There's not enough eye rolls in the world for the overt simplicity in this belief. Whether or not Politico is a trustable news source, THIS is not the metric you can use to determine that when one of the people saying you are running "hit pieces" does that for every article that doesn't shower them with praise and considers the press to be the enemy of the people. It's just such an intensely naive statement, equating criticism from a tyrant wannabe who would destroy them at their first legitimate opportunity with criticism from literally anyone else.
It seems to me that AOC has not asked for a correction or a retraction of the story in question, only that she put Politico on blast on Twitter. Meanwhile, Politico has stood by the story.
Since when do we automatically side with politicians when they complain about journalists? How does AOC saying 'nuh uh' automatically discredit Politico, a site with a longstanding reputation for quality political news? That's absurd.
So first off, it doesn't "automatically" discredit Politico. From what I've seen in this thread, it is not a singular story that people have taken issue with them about. I don't read Politico so I can't speak to the reasons people are discrediting them, but there's a bunch of logic leaps here.
Besides, the person who responded to you was taking issue with the equally-absurd notion that we should somehow think Politico is somehow in the right just because they get detractors from both sides of the political spectrum, without consideration of the differences in where that criticism comes from or is motivated by.
seeing people who are normally vitriolically against any sort of criticism of Democrats from the left defend AOC has been one of the more peculiar patterns in the discourse of late. I predict it won't last.
The content of the criticism makes a difference, as does who it's coming from and which people are defending it, as... y'know, "people" don't behave as a hive-mind.
What I want is to run strong candidates for their districts. I want to win seats, and then we will test the waters to see what will have enough support to pass. I want a constituency that understands how basic government functions work so they can become more involved, and have realistic expectations.
I'm not even against most of her ideas, honestly, but it's going to be a hard sell for the middle of America. Throw me in the 'incremental progress is better than potentially no progress' camp. If that makes me a moderate, then so be it.
In today's politic, you need the POTUS, the House, and a 60-40 majority of *reliable* votes to get a single fucking thing of merit accomplished. How do we get there? Until we do, these conversations are largely moot.
I can't help but laugh when people such as yourself think we still have the luxury of being able to wait for incremental progress to add up to something meaningful. Being happier that you made a few chips with your chisel against the 1000lb. stone that's about to crush you to death than you would be by making sure it doesn't fall on you isn't being "moderate", it's being oblivious.
I can't help but laugh when people such as yourself think we still have the luxury of being able to wait for incremental progress to add up to something meaningful. Being happier that you made a few chips with your chisel against the 1000lb. stone that's about to crush you to death instead of doing more to make sure it doesn't fall on you isn't being "moderate", it's being oblivious.
And I can't help but to roll my eyes with responses such as yours... Because you offer no alternative, viable solution.
It's not a luxury. It's just reality. You have to work within the system to fix it, or it doesn't get fixed. It's designed to be deliberate and slow. What is your alternative.
And I can't help but to roll my eyes with responses such as yours... Because you offer no alternative, viable solution.
It's not a luxury. It's just reality. You have to work within the system to fix it, or it doesn't get fixed. It's designed to be deliberate and slow. What is your alternative.
We're running out of time to "fix it", so the choices are do things as they always are done and not get anything accomplished in time or try working against the status quo with the meagre hope that people will follow your example and make change happen but the likely outcome that such a hope doesn't bear fruit. In a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario when trying to do better, I'm always going to be damned if I do, because then at least I can say I did something. Irrespective of a need for "an alternative" that will solve the problem, it's still always the better choice to try something different, even with little hope of a positive outcome, than to spin your wheels getting nowhere doing things the way everyone else has without meaningful success.
Leaving out the fact that anything I propose as "viable" is subjective enough that you can wave it off as inviable based on your particular view of things, so there's really little point in proposing them.
And I can't help but to roll my eyes with responses such as yours... Because you offer no alternative, viable solution.
It's not a luxury. It's just reality. You have to work within the system to fix it, or it doesn't get fixed. It's designed to be deliberate and slow. What is your alternative.
You may recall that America itself came out of people saying "Fuck this system, we're fighting it tooth and nail and making a new one".
If anything, I would argue it is not AOC's job to fall in line with what already has proven to not work, but rather the rest of the establishment Democrats' job to fall in line with the goddamn future and stop accepting things as they are.
And I can't help but to roll my eyes with responses such as yours... Because you offer no alternative, viable solution.
It's not a luxury. It's just reality. You have to work within the system to fix it, or it doesn't get fixed. It's designed to be deliberate and slow. What is your alternative.
And I can't help but to roll my eyes with responses such as yours... Because you offer no alternative, viable solution.
It's not a luxury. It's just reality. You have to work within the system to fix it, or it doesn't get fixed. It's designed to be deliberate and slow. What is your alternative.
Ok, in your reality we die as a species before the end of the next century. Keep rolling your eyes and scoffing at those who dare to try stop the sinking ship while you insist that emptying a thimble of water every decade is good enough. We are rapidly approaching the end with climate change alone.
We're running out of time to "fix it", so the choices are do things as they always are done and not get anything accomplished in time or try working against the status quo with the meagre hope that people will follow your example and make change happen but the likely outcome that such a hope doesn't bear fruit. In a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario when trying to do better, I'm always going to be damned if I do, because then at least I can say I did something. Irrespective of a need for "an alternative" that will solve the problem, it's still always the better choice to try something different, even with little hope of a positive outcome, than to spin your wheels getting nowhere doing things the way everyone else has without meaningful success.
Leaving out the fact that anything I propose as "viable" is subjective enough that you can wave it off as inviable based on your particular view of things, so there's really little point in proposing them.
I feel like the 'blow it all up' crowd are actually a lot closer in thought process to the evil centrists than you may think.
Yeah, we need to change things and change them soon. I would argue the best chance we have to do that is stack the Congress with Democrats, get the majority, and start passing major legislation.
And your last sentence, honestly, sounds like defeatist bullshit. 'Well, you're not going to like what I propose anyway... So why bother'. I've heard multiple responses like that in this very thread. And not one with a viable solution on how to get to that point. Do you co-opt violent revolution? Instilling a dictatorial, 'People's Republic of the United States'? How exactly do you propose that we make radical changes?
At least another poster offered something: supporting more grass-roots, up and coming young Democrats. Great! If you have a district in which they can win, support away. Will that work in West Virginia? In Indiana? I'm not so sure.
Finally, while I was canvassing, phonebanking, and donating to my candidate in the last midterm, what were you doing?
Ok, in your reality we die as a species before the end of the next century. Keep rolling your eyes and scoffing at those who dare to try stop the sinking ship while you insist that emptying a thimble of water every decade is good enough. We are rapidly approaching the end with climate change alone.
And what are you doing to see realize this change that we so desperately need? I would love to hear your solution. Try to stop the sinking ship... With what?? Give me more than empty platitudes.
And I can't help but to roll my eyes with responses such as yours... Because you offer no alternative, viable solution.
It's not a luxury. It's just reality. You have to work within the system to fix it, or it doesn't get fixed. It's designed to be deliberate and slow. What is your alternative.
And people wonder who rolled out the mat for fascists and white supremacists...
need it be reminded that AOC is within the "system", but there is no historical evidence to suggest that in order to enduce change you need to comform to every particular norm of a system that is clearly broken, the norms are in most cases there to upkeep the current order rather than change it. That you cannot critique the party from within is a misunderstanding of the very word politics. It is clear AOC does not see other democrats as the enemy, the enemy is clearer to her than to most of those who still post-trump clamor to reach across the isles to grab the pasty hands of the white supremacists. But this does not mean she cannot challenge and dissent in order to challenge a group who has become so comfortable in their norms that they have lost touch with society outside. Democrats are part of the system that got Trump elected, they should be glad that they are being challenged from within to reform - they should revel every socialist latina and muslim POC that call them on their ingrained bullshit on Twitter - that keep them on their toes - because if they donot reform and think they can win on a merely anti-Trump agenda without any widening horizons of alternative imaginations to the "system" - they are well fucked.
You keepon saying you clamor for more than empty platitudes, yet the refutal of the fairly non-radical New Green Deal and the common aghast when suggesting a 70% marginal tax for the elites to fund this it is refuted with nothing but platitudes shows where the democrats stand on incremental change. It is not as she called for a revolution, she is not a socialist after all.
I feel like the 'blow it all up' crowd are actually a lot closer in thought process to the evil centrists than you may think.
Yeah, we need to change things and change them soon. I would argue the best chance we have to do that is stack the Congress with Democrats, get the majority, and start passing major legislation.
And your last sentence, honestly, sounds like defeatist bullshit. 'Well, you're not going to like what I propose anyway... So why bother'. I've heard multiple responses like that in this very thread. And not one with a viable solution on how to get to that point. Do you co-opt violent revolution? Instilling a dictatorial, 'People's Republic of the United States'? How exactly do you propose that we make radical changes?
At least another poster offered something: supporting more grass-roots, up and coming young Democrats. Great! If you have a district in which they can win, support away. Will that work in West Virginia? In Indiana? I'm not so sure.
Finally, while I was canvassing, phonebanking, and donating to my candidate in the last midterm, what were you doing?
And what are you doing to see realize this change that we so desperately need? I would love to hear your solution. Try to stop the sinking ship... With what?? Give me more than empty platitudes.
Campaigned for Katie Porter and got her to replace a Republican Representative in the House of Representatives. So first of all can it with the "I did my work within the system" moral superiority attitude.
Second of all the solution within the system is to reexamine why democrats and their messaging don't get through to the public. Why do popular ideas that are popular and good for the citizens are rejected and even hated? The answer is that democrats have always been horrible at the message, letting Republicans control the messaging of the politics despite the reality being far different. And how to we change that? By changing how that message is delivered. And no, that doesn't mean making a Fox News for the Left. It does mean changing because we cannot only win when a Republican does a disastrous job and then spend the democrat wins making incremental changes that will maybe fix a quarter of it while being so terrible at messaging that a Republican gets voted in again and makes things worse.
Third, if this refuses to happen or if people continue to scoff at the people suffering and dying will pretending that everything is fine, then yes, more drastic solutions will be considered. The democrats cannot pretend that their stepping on the necks of populace while saying the other side will stomp you is a good messaging strategy. Things are reaching a boiling point and if things cannot be done quickly enough, something drastic will happen. And if you think waiting a twidling your thumbs for another 50 years is the only answer, than we are at a point where all we can do is watch the world die.
Second of all the solution within the system is to reexamine why democrats and their messaging don't get through to the public. Why do popular ideas that are popular and good for the citizens are rejected and even hated? The answer is that democrats have always been horrible at the message, letting Republicans control the messaging of the politics despite the reality being far different.
Have you considered the possibility that lots of "the citizens" are just really racist and don't want ideas that will help people of color, even if they would also benefit?
The historical evidence seems stronger for that theory.
Have you considered the possibility that lots of "the citizens" are just really racist and don't want ideas that will help people of color, even if they would also benefit?
The historical evidence seems stronger for that theory.
The Democrats were the only ones with the ability who fought Trump and the GOP off. The socialist champion couldn't get past a centrist to the nomination and the socialists who specialise in solutions outside politics were irrelevant to the conversation.
need it be reminded that AOC is within the "system", but there is no historical evidence to suggest that in order to enduce change you need to comform to every particular norm of a system that is clearly broken, the norms are in most cases there to upkeep the current order rather than change it. That you cannot critique the party from within is a misunderstanding of the very word politics. It is clear AOC does not see other democrats as the enemy, the enemy is clearer to her than to most of those who still post-trump clamor to reach across the isles to grab the pasty hands of the white supremacists. But this does not mean she cannot challenge and dissent in order to challenge a group who has become so comfortable in their norms that they have lost touch with society outside. Democrats are part of the system that got Trump elected, they should be glad that they are being challenged from within to reform - they should revel every socialist latina and muslim POC that call them on their ingrained bullshit on Twitter - that keep them on their toes - because if they donot reform and think they can win on a merely anti-Trump agenda without any widening horizons of alternative imaginations to the "system" - they are well fucked.
Nobody is saying she can't critique the party from within, or reform it. I hope she does, but we have to be realistic here. She hasn't got the power to do it by herself. She needs more than her six allies, too. You're right she can challenge how things are done, she does raise good arguments with those activities. The sticking point is I'm doubtful she's got the influence to do what you're saying. Shouting at her compatriots isn't the answer here, otherwise she'd have a growing influence already and have more allies by now, so where are they? Where is this change I hear so much about? It has been a week, so I'm not expecting much but show me something tangible - it's not like she's been doing nothing for months.
Political systems aren't reformed that quickly. You get that from violent revolutions but AOC isn't leading one.
They're offering something to stop Trump: their agenda is to help stop cheating in elections, stop corruption, healthcare and are pursuing various leads against Trump and the GOP in congress.
What's AOC offering that has a realistic chance of happening in the real world? That's the crux here, the socialists just got into the political game after spending decades outside of it, and failed to raise the political capital inside the system to build influence to get what they want. It's going to take a long time for them to catch up to the liberals and centrists, and that's not anyone's fault aside from the socialists. They're not kings and queens who got anointed in congress, they're on the bottom rung like any new recruit and are forced to work with what they have like everybody else. Having unrealistic expectation isn't going to alter this fact, I wish they did have the influence you're talking about so I could agree with you. But they don't or we'd have seen signs of its existence by now.
You keepon saying you clamor for more than empty platitudes, yet the refutal of the fairly non-radical New Green Deal and the common aghast when suggesting a 70% marginal tax for the elites to fund this it is refuted with nothing but platitudes shows where the democrats stand on incremental change.
Do you know why the Green Deal sputtered? AOC lacked the influence to do it against the forces against her, and you want unto believe she has the power to radically reform the Democratic party and politics itself? How? If she can't get a simple bill passed how is she supposed to do all that?
The empty platitudes include the Green Deal. It's DOA right now. Now what? What is the plan here?
It is not as she called for a revolution, she is not a socialist after all.
I feel like the 'blow it all up' crowd are actually a lot closer in thought process to the evil centrists than you may think.
Yeah, we need to change things and change them soon. I would argue the best chance we have to do that is stack the Congress with Democrats, get the majority, and start passing major legislation.
That only works if said Democrats are actually invested in doing that. The fact that you yourself have said that the best we can hope for from them is incremental change is counter to your suggestion.
And your last sentence, honestly, sounds like defeatist bullshit. 'Well, you're not going to like what I propose anyway... So why bother'. I've heard multiple responses like that in this very thread. And not one with a viable solution on how to get to that point. Do you co-opt violent revolution? Instilling a dictatorial, 'People's Republic of the United States'? How exactly do you propose that we make radical changes?
At least another poster offered something: supporting more grass-roots, up and coming young Democrats. Great! If you have a district in which they can win, support away. Will that work in West Virginia? In Indiana? I'm not so sure.
Finally, while I was canvassing, phonebanking, and donating to my candidate in the last midterm, what were you doing?
I'm not an American, so I can't do anything about your politics except speak on them. Here at home in Canada, I've been engaged in multiple electoral reform campaigns (including sowing the seeds for one within my own province) to remove the near-necessity for politicians to satisfy the needs of centrists and moderates to get elected that cause the lack of motion on urgent issues. I would say that could be a key starting point for resolving the same issue in US politics, so that if the Democrats won't back away from centrism and making weak efforts to solve disastrous problems, another party can come up in its place and have a real shot at power.
In addition, in case you weren't aware, our Prime Minister (who is leader of our centre-left party) is currently being raked over the coals by progressive voters (many of whom likely voted for him) for buying a pipeline project and insinuating that it's the only way they could stimulate the economy at the same rate. We're standing up in huge numbers and telling our progressive politicians (be they progressive in name only or otherwise) that they can't have it both ways anymore now that they're in power.
But I do appreciate the light insinuation that I've been sitting on my hands and doing nothing. Thanks for that.
I don't engage in "what's the alternative" discussions very often because, whether you like it or not, 99 times out of 100, the people who use them in retort are looking to strike you down as being wrong about how you intend to resolve things at best or looking to dismiss you as a kook outright at worst. And talking down AOC's decision to win people in power to her values from inside the halls of power as the wrong or naive tactic doesn't exactly win you much benefit of the doubt that you weren't one of those people, y'know?
We don't have time for incrementalism. We need change now.
Many of the major cities of the world will be underwater in our lifetimes if we don't change now.
There WAS time for incrementalism. I'd even argue if Hillary had been elected, there'd have still been time for it, albeit, accelerated past what oil-money-greased hands of many Dems would be comfortable with.
Now? No. Sorry. We need immediate action. If you wanted incrementalism, should've been doing it throughout the 90s and 00s instead of in November 20-fucking-16 only to have it immediately be undone by the most idiotic man to sit in the White House.
We need to and should push for immediate action on climate change, and should, if we don't want a bunch of Turbo-Hitlers to pop up in every corner of the world circa 2050 in response to tens-of-millions-strong forced migration and the economy collapsing in on itself. And it's not a big leap to say we need to do that, well... then other issues should have immediate action as well.
It's not an issue of if it'll work or not. Meager change now means nothing will actually effectively change, as the Right and the corporations will adapt to the changes and make things just as bad as before, just slightly different. So if we try, and pushing major change doesn't work, well, at least we tried, and it has the EXACT same longterm effect of far-too-late "incremental change". And if we try, at least we're better than our forebears who did nothing.
We don't have time for incrementalism. We need change now.
Many of the major cities of the world will be underwater in our lifetimes if we don't change now.
There WAS time for incrementalism. I'd even argue if Hillary had been elected, there'd have still been time for it, albeit, accelerated past what oil-money-greased hands of many Dems would be comfortable with.
Now? No. Sorry. We need immediate action. If you wanted incrementalism, should've been doing it throughout the 90s and 00s instead of in November 20-fucking-16 only to have it immediately be undone by the most idiotic man to sit in the White House.
We need to and should push for immediate action on climate change, and should, if we don't want a bunch of Turbo-Hitlers to pop up in every corner of the world circa 2050 in response to tens-of-millions-strong forced migration and the economy collapsing in on itself. And it's not a big leap to say we need to do that, well... then other issues should have immediate action as well.
It's not an issue of if it'll work or not. Meager change now means nothing will actually effectively change, as the Right and the corporations will adapt to the changes and make things just as bad as before, just slightly different. So if we try, and pushing major change doesn't work, well, at least we tried, and it has the EXACT same longterm effect of far-too-late "incremental change". And if we try, at least we're better than our forebears who did nothing.
I agree with you. I acknowledge the dangers here in not moving fast enough to save us. We need to move now, do big things and do it right ASAP.
This is a misunderstanding, the disagreement isn't about whether the incrementalism isn't the solution, it's not. The crux of the issue here is that the opposition hasn't presented a tangible plan to overcome the system or radically reforming Democratic party from within ASAP. For this to be true there needs to be evidence that the Justice Democrats, including AOC, are capable of doing what you're saying. Where is this evidence? People in the Democrats saying their afraid of her is too vague, and the implication is not that they fear her power in the halls of congress, it's from online reprisals.
This is about strategy and logistics, neither of which have been explained throughly by the opposition while my side can get into the details of why this doesn't work and we'd be backed up by several staffers and politicians with experience in the Democratic party itself. For an opposition to succeed requires there to be an opposition which has bigger resources and an actual realistic plan to 1) radically reform the Democrats, and 2) use the Democrats as your proxies to solve the climate problems ahead of us which is a tremendously difficult task to do, let alone both. So I'm going to ask: how are they going to do this and win?
As the Justice Democrats are your selected advocates, what have they done to convince you they can do this? If anyone else has other forces outside politics suited to this task please speak up, get them in on this. Show me their tangible results of their power to implement the change you're arguing for.
Climate change is a serious issue which does need to be addressed as a bigger priority for the Democrats. But for this issue to be addressed seriously requires serious, realistic and achievable solutions by parties which can do that for us. The moderates have the advantage of discussions like this as their power is tangible, their influence is felt everywhere in politics and we can point to what they will do. Your side needs to do the same, they need to be just as prepared and being able to implement their agenda through political or non-political avenues to achieve their goals the Dems have failed us with.
Too many responses have been vague with addressing how to solve these important crises ahead of us. Nothing is getting solved with vagueness, shouting and a mysterious agenda that will wash over the political landscape changing everything to save us that somehow involves AOC. You've said it yourself, now is the time for action - so what is this action you speak of? Who is going to save us if the Democrats, as they current are, can't and how are they going to do do it?
Have you considered the possibility that lots of "the citizens" are just really racist and don't want ideas that will help people of color, even if they would also benefit?
The historical evidence seems stronger for that theory.
Yes, there are a bunch of racists who refuse to help minorities even while they themselves are dying. Glad you are so quick to blame everything solely to that and then even quicker to write everything off and demand the world dies in favor of slow "incremental change". You guys are so horrible at selling something. And no, I'm not saying you need to court these people in by saying we will deny minorities the changes we need (and before you ask, I'm Asian so please fuck off with that preemptive "you must be white" nonsense you are writing). You want to know how the republicans hoodwinked their voter base? By tying everything to that racial fear. Republicans need protection in the border because the evil Mexicans are invading. Republicans need to give tax cuts to the wealthy because they have convinced the base that they are the wealthy while anyone not white is the poor. They have so integrated the racism of the Republican Party to the policy of the Republican Party that the two are intertwined.
Yet, apparently, the solution is to just reach across the aisle in attitudes of unity just to get an inch when we need to be running miles. And whenever someone who actually gets the attention of the people comes along, they clearly don't get it and wish they fail or fall in line. Or even better, be condescending to them so they flee to the other party. One of the worst ways to convince someone is to declare that you are right and they are wrong. You have to convince themselves that your way is right by making him believe that he himself came to that conclusion. This is how Republicans used the inherent racism of the Republican party to convince them to do deals against their own interest. By linking the struggles they have to anyone not white. The solution is to link that to something else. In the Justice Democrats case, the solution is to link it with lobbyists and donors.
Gah, I know you already think I'm too stupid so it's worse that I can't explain it to you but the way to actually change the nation is to control the message and the only way to do that is to remove the stranglehold Fox News has on the nation by changing the link racism has to politics.
I agree with you. I acknowledge the dangers here in not moving fast enough to save us. We need to move now, do big things and do it right ASAP.
This is a misunderstanding, the disagreement isn't about whether the incrementalism isn't the solution, it's not. The crux of the issue here is that the opposition hasn't presented a tangible plan to overcome the system or radically reforming Democratic party from within ASAP. For this to be true there needs to be evidence that the Justice Democrats, including AOC, are capable of doing what you're saying. Where is this evidence? People in the Democrats saying their afraid of her is too vague, and the implication is not that they fear her power in the halls of congress, it's from online reprisals.
This is about strategy and logistics, neither of which have been explained throughly by the opposition while my side can get into the details of why this doesn't work and we'd be backed up by several staffers and politicians with experience in the Democratic party itself. For an opposition to succeed requires there to be an opposition which has bigger resources and an actual realistic plan to 1) radically reform the Democrats, and 2) use the Democrats as your proxies to solve the climate problems ahead of us which is a tremendously difficult task to do, let alone both. So I'm going to ask: how are they going to do this and win?
As the Justice Democrats are your selected advocates, what have they done to convince you they can do this? If anyone else has other forces outside politics suited to this task please speak up, get them in on this. Show me their tangible results of their power to implement the change you're arguing for.
Climate change is a serious issue which does need to be addressed as a bigger priority for the Democrats. But for this issue to be addressed seriously requires serious, realistic and achievable solutions by parties which can do that for us. The moderates have the advantage of discussions like this as their power is tangible, their influence is felt everywhere in politics and we can point to what they will do. Your side needs to do the same, they need to be just as prepared and being able to implement their agenda through political or non-political avenues to achieve their goals the Dems have failed us with.
Too many responses have been vague with addressing how to address these important crises ahead of us. Nothing is getting solved with vagueness, shouting and a mysterious agenda that will wash over the political landscape changing everything to save us that somehow involves AOC. You've said it yourself, now is the time for action - so what is this action you speak of? Who is going to save us if the Democrats, as they current are, can't and how are they going to do do it?
I admit I myself don't have an exact answer, I'm new to discussing politics. But I do know what isn't the answer, and the answer isn't turning the hypothetical knob of burning up fossil fuels slightly down to 8 or 9 only to have corporate hands then crank it back up to 10 once they've made proper concessions.
And if the current Democrats don't themselves come up with a plan that can properly stem human-borne climate change, then we need to primary them out, period.
I admit I myself don't have an exact answer, I'm new to discussing politics. But I do know what isn't the answer, and the answer isn't turning the hypothetical knob of burning up fossil fuels slightly down to 8 or 9 only to have corporate hands then crank it back up to 10 once they've made proper concessions.
That's fair. My frustration about lack of solutions isn't aimed at you, just that I expect better of "opposition" who should be the steps ahead of things like this. You should be able to find politicians, or wonks or political operatives you agree with to cite as what to do about this. They are the ones who are going to make this happen, and if they can't we're all fucked.
I recommend political channels like The Majority Report, they are very informative and you'll find lots of illuminating information on American politics there.
And if the current Democrats don't themselves come up with a plan that can properly stem human-borne climate change, then we need to primary them out, period.
That's been tried, your side got 7 in. AOC is one of them. The solution to things is not simply primarying people, the Justice Dems severely need to up their game within congress itself or it doesn't matter how many people they get to win they'll all be outwitted and outgunned by the opposition because they know how to play this game and the JD's don't. This is about governing, not winning campaigns.
Yes, there are a bunch of racists who refuse to help minorities even while they themselves are dying. Glad you are so quick to blame everything solely to that and then even quicker to write everything off and demand the world dies in favor of slow "incremental change".
I don't recall doing that. Are you arguing with somebody else?
You made a claim -- that the reason people don't vote for Democrats even though Democrats have popular policies is that they're bad at messaging.
I just don't think that claim is true. I think it represents a kind of magical thinking -- a good progressive party would be popular because progressivism is good, but this one isn't, therefore they must be incompetent.
In reality, the progressive party is also the party of diversity and plurality and those are just really unpopular with lots of Americans. We don't need to make up a bunch of unprovable postulates about competence! We need to recognize the reality of American politics, which have been built around arguments over white supremacy literally since the country was founded.
Gah, I know you already think I'm too stupid so it's worse that I can't explain it to you but the way to actually change the nation is to control the message and the only way to do that is to remove the stranglehold Fox News has on the nation by changing the link racism has to politics.
I don't think you're stupid per se but it's weird that you wrote all this stuff that doesn't pertain to the actual response you got. I would certainly like to get rid of racism in America. I'm not convinced that the way to do this is by redirecting racial animus against rich people. I mean, if I thought it would work, that would be fine, but it seems to suggest a rather arbitrary aspect to cultural bigotry, like they just need to hate somebody and we can just try to point them at somebody else. That is not really how white supremacy, patriarchy, etc., function, so I don't really see why you think it would work. Which is not to say people should not be angry at rich people for monopolizing the fruits of society. Just that you can't hot-swap racism.
Ya know, that reminds me of what Martin Luther King said about the white moderates who desire order above all things and how he felt they were a bigger threat to civil rights than member of the KKK.
"We" can't pass any major legislation without Republican support... Unless, you know, millennials actually understood how the fucking government worked and voted in more Democrats. Instead of blaming them for not passing the legislation that millennials actually want, but are too lazy to vote for.
Anecdotal, I know... But I worked with a hardcore Sanders supporter prior to the 2016 election. She talked about him non-stop, watched all the rallies, phonebanked for him and canvassed... When I asked her how any of his ideas would actually become law she literally had no idea. She didn't know how a bill became law, she just thought that the President could do all of that stuff by him/herself.
I don't know how common that scenario is, but it seems a lot of people just don't understand how the government functionally works.
People like AoC are incredibly important. They ensure that stagnation does not set in.
Even if she does not directly DO anything, by remaining a firebrand, she and her initiatives remain relevant and perhaps influence change.
The only thing I am concerned about is the potential for burnout or shutout. If she is smart--and she seems to be--she needs to start consolidating power by joining the most liberal wing of the house she can find.
Right. But where you many of us, is that's all that seems to be happening from AOC's end. The results being she's getting isolated and her bills are getting shut down rather than getting past the House. Any one of us can call politicians out, AOC's there to get the job done in congress which involves vastly more than insulting opponents on social media.
You are correct that people should support politicians that make things happen, my question to you is - what are politicians doing to make this a reality? AOC's short history has been being unable to do this with her current strategies. What in her tactics are going to change so when the next bill she supports succeeds? Where's the path to victory here to make sure we get results in the House rather than failures?
Part of being able to support the right politicians involves knowing about the issues they're fighting for, being ignorant in politics while Trump is in office is inexcusable. There are real issues where lives are on the line, the least a person can do is know the gist of what's on and trying to figure out where the ideas and policies are for the politicians they support and whether they're worth defending. If a movement has none of these ideas in the open how am I supposed to believe they'll have the political acumen to fix them better then moderates? Moderates have plans they can point to, what do you have to support your stance?
Right. But where you many of us, is that's all that seems to be happening from AOC's end. The results being she's getting isolated and her bills are getting shut down rather than getting past the House. Any one of us can call politicians out, AOC's there to get the job done in congress which involves vastly more than insulting opponents on social media.
You are correct that people should support politicians that make things happen, my question to you is - what are politicians doing to make this a reality? AOC's short history has been being unable to do this with her current strategies. What in her tactics are going to change so when the next bill she supports succeeds? Where's the path to victory here to make sure we get results in the House rather than failures?
Part of being able to support the right politicians involves knowing about the issues they're fighting for, being ignorant in politics while Trump is in office is inexcusable. There are real issues where lives are on the line, the least a person can do is know the gist of what's on and trying to figure out where the ideas and policies are for the politicians they support and whether they're worth defending. If a movement has none of these ideas in the open how am I supposed to believe they'll have the political acumen to fix them better then moderates? Moderates have plans they can point to, what do you have to support your stance?
I love AOC and these new politicians who are our age! He youth is a breath of fresh air and a great addition to the new democrat. Those old played out buzzards need to step down. And accept the fire AOC brings
The Democratic Party hasn't realize they have let the Tatankas, Savio Vegas, and Waylon Mercy's run amok for far longer than the fans have been interested in. AOC is Stone Cold Steve Austin, gtfo of her way and let her be great.
Indeed she has. That excuses her making mistakes, but your argument is for her to keep on making the same strategies which ended in failure. She's going to flame out within 2 years unless she gets victories, we have evidence the tactics she's utilising right now won't do this. So now what? What is she doing now that she shouldn't be doing to get the victories you need?
"Moderates" have neither the acumen nor the will".
Sorry, but attacking AOC now means you're part of the problem. Not the solution.
Moderates run congress, they're running or sitting on committees and they're passing bills and have made strides doing this in the shut down.
That wasn't an attack, it was constructive criticism. It was spotlighting questions which need to be solved by politics like AOC, which you're claiming she has. It's disappointing that you're not backing up your argument with evidence or facts to convince me and others like me should take your side you're on the winning team. Show me why I should get out of the way, and take a stand behind AOC.
My side is doing something, it's just not something you or I prefer, and AOC has shown so far she isn't capable of stopping them on their own turf.
Get out of the way of what? I asked specifically about this and got no response. Moderates fear change, but only if it materialises as a danger - when this doesn't happen they shrug it off because there is no threat to be afraid of, this is why I kept bringing up"action" in my previous post. Without the action to back up her words lack potency. If she did have what you're suggesting you'd have told me point blank, there is no reason to hide a display of political strength that powerful.
AOC's got 2 years to prove that threat is real, the clock is ticking.
not surprised at all she's got a spotlight on her and people are sweating. expect that to get worse as she keeps on rolling, which, make no mistake about it, she will keep doing.
This is exactly it. Though to play devils advocate she could probably get them to do what she wanted if she showed them she was a good fundraiser. The leadership is basically just the best earners.
She has all the making of being the millennial inheritor of the progressive part of the party, but with more people of color as her base. Plus she has an understanding of social media the rest of them lack. So she can be a threat for many years unless they adapt and come to terms with the politics she represents.
The only real mistake she is making is assuming she has to primary some new dems in for them to follow her. She could definitely twist the arm of a bunch of current dems to do what she wants.
Though her inability to understand the "lets negotiate and find a mutual conclusion" strategy makes sense because, like most activist, she lacks an understanding of the power of finesse when in comes to manipulating people into doing what you want. She is in spite of that lack of knowledge doing very wel lby just bludgeoning her own
She is for lack of a better comparison Marlo on the wire.
She needs proof of something to get her opponents to take her seriously as a the new vanguard of the Democrats. I'm not saying she has to do everything but her being utterly powerless in congress won't make anyone fear her when it comes to business there. Her whole schtick is being the radical to put the moderates into line. This is important to maintain her base, as well. She'll lose momentum if they think she was a lame duck. This isn't as affective on her compatriots who aren't in the spotlight like she is, it's a double edged sword.
She has all the making of being the millennial inheritor of the progressive part of the party, but with more people of color as her base. Plus she has an understanding of social media the rest of them lack. So she can be a threat for many years unless they adapt and come to terms with the politics she represents.
She has to be a threat first for this to work, right now all she's doing is scaring them on social media she's not doing that to their face in congress. Social media is a great advantage but that alone isn't going to help her do what she has to there. She has to be able to force them to adapt to her, and she still needs to figure out how to do that - right now her position is reversed, and her reinforcements won't arrive for another 2 years, unless she makes more friends and allies outside the JD's.
The only real mistake she is making is assuming she has to primary some new dems in for them to follow her. She could definitely twist the arm of a bunch of current dems to do what she wants.
Yup, and she needs to occasionally use carrots more often. She has gotten somewhere with that with the Green Bill. Pelosi is a master of this, what worries is that she'd refuse that advice since her supporters sent her to be a message rather than to govern in Washington. It's vital she got someone like Pelosi as a mentor to navigate congress' waters safely, with that she'll get more opportunities.
Though her inability to understand the "lets negotiate and find a mutual conclusion" strategy makes sense because, like most activist, she lacks an understanding of the power of finesse when in comes to manipulating people into doing what you want. She is in spite of that lack of knowledge doing very wel lby just bludgeoning her own
Agreed. This is her and the Justice Democrats biggest weakness. They didn't fully transition to the political side and it's going to block their plans on numerous levels unless they snap out of it and think like politicians since they are politician now. It's going to be a long 2 years for them if they don't assimilate properly.
She is for lack of a better comparison Marlo on the wire.
Indeed she has. That excuses her making mistakes, but your argument is for her to keep on making the same strategies which ended in failure. She's going to flame out within 2 years unless she gets victories, we have evidence the tactics she's utilising right now won't do this. So now what? What is she doing now that she shouldn't be doing to get the victories you need?
Moderates run congress, they're running or sitting on committees and they're passing bills and have made strides doing this in the shut down.
That wasn't an attack, it was constructive criticism. It was spotlighting questions which need to be solved by politics like AOC, which you're claiming she has. It's disappointing that you're not backing up your argument with evidence or facts to convince me and others like me should take your side you're on the winning team. Show me why I should get out of the way, and take a stand behind AOC.
My side is doing something, it's just not something you or I prefer, and AOC has shown so far she isn't capable of stopping them on their own turf.
Get out of the way of what? I asked specifically about this and got no response. Moderates fear change, but only if it materialises as a danger - when this doesn't happen they shrug it off because there is no threat to be afraid of, this is why I kept bringing up"action" in my previous post. Without the action to back up her words lack potency. If she did have what you're suggesting you'd have told me point blank, there is no reason to hide a display of political strength that powerful.
AOC's got 2 years to prove that threat is real, the clock is ticking.
We have seen the affects. Her bill died, she's alienated multitudes of colleagues in her own party and she's not being accepted onto committees. These are tangible things which have occurred. These aren't victories to repeat.
We have seen the affects. Her bill died, she's alienated multitudes of colleagues in her own party and she's not being accepted onto committees. These are tangible things which have occurred. These aren't victories to repeat.
The ear of her base is great to maintain her seat, I'm not disputing that. But there are limits to how far this goes, it'll be a while before she's tested them to that extent. Base's aren't there forever without momentum to their goals, they will want results or they'll look elsewhere.
Without successful strategy there is no policy implemented. She needs to get good results at some point, that's why she was elected. She's the symbol of the change her movement is spearheading. A symbol fades when it is unable to produce results that represents. The change has to come eventually, or show some signs it's credible. She can't intimidate her opponents into doing what she wants without backing up her bite on the House floor.
Being able to get on or lead committees will be a huge feather in her cap, as well. She can't do this without increasing her allies significantly.
I don't recall doing that. Are you arguing with somebody else?
You made a claim -- that the reason people don't vote for Democrats even though Democrats have popular policies is that they're bad at messaging.
I just don't think that claim is true. I think it represents a kind of magical thinking -- a good progressive party would be popular because progressivism is good, but this one isn't, therefore they must be incompetent.
In reality, the progressive party is also the party of diversity and plurality and those are just really unpopular with lots of Americans. We don't need to make up a bunch of unprovable postulates about competence! We need to recognize the reality of American politics, which have been built around arguments over white supremacy literally since the country was founded.
I don't think you're stupid per se but it's weird that you wrote all this stuff that doesn't pertain to the actual response you got. I would certainly like to get rid of racism in America. I'm not convinced that the way to do this is by redirecting racial animus against rich people. I mean, if I thought it would work, that would be fine, but it seems to suggest a rather arbitrary aspect to cultural bigotry, like they just need to hate somebody and we can just try to point them at somebody else. That is not really how white supremacy, patriarchy, etc., function, so I don't really see why you think it would work. Which is not to say people should not be angry at rich people for monopolizing the fruits of society. Just that you can't hot-swap racism.
Claiming that the democrats are horrible at messaging isn't some magical thinking, it's stating a fact. No, I don't think that progressive policies on they own are automatically popular. A policy lives and dies by how the messaging affects them. And currently the systems that works among Democrats in DC does not work in giving the populace a good message. Far too often, it lets the other side take control of the message and twist it until it's what the Republican voter agrees with what the Republican politicians want them to think.
And again, I'm Asian! I'm fucking well aware of how racist the godamn piece of shit country is so kindly take that "I need to learn about the fucking reality about this nation" garbage out of here unless you too were beaten as a child for having different goddamn skin! America is inherently racist! I am fucking aware of it! I'm also aware that swapping racism for class anger isn't a solution either. You can't substitute one for the other, but you can look at how the Republicans have done carrot and stick to convince the populace (and themselves) to vote constantly and repeatedly against their own interest. Every policy is designed to look as if it's attacking minorities while simultaneously looking to help them (even though it only hurts them as well). Democrats are horrible at this. They never come off as controlling the message or taking charge. And before you bring it up, no I am not saying they need to copy the Republican's playbook 100%. That is disastrous. No one needs a liberal propaganda machine. But it's high time that Democrats look at how messaging works if it wants to convince its own base to go out and vote. Because if our only recourse is to point at how bad the other side is, we are going to lose again when the next democratic president finishes his/her term.
I feel not criticizing Dems is why we have dumb ducks like Chuck Schumer as Senate dem leader when hes grossly incompetent. Aoc is as powerful as her popularity, as long as she can sway public opinion she'll have leverage regardless of how her colleagues may feel about her.
The ear of her base is great to maintain her seat, I'm not disputing that. But there are limits to how far this goes, it'll be a while before she's tested them to that extent. Base's aren't there forever without momentum to their goals, they will want results or they'll look elsewhere.
Without successful strategy there is no policy implemented. She needs to get good results at some point, that's why she was elected. She's the symbol of the change her movement is spearheading. A symbol fades when it is unable to produce results that represents. The change has to come eventually, or show some signs it's credible. She can't intimidate her opponents into doing what she wants without backing up her bite on the House floor.
Being able to get on or lead committees will be a huge feather in her cap, as well. She can't do this without increasing her allies significantly.
In fact, that's the only path. Non allies have different policy goals. Again, strategy has limits. At some point you need politicians who agree on policy
The ear of her base is great to maintain her seat, I'm not disputing that. But there are limits to how far this goes, it'll be a while before she's tested them to that extent. Base's aren't there forever without momentum to their goals, they will want results or they'll look elsewhere.
Without successful strategy there is no policy implemented. She needs to get good results at some point, that's why she was elected. She's the symbol of the change her movement is spearheading. A symbol fades when it is unable to produce results that represents. The change has to come eventually, or show some signs it's credible. She can't intimidate her opponents into doing what she wants without backing up her bite on the House floor.
Being able to get on or lead committees will be a huge feather in her cap, as well. She can't do this without increasing her allies significantly.
Transparency and maintaining principles goes a long way with the base she's cultivated, both within and outside her district (because let's get real, her district isn't going red any time soon and the party won't like the optics of pushing her out of her incumbent seat, so they won't even try). "Playing the game" the way you and several other Democrats want her to very likely has the opposite effect of making her look like yet another all-talk centrist shill willing to trade their principles to get the slimmest bit of good work done for the public. She gives up her fledgling base of support by forfeiting her principles in service of the political "game" for something that ephemeral because... why? So maybe people will play nice with her?
And what's to keep them from welching on that deal and taking the carrot off the stick? NOTHING? Gotcha. If she's not liked by her colleagues (with the evidence of that being 100% true being... tenuous at times), it's because they don't have her and the other Justice Democrats in their pocket where they want them.
There will come a time when the Democrats, even with their majority, will have a tight vote on an issue that has a fragile claim to being in the American public's interest (read: has big concessions to the GOP or their donors). If AOC, Justice Democrats and those she slowly builds to her wing of the party become the deciding voting bloc, THAT is how you "play the game" the right way, because then it's less a forfeit of principles but a deal done completely in the open air with the world watching how she has power to influence policy, the way she needs it to be.
It's not that difficult to see this being the case, there's not a single government in existence where this hasn't happened before. That's how names normally make the headlines. In AOC's case, she's already got the headlines, she just needs them to be for a policy win. Hell,for a good example, look no further than what John McCain holding the GOP hostage for a spell did for his legacy. Doing it the status quo way however, to keep the Republican comparison, she ends up looking more like a Susan Collins or Jeff Flake than a late-in-life McCain.
In fact, that's the only path. Non allies have different policy goals. Again, strategy has limits. At some point you need politicians who agree on policy
There are x members in the House, which needs the majority on board before it gets voted on the floor. Another matter is that bills require the Speaker's permission to get passage through the House to get voted on, this will be easier with Pelosi but she's not going to be in that position forever. This becomes significantly harder for AOC and the Justice Dems with a conservative leaning Dem like Steny Hoyer or Tim Ryan become the next Speaker. This is where compromise comes in, get those votes and everything falls into line - don't, and everything goes up in a puff of smoke.
Strategy does have limits, sure, but it is crucial to use that to expand the allies so she gets the most leeway with leadership positions and her bills get coverage so she can get legislative victories. The entire point of a strategy is to get as many allies as she can to agree with her policy, and she's not in a position to flex her authority and get spectacular results. All it takes is for her get x amount of enemies to outnumber her allies and she's done. Which I'd rather not happen.
Transparency and maintaining principles goes a long way with the base she's cultivated, both within and outside her district (because let's get real, her district isn't going red any time soon and the party won't like the optics of pushing her out of her incumbent seat, so they won't even try). "Playing the game" the way you and several other Democrats want her to very likely has the opposite effect of making her look like yet another all-talk centrist shill willing to trade their principles to get the slimmest bit of good work done for the public. She gives up her fledgling base of support by forfeiting her principles in service of the political "game" for something that ephemeral because... why? So maybe people will play nice with her?
And what's to keep them from welching on that deal and taking the carrot off the stick? NOTHING? Gotcha. If she's not liked by her colleagues (with the evidence of that being 100% true being... tenuous at times), it's because they don't have her and the other Justice Democrats in their pocket where they want them.
There will come a time when the Democrats, even with their majority, will have a tight vote on an issue that has a fragile claim to being in the American public's interest (read: has big concessions to the GOP or their donors). If AOC, Justice Democrats and those she slowly builds to her wing of the party become the deciding voting bloc, THAT is how you "play the game" the right way, because then it's less a forfeit of principles but a deal done completely in the open air with the world watching how she has power to influence policy, the way she needs it to be.
It's not that difficult to see this being the case, there's not a single government in existence where this hasn't happened before. That's how names normally make the headlines. In AOC's case, she's already got the headlines, she just needs them to be for a policy win. Hell,for a good example, look no further than what John McCain holding the GOP hostage for a spell did for his legacy.
Don't bet on all elements of leadership staying away from neutralising her, she's racking up a large group of people who dislike what she represents or personally insulted by her and there will be a time when they'll fight back when she's vulnerable. All Cuomo has to do is redistrict her area that cancels out her advantage and send in a lackey from the New York Machine and she's toast for 2 years. Thankfully he hasn't acted on that, and her endorsement of him may buy her precious time but this is a continuing Sword of Damocles over her career in that state as long as he and the NY Machine dominates that state. Is she stronger now then in the past, sure. Except that won't protect her forever unless she's able to make herself untouchable like Pelosi is, and she's nowhere near that level she's just beginning her career.
How she's cultivated her base has disadvantages which haven't been tested yet, she's a rock star. Which puts her in danger of losing them by taking the route I'm offering, which puts her in a bind since she has to be devout to their principles or do the work necessary to make their goals become reality and it's going to be incredibly difficult to find that balance to get both. Most politicians are able to cultivate followers which don't have rigid orthodoxy's so it's a smoother transition when they have to evolve to survive, this isn't a luxury she has which may make it extra difficult to maintain a steady political career over decades.
Her only path forward in achieving the goal she talks about (health care, climate change etc) is through this. It's unavoidable. That's how things go in congress to get things done. It's messy, involves working with the corrupt and the dreaded word compromise but that's what it's like to work in Washington to make her goals a reality. You've seen the results of not toeing the line, do you want a repeat of the Green Bill? Or do want achievements you can point to that will help people? I don't like it anymore than you do, they're a group of old people who are behind the times who need to evolve in the modern world. To do this requires participating in the system, because they own it. Insulting them on twitter isn't going to break that level of bureaucracy, just isolate her so she's a foot note in history rather than making it.
What's frustrating here is that you're telling me her base have no interest in her governing as a congresswoman. This is literally her job, her days of being an activist are long over. She's the congresswomen from the 14th district of New York City. Doing that requires being a politician. This has nothing to do with being a "centrist shill" it's politics. Go to any nation on Earth and it's all the same because how politicians and leaders in politics act is by navigating the system they belong to and shaping it in their image from the inside.
Her getting them to "nice to her" is a means to an end, she doesn't have to like or respect them but she needs to get them to agree to vote for her bills and allow her to get on committees if she ever wants to rise high in congress. It's like anywhere else where you're at a job and you want to go up the ladder. Once in those positions she's able to do more for her goals, and become a bigger force politically not just in pop culture or social media. The name of the game is power and influence, and in congress she doesn't have a lot of it currently.
They're Democrats, not Republicans. They'll usually abide by the deals, that's why the Democrats are able to work with Liebermann - he was a weasel but he was trustworthy enough that he could be haggled with to get his vote.
The people in the Politico article are Democratic staffers and politicians, which make her their colleagues. Two named people in the article where fellow New York congresswomen, and a Democratic congressman from Oregon.
Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.) is playing a key role. Like Ocasio-Cortez, Velázquez knocked off a longtime Democratic incumbent to win her seat, and they share Puerto Rican roots.
In private conversations with Ocasio-Cortez over the past few months, Velázquez counseled Ocasio-Cortez against targeting her Democratic colleagues in future elections. The two had a "long, long conversation" about the dynamics of Congress and Washington, and how there shouldn't be a "litmus test" for every district, Velázquez said in a recent interview.
"I think she needs to give herself an opportunity to know her colleagues and to give herself a sense of the chemistry of the body before passing judgment on anyone or anything," said Rep. Yvette Clarke, a fellow New York Democrat.
"She's new here, feeling her way around," added Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.). "She doesn't understand how the place works yet."
What's damning about this is that in theory they could be 3 votes in her favour when it comes to leadership positions and bills, something that will not be the case by her making them enemies needlessly. If they were persuadable to her causes, it's going to be harder to get them on board with supporting her in the future because of how she acted. The numbers will expand further if she stays the course she's on now, when she needs all the allies she can get in congress to do her work. This has nothing to do with corruption from what was said in that report, if the Justice Democrats react to anybody in the party critiquing them as corrupt enemies they may as well pack up their bags now and go home because they've destroyed any chances of achieving anything in Washington with those tactics.
Candidates like AOC do exist in other governments, who faced the same problems she does. They either burnt out, somehow go to the top spot, found methods to become invaluable to the party or all of the above. In the UK Corbyn comes to mind, he was a radical backbencher who became the leader of the Labor Party. The context for Corbyn is that for the majority of his time in the UK he was an obscure laughing stock for decades and he only got to the leadership position by playing the game in his favour when it mattered - and by exploiting how the Labor UK's leadership elections are structured which don't exist in the Democratic party.
She gets the headlines, the trick is getting the policy, which is what the argument is about. Without getting the policy made she can be in all the headlines she wants but it's not going to change an iota of the laws in congress. The status quo wins.
McCain voted with the GOP the majority of his tenure, despite his "Maverick" reputation, and only managed that due to events outside his control. He was no Joe Liebermann in getting his party to walk to his tune regularly. The Liebermann role might be an option for AOC, which gave him incredible power over the Dems. The downside is that to do this required being very good at negotiation and compromising from a position of strength. For now compromise and negotiation would inflame her base against her, so maybe not.
Also why are we pretending falling in line is going to matter anyway with Republicans controlling the Senate and the White House the next few years. Her main job right now is to keep the Dems moving left and keeps left wing ideas in the public mind.
