How would you feel if the DNC made a bold move and went with a co-chair?

[NCTraveler]

Perez and Ellison. I'm not asking because I think it would be some kind of come together moment. I think the two could work together well and the job is big enough for it.

I understand some will think it can't be done because of current rules. This is the DNC. Rules can be changed or ignored.

13 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Good Move
	11 (85%)
	Bad Move
	2 (15%)
	Other
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Lucinda]

1. IMO - If they could work together it might be a great solution

[NCTraveler]

6. My immediate concern...

Is that there are other good people with their hats in the ring. I do think it is going to be one of these two if not both. Both bring a lot to the table. I really do think they would work well together. There is no need to get along on everything. We are Democrats after all.

[uponit7771]

16. +1

[gopiscrap]

2. give it a try

[still_one]

3. Is that idea even being offered or floated?

[NCTraveler]

7. I read an article about it last year.

I think I have also seen it mentioned here.

This is my trial balloon.

[still_one]

10. Thanks, just wondering

[fallrey]

4. Yes, let's stop fighting each other

The in-fighting is a distraction and hurtful to no good purpose. Co-chairing might be a good idea--as long as someone can keep some of Bernie's supporters from continuing to try to tear things down when they don't go their way. That would be on Ellison and maybe he can do it. Both are good people.

[demmiblue]

13. Just stop already.

[MrPurple]

5. I'd like that, especially if one of them was Howard Dean

They could use his experience and guidance.

[hughee99]

8. Like the old staying goes "If you have two starting quarterbacks, you have none".

My concern is that if you put in co-chairs, you'd have two people who don't necessarily see eye-to-eye on many key issues and are backed by separate factions all pushing their own agenda. I suppose it's possible that everyone works together in harmony and this benefits all, but given the contentiousness of this race, I don't see that happening and that would spell chaos for the party at a time when the current administration is giving us every chance to make significant gains.

[NCTraveler]

14. What we are mainly dealing with here is structural.

Systems and direction. I don't think the two are as far apart as some make them out to be.

There are many examples throughout the NFL's history where teams didn't have the starting qb named the day before a game and won. It's an expression that only looks good at face value.

You might also be perfectly accurate.

[hughee99]

23. Yes, but when game time rolls around, you only have one QB on the field at a time.

With a finite amount of resources available, my concern is that with two people calling the shots, they will be allocated to keep competing internal interests happy, not what is best for the party. There's already high level executives, committees and boards, but in the end, I think there needs to be a singular final authority to make a call or break a stalemate if necessary. Perhaps if they clearly divided duties rather than shared them, it would work better, but in the end, even that could present a problem when it comes to resource allocation.

[TeamPooka]

22. Ultimately those two agendas have to succeed together anyway so why not start now?

[demmiblue]

9. I have no problem with that (though it is not going to happen).

Ellison could be in charge of the ground game, Perez could be in charge of more logistic/administrative activities.

[SharonAnn]

11. No, it's really hard to have "equals" in a leadership position. One voice is needed.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. No. The organization needs a leader. The operative word there is "a". As in one.

[NurseJackie]

15. Why? Besides ... Ellison is toast already. Susan Sarandon adores him and ...

... that's enough right there (with no further research or consideration needed) for me to completely dismiss him out-of-hand ... and to know that I've made the correct decision.

Our party is not corrupt. Our party is not weak. The only people who weaken our party are the ones who try to do so from within by saying such things in the first place.

The "We're only trying to help" mantra is a total bullshit... and so is the "we must destroy it to rebuild it" philosophy.

Did you hear the latest? Get this! Apparently, people who don't support Ellison are "anti-Muslim". Yeah, know, right? Someone actually said that!

[uponit7771]

18. oh... didn't know Sarandon liked him... shit

[NCTraveler]

20. I fully understand your position.

And with many people I agree with you. I don't think Ellison is one of them. I personally think the guy is getting fucked by the same shitty people who made Sanders look like an ass. We do need to keep that group in check. Like Bannon, they believe it must be burned down to be built back up again. A horrifying mindset.

SS is a fucking train wreck. I can't let her influence my thought process.

[NCTraveler]

21. To add, the person who inferred we are anti-Muslim can go fuck himself.

That was one on the most disgusting things I have seen here.

[GP6971]

17. I'm OK with it. n/t

[TrekLuver]

19. 2 brains are better than one.

[hrmjustin]

24. Both are good men and I could live with both.