Home | About | Donate

DNC Chair Tom Perez, the Democratic Party’s Grim Metaphor

Has anyone read about how evangelical conservatives took over the Republican Party in the 70s in this place? They didn’t bitch and moan and start a third party, they took a major party over by becoming an important base. Did they win every fight along the way? No, because that’s life. Also, they got more Christians identifying as conservatives, which is key. They knew establishing a beach head in a major party was the path to power, not dividing votes and bitching from sidelines. I think Bernie understands this, but it seems lots of “progressives” don’t.

1 Like

The DINO establishment clinton/obama wing hand-picked Perez as DNC chair to deny progressives - the Sanders wing - any traction or influence under Sanders supported Keith Ellison. The American voter will be again denied any true reform, actual representation or true electoral victory - just more DINO sellout Quislings reps for business-as-usual!


That’s just ahistorical and dumb. Guess what? There’s always been party donors of various persuasions. There were racist big party donors to the Democratic Party in the mid-twentieth century, but pro-civil rights Democrats took control of the party after years of struggle. You do realize there was a time in our country where the idea of the Democratic Party being at the forefront of civil rights would have been deemed crazy, right? Parties change over time, it’s just a fact.

1 Like

What would increase voter participation and get more votes for the democrats is the democrats keeping their campaign promises and looking after the interests of American

1 Like

The Republicans have been blessed with a rather homogenous base for quite some time: older, white, christian. Another blessing: those people vote. The Republicans never tried to fight off evangelical efforts to form a beach head, they welcomed and accommodated it because wedge issues are the camouflage they hide behind as they serve the oligarchy.

Alternatively, your party is cursed with trying to hold together a coalition that wouldn’t naturally exist if it weren’t for the outmoded 2-party system–this country is far too diverse to offer such a confining binary choice. Another curse: young and minority voters don’t bother to show up in off years. And your party hides behind platitudes about supporting working class voters when they plainly serve the oligarchy too–voters are noticing.

I fully support the coming progressive beach head. Outside your big tent. Your party fears it. It’s bad for fundraising.


Black people! Whada we gonna do with em!

That’s just not true, factually. There was a ton of resistance on the Republican side to conservative evangelicals. They found their candidate in Ronald Reagan in 1976 and got power by electing people locally and changing the party at the state and House level. They became a solidified portion of the base by the early 1990s, key to the so-called Gingrich revolution. It did not happen overnight though, and they were not welcome initially.

Give me a break.

White southerners, who happened to be evangelicals along with being racists, abandoned the Ds after they became champions of civil rights in the 60s. And the Republicans welcomed them with open arms. St Ronnie and Newt, both divorced, were embraced as conservatives. If they played the God, guns, and gays game, it was the classic trope of wedge issues for the win.

That’s 50+ years of the Southern strategy and the good fortune of having a simple message centered on small government and racism. Along with his outsider brand of faux populism, Trump played that to the hilt: In fact he kicked the crap out of the most evangelical candidates in the R primaries like Cruz, Huckabee, Santorum and Carson–he got more evangelical votes than any of them…Three marriages and pussy-grabbing, not to mention pedophilia in Alabama, are fine with evangelicals.

1 Like

Get them to think differently than their ministers on certain subjects? Not picking on them but their ministers are linked to the Democratic Establishment. And, the congregations donate funds to support both, the problem is the ministers are often conservative and reactionary.
Gay marriage, homophobia, etc. " Old timey religion " doesn’t always bring in the votes. Hence, Trump and not Sanders. Clintonistas had burned to many bridges, too.
How’s fundraising for Feinstein going, btw?

Yes, but they used leverage. Sanders, Steyer and others, possibly Warren, have leverage with their e-mail and fundraising lists. Use it or lose it to create positive and progressive change in the party.

Go to a lot of Black churches do you?

Feinstein? Sheesh. Check with your man steyer.

Bingo! Voting for THE POTUS is a joke. Like I have stated many times: PRESIDENTS ARE NOT ELECTED; THEY ARE SELECTED.

As a hedge against the D winning? It happens occasionally. Also, closed primaries interfere with the constitutional rights of speech and association of independents.

Thanks MCH! A must-watch video that should be viewed and shared widely - especially by DP apologists and the ignorant ill-informed. It might perhaps help stiffen the spines of weak souls who still see the DP leadership as people to be respected - they are NOT, they are complicit to the subversion of our nation by vast wealth, greed, and corruption, and must be rooted out of the party mechanisms entirely, if progressive issues and candidates of integrity and honor can win office, rather than shills and unprincipled complicit hacks who serve big-money and power!

1 Like

Closed primaries do not interfere with any constitutional rights. Compelling an open primary may well interfere with the rights of association of party members.

The argument against closed primaries has nothing to do with constitutional rights or anything else like that. The argument is based on Bernie Sanders being able to do better in an open primary because because he did better with independents than with Democrats. If closed primaries were ended Sanders or a similar candidate would have a far better chance of winning the election in 2020. My view isn’t based on who would win but who should be voting in a party’ primary. It seems to me that it should only be people who are willing to register with that party. Those people should want the party to have the best candidate they can have to run. Why should Republicans or people registered with a third party or independents be included or anyone not willing to register with the Democratic Party. It is a relatively recent change that the voters actually choose the nominee. Previously the nominee was largely chosen by party regulars at the convention. There hasn’t been a truly contested convention for either party in quite some time.

Do you know how to solve the problem, Dems? State in your mission statement that no corporate contributions will ever be accepted, under any circumstances. Yeah, I know I’m a dreamer.

The DNC is directly responsible for putting Donald Trump in the Oval Office. They pre-selected a deeply flawed candidate who came with fists full of dollars - before the first primary or caucus was even held! They then ignored results of those primaries and caucuses, and all of the negative press that Hillary Clinton was getting, and tried to push her down the throats of the American people. They turned to a consummate showman who promised them the moon. And the DNC has shown no intent to change. They refuse to even examine the Progressive agenda that was so attractive in 2016, and they refuse to change their approach. They have a multitude of voters who have marched almost every weekend in all kinds of weather to let them know what they want and they refuse to give it to them. The anachronistic fat cats who make up the DNC and its Superdelegates have to wake up - and now!

1 Like

The Democrats’ problem is that whenever they get all of the cards, the end up delivering their base to their corporate funders. Clinton I did this with NAFTA, Obama with the ACA, with which the elevently level chess playing super genius managed to screw the pooch during a census/redistricting year.

After running center-left and governing center-right, the Democrats are fresh out of credibility. It would take much more than reforms at the DNC to restore that credibility.

The Park Slope/Pacific Heights axis should have resigned in disgrace after losing close to 1000 seats on their watch. But they doubled down on the elites with a nod to Hyannisport after the SOTU. What’s their next move, bring in Hollywood and the Hamptons?

And when it comes to shutting down the government, the Democrats continue to ignore their electoral base. These fools could have used Social Security, Medicare or student loan debt, economic issues that matter to the electorate, as the wedge for a shutdown.

Instead, they chose DACA which is mildly popular but not a priority of any segment of the electorate, as the place they’d make their stand. Of course, the Democrats folded like chairs, went down like the $5 corporate whores they are.

But, look, over there, Sanders, Russia, the Greens…