I think people are mostly pissed off about their head canon of what they think AOC is doing rather than what she's actually doing. She's one of the smartest people in the world, she got this.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Democrats to AOC "You aren't supposed to go after other Democrats" as they hope to get her to fall into line
- Thread starter Tovarisc
- Start date
Once it becomes clear that AOC is in the progressive wing and not the establishment wing ( which is obvious to anyone following her path to congresss and her allies), the many centrists on era will suddenly fall out of love and start attacking her.
Constantly seeking out bribes doesn't just affect policy. It affects ability to properly govern and represent.
Keep calling this shit out AOC.
Finally got around to watching Fahrenheit 11/9 and I was amazed at how brutally unflinching it was in attacking the current Democratic Party while specifically profiling AOC and making the claim that she and others like her are precisely what is needed for true reform and progress.
I sometimes wonder if the Democrats even realize how much they are hated within some progressive circles or if they understand that without people like AOC, Bernie, etc., they would lose millions of potential progressive votes.
I sometimes wonder if the Democrats even realize how much they are hated within some progressive circles or if they understand that without people like AOC, Bernie, etc., they would lose millions of potential progressive votes.
Who's fooling themselves into thinking she's the establishment though? I think people are well aware of that, they're just hoping she'll get reigned in. Which quite frankly is gross.
Moreover, it's not even a leftist vs. socialist vs. centrist vs. moderate thing -- a debate which I won't get into because it's not germane to my point. Instead, it's an efficiency of governance thing.
A representative cannot do her job if, as you said, she's constantly seeking donations. Moreover, even if it doesn't create legitimate conflicts of interests, it can create the appearance of ones. That goes for everyone from AOC to Abigail Spanberger to Joe Manchin.
It's impossible that it doesn't go beyond appearance of conflict of interests. You get supported with donations if politically aligned with donors. Even if candidates don't change their mind but had those views all along, it's still those views getting disproportionately supported.
Plus your views will be shaped by who you interact with. A recent study showed aides had incorrect views of constituent base. Guess which direction it skewed? Right.
I agree with you completely.
It's a little absurd that there are standards of ethical conduct for Executive branch employees, but none for the Legislature. For instance, I can't own Boeing stock and advise my clients on any acquisition involving Boeing. Nor should I be able to do so. And yet, there aren't even transparency requirements, let alone recusal requirements, for Congress.
I really like the theory of "the people who say they like AOC must be lying because that doesn't fit my mental model of who they are" that seems to now be infecting some of the factionalists around here.
Considering how heavily exposed she is, any move made against her is going to make headlines. And with so many people on the left liking her, Democrats move against her at their own peril. They may have already tried when Crowley would not remove himself from the ballot in her district after losing the primary (because, to be clear, if the DNC actually wanted to clear a path for her, Crowley would have been pushed aside); they'd seemingly rather have seen her lose to a Republican by leaving a vote-splitting candidate on the ballot than see her win.
Cuomo in particular needs the vote of every New Yorker he can get and pushing out AOC is a sure-fire way to lose a huge number of votes from New Yorkers who support her. Supporting Cuomo and Pelosi both makes it pretty disastrous if either her state or the Democratic Congress takes steps against her. They'll have to wait until she falls out of favour with the public before such a move is viable, which we see no sign of that happening any time soon.
Voters without rigid orthodoxy are called swing voters, it's OK to call them what they are. And like the name suggests, those voters are reliable until they AREN'T. I think voters who are steadfast in their expectations of their elected officials are less likely to stay home so long as their candidate of choice is present. And she won with 78% of the vote, need everyone be reminded, with likely not a single swing vote in sight.
That's a lot of extrapolation from one month in Congress, I gotta say.
No, I don't want a repeat of the Green Bill. But I don't want politicians who betray the public good, either, and there are plenty of those in spite of my distaste of them. But falling in line offers zero hope of things ever changing, so what good does that do towards changing things within the DNC? If the choice between 2 things I don't want has an option that seeks to upset the distasteful status quo, even if the result is the same, I'll choose that. Every. Single. Time.
You.... actually believe that? Wow. I don't even know what to say to that. To have this opinion, you'd have to deny that big-money donors and PACs exist. They're not shaping government in their image, they're shaping it in a way that ensures they get their backs scratched.
Neither did Ruth Ellen Brosseau, a 27yo Canadian "paper candidate" who was elected to the House here in 2011. In the first month of her time there, it was an open secret that no one wanted her there, let alone wanted her to succeed. She was mocked and ridiculed, even within her own party. That was her first month.
Now, 8 years in, after being re-elected with more of a vote share than she originally obtained as a "paper candidate", she is now House Leader for her 3rd-place party and represents the more leftist wing of her party. Rarely to never played "political games", but became a valued member of her party by being, in their own words, one of the hardest-working members of it and representing her constituency to the letter. House Leaders are expected to be experts in parliamentary procedure and help guide the party's ideals into legislation and through committees.
A lot can change after the first month, is what I'm saying. And there are several avenues that can be taken after the first month that don't involve betraying your constituency or your principles. Just ask Minister Brosseau.
The same Liebermann who campaigned against AOC? Just throwing that out there.
As a freshman Congresswoman who only has ever seen Democrats betray their constituents, what re-assurances would AOC have that they wouldn't pull that same trick on her that they do on their constituents? Silence on betraying a backroom horse-trade isn't the same as the party abiding by deals they made to those within the party, either.
That's a pretty big "if".
So your argument is that she has to play the game, even despite an admission there being examples where you don't have to? Huh.
Well, here's the thing: she's a headliner, which means she'll get donations for the party from voters who might not give to the Democrats in any other circumstances. This...
... paints a picture of what kind of voter she represents (the kind of voter the DNC desperately needs to keep power) and what kind of fundraising she can achieve. The more she can flex that muscle and show Democrats that they need her to stay, the more they'll want to play ball out of sheer necessity.
Also, her endorsement sure seems to hit a high note, if the result in the Kansas 4th District is anything to go by. Remember that, when she went to Kansas with Bernie Sanders and her appearance there required a venue change because of record attendance? Yeah, THAT is the muscle she needs to flex.
NYT, CNN or TYT should scan this place for new employees whenever they have an opening
So when AOC says that donor money is bribery you suddenly agree? Because she has said that even more aggressively than prior messengers . Did you suddenly change your mind on that point?
Centrists have rallied against many of the main political views that AOC expresses. So the model I have is based on experience.
Also, where did I ever said people were lying? I think people are just ignorant, biased, illogical, etc. I've seen so called liberals twist themselves into knots to defend the indefensible when applied to centrist candidate of choice. It's not lying, just classic hypocrisy.
You probably just didn't understand the views of the people you're describing here. My source is my experience of you not understanding my views ever.
Maybe. In any case when the final outcome of views is what I've seen, then either the views or the process are flawed at one point or another, even if I haven't been able to read minds and identify where exactly.
It's not a surprise that many liberals like AOC because many liberals are social democrats and AOC has show no evidence so far that she is not also a social democrat other than by calling herself a socialist.
If/when she ever mentions collectivizing the means of production, then we'll see what happens.
If/when she ever mentions collectivizing the means of production, then we'll see what happens.
Social democrats also call themselves socialists so actually it checks out perfectly
What does give me hope about AOC being secretly-"actually" - socialist is:
1. Her linking to an eco-socialist critique of the GND that called it out for having capitalist elements embedded in it
2. The Black Socialists of America guys going to bat for her
Still waiting for her to talk about that automation bill she wanted to write though.
1. Her linking to an eco-socialist critique of the GND that called it out for having capitalist elements embedded in it
2. The Black Socialists of America guys going to bat for her
Still waiting for her to talk about that automation bill she wanted to write though.
So far the media has really loved playing up that there is a massive division between AOC and the rest of the Democrats when so far there hasn't really been much tangible evidence of that.
Like the article is about how some Democrats don't like her endorsing primary challengers against them which is understandable, but that's mostly it. The article is even peppered with assurances from Democrats who have problems with her that they still personally like her. The response from establishment Democrats is to talk to her about her criticisms and how they feel they're misplaced and hurt the party. Which seems reasonable to me?
But of course the news media takes these minor issues and blows them out of proportion so progressives, leftists, and centrists immediately begin fighting amongst themselves for no actual discernible reason. Like reading between the lines of the article nobody actually did anything that's actually a problem.
Like the article is about how some Democrats don't like her endorsing primary challengers against them which is understandable, but that's mostly it. The article is even peppered with assurances from Democrats who have problems with her that they still personally like her. The response from establishment Democrats is to talk to her about her criticisms and how they feel they're misplaced and hurt the party. Which seems reasonable to me?
But of course the news media takes these minor issues and blows them out of proportion so progressives, leftists, and centrists immediately begin fighting amongst themselves for no actual discernible reason. Like reading between the lines of the article nobody actually did anything that's actually a problem.
Forget Era, journalists and pundits of every kind across the WORLD would be so orgasmic at the notion that they'd be gushing.
There's more nuance to that subject than you're suggesting. For one, The Congressional Progressive Caucus is a mix between establishment Dems and those who aren't - its founding members include both Bernie Sanders and Nancy Pelosi.
Of course she's in the non-establishment wing of the party, that's been clear from day one. Centrists and liberals aren't writing her off for that, why would they? All sub-groups within the party deserve representation.
Crowley was pushed aside, all losing Dems go on the Working Parties ballot when they lose, it's a weird New York thing. If they really wanted her gone he'd have ran against her with a lot more resources in the general, but he didn't. That's why she won against the Republican so casually, she wasn't getting any competition from Crowley.
Cuomo's last victory came by blatantly taking on AOC's wing and crushing Nixon with the full weight of his influence there to send a message. Not every Dem she's upset is going to be courteous, the Dems are a very large organisation and sub-groups and they don't all answer to Pelosi - like Cuomo. You'd be mistaken thinking Cuomo is scared of AOC. He's infamous for his corruption and being brutal with his opponents in elections. Huge numbers of New Yorkers support Cuomo, as well, and voters all over the state. She's more vulnerable on this front then you think.
I was talking about loyal Democratic voters who move from one candidate to others when they fall out of favour. Those aren't swing voters, swing voters aren't aligned to any party. She won in a tiny district with many variables in her favour, that's not set in stone. If she pursues positions outside that district there is no guarantee she'll be as safe. Like running for governor or mayor of New York, for instance.
It's a short analysis of her month after she got elected, which has provided more information than usual as she wasn't a politician who did nothing before being sworn in. This is informative to her path if she does not change her tactics, the more she changes tactics the harder it is to sense where she's go for obvious reasons. Except she wouldn't be "betraying the public good," she'd be fighting to get what you want in Washington. This is how the system is set up, she's not over turning that applecart in 2 years. I don't like it any more than you do. Falling one line is being able to slowly shift the political wins in her favour so she's not simply wasting her time in Washington. There is no change otherwise, I wish there was more for her to do in that situation. Maybe she'll figure a third option out to please us both, but who knows?
Upsetting people feels great, and it can be used tactically for congress, it won't give you the results you want in a work place like congress. We've seen some of the results where that leads. It can get worse for AOC by continuing that path, that's my concern. This is not going to help her elevate her career or achieve her goals.
I'm relieved you don't want a repeat of the Green Bill, neither do I. But your argument suggests you don't want her to change tactics? How is she supposed to get victories without shifting how she's doing things?
Of course they exist, and I didn't say it was easy but it is possible to accomplish things there. Believe it or not, not every politician is an untrustworthy, corrupt bottom feeder who can't do anything useful. Do they have flaws and are some corrupt? Of course. That isn't to say it's impossible to navigate the system in your favour. Yes, that involves back scratching - which is a tool AOC can use to get things she wants and favours of her own.
Brosseau is a very impressive politician, alright. Reading up on her history she was able to integrate herself into the party, including getting numerous mentors to teach her how to govern, including by Jack Layton - the leader of the both NDP and later on Canada's Official Opposition Party. She continued to have alliances with OPO leadership with Tom McNair, Layton's successor in both of the same parties, and was able to form a deep bond with all the women on the Hill while fighting for women's rights, regardless of their politics. This includes becoming friends with Conservative Transport Minister Lisa Raitt. Brosseau has many things in common with AOC, what she didn't have is a reputation among her own party as someone who alienates them or is hard to work with. There is no fear there, only acceptance and friendship.
I wasn't saying be identical to Liebermann with ideology, that's missing the point. It was how he was able to exploit his position to get massive influence on the party and how they made their bills.
She is one of them now, and I disagree that all the Dems have done is betray the constituency. Backroom horse trading is half the job where she works now, that's how deals are made and she has opportunities to get many goals began in that position. I don't know what you're going on in the last sentence.
You'd rather they just be out of her reach then? She's not going to get any bills passed by not bothering to try making allies of people who aren't in the Justice Democrats.
You had a bad example, Brosseau did know how play Canadian politics. She wasn't an outsider with no allies, she was constantly a close ally to the top leadership in her party, and among the party itself. That's exactly what AOC should do.
You need to stop thinking of simply maintaining her seat, that's a priority as a politician and a seperate issue of governing. Focus on the governing part right now. We've been discussing how she flexes her political muscles earlier and she was unable to show positive results achieving policy. She's there to govern, not simply maintain her seat. How she's going isn't convincing the entire party to play ball with her, it's having the opposite effect. She has occasionally made good moves at toeing the line, and getting good results like voting for Pelosi and managing to corral many politicians to vote for her Green Bill. I commend her for that! That's what I want her to do more of! That's governing.
That muscle is not going to appear in congress with her, there she's with the Justice Democrats and her staff. That's not the right kind of muscle she needs for pushing policy in the backrooms.
I appreciate your thorough response to my very long post. :)
Last edited:
That's a fascinating article, Helio. Analysing this her strengths lie in forcing the Democrats party left outside of congress, like being a big influence in getting various Dems running for president to shift into her direction through media pressure. There are parts which need a deeper examination of her strength.
How? What traditions has she "upended?" I read the article and they don't tell the reader. I'm supposed to be take it on blind faith she did these amazing, vague changes but not bothering to list those victories - so I'm doubting this happened.
The article spends the majority of the time telling us how AOC has changed the game in social media and outside congress, which I'm not denying is a very impressive accomplishment. What it lacks is what massive changes she's made governing in Washington, or ignoring that altogether.
The article omits how the Green New Deal is essentially dead now, due to opposition blocking it.
Didn't realise she got a spot on the Financial Services Committee, good for her! What's disappointing is the reporter skips over how she got it. What tactics worked there? All they do is mention that it happened and move on to something else, like readers couldn't be bothered hearing about how she accomplished it which could be important to her future winning politicians over to get a seat at the table.
Good to see she's got some wins I didn't know here.
No-one is arguing against her agenda that changes must happen, including among the centrists and liberals. This is about how to make that change happen as a congresswoman in the House. Without strategies to adequately smash the status quo from within, not solely on the outside, are the Justice Democrats formulating which will get big results uprooting the system itself, the Democratic party rules and norms, and achieving sufficient influence there to be the side which is giving orders rather than taking them. This is one of the biggest weaknesses they have, they're still in activist mode when they left that when they started running political campaigns.
I don't disagree. What I don't see is a realistic alternative. It's fantastic how they've uncovered how fucked up the process is from the inside, and are trying to adjust public opinion via social media. Which is fine from an activist perspective, but he and Cortez aren't activists anymore, they're in the system itself. Chakrabarti is too buried in the outsider mindset to look for other angles besides that of an activist.
What are their thoughts from a political perspective? How are they going to institute change to make this stop or be reformed? That's what's missing from this picture. They're inside the beast now, so what are they going to do about it that activists can't?
And like police unions, any "good" members cover for the bad ones. No one wants to give up their free lunch.
We've seen defense of this on this very forum and the last one when applied to candidate of choice
This isn't new and it's disgusting.
It's basically one of the two main reasons for the mess the world is in. The other being white supremacy/bigotry.
The only people who think that definately haven't been paying any attention to her. I know I haven't been following her so much as seeing her twitter posts and hearing her positions on things in threads here. Shes been pretty consistent at calling out everybody's BS on both sides of the aisle.
I think it's more about hypocrisy rather than ignorance being exposed.
I don't think it's that people haven't realised she's in the progressive wing - it's that they haven't had the right opportunity to either go on the attack yet. When she does eventually properly clash with the establishment wing, or she endorses Bernie, that's when the masks will slip.
what an incredibly bad take
it's not that people JUST realized that the republican party is loaded with racists, it's the fact that -- up until recently -- democratic leadership didn't mirror that understanding and largely pretended it wasn't the case by throwing around bullshit "work across the aisle" rhetoric
and no one is pretending that AOC "can do no wrong;" what the fuck are you even talking about
what's truly naive in this situation is acting like the democratic party and everyone comprising it (other than AOC) is inscrutable
Yup..
Luckily, as a WOC, AOC has some shields against the typical attacks and insinuations.
I was a little disappointed to learn her Chief of Staff (and founder of Brand New Congress) is a harvard grad, tech entrepreneur, and previously worked for a wall st hedge fund. Not trying to make too much of it, but imo it indicates an affinity for Young Turks-style progressivism rather than democratic socialism.
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2018/politico-power-list-2019/saikat-chakrabarti/
Absolutely no-one would be shocked by this. AOC not doing that would throw people for a loop. lol
Everyone knows she's in the progressive wing, that's not in dispute. People aren't liking her because they're ignorant of which section to the party she belongs, we're not Republicans. She's made that abundantly clear. It is possible for centrist and liberals to like her and agree wth her on various subjects, there are many who do this in this thread. I'm positive you can find various liberal and centrist politicians with positions and personalities you can like, as well.
edit: You know how I was going on about the politics in congress and how she does there will affect her leadership positions? This is what she's up against. It's Game of Thrones in there, and that's with someone like Pelosi as the Speaker. This is why it's super important for the Justice Dems to get good at navigating congress so they can elevate their status rather than staying on the bottom rung. They don't have the option of sitting this out, that's just surrendering the leadership to the centrists or liberals. They're there to make a difference, this is how to do it fro the inside.
Last edited: