What are Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Flaws?

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.

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

As I read what Simon said, he simply expressed the desire that AOC remove herself from the Democratic party. Nothing about forming a new party.

oh yes new party please

(and yes it would be very very very hard)

fuck reforming your genocidal slave state

... you like it how it is?

I'm getting really good at rapidly hopping btwn accounts xp

xps - then you are choosing a much more difficult road than the better-traveled road of becoming the major power broker within one of the existing parties and rebranding it to suit your needs.

xxp of course not I want it gone

"Inherently" is doing some work here.

Not really? It’s leaving open the possibility of a politician’s career advancement being good for their constituents - but they are not actually, directly linked in the way that was being applied.

fuck reforming your genocidal slave state

good luck waiting for it to wither away on its own

you are choosing a much more difficult road than the better-traveled road of becoming the major power broker within one of the existing parties and rebranding it to suit your needs

yup because that better traveled road goes fuckin nowhere the vast majority of the time

sort of like this thread lol

you seem determined to believe that there is some avenue to getting what you want which completely rejects politics as they are presently constituted

I’ve not suggested that. I’m just pointing out that your acquiescent model - waiting for them to come to you if you just keep plugging those pennies in eventually you’ll get your prize, etc. - appears to be completely divorced from reality.

If one advocates horse-trading votes, progressives collectively withholding those difference-making votes, then you’re anathema. Unrealistic, childish, purity politics, etc.

(It’s almost like people saying this shit don’t actually have any interest in progressive goals.)

that better traveled road goes fuckin nowhere the vast majority of the time

and the less travelled road goes nowhere nearly 100% of the time

The better traveled road ends with AOC as Pelosi and gosh why would anyone see a problem there?

when was the last time someone with AOC's politics, profile and talent actually tried it? (tbc I do not think she will actually do it)

appears to be completely divorced from reality

um, show me your powerful progressive organization, tell me its demands and its road map for accomplishing them, and I will bow to its reality when it makes the progress you envision. so far, you seem to have ideals and ideas, but they are not yet a reality

a robust political imagination at work

um, show me your powerful progressive organization, tell me its demands

I don’t know what this has to do with your belief that Democrats will start supporting progressive policy if you’re loyal enough.

as Twitter Nixon said recently, she's an ally of the party leadership, not a soldier

You are characterizing my arguments instead of citing them. You said "it's not a coalition unless you get something out of it". I agreed and used the metaphor of pennies in a gumball machine to make the point that it is an exchange. A coalition partner must also provide something of value in return. That is not "loyalty" that is demonstrating you contribute some of the coin of politics: votes, money, popular ideas. To contribute them, you have to control them.

So far, AOC has not proved she controls votes, in the same way that for example the Teamsters, or Moral Majority can claim to control votes. In terms of money, she has only begun to show that ability. Her power right now is in espousing ideas in a way that clearly excites people, and that sets her apart from most of the House members, who are as exciting as cottage cheese. If those ideas spread and are seen to help win elections, then yes I fully expect the Democrats to start supporting them. Because they want power.

power takes many forms

lots of unelected people have a lot of power. some of those people are even ex-politicians!

How many of those politically powerful people have no money, ideas, or votes?