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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
That's a pretty big "if".
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.
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.
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.
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.