Wasserman Schultz: Toast or not toast?

There has been some grumbling from the Sanders camp about DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz for a while. And Martin O’Malley wasn’t really enamored of her either when he was still in the race.

Recently Bernie has taken the step to endorse her opponent in the California primary and said he would remove her as chair if elected.

Now there are reports party bigwigs are looking at replacing her before the convention. Today, several top Senators avoided the issue according to Politico:

I don’t recall this sort of talk coming up before about a party chair. I will be surprised if she is removed but what are the odds of Hillary encouraging her privately to step down? I guess she could say she needs to focus on her constituents and work toward getting reelected. Thoughts?

To satisfy the bloodlust of the Bros (only a subset of Sanders supporters, be it noted), a human sacrifice is required.

So, yes: toast.

It’s not fair to poor DWS, all in all. But I suspect she will be asked to take one for the team.

The only way that would happen would be if Bernie won the nomination. No way is the Democratic Party (or Hillary) going to bow to the wishes of a Johnny-come-lately. Perfect analogy:


I feel very similarly to Mr. Nutter.

Replacing her would only feed the narrative that the primary has been fixed in Hillary’s favour. Replacing her would be entirely the wrong move – it would just embolden Saunders to make new demands and keep this thing in the spotlight. Ignore it and the media will lose interest.

DWS is not toast; most mainstream Dems do not want the radical far-left, led by Bernie, to take the party over, especially those who like to run and WIN things (House and Senate members). Getting rid of DWS would basically embolden them Sandernistas to overthrow the party.

I would have preferred she never had been put in the position to begin with. I don’t think she is very good at the job. Even if she were I think trying to balance being a sitting congressman and heading the DNC is a recipe for failure. The schedule and obligations are at odds. Now it’s looking like she’ll have to run for her seat(wasn’t hard to keep before) Absent Sanders she should step down and let someone with less going on take it.

But now Sanders and his pals are looking for a scalp so they can claim victory. It makes it more complex for her to step down. I don’t like the idea of theach DNC giving the impression they are caving to a demand nor do I want to see them claim she stepped down to avoid implied corruption.

I don’t see how she can step down without Sanders getting credit. So I think she has to stay. If sacrificing herself to the Bernie god could put and end to the party rift I think she should step down. My worry is it will only encourage them to make more ridiculous demands.

If the democrats cave, then this would be a very, very bad sign for Hillary’s campaign against November. If there are enough democrats or if there’s enough pressure within the party to push her out as DNC chair before the convention, that would be more than just a little noteworthy. Think about it: if Sanders and his campaign of bozos have enough clout to push out the DNC chair, do you really think it would stop there? Do you really think there wouldn’t be major, major friction within the party? If the DNC caves then this would send the absolute worst signal to the Bernie Bros, who would then be convinced that not only has Wasserman Schultz been the one thing standing between them and the nomination, but better yet, now that she’s gone, they can actually start twisting the arms of those super delegates. Those who think she should just take one for the team have no idea where this leads: it leads to a delusional and disloyal independent candidate who claims to be a democrat basically hijacking the party. Mission accomplished, as far as Bernie is concerned. But the election of Donald Trump in real world terms.

Mark my words: if they actually succeed in pressuring her to step down…President Donald J. Trump.

This. It’d be bad enough if he were winning. But he’s losing the election, and still thinks he should be in charge. That’s called chutzpah.

On the other hand . . . her hair.

She’s already toast. It doesn’t matter if she stays or goes, once the question comes up it’s over. She’s poison now. She’s doing a terrible job, she’s raising money for Hillary while claiming to be objective in chairing the DNC. She could stay a congresswoman forever but this should be the peak of her career. If Hillary brings her into her administration the American people will pay the price.

Karl Rove’s super PAC just endorsed her for all the work she has done to destroy the Democratic Party, so that has to hurt her.

Toast or not toast?

More slightly stale white bread.

Sanders is pumpernickel trying to be a tongue sandwich, relishing the attention but can’t ketchup.

Clinton just wants to get into the roll of the general election candidate already.

In any case I thought the head of the DNC serves as Democratic President’s choice? Obama, I think, decides if she mustard go.

And seriously, I doubt she’ll be going. And I do think that Clinton will select someone else when she wins.

I get your point and agree with what Nutter is saying but haven’t Hillary and the party already bowed to the wishes of the Johnny-come-lately in question by giving him five seats on the platform committee? I know it is typical for the nominee to more or less ignore the platform but they’ve already caved in to some of Bernie’s demands. That makes me think there may be a pretty high level of anxiety about losing young voters among the people running Hillary’s campaign.

And you gotta admit Schumer, Reid and Murray not offering any defense of Wasserman Schultz makes me think there is serious discontent with how she has been doing her job. This just may be the issue that brings those feelings to a head.

I agree it could be very disruptive to remove her but I’m not convinced this is just going to go away.

How did they cave? 6-to-5 is completely proportional to the respective delegate totals. If it was Mickey Mouse with Bernie’s numbers he’d get 5 committee seats.

They didn’t bow or cave, they negotiated with Sanders, which is what they’re supposed to do to show America that they are reasonable people and interested solving problems instead of creating them. Schultz has standing been standing in the way of that happening.

Toast. But it’s a slow bern that won’t be complete until after the election.

Nitpick: Wasserman Shultz represents Florida. Or did you meant that Bernie endorsed her opponent while he was campaigning in the California primary?

I’d say she’s probably toast, but if she can hang on long enough for this brouhaha to die down, she might survive.

I disagree with the post and the analogy.

I don’t think the Democratic leadership care much about or for Sanders himself. But they do care about his supporters and don’t want to alienate them and want to convert them into enthusiastic Clinton supporters for the general election. (I believe the post preceding yours - by Sherrerd - may have been making a similar point.)

Which is not to say I know if she’s toast or not. But I think you can’t approach it by looking at Sanders himself.

In 2008 how many committee seats did Hillary get for coming in second? I don’t remember that happening. If it did, fine. But if not then an exception was made in an effort to appease Bernie and his followers. To me that looks like someone caved.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the Party would throw Wasserman-Schultz under the bus pretty quickly if they thought that would unite the party. From my reading, no faction in the party, including Hillary supporters, is a particularly big fan of hers. Maybe she might have some personal loyalty, but if so, then she could easily appoint Wasserman-Schultz to an ambassadorship or something as a consolation prize.