ctd is saying is that in these three events, Hillary was the last one who came out and talked. Hillary went last for sure in at least 2.

So assuming that she went last in the 1st one (I can't tell and I'm hungry, so I give up looking) I think its fair for ctd to say that when it comes to the Forum events only, excluding the actual Debates, and only counting the events that took place between Nov 2015, and Jan 2016, not the ones after, and when it comes to the 3 events only where O'Malley, Sanders and Clinton participated, not all the Forum events ... that Hillary "always" got to be the last speaker after O'Malley and Sanders.

As an aside It seems that the candidates themselves agreed to the order. I suspect that this (Sanders and O'Malley agreeing to this) may have had something to do with the fact that if you start the event with the person most people are there to see (Hillary) ... they will leave after and miss the others, which defeats the purpose of them attending. On the other hand, if you start with a person that absolutely no one cares about (O'Malley), then more people will just show up late and skip his turn. So if I was setting the optimal order to maximize attendance/viewers it would be Sanders, O'Malley, Clinton.

 

[metalhead]

No. There was not only one of them. There were several. edit: You can do more thorough digging on your own, but this should get your taste buds rolling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums,_2016

3 "forums" were held where all 3 attended. Two did not involve audience questions. So like I said - there was one event where the 3 candidates appeared and took audience questions. I don't know what evidence you think this is of a conspiracy, but this is even lamer than the usual "evidence" people give when pressed.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think the order at those events was determined by some sort of random lot, like a coin toss. It is highly unlikely that such a random lot process was "rigged" in some way, since it was no doubt closely observed by representatives of all parties involved.

 

[danjuno]

Though I mean you're missing the point, I think, unless you're denying that a significant number of Democrats voted for the more centrist candidate, and would continue to support 'the establishment'.

My point was that the "base" includes registered independents who regularly vote Democratic. Closed primaries shut out that portion, so claiming to know for certain that the base supports the centrist when a large part didn't have a voice is dicey at best.

The point being that, as tempting as it might be to just forget about them because they fail the purity test, that's precisely the flawed approach that the progressive wing claim lost the election last year, and which is supposedly being fought against.

I'm not excluding them, I'm saying only people who were eligible to vote in the primary =/= the base.

. I don't know enough about Perez to know if he invokes the emotion Democrats need right now... but if the comments of ctd, Lex, danjuno (and frankly even Kyr and J) are any indication... Perez is looking like = FAIL to me.

Yes, people can scream "purity" test all day long, but if he doesn't energize the progressive base, he doesn't energize the progressive base. End of discussion.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Do you think its fair to call people "the base" who would consider voting 3rd party or for the opposition party? I thought that "the base" at bare minimum describes people who will vote for the party, or stay home in disgust/disinterest, but who would never under any circumstances vote against the party. I mean the word "base" denotes being the foundation... unmoving... right?

 

[danjuno]

That depends on the circumstances under which they would bolt. The Dixiecrats were the Dem base for decades but had no problem running a splinter ticket a few times. The ones which were organized bolts (1948 and 1968) came on the heels of major civil rights developments. (Military desegregation and the Civil Rights Act, repsectively.) These were totally unacceptable to that faction, so they bolted.

 

[metalhead]

When has it ever been the DNC chair's job to energize the base? If people are making voting decisions based on who the DNC chair is, then I think we've completely lost the thread.

 

[Sommerswerd]

When has it ever been the DNC chair's job to energize the base? If people are making voting decisions based on who the DNC chair is, then I think we've completely lost the thread.

Like I said... time to start planning your summer vacation...

 

[Gori the Grey]

When has it ever been the DNC chair's job to energize the base? If people are making voting decisions based on who the DNC chair is, then I think we've completely lost the thread.

Yeah, I don't think it's the DNC chair's job to "energize the base" (or anyone else). Right now, though, I think it's part of the DNC chair's job to figure out how to channel the energy that presently exists in opposition to TheOtherSide: the protests, the town-hall energy on behalf of Obamacare, etc. The DNC chair needs to determine strategy, messaging, resource allocation to help Democrats do as well as possible relative to Republicans (in our largely two-party system) in as many races around the country as possible. The parties tend to thrive or flounder based on how big a tent they can create for the TendingToInclineOneParticularDirectioners, the TendingLefters, in this case. Perez doesn't need to be be energizing in his own person; he needs to devise an image of the Democratic Party that will marshal the voters who can be persuaded to vote in that direction. At present, that does mean the things that have been highlighted in this thread: trying to find a platform/identity/self-image that can appeal to as big a spectrum as in the past election divided between Bernie and Hillary, so "establishment" and "progressive." Eventually, that will have to incarnate itself in a presidential candidate who can appeal to as broad stretch of that spectrum as possible. But there's work now that isn't a function of this person's person.

 

[caketastydelish]

3 "forums" were held where all 3 attended. Two did not involve audience questions. So like I said - there was one event where the 3 candidates appeared and took audience questions. I don't know what evidence you think this is of a conspiracy, but this is even lamer than the usual "evidence" people give when pressed.

Oh come on. The details might have been slightly off, but that wasn't even the point. That Hillary got the last word every single time.

Do you think its fair to call people "the base" who would consider voting 3rd party or for the opposition party? I thought that "the base" at bare minimum describes people who will vote for the party, or stay home in disgust/disinterest, but who would never under any circumstances vote against the party. I mean the word "base" denotes being the foundation... unmoving... right?

Oh, I definitely wouldn't call myself part of the democratic base. And with the way 'the base' is acting in this very thread, I don't think anyone could blame me.

 

[onejayhawk]

I have to admit, I don't think I'd ever heard of Perez before this. The DNC chair has never really been on my radar. I'm not sure if that says something about the position of DNC chair or about my interest in pure politics.

Back in the day, we had Howard Dean. He was the sort of DNC chairman that somehoped Ellison would be. You never heard of Perez because he has never made waves. I am not going to claim he is going to be the sort of lap dog Wasserman-Schultz was, but neither do i see evidence to the contrary.

J

 

[caketastydelish]

The former DNC chair outright cheated in favor of Hillary, then Hillary made her, her campaign manager like she didn't even give a crap. But considering how you all wouldn't take my source seriously already, why should I continue?

 

[onejayhawk]

The former DNC chair outright cheated in favor of Hillary, then Hillary made her, her campaign manager like she didn't even give a crap. But considering how you all wouldn't take my source seriously already, why should I continue?

How is that inconsistent with "lap-dog" and "Clinton political machine"?

J

 

[Kyriakos]

When has it ever been the DNC chair's job to energize the base? If people are making voting decisions based on who the DNC chair is, then I think we've completely lost the thread.

Considering the fiasco with the previous DNC chair, how can one not view this development as rather negative at the very least?
It's not like the dem party hadn't been openly criticized by some of its own voters for the previous DNC chair promoting Hillary and thus promoting one candidate over another (and that candidate went on to lose against a Clown).

 

[metalhead]

Oh come on. The details might have been slightly off, but that wasn't even the point. That Hillary got the last word every single time.

So, how was this beneficial to her and disadvantageous to the other candidates? What evidence do you have that this was done intentionally to help her?

 

[danjuno]

When has it ever been the DNC chair's job to energize the base? If people are making voting decisions based on who the DNC chair is, then I think we've completely lost the thread.

I'm talking about what the DNC lost out on by not electing Ellison, who was the only other major candidate. Of course it's not in the Chair's job description, but it would have been a bonus to excite the progressive base. There would have been trade-offs of course, but having the grassroots excited by having one of their own as Chair at this time when the Democrats are in the opposition would have made it a decent trade-off from what I can see.

 

[caketastydelish]

How is that inconsistent with "lap-dog" and "Clinton political machine"?

J

Of course it's bad, but we're at a point where nobody should be surprised. What do you really expect from the democraps and their mindless robot supporters?