Tom Perez needs to be removed immediately

Never trust the fucking baby boomers. These motherfuckers want to hold onto power until they croak. They've ruined everything American and political!

Bernie Sanders never should have been allowed to run, because he is not a Democrat and never has been.

100% agree, OP. He's completely ineffectual and he's allowed this three ring circus of a primary season to drone on way too long.

At one point, there were what, 20 people vying for the nomination? That's ridiculous. He should have used his leadership position to stop at 5 and ban anymore from entering. The whole thing has been a tremendous waste of time, energy and money, all of which could be put to better use in the generals. To make it even more preposterous, the party is no closer to a breakout favorite that it was a year ago. And with Bloomberg now entering the fray, the convention could be a real bloodbath.

[quote]The whole thing has been a tremendous waste of time, energy and money....

Especially now that Bloomberg is leapfrogging his way in.

Also, he should have put strict limits on how and how much candidates can attack one another, as well as put a muzzle AOC and her pals.

And let's not forget all the concessions he gave to Bernie.

DNC only represents the interests of elderly baby boomers

If this results in Iowa no longer going first, it will be well worth it.

What did I miss? Did over rated DL fave Pete drop in the polls or something?

If another state tries to go before Iowa, Iowa will just move their caucus. It's a big deal for them and pumps millions into their economy.

[quote] 100% agree, OP. He's completely ineffectual and he's allowed this three ring circus of a primary season to drone on way too long.

In case you’ve missed it Democrats won in 2018 and have continued to win in the subsequent off year elections. That’s really all that matters.

[quote] At one point, there were what, 20 people vying for the nomination? That's ridiculous. He should have used his leadership position to stop at 5 and ban anymore from entering. The whole thing has been a tremendous waste of time, energy and money, all of which could be put to better use in the generals. To make it even more preposterous, the party is no closer to a breakout favorite that it was a year ago. And with Bloomberg now entering the fray, the convention could be a real bloodbath.

Perez doesn’t act unilaterally. He didn’t unilaterally create the primary rules. Had the party limited the candidates to 5. There would have been more accusations of “rigging.”

[QUOTE] If another state tries to go before Iowa, Iowa will just move their caucus. It's a big deal for them and pumps millions into their economy.

The DNC decides the order. If they don’t want Iowa going first anymore, then they won’t go first. Fuck them and their economy.

Iowa can go fall off a cliff.

When Perez went on that "healing tour" with Bernie, I knew he had to go.

So if NV doesn't go smoothly, will he resign?

Donna Brazile? NO! Maybe Howard Dean.

Like his replacement will be any better? This could’ve happened under anyone’s watch. Get rid of this caucus bullshit already. Primaries in every state. Go in the booth and vote. That’s how you solve this problem.

Agree that Iowa can go fall off a cliff.

I'm tired of seeing footage of aged Iowans milling about with that so-smug look on their faces every election year. You know that face? They avoid looking at the camera even though they're dying to and they all have that tiny "na-na na na-na" smile.

Who the fuck do they think they are? They act like they did something to EARN going first.

We need to go to a national primary - or maybe two - 25 states per and I know I am forgetting a few US territories - with the two primary days flipping with each election cycle. I will never understand why we are voting for a national office with the State selection process varying according to their own laws. The entire election process is far too drawn out with unrepresentative states having too much influence in the pool of candidates for the States that DO represent the population of the United States.

I like that idea R19.

I know people who have worked with Perez and they all told me the same thing, that he’s very incompetent. I said, give him a chance, guys. They’re we’re right, I was wrong.

[quote] I know people who have worked with Perez and they all told me the same thing, that he’s very incompetent. I said, give him a chance, guys. They’re we’re right, I was wrong.

Tell us what has happened so far that was the direct result of Tom Perez’s actions?

Yes, Perez is ten time worse than Debbie Wasserman, a total fuck up. Hillary wrote about how fucked up the DNC was under Wasserman and self aggrandizing Donna Brazil - FOUR YEARS AGO.

Biden - get your add in gear fast and win this thing. Then gladly take Bloomberg's cash in advertising. That's the way we'll win.

The debates, and who qualifies for the debates, for ONE thing, R22.

r22, for one, Sandworm should never have been allowed to run as a Democrat.

Oh please, as if anyone would accept anything other than what Perez has done to mollify the Sandanistas. Had he limited the pool to 5, the far left would have screamed about the party not being fair and representative. Had he tried to intervene in Iowa's screwed-up voting-tabulation process, the entire party would have accused him of trying to put his thumb on the scales in favor of one candidate over another, and it doesn't matter which names you choose to insert into either position because at this point, I'm beginning to believe the Democrats [italic]want[/italic] to lose.

The proof is in the pudding: we're bickering over which Democrat is far enough to the left or left of center and attacking any candidate who dares to come along and challenge one segment or the other( while Trump is busy pardoning his crony crooks, liars and cheats). Sure, this is the process we (gleefully) watched the Republicans suffer through 2016, but the difference is that at the end of the day, Republicans fall in line and Democrats fall in love — which they [italic]never[/italic] requite.

So of course it makes sense that there's an effort afoot to remove Perez. He's won consistently since Wasserman-Schultz was ousted, and successfully set the stage for the Democrats to retake the House in 2018. He must be not just removed, but burned at the stake!

Thanks for that dose of reality R26.

R19 Best idea I've heard is to have a handful of states that were the closest in the last election, and have them be first. Maybe two states for the first, and then three more states a week or two later. Then we have Super Tuesday with 20 more states, and then the rest of the states peter out over the next couple of months. It would force Democrats to focus on battleground states early on, and we'll have candidates that have battled it out in the most important states - with one to three coming out of it victorious.

They never should have let Bernie run when he wouldn't agree to join the Democrat party. The line should have been drawn a long time ago.

R22, why don’t you tell me what Perez has accomplished so far?

[quote] They never should have let Bernie run when he wouldn't agree to join the Democrat party. The line should have been drawn a long time ago.

Not allowing Sanders to run would help Democrats win how?

Sanders running as an Independent would help Democrats win how?

Tom Perez is an idiot and needs to go.

And fuck Iowa.

[quote] They’re we’re right, I was wrong.

Oh dear, R21.

In more ways than one.

SACK PEREZ.

Bring back Howard Dean.

He was the only DNC Chair who got it right.

[quote]If another state tries to go before Iowa, Iowa will just move their caucus. It's a big deal for them and pumps millions into their economy.

I don't think the candidates will be putting much effort into Iowa next election. If anything, Bloomberg's strategy showed that Iowa and NH are irrelevant. I doubt you're going to see candidates practically moving to Iowa for a year for 2014. That was $74 million that was better spent elsewhere.

[quote]and successfully set the stage for the Democrats to retake the House in 2018.

I don't think it was Perez as much as it was Trump who set the stage for Democrats to win in 2018 and let's not forget they lost seats in the senate and the party is still flat broke.

The DNC should have been running anti-Trump ads in swing states during the hearings, but they couldn't because didn't have the cash. The RNC was all over Conor Lamb in PA during the hearings.

At least from a laymen’s point of view, this guy is either lazy, or he is just too damn slow.

He doesn’t appear to be running the show, the show is running him.

This election is too important to be run by a librarian type.

R36, my premise behind Democrats winning is that Republicans have to fuck it up so badly that those very few but crucial center-right Republicans either cross party lines out of disgust (think McCain running on Bush's coattails in 2008) or simply don't vote; meanwhile, Democrats only vote when their preferred candidate is on the ballot (think Bernie running against Clinton right up to the bitter end in 2016); that is the table that Perez is faced with, and Trump's presence is more like the condiments in that table setting, while Perez quietly worked behind the scenes to get the right slate of candidates on the ballot (the place setting), and with state party chairs (the utensils) to work the get-out-the-vote machine.

R37, appearances can be deceiving. Why do you think the Republicans were actively sabotaging the Democrats' backup plan to count the vote in Iowa? The Democrats were prepared for the app to fail, and in their effort to make sure everyone knew that there were failsafes in place, it alerted the Republican scum-sucking machine to wind up their operatives and let them loose on the caucuses. It should be a clarion bell that the caucus system is one that was dependent on 19th century technology and 20th century politics, while the electorate has moved on to 21st century populism and social media. To wit, Obama's organizing in the 2008 election showed us that the data is out there and can be used to our benefit, while the 2016 election proved that the data can be turned against the popular vote winner and manipulated just enough to install a sham of an administration.

I'll give you your librarian analogy. The problem is that when we put a charismatic leader in party chair's seat, the knives come out just like they destroyed Howard Dean over what amounted to a holler at a campaign rally (yes, I know that was when he was running for POTUS, and his chairmanship came later; my point is that Dean had an active, aggressive and effective 50-state strategy that was pilloried by the right and ultimately, the party harkening back to that holler rather than focusing on the effectiveness of his strategy).

That said, I'd argue that this election would be better served run by a librarian who is organized, knowledgeable and educated over a tool of the Sandanistas that either sides with them 100% of the time or is destroyed when s/he crosses them. I have no answers, and that leads me to conclude that the Democrats really don't want to win; they won't get behind anyone or any idea in the way that Republicans will hold their noses and vote for a candidate that is the epitome of everything they oppose, but knowing that they'll be able to use the power of the office to accomplish lifelong goals, like stacking the courts, delegitimizing (small 'd') democratic principles, and draining the treasury. Sure, Trump has damaged America at home and abroad... but they got their SCOTUS and a Federal Bench that is lost for at least a generation, we've added [italic]at least[/italic] a $trillion per year to the debt for each of Trump's 4 budget-busting years, all either already in the 0.01%'s hands or headed that way, and as a nation we feel our way of life slipping away but are powerless to do anything about it.

The bottom line is that Republican efforts to bifurcate the Democratic Party have been wildly successful. Screw the brilliant young gay guy because he had a glass of wine with a billionaire; the woman who knows how to get things done, because she's proud of her grandparents' heritage, [italic]and[/italic] the guy who built an empire from nothing, because he made some bad racially motivated policies (but obviously not bad enough to keep him from getting re-elected Mayor of ultraliberal NYC... twice). We're faced with quite the conundrum: elect a 78-year-old heart attack victim who promises unachievable policy but in 30+ years in government has achieved nothing, or give the worst president in history another 4 years (the conclusion of which will be the end of the United States).

Ok I respect the thoughts laid out above. My only concern is that when rethugs try their stunts, that the party chair is OUT FRONT communication a cohesive narrative. They need to be two steps ahead.

Proactive not reactive!

[quote] We're faced with quite the conundrum: elect a 78-year-old heart attack victim who promises unachievable policy but in 30+ years in government has achieved nothing, or give the worst president in history another 4 years (the conclusion of which will be the end of the United States).

If you’re actually paying attention to what Trump is doing (not saying) and what his administration is doing to this country and our democracy. No it’s not quite the conundrum.

Regardless of who chaired the party we would still have Bernie and his supporters to deal with and the same results in Iowa. Caucuses are stupid and Perez and the DNC convinced 1/2 of the caucus states to scrap them. Democrats have also been winning. Which is the only thing that matters. This extended dialogue regarding Perez is stupid. If the party is winning who gives a fuck who the chair is.

I am paying attention to what Trump is doing, R41! He's destroying everything that made America great: the rule of law, economic growth for everyone except the 0.01%, the treasury, the judiciary... what are you looking at that makes you say it's not a conundrum? The post offices that Bernie named? Or is it the goons that come out every single time anyone suggests that anyone other than St. Bernard can win?

Yeah, I agree, it's stupid to be debating Perez's strategy when he's been winning. Why was this thread started again?

[quote]Perez quietly worked behind the scenes to get the right slate of candidates on the ballot (the place setting), and with state party chairs (the utensils) to work the get-out-the-vote machine.

Nope. Not true at all. Perez stepped aside as the progressive wing tried to take over and run inappropriate candidates in places suited to moderates. Perez did jack shit during the 2018 primaries.

[quote] Nope. Not true at all. Perez stepped aside as the progressive wing tried to take over and run inappropriate candidates in places suited to moderates. Perez did jack shit during the 2018 primaries.

Nonsense. And you do know that Democrats need progressive voters. Perez is not the chair of the centrists Democrats. He is the chair of the entire party. Democrats cannot afford to kick any wing of the party out.

R44, it was the moderates who won the house back and not the progressives.

Also I'm responding to r38, who seems to think Perez worked some kind of magic to get the right candidates in place. He didn't. The win in 2018 was in spite of Perez and not anything great he's done. Any other republican and you wouldn't have as many seats in the house. .

[quote] [R44], it was the moderates who won the house back and not the progressives. Also I'm responding to [R38], who seems to think Perez worked some kind of magic to get the right candidates in place. He didn't. The win in 2018 was in spite of Perez and not anything great he's done. Any other republican and you wouldn't have as many seats in the house. .

There is no winning for Democrats, without both moderates and progressive voters. And the complaints about Perez all boil down to shit that no one is going to change (e.g. make Bernie go away or expel the progressives). Wins in 2018 and post 2018 were energized by disdain for Trump, but they also took party leadership. Perez is not magical; no one is. Democrats have real work to do this yr. and we need to focus on what’s really important.

"we need to focus on what’s really important."

What's really important is getting Trump out of office before he becomes a dictator. That is job #1 and it should be the laser-like focus of each and every Democrat.

But's it not. For the Democrats, it's making sure everybody's voice is heard, and no one's feelings get hurt. And that can be traced back directly to a lack of leadership at the top of the party. The Democrats need an enforcer, not an enabler like Perez.

Can't Sanders and Bloomberg be booted from the Democratic Party, since they are not officially members?

One is an Independent, and the other is a Republican.

Our nominating process would go so much more smoothly, without those two interlopers.

You fools think things would be better without Perez? Keith Ellison, a Bernie backed candidate, would currently be Chair if Perez lost. Obama had to use some political capital to find a solution with Perez taking Chair and Keith Ellison appointed Deputy Chair. Could you image the chaos of Bernie’s guy was running the entire show? Bernie’s candidates were whipped out in the 2018 races. Perez has been responsive and presided over the 2018 victories.

The issues with Iowa are out of his control. Primary’s are run by the specific state’s Democratic Party, basically a separate organization from the DNC. Perez couldn’t change the rules of their election anymore than a President of the US can control regular state elections.

Bloomberg is surging on the Centrist side of the Party. It makes no sense for the Party that allowed 1000 people to run to suddenly bar someone else from joining. Moderates are not satisfied with the current moderate candidates, which is a weakness Bloomberg is exploiting. This is politics not a tea party, it’s not for the faint of heart. Then again, the top two candidates have both had heart attacks within the last 10 years lol.

I’ve spent a bough time in politics to know that just about everyone is called incompetent when they aren’t liked. Now the the, soon to be former, head Iowa Democratic Party can actually be called incompetent. I haven’t really seen anything on Perez. But if Super Tuesday shapes up to split winners then he will have to manage a brokered convention.

[quote] What's really important is getting Trump out of office before he becomes a dictator. That is job #1 and it should be the laser-like focus of each and every Democrat. But's it not. For the Democrats, it's making sure everybody's voice is heard, and no one's feelings get hurt. And that can be traced back directly to a lack of leadership at the top of the party. The Democrats need an enforcer, not an enabler like Perez.

The diversity of the party and the membership wanting to be heard has nothing to do with Perez nor any other leader. The party is very different from the 90% straight white Christian Republican Party. The Democratic Party is the “big tent” party. The party has to make a space for everyone and address the needs of everyone. Or guess what? Voters will not vote. Why would they? You can’t tell people to sit down shut up, but make sure you show up on Election Day. You have to give people a reason to vote; outside of maintaining a status quo from which they don’t feel they reap any benefit. People should just show up and vote. Because it’s their duty. However, in a nation where 1/2 of eligible voters don’t vote. We know it doesn’t work that way.

r50 as of now it seems like white people, Bernie’s bread and butter, are the ones Doing most of the complaining. Minorities are weighing their options. For instance, Bloomberg’s AA support is rising even with the news about his problematic past. Bernie’s minority support is also rising so both camps should be happy.

Many of Bernie’s people act like he’s entitled to the nomination. Yet, even when he’s winning, like right now, they are still upset about every darn thing. It’s exhausting and a turn off.

Still, I’m voting blue no later what.

You missed my point entirely, R50.

The United States is on the verge of becoming a dictatorship. Everyday, Trump wipes his ass with the US Constitution, the latest chapter in this pathetic saga coming just yesterday with those pardons. And this comes on the heels of Trump being cleared by the Republican controlled US Senate, which also disallowed any witnesses from testifying. And this is just 6 short months after Trump & Co. decided to bury the Mueller Report because the Trump administration decided there was no need for anyone but a Trump appointee from seeing the full non-redacted report.

So what's been the Democratic Party's response to this malfeasance? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zip. Butkus. Why? Because, as you said, its too preoccupied with being the "Big Tent" party. What good is being the "Big Tent party if the big tent is on fire and nobody's trying to extinguish it. What's worse, no one in the Democratic party is sounding any fire alarms. The party leadership keeps allowing the various factions to continue their petty spats and letting them have their childish tantrums to threaten to sit out the election if their guy/gal isn't picked. .

Trump is a Mafia don and the Republicans are his capos. They're ruthless, vengeful and don't give a flying fuck what anyone else thinks. And just you wait until the Democrats finally select somebody. Then the real big guns and heavy artillery are going to come out and destroy anybody and anything that stands in the Republicans' way. The Democrats need to start planning their strategy to confront this YESTERDAY instead of letting this completely unneccessary and completely useless intraparty warfare continue.

"Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zip. Butkus."

It's BUPKIS

One perez is gone they’ll make the next DNC leader a Muslim Mexican lesbian amputee.

[quote] [R50] as of now it seems like white people, Bernie’s bread and butter, are the ones Doing most of the complaining. Minorities are weighing their options. For instance, Bloomberg’s AA support is rising even with the news about his problematic past. Bernie’s minority support is also rising so both camps should be happy. Many of Bernie’s people act like he’s entitled to the nomination. Yet, even when he’s winning, like right now, they are still upset about every darn thing. It’s exhausting and a turn off. Still, I’m voting blue no later what.

Yes when I mentioned diversity. I wasn’t specifically referring to racial diversity. The party includes multiple types of diversity. All of whom deserve to have their needs addressed.

R46, what are you going on about. It was the House that democrats won, which is local. And it wasn't progressives, sorry, it was definitely moderates. It was white, republican, surburban housewives that flipped. No progressive flipped anything in 2018. Even though progressive like to take credit for win...they did shit.

[quote]And let's not forget all the concessions he gave to Bernie.

Starting with the Unity Tour that, as everyone with a brain predicted, drove a bigger wedge between the two Democratic factions than was already there.

The multiple claims that Perez did the best he could with Bernie and that Bernie is basically an unsolvable problem are bullshit. The very least he could have done is NOT allowed Bernie to tour as a Democratic Party representative who bashed the party on multiple occasions, to the delight of Trumpsters and the media.

How does someone who is on TV daily have such jacked up teeth?

I'm not a huge Tom Perez fan, but he has an impossible job. Not only because of the fractious insurgents on the Left who are being mined by the Bernie Campaign. You have the Black activists, the Latino Activists, the Gay activists, and the women activists, and all of them have grievances and aspirations and ideas and visions, and it's an exhausting job to try to keep peace and try to be fair, and try to deal with real as well as hidden agendas, and outside influences.

In addition he is tasked with raising money. Members of Congress need and expect support and resources from the DNC. A lot of new House members and House challengers don't have the machinery to raise the kind of money they need to successfully wage a campaign against the juggernaut of Republican resources. Or hire good, professional campaign staff.

Then there is the infrastructure. Databases to build, regular mailings, polling focus groups, etc. and other shit. We often sit here complaining about all the ads the Republicans and their dark money cohorts run against our side. But very often, the DNC doesn't have any money to run counter ads or to initiate ad buys. Out here, donors willingly give money to a specific candidate, but it's hard to get people to contribute to the party unless you get out here and sell justification for it.

So even though I find Perez less than dynamic, I'm not going to sling mud at him. Could he be more effective? Hell, yes. He's not Terry Mc Cauliffe, or Howard Dean, but this is the horse we have to ride. And believe me Bernie is creating all kinds of problems for him. Jeff Weaver wanted the DNC job real bad in 2016. He felt he was "owed." Yeah. I'm so glad he didn't get it. Weaver is a huge problem, and no one seems to recognize what an underhanded, unscrupulous, unethical bastard he is.