Ocasio-Cortez and DU

[Stinky The Clown]

This post, while having her name in the title, is NOT about her, per se.

It is about the divisiveness the very mention of her name seems to stir up.

We are in an existential crisis, people. Is there any way we can restrain ourselves for the sake of unity? I, for one, do not wish to die under Russian control. Hyperbole? Think about what we're seeing and what's been happening.

U N I TY and V O T I N G and T U R N O U T are what matters.

Yes, we will see strange people running as Dems. Some will be sincere. Some will be opportunists. The proof will be in their actions when they win.

But they have to WIN first.

Internecine squabbling doesn't help with that goal.

When you see a post about a Democrat you don't like, let it go. The squabbling will change no minds. We can take up differences up starting in mid November.

And if you know posting a topic or comment will cause squabbling, restrain yourself, huh? Can ya do that? Just for now?

[elleng]

1. Thanks, Stinky.

[backtoblue]

2. K&R .

[John Gruff]

4. Some are pointing out she herself is divisive

Perhaps girls pointing out her divisiveness do not like divisiveness.

[sheshe2]

76. Girls?

[demmiblue]

5. I agree (but your post is kind of passive-aggressive).

"Yes, we will see strange people running as Dems. Some will be sincere. Some will be opportunists."

[0rganism]

22. and some, i assume, are good people

[demmiblue]

28. !

Now, time to trash the thread, as it is already being infiltrated by the dividers.

[ecstatic]

29. Lol! nt

[brush]

134. On both sides.

[SMC22307]

133. Exactly. That "strange" statement jumped out immediately. (n/t)

[Wounded Bear]

6. She won the primary in her district...

Good for her. Looks like she'll be a shoo-in for the Congress.

Again, good for her.

That doesn't elevate her to national prominence in my book. It's not like she's a candidate for speaker or something.

[pnwmom]

17. Right. But she's going around helping to challenge good incumbents in their districts.

That's what I wish she wouldn't do.

[kstewart33]

24. She is showing her lack of experience.

Ask Ms. Ocasio-Cortez her views on anything outside of her platform and she flops as she did in two notable televised interviews. She has good intentions but her only achievement to date is winning a victory over an established incumbent in one district.

She's showing her inexperience on the larger stage. Telling her future colleagues that they are too old to understand the issues is not wise or productive. In fact, it's stupid.

My hope for her is that she buckles down, and works hard to become someone in the House who can actually spearhead legislation to passage. If she does that, she has laid the foundation for a long-term and successful national political career.

I fear that she's in danger of reducing her career to a brief 15 minutes of fame. In this regard, Bernie is not helping her.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

80. She has a role - we don't need to set the bar skyhigh. She helps Dems.

I understand your concern, but I'll also say - there is room in the party for people who hold the banner and move the Overton window even if they themselves do not spearhead legislation. She'll vote for good bills.

Some Dems are policy wonks and policy drivers. Some are orators and ideas people. If OC is merely the latter, she'll have a role in the house.

"Telling her future colleagues that they are too old to [have a good perspective on] the issues is not wise or productive. "

Except it is, in fact, true.

[customerserviceguy]

87. I disagree

I think she makes the Democratic Party look inexperienced and naive. Yes, Democratic leadership is indeed aged, but age brings wisdom, if one's head is not up one's arse. Having a 28 year old tell 70-somethings that they're wrong looks pretty foolish sometimes.

I overheard someone in a bar today telling others that he hopes this "bucktoothed Bolshevik" is the face of the Democratic Party in 2020. Yes, there are not a lot of progressives where I live, but I fear that his main point that she will turn off a lot of mushy middle voters has some accuracy.

[lapucelle]

109. Now that she's done with the national endorsement tour and West Coast fundraising,

I hope we start seeing more of her in NY where we're trying to flip red seats blue. Our GE congressional efforts have been going on for well over a month.

[kstewart33]

120. Respectfully, I disagree.

We have plenty of idea and orator people among Democrats in the House. True leadership means actually getting things done.

Bernie is an idea and orator individual. In fact, he's exceptionally gifted as an orator. But he's not someone who would be an effective president because his record indicates that he lacks the ability to actually get legislation passed. To actually get things done. That's one reason why his candidates aren't winning the primaries with a very few exceptions. Bernie's Revolution is slowly dying because no one in the movement is skilled at implementation.

Perhaps OC's future is simply being a good legislator, voting for good bills. That's okay, but there are dozens of those in the legislature now on the Democrat side.

I think OC has more potential than that. But IF and only IF she stops trying to play on her singular victory, and study up on how to build respect among her colleagues in Congress, both from Dems and a few Repubs. Then, she's on her way to realizing her potential.

IMHO, she should stop her touring with Bernie, go back to her district, and resume her campaign for the victory that really matters, get elected, and then launch her career in the House.

[Tarc]

25. As long as all involved are on-board with supporting the eventual Democratic nominee

then primarying incumbents is a-ok.

Incumbents don't have an inherent right to a seat.

[Honeycombe8]

32. Not if you're knocking out an incumbent who could more easily win...

and is reflective of the district.

It's possible to get some progressives to vote for a progressive candidate in a moderate district, but then that candidate doesn't have a good shot at winning in the general election because the area is moderate. Or maybe just damage the moderate Democratic candidate, so that hurts his/her chances in the general election.

It depends on the district. We want to win. Now is not the time to try to change the Democratic Party to being more progressive in moderate districts. It is not the time.

There are those who don't care as much about the end game as they do about their own agenda. I'm not saying she is like that. I don't know much about her. But there are people like that. For them, they see a lost election as a win, if it pushes the Democratic Party toward their agenda. I guess Susan Sarandon could be considered an example of that.

[Kaleva]

34. I made the same argument back in 2010 but DU was all for knocking out Dem incumbents.

[Honeycombe8]

36. Well, that's a shame. I also tried to sound warning bells in 2016 about something else...

to no avail.

[EffieBlack]

64. That worked out really well for us, didn't it?

It's almost amusing to see people now wringing their hands over these races - particularly OH-12 - when the races were pretty much decided back in 2010 when a critical mass of progressives threw a fit because Obama didn't fart unicorns out of his butt, so they went on a rampage to kick out Democratic incumbents or not vote at all, thereby laying the groundwork for the redistricting and gerrymandering that resulted in solidly red districts that are virtually impossible for Democrats to win.

[Kaleva]

69. Hopefully, people here have learned from that and based on the posts I read, it does appear most hav

[Tarc]

38. That's too bad for them, then. Be a less sucky incumbent

[Honeycombe8]

42. This is an example of how to lose an election. Be careful of this sort of attitude. nt

[Tarc]

58. Be better in the primary, and win it. But also pledge to support the other person in the end

Bernie and the acolytes went south on the latter, that was the problem.

[pnwmom]

46. She's attacking many who are GOOD to GREAT incumbents.

I don't know what her point really is so it feels disruptive.

[pnwmom]

45. Subjecting good incumbents to primaries WEAKENS them and removes their advantage

as an incumbent.

It's not A-OK in an election where every single House seat is critical. It's not about an inherent right to a seat. It's about winning the general election in the most important vote in modern US history.

[Tarc]

57. Then they have to prove that they are the right candidate to lead the party

by going up against other Democrats.

[pnwmom]

61. They can prove it by beating their primary opponents, while still being roughed up and weakened

in the general election.

Competing in a primary weakens an incumbent and reduces their resources -- it doesn't strengthen them. Every dollar spent in the primary is one less dollar for the general. An incumbent who isn't subject to a primary starts the general off with a big head start.

[brush]

150. You're not getting it. It's about the number of seats in the House.

Last edited Mon Aug 13, 2018, 01:52 AM - Edit history (3)

Knocking out an incumbent Democrat in the primary for another Dem doesn't move the needle towards a majority in the House.

That's what the Nov. election is about—trying to gain the majority, the Speakership, the majority leader position, the committee chairs, the ability to hold hearings, issue subpoenas, do investigations (of trump and the repugs).

We can't do any of that now because we're the minority party.

And if the new candidate who knocks out a proven winner Dem incumbent loses the general election, we are even further back.

Gotta be smart and think big picture. The OR crowd, IMO, is using AOC and giving her bad advice as far as battling Dem incumbents.

The races where there is no Dem incumbent sure, go for it. They are fair game.

[brush]

149. Oh please. It's all about the numbers. Swapping an incumbent Dem for another Dem...

gets us nowhere towards a majority in the House.

Even if the new Dem wins we haven't gained a seat in the House, haven't chipped away at the repug majority.

Better to put that time, effort and money towards races where is no Dem incumbent.

Gotta think big picture if we want to take back the house.

[EffieBlack]

62. And she smeared at least one solidly progressive female LGBT candidate

[pnwmom]

63. Yes, she did. nt

[Control-Z]

84. Can you give me the source

or a link to that? I've stayed away from threads about her because I know I'll get myself into trouble if I say what I really think about some people and some things. Trying very hard to keep my impure thoughts to myself.

[EffieBlack]

88. It was in a fundraising email she sent out

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2018/7/18/1781722/-KS-03-Alexandria-Ocasio-Cortez-Teams-Up-With-Bernie-Sanders-amp-PCCC-To-Help-Brent-Welder-D-Win

Brent’s primary opponents include a banker, a corporate attorney, and a guy who emblazoned his website with the words “leading from the center” and boasts of “the courage to compromise.”

[SkyDancer]

91. How is that a smear?

[betsuni]

96. As everyone knows, calling someone corporate means they are compromised,

in the pocket of and helpless to resist the diabolical power of corporations. Corrupt. As if anyone who has worked for a law firm or a large company or corporation is morally tainted, mindlessly obeys the orders of their corporate overlords.

As if corporations sidle up to Democrats with sacks of cash money and a list of legislation they want passed and the Democrat says, okay. Silly, juvenile. But we all know what happens if you cross corporations. When they sponsor athletes and the athlete doesn't win a medal, they have them killed. When they donate to the arts and they don't like the operas or ballets the companies perform, they have them killed. Scary!

[brush]

136. BINGO! My issue also.

Swapping one proven winner Dem for another Dem who may even win does not gain us a seat towards a majority in the House.

We would have the same number of Dem seats.

Bad advice from the OR crowd.

Not smart.

[honest.abe]

7. Of course you are right.

But its hard to resist sometimes.

[Bradshaw3]

8. K&R

I agree. As Schmidt just said, this is the most importnat election since 1864. We have to stick together to save our country and anyone who thinks that is hyperbole needs to bone up on our country's history.

[left-of-center2012]

9. We're not supposed to attack Democrats

She's a Democratic candidate.

'nuf said.

[Honeycombe8]

33. It also depends on your definition of "attack."

I haven't criticized her. I don't know much about her. But I've seen comments about that I wouldn't call attacks. Pointing out that someone is doing something harmful to an election is not a personal attack.

[question everything]

43. My concern is that she, and Sanders, and Gillibrand

are being used by the other side to scare voters that the Democratic party is now a "leftist" "socialist" "light on fighting terror" etc. These are the independent, the former Trump supporters who now detest him and we need them the most.

No, running on a single payer will not bring votes; most are happy with their employer provided plan - until they are not. Running on abolishing ICE will not bring votes. Even running on impeaching Trump will not bring votes.

It will help if we have a solid plan that is not hijacked by the fringe.

I know many on DU see red at the word "center" or "moderate" but these were our most recent presidents. So Democrats will have to decide whether we are willing to compromise to gain power and to kick the Republicans, or whether we want to be oh, so pure, at the cost of being the permanent losers.

[hlthe2b]

53. and that is the catch22. I can't believe how low the threshold seems to be for "attack"

I wish admins would see what is getting alerted and hidden lately and consider giving some additional guidance. Seems anything even mildly critical--any discussion of alternative tactics, priorities or messaging-- is getting hidden and that is a problem IMO.

I expect my dog to give me unconditional love and I freely give that to her. While I support my Dem politicos, they don't have a right to expect the same.

[Honeycombe8]

59. I'm unaware of posts being hidden for that.

But yes, there is a line between legitimate criticism and a personal attack. I can't define it, but like the Rehnquist saying about porn, I know it when I see it.

At some point, you have to be allowed to voice an opinion on policy, direction of the party, an election, or whatever. Otherwise, what's the point?

[hlthe2b]

60. Exactly...

Oh, and yes.. some are being hidden though my vote likely had to be the one counter to the majority. If I am surprised that something was alerted, I frequently try to find the original thread to see what the outcome was. So, while anecdotal, I do think there is a lowered threshold.

[hlthe2b]

55. equating any and all "criticism" with "attack" has become the problem.

[OrwellwasRight]

135. hahahahhaha

That's exactly what the Hillary people said Bernie people were doing in 2016. Pot, meet kettle.

[hlthe2b]

137. On Bullshit

[OrwellwasRight]

141. Nope.

[hlthe2b]

144. Yes it is bullshit

[OrwellwasRight]

148. Look up some old threads. You'll find it.

Your one-word denials of the truth aren't particularly convincing.

[stevenleser]

98. So "holding feet to the fire" was only for the black guy when he was President?

Is that what the upshot is here?

Try googling "holding feet to the fire" (without quotes) in that search bar in the upper right and you will see 17,800 results, mostly during Obama's term about Obama.

If it was totally fine to find fault with Obama using a "Oh, I'm just holding his feet to the fire" justification, we can do it with any Democrat.

[beastie boy]

10. I see nothing wrong with the Democratic Party having a left wing. I welcome it.

As long as the said wing is fully aware that it cannot fly all by itself, and equally aware that the Democratic Party cannot fly far without it being attached to and acting in concert with the rest of the Party's body

[Honeycombe8]

39. I don't see it as being about the direction of the Party at this time. It's about winning..

It's about winning as many local, state, and national district elections as possible. You don't do damage to the one who would be the likely winner in the general election, or have more of a chance. It's all about winning.

The direction of the party discussion can take place after the Dems get a hold on the government in the country. Because if we don't get that, it doesn't matter much what the direction of the party is.

Susan Sarandon was happy with the loss, because her agenda was to create a revolution in the party. Fast forward, and we're about to get a Supreme Court that is ultra conservative and will set the path of the country far right for generations to come. So it won't matter much if the party becomes more left or more right. We won't be in control of much of anything....unless we WIN in November with a big blue wave.

[beastie boy]

65. Exactly my point

Thank you.

The diversity of viewpoints and ideologies is only useful when they have a chance of being implemented. Hence the left wing and the flying metaphor. A wing acting in its own perceived interest would only sabotage the entire act of flying. One will not get far unless all members of the Democratic Party (or anyone left of Kim Jong Un, for that matter) act in concert towards achieving a common goal. Once that is done, we can all brag about which wing has the ideologically superior plumage.

[Honeycombe8]

81. +1. nt

[OrwellwasRight]

71. If "it's about winning"

She won. Period.

[Honeycombe8]

78. Winning elections across the country. You know that that's the end game.

District by district, state by state. Winning by whoever is likely to win in each...moderate, center, progressive.

It's not about pushing the party to the left or right, at this time. That's what you do AFTER you are in power. If you're not in power, it doesn't matter.

Oh...and she didn't win an election against a Republican. She won a primary. People say she'll win the election, though, and I hope she does. But if she's working against Democratic incumbents because they don't think exactly like she does, she's making a grave error. It may cost the Dem. Party a win somewhere, and it will hurt her in her work on the Hill. Her job is to represent her district, if and when she wins. Not to try to convince a district in Wyoming to vote for someone she likes better.

[OrwellwasRight]

129. No, she is working in primaries to support different Democrats than you do.

That's what primaries are for. They are not an incumbent protection racket. No one has a "right" to a seat. They have to win it.

And if you are in power, and you don't protect people, then what is the power worth?

[Honeycombe8]

152. If she's working against a Democratic Party win, which is what she's doing...

if she's working against an INCUMBENT Democrat, then she is harming the country and the Democratic Party. That means she has an agenda that does not align with the Democratic Party, much like Jill Stein.

It's about WINNING for the Democratic Party at this stage. Not ideology.

[OrwellwasRight]

153. supporting a different candidate than you in a Democratic primary

is not "working against a Democratic party win" -- it is working for a different Democrat to win than the one you want. Don't get it twisted.

[Honeycombe8]

154. Yep, afraid it is. If she's working against an INCUMBENT. Incumbents ALWAYS have the advantage...

in a win, unless there is a huge scandal attached to the candidate & he refuses to step down. Otherwise, an INCUMBENT is favored to win.

If she's working against an incumbent, she's working against a Democratic win. Like Jill Stein was.

[OrwellwasRight]

156. Jill Stein was not a Democrat, she was a Green.

The primaries are a time for Democrats to decide amongst themselves who they want to go to the general. Anyone who runs in a Democratic primary is by definition a Democrat. If you want to abolish primaries, that's a totally separate issue, but our current political and electoral system is based on primaries and they are a legitimate way to settle intra-party questions about who should be the party's nominee for any particular office.

[Honeycombe8]

157. The post you're responding to wasn't about Jill Stein. nt

[OrwellwasRight]

158. read it again

The last words of the post are "Like Jill Stein was." My point is that it is ridiculous to compare Ocasio-Cortez to Stein. It's a bad analogy. In one situation you had a non-Democrat running against a Democrat (and others) and in the other situation you had two Democrats competing in what is known as a "primary." In a primary, it is acceptable to support any contender. So quit bugging on AOC for daring to run in a primary.

[aquamarina]

11. Amen to that

Democrats brag about having a big tent so let's act like it. Jeebus crikey the internecine fighting here never ends.

[Honeycombe8]

40. Yes...the party has progressives and moderates, and those in between. We must WIN...

whichever candidate on the spectrum can win in a state, that is who needs to win. Even a moderate Independent is better than a Republican.

[Kaleva]

12. K & R

[tiredtoo]

13. posted this on facebook this morning (Michigan voter)

Today is Tuesday, election day. Up to this point I have supported and voted Abdul for governor.
Tomorrow will be Wednesday. I will be supporting and will vote for the Democratic candidate for governor. Please join me.

[Kaleva]

14. +1

[demmiblue]

18. +1

Whitmer voter, but damn impressed with El-Sayed (he has the same 'it' factor that Obama had/has).

Either way, as Dems, we are winners.

[GreenEyedLefty]

94. This is exactly what I did.

I was and continue to be impressed by Abdul, but will proudly vote for Whitmer in November.

[Snotcicles]

131. Me too. We had an embarrassment of riches in Michigan. Same thing with Driskell and Friday.

Tim Walberg has to GO!

[ProudProgressiveNow]

15. KR NT

[heaven05]

16. well IF I had to vote

for her, I would. But I would hold my nose and take anti-nausea medication beforehand. I forgot to add. I am glad I don't have to vote for her. It would hurt. She and Bernie running all over this country trying to destroy other good honest Democrats in favour of some democratic socialist agenda is factionalism and divisive in the highest degree. It would hurt to have to vote for her. When she gets into Congress, IF she gets into Congress, she will learn some hard lessons because her ego is not allowing her to see just how divisive she is to the Democratic Party.

[demmiblue]

20. ...

(It is almost comical at this point.)

[blackdove78]

23. This

So glad I'm not in that pickle.

[justie18]

48. Have to agree

Initially I was impressed with her - until she showed up in Kansas with ole Bernie - then San Francisco. Why isn't she back in her district? her argument against Crowley was that he was too focused on national politics. Seems as though she has already been bitten by the same bug!

[OrwellwasRight]

72. You're kidding, right?

Right?

Her agenda is the New Deal. If you're opposed to the New Deal, I don't see how you call yourself a Democrat. The New Deal built this country, it did not destroy it.

[heaven05]

73. no, I am not kidding

I do not kid about things like this. New Deal? No. Con deal? Yes. You have no right to say what you said and I can say the same about democratic socialist running all over the country disparaging and pulling down strong solid Democrats. That's who cannot call themselves Democrats. Been a Democrat since 1968. Never have seen divisive and toxic people as I have seen this primary season tearing down Democrats. You like those two, good for you. Have a good one. No, I do NOT like AOC or Bernie. I stand by what I write and wrote.

[JustAnotherGen]

107. I stand with you

Poster needs to understand that black Americans got the shaft in the New Deal.

[heaven05]

115. FDR

didn't give a damn about AA then as many don't now

[progressoid]

117. Most *Americans* didn't give a damn about AA then as many don't now

[OrwellwasRight]

123. I have every right to say what I said.

She's not the one saying "divisive and toxic" things and neither am I. Look in the mirror.

[heaven05]

126. projection

is a learned strategy...... mirror, mirror on the wall......

[OrwellwasRight]

128. HAhahahahaha

I'm not the one who said that a DEMOCRATIC policies were destructive. So I don't think projection means what you think it means . . .

[heaven05]

139. struggle on

[OrwellwasRight]

140. You too.

I can make some recommendations if you want.

[heaven05]

145. none needed

I know what to do with...aaahh never mind...you will hopefully find the right path, one-day padawan, Done with you

[OrwellwasRight]

147. So condescending.

There's help available for that, too.

[NurseJackie]

104. Nobody said that.

If you're opposed to the New Deal,

Nobody said that.

I don't see how you call yourself a Democrat.

What's with the insults? You know good and well that Heaven05 is an honest and loyal Democrat and does not deserve to be insulted like that. It serves no good purpose to talk to someone like that... but whenever I see someone hurling backhanded insults like that, it means they're arguing from a position of weakness and insults are all they have remaining.

[OrwellwasRight]

125. The poster did say that.

What are, stupid here on DU now?

The poster said "She and Bernie running all over this country trying to destroy other good honest Democrats in favour of some democratic socialist agenda . . ."


Her agenda is not trying to destroy anything. It is trying to build this country up. And it is no more than what true Democrats have always stood for. People think it just now sounds crazy because of how far the country moved to the right. I'm so sick of being told that universal healthcare and education for all is a destructive agenda. SO TIRED.

[heaven05]

138. true this

[JustAnotherGen]

106. I'm not New Deal I'm a Greater Society

And I truly believe we cannot get BACK to “This is your President!” “I’m here to help you!” (LBJ in New Orleans after Hurricane Betsy) with New Deal Politics.

It is what it is. Just remember - for some Americans - we got left out of that New Deal. Well our Grandparents, Aunts and Uncles - in heaven's case - he and his parents were left out.


Check out Ta-Nehisi Coates articles in particular on Red Lining. You'll see how we were deliberately and maliciously left out to ensure at lease white Americans got social security, access to the middle class via home ownership, etc. etc.

From my point of view - I question anyone's Democratic Credentials that asks black Americans to bypass OUR 'Great Society' in favor of an extremely RAW DEAL.

And in this era of America's first BLATANTLY white President - it's foolish to tick of black voters.

[OrwellwasRight]

127. Yes, you're right.

Hoover should have been re-elected. Let's abolish Social Security, the minimum wage, and the NLRA. The country would be so much better.

[heaven05]

142. struggle on

[lapucelle]

116. How so? N/T

[womanofthehills]

89. So, health care and college for all is a socialistic agenda?????

I like what she stands for.

[heaven05]

97. JFK sponsored

many programs that the minor faction is spouting as their 'original, new' agenda for the DemocraticParty. We have and are always fighting for the people and we need no multi-millionaires piling on strong Democrats. Period. So I'm done with star-struck democratic-socialists trying to destroy the Democratic Party with upstarts....who should HAVE never tried to unseat any Democrat or aspiring office seeker. Yet my candidate had a resounding victory against one of those touted by the minor faction member and her mentor. Yes, I meant every word you responded to.

[Jamaal510]

95. +1

[Thrill]

19. I'm just baffled how someone who hasn't even won their own seat

Is all in other states trying to be the focal point of their race. I mean you’ve only won a Primary. Jeesh

[oberliner]

27. People are asking her to campaign for them and her appearances result in big crowds

[Kaleva]

30. Yes. It isn't like she shows up uninvited.

[EffieBlack]

66. People are invited all the time. Smart people know when to decline.

She's getting out way ahead of herself.

[Kaleva]

70. So far, she has shown to have little impact.

[EffieBlack]

77. But she's unnecessarily burned a lot of bridges and has made herself look either

arrogant and presumptuous or easily manipulated. Either way, she hasn't come out of this looking very good.

[Kaleva]

79. She only burned the bridges of people who wanted their bridges burnt

She had no impact on me and how I voted whatsoever. The media hyped her up and people fell for it. She might have brought in new voters and if so, that'd be a good thing if they return in the fall.

[George II]

37. It's not that she's out campaigning for other Democrats, its the fact that....

....she's attacking other Democrats, like her own opponent (AFTER she won), falsely claiming he's "mounting a third party run" against her, Tammy Duckworth, Kirsten Gilibrand, etc.

And then just today we see her going on record as advocating low turnout in Michigan and claiming our Party leaders are too old. All of this in just the five weeks since her June 26 primary.

[oberliner]

41. My post was in response to someone complaining about her campaigning for other Dems

[EffieBlack]

67. Dismissing Sharice Davids as just "a corporate attorney"

[George II]

68. Yes. I hate crap like that. She works for a law firm advocating for Native Americans stuck...

...on a reservation.

How "corporate" is that?

[heaven05]

74. exactly nt

[Snotcicles]

132. Maybe it's about the message and how it's delivered. nt

[wonkwest]

21. This won't stick

It's a nice thought, though.

If someone lies about OC, as was done in a big thread today, I'll speak up.

Lies against Democratic candidates should not stand. Responding to a lie is not divisive. The lie itself is divisive.

[George II]

35. I didn't see any lies about her.

Last edited Tue Aug 7, 2018, 08:36 PM - Edit history (1)

[wonkwest]

47. Not getting into it with you here n/t

[George II]

49. Oh.

[watoos]

26. What's the purpose of this thread?

She won the primary and will win the general.
The people have spoken. EOM.

[Ccarmona]

31. I guess we're just supposed to keep our opinions to ourselves

And be darling lemmings, like the Repugs.

[question everything]

44. Not if she, and many who support her, present her as the face of the New Democratic Pary

we might as well concede.

[JCMach1]

50. Would be good if she stuck to OP's message

She is being extremely divisive for no good reason...

[Kaleva]

54. Why do you you allow her to control you so much?

[Kajun Gal]

51. Time for some new faces.

[colsohlibgal]

52. Could Not Agree More With Her Views

A more level field economically. Not having to go bankrupt sending your children to college or seeing a doctor. Taking a hard look at the amazingly bloated Defense budget. What’s not to like?

Really it would be virtually impossible to find a democrat who is not a better bet than the party who nominated the Orange Jerk. But if I had my druthers we would have more like AOC.

[at140]

130. Interest on national debt is $365 Billion/year

and growing with every budget deficit. That is what will kill us because it is not discretionary spending item. Military spending can be reduced if we elect a better government. Interest on debt can not be legislated away no matter who is elected.

[nini]

56. Maybe people should ignore those questioning her?

That ignoring stuff goes both ways.

[heaven05]

75. I counsel

ignore her minor faction and leader.....purely divisive.

[ucrdem]

82. Yes yes, no no, you say stop, I say go . . .

Commendable to be sure Stinky, but what if she doesn't make it to the finish line? Yes, it's a slam dunk, or would be for most, but we really don't have a lot of data on this one, and while I agree that unity and gotv are of utmost importance, this is after all a discussion site.

Which is to say that while I fully agree I also support the right to air doubts and nagging suspicions where warranted, and I think in this case they are.

[chrsjrcj]

83. AOC is a Democrat.

Yet for a site that only supports Democrats, they sure do hate on her.

[Stinky The Clown]

85. Welcome to DU. We're all glad you're here.

[Squinch]

151. Well... they're not here any more. :) That's our MIRT!

[SkyDancer]

92. I've noticed that as well.....

[R B Garr]

100. The Democrats she attacked won despite her interference.

She should take that as a message to concentrate on winning her own race and start attacking Republicans instead of Democrats. We should quit misrepresenting what people have observed about her own words and actions.

[jillan]

119. I guess she's not the right kind of democrat for some people here.

Welcome to DU!

[MaryMagdaline]

86. I remember the Democrats knifing each other all through the 60s, 70s and 80s

It cost us many presidential elections but we had some incredible Congresses, with people who stood for something and would shame other party members who got too slack on the platform. Ocasio knows what her constituents want and she’s letting it be known that she is not afraid to demand what they want. Good for her.

Sometimes “divisiveness” is a call to the Democratic conscience. Apparently young voters feel abandoned. Let’s believe the victims. And help them.

[BeyondGeography]

143. Great post

People shouldn’t be surprised by the present simmering of tensions within the party. If you are, you weren’t watching the 2016 primary and election with any degree of objectivity at all. Just my humble opinion, but I think AOC and especially Rashida Tlaib, who is much more seasoned, will be leaders in our party for some time to come, bringing much needed new energy to addressing the emergencies this country faces.

[MaryMagdaline]

155. Thank you and I agree that there is new energy that is welcome

[OhioBlue]

90. Yes, squabbling isn't helpful

I don't really have strong feeling about her one way or the other. But I do see many that form an opinion about her and then see everything posted through that filter.

To me, she is a young woman with a lot of charisma that I agree with on a host of issues. She is exciting people. Yes, she could use some life experience and wisdom to polish her approach... but I like her enthusiasm and I am glad she is on our side. I couldn't have done or didn't do what she has done at her age. I think she will be an asset to the Party long-term.

[Hekate]

93. Good reminder, Stinky. Thanks--I'll try to be mindful...

[Proud Liberal Dem]

99. I get what you're saying and agree with it

That being said, unfortunately, based on what is being reported about her, she seems to be incredibly divisive. Whether that is out of a desire to sabotage the party in service of other goals (i.e. Our Revolution) or just being a young political rookie who doesn't know better, I can't say, but she is definitely generating some controversies.

[Loki Liesmith]

101. Don't like her but she is a Dem

All that matters at the moment. I’ll fight her on policy later.

[SHRED]

102. So say nothing?

As she goes around the country bashing our party's elders with zero specifics, vague generalities, all while completely ignoring their voting record through the years?
Just tolerate her ageism?

[Cha]

108. Mahalo, SHRED, for injecting some reality

here.

I hope you get answers.

[SHRED]

111. Thanks

I essentially said this on Twitter and was called a "corporate shill", a bootlicker, and also a racist.

[Cha]

112. Of course you were. That's all they have are gaslighting personal

attacks. It makes them feel all Big.

[heaven05]

121. So simple and clear

thank you...

[JustAnotherGen]

103. Yep and regardless

For those of us who are Liberals and truly see the disaster of too 'much of anything' -

Let it go.

Seriously - let her be all about herself. At the end of the day, she's not anointed and won't have the power as a newbie that her most ardent supporters give the impression (not saying they believe) is rightfully hers.

This is a millennial in action and perhaps from a Senior Leadership perspective - I find her amusing because it's what she does when she gets there, and how she plays with others - that will matter.

My BEST millennial hires that have risen to the occasion have been the most cocky, arrogant, know it alls -

In interviews.

[frazzled]

105. So, you're saying that the rule is ...

That Ocasio-Cortez and others who identify as, say, Democratic Socialists have every right to lob harsh criticisms at the Democratic Party (under whose banner they are running). That apparently doesn't affect "unity" or "voting" or "turnout."

But it is harmful and illegitimate to present any criticisms of the Democratic Socialists who are running in the Democratic Party (and lobbing criticisms of it). That will deleteriously affect unity and voting and turnout.

You realize that this makes no sense whatsoever. Let's take a good look at who is attempting to damage party unity.

On the good side, yesterday's voting seems to indicate that the attempts to rupture traditional party interests are not working very well.

I have no illusions about the Democratic Party: like any large and diverse party, it is not perfect, and internal reforms are constantly (and forever) needed. I do not, however, buy into candidates who try to sell the susceptible into thinking that they somehow have the power (especially as one of 435 legislators of diverse opinion) and/or keys to solving the complex, long-standing social and economic problems of this nation. It's a recipe for demagoguery, authoritarianism, and--ultimately--disaster. Witness the disastrous Tea Party takeover of the Republican Party.

[SHRED]

110. Well said

[brer cat]

114. Well said, frazzled.

One thing that concerns me is that those appealing to young voters who are not experienced in how the system works in the real world, are promising something that cannot be delivered and may lead to significant voter disillusionment and apathy. We need those young people to join us in pushing the Party in the right direction, but with the knowledge that major changes won't occur overnight, and that the various "wings" all have a say in what that "right" direction is. Party unity is achieved by compromise, and that takes movement on all sides. "Only I can fix our problems" is trumpian authoritarianism that is not a value of the Democratic Party.

[disillusioned73]

113. Some are here...

for just that reason..

[jillan]

118. Are you hoping she doesn't win in November?

"Yes, we will see strange people running as Dems. Some will be sincere. Some will be opportunists. The proof will be in their actions when they win.

But they have to WIN first"

I don't know how else to read your OP.

I don't find her strange or an opportunist. I think she is amazing. It's so nice to see an everyday 28 yo woman win the nomination thru guts & determination & passion. I hope she does win big in November. She is a great role model, an inspiration to everyday people who don't think they can run for office.

[OnDoutside]

122. I worry about people having to call themselves Democratic Socialists and inviting

Controversy, feeding (ironically) the Republican narrative, rather than simply calling themselves Democrats. Is it naivete, or hardline purity ? What makes them let that be an issue ?

[JonLP24]

124. Yes

I hide threads. Usually if it's positive I rec than trash the thread which I will be doing again here. Love the OP! Don't want to read the comments.

[KG]

146. I lulz'd

been around so long i recall when purity tests were a bad thing.