What are Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Flaws?

there's a new hide tag fyi

o_O

lol rob

can i use the hide tag to hide myself entirely

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3SjbBacv-w

lol

there should be a "regret post" button, not sure what it would do but I would use it

https://i.ebayimg.com/thumbs/images/g/MNcAAOSwe~1el721/s-l200.jpg

Exactly, that's why they should have let the most important figure for the future of that movement give a regular speech, not a procedural thing, and explain why that friends of that movement ought to be working to get Joe Biden elected president! It seems completely clear that's what Ocasio-Cortez believes and they should have let her say so. I don't get it.

― Guayaquil (eephus!), Wednesday, August 19, 2020 9:35 AM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

This is a good point. It also occurred to me that asking AOC to nominate the 2nd-place candidate only reinforces the idea that she's part of the party's ideological fringe rather than someone capable of speaking to a wide swath of young people and others who are alienated by the political establishment. It's a defensive reaction to the GOP view of AOC as a dangerous socialist who's taking over the party. The DNC is saying "Yes, she's a socialist, but don't worry, she's not actually influential."

there should be a "regret post" button, not sure what it would do but I would use it

in the meantime you can do what I do and FP yourself

jaymc otm

pathetic

It also occurred to me that asking AOC to nominate the 2nd-place candidate only reinforces the idea that she's part of the party's ideological fringe rather than someone capable of speaking to a wide swath of young people and others who are alienated by the political establishment.

ot

m

they probably also knew that if they gave her 10 minutes, she would be dominating the headlines the following day

I don't think she would be and I think they should have given her what John Kerry and Elizabeth Warren and etc. are getting. More specifically -- I don't think she would be dominating today's headlines because if she'd had a full speech, she would not have demanded that we burn down the Democratic Party, she would have made a powerful case that progressive priorities require electing Joe Biden, just like Sanders did, and she would not dominate headlines the next day any more than Sanders did, because she would not be providing the "Democratic party tearing itself in two!" narrative some people seem to want, because that does not serve her goals and she is an extremely smart, powerful, effective advocate for those goals.

quixotic/doomed or not I would still like to see AOC formally break from the Dems at some point, hopefully with friends in tow

I'm not sure how many in her district would support this move, as much as they appreciate her progressivism; but I'd need more data about her district.

feels like a quick way to doom herself to irrelevance tbrr

I suspect (but can't prove, obv) most of her constituents would take her over the party in a heartbeat xp

better to risk irrelevance than keep propping up these losers who don't even respect you imho

I suspect (but can't prove, obv) most of her constituents would take her over the party in a heartbeat xp

― unpaid intern at the darvo institute (Simon H.),

Ha. This goes for just about every GOP and Dem.

itt simon once again reminds us that he prefers progressivism accomplish nothing rather than form any coalitions with the impure

Also, AOC has never dealt with a Democratic president, nor a Democratic president like Joe Biden. The fun's about to start.

“impure” is a funny way to describe mass murderers, cops, rapists, etc

"mass murderers, cops, rapists, etc" is a funny way to describe democrats. maybe I'd understand you better if you'd expanded on the etc. part.

Part of the tapestry of America iirc

She's still the youngest in Congress, right? I think she should hang onto her "future of the party" mantle until others to her right start trying to take it from her. I'd like to see a generation of Dem socialists come in behind her and wield some serious political power.

I'm kind of surprised she wasn't savvy enough to foresee that this was exactly how her role in the convention was going to be portrayed. or maybe she just felt stuck because this is all she was offered and she didn't want to give the impression she was dissing Bernie.

itt simon once again reminds us that he prefers progressivism accomplish nothing rather than form any coalitions with the impure

there's "coalition" and then there's letting them make a token out of you (or try to). hypothetically this new left formation could work with dems on certain issues.

as a dues paying member of the NDP (sigh) it would be pretty silly if I disavowed compromise altogether

It’s only a coalition if you get something out of it.

The States can't beat Duverger's law, sadly

xp to milo- bingo! but you have to drop some pennies in the slot before you get back a gumball.

One day Lucy’s gonna let you kick the ball.

she's voted with them on countless deeply flawed bills no doubt, what counts as a "penny"

the Lucy-Charlie Brown analogy doesn't really work in real politics. Charlie Brown owns the football and if he had half a brain he'd get another holder or buy himself a tee. if progressives owned the majority of votes, they could tell everyone else to fuck off.

Well!

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) ripped NBC for a tweet that noted she "did not endorse" 2020 nominee Joe Biden in her 60-second speech at the Democratic National Convention, with the first-term congresswoman calling it "completely unacceptable, disappointing, and appalling."

"In one of the shortest speeches of the DNC, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez did not endorse Joe Biden," NBC News said in its original post to the network's more than 7.7 million followers.

"This is completely unacceptable, disappointing, and appalling," Ocasio-Cortez wrote in response to her 8.3 million followers. "The DNC shared the procedural purpose of my remarks to media WELL in advance. @NBC knew what was going to happen & that it was routine."

if progressives owned the majority of votes, they could tell everyone else to fuck off

good luck with that on the current course

in the case of AOC, the return favor for voting with the caucus would be things like getting the committee assignments she wants, having a bill she sponsors assigned to a favorable committee, or putting an amendment of hers to a floor vote. for a first year representative who has not yet won a re-election, she's moving into prominence pretty rapidly.

good luck with that on the current course

votes are better than luck

You don’t have to have a majority of votes, you have to have the difference-making number of votes and for those votes to not be automatically pledged to any Democratic Party cut-out.

That assumes the centrists actually care about winning elections. Given their preference for hectoring young voters and progressive voters rather than giving them a reason to vote, that continues to be a question mark.

Framing the potential benefit entirely in terms of careerism really speaks volumes.

how are "getting the committee assignments she wants" and "having a bill she sponsors assigned to a favorable committee" not good for her constituents?

I don't see those elements as careerist at first, but in politics careerism and altruism are inseparable. .

Careerism? The Congress works entirely through passing legislation. Everything I mentioned is directly related to accomplishing stuff, in fact, it is the only way you can accomplish stuff in Congress.

iirc you can not have a (D) next to your name and still get a lot done, I think someone has done this recently in fact

president Donald J Trump

Given their preference for hectoring young voters and progressive voters rather than giving them a reason to vote

Fucking-A. If you just sit around waiting for centrists to give you a reason to vote, you're playing the game all wrong. You already have votes. If you hate the candidates, go find better candidates and build something out of that. It's exactly how the far right took over the republicans. They organized and used their muscle in the primaries. Now all the Republican are scared stiff of getting primaried by the right if they get less than 100% ratings from certain groups.

how are "getting the committee assignments she wants" and "having a bill she sponsors assigned to a favorable committee" not good for her constituents

Because they don’t inherently have anything to do with her constituents (either ideological or actual)? Having your Rep chair the Armed Services Committee isn’t exactly changing your life (traditionally it just changes their donor situation).

Again, the only way the potential benefit - but starting with the coalition/impure post, we’re talking about people and issues beyond the horizon or AOC’s career.

Being a party loyalist would be great for her career, if she’s content to be a token progressive (or “socialist”) to be trotted our when necessary. To the people who have made her what she is, the benefit seems rather lacking. Which is why it’s telling that aimless can only frame it in terms of individual career advancement and value.

f you just sit around waiting for centrists to give you a reason to vote,

If you’d like to win elections, giving people reasons to vote is the entirety of your job.

If you hate the candidates, go find better candidates and build something out of that.

I believe that’s what Simon suggested that started this whole chain of posts.

Because they don’t inherently have anything to do with her constituents (either ideological or actual)? Having your Rep chair the Armed Services Committee isn’t exactly changing your life (traditionally it just changes their donor situation).

"Inherently" is doing some work here.

milo, you seem determined to believe that there is some avenue to getting what you want which completely rejects politics as they are presently constituted. those politics have been shaped over a period of more than two centuries of response to evolving political factors. they constitute the structure of political power today.

I get that the game is rigged to perpetuate power among those with power already, but more than once in US history large shifts of power have been engineered by the power of ordinary people organizing for change. Often this has been a matter of the powerless taking to the streets, but ultimately in the USA it has always come down to gaining and casting the majority of votes in elections, in Congress, and in state legislatures. The powerless have never yet toppled the government through revolution.

Tell me why this is a bad take, and what is a better one.