A smart party would have found someone not connected to the past primary war. Instead the DNC fight was a bit of a replay of the primary fight. I have pretty firm reasons for preferring Ellison and reasons for suspicion of Perez.
But Perez is an impressive guy, and the policy disagreements aren’t hugely important with a DNC Chair.
Larger picture though, from a Sanders perspective it really wasn’t the most important fight yesterday.
Barack Obama instituted a ban on taking money from lobbyists. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz lifted the ban, and I saw the lobbyists return when I was at the Convention in Philadelphia. I was at one event where Pharma lobbyists were out in force. The very good food and drink was on them.
From the Huffington Post:
Democratic National Committee members on Saturday voted down a resolution that would have reinstated former President Barack Obama’s ban on corporate political action committee donations to the party.
Resolution 33, introduced by DNC Vice Chair Christine Pelosi, would also have forbidden “registered, federal corporate lobbyists” from serving as “DNC chair-appointed, at-large members.”
Lobbyists have only one purpose in life: corruption. They use money and influence to bend an organization in their direction. The cost of this influence to the country can be seen in countless ways.
More broadly though is the mindset that says take the money. This mindset puts money above all else. Money buys advertising after all. In this mindset campaigns are all about advertising: it is all that matters.
What it tells me is the mindset that has led to the destruction of Democratic influence in this country has not changed. Hillary Clinton outspent Donald Trump by many multiples. There are others ways to build organizations, and to raise money.
I want to build a party that is built on the grass-roots, raises money based on grass-roots activism, and puts faith in field organizations.
Part of the reason I think this is important is because I have seen the cost of doing it the other way. We don’t tend to win anyway, and when we do it distorts policy (see financial de-regulation) in ways that impose enormous costs on the public.
The vote yesterday makes me question whether that view is really shared at the top of the Party. In fact, I don’t think it does. It is all window dressing.
Money is, I suspect, why Ellison was opposed and seen as threatening to the power structure. Raising money is the goal of the chair, and if Ellison can’t raise it — or raises it in alternative ways — the power center shifts.
Of course, this is just politics and you’re not going to change an organization overnight. Ellison was recruited specifically because he was progressive — it was the only way to credibly fend off Ellison’s rise. In my opinion, that is still a sign that the party recognizes where it needs to go, but still wants to be in control of the power levers itself. Hey what do you know, power never is ceded without a fight.
Perez was recruited*
Money is, I suspect, why Ellison was opposed and seen as threatening to the power structure. Raising money is the goal of the chair, and if Ellison can’t raise it — or raises it in alternative ways — the power center shifts.
Did you not see any of the “debates”? Ellison laid out his plan. It was basically the Sanders plan. Relying on the people themselves. Ellison was a threat to the consultant class. That’s why he was defeated.
And read every platform and there was not much difference between the platforms of any of the candidates running. Some outright rejected lobbyist money. Neither Ellison nor Perez were in that group yet some how Sanders supporters have convinced themselves that Ellison was.
That’s the difference.
On lobbying money as Perez. I laid it out in black and white with their exact quotes yet some still refuse to believe that Ellison was no more for unilaterally banning lobbying money than Perez was. That both men wanted to discuss the consequences of making that choice before going ahead with it.
You responded to my part of the thread, which did not discuss lobbying but where the bulk of the money comes from and therefore who holds power. Perez is going to get a lot of small donors, but the bulk of the money — like Hillary Clinton’s campaign — is going to be primarily the wealthy fundraiser circuit. The goal of the chair is to fundraise. Who controls the spigot holds power, and there is a huge difference between 73% and 98%.
Consultancy.
Nepotism at the DNC? Family of Nancy I suppose.
Pelosi’s daughter was actually the one who proposed reinstating the ban on lobbyist cash.
Christine Pelosi also endorsed Sally Boynton Brown’s campaign for DNC Chair and spoke in support of Brown yesterday before the vote.
Well it is a real gas these family dynasties like this Baltimore D’Alessandro one. Donald Trump’s true contribution to the Republic is the extinction of the Bush and Clinton dynasties, though the latter tends to utter some murmurings or resuscitation in Chelsea.
Yes, thank the Lord Donald Trump came along.
There are worse things than the previous status quo. Much, much, much, much worse. We can do better than the previous status quo, but one revolution is not as good as another.
Christine Pelosi also endorsed Sally Boynton Brown’s campaign for DNC Chair and spoke in support of Brown yesterday before the vote.
Which was/is baffling.
It surprised me when I saw her take the podium for Brown. Pelosi started her support speech by saying, “I’m sure you’re wondering why this urban Democrat is supporting a rural Democrat for Chair…”.
Consultants cheer!
And the people running the committees recruiting candidates for federal office are the same faces appointed by Nancy and Chuck.
Is Matt Stoller reliable? He did an overview of Perez’s work and it sure explains why he is considered reliable by the DNC. It is linked on his Twitter feed today.
I agree with the diarist that policy disagreements aren’t that important for DNC chair. However, the DNC does need to decide between what I see as 2 camps.
Camp A wants to stay on the corporate gravytrain. They dont have much in the way of blue collar issues, so they concentrate on social issues and consequently on suburbs. This isnt enough votes, so they also have to talk every 4 years about how Republicans hate various subgroups (which is easy with today’s Republicans). Electorally, they think this means ignoring the industrial midwest and concentrating on fast growing southern states.
Camp B is the traditional ‘party of the people’, updated for the post CRA era. They dont have corporate money, so they need lots of smaller donations and need to win the war on issues by concentrating on blue collar economic issues to balance out social issues for megachurch attendees. They are more competitive than Camp A in rural areas but less so in suburbs, particularly white collar ones. Electorally, they can get the industrial midwest (and plains states for local elections), but need to chip away at Hispanic parts of the southwest or educated parts of the south.
Peres is clearly pro-corporate, but I hope this doesnt mean he is in camp A.
Even though both held very similar views on lobbying money. Even though both have impressive progressive credentials.
Here are their views by the way.
ELLISON
“If I become DNC chairman I won’t impose a policy, it will be a democratic process,” Ellison said at the debate, sponsored by the Huffington Post.
“If it’s the will of our party, that’s what we’ll do, but it would bring the responsibility on to everyone’s shoulders because we’d have to go find that money.”
PEREZ
Labor Secretary Tom Perez, another leading DNC chairman contender, called it a “complicated problem” and said it is “important to study the consequences, intended and unintended.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/315001-ellison-backs-away-from-pledge-to-ban-lobbyist-donations
-at-dnc
I think in the end it is not their position on mega donations, it is the donor’s position on them.
Matt Bruenig:
Before this gets turned into another thing where the establishment Democrats posture as the reasonable adults victimized by the assaults of those left-wing baddies, let’s just be very clear about what happened here. It was the establishment wing that decided to recruit and then stand up a candidate in order to fight an internal battle against the left faction of the party. It was the establishment wing that then dumped massive piles of opposition research on one of their own party members. And it was the establishment wing that did all of this in the shadow of Trump, sowing disunity in order to contest a position whose leadership they insist does not really matter.
The establishment wing has made it very clear that they will do anything and everything to hold down the left faction, even as they rather hilariously ask the left faction to look above their differences and unify in these trying times. They do not have any intent of ceding anything – even small things they claim are mostly irrelevant – to the left wing.
on lobbying $. Here is what each said at the Nevada forum in January
ELLISON
“If I become DNC chairman I won’t impose a policy, it will be a democratic process,” Ellison said at the debate, sponsored by the Huffington Post.
“If it’s the will of our party, that’s what we’ll do, but it would bring the responsibility on to everyone’s shoulders because we’d have to go find that money.”
PEREZ
Labor Secretary Tom Perez, another leading DNC chairman contender, called it a “complicated problem” and said it is “important to study the consequences, intended and unintended.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/315001-ellison-backs-away-from-pledge-to-ban-lobbyist-donations
-at-dnc
This idea that Ellison represented more purity when it came to lobbyist money is complete projection.
Also this idea that Perez had no agency is his decision to run for the position is complete projection as well. He CHOSE to run and given that it was an open race that was his right to do so even if Sanders supporters now think coronations are good ideas.
Do you still bel;ieve in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, too?
AG
That because I assume that both Tom Perez and Keith Ellison are their OWN men versus being puppets that I believe in fantasies. Both men are very accomplished in their own right and are perfectly capable of making their own choices to run. Both also have things that are passionate about that would inspire them to join the race irrespective of who supported them.
For example a good chunk of Perez’s career has been spent on protecting voting rights and given the Rs continued attacks on them he has every reason to want a DNC who has that at the top of their agenda. If you looked at his platform you would have seen that, like the rest of the nominees, he had a 50 state strategy as the cornerstone of his platform he also had a much more fleshed out plan to combat voter disfranchisement efforts.
Then again I have my doubts that many here read the platforms of each candidate running and watched all of the forums. I did because I wanted to be informed about the direction of the party going forward rather. I suppose that is boring compared to typing out dang near incomprehensible “we are doomed” screeds on a blog.
Also you didn’t address that the candidate Sanders was supporting had virtually the same view on lobbyist donations as Perez. Neither were going to unilaterally ban them and both thought discussion was needed on the consequences for doing so.
Seems to me that people pushing Ellison as this pure “more progressive than thou” hero are the ones living in a fantasy.
Actually, I think Ellison’s position was a walk-back from his first–all small donor. And asking Sanders for his list. Somehow I don’t see Perez bothering to ask.
Ellison had support from both wings of the party. Perez could not name a single Sanders supporter who had endorsed him. Maybe because they saw his “memo” during the election?
Ellison was too liberal for the DNC–why not just admit it? Perez will be much more able to raise money from the corporates and 1%ers. The Iron Law of Institutions in action.
As people here painting it. I think it is simply that BOTH Perez and Ellison thought they had something they could bring to chair of the DNC. Both have very similar platforms (as did everyone running), both have their strengths (like I pointed out above Perez’ is his experience in voting rights), and in the end Perez won.
And as a I reminder I say all of this as someone who actually supported Pete Buttigieg. The reason I do is that it frankly appalls me that people on both sides of the primary decided to smear two good men simply because they cannot stop re-litigating 2016.
Don’t be appalled Camussie, clutching pearls, no one is smearing anyone. The difference between the two is real and meaningful despite all the smoke and mirror deception that there isn’t. What a propaganda cliche, ‘relitigating 2016, to put a point on it, the differences between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are immense.
As I said in the earlier thread you are being naive. And I say this as someone who believes the party should have been smart enough not to re-run the primary.
The bottom line is the forces that were behind Perez did so to keep the party out of the control of the left. The Washington Post’s account was very clear on this.
I note in passing Perez’s own statement to the Kansas Democratic Party that the process was rigged against Sanders, and his subsequent walk back.
That doesn’t give me confidence in him at all.
The NYT in November said that. Obama world was recruiting someone (Granholm was also mentioned) because they opposed Ellison; they didn’t settle on Perez after candidates announced, he was recruited. At the time it was reported as if it was just Obama world and not Obama himself, but as more reporting has come out (and was obvious at the time) this was Obama himself, making calls and putting pressure. Few other disparate reportings since also suggest because they didn’t want to move as left as Ellison. Put it all together and it’s both the want to be in control (whatever the message happens to be) but also that moving that far to left would scare donor elements.
Overly cynical.
Do I think like Senator Sanders encouraged Ellison to run that President Obama encouraged Perez to run? Sure. Do I think it was some nefarious plot like you are making it out to be? No. I think BOTH Ellison and Perez are their own men and made their own decisions to run.
I also think Sanders encouraged Ellison because he thought Ellison was the best man for the job. Likewise President Obama encouraged Perez to run for the same reason.
Shockingly enough I respect all 4 of those men (well 3 of them) enough to believe that their part in this race based on who they think would be best chair for the party.
Overly cynical.
Do I think like Senator Sanders encouraged Ellison to run that President Obama encouraged Perez to run? Sure. Do I think it was some nefarious plot like you are making it out to be? No. I think BOTH Ellison and Perez are their own men and made their own decisions to run.
I also think Sanders encouraged Ellison because he thought Ellison was the best man for the job. Likewise President Obama encouraged Perez to run for the same reason.
Shockingly enough I respect all 4 of those men (well 3 of them) enough to believe that their part in this race based on who they think would be best chair for the party.
Larger picture though, from a Sanders perspective it really wasn’t the most important fight yesterday.
You seriously think those two fights weren’t interrelated? That’s exactly how “they” win — convince the hoi polloi that the position isn’t all that important and as there are no meaningful differences between “their guy” and the other guy, might as well go with “their guy.” slackbot
The lack of condemnation and smear were both disgusting, unforgivable, and not to be forgotten by decent people.
While I was never enamored of the idea of Ellison as DNC Chair, he wasn’t “their guy” and that made him acceptable. With the exception of 2005-2009 period, “their guys” have been running the DNC since 1993 and the results have been abysmal. A difference between the Clintons and Obama is that the Clintons were wielded power behind the scenes. Whether from disinterest or a concession (and I suspect the latter), Obama ceded this inherent power of a Party POTUS to Clinton shortly after he was elected.
Maybe Howard Dean was just lucky to be in the chair at the right time or maybe he did things differently enough that it made a difference. Unlike Wilhelm, Rendell, McAuliffe, Kaine, and DWS. By 2004 the Democratic bench was way too thin and now there is no bench. Who is Perez going to recruit? Chelsea and Christine Pelosi? Zuckerberg? Or loser septuagenarians?
Oh I think they very much were.
I do think this race mattered: but I guess you can argue Perez is a decent and smart guy.
But this fight is about what has been learned from 2016. That is why the lobbyist fight mattered to me more: it is a signal about whether the Party has learned anything.
It hasn’t.
Decent and smart doesn’t seem to be good enough anymore. Since about 1995, we’ve seen over and over again that “decent and smart” is easily co-opted. Dangle the money and/or opportunity for more power or a larger voice and “decant and smart” caves. If a Sherrod Brown, who has long been better than “decent and smart,” rushes in early to endorse Hillary, who can’t “they” get to?
(Voter turnout in the 2016 OH Democratic primary was down by a million voters from 2008. In 2018, Brown is going to need both a demoralized GOP electorate and every freaking Clinton voter (general election) and Sanders voter (that stayed home or went third party in the general election) if he’s to a have chance of winning. It’s up to him to reach out to the left and the young to heal the rift that created. Not optimistic that he can accomplish it.)
Senator Brown created a “rift” among his State’s voters when he endorsed Hillary’s Presidential campaign?
Hillary won the Ohio primary by over 160,000 votes and 13 percentage points.
That’s some mighty fine projection there.
Brown’s re-election campaign will be extraordinarily important. Why on earth would someone who sincerely wants progressive governance directly attack his progressive credentials and re-election chances? Sherrod has been one of our best Senators before, during and after the 2016 primary campaign.
Brown endorsed HRC months before the Iowa caucus. Democratic turnout for the 2016 OH primary was down by a million voters compared to 2008. Turnout for HRC in the 2016 OH primary was half what she’d gotten in ’08. HRC lost Ohio to a nincompoop blowhard by eight points.
You can spin those facts anyway you want, but it won’t change the reality that Brown is very poorly positioned for his 2018 election.
It’s hard to spin away the fact that Sanders lost the Ohio primary badly. There just isn’t good evidence that Sanders would have won Ohio if Senator Brown had endorsed him, no solid evidence that Sanders would have defeated Trump in the State, and no good evidence that Senator Brown’s standing with Ohio voters has been damaged by his endorsement of Clinton.
I don’t know of evidence that Sherrod is in a bad position for his re-election. It would be good to hear from our Ohio community members about this.
Last 3 polls taken in Ohio:
CBS Yougov: Sanders +9, Clinton +4
Quinippiac, 5/8, Clinton -4, Sanders +2
PPP, 4/47, Clinton +3, Sanders +4.
You just say shit that is just wrong over and over again.
Polls are not votes. Sanders lost to Clinton when voters went to the polls. He lost badly.
Votes are what decides elections, not polls. As was painfully and richly shown on November 8th.
Single payer health care polls decently as well, but when States have voted on the issue, single payer consistently loses by 30 percentage points or more.
In 2012 Brown carried those making less than 50K 59-38. Clinton won them 51-43.
Probably the most distributing thing is what has happened to Party ID. In 2012 it was Dem +7, in 2014 it was GOP +4, in 2016 it was GOP +3. In 2012 Brown carried dems with 92%-7, lost GOP by by 90-7 and split independents 46-50.
If the makeup of the 2018 electorate matches the OH electorate in 2014 or 2016 Brown loses.
OH went from +7 in 2012 to -3 in 2016. Holy shit.
Michigan: +11 in ’12, +9 in ’16, + 9 in 2014.
MN: +8 in 2012, +9 in 2014, +2 in 2016
MO: +2 in 2012, -5 in 2016 (no exit poll in 2014)
PA: +10 in 2012, +4 in 2014, +3 in 2016
In PA in 2012 13% of the state was black, 10% in 2014, 10% in 2014.
The trend in these states sucks.
To your point, if Brown can’t reverse the damage down in Ohio in 2016 he is going down in flames.
What scares me is wondering if we have down lasting damage all across the mid-west. It is more than clear by now that Clinton was just the wrong candidate in those states, and her campaign made every mistake she could.
But Damn the margin shifts here.
Ohio -10
Michigan -9.7
Wisconsin -7.5
Iowa -15 !!!!!
PA -6.3
MN -6
Jesus. 2016 was a complete disaster.
I don’t think the Clinton people can get beyond their own defensiveness to look at the absolute collapse of the party.
4 months later and I still can’t believe it.
How do we recover?
Anecdotally, take it FWIW, etc. etc. — in Wisconsin it’s gone past the tipping point. The party is discredited in the eyes of the voters, who are becoming ever more disengaged from the political process and more favorable to essentially nihilistic actions like voting to “blow shit up”, feeling safe in the perception that the collateral damage will fall on someone else, not them.
The DPW simply does not have the leadership or the analytical tools to turn the situation around. There is an “OMFG, what can I do???” phenomenon that’s leading some people who had not been active in anything to come around to DP meetings, but that will dissipate once they see that the meetings are all talking and no doing.
The good news (if there is any) is, this is somewhat liberating. There is a growing group of people who have been through the DP and are now done with it, and people who wouldn’t think of going into the DP on a bet (thanks to shenanigans of the type discussed in the current post — these are mostly younger, and/or ex-Sanders supporters), who are trying to stand up initiatives outside the DP. Some of these take electoral politics as a central focus, others do not. Realizing the the DPW is dying, if not already dead,
forces these folks to try to be innovative and think outside the DP box, in the sense that they want to take leadership politically, they want to drive the agenda, they want to take power in their own right rather than dancing around endlessly on the “progressive” DP fringe waiting for the DP to take up whatever is the reform du jour. Which is kind of what was going on with the DNC leadership squabble.
So, chances for “recovery” here are slim. I expect it’s more or less the same across the rust belt.
What’s even more amazing about this “defensiveness” is that you can go back to the mid-1980’s and find analysts (Edsall, The New Politics of Inequality [1984], Ferguson and Rogers, Right Turn: the Decline of the Democrats and the Future of American Politics [1986]) that explain the changes in the class politics of the DP in terms of the changing class interests driving its agenda, and correlate it with election results. This is not new material and it’s not like the numbers you’ve run after this election should come as a surprise to anyone. Least of all, us.
Yet somehow the “defensiveness” persists. It’s almost like the people who control the Party had some kind of a vested interest in ignoring trends and data that have been widely available for more than 30 fricking years.
Why, oh why, could that possibly be?
A billion dollar campaign with all the best campaign talent that money can buy lost out to P.T. Barnum pitching a third-rate carnival. Like Ed Wood’s Orgy of the Dead beating out Waterworld for the Best Picture Oscar.
The problem was HER. She’s had too many makeovers to appear authentic and those makeovers were necessary because the authentic Clinton isn’t acceptable or palatable to FDR Democrats* (too many of whom now see through the neoliberal claptrap that has been foisted on us for over two decades) and there aren’t enough Rockefeller Republicans left to make up the difference.
*Unless her opponent was a an obvious nincompoop AND wore horns. Trump did their work on the former for them, but regardless of all their effots, they just couldn’t seem to get those horns to stick firmly enough on his noggin. A “I’m not X” campaign isn’t motivating or inspiring.
Speaking of these hollowed out, defunded state orgs: Kansas.
flora
February 28, 2017 at 9:36 am
There’s been some interest in the NC links about what’s happening in Kansas. Moderate and GOP candidates winning statehouse primaries against far right ALEC backed encumbants; moderate Dem candidates beating ALEC backed GOP encumbants in the general; a coalition voting to undo Brownback’s disasterous tax cuts a couple of weeks ago, Brownback vetoing legilation, failure to override by only 3 or 4 votes. You have no idea how big a deal this is. A sea change.
Bernie won the KS dem caucus in part because a lot of independents and mod GOP voters registered as Dem to be able to vote for him.
Bernie comes to Kansas for the annual Washington Days state Dem gathering, venue has to be moved to a larger location, huuuge and enthusiastic crowd.
The Dem estab, however, refuses to release its hold on the party. It doesn’t win at the statehouse level, it doesn’t win at the gov level, it can’t even keep a governing hold on the Nat. Legislature for more than 2 years. Dem estab is acting like a dog in the manger. It can’t or won’t win, but won’t let anyone else near the hay.
Rachel Notley of Ottawa, Canada. Alberta, a Conservative Party stronghold. Prior to the 2015 election the breakdown of the Alberta General Assembly was:
Progressive-Conservative: 70 seats
Wildrose: 5 seats
Alberta Party: 0 seats
Liberal: 5 seats
New Democratic: 4 seats
The names of these political parties are hardly descriptive. Nothing “progessive” about the first one. Wildrose is rightwing conservative. Alberta Party is semi-rightwing. Liberal is Trudeau’s party. And New Democratic (to the left of the Liberal party) was founded in 1932 but mostly floundering as an also ran.
After the 2015 general election the tally in Alberta became:
Progressive-Conservative: 10 seats
Wildrose: 21 seats
Alberta Party: 1
Liberal: 1 seats
New Democratic: 54 seats
If an actual Social-Democrat party existed in the US (well one does but its moribund), it could succeed where Democrats can’t. The risk is always that after that the DP swoops in and co-opts those elected and those that got them elected.
The drunk is reaching for the bottle again. Washington will loom larger than restoring the state parties. Policy will take a back seat to “winning”. And the same old money chase runs another cycle.
If anything is around to vote for in 2018, I’ll likely punch David Price’s New Democrat ticket one more time, but I am more pessimistic that a former yellow dog Democrat should ever be.
The last elected official will have to turn out the light in 2022.
And you are in the one of the few states where Dems won a competitive race down ballot.
I guess it is worth remembering that the margins in a lot of places are pretty small and it wouldn’t take much to shift the outcome in many states.
But I have no confidence the people running the party have any idea how to run a campaign.
I’m thinking that we bring about change as rapidly as possible in states and cities where we have control. Demonstrate what works.
And maybe replace the corrupted programs easy to hijack in DC with simpler and more accountable programs at local and state levels. Eliminating corruption is one way of lowering overall costs.
As a thought experiment, I’m wondering what a $200 billion federal budget would look like and what we would actually lose. The defect from a policy standpoint is that you would need to find some other way to work against austerity. Or redo GAAP to allow liquidity and accountability somehow in a more distributed economic system. It’s not like private entities haven’t create money in the past when the economy fell apart.
The margins are narrow in most of the country, and there is no county in America without Democratic voters. The DC consultants’ minimalism and high fees is what has brought us to this pass. They should have been fired in 2010, in 2004. They killed what Howard Dean did and they are trying to kill what Bernie Sanders did in terms of widening the map. Because they were traumatized by Nixon’s victory in 1968 and by the Republican victory of 1946 and cannot tolerate any lefties in the party, even as an antidote to ongoing corruption.
Very well, the establishment retains control. If they eff up next time there will be nothing left to defend. The map is against them.
Because they were traumatized by Nixon’s victory in 1968 and by the Republican victory of 1946 and cannot tolerate any lefties in the party, even as an antidote to ongoing corruption.
However, it was what the ’47-’48 Congress did that set-up the reversal in the ’48 election. Then the damn Democrats declined to do what the Democratic voters had asked for. Specifically follow through on Truman’s veto of Taft-Hartley by repealing it. Thus, this was the beginning of the duplicity of Democratic politicians; one message during campaign season and the opposite when in office. And they wonder why their campaign words/messages are no long good enough.
Did Democrats in ’92 and ’96 vote for NAFTA, deregulation of media, banks, Wall St? In ’08 for bailing out the banksters and drone and more proxy wars? Clean coal and privatization of public schools? Higher tuition at public colleges and universities? Lower wages for younger autoworkers?
First you need to elect some lefties as governor and leges. In pretty short supply, imo, esp in Blue states if NY is any indicator. Cali is a little less bidness dem, but hardly FDR-type legislation coming out of there. Maybe single payer will give them an appetite for it.
Wait until there’s no money going to the governors from Uncle Sugar Daddy. A lot of the agency on the Trump chopping block channel fund through the Office of the Governor of each state. HUD, Transportation, EPA, Education….
Trump might turn out to be Brownback nationalized.
Illinois is next. I feel it in my bones. Nothing positive from the Dems, just opposing Rauner (who is a scumbag). Remember Rauner got in because Quinn was regarded as ineffective and subservient to Speaker Madigan (D). Quinn followed Blagojevich (spells like it sounds – in German), who went to prison (a bum rap IMHO). Meanwhile, jobs and people flee the state. And the regressive tax structure grinds the public down more and more. Ever larger numbers of workers believe those taxes are just to support loafers on welfare. Doesn’t matter if it’s true. It only matters if the voters think it’s true. Something Wicked This Way Comes (Bradbury was an Illinoisan, lived about ten miles North of me).
Not that it matters, but Blagojevich/Blagojević is a Slavic name, not German.
Looking at wikipedia I learned that an early vampire had that name.
Petar Blagojevich – Wikipedia
Ok, that was way offtopic. Still, who doesn’t like a vampire story?
Yes, I know. The “vich” gives it away. However, spelling it is easy if you think German pronunciation. I think he’s Serbian. Maybe the long Austrian rule affected spelling?
Ha Ha. Republicans liked tho think this Blagojevich was a vampire!
English (only) speakers tend to spell it with a “y” instead of a “j” and maybe stick an “h” in there. Maybe the “h”‘s come from Cockney’s discards, like Enry for Henry.
Here is what Chris Reeves, who was at the meeting, posted on Kos
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/2/27/1638242/-Christine-Pelosi-s-Corporate-Money-Resolution-Det
ails
To summarize it seems the Obama era “rule” was more of a guideline where as this would be a rule written into the by-laws and there were some concerns over the ambiguity of the rule as written. It seems that Pelosi plans on bringing it with back with clearer language to the summer meeting.
While the War on Media Escalates, CBS Chief Praises Trump’s Deregulatory Agenda
Cool. The MSM can cover every Trump media attack which increases the number of eyeballs and by extension advert income for them and Trump will support all legislation that lets the MSM keep more of their profits and increase their power. Rinse, repeat, and hello, a 2020 win for Trump.
A worthy read at The Guardian – ‘Angry white men’: the sociologist who studied Trump’s base before Trump
Kimmel articulates and focuses on all the major relevant factors. Easy enough to recognize from this that calling ‘angry white men’ deplorables couldn’t have been more counterproductive.
Alberta link
Oops — correct link:
‘Angry white men’: the sociologist who studied Trump’s base before Trump
A resigned or otherwise deposed Trump would solve all of the above problems for the Dems. Suddenly…just like in the movies…they would be the “good guys” again. All the rest of this is just window dressing for the real, ongoing counter-hustle.
AG