My head is spinning

[BainsBane]

from the contradictory arguments I see around here. After being told that we need to display great understanding toward Trump-voting white men, I see many of those same people insisting Jews who object to Ellison as DNC chair should fuck off and leave the party. So why throw away the second most loyal Democratic voting block (after African Americans) while simultaneously insisting we need to expand the party? Could it be that winning elections is actually less important than following Bernie? Ellison is Bernie's pick, therefore anyone who objects to Ellison should leave the party. Bernie says the white working class is key, so we must cater to them. Or is it there some sort of preference for white male Christian voters above the rest, whether Jews who object to Ellison or disenfranchised voters of color, who have been all but ignored in the post-election analysis (except by Tom Perez).

[guillaumeb]

1. I did see a post here that linked to Alan Dershowitz

threatening to leave the Democratic Party if Ellison is picked as Chair of the DNC.

I feel that we should try to understand why Trump voters chose Trump. And white females also voted for Trump in surprisingly (to me) large numbers so this is not as simple as a male voter bad/female voter good situation. It IS obviously a white situation.

And this attempt to understand does not mean the Democratic Party should change its core principles, it means we must attempt to reframe the political dialogue in the country. A right wing dominant dialogue is the current default setting for the corporate media that dominates the discussion.

And while making our analyses, we must also keep in mind the tiny little issues such as voter suppression, Kris Kobach's successful attempt to scrub voting lists nationwide, the Russian hacking, election machine irregularities, Comey's interference, and other things like that.

And even after all of the above-mentioned problems, Trump only received the votes of approximately 24% of registered voters. Something that I feel is not mentioned enough in all the discussion.

[BainsBane]

2. and what of the Jewish Americans that Dershowitz says will leave the party

if Ellison is elected head of the DNC?

By the way, I agree with your list of concerns and priorities.

[guillaumeb]

4. Does Dershowitz have proof of this migration?

I feel that Dershowitz is concentrating on the issue of the settlements as well as Ellison's past connection to the NOI, a connection that Ellison no longer has. While I understand Dershowitz has a position, nothing suggests that American Jews as a group share Dershowitz' focus on Israel as the most important issue. Groups such as Jewish Voices for Peace are quite anti-settlement but their voices are not as emphasized/media covered in all the dialogue about the Ellison/NOI/DNC nexus.

[BainsBane]

5. He is speaking about his own experience

but proof really isn't the issue. My point is that some of the same people lecturing us about "white working class" voters said Dershowitz and those who feel similarly should go ahead and leave. It's clear that Bernie's pick is more important than growing the party. In fact, it's clear to me that Bernie is more important than anything else.

[guillaumeb]

7. I agree with your analysis.

Division for the sake of so-called ideological purity is not growing the Democratic Party. It is factionalizing while the GOP is becoming a Tea Party monolith controlled by corporations.

I feel that some of this infighting is a natural but unhelpful reaction to the "loss" of the election.

[BainsBane]

8. I haven't seen this during past losses

and I have never before seen a losing primary candidate take aim at the party the way Sanders has.

[guillaumeb]

12. And I have not seen this level of GOP determination

to win even if winning requires such blatant illegalities. Basically allying with Putin and his puppet Assange to steal a victory. While the media focused on the emails and the supposed "untrustworthiness" of Clinton.

My feeling on Sanders is that he is so focused on the economic aspect of his message that he overlooked the raw racism that is the foundation of the GOP. And has been since 1968.

[George II]

32. He's been taking aim at the Democratic Party for 40 years, but never on a national level.

[Demsrule86]

43. It doesn't matter.

WE do not need a controversial DNC head period...pick someone other than Ellison. He is valuable in the House.

[Ken Burch]

21. Alan Dershowitz is not the Official Voice Of Jews. It's just his opinion.

Last edited Sun Jan 1, 2017, 02:12 PM - Edit history (1)

Are we suppose to give him a personal veto over who becomes DNC chair?

Perez is a bland, passionless nice guy...but he'll keep things exactly as they are now.

Keeping things the same means giving up on ever regaining any lost ground.

Might as well just bring DWS back or keep Donna Brazile in the job.

[BainsBane]

24. Bernie isn't the official voice of the white working class either

but that doesn't stop people from taking his statements as infallible. In the aftermath of the GE, Bernie renewed previous statements about the white working class, not in response to data about the election but in spite of it. http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2014/11/19/365024592/sen-bernie-sanders-on-how-democrats-lost-white-voters

The fact is Clinton won voters earning under $75k and Trump all income brackets over $100k. Clinton's greatest margin was among voters earning less than $30k. Bernie may prefer higher income white male voters since they tend to support him more than lower income voters, but to rhetorically define people of color and women--the great majority of voters with incomes below the national mean--out of the working class is false. Exit poll data also show Clinton won voters who identified the economy as their primary concern. Post-election surveys show that even Republicans who greatly benefited from the Obama economic recovery refuse to grant Democrats credit for any of it, but they now rate the economy as performing better simply because a Republican has been elected. That is not something that be combated with different messaging.

The voters neither you nor Bernie pay attention to are the millions of people of color disenfranchised from this past election. When Perez was at DOJ, he led the civil rights division in charge of enforcing voting rights, and DOJ was active during his tenure. (Lynch seemingly did not continue Holder's focus on civil rights). He has said voter disenfranchisement would be a key focus of his tenure as DNC chair, should be be elected. For you to dismiss that as the same as DWS is malicious. That combined with not knowing Ellison's name tells me you haven't even researched the various candidates but nonetheless feel compelled to trash a man who has worked for labor and voting rights.

I ask about a contradiction in priorities, and you accuse me of attacking Bernie and "Emerson" because for you politics is all about absolutely fealty to a member of the political elite. You won't face a clear contradiction because to do so would require dealing with the fact that there is nothing you won't contort or justify to promote one man's career. I find that a sadly small way of looking at politics.

[Ken Burch]

25. I didn't SAY Bernie was the official voice of the white working class.

And it goes without saying that as a person of color AND a Muslim, Keith(let it go about the typo-i was in a hurry and made a trivial mistake) will fight just as hard against voter disenfranchisement as Perez, if not harder. All of us are equally committed to fighting against that and to getting the base re-registered and able to vote again. It's just that I believe Keith will change how the party fights elections and Perez will keep things exactly the same on that and privilege the views of the big donors.

BTW, Bernie always paid attention to voters of color and it's bullshit to say he "prefer(s) higher income white male voters&quot nothing in Bernie's program ever put rich white people before people of color...single-payer healthcare and free college would have disproportionately benefited low-income voters AND voters of color). There was NO actual difference between Hillary and Bernie on the need to fight institutional bigotry, there was just inadequate communication to communities of color from Bernie's campaign.

Before 2015, there was no massive division between the social justice and economic justice movements. There hadn't been for decades. The only reason such a division was created in 2015 was that it served the interests of the party establishment to fabricate one in the name of nominating their preferred candidate.

2015 is over. So is 2016.

The imaginary social justice/economic justice division needs to be seen as the toxic lie it always was.

Nobody ever called for the fight for social justice to be set aside in the name of achieving economic justice, and the struggle for economic justice was never a threat to the struggle for social justice. We need to unite in BOTH justice struggles, fighting for justice for all-which does NOT mean one-size-fits-all proposals or a refusal to address historic oppression, and which never meant that.

We need unity and renewal...and we can only get that with a DNC chair equally committed to both sets of justice issues.

[RBInMaine]

36. Spot on correct!

[George II]

33. I don't think anyone said or even thinks he is the official voice of Jews....

....(I prefer that term over "The Jews&quot

And I see some never skip a chance to take a swipe at "DWS" either (who happens to be Jewish herself)

[Ken Burch]

39. Got rid of the "the"(wasn't totally about that myself).

The OP was basically equating people dismissing Dershowitz' claim that some people in one group might leave the party to not actually caring that those people might leave the party(they won't...Keith Ellison is not an antisemite and no one actually thinks he is).

What would you call THAT?

[LanternWaste]

74. That's would I would call that...

What would you call THAT?"

Contrast and compare for analysis, context and review.

Though I can certainly understand how a dogmatic or undisciplined mind would infer one, and only one meaning that strengthens a preexisting bias. Human nature can do that.

That's would I would call that (apologies for not using caps... I'm not trendy enough to).

[Demsrule86]

44. We need to win...

Not all change is good ...this is foolish. NO one has given me one reason why this is a good idea aside from the fact Bernie Sander wants this guy. At the risk of ticking you off, Bernie is not a Democrat and that is not a good enough reason to elect someone who will be hampered by a controversial past...deserved or not. I really want someone who can work for us in the states and I don't see Ellison as that guy.

[Ken Burch]

49. A lot of Bernie's supporters ARE Democrats.

And we can only win if we win over the ones who currently aren't.

Doesn't mean we have to bow to them...just that we need to make THIS party a place where they can work for their principles(principles many current Dems support and many others have moved closer to), because those are the only votes we can win over to us from anyplace else.

2016 proved we can NEVER turn committed GOP voters into Dem voters.

[Demsrule86]

53. I would like to win over supporters but Bernie sends a message to them when he does not join

the Democratic party...we will not win until people join and become united.

[Crunchy Frog]

55. People would really leave the party over who's head of DNC?

(I'm not talking Dershie, but real people.)

I mean, DWS was pretty awful, but I would never have considered leaving the party over her, or anyone else in that position.

[Cary]

38. Understand why Trump voters voted for Trump

While we trash Democrats and sow our own discord and discontent. That sounds a lot like someone resurrecting the old mythology about reaching out to teabaggers.

A lot of people have no idea who their real friends really are.

[boston bean]

3. Spot on analysis! Happy New Year bains!!

[BainsBane]

6. Happy New Year to you too, Boston!

[fun n serious]

9. Exactly nt

[jack_krass]

10. Mine too, after reading this OP...

Last edited Sat Dec 31, 2016, 09:14 PM - Edit history (1)

This is a good example of what results from broad brushing and trying to explain everything by filtering it through a racial prism.

The fact that many people dont like Alan D. HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH the voting habbits of Jewish people. To make that connection borders on being racist IMHO.

[BainsBane]

11. Dershowitz's statement was not just about himself

He said other Jewish Americans would follow.

[Gothmog]

14. Many Jews will follow

Again, Sanders is not that popular with older Jewish voters

[George II]

34. And sadly many Americans will too - Ellison would be a dividing force in the party AND....

....American voters.

[BainsBane]

17. Dershowitz specifically identified the problem with Jewish Democrats

Last edited Sun Jan 1, 2017, 01:31 AM - Edit history (1)

and the very people who have been insisting we empathize with white men said they could fuck off.
To pretend I am the one introducing race is absurd and a deliberate attempt to deflect blame. It was Sanders who responded to the GE defeat by focusing on the " white working class" and his supporters carried that argument to DU. Now some of those sane people respond to a thread about Jewish American concerns regarding Ellison to leave the party.

It is quite obvious that some have decided to adopt Sanders' positions for the sake of him, with no regard for consistency or principle. Not everyone shares their reverence for one politician or even the great man conception of politics. Democracy is not about elevating a great man. It is not monarchy or caudillismo, though it is clear many Americans across the political spectrum are far more interested in deference, and enforcing deference by others, than in participatory democracy.

[Gothmog]

13. Sanders actually did poorly with Jewish voters

This came up more than once in Temple and at Onegs. There were some really strong opinions against Sanders at my Temple

The Nation of Islam comments made by Sanders will hurt him with Jewish voters and Jewish DNC delegates.

[Ken Burch]

41. Sanders hasn't made any Nation of Islam comments

(and it goes without saying that Keith is not allied with that group).

[Gothmog]

59. Sanders still did very poorly with Jewish voters in the primary

Jewish voters did not support Sanders in the primaries for a host of reasons. Sanders was soundly rejected in the primaries by Jewish, African American and Latino voters.

The premise of the OP is that why do we want to alienate a loyal block of voters simply because they did not support Sanders in the primary. The election of Keith Ellison will not help the Democratic party with this bloc of voters.

Do you think that the party should alienate Jewish voters simply because Jewish voters rejected Sanders?

[Ken Burch]

60. That's not the question.

We can't assume that we will alienate those voters simply by choosing somebody supported by Bernie(and supported by most of the progressive wing of the party-Perez may be personally progressive, but almost all his support comes from the right wing of the party).

Alan Dershowitz is simply one guy expressing an opinion. What are we supposed to do, say "The Dersh says no-that means we can't go with Keith"?

None of us want anyone alienated from the party. But we can't just take the word of one man, a man whose main agenda towards this party for decades has been to prevent us from deviating from the Likud line on the Israel/Palestine issue, that such alienation will happen.

Keith is NOT Bernie. Keith will not be running for president. He'll simply be working to get us elected again.

We get it that you despise Bernie. Fine. You didn't want Bernie nominated and he wasn't. It's extremely unlikely that Bernie will ever even run again. It's no longer about Bernie as a person(it never really was).

The point is, the party can only gain ground(and we need to gain votes by the millions if we're to have any chance of survival in the next few years) if it makes Bernie's agenda welcome and supporters welcome. If Perez wins, they won't be. It will just be the status quo, corporate funding and bland centrist campaigns "until the twelfth of Never(and that's a long time)" Grassroots politics will be kept on the back burner, funds for voter registration and re-registration drives will still be held back, and the Sanders agenda(which is supported by MOST Democrats, according to the polls) and we'll stay exactly where we are in electoral terms forever.

Why put ourselves through that when nothing in our current way of doing things WORKS?

[Gothmog]

62. So you want Jewish Voters to be alienated from the party to help the Sanders wing?

Sanders did poorly with Jewish voters in the primary and traditionally Jewish voters are important part of the base. The Nation of Islam comments by Ellison are very troublesome to Jewish voters. That combined with Ellison being the Sanders candidate for the DNC chair will alienate Jewish voters. That is evidently an acceptable price to make the sanders supporters happy in your mind. I disagree

[Ken Burch]

64. You know perfectly well I don't want Jewish voters alienated.

I simply reject the claim that choosing Keith automatically causes that.

Bernie lost in that demographic in the primaries because they believed Hillary was "electable", because too many obsessed on the trivial non-issue of his party status, and because he committed truth on the Israel/Palestine issue(while remaining basically pro-Israel). They weren't opposed to most of what he supports.

The party doesn't have to repudiate everyone who was ever associated with Bernie to avoid losing Jewish voters.

And repudiating Bernie would mean the corporate wing(the anti-progressive wing)will call the tune in the party forever. Since what happened in November proves we can't win on a pro-corporate platform, why would you want that?

[Gothmog]

65. Just because you disagree with the facts does not mean that the facts are not true

Sanders is not that popular with and did poorly with Jewish voters. You are evidently telling Jewish voters that they have to accept a DNC chair who once supported the Nation of Islam because that will make Sanders supporters happy. Given Sanders unpopularity with Jewish voters, this sounds like a great way to alienate more Jewish voters

[Ken Burch]

66. You don't have "facts" here

It's simply interpretation that most Jewish voters want the party to have nothing to do with the Sanders movement(we are no longer in a Sanders or Clinton binary) and won't accept anyone but a non-progressive running the DNC.

It's simply interpretation to claim that Democrats could win in the future without connecting to the Sanders movement. There aren't enough votes to elect Democrats without them.

It's simply interpretation that Keith is a supporter of the NoI. He clearly does not support them now.

It's simply interpretation that Jewish voters would bolt if Keith were chosen DNC chair instead of a status quo candidate.

[Gothmog]

67. Anti-Defamation League Releases Statement on Disturbing and Disqualifying Remarks from Keith Ellis

It is not just Alan Dershowitz. The ADL has issued a statement on Ellison that will carry a great deal of weight with American Jews http://www.mediaite.com/online/anti-defamation-league-releases-statement-on-disturbing-and-disqualifying-remarks-from-ellison/

When Rep. Ellison’s candidacy to be chair of the Democratic National Committee was first reported, ADL did not rush to judgment. Instead, we took a hard look at the totality of his record on key issues on our agenda. We spoke to numerous leaders in the community and to Mr. Ellison himself. ADL’s subsequent statement on his candidacy appreciated his contrition on some matters, acknowledged areas of commonality but clearly expressed real concern where Rep. Ellison held divergent policy views, particularly related to Israel’s security.

New information recently has come to light that raises serious concerns about whether Rep. Ellison faithfully could represent the Democratic Party’s traditional support for a strong and secure Israel. In a speech recorded in 2010 to a group of supporters, Rep. Ellison is heard suggesting that American foreign policy in the Middle East is driven by Israel, saying: “The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people. A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million. Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right? When the Americans who trace their roots back to those 350 million get involved, everything changes.”

Rep. Ellison’s remarks are both deeply disturbing and disqualifying. His words imply that U.S. foreign policy is based on religiously or national origin-based special interests rather than simply on America’s best interests. Additionally, whether intentional or not, his words raise the specter of age-old stereotypes about Jewish control of our government, a poisonous myth that may persist in parts of the world where intolerance thrives, but that has no place in open societies like the U.S. These comments sharply contrast with the Democratic National Committee platform position, which states: “A strong and secure Israel is vital to the United States because we share overarching strategic interests and the common values of democracy, equality, tolerance, and pluralism.”

ADL is a non-partisan organization and does not support any political party; however, we deeply believe in the importance of bipartisan support for Israel. Such support is crucial to ensure continued engagement with our most important ally in the region, a democracy whose emphasis on equality and commitment to the rule of law stands in stark contrast to the anarchy and authoritarian regimes that prevail in much of the Middle East. These shared values are the bedrock for the long-standing relationship between the U.S. and Israel.

Whoever it may be, we would hope that the next head of the Democratic Party would have fidelity to these timeless ideals at all times.

I am Jewish voter and the ADL's concerns carry a great deal of weight . I have seen Ellison's letter back to the ADL and I am not impressed.

[Ken Burch]

95. There was nothing there about the Nation of Islam.

Keith obviously has nothing to do with them(btw, if DU had existed in 1984 and 1988, would you be starting threads like this about Jesse Jackson?)

[Gothmog]

98. Read the materials posted

The ADL had other reasons to reject Sanders and were commenting on specific speeches given by Sanders. The Nation of Islam comments are being used by other groups and would be used by Trump is Ellison is the nominee.

Read the statement. The ADL is commenting on specific speeches given more recently than the NOI comments.

Just because you disagree with the facts presented by the ADL does mean that these facts are false.

[Ken Burch]

99. I read the remarks, and Ellison's response(a fact) IN THE LINK:

“I have always lived a politics defined by respecting differences, rejecting all forms of racism and anti-Semitism. A politics based on inclusion, and diverse communities organizing together for economic justice for everyone.”

He's not calling for the US to disown Israel...just to not always automatically take Netanyahu's side on things like the settlements(I assume you'll concede that continued settlement expansion is indefensible and anti-peace).

[Gothmog]

100. You may disagree with the ADL but that does not change the facts relied on by the ADL

Again, the Jewish community already had issues with Sanders which will affect Ellison. The comments of the ADL will be relied on by many Jewish voters in evaluating support for the DNC if Ellison becomes chair.

[Ken Burch]

101. I provided a fact in response.

Please stop acting as if no one has any legitimate reason to disagree with you.

You are just one person with one set of opinions.

We don't need a non-progressive as DNC chair to hold Jewish voters.

The other candidates are all just bland centrist "stay the course" types.

And whatever else can be said...staying the course means losing every election that's ever held again.

[Gothmog]

102. Your views on the Jewish community are not facts in the real world

I hate to break it to you but your opinion as to the feelings of the Jewish community concerning the ADL is not a fact in the real world. I am a member of the Jewish community and I also know who the Jewish community views the ADL and Sanders.

I understand that Sanders is upset that he lost the Jewish vote and so therefore it is okay to push a DNC chair candidate who will alienate Jewish Democratic voters. I disagree with Sanders.

I also note that Sanders did not do everything to help Clinton win. Remember that I was a delegate to the national convention and I saw how little effort Sanders put into to control his followers at the national convention. The fact that Sanders delayed his endorsement of Hillary Clinton until the week before the convention and even then threathened floor fights on a host of issues were not steps designed to help the party. Sanders really did not care about the party and was running for media coverage which he obtained. The fact that Sanders had more than twice the appearances on the Sunday talk shows compared to the next person is proof of what Sanders was after. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sanders-top-list-for-most-appearances-on-2016-sunday-shows-846175811977 Sanders ran for media coverage and got it. To get such coverage, Sanders attacked the Democratic party and helped trump get elected

As for losing future elections, the so-called Sanders revolution was a total bust. Sanders did not generate the millions and millions of new voters that Sanders needed to make this revolution real. Contrary to your claim that we will lose all future elections, please remember that the intervention of the FBI/Comeny and the Russians played a major role in this cycle and that Hillary Clinton still had more than 2.8 more popular votes compared to Trump.

Finally, Tom Perez is just as progressive as Ellison and does not have the baggage.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

78. Keith is not Bernie?! Had me fooled... notice, you never see 'em in the same room together?!

[Cha]

15. K&R.. thank you for pointing this out, Bane!

[BainsBane]

16. And yet so few responses

There seems to be a reluctance to deal with conflicting arguments.

[Cha]

18. Shocking

[oasis]

19. I oppose the Ellison choice for DNC chair because I don't believe

he can raise enough contributions to take on the GOP in 2018.

[RBInMaine]

37. So let's just keep catering to big corporate donors instead of being a populist party that can win?

[Demsrule86]

45. We have no choice until we repeal United.

[Ken Burch]

54. Even though catering to those donors meant we got NOTHING in November?

You don't think we could maybe have run a campaign based on actually trying to enthuse and inspire the electorate?

[Demsrule86]

73. We get nothing if we fail to win elections...and that costs money.

No I don't think an election where we handicap our people with no money will result in a win for us.

[oasis]

75. Dems can't win a general election counting on $27 contributions.

Get real people.

[Demsrule86]

80. Exactly.

This pie in the sky purity is going to get us screwed over worse.

[Ken Burch]

87. This election proved thaty big donors are useless to us.

If a funding advantage doesn't guarantee victory, it's meaningless.

[oasis]

88. Having an "advantage" doesn't guarantee victory in any endeavor.

Putting the Democratic party at a financial disadvantage would be political malpractice.

[Ken Burch]

92. If it doesn't mean votes, having money ISN'T an advantage.

Last edited Thu Jan 5, 2017, 04:42 PM - Edit history (1)

Passion and enthusiasm matter...and those were both systematically tamped out by the people who ran the fall campaign.

We didn't see campaign ads talking about how good OUR candidate and our platform is.

We didn't see ads or a stump speech reminding voters(and they always HAVE to be reminded, we can't just assume they will remember) of our achievements, of how the Obama administration has made life better for the many(OR of what we were stopped from doing by the Right, and could still do if we took Congress), and in not running ads like that(the ads mainly called out Trump as a scumbag, and we knew early on that the voters didn't CARE that he was a scumbag) we created the impression that we were conceding the validity of the Trump narrative.

We didn't hold mass rallies with Hillary IN Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania(even when people were warning the campaign that we were in trouble in those states), or send in the huge numbers of volunteers in those places that that money should have bought plane tickets for.

It was just another defensive "we can't actually run FOR things!" campaign, and we always fall short running campaigns like that.

The kind of campaign I'm talking about could have given Hillary a big enough lead to withstand the Comey thing.

[Gothmog]

77. By running off Jewish and major donors?

One of the DNC's largest donors has stated that he will not support the DNC if Ellison is the chair of the DNC http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512671570#post71

[Ken Burch]

86. All of your posts on this are deeply inflammatory and demagogic.

You're getting very, very close to arguing that anyone who supports Keith Ellison is an antisemite.

And that is way the hell over the line.

[Gothmog]

90. So the ADL is not to be trusted?

Jewish voters will listen to the ADL.

[Ken Burch]

91. ADL can be trusted to have an opinion.

Last edited Thu Jan 5, 2017, 04:44 PM - Edit history (1)

The Jewish community is not a hivemind, and more and more people in that community are becoming skeptical of ADL-an organization that used to be a heroic voice against oppression but which now measures non-Jewish attititudes towards Jewish people solely on the metric of what those people feel about Netanyahu and his illegal West Bank settlements.

The views someone holds about the Israeli government's security policies say nothing about what that person feels about Jews or Judaism. They are two entirely separate things.

I'd be more interested in hearing what Jewish voters in Keith's congressional district(most of whom have repeatedlu voted for him)have to say about him.

(and I'm confident that if what you've said is true, Keith would withdraw for the greater good-leaving us with someone who'd be another bland status quo centrist who will lead us to more defeats, but still...)

[Gothmog]

93. There were many valid reasons why Sanders was rejected by Jewish Democrats

It is ADL and not JDL. Do you have any authority for your claim about the Jewish community being skeptical of the ADL. I am member of that community and I have seen no evidence of your assertion. Facts are good things and you may want to support your amusing claims with authority if you have any.

The Jewish community is not a hive mind but as noted in the OP the Jewish community is one of the more consistent supporter of the Democratic party. Sanders was discussed at my temple on numerous occasions at Onegs and other events and you would not like what was said about Sanders. Even now, I have heard complaints about Sanders helping trump win. I understand that Sanders knows that he lost the Jewish vote and there is some speculation that Ellison is being pushed in part because Sanders does not care about people who voted against him.

The ADL does a great deal of good work. I have both law partners and friends who are on the board of the local ADL or who were past presidents of the ADL. I am regular contributor to the ADL and the amusing claims in your post reminds me that I need to make another donation soon. I have a great deal of respect for the ADL and I am confident that the ADL's recommendation will carry some weight in the Jewish community.

Ellison has some baggage and there will be some hard feelings if Ellison is the DNC chair. The premise of the OP is that we should attempt not alienate groups who are strong supporters of the party. I agree with that premise

[Ken Burch]

94. Corrected the typo. Sorry.

The only real reasons the majority in that community voted against Bernie was that he wasn't an unquestioning defender of Netanyahu, and what turned out to be the myth that Hillary was "electable".

It's been proven that Bernie did all he could in the fall to help Hillary.

If Bernie and all his supporters are driven away, we won't be a party that's progressive about anything important. We'll go back to the Nineties...a dead zone era.

It wouldn't be possible for us to be a progressive party with no Sanders movement influence at all. It means being permanently stuck where we've been from 2010 on...a party of mildly progressive rhetoric but policies(other than on race and choice)that are actually slightly right of center.

J Street represents a rejection of the ADL mindset within the American Jewish community. So does the Tikkun community. So do all of the people in the American Jewish community who say "Not in My Name".

Why should "supporting Israel&quot which today means nothing at all but defending Netanyahu and West Bank settlement construction is more important than giving Israeli children the chance NOT to grow up to be soldiers) be the ONLY measure of whether or not someone is antisemitic?

What about actually being an opponent of and a protester against persecution of Jews? What about being against ALL forms of oppression and trying to make a world in which no one is treated unjustly? Why does it have to be standing with Netanyahu and the settlements?

[Gothmog]

96. Have you considered using facts in your posts?

Your opinions are amusing but are only opinions. You have no support for any of your claims. I hate to break it to you but many Jewish voters do not like Bibi and still rejected Sanders. I disagreed with Sanders attacks on President Obama and I rejected Sanders proposal because these proposals were based on a silly claim that there would be a revolution of new voters who would force the GOP to be reasonable. There as no revolution and the premise of Sanders platform was unrealistic in the real world Bernie Sanders just admitted that his so-called revolution is a failure. Sanders was unable to motivate and get poor people to vote which doomed his so-called revolution http://www.vox.com/2016/4/25/11497822/sanders-political-revolution-vote

The point of the "political revolution" was that Sanders would change who was turning out to vote

The problem with Sanders saying he's losing because "poor people don't vote," though, is that this wasn't a sad truth that he and his campaign discovered over the last several weeks. It — or rather, the possibility of fixing it — was at the core of his entire theory of winning.

Sanders isn't just running on his policy agenda. He's running on the idea of a "political revolution" that will allow him to accomplish that agenda. The theory of the "political revolution" is that Americans are so eager for free college and Medicare for all that they will not only sweep Bernie Sanders to the White House if he's nominated, but will elect more, and more progressive, Democrats down-ballot will then vote to pass Sanders's agenda through Congress.

Among people who typically vote, these policies aren't that popular. The "political revolution" is only plausible if it's about changing the composition of the electorate: bringing new people to the polls who don't normally vote, even in presidential elections.

But on those grounds, the "political revolution" theory is quite plausible. As Vox's Dylan Matthews pointed out earlier this month, 30 percent of eligible voters aren't registered to vote, or aren't accurately listed in the voter databases that campaigns use. Those voters are basically ignored by candidates. And, just like the nonvoting population as a whole, they're more likely to be poor than voters are — and more likely to support liberal policies on government spending.

A candidate who can figure out how to reach out to that 30 percent of voters could actually make a political revolution happen — or, at least, bring the median American voter to the left.

Bernie Sanders isn't the candidate who can make the "political revolution" happen

It's hard to mobilize that 30 percent of could-be voters, though. And it's pretty clear, at this point, that Sanders hasn't pulled it off.

Sanders hasn't been pulling in remarkable numbers of first-time primary voters. His base looks a lot like the existing progressive wing of the Democratic Party — the people who voted for Howard Dean over John Kerry and Bill Bradley over Al Gore.

The premise of Sanders' so-called revolution is that he would be able to motivate millions and millions of new voters which Sanders has failed to do. Many voters like myself were turned off by Sanders unrealistic platform and by the complete failure of his so-called revolution

[George II]

103. "It's been proven that Bernie did all he could in the fall to help Hillary."

Really? I think he made less than a dozen campaign stops for her, maybe only a half dozen.

You may find this comparison of the timelines in 2008 vs. 2016 illuminating:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-aftermath-20160609-snap-htmlstory.html

And if I recall, Hillary Clinton began campaigning with and for Barack Obama the day after the convention concluded. Sanders ran off to Vermont to buy a new house the day after the convention and didn't begin campaigning until after Labor Day more than a month after the convention.

[Gothmog]

104. Clinton also conceded just after the California primary

In 2008, there were going to be a dozen or so nasty credential fights at the Texas Democratic State Convention. In 2008, Hillary Clinton conceded a couple of days before the Texas state Democratic Convention and that convention was effectively a less controversial event. Sanders did not conceded until a week before the national convention and was threathening floor fights and votes up to the Sunday before the convention. The Texas State Democratic convention was a nasty zoo with Sanders delegates insulting anyone who would not sign their petitions. One elected Sanders delegate was removed from the Sanders delegation because he not BOB and was not nasty enough for the Sanders people. The national convention was unpleasant due to the Sanders supporters being convinced that Sanders could still be the nominee. Sanders did little to control his delegates and these delegates were never briefed as to how conventions worked. A group of Sanders supporters attempted to disrupt the national convention and their efforts were mostly foiled but at the cost of not having as an effective convention as what occurred in 2008

[George II]

105. There really is no comparison between how the two candidates acted before and during....

....the two conventions.

Even down to Clinton down on the floor among her New York delegation during the proceedings and beginning of the roll call, while Sanders lorded over his "flock" from the balcony, glaring down at the proceedings for most of the convention.

Clinton moved to suspend the rules and declare Obama the candidate by acclamation, Sanders "conceded" but insisted that the roll call proceed all the way through Wyoming.

[Garrett78]

50. Between the 2 major parties, the only one that even remotely promotes populism is the Dem. Party.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

79. Ding ding ding!! We hava winna!! You absolutely nailed it RB!! (Great minds think alike! haha!)

[Ken Burch]

20. All there was was a thread where people said they didn't care if Alan Dershowitz left the party.

That doesn't equate to saying it's no biggie if every Jewish Democrat leaves.

What are we supposed to do, say "we won't let a Muslim chair the DNC because one self-important retired trial lawyer best known for helping a weird multimillionaire get acquitted for murdering his own wife doesn't support him"?

Why should the anti-Ellison wing of the party be given special deference?

If you don't support Keith, fine...but don't twist everyone's words. Don't accuse us of something you know perfectly well we aren't guilty off(in this case, at least passive antisemitism).

Keith and Bernie are just people you disagree with on a few things(as near as I can tell the ONLY reason you're against Keith is that Bernie and his supporters like him)but please quit acting like they are monsters.

Everyone knows you don't like Bernie...and you have the right to your views...but how long are you going to keep raging at him and at the people who supported his campaign? And how do we ever gain votes in future elections when the only additional votes we're ever going to gain in 2018 or 2020 are people who stayed him this year because they had issues with Hillary's policies from her left(I say that as one of the people who spent a lot of the fall begging those people to support her on anti-fascist grounds)? We can't win if Sanders people are all made officially unwelcome unless the renouce Bernie and everything his campaign stood for.

If you permanently anathemize Bernie and all who rallied to him...we will never get the votes we need to win in any future election.

And the truth is, the overwhelming majority of Sanders supporters(myself include)are in full support of the social agenda you prioritize. There never was an actual difference of opinion on that. And that includes Bernie(though he never found the most effective ways to communicate this). Most of us DID support and work for Hillary in the fall and we were as devastated by the result as you are. We weren't to blame for what Comey did...OR the Russian hacking.

At what point will you finally stop treating us as the enemy and start supporting the unification process we need if we're ever to regain any of the lost ground?

Bernie didn't get nominated. Most likely, he'll never seek the presidency again. Isn't that ENOUGH?

[BainsBane]

22. Tell me what in my post constitutes railing against Bernie?

I asked a question about clearly contradictory responses: one arguing that we should cater to white male voters and another set of responses showing a willingness to throw away the votes of a group of Jewish American Democrats. The thread in question was not just about Dershowitz but his statement that other Jewish voters would leave the party. That you justify that while saying we should expand the voting base is precisely the hypocrisy my question gets at. His concern was not that Ellison is Muslim but statements regarding the Nation of Islam.

Not only have you deciding merely asking that question amounting to a smear of Bernie (a laughable claim), but now my daring to question that contradiction means I dislike "Emerson." Not only do I like Ellison, I've door knocked and made calls for his reelection campaigns. And I actually know his name! I've been notified that should he become DNC chair, I will be called on to vote on the nomination of his replacement since I'm a MN CD 5 delegate. From my personal point of view, the worst thing about his becoming chair would be that I would lose a very good congressman.
'
That you make these assumptions reveals to extent you are bound entirely by the politics of personality. Despite not even knowing Ellison's name, you've decided it is so important he head the DNC that you maliciously and falsely trash Perez in a post elsewhere in this thread.

One of the reasons I dislike Bernie is because of the obsession with him above all else that his supporters demonstrate, as revealed by your reading of my post and blind support for someone whose name you don't even know. I don't subscribe to the great man view of politics. I don't want a monarch or a caudillo. That so many are willing to contort themselves to accommodate Bernie's statements reflects something disturbing about the reverence for a few men in our society. We see it on both sides of the isle, and it scares the shit out of me because it is so profoundly antidemocratic.

[Ken Burch]

23. I mentioned Bernie because your main reason for opposing Keith Ellison(the name thing was a typo)...

...(and I fixed it)...is that he's Bernie's preferred DNC chair. You know perfectly well he's not tied to the NoI. If he was Bernie wouldn't support him and neither would anyone else in the party.

I don't support Keith blindly. I simply regard him as the progressive, grassroots candidate for DNC chair, while Perez, at best, is a tamed "Hubert Humphrey after 1965" type who will never rock the boat or push for anything the big donors don't want. He's only supported by politicians from the corporate wing of the party...I can't imagine any anti-poverty activists or grassroots organizers for change supporting. He'd be blandly competent and "safe"...and "safe", based on this year, always means defeat.

And I actually don't obsess about Bernie...I simply don't understand why you are STILL reflexively treating him as the enemy and the problem, and because I think it would be a tragedy if he and his supporters were anathemized by this party and driven away(and I recognize that the . We can't win without them.

I want 2016 never to repeat itself. I want us to win for social justice AND economic justice...and I don't care who we nominate so long as the party is committed to both justice struggles. To do that, we need to mobilize everyone who will be dumped on by Drumpf.

A grassroots, activism-oriented DNC chair can do that. A guy who has spent his life solely as an insider can't. It's just not possible to muster the passion and intensity anymore once you're part of power.

[Demsrule86]

46. Ellison did make some controversial statements...

and other groups object to him...he is a bad choice if we want to win.

[HassleCat]

26. He's trying to blackmail the party.

[BeyondGeography]

27. What does Joe Lieberman think?

C'mon. Last I looked, Schumer was backing Ellison and Ellison was bending over backwards to distance himself from Farrakhan as part of the bargain. Dershowitz is an inconsequential attention whore, and he was treated as such in that thread. This OP is much ado about nothing.

[BainsBane]

28. And if a sizable number of others follow him?

His statement was not just about himself.

Shoulld everyone not willing to do as Bernie says leave the party as well?

[BeyondGeography]

29. I just don't see it as a risk, and the Bernie angle is overblown IMO

Besides Schumer, Warren and Reid are supporting Ellison. That's pretty strong and would help persuade all but the most tenuous D's to march on (i.e., the Dershowitz wing, which is really nothing more than a feather on a wing). Perez is a worthy candidate as well.

TBH, I'm in the camp that doesn't really care what Sanders thinks about the outcome as I'm old fashioned and think you should actually be an enrolled member of the party in order to have the kind of influence that some of Bernie's more vociferous supporters would like him to have. Bernie himself has worked well with all kinds of Democrats over the years and would move on pretty quickly in my view if it's Perez or someone else over Ellison. And if it is Ellison, he'll get a fair chance to succeed or fail, without having to constantly reassure Jewish voters. If Trump can't focus our attention, nothing will.

[BainsBane]

30. Yes, he does have broad backing

But there are also other strong candidates. The state party chairs vote on the position. If they receive feedback from constituents who are uncomfortable with Ellison, that will likely be reflected in their votes.

I do think it's unfortunate the DNC chair contest is being waged along primary lines. Certainly that's how many here see it. I don't have a strong position on who should be chair, but I do think both Perez and Harrison bring a lot to the table and should be given a fair hearing.

I think Ellison could benefit from mankng some overtures, not just to Jewish Democrats but to others who fear he may be a vehicle for Bernie to control a party that, as you noted, he won't officially join. Whoever DNC chair is needs to work on uniting the party rather than continuing the divisive rhetoric we've seen reignited following the election.

[Ken Burch]

40. Some valid observations there...

But can Bernie's party status finally be declared a dead issue? He's organized with us in the House and Senate for years. And even a lot of Clinton supporters preferred Bernie's economic proposals(they voted for HRC on the belief that she was the "pragmatic" choice).

[BainsBane]

42. No.

[Demsrule86]

47. He did not join the Democratic Party and that is a deal breaker for me.

[Ken Burch]

51. Bernie's not going to run for the presidency again, so his party status, at this point, is moot.

Choosing Keith would not be about genuflecting to Bernie(Bernie's candidacy was solely about the issues-he personally hadn't planned to run and probably didn't want to-he would have stayed out of Elizabeth Warren had declared her candidacy-and, if nominated, she WOULD have won, because Trump had nothing more to attack her about...the only thing was the non-issue of her supposedly claiming Native American ancestry-it was proved that she didn't do that in college, so all we're talking about here is someone making what turned out to be a inaccurate statement about her family based on false information her relatives had given her. There was nothing else at all)). It's about changing how the party is run and who it is oriented towards FOR THE BETTER(the only people who'd lose anything are the Wall Street wing, and this fall's result shows that big donations, by themselves, aren't much of anything-fundraising advantage can't elect us in situations where the voters have issues with the nominee). It's about gaining us votes and making sure what happened in November doesn't happen again.

We all know that running the same campaign in 2018 and 2020 means continuing to lose ground.

[Demsrule86]

52. It matters to me...if you won't join the party then you have no say.

Also, Keith is controversial and not a good choice...I say this liking the guy but I want to win.

[StevieM]

57. I love Elizabeth Warren and will probably support her in 2020 but I disagree that the fake scandal

about her Native American heritage would have been no big deal.

The Republicans would have lied relentlessly and convinced a lot of people they were telling the truth. They would have tied it into a need to get rid of affirmative action and highlighted how honest white people are constantly being screwed.

The Democratic campaign from 2016 was fine. We lost because of the fake email scandal. We don't know how Warren would have lived down her fake scandals. For that matter, we don't know how O'Malley or Sanders would have lived them down.

What we do know is that after four years of Trump the claim that HRC was corrupt will look a lot less credible. And that will make it a lot harder to tag Warren, or anyone else, with a fake scandal of their own.

Bernie may run again in 2020, as is his right.

[Gothmog]

70. No-Sanders is running as an independent for Senate in 2018

[aikoaiko]

31. its not really a contradiction

If there was evidence that Dershowitz and others like him actually started to vote for Reiblicabs like Trump then you would have something.

[still_one]

35. What in Keith Ellison's resume' make him the most qualified to do the job of DNC chair?

The irony of the OP is that if Keith Ellison was not chosen as the DNC chair, would those folks who supported him leave the Democratic Party?

I suspect some would have the same mindset as some Bernie supporters who refused to vote for Hillary in the general election

This is a double edged sword that cuts both ways

[Maru Kitteh]

48. K & R Bains.

And Happy New Year to you.

[EffieBlack]

56. Dead on. K&R

[mythology]

58. As one of those people saying we need to understand some Trump voters

I'm also open hearing why some Democrats (Jewish or otherwise) think Ellison shouldn't be DNC chair. From what I understand Ellison had a history with the Nation of Islam but has denounced their anti-Semitic tendencies. I don't think one's past affiliations make one incapable of changing. Elizabeth Warren used to be a Republican and Robert Byrd was in the KKK. Both changed as they lived. I don't know enough about the people running for DNC chair to know who I'd prefer for DNC chair.

The end goal is winning elections without losing our soul as a party. To do that we need to get more people to vote for our candidates, especially in down ticket races.

[Rex]

61. Well he would be far better than DWS.

Anyone is an improvement to her imo.

[Warren DeMontague]

72. Harry Reid blasts "worthless" DNC in blistering critique of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/harry-reid-blasts-worthless-dnc-in-blistering-critique-of-debbie-wasserman-schultz/



Gee, I caught endless amounts of shit over the past several months, for saying much tamer things about her, like suggesting her enthusaistic defense of throwing pot smokers in prison might just maybe have hurt us in a country trending toward legalization.

Boy, did that get some peoples' shorts here in a bunchy-bunch.

[Eliot Rosewater]

76. You see the date on that?

I am not sure, and am asking, but did he say things like this BEFORE the election?

I am going to assume no, but if not then you can ignore the rest of this.

Point being you dont say these things UNTIL the election is over because there are a lot of people out there who only know soundbites, who might actually think not voting is OK because of negatives they have heard about DNC or Hillary.

Of course it isnt OK, is it.

[Warren DeMontague]

81. December 22.

[Eliot Rosewater]

82. He waited till after the election, didnt he.

[Warren DeMontague]

83. So your point is that I shouldn't have criticized DWS in July for giving that stupid Times interview

Well, fine. And she shouldn't have gone up there and said that putting sick grannies in prison for eating pot brownies is good policy and Millennials are apathetic little shits, before the election, either. She has a much bigger microphone than I do. Where's her responsibility?

[Eliot Rosewater]

84. sigh

[Warren DeMontague]

85. And here's Harry Reid, confirming what we all knew- namely that she did a phenomenally shitty job.

And even despite her working with Sheldon Adelson, she still wasn't able to stop medical marijuana from passing with over 70% in Florida. In the meantime, though, she damaged our brand by associating it with wrong-headed policies like this one.

Fortunately now we'll get new leadership, hopefully coming far the fuck away from Eastern Seaboard hand-wringy types, who understand that the future of the Democratic Party involves things like a full-throated defense of personal individual freedom.

Sigh indeed.

[Orsino]

63. Recriminations abound, and everyone has a favorite framing.

Clarity may emerge, but for now we are still in scapegoating mode.

[Gothmog]

68. ADL has 'serious concerns' whether Ellison can lead DNC

As a Jewish voter, I place a great deal of trust in the ADL http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/anti-defamation-league-keith-ellison-concerns-dnc-232071

The Anti-Defamation League is questioning whether Rep. Keith Ellison should be chairman of the Democratic National Committee in light of resurfaced comments the Minnesota congressman and candidate for the top DNC job said years ago.

In particular, the ADL, in a statement from CEO Jonathan Greenblatt, points to Ellison saying in a 2010 speech in reference to Israel that "The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people. A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million. Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right? When the Americans who trace their roots back to those 350 million get involved, everything changes."

"New information recently has come to light that raises serious concerns about whether Rep. Ellison faithfully could represent the Democratic Party’s traditional support for a strong and secure Israel," Greenblatt said in a statement.

Greenblatt went on to say that "Rep. Ellison’s remarks are both deeply disturbing and disqualifying."

"His words imply that U.S. foreign policy is based on religiously or national origin-based special interests rather than simply on America’s best interests," Greenblatt said. "Additionally, whether intentional or not, his words raise the specter of age-old stereotypes about Jewish control of our government, a poisonous myth that may persist in parts of the world where intolerance thrives, but that has no place in open societies like the U.S. These comments sharply contrast with the Democratic National Committee platform position, which states: “A strong and secure Israel is vital to the United States because we share overarching strategic interests and the common values of democracy, equality, tolerance, and pluralism.”

[BainsBane]

69. I disagree with Greenblatt's views

On US policy toward Israel, but I understand how Ellison's position would be a problem for Democrats. What is particularly ironic is that it would have been a problem for Bernie a year ago, but his position is Israel-Palestine did a 180 degree turn for the election. But it also seems like views on issues matter far less than who endorsed him.

[Gothmog]

97. Sanders was rejected by Jewish voters in the primary

Sanders did not do well with Jewish voters in the primary and the reject of Ellison will hurt Ellison's chances.

[George II]

106. As well as rejected in his native state of New York, resoundingly losing all five NYC boroughs....

...all of Long Island and the three northern suburban counties (the largest population of Jewish people in the US), as well as the cities of Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo.

[Gothmog]

107. Again, the Jewish vote played a large role in that defeat

[Gothmog]

71. Keith Ellison Would Be A Disaster As DNC Head, Haim Saban Says

One of the major jobs of the DNC chair is to fund raise and Saban is one of the top Democratic fundraisers.
http://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/keith-ellison-would-be-a-disaster-as-dnc-head-haim-saban-says/

Haim Saban, a major Democratic Party funder, said Rep. Keith Ellison’s election as chairman of the Democratic National Committee would be a “disaster” for the relationship between Jews and the party, signaling a looming crisis between the party’s progressives and the centrist pro-Israel community.

The scathing broadside delivered Friday by the Israeli-American entertainment mogul from the floor of the annual Saban Forum, an event he funds bringing together U.S. and Israeli leaders and influencers, underscores the degree to which the Minnesota congressman’s campaign for DNC chief could erode relations between establishment Jewish groups and the party.....

Saban’s broadside – farther reaching, in calling him an “anti-Semite,” than even some of Ellison’s conservative critics – is significant because of the mogul’s relationship to the DNC.

Saban is better known as a leading backer of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee defeated last month by Donald Trump, but he has also been a major donor to the party. In 2002, he paid $7 million toward the building of the then-new DNC headquarters here.

Jewish voters are an imporant part of the Democratic base and alienating a major funding source such as Saban does not make sense.

[HoneyBadger]

89. Ellison needs to win over people as part of the job

Winning over the ADL,would be a good start. Make it happen Keith!

[George II]

108. That's not going to happen, but its a moot point anyway.