Ellison just asked everyone who supported him to support Tom Perez

So can we stop with the "The DNC is DOOMED because they didn't pick MY candidate" whining, please?

Perez is off to a great start

Asking the body to elect Ellison Deputy Chair was a brilliant, unifying move.

Nicely done, Mr. Chairman

Good question - but not relevant to THIS question

Bernie's big claim to fame is that HE's different than the rest. So it doesn't matter what the rest of them did or didn't do. Why didn't BERNIE do speak up today?

Where was Bernie today?

"Toward the end of the process, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., stood and asked if any senator would stand with House members, but none did."

Bernie's been very vocal lately about criticizing the Democrats. So why didn't he speak up today when it really mattered?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/biden-declares-it-is-over-as-he-declares-trump-the-winner/article/2611113

Bernie says he wants a revolution - here's his chance

How I would handle being on a flight with Ivanka Trump

Had I found myself on a flight with Ivanka Trump, I would never have screamed at her. Not only don't I behave that way toward anyone - and I refuse to allow my disgust and horror Trump turn me into a lesser, uglier version of myself - that kind of behavior doesn't result in any outcome other than venting, which is useless at this point.

Instead, I would see this as a great opportunity, not to let off some steam but to actually try to get her to think in a different way. I would go to my seat, carefully think about one - just one - issue I care about, pull out a piece of paper and write out a short note explaining it, and also develop a short and to-the-point "elevator" comment about it. I would then wait until the flight took off, walk up the aisle to her and politely ask for a moment of her time. I would calmly but firmly make my point and hand her the note - along with my card - and invite her to contact me if she wishes to discuss it any further. I wouldn't expect her to, but one never knows, do one? And I would ask for her contact information (and if she was traveling with any staff, definitely get theirs) and follow up with a letter or email.

Then, I would have gone back to my seat and tried to engage the people around me in a discussion about the issue I had just talked to Ivanka about. I would encourage them, if they were so inclined, to politely approach her to share their point of view, as well.

I've done this many times with people with whom I disagree and have often been pleasantly surprised at the reaction and results. Many have actually followed up with me. On some occasions, I've run into them again and they remembered me and we have continued the conversation. Often, I figured they were just humoring me, but at least they were listening. And if enough people do that, it can have an impact on them. Many of these people are in a bubble - they only talk to people who agree with or pretend to agree with them. And those who don't agree with them are outside of the bubble screaming at them. Situations like this provide an opportunity to actually permeate that bubble. I choose not to waste such opportunities by screaming at them from inside the bubble, which doesn't result in any of the goals I'm trying to achieve.

Suggestion: we stop with the "Chump" "tRump" "RePug" namecalling and focus on issues

I cringe every time I see progressives use these terms during political discussions. This kind of schoolyard "you're a poo-poo head" taunting makes us look childish and petty and takes away from the real, serious issues we're trying to address.

Referring to our adversaries by their actual names won't normalize or elevate them or diminish our position. In fact, it will make it easier for us to get across our point.

ENOUGH with the "Clinton campaign didn't ask for our help" whining!

The newest permutation of the "We told you so" diatribes seems to be the complaint that the Clinton campaign didn't reach out enough to Sanders supporters to ask for their help. Even assuming that's true - and I still haven't seen the evidence to support it - why was that kind of "outreach" necessary for progressive Democrats to get involved in the general election campaign? What stopped anyone from just rolling up their sleeves and getting to work?

I can't count how many times during various election cycles that I initially got frustrated because I didn't think a campaign had responded quickly and enthusiastically enough to my offers to help. But each time, you know what I did? I got over myself and then located and turned up at the local campaign headquarters and volunteered - and they were always happy to have me and always put me to work doing something meaningful. It was often grunt work and not always very exciting or glamorous, but it was important and helped make a difference.

People who really care about making a difference don't wait around to be asked just the right way and then refuse to do it because they weren't asked nicely enough. They just roll up their sleeves and jump in. If someone thinks they're politically savvy enough to expect a campaign to go crawling to them for their help, they're savvy enough to know that general election campaigns don't and shouldn't have to devote time and resources on kissing their butts and they're savvy enough to figure out how to help a campaign without being asked. THAT's what activism is. Anything else is self-involved prima donna crap.

So, enough with the whining already. If you didn't do everything you could to stop Donald Trump from being elected, you only have yourselves to blame.

If a large group of blacks voted en masse for a black nationalist who preached hatred of whites

and, in so doing, helped to swing the election for a different candidate one way or another (since never in a million years would a black nationalist who preached hatred of whites garner enough votes to win anything), would white Democrats (or white Republicans for that matter) spend any serious time and effort "reaching out" to those black voters and tell their supporters they should be more sympathetic to their concerns and try harder to understand and embrace them?

Or would they say, "those people are crazy" and then do their damndest to generate enough votes from within their ranks and elsewhere to ensure that they could outvote the "crazies" the next time around?

"I'm so damned tired of trying to see it from the 'other side'"

vimeo.com/191751334

"I am so damn tired of trying to see it from the 'other side,' of trying to discuss nuance, while they paint us and our candidates with the broadest of hateful brushes instead ... If you voted for Trump, I’m tired of trying to see things your way when you sit in your holier than thou churches/white power meet ups refusing to see mine. Am I lumping you in with white supremacists? No. You did that yourselves. You voted for a candidate endorsed by the KKK. For the rest of your lives you will know that you voted the same way as the KKK.

"I’m tired of pussy footing around what offends your morals while couching what offends mine. Because racism and homophobia and misogyny and xenophobia offend mine. Let me say it here: if you voted for trump I do think you’re racist. I do think you’re homophobic. I do think you’re misogynist. Racism, homophobia and misogyny are all spectrums and you’re on it. You might not be 'cheering while a black man gets lynched racist' but boy did you just sell them the rope and look the other way."

Let me repeat that for the benefit of my fellow Democrats who keep telling us to stop calling out Trump supporters so we don't offend them.

"I’M TIRED OF PUSSY FOOTING AROUND WHAT OFFENDS YOUR MORALS WHILE COUCHING WHAT OFFENDS MINE."