Seems to be a close race, both candidates with progressive records and heavyweight backers.
ISTM that Perez has more backing from the Obama people and Ellison more from progressives outside that administration.
The feeling I have is that it’s easier to be a “pure” ideologue in congress versus in an executive role where practical considerations weigh more heavily, and this might account for Perez being less of a darling in progressive circles, despite what would otherwise be a highly progressive record.
The other issue hanging over it is suspicion of Ellison due to his youthful history of defending Louis Farrakhan against charges of anti-Semitism. This has garnered some attention but not sure how much of an actual factor it is.
I lean towards Ellison, but I won’t be terribly upset with either one. Not terribly excited, either. Unless I missed it, neither have advocated for changing the Democratic presidential primary process to get rid of super-delegates and change caucuses to primaries, both of which I think are necessary to ensure the appearance of absolute fairness for future party primaries. There were a lot of things that sunk Hillary’s campaign – one of them is the widespread belief that she didn’t win the primary fairly, reducing enthusiasm and causing a lot of anger that probably meant less votes from otherwise rock-solid liberal voters.
The insider vs the true believer. Each path has its pros and cons. But given Hillary’s performance, I’d tend to favor the true believer. Of course, the minute the Democrats name him, the right wing universe will be all “OMFG! A MUSLIM!”
It sounds to me like a rematch of Hillary vs. Barney. It will be interesting to see which side comes out on top this time, and how much the winning side is willing to accommodate the other. I don’t think the Dems can be effective without major cooperation between the two factions - very much like the Republicans and the Tea Party.
I’m really hoping it’s Perez. First of all, I want to poke the Bernie Brats in the eyes. Their incessant whining about Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was absurd and they painted her as some bizarre Bond villain caricature.
Second, I don’t want every interview with Eillison to feature questions on the Muslim Brotherhood.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There’s actually a school of thought which says that the chances of a dark horse winning are increasing as the contest goes down to the wire.
Thinking is that at the two leading candidates are both strong candidates who are not really that far apart on the issues, and the supporters of one could theoretically support the other as a second choice if their first choice fails. But as the contest heats up there’s a natural tendency to dig in and start finding fault with the other guy, and as this goes on, the leading candidates could start to lose second choice appeal to the other one’s supporters. If this continues to happen it could leave room for a lesser known candidate who could benefit from mass defections from the leading candidates if their candidacies seem stymied.
The super-delegates can sometimes result in a nominee that’s more popular with the leadership than with the masses, but sometimes the leadership knows what they’re doing. If some Trump-like populist Democrat runs and is enabled to win by the lack of Super-delegates, you might find yourself wishing you had the old system back.
In general, you need to be wary of fighting the last war.
That’s possible, but I think it would only take one such massive loss (ala Dukakis, or Goldwater, for example) for the party base to recognize that they really do need a relatively sane candidate to win. And in the long run, I think that a totally honest system (even with this risk) is better for the party.
I’m with you. In my view, the risk of a crazy candidate who must be stopped by superdelegates is lower than the risk of low-information voters not voting because of perceived unfairness in the primary process.
If it seems symbolically important to have a Muslim Democrat at the helm of the party, then I’d prefer it be one without that particular baggage–and also one not currently in Congress. (We don’t know that ‘divided attention’ was a factor in Wasserman Schulz’s missteps, but surely the time issue didn’t help.)
There must be other Muslims active in the party, who could give their undivided attention to the job.
Yes, and I’m surprised we’re not hearing this from at least one credible candidate for the DNC job. At the very least it should be being debated.
Like Andy, I’d prefer Ellison but am fine with either. Perez’s big black marks with a lot of Dems include 1) rhetorical support for TPP - though he was in Obama’s cabinet at the time, and has walked that back somewhat since the election, I think, and 2) perceived closeness to Clinton, partly because he was shortlisted as her VP candidate.
I’m not persuaded by either of those arguments - I think they’re shortsighted, cheap, and based on false beliefs about how awful Clinton was. But I do think Ellison’s a slightly better choice because:
A) Ellison’s got more electoral experience
B) he’s a better speaker than Perez (sorry, Tom), and charisma is going to matter in the Democratic Party going forward
C) it’s going to be critical to get the leftier parts of the Dem coalition firmly back on-side. Their gripes about the party are often wrong and annoying, but infighting is a waste of time ATM. Punishing them has no payoff save schadenfreude.
D) it’s not like Ellison is some johnny-come-lately to the party. He’s a more solid Democrat than Sanders was (and he was pretty solid himself in all but label).
There’s a pragmatic argument about Ellison’s Muslim faith to be made, but honestly I see at least as much upside, if not more, in his appeal to the non-Islamophobes out there.
I don’t think the governor has a role here. In most states the governor appoints a Senator who leaves his seat, but House seats stay open until a new rep is elected.
That said, I assume Ellison holds a safe Democratic seat.
Yes, of course (this isn’t my day for brain functioning)–Senators appointed by gov, House not. But, yeah: Ellison’s performance last time out does indicate that an upset is unlikely. Minnesota was close on November 8 for the top spot:
But Ellison’s 5th district was pretty solid for him: