Support NeoGAF

[GoldenEye 007]

Dude...the source is right here:

Yes, I read that.

So my question is, how do you force the GOP into extreme positions? I guess that would be pointing out the extreme things they have already said?

How do you undermine credibility among independents? And how is that a bad thing?

Deflect attacks against HRC? Um, ok?

So do what was done to Romney - which was quite successful. But even then, it relies on the media playing along and registered GOP members going for it.

It's just crazy to think HRC and the DNC had all of this power over the media, the moderate GOP electorate, and the GOP candidates themselves, yet was so dysfunctional with liberals and Democrats. Pied piper also requires collusion, which isn't detailed anywhere.

 

[legacyzero]

It was pretty trash. He sincerely thinks just closing the wage gap and going after corporations will solve racial inequality - this was his entire problem when it came to BLM. But money is a symptom, not the cause.

Bernie's recent comments that he doesn't like "identity politics" makes me believe he still doesn't get it.

But he's right on all fronts.

And his complaints about money in politics is the exact thing that did him in. Establishment corporate democrats ganged up on him from day one.

On Identity politics, yes, it can be bad because when it's the only thing you use as a reason to vote, you tend to cast a blind eye to other issues that YOU NEED on board with you, or you may lose everything. For instance- The working class voters in the rust belt states that flipped and destroyed the fire wall.

Money in politics is EXACTLY the core problem to everything that hurts our legislative process. It's all seized up with crooked politicians that bend to the lobby first, and not the people. That INCLUDES Minority.

Absolutely wrong.

Bernie Sanders and the Sanders Campaign was given impartial treatment by the DNC within the process of the primary.

That does not change just because DWS personally didn't like Bernie, and wrote that in a personal email.

Within the machinations of the Democratic primary, was Bernie Sanders not treated impartially?

Leaked emails dont lie. But you continue to ignore the facts. Every. Single. Time.

 

[Rentahamster]

Yes, I read that.

So my question is, how do you force the GOP into extreme positions? I guess that would be pointing out the extreme things they have already said?

How do you undermine credibility among independents? And how is that a bad thing?

Deflect attacks against HRC? Um, ok?

So do what was done to Romney - which was quite successful. But even then, it relies on the media playing along and registered GOP members going for it.

It's just crazy to think HRC and the DNC had all of this power over the media, the moderate GOP electorate, and the GOP candidates themselves, yet was so dysfunctional with liberals and Democrats. Pied piper also requires collusion, which isn't detailed anywhere.

How they go about it has no relevance to refuting the fact that they tried to elevate Trump's campaign.

 

[excelsiorlef]

This is a very strong opinion of Tom Perez and I'm curious what makes you think he's such a horrible, awful hack?

It was a sarcastic reference to Sanders calling Perez and Biden part of the failed status quo.

 

[royalan]

Leaked emails dont lie. But you continue to ignore the facts. Every. Single. Time.

Just because you type it doesn't make it true, legacy.

Since you're so opinionated on the matter, I'll ask you the same thing:

Within the machinations of the Democratic primary, was Bernie Sanders not treated impartially?

 

[Trey]

I agree that Bernie's platform didn't adequately address the root of racial inequality, but do you mind explaining how Hillary was any better?

Her proposals for racial justice amounted to "starting conversations" and minimal legalistic fixes for similar symptoms. The imagined hard-hitting condemnations of white supremacist attitudes and policies just weren't there.

Oh she's not much better, if at all, believe me. She made more sense to minorities because her feud with BLM didn't become as pointed as it did with Bernie's campaign, her name recognition, and the fact that she was basically a continuation of Obama's administration.

 

[Trey]

But he's right on all fronts.

I'm gonna say I thoroughly disagree, and leave it at that.

Edit: dp

 

[royalan]

Oh she's not much better, if at all, believe me. She made more sense to minorities because her feud with BLM didn't become as pointed as it did with Bernie's campaign, her name recognition, and the fact that she was basically a continuation of Obama's administration.

She was also the only politician in the running on either side to speak on the black community as more than just the sum of the negative issues facing our community, but eh, details...

 

[Arttemis]

Absolutely wrong.

Bernie Sanders and the Sanders Campaign was given impartial treatment by the DNC within the process of the primary.

That does not change just because DWS personally didn't like Bernie, and wrote that in a personal email.

Within the machinations of the Democratic primary, was Bernie Sanders not treated impartially?

REGARDLESS of what email accounts were used, I find the chairman with other members of the party defaming the religion of and collaborating and colluding against one primary candidate over another while actively creating campaign strategies to be the absolute opposite of what you claim. The emails went far beyond expression of distaste.

 

[Neuromancer]

Democrats often "treat their email lists as Chicken Little, 'sky is falling,' trying to con money out of people

I can confirm this. It's so obnoxious I had to unsubscribe. I was getting multiple emails a day.

 

[Hickbilly Deluxe]

So you're okay with losing our democratic trifecta in Delaware?

To be honest, any person that loses an election and then blames the lack of some email list as the main reason probably shouldn't be in politics period. Because that is showing an amazing level of incompetence in both their strategy and the people they trust to surround themselves with.

Also, I heavily dislike the thought of people handing away other peoples personal information for any sort of gain except in criminal matters.

 

[dave is ok]

Just because you type it doesn't make it true, legacy.

Since you're so opinionated on the matter, I'll ask you the same thing:

Within the machinations of the Democratic primary, was Bernie Sanders not treated impartially?

They purposely kept the debate schedule light to try and hurt him, so no

Politifact agrees

 

[Joe T.]

I will never understand why so many are quick to trash Bernie. He ran an incredible campaign considering he was a relative unknown and he's still fighting the good fight. Why anyone would take exception with this particular email issue is beyond me. He wasn't running some diabolically genius campaign and no amount of data gleaned from his email list is going to help the DNC reach an audience that would otherwise be inaccessible to them. That support and all those donations were the result of something very real, not some manufactured image. Find another candidate legitimately trying to help the masses and the support Bernie received will throw itself at you, no email lists required.

 

[phanphare]

why can't dems learn from what bernie did and how he approached the issues the country is facing instead of pretending that his email list is some magical elixir that they could drink and solve all of their woes?

there's a reason bernie resonated with so many people and were on that list to begin with. start there.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

No offense, but you sound like you've been out of the loop for several weeks now. Schumer hasn't made it clear that fighting the GOP isn't in his playbook? He has publicly said that many times, even naming the cabinet nominees that he would be opposing. Democrats let the GOP walk over them during the cabinet confirmation process to avoid being seen as obstructionist? They've grilled the vast majority of these nominees in their hearings and on the floor (which, as the minority party, is about all they can do); they've used procedural rules to delay votes, even reused to show up to committees to keep them from moving forward; multiple senators spoke harshly about Sessions and DeVos (and you can likely expect the same for Price, Mnuchin, Puzder, Pruitt, Mulvaney), and Booker was the first senator to speak out against another sitting senator up for a cabinet spot; and Sessions didn't slip through their fingers, because they never had the votes to stop him or any nominee from being confirmed in the first place.

The Democrats are extremely limited in what they can do in the Senate right now; they literally and mathematically cannot win any of these cabinet fights. But to claim that they aren't doing anything and aren't being obstructionist when they can and that everyone but Warren is just rolling over is all completely and utterly false. "Lazy, spineless Dems" is a nice convenient narrative to fall back on, but it doesn't really reflect what Senate Dems are actually doing right now.

For sure, the Democrats are tactically limited in terms of direct political action right now. I'm describing the general frustration of the left right now, not prescribing a specific change myself. The thing is - and to be fair, we don't know for sure this didn't happen, although you'd assume if it did there would be reporting on it - you'd expect that if Sessions was such a big deal for the Democrats, they would be making calls, putting the squeeze on Republican colleagues, anything at all, to fight his confirmation. How realistic or not this would have been for making an actual difference, it sure would have been a lot more satisfying than not even being able to secure party solidarity in the vote, and having several senators stay behind after the confirmation to chat and congratulate Sessions after the vote, as was reported. Regardless of how much actual, hard options they have right now, they certainly look limp. If they can't even muster the energy to win symbolic victories, like unilateral "no" votes for cabinet appointees that would get through anyway... what confidence does that sow for future, more important legislation battles? I'm certainly not holding my breath right now.

As for Schumer, I respect the guy, but no, I don't think he's getting too much shit. He insists he is playing the long game, and I think a lot of people right now just don't have the patience for that.

Shortly after Barack Obama won the White House, McConnell gave a speech announcing that the top priority for Republicans would be to make Obama a one-term President. Schumer's offer to Trump is more nuanced. Govern from the middle, Schumer is suggesting, and I will share some votes. Govern from the right, and you'll give Democrats a chance to reclaim the populist mantle in coming elections. "We're not going to do what the Republicans did and oppose it just because the name Trump is on it," Schumer said.

He's reaching his hand out to a President who has already thrown shitty child tantrums about him on Twitter. It's futile.

 

[Trey]

She was also the only politician in the running on either side to speak on the black community as more than just the sum of the negative issues facing our community, but eh, details...

True but I attribute that more to her being a better politician than Bernie. She's been a strong force in every level of government, which leads to her working with many coalitions and people that Bernie just didn't touch.

She had more reach, as it were. Ultimately her being a politician's politician is what did her in but like you said, eh, details.

 

[The Technomancer]

Honestly if they need an email list they need a lot more than an email list

Also good fucking lord the primary was almost a year ago

 

[whyamihere]

You mean, the DNC misunderstands what a pied piper strategy is. I'm pointing out what they did.

Again.

This is a strategy of trying to say that jeb! or Rubio is no different than an extremist like Cruz or Trump. It's leading Jeb! or Rubio to take more extremist positions that would hurt them in the general. It's not, like, somehow promoting Trump on cable news.

 

[kirblar]

This is a weasely post. Don't try and stealth-accuse people like this. They were asked a question and they answered. Besides, a big portion of the economic and labor issues cited commonly by Bernie supporters/the left in general do have a profound effect on women and minority groups.

While I agree that the Bernie campaign was a bit slow on the uptake responding to the BLM movement (if you remember, both Hillary and Bernie rallies were interrupted by protestors and neither were... inspiring in their direct responses really) both Clinton and Sanders eventually each had a prominent platform statement addressing these social issues.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/
https://berniesanders.com/issues/fighting-for-womens-rights/
https://berniesanders.com/issues/fighting-for-lgbt-equality/

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/racial-justice/
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/lgbt-equality/
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/womens-rights-and-opportunity/

This is a dangerously anti-intellectual post. First, to deny that harking on corporations was the only thing going on- and second of all acting like economic issues aren't "real issues" facing minorities and women. I am a minority, and I am quite certain economic issues effect me too. I'm sure I would like free health care for example. Who gave you the authority the decide what issues individual minorities face, anyways?

Yes, a rising tide of economic benefits rises all boats. I am in no way opposed to broad-based interventions. (I'm pro-universal healthcare, think UBI is inevitable, etc.) But it also does nothing to fix systemic racial inequality. (See: the Demos paper earlier today for more on this issue) It does nothing to address restrictions placed on women's reproductive rights. It does nothing to protect LGBT individuals. And these types of social interventions are economic. Ensuring people have access to workplace protections, school, birth control- these are not just "social" issues, they ensure that people are able to maximize their ability in the economy as well!

My post is not "anti-intellectual" in the least. It's that during this campaign cycle, that language continuously came out of the mouths of people who would not be affected on these axes or did not think they would be affected on these axes by a Trump victory, and appeals to them along those axes were waved away or ignored. I wasn't trying to be weaselly, it's just that those experiences have very led me to view that type of language as a strong tell of someone's priorities.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

why can't dems learn from what bernie did and how he approached the issues the country is facing instead of pretending that his email list is some magical elixir that they could drink and solve all of their woes?

there's a reason bernie resonated with so many people and were on that list to begin with. start there.

This has been posted ad nauseum in this thread. Do people really not realize that this email list can help the DNC learn from what Bernie did? In fact, it's probably the best resource in existence to do exactly that!

 

[legacyzero]

Just because you type it doesn't make it true, legacy.

Since you're so opinionated on the matter, I'll ask you the same thing:

Within the machinations of the Democratic primary, was Bernie Sanders not treated impartially?

No, I wont let you try and make it that easy. That question deliberately moves the goal posts. The "machinations" were affected by the DNC influence. Superdelegates pledging their support before the Primary even began, gave an implication of a vast lead over Bernie that wasn't actually true, in turn potentially fostering bandwagon votes, or even folks not voting at all.

Donna Brazile got caught cheating, and aiding Clinton.

DWS was caught in the leaked emails bitching out media for not treating her and Clinton "Fairly", exhibiting a clear conflict of interest.

I DONT HAVE TO TYPE IT TO BE TRUE. It's goddamn true on it's own LOL

Do yes, if this could even affect ONE vote, it's bullshit by default. Stop contorting to try and justify it.

I'm gonna say I thoroughly disagree, and leave it at that.

Edit: dp

 

[The Technomancer]

No, I wont let you try and make it that easy. That question deliberately moves the goal posts. The "machinations" were affected by the DNC influence. Superdelegates pledging their support before the Primary even began, gave an implication of a vast lead over Bernie that wasn't actually true, in turn potentially fostering bandwagon votes, or even folks not voting at all.

Donna Brazile got caught cheating, and aiding Clinton.

Do yes, if this could even affect ONE vote, it's bullshit by default. Stop contorting to try and justify it.

Do you have literally any evidence that this effected anything? I never met a person in real life who gave a shit about superdelegates or even knew what they were, just on Reddit. Show me some kind of correlation between any of this and actual polls or statistics about Bernie's support

Or else own that Bernie cost Clinton votes and maybe the election. I mean, I don't think that's true, but if you think that the DNC cost him the nomination than Bernie cost Clinton the election and now we have Trump

 

[royalan]

REGARDLESS of what email accounts were used, I find the chairman with other members of the party defaming the religion of and collaborating and colluding against one primary candidate over another while actively creating campaign strategies to be the absolute opposite of what you claim. The emails went far beyond expression of distaste.

And not only was the strategy those staffers were discussing NOT actually used, they were also reprimanded. So...?

They purposely kept the debate schedule light to try and hurt him, so no

Politifact agrees

Nothing in this article says "DNC rigged debate schedule specifically to help Hillary Clinton and hurt Bernie Sanders, for the psychically foresaw that he would be a threat to her campaign."

I will never understand why so many are quick to trash Bernie. He ran an incredible campaign...

...based on stolen data.

I will never not trash him for that.

 

[phanphare]

This has been posted ad nauseum in this thread. Do people really not realize that this email list can help the DNC learn from what Bernie did? In fact, it's probably the best resource in existence to do exactly that!

if this list is the missing puzzle piece then they're in some serious trouble

 

[Big Baybee]

No, I wont let you try and make it that easy. That question deliberately moves the goal posts. The "machinations" were affected by the DNC influence. Superdelegates pledging their support before the Primary even began, gave an implication of a vast lead over Bernie that wasn't actually true, in turn potentially fostering bandwagon votes, or even folks not voting at all.

Donna Brazile got caught cheating, and aiding Clinton.

DWS was caught in the leaked emails bitching out media for not treating her and Clinton "Fairly", exhibiting a clear conflict of interest.

I DONT HAVE TO TYPE IT TO BE TRUE. It's goddamn true on it's own LOL

Do yes, if this could even affect ONE vote, it's bullshit by default. Stop contorting to try and justify it.

Why was Obama able to overcome the "superdelegate effect" you're describing, while Bernie was not in a significantly less crowded field of candidates?

 

[whyamihere]

To be honest, any person that loses an election and then blames the lack of some email list as the main reason probably shouldn't be in politics period. Because that is showing an amazing level of incompetence in both their strategy and the people they trust to surround themselves with.

Also, I heavily dislike the thought of people handing away other peoples personal information for any sort of gain except in criminal matters.

This about helping downticket Democrats who can't build a list like Sanders. It's about touching even one more voter who might not have been reached otherwise. It's building data to help rebuild state parties.

In 2014, DE SD10 was won by like 450 votes. And it's literally our lifeline to keep the trifecta in Delaware. Do you see that literally anything can help when the margins are that close?

 

[Rentahamster]

Again.

This is a strategy of trying to say that jeb! or Rubio is no different than an extremist like Cruz or Trump. It's leading Jeb! or Rubio to take more extremist positions that would hurt them in the general. It's not, like, somehow promoting Trump on cable news.

Again. I'm not arguing about what it is. I'm pointing out the DNC's strategy that ended up helping Trump in the end.

 

[onadesertedisland]

Why does it always turn into a discussion where Hillary supporters are trying to reason out the facts that the DNC did not want Bernie as the nominee? Clinton era Democrats are done. If the Democrats do not embrace progressivism the way the republicunts adopted the tea party bullshit, they might as well start packing their bags.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

Well, I can see purity and in fighting are still the order of the day for liberals here. Have fun losing 2020, if the world is still around by then

 

[excelsiorlef]

Why does it always turn into a discussion where Hillary supporters are trying to reason out the facts that the DNC did not want Bernie as the nominee? Clinton era Democrats are done. If the Democrats do not embrace progressivism the way the republicunts adopted the tea party bullshit, they might as well start packing their bags.

And by progressivism you mean Sanders yes?

 

[StrategyFan]

are they desperate enough to run a moderate republican vs. Trump in 2020 instead of hoping they get lucky with the electoral math?

 

[The Technomancer]

Why does it always turn into a discussion where Hillary supporters are trying to reason out the facts that the DNC did not want Bernie as the nominee? Clinton era Democrats are done. If the Democrats do not embrace progressivism the way the republicunts adopted the tea party bullshit, they might as well start packing their bags.

If more people wanted to vote for Bernie he would have won, full stop. This weird narrative about the DNC "disenthusing" Bernie supporters has not ever been based in any sort of actual causal evidence

 

[whyamihere]

Again. I'm not arguing about what it is. I'm pointing out the DNC's strategy that ended up helping Trump in the end.

But. It didn't. Tying Jeb! and Rubio to Trump or Cruz does not help Trump or Cruz! It's literally just saying the Republican Party has extreme positions that are sometimes caked in a moderate package like with Jeb.

 

[old manatee]

The DNC should be putting their money into targeted social media outreach, I fear they're still too caught up in traditional media. The republicans have an absolute stranglehold on places like facebook, and meanwhile the democrats are worrying about a mailing list of all things.

Like Correct the Record?

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

if this list is the missing puzzle piece then they're in some serious trouble

The list likely has substantial overlap with existing DNC lists. Those people aren't that important since the DNC already knows who they are, what they care about, etc.

It's the people that are on Bernie's list that aren't on existing DNC lists. This is most likely a small but notable number of people. Using the demographic data that Bernie's e-mail list provides about these people will allow the DNC to figure out what they need to do to reach them in future elections, especially if these people are in swing districts.

Why is this hard for people to understand? Bernie keeping the list to himself is selfish and detrimental to advancing progressive politics in the US, plain and simple

 

[kirblar]

Why does it always turn into a discussion where Hillary supporters are trying to reason out the facts that the DNC did not want Bernie as the nominee? Clinton era Democrats are done. If the Democrats do not embrace progressivism the way the republicunts adopted the tea party bullshit, they might as well start packing their bags.

The Tea Party was astroturfed and likely cost the GOP winnable seats in many races by replacing moderate candidates with extreme ones.

 

[Hickbilly Deluxe]

This about helping downticket Democrats who can't build a list like Sanders. It's about touching even one more voter who might not have been reached otherwise. It's building data to help rebuild state parties.

In 2014, DE SD10 was won by like 450 votes. And it's literally our lifeline to keep the trifecta in Delaware. Do you see that literally anything can help when the margins are that close?

If the vote is that close, either they are running with the wrong message, or with a bad campaign period. Still not a good enough reason, to me at least, to give away peoples personal information.

 

[excelsiorlef]

are they desperate enough to run a moderate republican vs. Trump in 2020 instead of hoping they get lucky with the electoral math?

What?

Where is that implication?

 

[RedAssedApe]

dnc needs to git gud

 

[Apt101]

5 times a day, I get an email from the DNC or even Barack Obama himself, apparently. It's always asking for money. I was going to 'unsubscribe' but it wanted me to enter the email again.. it just didn't feel right. So I tossed it into spam and now it's the only thing in my spam box.

Same. I registered D, donated to Obama twice, and now I get the emails at least once a week.

 

[Trey]

Why does it always turn into a discussion where Hillary supporters are trying to reason out the facts that the DNC did not want Bernie as the nominee? Clinton era Democrats are done. If the Democrats do not embrace progressivism the way the republicunts adopted the tea party bullshit, they might as well start packing their bags.

No they aren't. The establishment is still there and will continue to be there. Pretending otherwise is goofy.

 

[jack_package_200]

Like Correct the Record?

Revolution Messaging

 

[whyamihere]

If the vote is that close, either they are running with the wrong message, or with a bad campaign period. Still not a good enough reason, to me at least, to give away peoples personal information.

Okay. I find this incredibly naive and frustrating and completely detrimental to trying to actually help people by electing Democrats and winning back state houses.

 

[Pkaz01]

Shouldnt these idiots focus more on what he did and said to get that list rather than try and have him hand over a list of people who obviously arent interested in what they have to say?

 

[Knuckle Sandwich]

This is a very strong opinion of Tom Perez and I'm curious what makes you think he's such a horrible, awful hack?

It was a sarcastic reference to Sanders calling Perez and Biden part of the failed status quo.

Yeah.

I like Perez a lot. Was hoping he'd be vp.

 

[legacyzero]

Do you have literally any evidence that this effected anything? I never met a person in real life who gave a shit about superdelegates or even knew what they were, just on Reddit. Show me some kind of correlation between any of this and actual polls or statistics about Bernie's support

Or else own that Bernie cost Clinton votes and maybe the election. I mean, I don't think that's true, but if you think that the DNC cost him the nomination than Bernie cost Clinton the election and now we have Trump

Literally all of this is anecdotal. But present non-the-less. People keep straw-manning with arguments like this, while blatantly ignoring everything else that happened. There's a reason DWS stepped down.

And if this whole thing isn't taken seriously in 2018 and 2020, we will lose again. /shrug

Why was Obama able to overcome the "superdelegate effect" you're describing, while Bernie was not in a significantly less crowded field of candidates?

Because Obama wasn't a shitty candidate. He did an amazing job of talking the issues, and showed Hillary for who she was. A flip-flopping, corrupt politician.

Shouldnt these idiots focus more on what he did and said to get that list rather than try and have him hand over a list of people who obviously arent interested in what they have to say?

He'd give it to another group like Justice Democrats, or Swing Left before he'd give it to the DNC. But he's also got his own platform in Our Revolution.

 

[whyamihere]

Shouldnt these idiots focus more on what he did and said to get that list rather than try and have him hand over a list of people who obviously arent interested in what they have to say?

How is a state house candidate supposed to do that in an off year or midterm?

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Because Obama wasn't a shitty candidate. He did an amazing job of talking the issues, and showed Hillary for who she was. A flip-flopping, corrupt politician.

Wait, did you just call Bernie a shitty candidate? :lol

 

[kirblar]

No they aren't. The establishment is still there and will continue to be there. Pretending otherwise is goofy.

One lesson of growing up an Obama voter as a 20-something. 8 years later, you are the establishment.

 

[Blader]

For sure, the Democrats are tactically limited in terms of direct political action right now. I'm describing the general frustration of the left right now, not prescribing a specific change myself. The thing is - and to be fair, we don't know for sure this didn't happen, although you'd assume if it did there would be reporting on it - you'd expect that if Sessions was such a big deal for the Democrats, they would be making calls, putting the squeeze on Republican colleagues, anything at all, to fight his confirmation. How realistic or not this would have been for making an actual difference, it sure would have been a lot more satisfying than not even being able to secure party solidarity in the vote, and having several senators stay behind after the confirmation to chat and congratulate Sessions after the vote, as was reported. Regardless of how much actual, hard options they have right now, they certainly look limp. If they can't even muster the energy to win symbolic victories, like unilateral "no" votes for cabinet appointees that would get through anyway... what confidence does that sow for future, more important legislation battles? I'm certainly not holding my breath right now.

Every Democrat but Manchin voted no on Sessions. Every Democrat voted no on DeVos. And these two are just the beginning of the wave of the controversial picks that deserve party-line (or close to it) opposition. What more do you want? They mathematically can't win. Would a 48-vote opposition to Elaine Chao really make you so much more confident about the party?

And you're dreaming if you sincerely think they have any leverage, especially now, to squeeze Republicans into voting no any of these nominees. You had thousands of their own constituents flooding Senate Republicans offices with calls and emails and letters on a daily basis -- reportedly the busiest the Capitol switchboard has ever been, by double -- about opposing DeVos and they couldn't give a fuck. They disconnected their phones and blamed the outcry on paid protesters. They have all the power now and aren't doing anything else with it but confirming all of Trump's nominees, regardless of what anyone says, most especially whet Senate Dems have to say.

As for Schumer, I respect the guy, but no, I don't think he's getting too much shit. He insists he is playing the long game, and I think a lot of people right now just don't have the patience for that.



He's reaching his hand out to a President who has already thrown shitty child tantrums about him on Twitter. It's futile.

You said that opposing the GOP isn't in Schumer's playbook which is totally untrue. He is opposing many cabinet nominees, certainly the ones who deserve it anyway; he has said Gorsuch will be filibustered; he even voted against Chao on the floor when there was no reason to! He may see an opportunity to get an infrastructure deal out of Trump but I think saying that's evidence of him not being interested in opposition is disingenuous.

Yeah.

I like Perez a lot. Was hoping he'd be vp.

I like Perez a lot too, but I've seen a handful of people write him off for no good reason other than his establishment endorsements (I guess Ellison's aren't a big deal), hence my eye-rolling response.