slugsrbad wrote:pacino wrote:the neoliberals over at 538 proclaim Perez a progressive who wants to focus on a 50 state strategy:But Perez’s win deals an undeniable morale blow to the Sanders-supporting wing of the Democratic Party, which feels that the party’s loss in November was something of a referendum on the status quo. Nina Turner, a prominent Sanders-turned-Ellison surrogate, told The Washington Post’s Dave Weigel that if Ellison lost, “the future of the Democratic Party will walk away.”
The argument from the party’s Sanders wing was that Ellison was the best choice to put forth a message of progressivism that would reinvigorate the party’s base, implying that Perez was something of an establishment centrist. But Perez and Ellison laid out essentially identical visions for the party during the DNC race. Both called for a more decentralized organization that placed greater emphasis on the particular political climates and needs of each state, better candidate recruitment, and well-honed messages of economic populism that would speak to the party’s traditional base and beyond.
ymmv
I'm tired of a non-party member trying to direct the party. I understand that Sen. Sanders needed to run on the Democrat flag for POTUS, because he needed to use the beast as much as he could stomach. He lost and it's over. If he really wants to make a change, start with the I to a D. Either that, or give what your hardcore bros want, a new party.
fwiw, Sanders and Ellison congratulated Perez. It's the people in the 'movement' that are still going on and on and on about it. The actual politicians who see the forest for the trees aren't crying 'rigged!' (like a guy i went back and forth with on twitter because i'm a glutton for punishment).