|
Post by Optimus on Feb 25, 2017 15:41:46 GMT -5
www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/02/tom-perez-dnc-chairBetween him and Ellison, I think Perez is the better choice for a few reasons, but mainly because he's had more experience running larger organizations. So, I think he'll hopefully have a bit more logistical prowess in the DNC's version of herding cats. They'll need a lot of organization and a strong, broad philosophical focus if the DNC hopes to start winning in 2018.
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Feb 25, 2017 15:48:01 GMT -5
He's a very sound choice.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Feb 25, 2017 17:57:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 25, 2017 18:52:02 GMT -5
I think he's a better choice because the last thing this party needs to do is move even farther to the left. Doing that is part of the reason they just got their asses handed to them in every major election across the country over the past 2 to 4 years.
Also, I seriously doubt that most voters pay any attention to who heads up the DNC, so I reject the idea that it will make a difference to voter perception. I doubt that most of Sanders supporters even knew what the DNC was, let alone that Wasserman-Schultz was the head of it, until Bernie's campaign started crying about it.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Feb 25, 2017 19:01:01 GMT -5
But as Chang was pointing out, the Perez faction is largely undercutting the argument that Ellison would push the party to the left, because they're trying to sell Perez as a strong progressive.
Do most Sanders supporters know what the DNC is? I dunno. Although, of all the people who followed the DNC race closely and did care about it, it wouldn't surprise me if the majority were Sanders and/or Ellison backers. And Ellison's campaign did seem to get slightly more play in the media compared to Perez's, IMO.
|
|