#DemExit Thread

he's washington post footage of just the podium
youtu.be/Vbvmul6HAzE

Ronan is based. But i'll take Keith Ellison since we probably won't have Ronan

It looks like they just voted to strike a clause banning the acceptance of corporate money with a sight vote. not a good sign.

...

I was naive to think there was hope for this party.

this is a fucking church service. They haven't learned a goddamn thing.

when are the results?

When every filthy brown mudskin leaves USA and Europe we will work to ensure whites leave South Africa.

...

pack your stuff then.

It will never happen, time to accept it. This isn't the early 20th century anymore, globalism and migration is in full force. There are too many interracial relationships, too many interracial friendships and so on. Memeing cartoon frogs won't change that.

There is literally no reason to believe this is the end of history and if you believe white people will go the way of the native American peacefully you are sorely mistaken.

why do you even post here? you aren't welcome here faggot

why do you care about a bunch of people you don't belong to?

...

DEBBIE WASSERFUCK WAS ON THE DNC PAYROLL UNTIL DECEMBER DESPITE FUCKING RESIGNING IN JULY

What do you guys think of Jason Kander? His speech was amazing. Plus he didn't kiss Shillary's ass while he was running for Senator.

fucking hell Donna Brazil is the only person worse then debbie

better link youtube.com/watch?v=Bfl6OzAGy-g

Sam is a veteran and burgers adore the Fuck out of them

what this about credentials from PENN dnc members?

...

Kill me please

twitter.com/JordanChariton/status/835524177314603009

is anyone surprised

...

the right get what they want. why cant we get what we want ;_;

you just answered your own question

Way to invite primary challenges DNC!

What's the scoop on Perez? Is he any good?

No he was obama's labor secretary

He is pure cancer.

libshill, DNC is lost

another obama/hillary

at least keith has bernies support. we need to push the party more to the left

So the vote is tommorow wonder why

I guess the vote is actually happening tomorrow

based sam Ronan

I hope they choose the worse possible person.
I want this party crash to the ground so bad after they nominated hillary.

I was just kiding anyway, Nelson Mandela wanted them to stay and they should stay as long as they want. Those whites in South Africa don't know any other culture now, that's their home.

I don't have a problem with blacks from our former african colonies coming here. I like them, they're nice people, they speak the same language. So that thing about every filthy mudskin leaving Europe will not happen, at least here in my country.
As for USA..kek USA was founded by immigrantes. Between 1860 and 1914 more than 30 million people migrated to the US. USA has always been a multiculturalist country without official language and without a real national identity. So wtf are you on?

I almost hope Perez wins so the Bernie/DSA crowd loses all interest in this cancerous party.

yeah that would be so productive, not

yeah dems co-opting leftist movements in the service of capitalism and imperialism have always been so productive

lmao donna had to use that hammer to quiet the crowd from cheering for keith ellison

arguing with people on twitter who don't even know the reason that they're voting for a new Chair is cause the last 2 got caught cheating for Hillary

Why did the last dude just drop out of the race and not give a reason?

So wait, do people in here actually like keith?

I thought he was idpol?

they're all pretty much idpol and corporate shills. he's more like a canary in a coal mine. if he looses it means that the establishment has only dug in for the long haul.

nah he's a step in the right direction. we need a bernie agenda to take over the Democrats

Word on Twitter is that he knew Perez was set for a win, so he bowed out in order to save face. His only chance was if the Perez and Ellison sides came to a deadlock and were forced to choose him as a compromise. He didn't have enough votes to play a kingmaker role.

what they said above. He's a compromise of 'more left than they currently are' and 'actually has a chance at winning'.

I wouldn't vote for him but I guess if you're trying to look at the bright side of things and you dig REALLY hard, you'll come out hoping he wins.

Have talked to him in person, he is not pure idpol I promise you. He does pander too much to the "small business" crowd though

Oh, well I guess I was misinformed.

Go Keith

If you all knew more about the super delegate system, you'd have already stop voting democrat. They have all the power, they are not going to relinquish it, they are not going to stop running the party status quo.

Numbers and majority doesn't mean anything. Look at how Bernie Sanders was railroaded even though they clearly had MORE delegates than Hillary had.

THEY HAD MORE PEOPLE AND THEY STILL LOST.

Could you give me a rundown on what super delegates are and how the DNC works?

You can tell Perez is going to win because his supporters are now calling him "basically the same as Ellison" instead of a "far left Israel-bashing Muslim"

Most people know what superdelegates are, the whole point is to get someone to reform to at least the RNC system without them.

meant to say they're calling Ellison basically the same as Perez, but whatever

Sounds like desperate "both are the same anyway" type last swing to me, idk how that means Perez has it. Feels more like an admission that their mudslinging was useless

im calling perez wins guys. the democrats never learn

The party establishment needs to try to convince the Berniecrats that Perez and Ellison are the same in order to avoid the kind of #DemExit situation that happened when Bernie lost. So far it doesn't seem to be working too well

It's gonna be a Perez win.

But the Dem strategy for a Perez win is mudslinging to the left (particularly at the DSA) with multiple sources confirming those plans in the works. Normalizing Keith seems at odds with those plans

donna is so annoying

twitter.com/janekleeb/status/835558197578579968

Nebraska goes to Ellison

Rooting for whoever has the harshest punishment for Donna in place tbh. Too bad none of them are leading a Trump style #lockherup chant

That's true, but as soon as Perez wins, those criticisms immediately become useless. Then it's going to be all "he was the most progressive person in Obama's cabinet" and "there was no substantive difference between him and Ellison."
And of course they're gonna pretend that the all the mudslinging and handwringing from the pro-Israel lobby never even happened. Gaslighting at its finest.

what did she do

keep going based keith

Fuck that don't ruin this future and make it as suburban and safe and clean, accelerate it to god damn LA 2019 with megacities everywhere

You're boring as shitl

she gave hillary clinton the debate questions before her debate against bernie. she's a cheater

latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-ol-le-donna-brazile-cnn-20161104-story.html

I hope Sam Ronan at least tries to run for Co-chair

same

DJ Brazile spinning those hot disco classics

DJ Dougg Pound In The Mix

Pete…. Thanks

holy shit

cosigning this. Are the records going to be made public with who's voting for who?

The Democratic party literally exists as a device of class rule you fucking idiot.
They're not trying to "do the right thing," "represent their people," or even win if it means challenging the basic assumptions of bourgeois "democracy." Remember how the Whigs broke up over slavery? Yeah.
They're "insufficiently left" not because they have the wrong ideas and insufficient leftwards encouragement from the rank and file, but because leftism is contraindicated by their very purpose, at its core.

cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/02/01/nancy-pelosi-town-hall-capitalism-sot.cnn
Whoever did this, I'm going to throw a chair at you.

Perez needs to win. We should welcome the death of the Democratic party.

nah. it's time to take over the democrat party

Political independence of the working class is an absolute necessity. There's no compromise to be reached on this point, and it's not a remotely complicated or difficult one.

People have tried for a hundred years it hasn't worked out. Turns out the Democratic Party isn't very democratic. It's the party of slavery and imperialism.

...

Taking over a broken system is worthless. The two party duopoly needs to be exposed as wings of the corporate establishment. Perez win will solidify that. Only way the system can be changed is through revolution and participating in electoral politics wont do much. We dont need an FDR type of reform which seeks to save capitalism. We need to destroy it once and for all, and taking over the democratic party wont achieve that goal.

Shit

twitter.com/DomenicoNPR/status/835570855350521858

This is only the first round though

Yeah it's over

ok.

Sam Ronan had withdraw since he got no votes

Guess what, elect Bernie fucking Sanders as DNC chairman and it's still not going to be a mass reolutionary party of the working class

enjoy your life of misery and nihilism. nothing good can ever happen

HEY HOW BOUT INSTEAD OF LIQUIDATING THE MONARCHY, WE GET A BUNCH OF PARLIAMENTARIAN-MINDED PEOPLE INTO THE LANDED NOBILITY
read a fucking book

Ironclad

...

fuck it. let em crash and burn. maybe this will spark some major infighting and it kills the 2 party system.

Good things will happen but not through the DNC. Their only purpose is to throw crumbs to the working class to stop them from revolting. We dont need a "good" master, we need to overthrow the establishment. That will never happen through this broken "democracy"

Between the two of us, I'm pretty sure you're the Johnny-come-lately political adventurist without any stamina for the long game. Were you just radicalized in November or something? Met a DSA rep at your local anti-Trump protest?
Watch as you're the one to burn out and become disoriented and demoralized when your reformist tripe fails to achieve its goals, like the student "radicals" of the '60s. For extra points, be sure to claim it's socialism itself that's to blame.

QUESTION: If you were a CEO of a successful startup, would you use your money to further your political ideals? If so, how?

I don't think this deserves its own thread but am curious

Much better than expected. CNN and Politico said that Ellison would get only half of what his results were

i'm a socialist but im also more idealistic than you guys i admit that. i have hope that a working class takeover can come through taking over the democratic party. i see the people shunning neocons and neolibs eventually.

Would use it to fund investigative reporting on media fraud, etc. Help expose corruption in the system, wake people up.

twitter.com/JonEasley/status/835574171228831744

The DC Dem establishment has been and always will be an enemy of the working class. There can be no question. But that doesn't mean one can't cross fingers for slightly alleviated oppressive conditions for organizing and leading for socialists at the grassroots level, and there is no question that even minute changes in this regard can lead to substantive difference on the ground.

Sounds a lot like "Bernie can still win California" to me. They have to say it in order to maintain morale among supporters, but they know it's pretty much a foregone conclusion.

...

The "slightly alleviated" conditions are part of the problem. In private correspondence Teddy Rooselvet, had said that progressives were looking at the long haul. They were raising standards on work to shut workers up, to counter a real change of the system. What we need is increased oppression from both parties which will create enough of a worker backlash to overthrow their duopoly on power.

Sure, and I wouldn't seek to deny anyone that, despite rejecting the siren song of "incrementalism."
The point is that organizing for favorable conditions for organizing is easily diversionary and counterproductive

This is just as myopic as incrementalism. The bourgeoisie cannot be made more oppressive than it it in their best interest to be, any more easily than it can be made less so.

Read Lenin's State and Revolution

The back and forth on this can go forever and it's one I've had a million times, but suffice it to say that I do not consider participation in electoral politics to be treasonous or a betrayal of working class values, etc. as some would claim. I also don't believe that participation in electoral politics precludes action and activism outside of electoral politics, which is sorely in need as well.

Basically, the degree to which electoral politics are pursued should be with our own institutions to elect radicals and socialists to office, and with the use of the democratic primary as an antagonistic and strategic tool when appropriate.

Ah, here's the problem.
Yes, the one does come at the expense of the other.

It's not about "values" or "loyalty" but about rational class interest.

We can assume that here "values" are meant to correlate to action in regards to working class interest and not some personal beliefs. And I have seen the opposite, that participation in electoral politics is a stepping stone to larger political activism and interest from previously disinterested parties. Could you illustrate to me where you see one coming at the expense of the other in a practical case?

theyre saying the results now

donna looks happy means perez won :(

Depends on how much money we are talking. A few million dollars sounds like a lot but is quickly spend if you try to invest it in any sort of political or social way.

Will we hear the results today?

Results in, insect looking motherfucker Perez is the new chair.

235 Perez…

:-/

AMERICAN SOCIALIST PARTY WHEN

The dialectic. It is in motion.

Ellison made Deputy Chair… what did he mean by this?

Unrelated but holy fuck #ResistCapitalism is trending guys.

We have like seven of them, and they're all run by the bourgeoisie

...

Muh party unity

...

You know that Lenin quote?

Yeah, those weeks are coming.

...

...

dsausa.nationbuilder.com/join
about to sign up now. fuck the democrats

JUST

Time, effort and labor are costs.
If you spend 4 hours canvasing for a marijuana legalization initiative, that's 4 hours you're neither working, sleeping, eating, doing other activism, leisure activities, etc.
If you spend 4 hours calling phones to re-elect some senate democrat, that's 4 hours you're not raising class consciousness
If you spend all day jacking off instead of baking a cake for your brother's funeral, there's not gonna be a cake.

There's literally always an opportunity cost to everything you ever do. It's like in go or chess, where a decent move comes at the expense of the best move. It's absurd to weigh an action against "not doing it" rather than its alternatives.

All activism takes effort. That effort must be justified

This is Dewey all over again.

Sad Ive never heard that one before that is a great quote and quite succinct

All I hope is that there is enough of a reaction for the democratic party to not be able to ignore as well as people who will not accept this

this fucking clown.
this is what I get for expecting more of people.

Right, but that assumes that people have a strictly defined set of x effort and x minutes they will devote to politics of any kind and that will be evenly split between all possible avenues. In reality, people who are previously uninvolved and disinterested in politics become introduced most heavily through electoral politics first, and an organization consisting of people that engages in electoral politics will, in practical terms, more easily obtain the resources and membership required to participate in other political activity.

Of course, on an individual level I agree with you that my time is better spent on non-electoral activity but that's not how people work in general and you can't expect people to be swayed to that position easily.

It's a good quote especially considering Lenin's history. When WW1 broke out he went to Austria and read Marx and Hegel and basically waited for those few weeks to start, so he could lead the revolution

The fire rises

That's a start

So what does this mean?

Dems won't change for starters, what's more important then perez winning is that there is a backlash to perez

Doesn't this open up the possibility for a the Democratic party to crush and burn, with no survivors, and as the Fenix comes through the ashes a workers party emerges from the failed carcass of the democrats, I'm thinking maybe democratic socialists and left democrats unite and form the American ===SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY===

Hopefully I feel like we'll know if we're a threat when neo libs start making socialism a dirty word

"My deepest sympathies to Keith Ellison, who just got robbed by cowardly DNC insiders! Sad!"

- what Trump would tweet right now if he knew what he was doing

No it doesn't.
I mean it does assume people have Pareto optimal time/effort allocations between their various activities but that's literally a given
So you're uninvolved and disinterested in politics looking for someone else to get you into real stuff because you don't want to do it yourself? I'm not sure I follow. If you're not, then how is this relevant to you? We're talking about optimal praxis for the class-conscious, not for people unconvinced of the need for revolutionary praxis in the first place.
You make valid points about "electoral politics," but bear in mind that electoral politics are not synonymous with a particular brand thereof, as in those of the Democratic party. The electoral politics of the Bolsheviks had a useful, emancipatory role for the working class as a propaganda and outreach tool, but those of a bourgeois party reflect class interests at every level.

It is not and can not be enough to show people what is wrong, we must show them too what is right.
Disillusion itself is useless. We must actively promote the alternative to capitalism, with an effective revolutionary program.

one can only pray this happens

Nah trump would just give the other side more agency to attack us

Haven't they been doing in America for like 130 years? They just took the foot of the pedal for the last 20 years, they might try to re-engage their propaganda against the idea of socialism, but young people won't be falling for it

...

Is there any standard you hold by which any party or person participating in electoral politics wouldn't fail? If the Bernie/Keith faction is so impotent and just as concessionary to bourgeois interests then why all the effort to oust and block them to begin with?

Is this the sort of thing where you would support the Greens or a socialist party or do none of them pass your smell test. Honestly I have more respect for people who hold the latter over the former position as the former just seems schizophrenic to me.

...

True but they've been sorta pussyfooting around the issue instead of an all out slander

cucked

"wins"

to those interested

here's how to get involved with the DSA
dsausa.org/get_involved

and the same for Democracy at Work
action.democracyatwork.info/

Ronan seems pretty idpolled

Basically when you caucus in a town or county primary and are elected as a delegate, you have voting power in the coming elections in county, state, and possibly national levels. Ideally a majority of delegates voting on something like "Stop supporting Israel" or some resolution passes by majority vote. This happened in 2008 I believe in the DNC. But didn't win and the chair ignored the clear will of the voting crowd. Basically broke rules and said "fuck you guys, the resolution fails" or vice vesa

A super delegate is person who is appointed (by people like Clinton) basically nullifies majority voting of the delegates. So you can have 80% of delegates in a state cacus say they want Sanders. But if 20% that oppose are all super delegates, then the vote goes to Hillary. And you can't be a super delegate unless you tow the party line. Basically you need to be recognized as a "supporting member" AKA someone giving them a lot of money before hand. Even then, they will know how you donate the money. Donating to Sanders doesn't mean they will make you a super delegate. Donate to Hillary big time though and "oh my have you ever considered being a super delegate?" will be asked of you.

Now this keep in mind this just my observation and theory from seeing the past behaviors and events/news of the election campaigns of Hillary. The real reason I believe Hillary lost to Obama back in 2008 was because she had a lot of super delegates that thought she was a bad candidate and dealt with a revolt. I remember seeing how they even mentioned many super delegates didn't want her at the time once Obama appeared. She stayed on long after late in the campaign season anyway which the democrat party likely saw as a problem that they needed to resolve peacefully so she would let them focus on the republicunts. That and make sure she didn't bone them over by running third party (they always seem to fear Ralph Nader even now and Blame "Bernie Bros" for not voting for her). She likely conceded the election in 08 with the condition that they would vote for her in 2016 and be part of the government power levers (I think to keep running the Clinton Foundation relevancy with doners). She seemed relatively satisfied with the arrangement. Probably because of her position in Obama's cabinet allowed her to do stuff like Libya and Syria for the Qatar pipeline. We do see money flow into the Clinton Foundation and more pay for play. She may have been able to get her own loyal super delegates in too. Debbie Wasserman Shultz was put in to replace well in advance of the 2016 campaign Kain as probably a quid pro quo of "step down and let Debbie be the chair, and I'll make you VP." This is why she didn't put in Bernie as VP to the surprise of everyone who knew Bernie on the ticket would help.

I mean did you ever wonder why only 3 candidates were running in a presidential election where the incumbent was gone? The democrat party has candidates like Alan Greyson in their ranks. The other dude was simply a plant for theatre. I think most potential democratic candidates initially found out that they were not going to vote for them and didn't bother wasting time and money. There are even rumors that it is even possible that they even "permitted" Bernie to run, or at least agreed to let him run because Clinton didn't find him a threat. The media also focused on Trump and Cruz because the Clinton campaign felt they were easy to take down. I think I heard that Bill had even talked Trump into running so they can get a controlled opposition to run on the other side that they felt the media could demolition.

The whole fucking thing was rigged starting at the super delegates. Either literally in some ways like stealing from Bernie, and in other ways such as influencing the republican side by propping up opposition candidates. This is why the media was all over covering crazy extremists like Trump and Cruz (which ended up backfiring anyway), giving Jeb light passes (since he was doing so badly) and even some support like he was a serious candidate instead of being a slow incompetent idiot who's the son and brother of former presidents, and gave little to other candidates like Rand little airtime.

Holla Forumslack visitor here.

Just came over to you guys' side of the site to ask: what percentage of Dems are/will actually leave the party (ignoring the ones who say they will but won't actually do it because… you know… effort)?

We can't really tell because apparently everyone is stressing "Democrats United."

I follow some dem facebook groups on my dummy account and they're preeeetty pissed.

I don't know how much of that will convert into action but it's definitely not going over smoothly.

Shills are the ones stressing Democrats United

Honestly I would hope a noteworthy dent, and I have heard rumors of a dsa bump but it doesn't surprise me

Heavey astroturfing campaign on right now.

People were prepared for the fallout if Keith Ellison was not elected.

WEW

How is the Democratic party so dumb? I legitimately don't understand how they always seem to make the worst decision possible.

The DSA is literally derided as brocialist among leftist spheres, learn to look past surface level messaging for once

I…. just explained how its controlled by super delegates and not majority will here:

>_

The question is more how can those non-democratic elements be dumb enough to
1. re-establish their influence publicly
2. further alienate a potential growing base of support
It's not exactly like Ellison was marching down the street with a hammer and sickle logo on display, he was even making concessions to "small business owners" and such. What the fuck is the dysfunction that they'd risk this much fallout over fucking nothing?

why do you americans still care about the democratic party? let it die

At this point,I think they've given up on winning and just want to bilk the idpollers.

Honestly I'm glad if only to serve as a counterpoint to all the constant whining about leftists ruining establishment "leftist" parties and all the moaning leading up to this election about how they were going to "Corbyn" the democrats. Can't wait to hear for the next two years how in the UK control by the left wing is at fault and in the US control by the right wing is not at fault but the fault of whiney progressives. Just to highlight the barefaced hypocrisy for all to see

This is the simplistic easy answer. But no, rich donors and consultants didn't force this issue because they're idpol'd themselves, idpol is the tool they use to get their ends.

I'm asking what about their ends was so desperate to save from the likes of Ellison of all people that they'd go through this much trouble? Perplexing to say the least.

Going to that press conference dressed in that bright orange suit was a mistake.

It is simple, they cater to where the money is coming from, they don't think the voting base is intelligent enough to really revolt against democrat party since it is more chic, and they use the media, and media personalities to influence voting across the nation.

Think about it, they technically got 2 million more voters than Trump even if it was specific blue states where they have far more media and message control. They don't have to change shit in their view as long as they probably no longer run someone like Hilary who's political experience looks more like a rap sheet.

is it just me or was that slip of the moderator calling Perez chairman during a question eerie as fug?

...

Yeah, but why are the superdelegates so dumb?

Don't vote.

Seriously tho americans of Holla Forums. Why do you vote?
Your system is retarded af. I would refuse to be a part of that circus show. Don't vote Americans, go to the streets and demand change.

Because not voting doesn't apply any political pressure and voting is low-cost (unless you're black) and low effort anyway

Not at all.

Because populism is popular right now. How else would a nobody Senator from a political backwoods stand even a ghost of a chance against the Clinton machine.

They AREN'T dumb. Think about it.

They are looking out for their political power and money source. You as a person aren't going to deliver them money or political power. They really don't want to prosecute the banks for their fraud, they simply want to make it seem like they are going to "do something" about the banks to keep you quelled. All they need is the PERCEPTION of you and people like you to keep voting for them, attack their political opponents who are always "the bigger evil" amongst your friends and circle. They don't care if you like them, they don't care if you even that loyal, they don't care if you think highly of them and are loyal. It's irrelevant frankly.

If you really look at it, who is the one who is actually dumb: The one who is still somewhat loyal to the abuse, or the callous abuser?

Ok but what's the point of maintaining influence in and spending money on a party that doesn't win?

The pseudoleft is too busy virtue-signaling against drumpf to even care.

Actually…. that somewhat depends. If you don't vote in states like California or New York, it doesn't matter. They have the delegates locked up. If you are in a state like Iowa however, then the delegates are up in the air based on popular vote.

Right, all I'm saying is that, personally, I voted in both the primaries and general and only had to go a few blocks over to do so. It was easy, fast, and the only other people in line were my local congresswoman and her immediate family.

I understand in a lot of places it isn't worth it but I always roll my eyes at "not voting" being the solution to any problem. It would literally free up none of my time and afford me zero additional political capital.

They may have simply considered it a fluke because of Hillary being basically a mafia boss. They probably won't run another flat out criminal. Like I said, they probably don't see a reason to do anything other than have a popular candidate on the ticket. The voters will fall in line if that happens.

Hillary isn't the reason they lost 1000+ seats to top off a continual hemorrhaging of seats and influence over the last 8 years. And it's just so difficult for me to accept that they're really just that dumb that they can't see what random nobodies online can.

I mean it's not that far off

Low energy tbh. The example your quoting would be a pointed message. This feels like it was planned out with a blank to put in either name no matter who won. How would this tweet even read differently if Ellison won?

Basically when people vote, they don't go in selecting candidates carefully from each party. You won't see people generally vote for Trump over Hillary then start voting mostly democrat. People are pretty ignorant of the candidates and simple minded. They mostly vote along party lines.

So if Hillary isn't bringing people to the polls like Obama the first black candidate and president was during 2008, then you are going to see the more passionate voters come out in force for their party line vote. Hillary gave a huge majority of voters a bad vibe that would generally vote democrat more readily in purple and contested states. So obviously the democrats didn't screw up, they went balls deep. It pulled all other democrat candidates under with the suction.

fair. It definitely could've been better.

My point is that the losses didn't start this year.

Why do we care about this outcome except to laugh at the Democrats? We oppose the Democrats here.

Well there are other factors. Democrats usually are anti-gun which never fails to riles up millions of gun owners across the country.

Then there is Tea party and even if it is a movement that is co-opt'd like OWS was, people are generally upset about the debt and bailouts, endless neocon/democrat wars across party lines. Dems are even trying to do their own left "tea party" uprising in response. One that is controlled though. See the tea party did indeed somewhat upended the establishment neocons because the republican party doesn't have super delegates. I think they united with libertarians and refuted Romney, McCain, and help run a lot of their internal party supporters and their power out. It seems the party, as a whole was tired of the Bush wars more than the previous party leadership was or more concerned about the debt at least.

Or, there may be a bigger trend in the works; maybe the country itself is now just divided and destabilized to the point that it doesn't matter who is in charge, whoever the incumbent is now is the enemy. In anycase, the democrats super delegates don't see a reason to change much.

Their donors probably do.

Then, definitely, the super delegates would likely follow suit.

You have to admit it's a great trolling technique.

Conspiracyfags are hilarious. MUH LIZARDMEN ARE CUMMON FOR MUH GUNS

But there's some truth to it, since a federal appeals court just made a ruling saying that weapons that are useful in war shouldn't be for sale to the public.
It's yet another attempt to ban so called assault weapons.
It's not real a troll when they mean it.

the conspiracyfags are right

Perez winning is the best outcome because it means fewer young people having their potential for radicalism coopted by the democrats

What a shitty world order cabal if they can't even pull off getting rid of a small subsection of guns.

Join and help them, but remember that your job is to build a radical left WITHIN their party, not just help them re-create the same weak-ass social-liberalism of the New Deal again.

I'm not american so I can't do shit, but the entire world needs a strong left-wing movement in the US right now.

Well, Holla Forums? Is Perez your comrade?

lel, who is that joker?

Calling it now.

The Democrats will win back the Senate in 2018 thanks to Sanderistas taking over state parties, but the DNC will fuck up the 2020 Presidential election by running another Clinton Neoliberal at behest of their corporate overlords.

Basically, we'll be getting another Tea-party situation. The Dems have learned nothing from history.

Dems would rather have Republicans than anything remotely left. They are the enemy.

...

The Democrats have about a 90% chance to lose more seats in 2018 and are defending themselves in states where even Sanders is less popular than your average guns and God Republican.

I'd bet my life savings against that happening if given even odds.

The Democrats are done tbh. They have zero energy behind them. All they can do now is co-opt existing protest movements.

This.
They've effectively reduced themselves to being the party of coastal elites.
They no longer have any influence outside California, Oregon, Washington state and New York.

Like with Hillary, they picked the candidate they're sure is going to help them, and it will blow up in their face.

When have they EVER done that? They abandoned OWS, they derided the Sanders movement, and they left all of these recent marches out to dry.

The establishment Democrats don't support anything but Wall Street.

Super delegates have full party control.